Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force/Archive 1

Request for assistance - Australia and the Vietnam War
Really appreciate a hand with Australia and the Vietnam War. Also would it be more useful to include the NZ with it as the experiences were so similar or is it worth having a separate article just for Aust?--A Y Arktos\talk 07:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A seperate article for NZ seems more appropriate IMO. --Nick Dowling 07:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Military history of Australia during World War II
I've had a go at expanding Military history of Australia during World War II, my first attempt at expanding a stub, mostly pinched from other articles. Hope it's OK Chwyatt 15:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Its much better than the stub but i think the pages should follow a similar layout to the French and Dutch pages. Hossens27 06:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Cheers, I've had another go at improving it. Chwyatt 18:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah thats much better, looks more organised. It just needs to be expanded with more detail, ill help with that when i can. Hossens27 03:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

FAK's': Name given to Staff Cadets who were once Officer Cadets, stands for "Fucking ADFA Cadets"
What is the above supposed to mean? I have asked a Duntroon Sword of Honour winner and he reckons its nonsense.

Also, what is the staff cadet and officer cadet difference? I've met Casey et al at Duntroon but never this stuff. Do people with no adf connection write this stuff up?


 * Where did you spot this statement? --Nick Dowling 11:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq
I have just requested a peer review for this article. If you'd like to comment on it please go to: WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq --Nick Dowling 23:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance
Is there anyone that can provide some input to the Quakers Hill article regarding HMAS Nirimba (which is now operated by NSW TAFE) ?

Thanks for any assistance. --Garrie 01:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

First Australian Imperial Force major expansion
I have been going throught the artilces related to the First Australian Imperial Force and the fact is many aspects of the force have little or no coverage. Information on this topic is easily available and reliable. I suggest a major expansion and creation of articles realated to the First Australian Imperial Force, it could be the first major collaborative effort of this taskforce. Hossen27 10:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Replacing Old ProjectADF template
Hi all,

In a soucy of harmonizing infoboxes and templates, I stumbled on that one, which certainly was the old template before the two projects were merged. Does anyone here mind if I run the bot on these and convert them to WPMILHIST (on those where it was not done) ???

Grafikm (AutoGRAF)  18:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think we ever went through with formally merging the ADF project here, as I recall one of its (former?) members objected. I don't know if circumstances have changed enough to make trying it again worthwhile. Kirill Lokshin 18:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops, I was not aware of this. Sorry and AGF then. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  18:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the ADF Project is now dead, so you may as well merge it into this task force (which was started after the ADF project). --Nick Dowling 00:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request
There's a new peer review request for British nuclear tests at Maralinga that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Kirill Lokshin 16:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Greece
This article has been greatly improved and expanded. It still needs help however. Many Australian troops fought there and perhaps some of you would like to help further improve and expand the article. Any suggestions or contributions would be appreciated. Periklis* 02:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would also like to draw Project members' attention to a new article: Battle of Vevi (1941), which was a significant action involving Australian troops during the Greek campaign.Grant65 | Talk 06:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What to do about ADF?
Seeing as WP:ADF seems to finally have gone inactive, I'm wondering whether it would be feasible to consider merging it here again, and, if so, what the best way to proceed would be? Perhaps it would be useful to discuss the issue with WikiProject Australia directly? Does anyone here take part in that project? Or are there any other ideas? Kirill Lokshin 02:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that it should be merged into this project as it's a) active and b) much more inclusive (though the ADF project was more confused than missguided). --Nick Dowling 03:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Nick merge them. Hossen27 10:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No argument from me. Cheers, Ian Rose 07:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is an excellent idea to merge. However, I would suggest that it might be more practical to merge 'out' than 'in'. This is to say that the topic concerned is logically subsidiary to both WP:MILHIST and WP:AUS (through WP:AUSTHIST), and therefore it would be better to have it as a project affiliated with both than as a subpage of one.--cj | talk 08:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Meh. I'm not sure that we'd be gaining anything practical from moving it out to a separate page (as there's no real need for a separate group that's completely independent of anything else here), and I'm not aware of anyone particularly complaining about the system we've used for some of the other country WikiProjects (having the "joint" task force reside on a subpage of one, with the other project just linking through to it transparently; see, for example, how WP:INDIA does it).  Is the exact subpage structure really something that would be of importance for WP:AUS? Kirill Lokshin 10:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

