Wikipedia talk:WikiProject ADF

message: I'm not sure about the value of lumping all the articles into a single 'ADF' category. Leaving aside the fact that many of the articles which are being placed in this category actually cover Australian military units or military history before the formation of the ADF in the late 1970s, this single vauge category can't be used to properly classify ADF units - the existing Army, Navy, RAAF, etc, categories are much more meaningful IMO. More to the point, there's nothing wrong with these categories, which strike me as being well organised and useful. At present, the current approach of lumping random articles into an 'ADF' category is acting against the project's described objective of "better organize[ing] information in articles related to ADF".
Perhaps a better approach would be to only tag articles which are being targeted for improvement, and not articles which don't need work? --Nick Dowling 05:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence, the category has been nominated for deletion.--cj | talk 03:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ADF Category

message: I don't know how broad of a scope you intend to be dealing with here, but if it's all going to be military/military history-related, you might want to consider creating a task force within the Military history WikiProject instead.  Just something you may want to think about ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No thanks Feedyourfeet 09:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A separate project? 

message: I have been trying to clean up the  page and have run across alot of ADF related stubs.  With that in mind I proposed an Australia military stub.  Please have a look and give a vote.  This will help consolidating all of those ADF relateed articles that need improvement.  Thanks--Looper5920 22:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub proposal 

message: List of Australian military bases receved a lit of edits from IPs on 12 April. It needs to be either reverted or better integrated, but I don't know which. Is there a naming standard for the army bases that should be followed by both the list and the articles? --Scott Davis Talk 00:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cleaned up some of the more obvious errors on the page such as misnaming (e.g. 'Head Quaters') and removed a couple that class as Units, not bases (e.g. Land Headquarters). However there's more work to do and it may help us to create stubs for all those red links such as Holsworthy, etc, etc. In fact I'm not even sure about a page like this that has to be maintained separately to the articles. We have a category of Royal Australian Air Force bases, what about a super-category of Australian military bases that's effectively self-maintaining? BTW, the naming convention for the RAAF and Navy bases is correct to my knowledge but I admit to being less of an expert on Army nomenclature. Cheers, Ian Rose 03:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: We need a list of Australian Defence Sites. Not all sites are bases. Not all sites are Army, Navy or RAAF. Swan Island is a good example. A new category needed. What should it be called? --Commking 02:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  repairs or integration needed in List of Australian military bases 

message: I found this place while tagging Australian Military stub articles for Wikiproject Military history, and think you might benefit from the larger project's structure. I'm sure there are some Aussies over there that would appreciate a larger subgroup to coordinate within. Visit us if you're interested! UnDeadGoat 01:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting "off the cuff" dismissal. What rationale - other than reasons of personal or national ego - does the ADF Project have for maintaining a seperate project whose mandate is a subset of an existing WikiProject? It just seems odd that you would reject the aid, resources, and expertise of 200+ contributers (only some of which would have something to contribute to articles about the ADF, it must be admitted), and settle for the contributions of 6 (your current count of members). -  04:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From my perpective, the best use of the ADF project would be to develop articles on current Australian military units and contempary Australian defence issues. As such, it doesn't really fall in the basket of 'military history' (though there is, of course, considerable cross over). --Nick Dowling 10:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|Wikiproject Military history]] 

message: You may have noticed I have created a heap of articles for RAAF units - mainly groups and wings, and also squadrons which were not already created.
I need your help to start putting in text - to stop other people nominating them for deletion.  There are infoboxes on each page which really add quite a lot of information to them.  However we need some basic text as well.
Justinbrett 09:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Justin, I'd be happy to help with this. Can you please post a list of these articles and add them to the relevant categories? You may also want to participate in the discussion of this topic at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history --Nick Dowling 09:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added a lot of the articles to categories (creating a few new categories in the process, using the Royal Air Force category structure as a guide) but I'm sure that I missed some. --Nick Dowling 11:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That gels with my info. Here's another source . Cheers, Ian Rose 13:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAAF unit pages 

message: Anybody willing to help me make this into a propper article? Feedyourfeet 09:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military of Australia 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 16:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: A new project call Australian maritime history is currently under consideration. If you have comments, suggestions or wish to participate please join us Gnangarra 00:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  project under consideration 

message: As this project seems to have become entirely inactive, a merger of it with the active Australian military history task force is being discussed here; comments are welcome. Kirill Lokshin 05:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging the project