Its called Kapooka to us Soldier. As I was a recruit last year for two months at Kapooka. Its called Kapooka which is in the Blamey Barracks. Kapooka is huge. Blamey Barracks is where the recruits and all the training is held, but fieldcraft and shooting ranges are outside of the Barracks. Best to leave it as Kapooka. Andreasu 22:28, 14 April 2006
Outside of the barracks? No theyre not, all of the ranges are located on what is Blamey Barracks. What corps are you in?
As proposed above, I think the article should be named Army Recruit Training Centre (Australia). Kapooka is the name of a locality and should have its own article Kapooka, New South Wales and treated as a suburb of Wagga Wagga. A disambiguation template can be placed on the Kapooka article. While I agree it is referred to as Kapooka in the military, that does not mean that is its name.--Mattinbgn/ talk 02:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with Mattinbgn and others above - this article needs to be renamed immediately. The article is about a department of defence location that has been officially known as the Army Recruit Training Centre since December 1, 1998 Department of Defence - Australian Army] and is located within Blamey Barracks, Kapooka. Kapooka is the suburb of Wagga Wagga and that name is required for an article about suburbs in Wagga according to the Wiki naming convention for such locations. See Template:Wagga Wagga City. --VStalk...images 04:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The article currently states Major General C.S. Steele chose this site as it was close to Field Marshall Sir Thomas Blamey's birthplace of Wagga Wagga. I have marked this for citation as I have some difficulty coming to grips with this as it seems a bit incongruous that Australia should choose its main engineer and army recruit site during the middle of a War (1942) on the basis of it being close to Blamey's birthplace (who of course was busy in the field of battle/s). This needs referencing please.--VStalk...images 05:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
This line has now been removed until/unless someone can come up with a suitable reference. --VStalk...images 21:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I propose that the article Australian Army Recruit Training be merged into this article. That article, aside from the unnecessary table, is very short, not to mention completely OR and would be better off here to make this article a more rounded one. If there are no objections by 24 February November, I will go ahead and merge. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Not very short you need to look at it again and it is sourced so no OR. DPCU (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It is a good start. The article is still stubby and the sections and headings are overdone. Remove the table (still unsourced) and combine some sections and it would sit nicely as a section in this article. Sorry, my opinion has not changed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The table is sourced. A section has been created. DPCU (talk) 11:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
So you don't think that your acting a little hastily? DPCU (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Support There's no reason to have two short pages on what is basically the same topic. The article on the training can easily be split out if it gets expanded. By the way, I don't think that you need to wait until late Feb to merge if a consensus emerges from this discussion that such a merge would be justified. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Army Recruit Training Centre (Australia) isn't just about the buildings. It's about the whole centre where the training is carried out. The topics are so closely related that they should be one topic rather than, as somebody else pointed out, two stubby ones.--AussieLegend (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose merge - I've been thinking more about this and, on balance, I don't see the harm in having two different articles so I'm changing my vote. I've got two reasons for this view: 1) United States Army Basic Training demonstrates that there's plenty of scope to write a lengthy article on this topic and 2) the ARTC isn't the only place in Australia where recruits have undertaken basic training - in this past this was also carried out at a base near Singleton and at Puckapunyal in Victoria. Moreover, there are currently serious proposals to raise a second recruit training battalion which would probably be located elsewhere. I believe that some of the Army Reserve units conduct their own recruit training at locations other than the ARTC. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any stubby articles. Though inseted of ruining one. Why don't you update the ARTC one? I dont see any infomation about the Adventure Training Wing, Psychological Support Section or the museum. You need to fix this up first before killing a 2 day old article. DPCU (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I meant November, I just had February on the mind - fixed now. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 07:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Support - Merging proposal - indeed additional information at new article will be helpful to this one and vice versa. --VStalk 07:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
So explain how this will be usefull to the Army Recruit Training one? DPCU (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Cant anybody else see the short sightness of proposing a merge of a two day old article? two months sure but not two days. Its no surprise why people leave with shit like this happening.DPCU (talk) 11:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Please stay calm DPCU. One of the first things that all new users need to see/learn is that Wikipedia is a community - no one editor has ownership of any article or content. Mattinbgn has raised a legitimate proposal and other members of the community are making their comments. Please let that process continue until it reaches a measured conclusion - in the meantime continue to improve the training article - which at this stage needs much more research, content, inline referencing etc. By doing this you either will find that the article remains a stand-alone, or that the good parts of your article (complete with your identification as the provider of those parts) will merge with this article.--VStalk 20:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Do not merge Recruit training in Australia, far predates the Army Recruit Training Centre. This article is clearly about, the centre / facilities of a parcel of land near Wagga. The other article, is clearly about a process of training which could happen anywhere - and in the past was distributed at a range of locations. They both have unique histories to document.Garrie 05:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it is fair to say there is no consensus to merge. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
There are many army recruit training centers, even though they are not all named that. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
They would be listed at Army recruit training centers then. The only use of "Army Recruit Training Centre" as a proper noun is this one. Even if other proper-nouned "Army Recruit Training Centre"s exist, until they have articles, the dabnote on this one is superfluous. Miracle Pen (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Support There surprisingly don't appear to be any other institutions with this title, so disambiguation is not required. Skinsmoke (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.