So, how should we proceed here? If we were to do a merger of ADF here, there would be a few things that would need to be done: Thoughts? Kirill Lokshin 05:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The page merge itself. There's not much there, admittedly, but the resources and the to-do items are worth carrying over.
 * Get rid of the redundant ProjectADF and Category:WikiProject Australian military articles.
 * Ask WP:AUS to modify the corresponding line in their banner template.  (The articles seem to be double-tagged fairly consistently, so that should work out somewhat neatly.)
 * I guess the real difference to me is two fold, and both limit your scope. Calling yourself a taskforce rather than a project appears to limit your scope. A project is there for the long haul, a task force to me is something set up for a shorter timeframe, to deal with some specific category. Secondly, being a history page implies you are not interested in articles from today. It is a matter of perception. That is from my perspective. The linking from WP:AUS should not be a problem whichever way you choose, and the military tag is straightforward to set up. I am surprised that it has not been done already.
 * I agree with cj, that merging 'out' to the ADF page would help you all a whole lot. SauliH 07:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a structure I would propose...
 * Branches
 * WikiProject ADF/Army
 * WikiProject ADF/Navy
 * WikiProject ADF/Airforce
 * WikiProject ADF/Special Forces
 * Equipment
 * WikiProject ADF/Weapons
 * WikiProject ADF/Transport
 * WikiProject ADF/Units and formations
 * WikiProject ADF/Ranks
 * Places
 * WikiProject ADF/Bases
 * WikiProject ADF/Test sites
 * WikiProject ADF/Memorials and cemetaries
 * WikiProject ADF/Hospitals and colleges
 * WikiProject ADF/History *** THIS PAGE ***
 * WikiProject ADF/Deployments
 * WikiProject ADF/World War I
 * WikiProject ADF/World War II
 * WikiProject ADF/Vietnam etc...
 * WikiProject ADF/Biographies


 * What this would allow is for the various subcategories of articles to have their own page which could provide the necessary links to categories, templates, style sheets, articles to be worked on etc. Also, the whole WP:ADF front page would need revamping. I am NOT advocating a chnage in the relationship with the WikiProject Military history. The page noted above would look exactly as the Australia task force page does, but with a different title. Tags for MILTHIST should not chage either, or the userboxes. WP:AUS would add the military tag to it's template also. This is how I would approach the 'out' merge. SauliH 08:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That seems unnecessarily complicated, to me; a lot of the stuff you put up only covers a handful of articles. In any case, it's worth pointing out that:
 * Task forces are permament groups; many of the project's task forces have been around for far longer than the ADF project has.
 * Despite the semantics of the name, the Military history WikiProject—and hence all its task forces—cover all military affairs up to the present.
 * More generally, the task force model was created in large part to combat the inactivity that seems to plague separate projects, which is why basically all of the other national military projects have since been absorbed as task forces (and have consequently experienced significant improvement); this is why, coincidentally, this task force has more members than the ADF project, despite having been started after it. Running a separate project requires a great deal of of behind-the-scenes work; running a task force, on the other hand, allows the use of the parent project's infrastructure, leaving the task force as a leaner group focused more directly on article work than on administrative efforts. Kirill Lokshin 13:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that the scope of this task force is broader than the History title suggests. My point by adding a series of subpages is that your task force is so broad one main page for it is confusing. I looked for one central page for Army articles and this is the one, military bios this page, weaponry here again. Each of these types of articles is unique against the other types in that they have there own infoboxes, templates, categories, and probably a style format. You would assist the task force greatly by providing a 'hub' page for each subtopic. I may have added sub-page suggestions above that cover small topic areas. If this is the case fine ignore them.
 * Now whether it is here or ADF, to me is not big deal. If you keep it here as a task force of MILTHIST, possibly consider renaming it to the WikiProject Military history/Australian military task force. It appears that the editors at WP:ADF felt that this task force was purely history, and I was at first of the same mind when I came to this task force page. The scope needs to be really clarified further if it intends to continue covering articles about the present day military, and a name change (even if under the umbrella of the MILTHIST project) would only help in this.
 * My primary concern is that the structure makes sense to new and existing editors. Right now the naming doesn't make sense to me, and I believe this is the PRIMARY reason your earlier requests for merging/working together etc were rebuffed. SauliH 16:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Subpages dealing with specific sub-topics are a viable idea in theory, but it's generally better to let them be broken off the main page as need arises, rather than creating them all at once and drowning the task force in buraucratic page-shuffling.
 * (It should be pointed out that some of these topics have other related task forces, which may be more relevant. For example, Australian weaponry will likely be much more influenced by the Weaponry task force than this one, as an article about an Australian rifle has much more in common, stylistically, with an article about a German rifle than with one about an Australian general.  Replicating that task force's style guides, templates, and so forth on another subpage doesn't seem particularly useful; the only specifically "Australian" material in question would likely be a handful of categories and some to-do items, which can easily be listed on the task force page itself.)
 * As far as the name is concerned: the general consensus (and the reason why the project as a whole, and the other national task forces, are named "military history" rather than "military") has been that "military history" actually implies a broader range of topics than "military" (which is too often understood to refer only to the current military). For example, while ANZAC is clearly part of Australian military history, it's not clear whether it would count as Australian military; meanwhile, suggesting that modern units are also part of (recent) military history seems rather more defensible. Kirill Lokshin 18:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A further thought that's just occurred to me: in the core project, the issue was settled by adding an explicit annotation of the scope at the top of the project page ("The project generally considers any article related to historical or modern-day warfare or military affairs to be within its scope."); there's no reason why we can't add a "Scope" section to this task force (as is done with a number of others) and describe the scope explicitly, if people think it's a potential source of confusion. Kirill Lokshin 19:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems unlikely that you are wlling to go the direction I submitted, so please do so for the benefit of those of us wo misunderstood your scope. SauliH 21:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added an explicit statement of the task force's scope; it's somewhat crude, perhaps, so any revision would be welcome. Kirill Lokshin 02:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So, given that the scope statement seems to have stabilized, are there any major objections to going ahead with a merge? Kirill Lokshin 02:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No objections here. I would work towards a redirect to this page, while offloading any work done on that page, and categories onto the appropriate pages here. Consider moving the page to a subpage here entitled something to the effect of 'present day military' that way people interested primarily in that subsection of articles have a place to beat it out. That's my opinion. SauliH 04:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've merged in the page (leaving everything on the main page for the time being; it's not that much, and it's probably best for the editors working here to figure out what subpages they need, and when); I've also updated the links from WP:AUS, and (per the new precedent developed by the Korean task force) added the Australia navigation bar and tagging/membership information here, to direct people to both parent projects.

