Jump to content

Talk:List of Australian Army generals

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Complete?

[edit]

How was this list compiled? How is it maintained? There are no sources identified, but I think some are missing. What is the minimum rank to be included? Brigadier, Major General, Lieutenant General, or full General? --Scott Davis Talk 09:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the list was based on the External link mentioned at the bottom of the article: www.generals.dk run by Steen Ammentorp. He said it includes any officer who had a rank above colonel (even acting). Although it should include a full list of generals in WWII, generals from other eras may not have been included in this list. Diverman 11:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So that's Brigadier or higher. I've added a note to the effect that the list is not complete, and a few more I found links to in other articles. Thanks. I suspect this article is not really going to be maintainable. At least generals.dk gives a framework of major commands for any articles. I notice a number of these people have links elsewhere to First Last (General), who are here as First Middle Last, so there could be potential for overlap, too. --Scott Davis Talk 13:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Scott. I think the middle names should be taken out and First Last (General) used for disambiguation, unless there is potential for confusion or they were generally known by a middle name. Otherwise we will end up with a lot of duplicate articles. It has already happened in at least one case, Iven Giffard Mackay and Iven Mackay. Grant | Talk 16:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why create a "list of Australian Generals" and then include brigadiers, who are NOT generals? This makes no sense at all. Hawkeye7 12:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why MAJGEN John Dennis Stevenson AO CBE 13/8/1925 - 30/7/2008 is not included? Among many other appointments, Commander tasmanian Command 1973, GOC Logistic Command 1976, Chief of Logistics 1979.Lexysexy (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missing from the lists are MAJ GENERAL Ronald Eustace Wade And Brigadier Brian Wade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.153.246.102 (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World War 2?

[edit]

The article says it is a list of WW2 Generals, but it includes Sir John Monash. He was dead by then. Is it meant to be WW1 and WW2 generals? Ebglider91 (talk) 08:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It actually says that the list is believed to be complete for WW2 generals only - WW1 and post-1945 generals need to be added. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List suggestion

[edit]

Could the list be split into sub lists on the same page showing Brigadier, Brigadier General, Major General, Lieutenant General, General and Field Marshal and show within a wikitable? Just think it would look cleaner and more easily navigatable. Any comments? Newm30 (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be a good idea. It would be a lot of work though, but if you were keen to do it, I can't see a drama with it. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea to me also. ChoraPete (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object, and would be willing to help, BUT
Pro:
  • The functionality and utility of the current list "has its limitations", so any improvement is likely to be a step in the right direction.
  • For the red links, we could add a reference to help start those keen enough to write an article.
Con:
  • At the moment, you can look up "Smith", see all the Smiths, and see what rank each was. Splitting by rank would require searching each rank-list to find the person of interest.
  • What about all those entries without a rank? If you can't resolve them, are you going to have an extra list for those of unknown rank?
  • There is already a list of Field Marshals in Field Marshal (Australia), Generals in General (Australia) and Lieutenant Generals in Lieutenant General (Australia)
  • The current page provides an alphabetic search by surname. Do you plan to preserve that functionality, or disable/dismantle it?
Comment: If/when we change to a wikitable, let's have it sortable.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am prepared to work on it over the next few days and upload basic table in alphabetical order fthen we can edit or modify to suit functionality, sorting, etc. Let me know if you want me to start preparing? Newm30 (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's good news. And not a bad idea, either.
What would this basic table look like? (Like the first 2 columns of what's below, or something different?)
Where would you do it?
You could "just" continue the table below. What do you think of that idea?
I just added the "C"s in my interpretation of what I think you might be proposing. I wasn't too horrendous a job. (Much less work than trying to fill in the blank columns!)
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pdfpdf, I started from W and worked upwards so will add my copy from my Draft page and add it bottom and fill in blanks as I go. With refs, if the article is created I will add ref from the article otherwise citation needed will be added as further articles are created will place references against names. Hope to have most up some time Thursday or Friday. Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1: Do we require full names, i.e. Gerald Robert Lloyd Adams or can we just have Gerald Adams showing in table. I understand that if we have multiple persons with the same name then we would have to show middle name or as shown in the table. Note: There are two people with the same First, Middle and Last Name, though this could be easily distingushable due to the year of birth and death alongside showing that they were in fact different people.
I have two answers:
  • For blue links, I prefer the name of the wikipedia page.
  • For red links, I prefer WP page naming conventions - i.e. the name by which he (or she) is/was generally known.
Personally, I don't like inclusion of middle names, except if absolutely required for disambiguation.
Regarding the Broadbents, there is extensive debate somewhere (I think it's on their talk pages) as to why they are so-named. It was concluded that dates were not the disambiguator of first choice. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2: Also with the names, some are showing as Robert Anderson (general) and although I tried the table does not support another "|" to trim to just Robert Anderson.
"sortname|Robert|Anderson|Robert Anderson (general)" will do the job you describe, but my preference is "sortname|Robert|Anderson (general)". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having thought about it some more, I have concluded that I have no good-enough reason to insist on "Robert Anderson (general)" over "Robert Anderson", so I'll stop doing it. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading the names Pdfpdf and great effort requires rewarding. I have noticed in www.generals.dk, that some additional generals and brigadiers not shown on this list are shown. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatted table

