Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Task force merger

Per this discussion, the Australian military history task force has now been merged with the New Zealand military history task force to form this, the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force. All relevant pages, userboxes, categories etc have been updated and redirects left behind where appropriate; task force members may however wish to update their watchlists. Additional shortcuts - WP:ANZSP and WP:ANZAC - have been implemented as requested. Previously existing shortcuts will still work, but may need to be revised in the light of the new task force scope.

An outstanding issue is the selection of appropriate images for the new task force banner icon/userboxes. At present I've left the pre-existing Australian TF image as a placeholder (the Australian flag); obviously this is not really appropriate given the wider TF scope and is something that task force members might like to sort out. One suggestion has been to use the Southern Cross. Your friendly neighbourhood coordinators will be able to assist with this if required :) All the best, EyeSerene^talk 11:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this, EyeSerene. My opinion in regards to the TF image is that the Southern Cross would seem appropriate. Any thoughts, dissenting views, etc? (Also, just putting it out there, but I've got no idea how to change the TF image if and when it comes time). — AustralianRupert (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Just to clarify, there are three locations where this task force uses an identifying image; up to you if you go for the same image for all three or select three different images. The locations are:

• The talk page milhist template, which currently uses Image:Flag of Australia.svg
• The main TF userbox (here), which currently also uses Image:Flag of Australia.svg
• The alternative TF userbox (here), which currently uses Image:Chateau Wood Ypres 1917.jpg

The Crux category at Commons (here) has some Southern Cross images that might be useful if that's the way you decide to go, or someone can always have a go at designing something from scratch.

I think that's it. To change the image, just change the filename in each of these three locations (the one in the {{MILHIST}} template is buried deep in the code; Ctrl+F might be helpful, but the template is easily broken so if there's any doubt I'll be happy to assist). EyeSerene^talk 20:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

An emblem inspired by the various uses of the Southern Cross on flags would be ideal. To avoid claims of favouratism towards any particular nation or landmass, it shouldn't be lifted from a single flag.

What I'm thinking (and stop me when it gets to whacky) is to take the Cross as rendered on the File:Flag of Papua New Guinea.svg (as while it has the five stars, they're not Australian Federation Star seven-pointers), change the colour of the stars (so we avoid any Aus-White/NZ-Red kerfuffle...I'm liking the shade of yellow/gold used on File:Burgee of cruisingycaus.svg, but anything's cool) and then put on a square or rectangular background (of colour to be decided, or no backgroud at all as another option). -- saberwyn 23:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of this. The use of the PNG Southern Cross makes sense as the style of stars is consistent with both PNG and New Zealand and other Pacific nations. I like the use of a blue background, but I'm not so sure about the yellow/gold, though. I've done something up off line which I could email if anyone was keen to have a look (basically it is just a dark blue background with a white Southern Cross as per the PNG flag. That way it has the colour background of both Aus and NZ, plus the five stars (instead of four) that are common to the Aus and PNG (and other Pacific nations), but has the non-Federation stars common to NZ and PNG. It is plain and simple, hence I like it (I'm plain and simple), but of course, its early days and I'm open to other suggestions. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Shoot me a copy... I've bounced an email to you. -- saberwyn 00:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Shot, out. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I like. Only suggestion so far is that the stars ber centred in the field (left/right looks alright, but its a lot closer to the top than the bottom). I'd also like to hear from some of the New Zeland and South Pacific contributors before a decision is made. -- saberwyn 21:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, I agree it needs more input for concensus. I've moved the stars down as you suggested. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me chipping in :) Part of the reason for the merger was our distinct lack of NZ/SP editors (not enough to maintain stand-alone task forces). I think I only transferred two or three unique users across to this TF when I merged in the NZ one, and they weren't active. A note on the main Milhist talk page might help get more eyes on the debate, and there's possibly time to get something in the newsletter before it goes out. Hope this helps. EyeSerene^talk 08:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I've added a comment on the main talk page. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Rupert, I had a look at the image you sent and that looks fine. Good job IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks for your input. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering that its been the better part of a month without comment, I say roll on with the new logo...if theres a sudden flurry of opposition, it can be changed. -- saberwyn 03:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm just wondering what licence tags to use. It is pretty much a derivative work of part of the PNG flag with different colours. How would I licence that, does anyone know? — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd either use the same license as the original work or apply your own. I don't believe the "derivative works" stuff applies to small sections of images that are essentially generic and could have easily been created without reference to the original). EyeSerene^talk 13:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've uploaded the image. It can be found here: [1]. I used a PD-self tag, but mentioned that it was derivative. The file it is based on was released into the public domain on Commons anyway, so I think the way I've licenced it should be okay. I've updated the main Task force userbox. I will leave the alternate alone as it does not use a flag. I need help updating the Template:WPMILHIST, though, as it is protected and can only be updated by an admin. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Done - if you want any size tweaks, let me know. EyeSerene^talk 07:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 02:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Military history/New Zealand military history task force to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/New Zealand military history task force/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 02:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Should we advertise?