Still left to do is getting rid of ProjectADF; but, other than that, I think everything should be done. Kirill Lokshin 18:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since the new situation appears to be stable, would there be any objections to listing ProjectADF on TFD? Kirill Lokshin 22:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The deletion would create a bunch of redlinks - well I am not sure that they would show up. I would replace the banner from the linking articles with the taskforce banner. SauliH 03:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've either replaced or removed any instance of ProjectADF. It can be submitted to WP:TFD now.--cj | talk 21:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay; thanks a lot for doing that! I've nominated it for deletion here, if anyone cares. Kirill Lokshin 02:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Any support for an ANZAC Task Force?
Who else here would support bringing NZ into a Task Force through renaming and expanding the scope of the 1st Australian Task Force? Buckshot06 05:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Mmm, despite the past history of the two countries being linked during certain periods (via ANZAC), they do currently have independent militaries. I'm not sure that explicitly pairing nearby countries as task force scopes is a good idea unless the scope is made purely geographical (e.g. an Oceanian military history task force). Kirill Lokshin 05:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * While that proposal does have a lot going for it, Australia and New Zealand have quite distinct military histories and lumping them together would be misleading. For instance, the Greek campaign was the only occasion Australians and New Zealanders fought alongside in WW2. --Nick Dowling 05:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey Nick, ever hear about the Battle of EL Alamein? ;) Hawkeye7 20:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I must agree with Kirill and Nick, though a combined taskforce has merits it is probably not the best direction to take the Australian Taskforce. As Nick pointed out two military histories are quite different, they just get merged together very often due to Gallipoli and WWI. I'm luke warm Oceanian task force, would it include Australian involvement in the region and WWII stuff as well. Hossen27 06:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think than an Oceania task force would make much sense as the countries in this region have suprisingly distinct histories. For instance, New Caledonia's military history is almost completly different from Australia and New Zealand's as New Caledonia is part of France. --Nick Dowling 06:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Well, an Oceanian task force would basically include everything related to the region (see, for example, how the scope of the Balkan task force is set up); but I'm not really convinced that it would be a worthwhile way of grouping things here. The more obvious solution would be to create a separate task force for New Zealand, if the interest can be found; I'm not sure how many editors would be interested in that specifically, though. Kirill Lokshin 06:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That was my thought. I didn't see enough editors to form a separate Kiwi task force, so a combined task force with Australia (a la Solomons, Tonga, etc etc) seemed to be the way to go..Buckshot06 08:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've always thought that there should be a separate New Zealand task force. If one was created, I would be one of the editors to sign up to it, as I'll probably be working on at least four battle articles in the future that significantly involved forces from New Zealand. Cla68 00:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Creating a New Zealand task force ought to be viable, if we can get a few interested editors. Kirill Lokshin 18:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would also sign up to a New Zealand taskforce, there two editors a pretty good start. Hossen27 13:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sign me up as well.--James Bond 11:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, great. I've created the New Zealand military history task force; please drop by if you have an interest in the topic! Kirill Lokshin 18:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942)
There's a new peer review request for Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A-Class review for Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942)
There's a new request for A-Class status for Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

