Talk:Australian and New Zealand Army Corps
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article was nominated for merging with ANZAC on 24 December 2010. The result of the discussion was merge into Australian and New Zealand Army Corps.|
Department of Redundancy Department
Perhaps it is a really silly question, or there is a naming convention somewhere, but why does this article title have the words army corps twice? Why isn't it called Australian and New Zealand Army Corps ? There is another article of that name there - should the two articles be merged? Thanks--A Y Arktos 10:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- They are two separate articles. This article is about the army corps called the "Australian and New Zealand Army Corps". Australian and New Zealand Army Corps is about the acronym "ANZAC" which is short for "Australian and New Zealand Army Corps". It was originally at Anzac then cut-and-pasted to ANZAC and then cut-and-pasted to Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. Geoff/Gsl 10:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- So Australian and New Zealand Army Corps is actually not about the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, but about some acronym? That makes sense why?
This article should be merged into the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps article, or it should be moved (renamed) to something like the "Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (World War I)". Hu 01:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- No it shouldn't. Geoff/Gsl 01:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- A bald assertion has little merit. Further, just which suggestion are you objecting to? The merge or the move? Care to put some flesh on the bones? The article should be merged because a lot of the material is already redundantly inside the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps article, and for the reason of the confusion because of the redundant wording of the title (see section above). Hu 02:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- You gave no justification for the merger in your comment so I replied in kind. As I stated in my comment to the first suggestion, this article is about the army corps, that article is about the various uses and applications of the term "Anzac". They serve two different purposes and should not be merged. The ideal solution would be to move the other back to Anzac and this to the army corps article. Disambiguating by "World War I" is meaningless as ANZAC only existed during 1916 so the current the current title is fine. Geoff/Gsl 02:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Then rename it "Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (1916)". Much better than "Army Corps (army corps)". If the other article is really meant to be about the term ANZAC, then it should be called such. Hu 03:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- You don't seem to understand how disambiguation works. "1916" would make sense if there was a similar formation in a different year, but there isn't. There is an article about the acronym/term "Anzac" as the primary topic (right or wrong) and there is an article about the army corps disambiguated with "army corps". Geoff/Gsl 05:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- I understand how disambiguation works. "Army Corps (army corps)", "Army Corps (GeoffGsl)" and "Army Corps (1916)" all work equally well as far as disambiguation goes, but the first one looks silly, and the last one is relevant. Hu 07:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- You comment demonstrates that you don't understand disambiguation; "army corps" may look silly, but it is correct. "1916" is not relevant unless you are disambiguating from a corps of the same name in another year. Geoff/Gsl 04:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- They work, and 1916 is relevant. If you prefer and if you wish to insist that the article Australian and New Zealand Army Corps is really about the term, then the proper way to disambiguate it would be to move it to "Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (term)" or "Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC)" and move the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (army corps) to "Australian and New Zealand Army Corps". That would make more sense by your criterion. However, I think it would require admin intervention. Hu 06:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Quote Gsl: "[Army Corps (army corps)] may look silly, but it is correct."
- And because Correctness is the most important thing Wikipedia can offer, we forget about clarity or usefulness and just steam ahead, damn the torpedoes! At least people will be confused in a correct way.
It seems reasonable that these two articles should be merged. The existance of two similarly named articles is confusing. I am not familiar enought with the content to do the merge, but I am adding a "see also" to both pages, so that users can find both. Chimpex 16:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
A little help.
Hi, im a secondary student writing an essay on the ANZAC's. I can't seem to find the age requirements for enlistment for Australians in the AIF. Please if anyone knows the age requirements could they let me know. I would very much appreciate it. Thankyou.
- Originally it was 18 to 35 years, from June 1915 it was 18 to 45. If you were under 21, you needed parental consent to enlist. See here. Gsl 02:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Now that the article formerly at Australian and New Zealand Army Corps has been moved to ANZAC, I'll move this article to Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. But first I am fixing other articles that have links that point to Australian and New Zealand Army Corps but should point to ANZAC rather than this article. Nurg (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Which is the correct one?
The Australian Corps andFirst Australian Imperial Force articles seem to be about the same unit. Am I right? or can someone please explain/elaborate as the articles are scarce on information. The articles I already mentioned as well as I ANZAC Corps, II ANZAC Corps and this article all contain information for the same sub-units over the same time periods. I am posting this here as this seems to be the most active talk page. Should some of these articles be merged?
