Battle of Chustenahlah

	The Military history of Australia Portal is a featured portal, which means it has been identified as one of the best portals on Wikipedia. If you see a way this portal can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, please feel free to contribute.
Portal milestones Date Process Result December 21, 2006 WikiProject peer review Reviewed January 20, 2007 Featured portal candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured portal

This portal does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: South Pacific This page is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force Australia: Military history Military history of Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles This page is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force. Portals (Rated FPo-class) This page is a portal. Portals are within the scope of WikiProject Portals, a collaborative effort to improve portals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortalsWikipedia:WikiProject PortalsTemplate:WikiProject PortalsPortals articles  FPo This portal has been rated as FPo-Class on the project's quality scale.  ???  This portal has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. See also: List of Portals This portal's subpages have been checked by an editor, and are needed. Please take care when editing, especially if using automated editing software. Learn how to update the maintenance information here. (April 2019)

Im going on holiday until June 5 hopefully someone else will look after the portal until i get back. Regards Hossens27 03:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal with regards to this portal has been made here. Comments are welcome.--cj | talk 04:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all -- my apologies straight away if this is against protocol or the usual way of engaging in talk about specific pages covered by this portal. I'm quite new to the Australian military wikipedia community but I've loved editing the ADF, Army, RAN, RAAF, Special Forces, and ADF leadership templates as well as updating the VCDF page and some others.

Also I would strongly propose the merging of Senior Australian Defence Organisation Positions and Current senior Australian Defence Organisation personnel -- having both is immensely duplicative and I don't really see any value in both especially when there more than 70 individual office holders in the 2 star level (which will hard to track the names of each holder). I would propose keeping the Senior Australian Defence Organisation Positions page as a listing of all 2, 3 and 4 star positions (rather than names of the personnel) in the Australian Defence Organisation. Welcome to any and all thoughts. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.165.162.100 (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, if you wish to establish consensus to merge these two articles, I think it would be best for you to post a discussion regarding this on the talk page of one of the two articles outlining your proposal to see if others agree or not. I believe it may have already been discussed at Talk:Current senior Australian Defence Organisation personnel before, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This portal should probably be renamed Portal:Australian Defence Force given that is correct in both common and official usage. Moreover, "military of Australia" is an obscure term which even lacks a corresponding Wikipedia article.--cj | talk 09:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. The Australian Defence Force wasn't formed until 1976 (before this the three services were fully independent) so renaming this portal would suggest that it only covers the most recent 30 years of Australian military history when this isn't actually the case. The current name of the portal is much more inclusive and is still an accurate description of the ADF (which is, after all, the 'military of Australia'). --Nick Dowling 10:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The same reasons as Nick. Hossen27 04:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I don't agree that Portal:Australian Defence Force would be restrictive – it still comprises the services and thus covers their accompanying histories.--cj | talk 16:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On my 17" monitor the message at the top of the portal takes up a full screen. As it never changes and is basically a description of the Australian military I think that it should be greatly shortened, or perhaps even removed altogether. I think that the length of the introcution at Portal:NATO works very well. My suggestion would be to reduce the message to:

• The Military of Australia currently consists of the Australian Army, Royal Australian Navy, Royal Australian Air Force and Special Operations Command. Australia's military history covers a period of around 200 years starting with the colonisation of Australia and extending to recent conflicts such as the War on Terrorism.