New Guinea campaign
I've just done a major expansion/reorganisation of the New Guinea campaign template, to include links/redlinks to all of the major battles/campiagns of 1942-45 in the Australian Territory of New Guinea and Dutch New Guinea. I've explained my reasoning at Template talk:Campaignbox New Guinea. Grant65 | Talk 16:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Commented on template talk page. Kirill Lokshin 16:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have now added a list of "red link" battles and sub-campaigns to New Guinea campaign. Comments, corrections and additions welcome. Grant65 | Talk 17:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate military hist categories
At present there are two seperate categories which articles are being tagged by. We have Category:Australian military history task force articles - resulting from the WPMILHIST, and Category:Military history of Australia resulting from the WP Australia. Do we want any seperation of these articles? Or can we redirect one of these tags to the other? What will reslut if a page is tagged with both tags on the talk page? How could we streamline this? Can the MILTHIST tag be transcluded into the WP Australia tag? SauliH 15:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahhhh, ignore that. My bad. SauliH 16:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for Portal:Military of Australia
There's a new peer review request for Portal:Military of Australia that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for Battle of Edson's Ridge
There's a new peer review request for Battle of Edson's Ridge that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Edson's Ridge
There's a new request for A-Class status for Battle of Edson's Ridge that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Iven Mackay
We have duplicate articles: Iven Mackay and Iven Giffard Mackay. I suggest a merger into "Iven Giffard Mackay". Grant65 | Talk 09:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree merge into Iven Giffard Mackay. Hossen27 23:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Normal wikipedia practice would be to keep as Iven Mackay rather than use his middle name (use common names)Garrie 00:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

RAAF Memorial Park, Mount Druitt
Does anyone have any information regarding the RAAF memorial park at Mount Druitt? Blacktown City Council website has information about the conservation value of the forest remnant that is there, that's about all. I would like to mention it on the Mount Druitt article due to it's significant size {certainly a couple of acres). Thanks in advance, Garrie 12:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The deletion of all coats of arms of HMAS'
It seems all coats of arms of Australian naval vessels have been proposed for deletion because of the deletion of a template and lacking information on the status of those images. Please go through Category:Images with unknown copyright status as of 29 December 2006 and other apropriate categories and add the needed information to prevent them from being deleted.Inge 14:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The coats of arms have been deleted, but it seems a lot of the badges relevant here has survived or been recovered. There are still some missing as can be seen at Badges of the Royal Australian Navy. Inge 11:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That was me... I saved what I could, sorry about the rest. "Badges of the RAN" has since been deleted as a gallery of fair use images (which is a GFDL no-no), but the majority of the images are now categorised at Category:Royal Australian Navy badges. -- saberwyn 11:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions for Australian units
I have been going through the many battalions that have their own articles and have realised that there needs to be a set of guidelines for the names. WP Military History just went through with a new division naming guideline here which will see our divisional articles merged where two articles exist (eg. Australian 1st Division (World War I) and its WWII militia equivalent). I have no problem with this.

With the Battalions we have different problems mainly the existence of both AIF, 2nd AIF and Militia and what to do with the names of the currently existing battalions in the state based regimental system. This is what I suggest.