Basically, from what I've understood was that the AIF was composed of originally the ANZAC, then both I and II ANZACs, then the Australian Corps. Can someone please enlighten me? Was the AIF an actual unit? The way the articles are written, it seems as if they were all different units serving at the same time. Perhaps in the article leads, one could put "was a part of the ____" or something similar. Was the AIF an umbrella unit like the Canadian Expeditionary Force? the CEF from its article says it had no actual commander, but Birdwood was commander of ANZAC and the AIF at the same time? --184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- First of all, the AIF was a force within the Australian Army, much as the Army Reserve and the Australian Regular Army are today, with its own promotion lists and what not. It consisted of all Army personnel enlisted or commissioned into it. Yes, it included I and II Anzac Corps, but it also included the units with the Desert Mounted Corps in Palestine, and the Australian units and individuals in England, Salonika, Mesopotamia, Iraq, India and elsewhere. It was initially commanded by Major General W. T. Bridges, then by Major General J. G. Legge, and finally Major General A. J. Godley, before Birdwood finally assumed command of the AIF in 1916, and held it until after the end of the war. So yes, he commanded I Anzac Corps, and later the Australian Corps, and still later the British Fifth Army at the same time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
So what unit/commander was the AIF subordinated to then, especially in regards to the order of battle? Seems counter-intuitive to have one corps on the Western Front under a totally different chain of command than the others it is fighting alongside of. Command and Control must have been a nightmare, neighbouring units on the front having to go all the way up the chain of command just to contact those on its flanks. Not to mention the fact that the AIF was spread across continents, what's the point of a command that is that spread out.
- The units of the AIF came under various commands. On the Western Front, the Australian Corps came under the British Second and Fourth Armies at various times. Their British Army commanders exercised operational control over the Australia Corps, just as the Australian Corps exercised operational control over British and American units assigned to it. So it was still under the same chain of command as the British, Canadian and American units it was fighting alongside. AIF Headquarters, which was located in London from 1916 on, exercised adminstrative control over Australian Corps. Australian soldiers received different pay from their counterparts in other armies, which came from the Australian government. AIF HQ controlled promotions, and men could be moved from one theatre to another. Australians also had some different items of equipment, such as felt hats. And Australian units were organised on Australian tables of equipment laid down by AIF HQ, which differed from those of the British Army. This is all quite normal in coalition warfare, and is the way the Australian contingent in Afghanistan functions today. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, makes sense, thanks for the clarification. I served 8 months in the Stan but was never in the same battle group as Aussies, so I didn't know they still work like that. It seems like an extra unnecessary bureaucratic level, but that is normal in the army. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the articles, so that no one else gets confused.
See also section
Does this article require a see also section that contains links to Anzac topics covered under the disambiguation page. Are there Anzac article on the disambiguation page that \are of higher eminence than others? I can see there being a place for Anzac Day and Anzac spirit, but nothing beyond that seems appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think as regular eds we are somewhat overestimating our average users understanding of our commonplace functions such as disambiguation. My point is that we should have a see also section to assist our less WP savvy casual users. I think it would perhaps increase Wikiwandering on the subject to the casual user and we may even get some new contributing Eds on the subject if we give them an opening. Ive a feeling that DIS is not understood as a tool for arguably many of our users. A see also section AND a DIS wikilink covers all the bases. Just a thought mate. Cheers Irondome (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
image of WWI 100 anniversary logo for New Zealand
I have serious concerns that the image File:WW100 symbol - New Zealand stylised remembrance poppy commemorating 100-year anniversary activities of Word War One..jpg is not free use and not eligible for Wikipedia. Even if it is, I have questions as to whether it's appropriate for the article. Thoughts?--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
List of battles
Including every possible battle as a see also is not the intended of the template. Because the content clearly took some time to assemble the list is below. It might be approprite as its oen aritcle in the same manner as List of Canadian battles during the First World War.Labattblueboy (talk) 07:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Sinai and Palestine Campaign|Raid on the Suez Canal|Battle of Romani|Battle of Magdhaba|Battle of Rafa|First Battle of Gaza|Second Battle of Gaza|Stalemate in Southern Palestine|Raid on Asluj to Hafir el Auja railway|Battle of Buqqar Ridge|Southern Palestine Offensive|Battle of Beersheba (1917)|Battle of Tel el Khuweilfe|Third Battle of Gaza|Battle of Hareira and Sheria|Charge at Sheria|Charge at Huj|Capture of the Wadi el Hesi|Battle of Mughar Ridge|Battle of Jerusalem (1917)|Battle of Megiddo (1918)|Battle of Sharon (1918)|Battle of Tulkarm|Battle of Tabsor|Battle of Arara|Battle of Nazareth|Capture of Afulah and Beisan|Capture of Jenin|Battle of Haifa (1918)|Battle of Samakh (1918)|Battle of Nablus (1918)|Third Transjordan attack (1918)|Battle of Jisr Benat Yakub|Charge at Irbid|Charge at Kaukab|Charge at Kiswe|Capture of Damascus (1918)|Pursuit to Haritan|Battle of Aleppo (1918)
- Yes I agree with the removal of these - given that the ANZA Corps was disbanded in 1916 many of these aren't relevant at any rate (although elements of successor formations fought in these of cse). Anotherclown (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)