[edit]

Moved table to the article page. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations?

[edit]
Some wikipedians feel that lists should have a citation for each member in the list. I'm unsure, and hence I'm soliciting opinions & feedback.
If you look at the article page, you will see that I have put a LOT of effort into adding citations.
Is this necessary?
On another page, in another conversation, two experienced editors have commented:
adding citations does make it easier if someone tries to slip a hoax in, particularly while quite a lot of the naems are redlinks. David Underdown (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and
... 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]
Please add your 2c worth. (Thanks in advance.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main point here, as Woody states, for a list one does not necessarily have to cite every single entry, just so long the entries are covered by some kind of reference. In the case of this specific list, I don't think you can really get away from individual cites and replace them with a blanket reference as, to the extent of my knowledge, no extensive list of every Australian general or brigadier exists. One may be able to cut corners a little with some sources that cover multiple generals, but I think that is about it. Just my thoughts. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basically... what he said! Through my experience at WP:FLC the vast majority of featured lists will have general references covering large swathes of the list as it is simply more practical than using the same ref 100 times over. As long as every person in the list can be easily verified through the references then that meets the criteria for sourcing. Regards, Woody (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Bryce and Woody have hit the nail on the head. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date of change from brigadier general to brigadier

[edit]

Hi, in the Footnotes the article currently has: "The Australian Army changed directly from brigadier general to brigadier in 192?." Are we sure of this? The reference I have (Chris Jobson's Looking Forward, Looking Back) states that in the Australian Army the brigadier general rank was "abolished in 1921 and was eventually replaced by that of brigadier in 1929" with use of titles (such as colonel commandant) in between these dates (page 14). I'm not sure if Jobson's work is considered definitive, so I won't change this at the moment. I would, however, like to ask if anyone has a reference that backs this up, or contradicts this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would surprise me less if the Australian Army did exactly the same as what the British Army did in the 1920s. I think I have references for what the British did, but I don't have anything that is Australian specific. In any case, I'll change the page to something less specific (i.e. more vague.) Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(I can't say that I've ever heard of an Australian colonel commandant, but then, until a couple of years ago, I'd never heard of an Australian brigadier general ... Pdfpdf (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Additional Column Suggestion

[edit]

Perhaps a column something like 'Notable Positions Held' would be good? Ie. if they where CDF (or equivilant), head of anything notable, did they lead the charge at Beersheba?, Did they command the first ANZAC landing, stuff like that.--TinTin (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.army-technology.com/features/feature1616/
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.army-technology.com/features/feature1616/feature1616-5.html
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Birdwood

[edit]