 * The WWI battalions and their WWII Militia namesakes are to be classed as the same units and be one article, seeing they more or less are.
 * While the 2nd AIF units are to be classed as separate and given independent articles, even though many were formed out of the militia battalions, the two units existed at the same time fought in different battles and were part of different units. The WWI/militia articles should mention them though.
 * With WWII militia battalions that have been created by joining two other battalions (eg. 57th/60th Battalion part of 3rd Division) I suggest having a separate article, if the separate article doesn't exist a mention in the two former battalions will suffice.
 * The current reserve infantry battalions are another problem, with the state based regimental system they are now followed by the state regiment name (eg. Royal Queensland Regiment). As these are the current official names of the articles should be named accordingly (eg. the 9th Battalion which has its own article should be merged with 9th Battalion, Royal Queensland Regiment). All battalions that currently exist should be merged with their WWI and WWII counterparts.
 * Any battalion that has existed under the state regimental system whether it is currently active or not should be maned accordingly. (eg Australian 1st Battalion currently exists as the 1st/19th Battalion, Royal New South Wales Regiment). Both 1st and 19th Battalion were once separate RNSWR units therefore their article should be renamed to 1st Battalion, RNSWR and 19th Battalion, RNSWR with their historic names redirecting to them.

Hope this is no to confusing. Hossen27 02:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This makes sense to me - especially the merging of the pages of current reserve battalions and the original AIF battalions that the "descended" from, as it helps to keep a timeline of the overall history of the battalion.


 * Also, just clearing something for my benefit, in regard to your point on merged militia battalions of WW2 (such as 57/60th), do you mean have separate 57th & 60th battalion pages, and then a separate page for 57/60th? On top of this, when you say "if the separate article doesn't exist a mention in the two former battalions will suffice." - do you mean that if, say, both 57th & 60th pages already exist, but one for 57/60th doesn't, then just mention in the individual pages that the battalions where amalgamated, and not to create the combined battalion page?
 * EMBaldwin 03:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the original battalions (57th and 60th) should have their own articles, mainly because their actions in WWI are more well known and there is more info on them. But I have no problem with a article on the merged unit existing at the same time, but if it doesn't exist it should be mentioned in its child battalions that it was joined with X battalion in X year. Hossen27 03:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks Hossen, that clears things up. Getting together an article for the 57/60th is something that I am planning on doing, mainly because I have a copy Hold hard, cobbers volume 2, which covers the history of the 57/60th through WW2.  It is also a pet project of mine as the 57/60th was my Uncles battalion in WW2. EMBaldwin 04:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow a bit of a coincidence I just chose 57/60th off the top of my head. Do you have much info on the WWII militia battalion because besider a few such as the 39th Battalion there is much that I have access to. Hossen27 04:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree completly with all those points, though we will need to be a bit careful with the last one. The state regiments weren't formed until 1960 when, as part of the ill-fated Pentropic organisation, the various CMF battalions were merged into much larger battalions which were grouped together as state regiments (under this reorganisation each CMF battalion was reduced to one or two of the five large companies within a CMF Pentropic battalion). After the Pentropic organisation was dropped in 1965 the now much smaller CMF couldn't justify having so many battalions, and many of them were immediatly merged when the Army reverted back to its old organisation and revived the old battalions within the structure of the state regiments. As a result, the currently merged battalions in the state regiments were, in some cases, never independent battalions within the regiment. However, in general the principle of having seperate pages for battalions which were merged and the new merged battalion is an excellent idea. For instance, 8/9 RAR has had a long history as a merged battalion and needs to be treated seperately from 8 RAR and 9 RAR. --Nick Dowling 10:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, 2nd AIF units should be called 2/xth battalion, etc, and not 2nd/xth (eg, the 2/1st Infantry battalion, and not the 2nd/1st Battalion). The Official History of Australia in the Second World War never adds '2nd' to the front of AIF unit names so this is the correct naming convention. --Nick Dowling 09:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes to RAAF Structure - not reflected on wiki
I just wanted to point out to the group that the latest changes to structure of the RAAF are not reflected on wikipedia and thus a large number of articles are now incorrect. For example - Training Command no longer exists, it's now AF Training Group which is under Air Command. There's quite a large number of changes, including the E/CSSs and Ws, Health Flights (now under HSW), new units etc. 144.137.143.224 05:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for informing us but you are more than welcome to help with any changes needed, anyone can edit Wikipedia. Hossen27 08:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Alternetly, could you provide a source for the new RAAF structure so other people can work on updating this? Simply stating that the current articles are outdated doesn't give others a lot to go on with ;-) thanks, --Nick Dowling 07:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the RAAF unit pages reflecting the restructure. Changes have been made to the infoboxes, and I have moved pages when there has been a name change (ie 321CSS is now 321ECSS, Training Comand is now Air Force Training Group). There was a merger of 1ATS and 1CCS to 1AOSS. I moved 1ATS to 1AOSS and left 1CCS as is - it will need a redirect.

