Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

New to your project

I'm new to the Project but have just written this and greatly expanded this in the past week. I've written lots on both rugby codes but am now looking at more inspirational subjects. Hoping for your patience in coming to understand your protocols and looking for any pointers on how you do things. -Sticks66 11:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Milhist WikiProject (and the Australian military history task force!), and thank you for your contributions so far - those articles are looking good. If you have any questions, the task force coordinators (Nick-D and me) will do our best to help out, as will any of the task force members; you can post here or on our talk-pages as you prefer. Feel free to dive in with any suggestions or comments; the main project talk page is here and there are various departments linked in the infobox at the top of the page you might like to take a look at, depending on your interests. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 12:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Vernon Sturdee

FYI, I've created a skeleton for Vernon Sturdee. If anyone wants to restructure the article, now would be a good time. (i.e. Before the serious work starts.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Edward Smart

I can't seem to find any information about WWII LTGEN Edward Kenneth Smart MC, DSO. Can anybody point me at any useful sources? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I thought he might be in the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History but I can't seem to find an entry. Sorry, not much help but thought I'd better leave to note so that you didn't think that nobody cared. I will keep looking and if I find anything, will let you know. AustralianRupert (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That is very kind of you, and is appreciated! (My findings-to-date are accumulating in User:Pdfpdf/Smart) Pdfpdf (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

For anyone interested, I have (at last) discovered a pile of information. I have summarised it at User:Pdfpdf/Smart2. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

CMF (Militia) Units

I am looking for an agreed naming convention that relates to the Citizens Miltiary Force units after World War I, through to the creation of Australian Army Reserve as well as 2AIF units.

Q1. Should the CMF units which appear to trace their lineage back from the 1st AIF be linked back to the 1AIF units e.g. 1st Battalion (Australia), and include both their WW1 and CMF-era history?

Q2. Should the 2nd AIF battalions be named 2/1st Australian Infantry Battalion or 2/1st Infantry Battalion (Australia)?

Any comments? Kind Regards --Newm30 (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As I've discussed with Newm30, I think that CMF units should be xth Battalion (Australia) as they are technically the same as the AIF units from which they claimed lineage. Second AIF battalions should be 2/xth Infantry Battalion (Australia) as this is their correct and common name - the addition of 'Australian' after the 2/xth appears to date from before the era before Wikipedia's military unit naming policy came into effect, and is long-overdue for correction. Nick-D (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that if the official name of the unit was in fact 2/2nd Australian Infantry Battalion, then that's what it should be called, WP naming conventions aside. A few other comments: Should the WW2 battalions/units be categorised into two categories: 2nd AIF battalions and CMF battalions/units? Is an ad hoc formation like "Sparrow Force" a "battalion" of the Australian Army? I've also been looking at the WW1 battalions category. Is each one of them (there's 60 infantry battalions alone according to the AWM) notable enough for its own article? Should a list/table be used instead? I've also used the WWI name for battalions which exist today under a different name in the WWI category (eg 9th Battalion (Australia) appears in the category as 9th Battalion rather than 9th Battalion, Royal Queensland Regiment).Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The AWM calls them simply: 2/xth Battalion at [1] and 2/xth Infantry Battalion at [2] - I've never seen them called 2/xth Australian Infantry Battalion outside of Wikipedia. Most, if not all, Australian battalions are notable - almost all have had a professional regimental history produced and the AWM has been posting detailed histories of them. The Australian offical histories also routinely covered battalion-level actions, so there's lots of material to meet WP:N and WP:ORG. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The National Archives of Australia has documents from the Australian Military Forces that reference 2/* Australian Infantry Battalion. Does anyone have a contact within the AWM or Australian Army to provide clarity and definitive answer? Regards --Newm30 (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

On a tangential note, AIB stands for Allied Intelligence Bureau doesn't it? Not Australian Infantry Battalion? Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. The official histories call infantry units the 2/xth Battalion. These were published by the AWM and provide authoritative and detailed coverage of the Army. Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, can it be said then, that 1AIF units and CMF units are the same unit and will be called 1st Battalion (Australia), that 2AIF units will be called or renamed 2/25th Battalion (Australia) unless they do not have a prefix, such as 9th Division (Australia). Can we get a consensus? Regards --Newm30 (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I support that. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. -- saberwyn 20:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

CMF = "Citizen Military Forces"?

I've been looking around, and it appears to me that CMF abbreviates "Citizen Military Forces". So far, I haven't been able to find a reliable reference to support "Citizens Military Force" (or any other variation).

1) Can anyone provide a reliable source in support of "Citizens Military Force"?

2) (As I suspect that no-one can,) I plan to change ALL occurrences to "Citizen Military Forces".

I am canvassing other people's opinions. Please comment. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

In my biased opinion, Australian Army Reserve is probably the worst culprit. For example, opening paragraph:

The Australian Army Reserve is a collective name given to the reserve units of the Australian Army. Since the Federation of Australia in 1901, the reserve military force has been known by many names, including the Citizens Military Force (CMF), Militia, Citizens Forces and, unofficially, the "Australian Military Forces".