Considering that the lack of New Zealand and Pacific Island contributors was one of the prompting factors behind the merge, would it be worth doing the rounds of the nation wikiprojects to announce our presence and invite contributors? While WP:AUS got post-merge notification, that appears to mainly be because of some hiccups at {{WPAUS}} caused by the merge, and none of the other nations' wikiprojects of notice boards appear to have been pinged. -- saberwyn 03:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I've posted messages on the NZ, Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia projects letting them know about our project. If there are any others you feel should be notified, I'm okay with you doing it, or if you want me to do just let me know which ones. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've dropped a note at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board as well...unlike WP:AUS, the project talk and the noticeboard are separate pages. -- saberwyn 03:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There seem to be surprisingly few active editors from New Zealand Nick-D (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That's 'cos they've all moved here... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No we haven't.  :) I'm on a semi-wikibreak, but I do keep an eye on this. And, fwiw, the southern cross logo suggested above seems suitably representative. Gwinva (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixing "Popular pages"?

At the moment, the "Popular pages" listdump for the Aus and NZ task forces appears to still be happening on the old subpages for each task force. Does anyone know about how we get this depreciated and the ANZSP list fired up? -- saberwyn 03:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about this one, myself. I will post a message on the co-ordinators page and see if anyone can help. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Update. It appears that the old lists have stopped, but no new list has been created. -- saberwyn 23:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to fix this. It was mentioned on the co-ord talk page previously, but I'm not sure how it ended up: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 30#Question about the ANZSP popular pages link. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't able to track down any results from that note (that said, I could have looked harder), so I took the easy way out and submitted a request. We'll see what happens. -- saberwyn 08:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Battle of the Nek

A published print source I'm holding lists the names and some biographical detail of a number of lighthorsemen of the 8th, 9th & 10th LH regiments who fell at the the Nek. I'm considering creating a list section or breakout article (perhaps linking each soldier to his entry at the AIF Project). Is anyone aware of any precedent well-presented article that lists the fallen of a particular battle ? -Sticks66 13:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that such a list or article may be interpreted as a 'memorial', which is discouraged under the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy, specificly Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site (point 4). -- saberwyn 02:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

TACA

Hi, guys. I hope I have the right area to be suggesting this. In 1997, Mark Hughes, Jeff Elliott and John Elliott (the businessman) entered into a consortium to develop the Thin Air Communications Aircraft, an aircraft that could fly to 80,000 feet and stay airborne for 3 months to a year. It was designed to be an inexpensive replacement for satellites as well as providing battlefield surveillance etc. They got a contract from the Australian Department of Defense for $15 million. They claimed at one point that a TACA had been circling above their research facility for 90 days straight, when the previous record for an unmanned aircraft was 70 hours (set by the Israeli Army). But I haven't heard anything about the TACA since. It may have been vaporware. Should we have an article about it? - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Are their enough reliable, published sources out there to justify an article? Googling the phrase "Thin Air Communication Aircraft" comes up with only 20 vanilla results (many of which appear to be business directories), two Scholar hits (which appear to be the same article? thesis?) and nothing in Books. Adding an "s" to Communication comes up with zilch mentions for the phrase. That said, you've probably been paying more attention to the subject than my brief jaunt around the internets. -- saberwyn 21:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's going to be much on the Internet, because it was from a time before such things would mandatorily be on the Internet. The search engine on news.com.au (The Herald-Sun's publisher) is not one that can be searched directly from Google. I don't want to write an article on it because military hardware is not my area of expertise. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article?

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1229/1229.pdf - Army - The Soldiers' Newspaper, Edition 1229, 18 Feb 2010, Pg 18: "How well do you know your generals?" Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to rename category

For those that are interested, I have proposed on WP:Cfd that Category:Recipients of the Order of Australia Medal be renamed to Category:Recipients of the Medal of the Order of Australia to reflect the correct title of the medal rather than the literal translation of the post-nominal. Intent is to redirect the old category to the new category name given that this is a common mistake. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, AusTerrapin. Thanks for keeping us informed. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Māori Battalion article