I have not changed any text in the body of any article. All of my changes were in 395/396ECSS and AF Training Group. There are more changes but have not yet been officially published in Air Force news etc so I won't add them. Justinbrett 12:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

CAC CA-23
Does anybody know anything about the CA-23 a jet fighter designed by CAC around 1948. I have never heard of it before and came by it by chance. Some info about it exists in the book Australian Military Experimental and Prototype Aircraft, ISBN 1411648900. I cant find a Wikipedia article on it, I think in deserves an article being probably the first Australian designed jet fighter. Hossen27 05:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Have a look at http://jet-flight.net/ca23.html Seems like a good article and is well-referenced. You need to bear in mind that the CA-23 designation was also used for the CAC Ceres, a 1950s civilian prop plane based on the CAC Wackett trainer. Cheers, Grant65 | Talk 07:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Disasters in War page
While compiling a disasters subpage at WikiProject Australian history, I came across a number of disasters that relate to war. I have grouped them all on one subpage at WikiProject Australian history/War disasters, and would appreciate someone from this project checking the events listed at the bottom of the page, to see if the events have been written about. The redlinks should be changed if so. Cheers. SauliH 07:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review - AHS Centaur
I have just requested a peer review of AHS Centaur, following my recent expansion of the article. Please comment at WikiProject Military history/Peer review/AHS Centaur. -- saberwyn 11:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Australian Army article
Could I suggest this article as being worthy of attention from all members of this project? While the Australian Army has generally been the largest of the services and has seen more combat than the RAN and RAAF, this article is very short, poorly organised and covers an eccentric range of topics. --Nick Dowling 09:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree its all over the place, the article needs some serious TLC. I would model it's structure on the German Army and Russian Ground Forces articles. Hossen27 11:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Template for RAAF Aircraft
I've just completed a template for RAAF Aircraft using their RAAF designations (A12 etc). It is based on similar ones used for car manufacturers. Have a look at Template:RAAF_Aircraft for review / comments. - Ctbolt 07:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While the template looks nice and I'm sure that you put a lot of work into it, I'm not sure what value a big list of what are, to most people, meaningless numers is going to add to articles on aircraft used by the RAAF and it is probably going to be quickly removed from articles on non-Australian designed aircraft. Moreover, these aren't the designations used by the RAAF, but instead the code which it uses to identify its individual aircraft - the RAAF uses the name assigned to the aircraft by its manufacturer (eg, so the F-4 Phantom was the F-4 Phantom in Australian service and not the A69). It would probably be more useful to convert List of aircraft of the RAAF into a series of tables which include the aircraft's series number. I may be in the minority on this though. --Nick Dowling 07:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It does seem a bit cryptic for anyone that's not intimately familiar with the codes. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I see your point on the large list of codes. Here's my reasoning: I still think it's useful on the aircraft pages as a Navbox rather than incorporate it into a list: To take on board your comments I propose the following:
 * I wanted to easily navigate to another aircraft as you can do with cars from one manufacture : Holden's Navigation (they also use 'EJ, EH etc' although in a limited fashion).
 * Something similar is already being used for Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation aircraft. Manufacturer designations are used and not their common names - CAC Navigation
 * The aircraft name is visible when you hover your mouse over the code - although this may not be intuitive for all people.
 * The code series (A20) is on every ADF aircraft - at least post WWII. So people looking up a Winjeel or Wirraway are going to be at least a little savvy on the codes.
 * As above, it is easier to navigate
 * There is no other list with these designations or 'codes' for RAAF aircraft although as Nick said this could be fixed in List of aircraft of the RAAF
 * I've have a partially complete example with names included here User:Ctbolt/RAAF4
 * The idea would to have it default to state 'collapsed'.
 * I'm yet to complete the other series - Series three is there for an example
 * The above is an example for formatting only - so the naming, order etc is for another day.