AMF has NEVER been the name of the "reserve military force", not even unofficially. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Australian War Memorial uses Citizens Military Force. As examples, see the entry on the 39th Battalion and timeline of Field Marshal Blamey's life. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well. There goes that theory!! (Thanks Bryce).

Never-the-less, I'm still interested to read what others have to say. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This from the AWM might help shed some light. This says 'Citizen Military Force' rather than 'Citizens'. Additionally it says 'Australian Militia Force' was an unofficial name for the Reserves/Militia (so perhaps the lead needs to be changed to that). When I wrote Australian Army Reserve I used the name mentioned in the source at the time, however, the situation is somewhat confused so many sources used repeat the confusion (often changing between different names on the same page). I would support changing the names used in the article to being consistent with the source provided if it is deemed necessary, although I think it needs to be understood that in regards to the names of the Reserves and indeed the naming conventions of the battalions themselves (and their history/lineage) the situation has always been one of confusion, largely because throughout Australia's military history there doesn't seem to have been any regard for the poor Wikipedian who comes through later and attempts to write an article that is coherent...(joking to an extent, of course). — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you can find a way to tighten up the first para of Australian Army Reserve, you won't get any objections from me ... --Pdfpdf (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

6th Division help needed

Its in conection with the 6th Australian Division

In the article its states; During the campaign, Brig. George Vasey's 19th Brigade (minus the 2/11th Battalion) was defeated by the Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler brigade, at the Battle of Vevi. The 2/4th and 2/8th Battalions became the only Australian Army units to face elite Waffen SS soldiers in combat.

I am sure this is the only time the Australian Army and the Waffen SS ever met in combat but I am unable to find a source so any help would be appreciated --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Found a source here [3], but no other evidence relating to only SS Waffen engagement by Australian Army. Regards--Newm30 (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

On a slightly different note, but related to 6th Division, can anyone advise whether the 6th Division created in 1917 and disbanded in 1917 in England is the same unit? Regards --Newm30 (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in reply. I think that the 6th Division that served in WWII should be treated the same as Australian battalions. It is basically the same unit as the WWI unit for historical purposes, although I would hazard to say that the component units in the order of battle would have been different. That is just my opinion, though, and I've never seen anything written stating that. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Royal Australian Navy ceremonial entrance to Sydney

Twenty one RAN warships will be anchored in Sydney Harbour tomorrow, and will presumably be in port over the weekend. This is obviously a great opportunity to improve Wikipedia/WikiCommons holdings of photos of RAN warships. Photos of the smaller and less glamorous ships would be particularly valuable. The SMH has a good story on this here. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Should be quite a spectacle. EyeSerene^talk 10:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it was :). Lots of photos going up on Commons over the weekend: I'll provide a link once I start. -- saberwyn 01:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! EyeSerene^talk 08:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've started uploading photographs... they are galleried at commons:User:Saberwyn/2009 Sydney Harbour Fleet Entry. Up at the moment are photos I took of the vessels as they entered Sydney Harbour. I was at North Head looking south. None of these images are currently categorised, and the gallery page currently lacks descriptive captions, so help there would be appreciated. I'll upload a second set of photographs in the next day or two: the ships at anchor as seen from the Manly ferry. -- saberwyn 07:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That's some good work there, saberwyn - thank you for taking the time to do this. EyeSerene^talk 13:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just annoyed that (1) I couldn't spend longer in the city to take more pretty pictures and (2) the hazy, grey morning made photographing haze-grey warships that little bit more challenging. Ladies and gentlemen, the second group of photos is now up for perusal. -- saberwyn 08:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's why they're painted that colour ;) Again, nice work and thanks. EyeSerene^talk 09:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:50, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Anzac template suggestion

I was wondering whether anyone supports the Template:Anzac being changed to along the lines of Template:USAAF 9th Air Force UK, listing Divisions, Battalions and other units. I believe that this would look cleaner and more modern than the current template. Please provide comments. Regards --Newm30 (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. Could also add commanders and notable engagements/events as well. Only concern I have would be the possible size of such a template, but I don't think that will be issue. I was about to suggest keeping the emblem, but it is the Australian Army badge, so it might be seen as a slight to our Kiwi neighbours. Did the ANZAC have its own symbol? BTW, I've brought this up before, see here. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Support though the size of that template is excessive. Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Will try not to make the template excessively large. The New Zealand Expeditionary Force did have a badge, however none exists on Wiki at present and have requested it on Wikiproject NZ page. If anyone has the badge or image and could upload to Wikicommons that would be great. Kind Regards --Newm30 (talk) 07:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

An example of how it would look, obviously in a draft format, is available in my sandbox. Any comments and suggestions are welcome. Regards --Newm30 (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Battalions is probably too detailed for a manageable template. According to [4] there were 70 Australian infantry battalions and 15 light horse regiments alone. I'd suggest that the brigades and battalions sections be omitted. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea at all, but the addition of the battalions, notable commanders and engagements is probably a bit excessive. IMO, it would probably be best to stick with the expeditionary forces, corps, divisions and possibly brigades. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history of Australia is the current ACOTF

