Talk:Australian Army Cadets

message: Im not aware that such a position exists, I have added OPSWO since it definately exists, if nobody can confirm TrainingWO somebody should remove it
:I'm not aware that Operations Warrant Officer exists but Training Warrant Officer exists. ExtraDry 15:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Training warrant officer? 

message: 124.189.224.26 05:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs new logo 

message: I'm confident that Scotch College had the first cadet unit in Australia, formed in 1851. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Bryce (talk • contribs) 09:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest Cadet Unit? 

message: :Image:AAC Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 20:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:AAC Logo.gif

message: I have removed reference on the ban on use of CRP in 2007 for the following reasons:
*The cause of death for CDT Francis is still subject to coronial investigation so definitively labelling the cause of death as an anaphylactic reaction to the Beef Satay ration pack meal is inappropriate at this time.
*The event is listed in the historical overview for the organisation - this event is not sufficiently significant in the overall history of the organisation to warrant inclusion in this section. There have been numbers of other deaths in the organisation, for a variety of reasons, over the years - none of which have been mentioned here. AusTerrapin (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ban on use of CRP 

message: It states that "Currently the highest rank an OOC can hold in the AAC is Colonel (AAC). There is one posting available at this rank being the Deputy Commander AAC." However, my School-based unit commander was recently promoted to Colonel. And I'm pretty sure he isn't the Deputy Commander AAC. Any ideas? Oranges91 (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highest OC rank 

message: :Image:AACLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:AACLogo.jpg

message: I have done some heavy editing to some areas of this page, as some of the information described here only applies to particular Battalions, and is not very good at giving a general picture of the whole organisation Emcee george (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant Editing 

message: It should read between 12 and a half and 20, it was updated from the age of 19.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JTod94 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age limits/requirements are incorrect. 

message: From what it says in the article about promotion courses it says it is possible to achieve a rank of up to cdtsgt without  going on a promotion course at all.  Unless whoever put it there means that they can be acting lcpl (i.e is a cdt but doing jobs a cdtlcpl would do).  Unless someone else can give me a better explanation on this I will change it.
Pattav2 (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting rank above cdt without going on course. 

message: Someone changed the spelling of Lieutenant, to 'Leftenant', whilst that may be how it is pronounced, that isnt how it's spelt. Check spellings before putting things in, i've been having to fix spelling mistakes all over the article. Emcee george (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Ive heard that there is now a course which goes for 4 days for cadets that are preparing for JLC in the future (as in not do the 4 days then do JLC).  I think its called Cadet leader course or somethin.  Can someone provide more info so we can add it into the article.
Pattav2 (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New course 

message: This sentence:
> While cadets are encouraged to consider enlisting in the military, it is not required that they do so.
is informative, but I think would be better if it took one of the following forms:
> While cadets are encouraged to consider enlisting in the military, and about XX% do so, this is not required.
> While cadets are encouraged to consider enlisting in the military, this is not required, and only about XX% do.
(whichever seems better based on the actual proportion).
Does anyone have that statistic?
—RuakhTALK 23:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many enlist? 

message: Ive noticed some people have been changing the date the AAC was established, I will now explain why it is the date it is currently as:
Whilst the AAC formed from individual school units that began in the 1860's, the AAC itself as an organisation was not raised until 1906.  Emcee george (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  AAC Dates 

message: This is getting beyond a joke. How many times must the article be changed back and forth before this stops. The Army Protocol Manual shows that the abbreviation is REC. The ADFC Rank Chart states the same. Yet people, rather dissapointingly people with senior rank in the AAC continue to dispute this based on what they were taught. It doesnt matter what you were taught, the AAC is notorious for incorrect doctrine being taught at ACU level, as senior cadets you should accept this and use the correct doctrine when it is made available to you. To see members saying that "RCT" will be continued to be used by their unit is not only dissapointing but wrong User:Will567
Amen to that, If it keeps happening ill request the page be locked, to add on to what Will567 has said, trying to use your rank to get edits passed on this page wont work... firstly, because no one cares about it over the internet... secondly, because I (I watch this page regularly) am a Battalion CUO, ergo, if you try and outrank me, you probably wont, so dont be arrogant, accept that youre wrong and learn from it. Emcee george (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviation for Recruit 

