→Reformatted table: Moved table to the article page |
→Citations?: new section |
||
Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
Moved table to the article page. [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf|talk]]) 16:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
Moved table to the article page. [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf|talk]]) 16:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Citations? == |
|||
: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. [[User:David Underdown|David Underdown]] ([[User talk:David Underdown|talk]]) 12:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
: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, [[User:Woody|Woody]] ([[User talk:Woody|talk]]) 13:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Please add your 2c worth. (Thanks in advance.) [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf|talk]]) 13:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:56, 14 July 2010
Indexes | ||||
|
Military history: South Pacific Start‑class | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Australia: Military history List‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Complete?
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
World War 2?
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)
- 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)
List suggestion
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)
- 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)
- Sounds like a good idea to me also. ChoraPete (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- Sounds like a good idea to me also. ChoraPete (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I have two answers:
- 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.
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)
Reformatted table
Moved table to the article page. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Citations?
- 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)
- 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)
- Please add your 2c worth. (Thanks in advance.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)