Something which has passed me by is that Military history of Australia is the current Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight (ACOTF). The article is presently very patchy - much of it is good, some of it is too detailed and some of it needs a lot of work. All up, this looks to be an easy article to grab a chunk of and make a difference with. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Royal Australian Navy biographical articles

Guys, I'd like to start a drive to get the Australian Chiefs of the Naval Staff and other notable naval personnel to a level of quality and comprehensiveness in keeping with their brethren in the RAAF and Army sphere. We have editors who've taken some ownership of the senior Army officer space, namely Hawkeye, and the RAAF officer space, namely myself, plus we've got Bryce having taken on some Army and RAAF articles following his work in the Australian VC and GC space. I just don't see the equivalent of this on RAN personnel articles - many CNSs for instance don't even have articles, let alone decent ones. It seems to me there are two things we can do: 1) someone step foward and take on RAN bios as their pet personnal project (and if someone's got an interest in RAN officers but is unsure of their experience in the WP bio area, I for one would be happy to mentor); or 2) the above-mentioned and anyone else who's keen slice up the required articles, starting with the CNSs, and share the effort over time without unduly affecting our pursuit of current areas of interest/expertise. Thoughts/interest? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing to take on one or two, sources permiting of course. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to reserve Vice-Admiral Willis. It would be nice to see Teddy Sheean improved as well; he's probably the single best-known sailor and the biography is a total mess. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, this collection of naval bios from the ADB should be useful; everyone there is pretty much guaranteed to be sufficiently notable for an article. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That's great guys. Well, if we were able to each get one RAN bio to B-Class each month (all ammo for the monthly contest as well!) then we'd make a good dent. Nick, you're very welcome to Willis as far as I'm concerned; Bryce, Sheean seems like your cup of tea (but up to you of course); I'll go for Henry Burrell first up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about doing something with Sheean for some time now actually. Due to your kind push, it seems like I have my next project settled. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

While I think of it, I've got an expansion/rewrite of Hector Waller currently on the boil, plus will aim to create one for Guy Royle if Nick doesn't beat me to it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Old editions of Navy News online

The RAN's ever-wonderful Seapower Centre has a current program of digitalising old editions of Navy News and placing them online here - 1958-1973 are available so far, and it's stated that more will be uploaded. While Navy News isn't an independent source given that it's always been an in-house Navy publication aimed at sailors, it is a useful source for news items, statistics and the like. Interestingly the website states that the digitalised copies have been "placed in the public domain as part of the Sea Power Centre - Australia's digitisation project" - I wonder what their definition of 'public domain' is? Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hubert Parker

Hi, I wrote an article today about a former Western Australian politician who, it turns out, fought in several WWI campaigns and was promoted to Major and decorated. He later seems to have enlisted, at age 56, as a "voyage only" soldier, and retired in 1942. If someone could review the article and the source at the NLA (click on "r - View digital copy") and ensure I've done it right, I'd be most grateful. Thanks - Orderinchaos 08:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Russian ship mortars at barracks in Hobart

I am currently working on an article on Australia-Russia relations, and I am including some information about the 1870 visit of the Boyarin to Hobart. One of the sources I am using mentions that the ship crews gave to the city two mortars from the ship, and that these mortars still stand at the entrance of the "Hobart Barracks". Can a project member possibly tell me which barracks these may be? Would they be the Anglesea Barracks, Hobart by any chance? I would like to be accurate within the article, and would obviously like to include the correct barracks in the article. Any assistance in answering this question is appreciated. I am cross-posting this query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tasmania in order to get the, hopefully, quickest possible reply. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking for help

Hi all on the Anzac article there is a footer Template:Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, I was going to add the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade to the brigade section. But when you click on EDIT or VIEW its blank ! The talk page is there because I added it before looking at the vanishing main page. Anyone know where its hiding ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I seem to be getting {{Anzac}} down the bottom of the article, which can be edited {{Australian and New Zealand Army Corps}} doesn't seem to exist. -- saberwyn 22:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks it was fixed by Misterbee1966 --Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes to Honours & Awards at Australian War Memorial

Guys, for those who haven't noticed, AWM has changed its search and presentation of honours and awards - see new search page. First off, you can do one search and net both recommendations and actual awards in one go, rather than search for awards in one spot and recommendations in another. I find this a time saver. In one way, however, the results aren't quite as friendly and may result in broken links in some articles. You used to be able to get on one page each award for a particular person and all the details associated with those awards. With this new search engine you can still get a list of all the awards but you then have to enter each record to see all the details that you used to get for all awards on the one page. For those of us who have included links to such pages in WP articles, the link will now simply take you to the search engine. I don't think this is a disaster by any means, as most people link to the London Gazette for each award citation, but it's as well to be aware. The good news is that links to AWM recommendation PDFs still appear to work as before. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification Ian. The AWM seems to be beavering away on their website; I've got a bad feeling that they might completely revamp it in the nearish future as its pretty outdated. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History now on Oxford Reference Online