Hello all, I have found myself working on a rewrite of the Māori Battalion (just for a change of topic, as I usually work on Australian military history articles). Anyway, I've rewritten the article up to a B class standard, but have found over the past couple of days that the article has had pieces removed from it by a dynamic IP address. To be honest I don't have the content knowledge (I just followed what the sources said) to know whether or not the IP is correct, whether they are incorrect or if it in fact vandalism. As such, I am asking for someone who mght have a bit of specific New Zealand knowledge to take a look at the article and see whether the changes are correct or not. If they are, that's fine, just let me know and I'll back off. I rewrote the article to do the topic justice, but if I've introduced inaccuracies because of my lack of content knowledge I would be disappointed in myself for not fixing them. However, equally I don't want to allow the article to get trashed again (as it was in a poor state to start off with). Thus if anyone from this project would be so kind as taking a look and letting me know what you think, I'd be very grateful. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There were no problems with stating that there were Maori seats in parliament during the 1930s and '40s, as can be found here; the article does not mention a specific Maori party but quite correctly states that there were Maori seats in parliament and that these MPs were influential in the formation of the 28th Maori Battalion (see here. The person removing this information isn't neccesarily being vandalistic - just ignorant of NZ history. Minorhistorian (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Thanks for the copy edit, too. I think I'm a bit too close to the article to see the errors. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No prob - good to see an Aussie keeping an eye on this one. Minorhistorian (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent collection of high quality PD photos

The State Library of Victoria has recently made a very large collection of high-quality PD photos of Australian warships and merchant ships available on its website. The collection has images of most major warships and many merchant vessels between the late 1800s and early 1950s and is available as the Allan C. Green collection. These should be of very considerable assistance in illustrating articles on naval topics during this period. Nick-D (talk) 05:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That's great, thanks, Nick. I've added it to the resources list on the main ANZSP task force page. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Third Battle of Seoul now open

The peer review for Third Battle of Seoul is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 05:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.unsw.adfa.edu.au/~rmallett/Generals

http://www.unsw.adfa.edu.au/~rmallett/Generals now seems to be a .
The replacement seems to be http://www.aif.adfa.edu.au:8888/Generals/
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've added it to the Resources list on the task force page. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Help needed at Battle of Morotai

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Help needed at Battle of Morotai. Funandtrvl (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Military history/Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 04:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The large number of page views of the Battle of Long Tan article is interesting. Nick-D (talk) 05:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

RAAF articles with no content

I have come across these RAAF articles that currently have no content:

• Combat Support Group RAAF
• Surveillance and Control Training Unit RAAF
• No. 322 Expeditionary Combat Support Squadron RAAF
• No. 323 Expeditionary Combat Support Squadron RAAF
• No. 395 Expeditionary Combat Support Wing RAAF
• No. 396 Expeditionary Combat Support Wing RAAF
• No. 1 Combat Logistics Squadron RAAF
• Health Services Wing RAAF

The RAAF is not a subject that I have much knowledge on. Can anybody help add a brief description with a citation? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Information for some of these units can be found through searching on this page: [2] AustralianRupert (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Blair Swannell

We have worked this article to GA status - at least from a WP:RU perspective. I was wondering if someone could go over the military aspects, and see if we could bring it to FAN. Thanks. SauliH (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've had a quick look. It looks pretty good to me. I tweaked a typo and put the ship's names in italics as that is the project's convention. The only other suggestion I'd have is that a couple of the web citations don't have accessdates (e.g. Citation # 9, #23 and # 35). AustralianRupert (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Version 0.8 selection

The following is a list of articles that are being considered for inclusion in the Version 0.8 release due to their importance ratings. If anyone is looking for some work, some of these are in need of attention. Cheers.

• This list includes articles that are relevant to both the Military history project and the Australia project: [3] (79 articles)

• This list includes articles that are relevant to both the Military history project and the New Zealand project: [4] (24 articles) AustralianRupert (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Lindsay Hassett now open

The A-Class review for Lindsay Hassett is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Stan Bisset

I've made a start on this chap but he deserves better. I'll get back and add some pics but any help would be welcomed.-Sticks66 09:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Sticks66, I'm afraid I don't have much time at the moment to help out, but I've found a couple of sources for Bisset's military career so far. They're not very much, but they might help (incidentally there seems to be some confusion in the official records about whether it is Bisset or Bissett). I don't really know what is correct, though:

• Australian War Memorial;
• Australian War Memorial;
• WW2 nominal roll.
• The National Archives usually has copies of service records from that era too, but you sometimes have to pay to have them digitised;
• Peter Brune's A Bastard of a Place: The Australians in Papua mentions Bisset on pp. 163, 164, 191, 254, 440, 444 and 445. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Kapyong now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Kapyong is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for 3rd Division (Australia) now open

The peer review for 3rd Division (Australia) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Magdhaba now open

The peer review for Battle of Magdhaba is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand military history articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the New Zealand military history articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Black Friday (1945) now open

The A-Class review for Black Friday (1945) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)