Talk:39th Battalion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Flag
Portal
 39th Battalion 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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments


Public domain
 This image was created in Australia and is now in the public domain because its term of copyright has expired. According to the Australian Copyright Council (ACC), ACC Information Sheet G23 (Duration of copyright) (Sep 2005), generally copyright has expired as follows:
Australia
Type of material Copyright has expired if ...
 A  Photographs or other works published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the creator is unknown: taken or published prior to 1955-01-01
 B  Photographs (except A}: taken prior to 1955-01-01
 C  Artistic works (except A & B): the creator died before 1955-01-01
 D  Published editions1 (except A & B): first published more than 25 years ago
 E  Commonwealth or State government owned2 photographs: first published more than 50 years ago
1means the typographical arrangement and layout of a published work. eg. newsprint.

2owned means where a government is the copyright owner as well as would have owned copyright but reached some other agreement with the creator.

Contents

[edit] A work in progress

I have just started this page, and see it as a project that could take some months to input and cleanup.

If you wish to add to the text, please do, it would be helpful to run your ideas on this page first and then make the jump into the mainpage. Vufors 12:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

.

[edit] Statistics

Date Citations Images Maps Books Sources Links
2006 July 14 0 2 0 4 2 12
2006 July 15 2 1 2 0 0 7
Total 2 3 2 4 2 19

.

[edit] Merge

Hold off on the 'merge'.

[1]. No reason to rush. Wiki is not a race!

[2]. Use this page to discuss the change.

[3]. As stated in the past this page is still in a building phase, and will be developed.

[4]. Also please note that there is "NO" such unit called the 39th (Militia) Battalion. it is called the 39th Battalion. Vufors 14:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stacked Images

Try to avoid staking images.

See: Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial

    • They will unstack as text is place into the fields. Vufors 13:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I've done some style editing, restructuring and general cleanup. I'll remove the cleanup tag for now. Please post what needs to be done if you feel there is any reason the cleanup tag should be added.

If there are any concerns with my edits to this article these last hours, please contact me. Delta Tango • Talk 04:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  • It looks a lot better now, a great job. Thanks for the input. Vufors

[edit] 39th (Militia) Battalion

[edit] MacArthur

I don't see how you could not include discussion on MacArthur in this article. Most of the books I have read (including some American ones) lay the blame for how little troops were there to fight the Japanese squarely on Mac's shoulders. He ignored intel that didn't fit his grand plans, made up stories about the Australian troops to inflate his own, ego, etc etc etc. I think a section on Mac does fit in with the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wdywtk (talk • contribs) .

That information would better belong on the Douglas MacArthur entry, and not on this entry which discusses one of the hundreds of infantry battalion's under MacArthur's command. --Nick Dowling 05:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I am proposing that the 39th Battalion entry be merged with this article as this is the longer established article on this infantry battalion and the new page shouldn't have been created. This page is also longer and somewhat better written than the new entry. --Nick Dowling 05:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Hang on chaps, your too fast. I need more time to finish my next page entry, I have that just about ready, and then we can work this out who goes and who stays.

Best Regards Vufors 14:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Oh I have one big issue with this page its the word (Militia) within the Wiki title page (REF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/39th_%28Militia%29_Battalion) and in the Battalion/Unit name set. No such thing - and other problems - I will follow up on this at a later date, at this time my efforts are on the other page. Vufors 14:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge and rename

Two months on there's been nothing added to the 39th Battalion entry and it's clearly time for a merge as its silly having two entries for the same unit. The entry should also be renamed to Australian 39th Battalion. --Nick Dowling 10:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I think "Australian 39th Battalion" should be purely about the WW1 unit. Personally I am opposed to combining military units from different periods and which have no continuity, in one article. There may have been a few people from the WW1 unit in the militia unit when it was formed in the 1920s, but who knows? It is usually referred to as the "39th (Militia) Battalion" or "39th Militia Battalion". So I think "Australian 39th (Militia) Battalion" would be more correct.Grant65 | Talk 16:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Grant. I don't see anything wrong with having a single page which deals with an Army or Air Force unit which has been formed and disbanded more than once (as is the case for most of the currently active Australian military units). This is especially the case for relatively small units such as battalions and aircraft squadrons. In terms of the Australian Army's lineage, the 39th Battalions of WW1 and WW2 and the modern 39th Battalion are exactly the same unit, albeit with gaps where the unit wasn't active, and so should be covered in the same article. --Nick Dowling 02:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, I guess I'm not going to overturn a practice which is so well-entrenched (excuse the pun). But we have a unique problem in Australian military history because of the 2nd AIF. Some people also see the 2nd AIF units as the bearers of the WW1 traditions, i.e. the 2/39th is seen by some as a successor to the WW1 unit. Should we combine them? For example, until recently, List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients had Frank John Partridge as serving in the 2/8th rather than the 8th (Militia) Battalion. It may have been an inadvertent error, but it illustrates the point. Grant65 | Talk 01:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
From my understanding, the 2 in front of 2nd AIF battalions was added because there were existing militia battalions with the same number at the time, and the 2nd AIF battalion was technically an expeditionary off shoot of that battalion. The NZ Army's infantry battalions are currently 1 RNZIR and 2/1 RNZIR, with the 2/1st Bn being raised as a home service battalion during the decades 1 RNZIR was located in Singapore. --Nick Dowling 09:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand the formalities. The problem I have with this is that it will be very confusing to people with lttle knowledge of the subject if we combine 2nd AIF units and Militia units in single articles, especially since they served in different divisions and theatres. Grant65 | Talk 09:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The 2nd AIF battalions were clearly new and seperate units and should be treated accordingly by having their own articles. --Nick Dowling 10:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
This page is in error, it should flow the other way - also the two units should have their own pages, with say a small entry listing the other War unit in each. A redirect to the other page 39th Battalion would be a better idea.220.240.249.134 13:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes I agree, a re-direct is the best change. This page is full of errors. Vufors 01:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 39th was not part of the 2nd AIF

And as such, I have removed references to it being so and replaced them with references to the AMF, which the 39th was part of. 124.182.202.193 14:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Correct, my mistake... However it should be noted that 80% of the active 39th, when they crossed over to combat had come from AIF units or had now enlisted in the AIF. Austin, Victor. To Kokoda And Beyond - p231 para 4 -But yes, when you take in all the names on the roll, about half of the privates still held their CMF number.Vufors 05:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)