As a quick note, the updated edition of The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History is now available on Oxford Reference Online. This online service is available through many libraries websites (I can access it at home through both the National Library of Australia's website and the website of my local public library) and is easy to use. The Oxford Companion is an outstanding reference for Wikipedia editors as it provides a good and authoritative summary of most aspects of Australian military history. Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"News" - (sort of)

• An article has recently been created for The Technical Cooperation Program (TTCP)
• Australian General Service Medal for Korean post-Armistice service - Press release PARLSEC14/09, 06 Apr 2009

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

39th Battalion

I have been working on 39th Battalion (Australia) for sometime now with the hope of at least bringing it up to a B class. It is currently a Start, which I think is a sorry state of affairs given that it (rightly or wrongly) is considered an iconic unit of the Kokoda campaign. I have done what I can to it, but it still lacks for some citations. I have rewritten most of the Kokoda campaign section, but I haven't been able to do as much work on the formation section (WWII) as required. I have tweaked it here and there, but do not have the source materials that whoever originally wrote it used, so am having trouble adding in the necessary citations.

It could probably also do with a copy edit from someone who is looking at it with fresh eyes.

If anyone out there is interested, your help would greatly be appreciated. I think it doesn't need too much more work to get it up to a B class. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandal influx

As is standard for the period around Anzac Day, articles on prominent incidents in Australian military history (and particularly relating to the Galipoli campaign) are suffering a spate of vandalism. It would be great if everyone could keep a close eye on the articles they've watchlisted for the next week or so. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ack. Will do, thanks for the warning. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article

This article in The Australian about the tensions between popular and more serious accounts of Australia's military history is interesting and well worth a read. Nick-D (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice little website

http://mappingouranzacs.naa.gov.au/about.aspx provides another way into finding WWI service records held and digitised by the National Archives of Australia, and things like place of birth and of enlistment have been extracted and might be a useful addition to articles. May provide some interesting stats for Military history of Australia during World War I as well. David Underdown (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Recovery of Fromelles WWI dead begins

Dont know if this has been reported upon in Australia but it may be of interest to some - Work has begun to recover the bodies of up to 400 British and Australian soldiers believed to have been buried at the First World War mass graves at Fromelles in northern France. the link is here [5]... --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright status on maps in the official histories

Hi all, Just wondering what the copyright status is on maps included in the official histories? Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The AWM states that it holds copyright over the official histories of World War I and II (see: [6] and [7]). Some of the books appear to be older than copyright age, however, though the WWI series and some of the WWII series were reprinted in the 1980s. Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Australian service records

I have found that it is possible to view service records through the National Archives of Australia website. I don't know if everyone knows this, so I am mentioning it here in case anyone is interested. I have found them useful while working on some of the VC biography articles, particularly for dates of service, and other facts like that. Just follow this link for the search page. One can then view digital copies of official service record documents. Hope this helps. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you find a number of the Australian task force biographers like Bryce, Hawkeye and myself using them and they are a great mine of knowledge. Personnally I try to get everything I can from secondary sources as linking to the NAA records has proved flaky in the past, however sometimes there's no alternative with the sparce info you get on the early careers of some subjects. I thought actually we had a link to this on the task force project page but evidently not, so will recitify that and thanks for the reminder...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The declassified cabinet papers (the full text of which is often online) also have some great material, but obviously need to be used with care. Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the section #Nice little website above, I think gonig in to the records via that interface should give a more permanent url, otherwise gonig by the NAA search page can indeed be a bit of a pain (this only covers WWI records though, although they should eventually be linked to later records where someone served in both world wars). David Underdown (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Presumably there's a protocol

I imagine you've reached consensus before on the question whether i) articles on military personnel should contain an honours/awards section and link to medal names perhaps with ribbon images, and ii) if so, do you only put in certain bravery/gallantry awards and leave out service awards like this? Can someone steer me to such a discussion or resolution ?-Sticks66

No, there isn't a consensus or protocol.

And yes, I can point you at the tedious and endless discussions that have achieved nothing, if you really want to waste your time reading them.