message: What happened to barrier exams? I just got on the NSW AAC Bde JNCOs course in July but I apparently don't have to do a barrier exam.... are they still compulsory or is it just my unit, battalion or is it a NSW thing??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.171.23 (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barrier exams 

message: The current AAC Dress Policy WAS dated 5 June 2010, its slightly different from the one dated 11 Febuary 2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will567 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current AAC Dress Policy 

message: OK, this section is to explain why I removed the recent edits to the section on promotion courses.
The topic of getting above the rank of cadet without attending a course is extensively covered in a segment above, read that first before making any more edits.
Secondly, on promotion courses, the ADS instruct more that just sections, I'm fairly certain that most groups on promotion courses are at least Platoon Strength, and are taught as a single Platoon. Directing Staff are the adult staff who conduct the courses. any questions, feel free to leave them hereEmcee george (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotion Courses edit 

message: There have been speculations that the polyester uniform will definitely be removed from the CSOD. This means that cadets will not be allowed to wear the polyester uniform in any occasions, which to me is outrageous.
Here's a facebook group about this: http://www.facebook.com/?sk=group_146134085449884&ap=1
"As of 1 MAR 2011, Polyester Uniforms will be removed from CSODs - the Australian Army Cadets uniform policy. Polyester uniforms have been worn by Australian Army Cadets on ceremonial occasions since they were introduced into service."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vw987654321 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polyester uniforms removed from CSOD 

message: Are pistol belts a part of the "Field Equipment", or are they part of the webbing? Our unit issues the belts, but not the webbing. Also, should any mention be made of flashes?211.30.171.128 (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dress 

message: As you may or may not be aware. COMD AAC has released a directive removing CDTSSGT and SSGT(AAC) from the rank structure of the AAC. Members who currently hold this rank will not be demoted, but will either leave the AAC as a CDTSSGT/SSGT(AAC) or get promoted to another rank as their OC deems appropriate.
Secondly, the authorised establishments for units have changed, which means different numbers of ACS per cadet and the number of ranks each unit can have is now different. I have seen a copy of this directive, but do not have it with me to accurately update the page. I wil update the details once I locate the directive.
Regards, Emcee george (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  SSGT Rank & unit establishments 

message: This article points out that CUO do not hold. Commission, bu makes no mention of Officers Of Cadets. 
Are they now commissioned? Or are thy civilian employees?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.4.30 (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  OOC commission 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Australian Army Cadets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080917190520/http://www.defence.gov.au/defencemagazine/editions/20050901/coverstory/coverstory.htm to http://www.defence.gov.au/defencemagazine/editions/20050901/coverstory/coverstory.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As an ex-cadet myself (from 15+ years ago), I do understand much of the information, but to the average reader, I feel that much of it reads as rather circumstantial and not "fit for purpose" for wikipedia, especially with the big lack of citations.
The information I speak of is to do with Uniform dress codes, structure and location of promotion courses, types of awards and the like, interpretations of policies between Units. Sure, it's all "nice to know", but does it all need to be published? There just looks to be way too much intricate unimportant detail on display.
Tytrox (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed , the uniform detail and specific in-state promotional courses and almost all of the AFX section sh/could be taken out as it is also all unsourced per my tags from 2012 when I was in. The article has always been subject to current memebers adding their own content, regardless of how relevant it is to non-members. I will begin to remove unsourced info with a limited target group, feel free to leave feedback / opinions. — IVORK Discuss 01:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers. I've cleaned out more (a lot more). Tytrox (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

text:  I believe much of what has been deleted should be reinstated as if you were to look at the other articles detailing Cadet organisations (Air Training Corps, Army Cadet Force, New Zealand Air Training Corps, Royal Canadian Air Cadets, Royal Canadian Army Cadets, New Zealand Cadet Corps) in other countries all provide a wealth of detail on ranks, uniforms, and training. This is also true for other uniformed youth groups, such as articles on scouts (The Scout Association, Scouts Canada, Scouts Australia), guides, St Johns associations, etc. Cdjp1 (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this article really need all the information that is has?