This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Victoria Cross for Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cross of Valour (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. Note that I have reverted myself.
"There were no operational gallantry awards to the Australian forces under either the Australian or Imperial Honours Systems from 1972 until 1996." This is a remarkable claim - although I have no reason to doubt its accuracy. Were Australians actually ineligible or was it simply that there was an understanding that Australians would not be nominated. If, in an alternate history, Australian forces had been serving in warlike operations in that period (i.e. the Gulf War of 1991) I find it hard to imagine that some sort of gallantry award would not have been issued should it had been considered merited. Scrapping a system before putting in place a adequate replacement seems quite bizarre. Does this merit inclusion in the article Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
FYI. (You may wish to comment.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Well. That's a bit underwhelming. (And disappointing?) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
It is a well written and thoughtful report that includes a lot of analysis and explores all the arguments offered. It was most revealing in examining a number of the negative claims such as blaming Howse for Simpson not getting a VC or Vice Admiral Layton for the Repulse and Prince of Wales awards. The report makes a good case for Howse ensuring the Simpson was MID and that Layton, who has been said to have been against any awards, being instrumental in ensuring awards were gazetted. It showed that Rudd’s DSM was never cancelled and that the RAN got a generous amount of awards for Vietnam. I feel sad for the relatives who had their hopes raised then dashed. The overall quality of the submissions against late awards was superior to the submissions in favour of late awards. While I was pleased with the result on one level I was disappointed on another since if a number of late awards had been granted it would have made it quite clear that while the VCFA was inspired by the VC it is a separate, unrelated and uniquely Australia award. Anthony Staunton (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
That's an impressively concise and informative summary. Thank you! a) Obviously, you're not a politician. b) No doubt this summary will appear somewhere else tomorrow - no doubt unacknowledged and copyright! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Grammar problems: These appointments were made under the British Imperial honours system which Australia was participated in until 1992 and the Australian Honours System established in 1975.
No comment necessary?
Between 1976 and 1983, twelve knights .. were appointed
Actually, it was either "Between 1975 and 1984", or "From 1976 to 1983"
Appointments under the British Imperial honours system were recommended by the Australian Government until 1982, Australian State Governments until 1989 and the UK and Commonwealth Governments.
I agree that ‘from’ rather than ‘between’ is correct. I left it as is because I was not sure when the last AK was gazetted and to my surprise it was in the 1983 QBH which had been put together during the period of the Fraser Government but was released by the newly elected Hawke Government. I agree other statement hangs a bit. Maybe it could be reworded as ‘Appointments under the British Imperial honours system were recommended by the UK and Commonwealth Governments and by the Australian Government until 1982 and Australian State Governments until 1989.’ PS I am a content expert and appreciate format and grammar enhancements. Anthony Staunton (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
There's nothing that beats face-to-face communication, is there! Second choice is other forms of synchronous communication (e.g. telephone). Asynchronous communication (or perhaps it's just my asynchronous communication), in my experience, is always inferior.
Try again:
1) These appointments were made under the British Imperial honours system which Australia was participated in until 1992 and the Australian Honours System established in 1975. - This doesn't make sense. Could you correct it please?
2) Between 1976 and 1983, twelve knights .. were appointed - "I agree that ... " - So why not correct it?
3) Appointments under the British Imperial honours system were recommended by the Australian Government until 1982, Australian State Governments until 1989 and the UK and Commonwealth Governments.
The phrase "and the UK and Commonwealth Governments" is just hanging there without any explanation or context. To which period does that phrase refer? It needs clarification. Could you correct it please?
3a) I agree other statement hangs a bit. Maybe it could be reworded as ‘Appointments under the British Imperial honours system were recommended by the UK and Commonwealth Governments and by the Australian Government until 1982 and Australian State Governments until 1989.’ - OK. So reword it please.
4) PS I am a content expert and appreciate format and grammar enhancements. - As am I, but I put my "interest" down to pedantry - I don't have the respected reputation that you do! I interpret what you are saying as you think/feel that my comments are useful/appreciated. If I'm wrong, I'm not sure that I want to know! ;-)
I was saying that I welcome feedback. I then did not update the page which I will now do. Thanks for the alert. Anthony Staunton (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Move/Rename ODMofOz to "Australian Honours System"?