Brief summary: PalawanOz and I think that having the medals ribbon on the page enables the-man-on-the-street-on-ANZAC-day to know what the medals are. I don't think I need to tell you what Bryce Abraham thinks. Ian Rose takes a more balanced approach, but has stong and well argued reasons for not being keen, but is open to suggestions. I'm not too sure what other points-of-view are - with luck, this "provocative" posting will lead others to express their opinion. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Come now Pdf.... this is hardly provocative! ;) But yes - it is a topic done to death, with not enough participants taking part to gain a true 'consensus' of the views of the Project as a whole. We (if I may be so bold) have developed a rough style guideline (I wouldn't go so far as to describe it as a template), to address most of the issues raised (including, alt tags for images, referencing, 'tidy' look). I have thrown that onto the Robert Matthew Beatham page for your viewing pleasure Sticks. PalawanOz (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

("Come now Pdf.... this is hardly provocative!" - No, I guess not, but I got you to express your opinion, didn't I ! ;-) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Guys, I haven't even re-checked the previous round of discussions, preferring to let memory and current ideas express my thoughts. PalawanOz, the format you mention above can't be said to have achieved any consensus, as I and others (I won't speak for them individually) still consider it image- and list-cruft, too much non-essential imagery and highlighting of routine service/campaign medals that everyone gets for being in the right place at the right time, which overbalances the average biography—and this is a relatively mild case, given only four medals, many others could have a dozen or more. The only thing there I think we all agree on is that at least there is no OR, as all the medals have cited sources.

Now, Pdfpdf and I have been working offline on a compromise which I'm going to put forward here. I hasten to add I still prefer not to bother with these ribbons and service medals at all, but I also don't believe those who want their ribbons will completely change their stance and we have to work to meet somewhere around the middle. My solution was to have a show/hide of the (cited) service medals in the infobox, without ribbons (example here). Pdfpdf's modification of this was a show/hide at the end of the article, where we put templates and so on, similar to mine but including the ribbons (example here). This at least resolved my issue with the imagery being in your face and overbalancing the article. I put this one into practice at Haywood S. Hansell‎ when I reviewed it for GA, it previously having them in a standard section. The author and nominator of that article, Reedmalloy and Hawkeye, were satisfied with that compromise, perhaps others will be as well.

Note also that this was in a US military bio article; I'd hope whatever agreement we came to here would be agreed at a MILHIST-wide level. If so, I won't be going around adding such sections to other articles because i think there are far more important things to do, but I won't object to others doing it as long as all medals have citations and the format is similar to the one we have in Hansell (i.e. only one ribbon is shown per medal, not the rows as well as in Robert Matthew Beatham). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference/source help

Hi all. I currently have the article Otto Becher up at FAC, and an edit has requested that I have a look at the book Australia at Arms by Norman Bartlett to see if there is any further information in that volume that I can place in the article, and I was wondering if anyone possessed a copy of the book, or had access to it? The same editor has also stated that I should have a look at the 1974 edition of Who's Who, so would anyone have a copy or access to that, as well? Any help/assistance in this matter would be much appreciated. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I should be able to check the Mitchell in the next week, Bryce, unless anyone gets to these sooner... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian, that would be great. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Operation Astute

The article says the operation is ongoing, but there hasn't been any significant development since August 2007. Likely there needs to be some streamlining of it with 2006 East Timorese crisis too. Circeus (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Edgar Towner now open

The featured article candidacy for Edgar Towner is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

• The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
• The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
• I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
  • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
  • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
  • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
• The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
• The data is now retained indefinitely.
• The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
• Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [8]

-- Mr.Z-man 23:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War now open

The peer review for Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for John Lerew now open

The A-Class review for John Lerew is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Adrian Cole (RAAF officer) now open

The featured article candidacy for Adrian Cole (RAAF officer) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 04:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Convoy GP55 now open

The A-Class review for Convoy GP55 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

RAN White Ensign

Hi all,

I've just noticed that many pages featuring the RAN - ships, battles etc. include pictures of the Australian White Ensign, which was not adopted until 1967. Up until that point the RAN flew the British White Ensign.

I've made the odd change here and there but are there people who are prepared to help me remove this flag where it is anachronistic? Slac speak up! 02:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Aussie ships and British battle honours

Could anybody help me track down a source...something I read, but cannot recall where it was from?

In the not-too-distant past, I read somewhere that Australian warships inherited battle honours from earlier British warships of the same name, as well as their Australian predecessors. However, this practice was to be / has been discontinued for new ships entering service after a set date...they will only carry honours awarded to Australian ships of the same name.

I ask because I plan to add information on battle honours to the various RAN shipindex articles (see HMAS Sydney for an example), and these would be good facts to include where relevant. Does anybody know where I might have picked these tidbits up? -- saberwyn 08:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

On a slightly related note, are Australian or foreign non-battle honour awards (such as the Australian Meritorious Unit Citation or the United States Navy Unit Commendation) inherited? -- saberwyn 10:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I did read that when the 4th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment was recently disbanded and renamed the 2nd Commando Regiment it inherited the honours 4 RAR had been awarded during its time as a commando unit (if 4 RAR is ever re-raised it will regain the honours it won as an infantry battalion, but won't get the honours assigned to 2 CDO back). Have you seen the Defence Department's Honours and Awards website? It has information about unit citations and a contact number you can try. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Convoy GP55 now open

The featured article candidacy for Convoy GP55 is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for James Newland now open

The featured article candidacy for James Newland is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for John Lerew now open

The featured article candidacy for John Lerew is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Links to South Vietnamese military things

First posted on Talk:Battle of Bien Hoa (1968)

