# Talk:26th Battalion (Australia)

The summary of events table appears to me to be a copy of that which is included on the 26th Battalion Association page. [1] As such I think it needs to be removed - as it is a copyright violation to reproduce it. The information can be used to write a narrative, but it cannot be used in present form. It is probably inappropriate regardless as the page should probably only be a summary of events, not a battalion war diary as such. 
I will remove it for the time being and include here for discussion. If anyone disagrees with me moving it, please explain your reasoning. Cheers.AustralianRupert (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


### Reply
I have restored the table as I am the webmaster of the 26 Battalion Association site and I have written permission to use the information from A N Turrell's book on both that website and Wikipedia.  I could email a scanned copy to a moderator if required. --Chipofftheold (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi mate, sorry to muck up your work. Your reasoning seems fine to me. I think it should be okay, but I suggest that we include on the article page something like "with permission" or some such thing, otherwise other users will do the same that I did.AustralianRupert (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Chipofftheold, I've added a reference/note to this effect. Hopefully that should keep things above board. Cheers for your help. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I admit I was cut when, after a few clicks, all my efforts in initiating the 26th Battalion page were decimated, especially after my careful actions to write to the author to seek permission to use the table.  I meticulously explained to the (non-computer literate) author how Wikipedia works prior to his agreement.  My submission to Wiki is my first exposure to the processes and I understand that the integrity of information needs to be preserved, as well as abiding by copyrights.  I also understand your action, AustralianRupert, because copyright permission was not visible within the Article, but was hidden in the submission History on 17 June 2008.  That has now been fixed, so I have no hard feelings.  Thank you for completing WWI history section of the Battalion.  Your thorough efforts make it a more comprehensive and useful article.--Chipofftheold (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
G'day, again. It's been awhile, but I have now reworked the article to incorport what was in the table into the prose as I think it flows better that way. IMO it is not necessary to duplicate the exact information on the battalion association website as it has now been used as a reference. Interested parties can click through this article to there. I have plans to try to improve this article to Good Article status, so will probably come back to this article again shortly to incorporate some information from the World War I and World War II official histories. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, 
Good article I think this btn must be the only one in all the British Empire armed forces with both the OC & 2IC being recipients of the VC. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you might be right. It is the only one I've seen so far. It would be great if we could find a citation for this, so it could maybe be added to the article. — AustralianRupert (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The article lists the WWI Battle Honours as

World War I: Suvla, Gallipoli 1915–1916, Egypt 1915–1917, Somme 1916, Pozieres, Bapaume 1917, Bullecourt, Ypres 1917, Menin Road, Polygon Wood, Broodseinde, Poelcappelle, Passchendaele, Hamel, Amiens, Albert 1918, Mont St Quentin, Hindenburg Line, Beaurevoir, France and Flanders 1916–1918.
However, the source used says

Somme, 1916, '18, Pozières, Bullecourt, Ypres, 1917, Menin Road, Polygon Wood, Broodseinde, Poelcappelle, Passchendaele, Amiens, Albert, 1918, Mont St. Quentin, Hindenburg Line, Beaurevoir, France and Flanders, 1916-18, Gallipoli, 1915, Egypt, 1915-16
This leads to a number of discrepencies: Suvla, Bapaume 1917, Hamel.  Somme 1918 is missing, and dates for Egypt are different.  Is there another sourse to support these differences?  Hamish59 (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Hamish, good spot. Festberg's The Lineage of the Australian Army confirms that the battle honours as previously presented were incorrect. I've adjusted this now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Happy New Year, AustralianRupert.  Thank you very much for that.   Hamish59 (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The first A7V to be taken by the Allies was Elfriede, not Mephisto, on 14 May. Only 13 men of the 26th were involved in the Mephisto seizure in July, with almost twice as many men of the British Tank Corps.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.43.19 (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC) 

G'day, have you got a reference for Elfriede, and for the fact that it was 13 men from the 26th that took part in capturing Mephisto? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Any half-decent work of reference confirms the above, as do the decent ones - Hundleby & Strasheim; Vollert; Jones, Rarey, & Icks; Zaloga; Whitmore. In fact, so many that it taxes credulity that Wikipedia has got so many things wrong. The articles on Mephisto and the A7V in general are a long way from perfect, but are a useful guide, even though they don't use especially sound sources.
For the sake of simplicity, Elfriede is most succinctly confirmed at: Zaloga, Steven J. (2006). German Panzers 1914-18. Osprey Publishing. p. 22.
You will read many jumbled and partisan accounts of the recovery of Mephisto. The fact is that 13 Australian infantrymen and 23 British tank men were involved in the operation. Confirmation: Whitmore, Mark (1994). Mephisto, Part II. Quarterly Journal of Australian Military History. Appendix, p. 62. Note that these 13 are not the "Tank Boys" whose names are inscribed on the hull. The latter were not Australian.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.43.19 (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC) 

Thank you for sharing the information. I have added the Whitmore ref for you. If you see errors in other articles, by all means please correct them and add the supporting ref to the article. Thank you for your contributions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. That's what I tend to do, but life is often made difficult by some for whom Wikipedia serves a rather different purpose.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.43.19 (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 26th Battalion (Australia). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080727101610/http://www.awm.gov.au/units/unit_11316.asp to http://www.awm.gov.au/units/unit_11316.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160309213301/http://army.gov.au/our-history/army-history-unit/chief-of-army-history-conference/previous-conference-proceedings/~/media/files/our%20history/aahu/conference%20papers%20and%20images/2003/2003-the_pacific_war_1943-1944_part_1.ashx to http://www.army.gov.au/Our-history/Army-History-Unit/Chief-of-Army-History-Conference/~/media/Files/Our%20history/AAHU/Conference%20Papers%20and%20Images/2003/2003-The_Pacific_War_1943-1944_Part_1.pdf
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) 11:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)