This could then be illustrated with the current ADF flag rather than the current 4 flag. I've created a mock-up in my sandbox at: User:Nick Dowling/sandbox. What do you think? --Nick Dowling 11:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the problem about it taking up the whole screen it does does on mine too so I think we should try it we could always change it later. But have a look at Portal:War and Portal:Military of the United States they have long intro's and they look alright. Hossen27 12:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding that Hossen. I think that the shorter introduction works better, though I may need to improve my wording! I'd argue that the long introductions on the War and US military portals are a mistake. --Nick Dowling 09:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked, yes it is a bit long, the first section takes up the screen as noted above.. Fethroesforia 13:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please ensure that this portal contains no red links in content sections (that is, sections aside Things you can do) per the featured portal criteria. Currently, both Selected anniversaries and Daily unit have no entry, and there is a dead category in the Categories section. Thanks,--cj | talk 02:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, File:Tri-service flag of the Australian Defence Force.gif must be removed from the portal as it is a non-free image. The coat of arms, Image:Adf.jpg, is a free alternative.--cj | talk 02:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get Portal:Military of Australia/Nominate/Selected picture to work, but it's probably just me. Anyway, I wanted to propose Image:Desert Mounted Corps.jpg, which I have just uploaded, as a selected picture. Cheers, Grant | Talk 13:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its been suggested that this new article does not merit an article of its own. Keep or Delete? Comments here please. Ephebi (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just finished the final bit of the tables that contain all of the relevant information on VFL players who are known to have died as a consequence of their active service (see [1]). The list also includes the only VFL field/boundary/goal umpire known to have died in active service. Lindsay658 (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows the unit depicted on her shoulder patch? I need the image of that symbol on Commons or Wikipedia (nice colours). Thanks, --77.4.35.76 (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's No. 75 Squadron RAAF Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, --77.4.41.38 (talk) 08:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone tell me what "53 Australian BIPOD PLN" would be? It was the WWII unit (or whatever it would be called) that someone I am writing an article on was posted to. Cheers --Roisterer (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide more context? (eg, who are you writing about, which service were they in, and when were they in this unit). PLN is almost certainly 'Platoon'. You may also wish to post this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force which gets a bit more traffic than this talk page. Nick-D (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

53rd BIPOD PLN = 53rd Bulk Issues Petroleum and Oil Depot Platoon. BIPOD platoons handled the storage, decanting and distribution of petrol, oils and lubricants. The 53rd BIPOD Platoon was based in Buna in 1943. In 1944-45 it was part of the 4th Base Sub Area, supporting the campaign on Bougainville. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Brilliant stuff, thanks. --Roisterer (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia, can somebody please fix, redo, check & correct the Military of Australia Portal, and also align the military flags of Australia to the centre of the article?! Thank you very much! Regards... Markab1975 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). Nick-D (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Markab1975 and Nick-D: I have attempt to fix the alignment with this edit: [2]. Does that resolve the issue? Regarding "fix, redo, check and correct", what specifically is the issue? I can probably help out a little. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help Nick-D (talk) and AustralianRupert (talk). The wiki-page looks much better now! All in order and easy to follow... Just a quick question regarding the link - "Show new selections below... (purge)" found just under the main article (The Military of Australia Portal) at the top of the page. What is this used for? Could you perhaps add in a different background colour (other than white) to the first article so as to highlight the Military Flags of Australia? Sorry, I'm just new to all this..., not sure how it all works just yet! Thanks once again...Regards,--Markab1975 (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, the purge function is useful for force updating the various elements of the portal. Because the various elements are transcluded from separate sub pages, loading the main portal page will not necessarily update each element initially, so sometimes it is necessary to purge. Regarding a background colour, this is possible, but I think it might make the text harder to read. A coloured border just around the flags might work, though. I've added a thin black border for the time being, but don't seem to have the coding skills to get it to sit around the edges of the flags themselves at this stage. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there AustralianRupert (talk)! Thanks for clearing up the query regarding the purge function..., now it makes sense! As for the background colour, I think it might be best to leave it as it was, unless you can add something in a very light shade for example - 'Silver/Grey'. With the thin black border around the flags, I believe it looks better without it! Just not what I was looking for, sorry! Perhaps you might like to put the 'Australian Military Flags' into their own separate sub-heading at the top of the page with a slight Silver background to highlight them more prominently. That's only my opinion, anyway! See if it works! Thanks for all you help..., Kind Regards, --Markab1975 (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I've made another tweak, but this is probably the best I can do with my mark up skills: [3]. Regards. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there AustralianRupert (talk)! Thanks for that extra addition you made using the silver background colour to highlight the Australian Military Flags. It looks great! Would you mind, though, to make one last tweak by extending that silver background header to touch the green border to the left and right hand sides and also the yellow border directly above it...??? I think that will give it a nice fresh, clean & tidy look! Thanks for all your help..., Kind Regards. --Markab1975 (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know how to achieve this. Regards, 04:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Portals is back!