A lot of them exist now, so I linked to them. All the divisions and corps now exist, although before they didn't. So don't feel afriad to link to them in VN War articles YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 08:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Nui Dat

Is anyone intending to create this important article int eh near future? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 08:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added a book citation to it, just to make it a bit more referenced. I added Ham, although I know you are not a fan of his, it is pretty much the only Vietnam book I have. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Ellis Wackett now open

The A-Class review for Ellis Wackett is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for HMAS Sydney (1934) now open

The featured article candidacy for HMAS Sydney (1934) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Source self-censorship/incompetent translation at Operation Bribie

This article says

On the side the Viet Cong had written in blood: "DU ME UC DAI LOI", loosely translated as "Aussies Get Stuffed"

and is referenced. Well the source is wrong, as the slogan is obscene, and I suspect that if it wasn't a mistake due to translating skill, if was a deliberate mistake to avoid a [rather strong] obscenity for perhaps Political correctness reasons. Should it just be changed to its real meaning? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 07:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

How bad is the real translation? I guess it is hard to answer that without the translation being included here, but then if its really that bad maybe that is not a good idea. Also, I suppose that the name of the game here is not "truth" so much as "verifiability", hence if a source says something, even if wrong, we are bound to follow it otherwise it would be OR. In reality that policy doesn't quite sit right with me, as in real life I much prefer truth over verifiability, but on wiki for the sake of concensus and harmony, etc. we are bound to V over T and not the other way around. I'm keen to know what it actually says, though, so if you want you can put it on my talk page and I won't take offence. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I added an inline comment in the article YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 00:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Does the source say "loosely translated as" or something to that effect? If so, one solution could be to rewrite that entire sentance as a quote the source. -- saberwyn 06:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And maybe add a footnote with links to a dictionary entry.... YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Henry Wells (general) now open

The peer review for Henry Wells (general) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Collins class submarine now open

The peer review for Collins class submarine is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 14:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Joe Hewitt (RAAF officer) now open

The featured article candidacy for Joe Hewitt (RAAF officer) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!

Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder but, with about 18 hours to go until nominations close, you'll need to get your skates on if you're thinking of standing as a coordinator. The election is based on self-nominations, so please don't be shy in putting your name forward. The last elections will give you an idea of what to expect.

Otherwise, voting starts tonight at 00:01 (UTC). Any member of the project may support as many of the candidates as they wish. You should cast your votes here.

 Roger Davies ^talk 06:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for help

Not sure if this is the right place to ask for help, but Townsville, Queensland is up for a GA review. The subheading of Defence facilities is already an appropriate size and has appearance of good content. However I know nothing about defence and would be very grateful for an expert to look it over and make some comments. Many thanks! ROxBo (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Task Force housekeeping

Please discuss this here

There's a proposal to consolidate TFs into larger, more active, ones. This includes:

• Australian military history and New Zealand military history, with a scope expanded to include the Pacific Islands, could be merged to form the Australasia task force.

Thoughts?  Roger Davies ^talk 14:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Images on Wikipedia Commons

Guys, at the recent FAC for Ellis Wackett, I was requested to tag Commons images with an assertion that they can be published in the United States, as well as their source country. The fact that Commons images need to be acceptable copyright-wise in the US—because that's where the servers are hosted—is not new, however this was the first time in my experience that an assertion to that effect was demanded in the image file, or that the year a photo's copyright expired here assumed such importance for its copyright status in the US. So I thought it'd be worth letting everyone on this task force know the outcome and make recommendations for forestalling issues in future reviews. This of course has implications for imagery sourced from all countries, but I'll start here before considering posting more widely...

The bottom line appears to be that just because an image is public domain in Australia, it may not be in the US, due to a rule which states that to be PD in the US, a foreign image must've been out of copyright in its home country on 1 January 1996. Therefore while Australian copyright laws state that any photo older than 1955 is PD—because it was at least 50 years old on 1 January 2005, when current Australian copyright laws were codified—unless that photo was taken before 1 January 1946, it's not PD in the US because it wasn't PD in Australia on 1 January 1996. Clear as mud...?!?

Now, things are not quite as bad for post-war images as this might suggest, as long as they come from the Australian War Memorial. The AWM website kindly asserts "Copyright expired - public domain" on all its pre-1955 images (and, indeed, on some dated as late as 1958, presumably where the government owned or would've owned the copyright per Clause E in the PD-Australia template). If an image bears this explicit declaration—which is taken to mean PD everywhere, not just in Australia—then even if taken after 1946, it will satisfy US copyright provisions as far as Commons is concerned. For that reason, I suggest including as a matter of course a PD-Author/Government of Australia template in addition to the PD-Australia template for every new Commons image you upload from the AWM which declares itself to be out of copyright and in the public domain, in order to negate any controversy (example here).

For images sourced elsewhere than AWM, to be uploaded as PD on Commons it'd need to be taken before 1 January 1946 and bear the appropriate template in addition to PD-Australia (example here).

