Talk:2/6th Commando Squadron (Australia)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2/6th Commando Squadron (Australia) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Australia / Military history||(Rated B-class, Low-importance)|
I would like to move 2/6th Independent Company (Australia) to 2/6th Commando Squadron (Australia), as this was the last name assigned to the unit. Any comments? --Newm30 (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Newm30, I agree with your reasoning, but think that as the other similar units (Australian independent companies/commando squadrons) are listed on Wiki as 'independent companies' then 2/6th should remain so also. It is certainly problematic the number of names these units were known by, making it difficult to know what to call them. I have included a bit in the intro about the various names. There are a number of arguments for and against, I feel. On the for side: the unit was last known as 2/6th Commando Squadron. On the against: I believe that most members of the unit themselves refer to it as 2/6th Independent Company (I've nothing to back this up, though, apart from having spoken to a few when I went through 12 Platoon, ARTC). I would be interested in getting other people's opinion about this matter, but think at at the moment it should not be changed as it would require changing all the other independent companies as well.AustralianRupert (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I have not included battle honours in the article as I am unsure whether the unit received any. I suspect that they did not, as they are not listed in the unit's history, or on the AWM site. This may be due to the 'cavalry' designation as only infantry units received battle honours. Arguably, though, the unit was clearly an infantry unit as they were always 'footsloggers' and never went into battle on vehicles (or horses for that matter! ;-)). Anyway, if anyone knows different - please feel free to add battle honours to the page. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I've just assessed this article as B-class as it does a good job of covering the topic, is well written and contains appropriate supporting graphics and references. The last section of the article needs to be referenced or removed, however. Nick-D (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)