Talk:Australian Army enlisted rank insignia

WikiProject Military history

(Rated Start-Class)

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces (nations and regions): Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force

NATO Ranks

The rank pictures are not shown in the NATO rank format as shown for the British Army and United States Army because Australia is not a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Although Australia follows many of its conventions, it is not a member.

Warrant Officers

The RSM-A holds the rank of 'WO' as discussed in the attached article http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1087/topstories/story16.htm I have also revised the text to highlight the difference between an NCO and a WO. A Warrant Officer is a non-commissioned 'rank' but not an NCO LONDON 15:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Staff Sergeant

The rank of Staff Sergeant is being phased out of the Australian Army. The WO2 rank now equates with Chief Petty Officer (RAN) and Flight Sergeant (RAAF) LONDON 18:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The rank of Staff Sergent has now been phased out. As in no one will be promoted in to that rank. I believe there are only a had full left in the Army. When they retire or are promoted, over the next year or two, the rank will be no more.

Private ranks - other names

I would like to put in references to former ranks that were the equivalent (I think) of Private. For example Sapper, Driver (WW1), etc. Before, I am so bold to edit a reasonably comprejensive and well-organised article, any views?--A Y Arktos 20:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Arktos, I think I've got them all in there. Apologies if I've left some out.I have also included the E numbers for those that I can remember (upto SGT). For any multination force operations we deploy on they use this system.--Theinnerexits 09:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is an error with the Private Soldier Ranks. Gun Number is the job description, where Gunner is the actual rank. For example within the Royal Regiment of Australian Artillery there are many jobs. Gun number, Signaller, Operator Command Post (OPCP) Operator Radar etc. The lowest rank in the Corps is Gunner. Unless you have a reference to the rank being Gun Number I think this should be changed. And I’m fairly certain there are no references that will show the rank as being “Gun Number.”

New table style proposition

Firstly, why were all the pics deleted? The article is much worse without. ANyway here are some placeholder images from US ranks

Pay grade	E-9		E-8	E-7	E-6	E-5	E-4	E-3	E-2
Insignia
Title	Warrant Officer	Warrant Officer Class One	Warrant Officer Class Two	Staff Sergeant	Sergeant	Corporal	Lance Corporal	Private

I'd say what has happened is that a bot tagged the images and they were deleted, possibly because they were not justified correctly or maybe because they were being used without appropriate permission, etc. Regardless, it seems to me that there needs to be more commonsense when it comes to images being deleted. This article is now useless, and yet I've found examples of images that are clearly copied from other sources but are passed off as 'own work' being kept, whilst others that in reality are fine are deleted because the uploader didn't know what rationale to write. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Support: I agree with the above vent! You can't blame a bot, but what excuse does a human have (i.e. the Admin that deleted it)? Unless we can come up with replacement images this page might as well just be deleted (along with the one on Enlisted ranks). Anotherclown (talk) 05:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Enlisted?

The article says "the Australian Army does not use the term 'enlisted' to describe its non-commissioned ranks", so why is the article itself titled "Australian Army enlisted rank insignia"? Is it for the benefit of researchers who search using incorrect terms? Surely the article should be called "Australian Army non-commissioned rank insignia". Jack Garfield (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

so why is the article itself titled ... - To be consistent with wikipedia naming conventions of such articles. (e.g. have a look at Category:Military insignia and similar articles and categories.)

Is it for the benefit of researchers who search using incorrect terms? - No. Is it for the benefit of researchers who search using the otherwise consistent naming conventions.

Surely the article should be called ... - It doesn't really matter what the article is named, as long as people can find it. Thus I have created a "redirect" ("Australian Army non-commissioned rank insignia") that points here. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Afterthought: Shouldn't it be "Australian Army non-commissioned officer rank insignia"? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)