If you’ve prised loose from the copyright holder a release for a picture under the GNU free documentation licence (example here, and for anyone wishing to try this for pictures that would otherwise be unacceptable on WP, I'm happy to offer what advice and assistance I can) then you shouldn’t need any special tag beyond that. The same should apply if an image qualifies for fair use. I welcome questions or comments on the above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a great post Ian - thanks a lot for the advice. I've also been using the {{PD-because}} template for AWM images which don't seem to fall within the scope of {{PD-Australia}} as they weren't created in Australia but where the AWM has explicitly labeled them as 'copyright expired - public domain'. File:Tallboy bomb dump 1944.jpg is an example of this approach. Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Tks for that addition, Nick. I've suggested PD-Author mentioned above on advice from one of the FAC image reviewers, however PD-Because looks like a variation on it, and might do just as well as PD-Author on any AWM image marked as "copyright expired - public domain". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Mick Slater page

An IP editor has (correctly) "hinted" that some of the links on the Slater page are now broken.
It's my understanding that everything that ever was on the web is archived "somewhere", (if you know where to look.)
I would expect that at least one of the members of the Milhist community must know something about these archives?
If "we" can locate them, then surely they provide more durable URLs than does the Oz DoD website?
Can anyone help? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

http://www.archive.org is the most all-encompassing one I think. I've linked to the one archive copy they held of the Slater page. I'd imagine that the National Archives of Australia is sorting out some sort of long-term programme for regularly archiving government websites. I know The National Archives in the UK does so for UK government sites, and further refinements are currently being introduced such as a custom page to point people toward the archive, rather than the standard "file not found" which will soon be in use on all UK government websites. See http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/webarchive/default.htm?WT.lp=sa-33628 David Underdown (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks David. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Australian Defence Force Journal

As a quick note, the full-text of all editions of the ADF Journal back to 1977 are now online at: http://www.adfjournal.adc.edu.au/site/ The journal has covered a large number of topics relevant to Wikipedia articles, and there appears to be a very useful index of articles by topic on the website. Nick-D (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that mate; I used to read these digest-sized periodicals now and then when contracting for Defence and it looks like they've put a bit of thought into their presentation online. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Defence is becoming rather good about putting resources online. Now all we need to do is convince them to start releasing photos under creative commons licenses... Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's an odd attitude. I have been able to get RAAF, NAA and NSW Parliament to release pics under GNU but you'd think the government(s) could afford to just licence them freely in the first place. Then we have an incredible resource in the AWM photo database, with many of them clearly marked PD (as they should be), but to this day I've not been able to prise loose a single picture marked 'AWM copyright' for free use, despite a number of attempts. I think I'll now have to go above the copyright staff to someone on the executive and see what happens. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Bombing of Darwin casualties

There's currently a discussion on the number of fatalities which should be displayed in the articles infobox. Editors are invited to comment at: Talk:Bombing of Darwin Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we get some extra eyes on AHS Centaur?

Would any editors be willing to watchlist and keep an eye on the featured article AHS Centaur over the next month? As a major search for the wreck of the hospital ship starts this weekend, it is quite likely that the article will become subject to higher traffic (and higher vandalism) over the next few weeks...particularly if she is found. Thanks in advance for your time. -- saberwyn 06:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Rename proposed

As per discussions held previously, can someone move the articles, 10th Infantry Brigade (Australia) to 10th Brigade (Australia) and 12th Infantry Brigade (Australia) to 12th Brigade (Australia) and delete previous articles. Regards Newm30 (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Burnett

Hello, I stumbled upon this page today, and it strikes me as having more potential than most start-class articles I see. Cheers! momoricks 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

5/7 RAR

A new user has been making a number of changes to the 5th/7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment article. Can I please ask if any interested parties could take a look at the article and its recent history. While I'm trying to encourage the editor, and I believe his edits to be in good faith, I am of the opinion that the edits are not necessarily improvements. However, I am not sure if I am handling this right because attempts at communication do not seem to be producing anything meaningful. If I am making a hash of it, please let me know and I'll bow out gracefully. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, seems to be getting ugly now, per this diff: [9]. Apparently I'm a 15yo now. Interesting. I have to believe that the guy just doesn't understand how wiki works, but I've attempted to discuss on his talk page and quite frankly I'm over getting over this. Any chance that an admin might be able to explain the situation better than me? Maybe I'm not communicating things clearly enough. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Bruce Lockhart Bogle

An IP has just added "Bruce Lockhart Bogle" to List of Australian generals and brigadiers ([10])
Is this a real person? (Or is it vandalism?) Pdfpdf (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Not in the Oxford Companion to Australian military history. Google Vanilla, News, Books, and Scholar have no meaningful results (and between sero and one results total each) for "Bruce Lockhart Bogle", while "Bruce Bogle" has more hits, but still none appearing to be relevant. -- saberwyn 10:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's consistent with my findings. I'm prepared to revert it as vandalism. Does anyone object? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't let me stop you. -- saberwyn 11:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There seems to have been a Major Bruce Lockhart Bogle who was twice(?) mentioned in despatcehs in Malaya, viz [11]. Reduces the odds a little, but no evidence that he actually reached the relevant rank. David Underdown (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks David. I reverted it. If anyone disagrees, feel free to undo my reversion. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Photograph requests on to do list

