User	Talk	Articles	Awards	DYK	Sandbox	Victoria Cross

Archives

Archive 1 (June 2007 – June 2008) Archive 2 (July – August 2008) Archive 3 (September – October 2008) Archive 4 (November – December 2008) Archive 5 (January – February 2009) Archive 6 (March – April 2009) Archive 7 (May – June 2009) Archive 8 (July – August 2009) Archive 9 (September – October 2009) Archive 10 (November – December 2009) Archive 11 (January – February 2010) Archive 12 (March 2010 – )

Welcome!

G'day Bryce, Since you've not been editing for a few days (something to do with essays and exams I daresay), I thought I would let you know that I've responded with a more detailed rationale on Talk:Mark Donaldson#Citation requests for honours and awards section. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AusTerrapin. Sorry for the delay in reply - yep, exam time at uni. Replying to the comments now. Cheers Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bryce, I just noted that you made some changes to John Whitelaw (general). I was just researching Major General John Stewart Whitelaw AO CBE (11 June 1921 - 18 June 2010) and was wondering how to name the article for this person, who like you is unsure of his pedigree. Regards Newm30 (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate. It's extremely difficult to think of the correct way of naming this article. The only thing I can perhaps think of is incorporating his life dates into the title some how. Perhaps something along the lines of John Whitelaw (1921–2010) or John Whitelaw (general, 1921–2010). Given some of the sources, I am not yet entirely convinced this Major General John Whitelaw held the middle name of "Stewart", or any middle name for that matter, so perhaps maybe even moving the existing article on the other Major General John Whitelaw to John Stewart Whitelaw and have an article on the younger one at where the current article is at: John Whitelaw (general). What do you think? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is solicited at Talk:John Whitelaw (general)#John-the-younger. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated on the article's talk page, I have withdrawn from discussions on this subject. However, I have already raised possible suggestions to Newm30 on the naming above. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some wikipedians feel that lists should have a citation for each member in the list. I'm unsure. What do you think? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Do you know if anyone is working on a list of RAN admirals? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

adding citations does make it easier if someone tries to slip a hoax in, particularly while quite a lot of the naems are redlinks. One thing I noticed about the list is that it doesn't include Air Commodores, despite the preamble saying it's a list of Air Officers, confusingly while a brigadier is not a general officer, it's my undestanding, and waht the Air Officer article says, that Air Commodore is regarded as an Air Rank. David Underdown (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to drop in but there isn't a requirement to have all citations for all the members in the list. As long as every member is covered by a general reference then that is fine. This is mainly used to cover lists from books where every individual reference is to the same two pages in a book. If there is an individual page for each officer then individual references would work well. Regards, Woody (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explaination, Woody. I believe that so long as everything is cited through, at least, a general reference - as they are in this list - then individual cites are not required. The proplem with air commodores, David, is that unlike the three higher ranks included in this list, I do not know of any source that lists them all and I would be hard pressed to include half of them let alone all. I know it is probably confusing by having it this way and yet including a link/note on it being a list of Air Officers so I might have to re-word that. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted "air officer" for "air marshal". Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can quite understand why you wouldn't want to include Air Commodores, it was the possibility of rewording that I was really getting at. Having looked over the article again, I agree that the general references are fine in this instance - individual refs woud only really be needed if you were compiling from a multitude of sources. Sonce the refs are from the RAAF itself, I'd imagine they'll be pretty quick to update when someone is promoted, so taht also helps keep out hoaxes. David Underdown (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry Bryce, I was not intending to use your talk page as a discussion forum! I just wanted to say "Good work!" Pdfpdf (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

(And thanks Woody for the answer I was soliciting. David/Woody/Bryce: I'm continuing the conversation at Talk:List of Australian generals and brigadiers#Citations? - I look forward to reading your opinions. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks! That's exactly the sort of feedback I was soliciting. Appreciated. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period July-December 2009, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons.  Roger Davies talk 10:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period January-June 2010, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons.  Roger Davies talk 10:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]