Talk:Colonial forces of Australia

message: Do you think it should be split into separate articles for each colony? --Astrokey44 09:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  split 

message: This article has quite a lot of content and probably would probably be able to be worked to GA class or higher in time if references could be added. A basic rule of thumb is at least one citation at the end of each paragraph, but sometimes more might be required if multiple sources are used. I will have a hunt around and try to add some, but my library is very limited around this period. Is anyone else able to help? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added as much as I can now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Referencing

message: As per above, I'm trying to rework this page, but I don't have all the sources required. If anyone wants to help, that would be great. Some thoughts I have for improvements are as follows:
*add some more images to break up the text;
*add citations for all paragraphs;
*check that all the red links are to valid topics, if not cut them out, or pipe them if possible;
*remove overlinked terms;
*copy edit the article for grammar, spelling and punctuation;
*consider removing the lists of regiments that served in the colonies, and hive them off into a stand alone list article, possibly named: List of British Army units that served in Australia before Federation or something similar. In order for this to occur, references would need to be found for these regiments' service in the colonies. Peter Stanley's The Remote Garrison: The British Army in Australia 1788-1870 might offer help here, but I haven't got access to it, so I don't know for sure. Has anyone got any thoughts on this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Further suggestions

message: Several statements in this article refer to "volunteers".
For example "However they were still volunteers not regulars. ".
This requires clarification.  Were "regulars" forcibly conscripted,  and therefore not volunteers.
I suspect that two quite different concepts are being conflated here:   whether the members of the force
joined voluntarily,  or under compulsion or conscription,    and whether their engagement was
part-time or contingent,  as opposed to full-time and professional.Eregli bob (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be mistaken, but I think that the term 'volunteer' was used in this period to describe the part-time militia units which made up the bulk of the colonial forces. The 'regulars' were full-time personnel. Nick-D (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are probably right,  but the problem is that in recent times,  professional armies o,f countries such as the USA, Britain and Australia are described as volunteers,  as distinct from the 1950's and 1960's when there was compulsory military service for some or all men.  If you are going to use the word "volunteer" in some archaic mid-nineteenth century sense,   then it is probably better to be clear what is meant.  To a person with limited historical knowledge,  the statement "they were volunteers not regulars"  makes almost no sense.  The members of the full-time regular army,  are all volunteers.  Nobody is forcing them to join up. Eregli bob (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

text: G'day, I'm slowly working through the article trying to find citations and remove inconsistencies/clarify information. I'm by no means an expert in this area and I'm not the original author of most of the content, so I don't know what they intended, but my understanding is that what Nick says here is correct. "Volunteer" was used to describe unpaid, or partially paid, soldiers as opposed to those that were employed (paid) as full time soldiers. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only just come across this discussion.  "Volunteer" is one of those words that has changed its meanings over time and place, and even today can be ambiguous.  Today a volunteer soldier usually means one who joined the forces as an act of free will, as opposed to a conscript.  However, in the nineteenth century it implied an unpaid member of a citizen militia, usually part-time and with only basic training, as opposed to a regular, who was paid a salary, worked full-time and was thoroughly trained. Peter Bell (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  some clarification required 

message: Following recent changes by John beta this article currently refers to the "Western Australian Volunteers" as existing in 1884 and includes a reference to a contemporary newspaper article from 1863. This appears to be incorrect to me. The article is referring to the force as it existed in 1884, not 1863. Kuring page 28 specially uses the term "1st Battalion, West Australian Volunteers" in relation to the organisation of the colony's forces in 1884. While it is true that the "Western Australian Volunteer Force" existed in the early 1860s (and is correctly mentioned earlier in the article), I believe that this is what the 1863 article is refering to, not the later unit from the 1880s. As such I believe "West Australian Volunteers" is more accurate in this instance. Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, that seems like sound reasoning. I propose that it be changed back to the way it was originally written per the source provided unless a source from 1884 can be found. I would like to hear what John's opinion is first, though, of course. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for this John. Yes it is confusing - interestingly the article "The Easter Encampment" (1885) cited above actually seems to use both "Western Australian Volunteers" and "West Australian Volunteers" - see: "described the welcome that he, as the senior West Australian Volunteer". Given this I wonder if we could include some sort of footnote outlining the issue with this terminology? Also I propose that we use one of the 1880 articles as a reference, rather than the 1863 article. Currently the 1863 article is being used as a reference for the situation in 1884 which seems incorrect to me. Anotherclown (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  One further point - Nichols (1988), The Colonial Volunteer, p. 70 uses the term "West Australian Mounted Volunteers" - is this a completly different unit? It is used in the context of that unit being redesignated as Horse Artillery in Jan 1873 after being issued two 12 pdrs. Anotherclown (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, I've added a note about the discrepancy and added a couple of the refs provided above. Does this work for everyone? Sorry, I can't check on the point regarding Nicols as I no longer have the work in my possession. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  West Australian Volunteers vs Western Australian Volunteers 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Colonial forces of 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/20120309150447/http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/fh/passengerlists/1836Buffalo.htm to http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/fh/passengerlists/1836Buffalo.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the Queensland section it says:
In 1867, two new units were raised, the Spring Hill and Fortitude Valley Volunteer Rifle Corps and the Frog Hollow Rangers.
but in 9th Battalion, Royal Queensland Regiment it says
The 9th Battalion, Royal Queensland Regiment can trace its history as far back as 1867 when, in March, the Fortitude Valley and Spring Hill Volunteer Rifle Corps (usually referred to as the "Frog Hollow Rangers") 
So I am a bit confused as to exactly how many units there were and what they were called. Given that Frog's Hollow was the nickname for a somewhat unsavoury part of Brisbane at that time, I presume that the two units have the real names Spring Hall and Fortitude Valley and that Frog's Hollow Rangers is a nickname for one of them rather than a real unit name, but Frog Hollow is not at Spring Hill nor at Fortitude Valley. Spring Hill is the closer of the two and was a "very nice" part of town, so Frog's Hollow would be opposite of the Spring Hill in the sense of low vs high in both geography and social standing, so I am guessing it would be a good joke nickname for the Spring Hill group (I can't see it as an obvious joke for the Fortitude Valley unit). But if any one can clarify the situation, we can get the story consistent across the two articles. Thanks Kerry (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: According to A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ORIGINAL MORETON REGIMENT":
In 1860 Volunteer Units started to be raised, and in 1867 a Unit of the Brisbane Volunteer Rifle Corps - The Spring Hill and Fortitude Valley Rifle Corps (No.3 Company), often refered to as "The Frog's Hollow Rangers" was created.
The First Regiment of Queensland Infantry was formed in 1879, when the Volunteer Infantry Companies amalgamated into one body, and the men of "The Frog's Hollow Rangers" became B Company of that unit.
In 1885, the First Regiment of Queensland Infantry was designated The First Queenslanders ( The Moreton Regiment ).
which seems to suggest that the Fortitude Valley and Spring Hill was just one rifle corps not two, and the nickname for it was Frogs Hollow Rangers Kerry (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

text: G'day, Kerry, unfortunately I don't have the reference anymore, but I think you are most likely right, so I have adjusted the wording to hopefully address this concern. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frogs Hollow Rangers 

message: Australia and the indigenous Australians 41.113.194.141 (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  History