Hi, how do I add requests for photographs on the to do list? I am after a photograph of the M2A2 howitzer of the 102nd Medium Battery, Royal Australian Artillery, that was captured by the North Vietnamese Army and retaken at Fire Support Base Coral, which is located at the AWM. Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You can use the |images= parameter to list image requests. Hope that helps! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tried and failed, can someone help? Newm30 (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I should be able to get a photo of this for you in the next week or two. Nick-D (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Can we add a photo request parameter to the to do list please as well? Newm30 (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Angus Houston

"Angus" Houston joined the RAAF as a cadet pilot in 1970
Can anyone suggest how I would pin down when in 1970? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oz VC recipients article titles

I see that, in general, the Oz VC recipients pages were created with their so-called "full-name" as the title. As Bryce has pointed out at least once, these are not the names the people were known by, and the middle names are not required for disambiguation purposes, and I agree with him.
Does anyone object to these pages being moved to titles reflecting the names that these people were known by?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've got no objections to this. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Torres Strait Star

While working on Torres Strait Light Infantry Battalion, I came across this: [12]. It is a 2001 transcript of an ABC Radio segment in which it is stated that a new campaign ribbon was established for service in the Torres Strait during the Second World War. The ribbon is referred to as the Torres Strait Star (along the lines of the Pacific Star, Burma Star, etc). I've never heard of this ribbon before and a search on [www.itsanhonour.gov.au Its an Honour] does not seem to bring any hits. Can anyone confirm or deny whether this campaign ribbon actually exists? If it doesn't I have to wonder why the ABC was talking about it. One would imagine that they are a credible source, particularly as they quote Dr Peter Stanley from the AWM. If it does exist, I'd be very interested in finding some sources in order to create the wiki article for it. So if you can help point me in the right direction, I'd be very grateful. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm pretty confident it doesn't exist. And no, I don't know why the ABC mentioned it.

According to "Decorations and Medals awarded to members of the Australian Armed Forces", 1988, Edgecombe Military Publications, Eildon, Vic, the stars awarded were:

• 1939–45 Star
• Atlantic Star
• Air Crew Europe Star
• Africa Star
• Pacific Star
• Burma Star
• Italy Star
• France and Germany Star

This is consistent with, and in the same order as:

• Australian campaign medals (and also identical to:
  • British campaign medals
  • New Zealand campaign medals
  • Canadian order of precedence (decorations and medals)#War and operational service medals )

and also as:

• http://www.defence.gov.au/medals/
  • http://www.defence.gov.au/medals/Content/+040%20Campaign%20Medals/+100%20World%20War%20II/default.htm
  • http://www.defence.gov.au/medals/Content/+050%20Honours%20Policy/+010%20Order%20of%20wear/Order%20of%20wear%20mod%2002-09-08.pdf - page 3

http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/awards/index.cfm says: Please note: Defence campaign/service medals do not appear in this collection as defence award administration is the responsibility of the Australian Government - Department of Defence.

The only evidence I can find all leads back to http://www.abc.net.au/am/stories/s401912.htm

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I guess it remains the campaign ribbon that never was...;-) — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's curious that Peter Stanley, who was the head of the AWM's military history section at the time of this report, is quoted as saying that the medal exists and is worthwhile - he's obviously one of the leading experts on Australian military history. Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Updated to do list

Hello all Australian military history task force members! I have updated the task force's To do list. If anyone is looking for something to do to help out, please take a look. There're quite a few red links for articles that have been requested, please feel free to take a crack at some of these (the Australian Dictionary of Biography Online might be a good start to find sources for some of the biographical articles). Please note that they are currently listed with their full names, however, naming the wider Wikipedia naming conventions would ask that the articles only include first and last name, with an appropriate disambiguator (disambig only if required, though), so please be mindful of this when creating. I've also added a number of articles that need expansion or clean up, if anyone wants to have a go at bringing these up to scratch, it would be greatly appreciated. Once they've been brought up to a decent level (say B class, for instance), please remove them from the expansion or clean up areas. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Invitation for comments to be made

Hello all, can I please get a few more opinions in the discussion: here? The issue is mainly about the command structure field in the infobox on Australian Army units (i.e. whether it should be operational groupings such as brigade, or ceremonial such as Royal Australian Armoured Corps), with the flag icon useage secondary. I won't say more than that here, as I don't want to curry favour in any way, so please review the discussion and articles mentioned and provide your opinion whatever that may be. I'm happy to follow concensus however it pans out. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Douglas MacArthur now open

The featured article candidacy for Douglas MacArthur is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 23:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Brian Eaton now open

The featured article candidacy for Brian Eaton is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)