Further comments welcome - Ctbolt 04:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It probably should be called the 'Aircraft of the Australian Defense Forces' as army and navy aircraft are included.
 * The List of aircraft of the RAAF should also have a name change to List of aircraft of the ADF - that discussion is not for here. I will post it at the page.
 * The Navbox could be re-ordered in to bomber / fighter / army / RAN etc then by date of first use by the ADF
 * Having even short names or pictures would be great but would make the list box very large
 * I agree that it would not be practical on some (most?) non-Australian designed aircraft. And although the pages for Australian designed aircraft is quite small at the moment, I'm sure a lot more can be added especially the Australian built aircraft ie the CAC Sabre should have it's own page.  And adding it to pages such as the CT/4 (six military operators)etc would not be out of place.

Peer review - Australian Defence Force
I have just nominated the Australian Defence Force article for a peer review. Please go to: WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Australian Defence Force if you would like to comment on the article. Thanks, --Nick Dowling 05:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

List of aircraft of the RAAF - Page move
I've started a discussion / vote to move the page List of aircraft of the RAAF to List of aircraft of the ADF. See Talk:List of aircraft of the RAAF. The main reason is to cover the Army and Navy aircraft already in the list and for future Navy/Army aircraft to be included. - Ctbolt 03:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Chief of Air Force
Tally-ho RAAF buffs... Following on from work on Frederick Scherger there is now a heavily-expanded Chief of Air Force (Australia) article for your reading pleasure. If you got a kick out of the personality-driven 'Morotai Mutiny', you should enjoy this one, and if Kenney's comment on the Jones-Bostock feud doesn't make you laugh out loud you must be having a bad day. Comments welcome of course. By the way, plenty of targets of opportunity for worthwhile articles among the Chiefs, so don’t be shy… Myself I'm working on new ones for George Jones and Stanley Goble, and expanding the one on Dicky Williams, as we speak. Pip pip, Ian Rose 14:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well done its a very well structured and written article. Regards Hossen27 10:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Abrams tank photos?
Has anybody got a public domain photo of an Australian Abrams tank they'd like to upload? The Army has been displaying one of the tanks at major defence and motorsport events over the last 6 months and a good quality PD photo would be invaluable in a number of articles. --Nick Dowling 11:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Second Battle of Ypres
Hi, does anyone here know whether or not Australian forces contributed to the Allied forces at the Second Battle of Ypres. Right now we have them listed as combatants, if anyone here knows of their contributions and the role that Australians had in said battle it would be very much appreciated if you could add your knowledge to the article. Currently the article is written from a primarily Canadian perspective and we are trying to get a wider world perspective. Thanks... Basser g 23:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright nevermind all, I have found sources that states neither Australian or ANZAC forces were at Ypres but were in Gallipoli at the time, sorry to bother you. Basser g 04:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Battle of Arras (1917)
There's a new peer review request for Battle of Arras (1917) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 00:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Arras (1917)
There's a new request for A-Class status for Battle of Arras (1917) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Snowball marches
There's a new peer review request for Snowball marches that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 00:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Forrestry Division
During a recent visit to Freo army museum they had a photo and a piece on an australian forestry battalion that went to UK at the outbreak of WWII, while returning to Aust they disembarked in New York and marched through the city carrying weapons, it was the first foreign military force since US independence to carry arms on US soil. Thats all the caption had no identifying numbers. Does anybody else have any details? Gnangarra 09:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They were the three companies of the Australian Forrestry Group. See the last page of Appendix 1 of the first volume of the Official History of the Army in WW2 at: http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/chapter.asp?volume=17 --Nick Dowling 10:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for AHS Centaur
There's a new request for A-Class status for AHS Centaur that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 15:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Military history of Oceania
Could someone please give me a hand with the above article? It was on the RA for MILHIST so I started it off. I accept no credit for it (obviousy) because all I have done so far is merge information from relevant sub articles and meshed it together. I would really appreciate the attention of some experts to help get the article going properly. Thanks! SGGH speak! 18:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Australian Defence Force
There's a new request for A-Class status for Australian Defence Force that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 06:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Vice Chief of the Defence Force
Oops, I created a new article Vice Chief of the Defence Force (Australia) to go with Chief of the Defence Force (Australia) without noticing an existing stub Vice Chief of the Defence Force. Could an administrator please delete the old stub? Hawkeye7 00:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A redirect is probably a better option (as people are likely to search for Vice Chief of the Defence Force) and I've justed editied the article so that it now redirects to the new article. --Nick Dowling 00:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer review of Attack on Sydney Harbour