OK, I'm up for it! (I'm not expecting it to be controversial/contested, but who knows who/what will come out of the woodwork!)
Are you up for it? (I'm not going to embark on it without knowing I have at least one supporter ... )
If so, do you want to initiate it, or do you want me to? Silly question - of course you want me to. OK, when I get your response as to whether you are or aren't "up for it", I'll proceed (or not).
Apparently miracles can happen! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations and well done! Anthony Staunton (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you kind sir! But even more-so, thank you for your initial impetus, and thank you for your backup and support. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Just a suggestion - why not add the list of AM recipients to the AM page? You could then link from the GC page back to the AM page - thus keeping the GC list for people who were awarded the GC. Just my 2c Gbawden (talk) 06:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, decided to split it off. I have also fixed all the links that were directing to the wrong people. We can always add it back - but think it looks better this way. Gbawden (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
All major reference works list all GC recipients. The pre 1971 books by Ian Bisset and Sir John Smith Bt VC MC include all former EGM recipients. Both editions of the GC Register and the recent works by John Fayan Turner (2006) and Kevin Brazier (2012) include all former EGM, AM and EM recipients. It would be incorrect to list these awards in lists of defunct awards since they are not regarded as EGM, AM or EM recipients but GC recipients. Five of the six surviving Australian former AM recipients were flown to the UK to be personally presented with their GC insignia by the Queen at Buckingham Palace like the majority of the other recipients. Thank you for the suggestion to use Excel which was tedious but worked although I am surprised there is no template for lists. Thanks for fixing up name issues and I realised after I loaded the list that I had overlooked the photo column. If you restore the former AM recipients to the GC list I will add the former EGM and EM recipients. If you do not want to include EGM, AM or EM recipients then the name of the list should be changed to reflect that it is a partial listing of George Cross recipients. Whatever is decided I suggest that all the text be stripped since it is a duplicate of the main article. All that is needed is a link to the main article. Is there is a Wiki policy against duplication?. Anthony Staunton (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Australian Honours Order of Precedence should be renamed
BTW: There is the possibility that the move may not work, and may be required to be performed by an admin. I don't wish to steal your thunder and test this, so could you do the move please? If it doesn't work, I'll have to remember how to do it. (Actually, I'll just ask.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
If one tries to do a move, and it doesn't work and hence requires an admin to do it, what is the process to ask an admin to do it? Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
It depends on why it didn't work. If there is already a page there and the page you want to move there is an improvement using the text that is already there, you would likely want to request a {{Histmerge|(page to move)}} on the article that already exists. If it is a rework of the same topic but significantly different, you would want to do/request a {{Merge from|(existing article)}} on the article that already exists and a {{Merge to|(page to move)}} on the page that you want to move in. If it is a rework of the same topic, significantly different and there is nothing salvageable on the existing article that the replacement doesn't already cover, then you would want to request a {{db-move|(page to move)|(reason for moving)}} on the article that already exists. I expect this answers your question. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. The situation is that we currently have A & B, where B is "the page", and A is a redirect to B. What we want to do is move B to A, and have B redirect to A. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Move was successful. There is a redirect from Order of Precedence. Do I need to include a note on the talk page? Your assistance has been very much appreciated. Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Great! I'll unwatch this page now as it seems you no longer need me. Happy editing!!! Technical 13 (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
There is already an existing table at List of George Cross recipients. You will have to edit the table and add new rows via the code. It's a bit complicated and I would not recommend trying to install a new more easy to use table with out a good understanding of the Wiki-mark up. Your best bet, as someone not familiar with the markup, would be to provide a reliable source and the information of the entries you wish to have added at Talk:List of George Cross recipients. Another editor could who understands the table code would then be able to simply input the information you have found. Mkdwtalk 00:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Anthony!
In my completely unbiased opinion (cough, cough), I feel that your change (from "in a ceremony in Canberra on 16 January 2009.[1] On 25 January 2010" to "in a ceremony in Canberra on 16 January 2009. [1] On 25 January 2010" was "a bit sloppy". There was: a) No explanation for what was wrong with the reference you removed, or why you removed it; b) No explanation or annotation of the new reference; and c) The format of the new reference is problematic.