His article doesn't have him as field marshal until he's in senior position in the Army in India. Is it misleading to put him as field marshal in this list rather than the rank of general he held while in the Australian Army? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good question!
The Field marshal (Australia) article, and the ADB says he was promoted to Oz FM in 1925.
As you say, it might be misleading/inaccurate, but I expect it will be ambiguous not to list him as FM - I expect references to him as Gen will be constantly changed to FM by editors that don't have your depth of knowledge.
Nevertheless, I'm happy to go with whatever you think is best, (as long as it is supported by a readily accessible explanation to which one can direct the less knowledgeable).
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
London Gazette announcement 20 March 2014: "His Majesty the KING has been graciously pleased to approve of the promotion to the rank of Field-Marshal of General Sir William R. Birdwood, Bart., G.C.B., G.C.M.G., K.C.S.I., O.I.E., D.S.O., Indian Army, Colonel, 12th Lancers." His Oxford DNB article says "..was preferred to Sir Claud Jacob as commander-in-chief. He was promoted field marshal at the same time". I'll try and fit something in the space provided.GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of Australian Army generals

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of Australian Army generals's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ADB":

  • From Charles Rosenthal: Hill, A.J. (1988). "Rosenthal, Sir Charles (1875–1954)". Australian Dictionary of Biography. Canberra: National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. ISBN 978-0-522-84459-7. ISSN 1833-7538. OCLC 70677943. Retrieved 12 March 2008.
  • From Alister Murdoch: McNicoll, Ronald (1986). "Murdoch, Thomas (1876–1961)". Australian Dictionary of Biography. Canberra: National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. ISBN 978-0-522-84459-7. ISSN 1833-7538. OCLC 70677943. Retrieved 8 November 2008.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - this seems to have been fixed by another editor now. Anotherclown (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of Australian Army generals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of Australian Army generals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Australian Army generals. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 29 external links on List of Australian Army generals. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further List Suggestion

[edit]

As things stand, we have the slightly confusing situation of (in the case of my special interest, W K Bolton, first National President of the RSL) a Brigadier General (Retd) not appearing on either the General's list or the Brigadier's list, but is shown as Brigadier General in his Wiki entry. He was, of course, given an honorary promotion on retirement. Admins are probably aware that the List of RAAF Air Marshals provides for the case of honorary promotion by inserting a + alongside the entry. Is there any objection to having a similar arrangement in the General's List?Lexysexy (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems pretty straightforward to me. This page contains generals, and a brigadier general is (was?) a general, and therefore (in my opinion) Bolton should appear on this page. Maybe I'm not understanding the significance of what you're saying, in which case, please educate me, but in my (limited/biassed/whatever) opinion, I'm not sure what value is achieved by separating out honorary promotions. (However, I've little doubt you'll tell me if you feel the need ...) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you that he should appear. My question relates to whether it is in the public interest (so to speak) that this list should show the honorary position as well as standardising with the RAAF (however hard that may be to some!)Lexysexy (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't admit to being "neutral" here. My general opinion is: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". There are a LOT more generals than air marshals. My biassed opinion is that it is a LOT less effort to make air marshals consistent with generals than make generals consistent with air marshals. And even less effort to leave air marshals alone / as they are - i.e. How much / what value is achieved by some sort of perceived consistency? (I recognise that others may not share my point-of-view.) However, so far only you & I are involved in the conversation ... Pdfpdf (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Errata

[edit]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 31 external links on List of Australian Army generals. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on List of Australian Army generals. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Australian Army generals. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reformat list by rank

[edit]

Hi all, resurrecting the proposals by Newm30, TinTin and Lexysexy above: would anyone have any objection to me reformatting the list in line with List of Royal Australian Air Force air marshals and List of Royal Australian Navy admirals? That is, creating sublists for general, lieutenant general, major general and brigadier general? As it is, the single list is rather lengthy, outdated and not so easy to maintain. Separating out the ranks will make the article easier to navigate, provide a clear indication of how many individuals attained each rank, and provide greater space to include notes on senior commands/positions held in rank for each individual. Thoughts? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any objections, I have started to split and reformat the article by rank. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Australian_Army_generals&oldid=1205233190"