I've just started a peer review for the Attack on Sydney Harbour article, at WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Attack on Sydney Harbour. As this falls under the grounds of Australian Military History Taskforce, I'm requesting that members of this group come forward and find the flaws in the article before it makes a run for A-class review, and hopefully Featured article candidates. -- saberwyn 06:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Australian Defence Force nominated for FA status
I have self-nominated Australian Defence Force for consideration as a Featured Article. Please go to Featured article candidates/Australian Defence Force if you'd like to vote or comment. --Nick Dowling 08:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Victoria Cross for Australia
There's a new peer review request for Victoria Cross for Australia that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 16:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for George Jones (RAAF officer)
Guys, I've self-nominated my latest effort for review at WikiProject Military history/Peer review/George Jones (RAAF officer)‎. Placed no rating on it yet but believe it currently meets all criteria for at least B-class. However I think there's reasonable potential for FA, so like to hear opinions and then start down the A-class review path if it looks promising. Cheers, Ian Rose 11:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Military history of Australia during World War II
I've launched a major expansion of this article. Any input from other editors would be fantastic. --Nick Dowling 09:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Attack on Sydney Harbour now open
The A-Class review for Attack on Sydney Harbour is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Murray William James Bourchier
There's a new peer review request for Murray William James Bourchier that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 11:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking for a bit of help
Since September last year I've written most of the unit of the day articles for Portal:Military of Australia. However, with the end almost in sight I'm running out of steam and any assistance would be fantastic. If you're interested in helping out, please first check the list of the units which have already been used at Portal talk:Military of Australia/Units and then start editing at Portal:Military of Australia/Units/August. Please follow the unit sequence of Navy, Army, Airforce when creating Daily Unit pages and please don't use a unit which has already been the subject of an entry. I've really enjoyed preparing these little articles, and I think that I've been able to improve dozens of articles in the process. Thanks, --Nick Dowling 11:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Mont St. Quentin
Given today's anniversary, I have started an article on Battle of Mont St. Quentin - needs more work - woudl be pleased if others had a look at it--Golden Wattle talk 00:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for George Jones (RAAF officer)
Guys, self-nominated this article for A-Class assessment following a recent peer review - welcome your input. Cheers, Ian Rose 13:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Issy Smith now open
The A-Class review for Issy Smith is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 20:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Richard Williams (RAAF officer)
Guys, a peer review for this article is now open, appreciate any/all input. Cheers, Ian Rose 01:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review request for Richard Williams (RAAF officer)
An A-Class assessment for this article is now open, appreciate your comments. Cheers, Ian Rose 03:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review request for Morotai Mutiny
An )|A-Class assessment for this article is now open, appreciate your comments. Cheers, Ian Rose 14:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle of France Good article reassessment
This article has been reviewed as part of the WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force for GA sweeps. I think the article currently doesn't meet the requirements of the Good article criteria concerning sourcing. Although the article is well-sourced in many areas, other areas are lacking. I have listed the article at Good article reassessment to get a better consensus on the article's status. Issues needing to be address are listed there. Please join the discussion to see how the article can be improved to prevent delisting. If you have any questions about the reassessement, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Regards, --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth Cosson
I realise that everyone is just about voted-out but I need some votes to save the pic of Elizabeth Cosson from deletion. Go to Images and media for deletion/2007 November 23 Thankyou! Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What a silly nomination. I've lived in Canberra most of my life and I'm yet to see a Major General in full uniform in line at the supermarket... --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hobart coastal defences
Just completed this one, and seeking some reviews opinions, suggestions etc. Also, if anybody has any pictures of Prince of Wales, Prince Albert, Alexandra or kangaroo batteries they are willing to upload, I think they would all improve my article. Rac fleming (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of the word 'base' in pages on RAAF esablishments
I personally have never heard/seen them referred to as listed here. Eg. RAAF Base Pearce. In normal use they are referred to simply as RAAF (Establishment) ie, RAAF Pearce. If concensus I suggest renaming the pages for the articles thus. MEBpilot (talk) 09:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The RAAF now calls them 'RAAF Base X': http://www.raaf.gov.au/bases/index.htm so I think that the names for the current bases should stand. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)