Talk:51st Battalion, Far North Queensland Regiment

Merge and rename
As 51 RNQR is carries the lineage of the 51st Battalion and there has only ever been a single battalion in the regiment, I propose that the content from the new 51st Bn article be merged into this article and the article be renamed 51st Battalion, Far North Queensland Regiment. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak support, as long as it's made clear that the 51st Battalion is the part of the Regiment. On a similar theme, do we combine battalions from the 1st and 2nd AIF, for example is there one article or two for the 1st Battalion AIF and 2/1 battalion. Surely they're notable enough for separate articles?Lawrencema (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The battalions of the 1st and 2nd AIFs were seperate from each other, and have seperate articles (most of the 1st AIF battations - including the 51st - were active during WW2 as CMF battalions). Nick Dowling (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree: I think the article would be more accessible if it were renamed 51st Battalion, Far North Queensland Regiment. Anotherclown (talk) 06:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have moved the article to reflect this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Rupert, my apologies; I meant to post a comment here before moving the page. Anyway, with the greatest possible respect to the other editors, I think the fact that France in 1916–18 represents the most significant frontline service by far for 51 Bn and dictates that the name should be 51st Battalion (Australia). Two reasons:
 * 1. historical significance: it was not a "Far North Queensland" unit in WW1, it was a unit identified with Western Australia in the same way that the 10th Light Horse and the 11th, 16th and 48th Battalions were. (Had the powers that be not tried to link the Boer War unit to the WW1 and them to the Militia/Reserve unit we might not have this problem..)
 * 2. the naming conventions for military history articles: the name that readers from outside FNQ will Google, when they seek information about the WW1 unit will be broad and generic, e.g. "51st Battalion Australia"

(Also, attempts to draw analogies with the RAR battalions aren't really apt IMO, because they have "Australia" in their name and no significant history under other names.) Grant  &#124;  Talk  10:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, Grant. Thanks for the response. You raise several interesting points, although I do not agree completely with your logic. As a currently existing unit, I believe the article should have the unit's current name, as indeed other units like 31st Battalion, Royal Queensland Regiment, 41st Battalion, Royal New South Wales Regiment, 16th Battalion, Royal Western Australia Regiment, 9th Battalion, Royal Queensland Regiment etc. In regards to point 1, many units have mixed state-based associations, including the 41st Bn. In regards to point 2, a redirect from "51st Battalion (Australia)" to "51st Battalion Far North Queensland Regiment" resolves that issue simply. At the end of the day, the article name is probably a minor point and if others don't mind the change, then I can live with it too, but having said that, if you plan to move other articles using similar logic, I ask that you discuss it first and establish a consensus before deleting pages and moving them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

We will probably have to agree to disagree.

It is true that the redirect will work either way, but why deviate from the international Military History Project naming style (in favour of a name that could easily change tomorrow at a whim of some bureaucrat)? The same goes for the other regimental articles you mention.

My point about 1916–18 is not just that the WW1 history is likely what most readers would be interested in (more active service, casualties, mentions in despatches etc), but also that "51st Battalion, Far North Queensland Regiment" is confusing to to readers who don't know the ins and outs of these things. Grant &#124;  Talk  07:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW I agree with Rupert that the article should use the unit's current name (like all the other current units of the RQR, RNSWR, RVR, RWAR, etc where there is a clear lineage). Propose to move back to 51st Battalion, Far North Queensland Regiment. That said I agree with Grant's assessment that the Bn's WWI service is its most significant (don't think anyone is arguing otherwise), so think it would be appropriate if this section was expanded and more about its service in WWI added to the lead. Nor do I have a problem with you clarifying the Bn's lineage to make its West Australian roots more clear if you feel that required - makes sense to me. IP 94.200.252.78's cmts in the edit summary of their revert were probably a bit over the top as most of Grant's edits seem reasonable to me. Anotherclown (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like there is much interest in this discussion ATM. I've moved it back now - if a contrary consensus develops though by all means happy for it to be moved. Anotherclown (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on 51st Battalion, Far North Queensland Regiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707064901/http://www.51fnqra.com/unithistory/worldwar1.html to http://www.51fnqra.com/unithistory/worldwar1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

--Lineagegeek (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 51st Battalion, Far North Queensland Regiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080727101610/http://www.awm.gov.au/units/unit_11316.asp to http://www.awm.gov.au/units/unit_11316.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Casualties - WW1
Hi - the current article seems to confuse casualties (wounded, killed and prisoners) with killed. The 51st AIF certainly didn't lose 650 men KILLED at Mouquet Farm - the Official History for the first attack by the 51st on Mouquet Farm on 15 / 16 August records 301 casualties (Vol. 3 p. 770) and for the 3 September attack on Mouquet Farm records 378 casualties (Vol. 3, p. 858). Nor did the 51st AIF lose 389 men KILLED at Villers-Bretonneux on 24 / 25 April 1918 - the Official History Vol. 5 page 637 says 365 casualties. An AIF Battalion at full strength was around 1080 men. I won't get into the discussion about lineage other than to say I don't agree with it but can understand the reasoning behind it.Harpooner1830 (talk) 07:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day, thanks for pointing this out. I've adjust this now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)