At a minimum, may I suggest: "in a ceremony in Canberra on 16 January 2009.[2] On 25 January 2010"? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I respect your opinion and am robust in accepting suggestions. (sob sob) I thought my comment 'deleted broken link and inserted valid link relating to award ceremony' was sufficient. The link is valid and I would have thought self explanatory. The original link was from the Australian which nowadays is a subscription service and I assumed that links to subscription services are inappropriate for Wikipedia. Saying the publisher = Australian Department of Defence only repeats what is stated in the link www.defence.gov.au. However, I am happy for you to update the entry since it is a collective exercise. Anthony Staunton (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I thought my comment 'deleted broken link and inserted valid link relating to award ceremony' was sufficient. - It would have been, if I had seen it. Mea culpa and apologies! Pdfpdf (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Cool. Welcome to the Club. Are links to subscription services inappropriate? Anthony Staunton (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
It depends. (Also, not sure about "inappropriate".) In general, they are "discouraged". I'll rat around and see if I can find the policy, and get back to you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill[talk] 17:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
G'day Anthony, I haven't seen anything that suggests you have raised an AfD for Civil awards and decorations (your intent earlier in the year). I am not convinced that the article necessarily needs deletion. I see two key issues in play: the specific content and accuracy of this article and the efficacy of the current meta information / taxonomy articles for awards generally and ODM specifically.
It is important that Wikipedia have comprehensive, accurate coverage of the meta information / taxonomy of the ODM field and the broader field of awards generally and that these should account for the nuances of application around the world. The current articles seem to have been raised in a haphazard manner and there is significant blending of articles from the ODM field and the more general field of awards in a way that has been unhelpful to editors and potentially confusing to readers.
Distinctions between military and civil orders and decorations has been a feature of the Imperial honours system since at least the Napoleonic era and the Australian Honours System since 1982. I agree with you that, as it stands, this article misrepresents the reality of how distinctions between military and civilian decorations operate (it has not fundamentally been re-written since the original IP editor in 2004 and subsequent editors have just expanded upon the framework established by the original editor). I suspect that this is not the only ODM taxonomy article that suffers from this weakness. I also note that by including 'award' in the title it opens the article up beyond the ODM field which complicates treatment of the subject (but doesn't fundamentally change your point that civil/military categorization is about the award not the recipient). One thing that needs to be made clear is that just because an award is classified as a civilian award doesn't mean it will never be awarded to military personnel or vice versa - this will be dependent on the rules of the specific award but does not fundamentally change its nature. In Australia, a key factor is the role/or lack of role of the Department of Defence in the nomination and approval process - the Australian bravery awards are civilian decorations (approved by the Governor General on the recommendation of the Australian Bravery Decorations Council) but have been awarded to military personnel on several occasions (nominated variously by the military chain of command or externally - typically by one of the emergency services); the (Australian) Conspicuous Service Cross is a military decoration (approved by the Governor General on the recommendation of the Department of Defence) but may be awarded to civilians for service in support of the ADF (not sure if any awards were made to civilians under these provisions before March 2012 when the Chiefs of Service Committee enacted a policy not to make such recommendations (Defence Honours and Awards Manual Vol 1 para 12.7)).
Perhaps what we need is a broader discussion at WP:ODM on an overhaul of the meta/taxonomy articles (in practice this would mean directly alerting at least some of the more active/knowledgeable editors as the project talk page is only monitored irregularly by project members (different dynamic to WP:MILHIST). Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful query but outside events changed my priorities. My point was that the terms ‘military decoration’ or ‘civil decoration’ are unhelpful Wikipedia constructs. I am unaware of any warrant creating or amending individual Orders, Decorations and Medals using the descriptions ‘military decoration’ or ‘civil decoration’. Where is the evidence that the ‘Australian Bravery Awards are civilian decorations’? I have a old copy of the booklet The Australian Honours System produced by Office of the Governor General and introduced by the then Governor General Bill Hayden which states that the Australian Bravery Decorations were established to recognize acts of bravery. ‘The decorations recognize acts in other than warlike situations.’ The word ‘decoration’ is twice used and on neither occasion is it qualified by the words civilian or military. The Australian Honours System was created in 1975 and it was 1992 in which it was universally adopted in Australia. Anthony Staunton (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kulbir Thapa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ACT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