The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018. Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, support the ongoing improvement of portals and the editors dedicated to this, and design the portals of the future.

As of May 2nd, 2018, membership is at 60 editors, and growing. You are welcome to join us.

There are design initiatives for revitalizing the portals system as a whole, and for improving each component of portals. So far, 2 new dynamic components have been developed: Template:Transclude lead excerpt and Template:Transclude random excerpt.

Tools are provided for building and maintaining portals, including automated portals that update themselves in various ways.

And, if you are bored and would like something to occupy your mind, we have a wonderful task list.

From your friendly neighborhood Portals WikiProject. Hope to see you there. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   07:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@StraussInTheHouse, UnitedStatesian, and Nick-D: G'day, the recent move of this portal appears to have created a lot of red links for subpages and errors on the portal page now at Portal:Military history of Australia. Is there some way to fix this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert, hey, if you let me know which pages are affected I can try and put together an AWB script to find and replace dead links. I left a redirect so it should be okay. SITH (talk) 08:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

StraussInTheHouse: G'day, the redirects do not seem to be working, as the main portal page has many redlinks that did not exist before the move. The main page can be seen here: [4], and there are many redlink links and error messages when I view it. I can't identify every affect page, but at the very least, on the main portal these are now redlinks when they were not before: Portal:Military history of Australia/box-header, Portal:Military history of Australia/box-footer, Portal:Military history of Australia/Units/May 31, Portal:Military history of Australia/Military history of Australia news, Portal:Military history of Australia/Things you can do. There are potentially others, which may be affecting how the portal displays (it looks very different to how it was only a week ago). For instance, I suspect Portal:Military of Australia/Units and its sub pages haven't been moved, which will affect transclusion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I'd recommend moving this talk page to Portal talk:Military history of Australia to be consistent with the rest of the move. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl and StraussInTheHouse:: BrownHaired Girl has fixed some of the redlinks now -- thank you! -- however, there are still many redlinks that did not exist before the move. For instance many of the selected anniversary pages, e.g. Portal:Military history of Australia/Selected anniversaries/June has many, as does the template at the top of that page, and I assume the other months. Is there an easy way to fix this? Equally, I feel this talk page should also be moved so that it is sitting at Portal talk:Military history of Australia. Are there any objections to this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert, no objections, thanks to both yourself and BHG for helping with the cleanup. SITH (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@StraussInTheHouse and UnitedStatesian: Ok, I have moved the portal talk page, but there are still probably hundreds of links that need to be repaired now, such as this one: [5]. I will help, but I request that both of you assist given your involvement in the move. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have started an AWB run to fix them. My first pass yesterday fixed the transclusions, but I didn't think there would also be links, so this run is doing the links. It's just finished counting them: 357 to do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have now fixed all links to Portal:Military of Australia/foo and also all links to Portal:Military history of Australia/foo Military of Australia foo.

AFAICS, that's all possible permutations ... but it's possible that I may have missed something. If anyone spots any more redlinks, please let me know even if you fix them manually, because I can feed the pattern to AWB and see if there are any more of the same type. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: That's fantastic, thanks for this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. AWB chomps through such jobs quite easily once tamed. The tedious bit was the earlier phase of moving all the sub-pages, because they can be done 100 at a time when the parent page is moved, so that took a lot of back-and-forth moves of various pages to collect all the sub-pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D, Hawkeye7, and UnitedStatesian: WRT the new articles list contained within this portal, I wonder if there is a way to make this automated. Does anyone know? If not, maybe it should be repurposed into a "new and recently improved articles" list, as this would probably be easier to maintain. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should be do-able. Evad37 may know of an existing Lua module. Otherwise, I could write one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either option would be fantastic, thank you. I wish I knew more about coding and script writing, but unfortunately I can't seem to get it. My wife says I'm a 1950s bloke trapped in the body of a millennial. She is no doubt correct. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should the services be in seniority order, RAN, Army, RAAF, then Special Forces? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, adjusted. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]