Talk:Defence Australia

Australia: Military history / Politics Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Defence Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Military history: South Pacific 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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

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 and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Right hand table

Some of the valuse in the info box are subject to rapid change, like the budget for 06-07 was $16bil and for 07-08 it was $22bil. do ew want an average, or the most recent information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamcon (talk • contribs) 10:50, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

WP:Undue - Wikipedia WikiScanner controversy

With the passage of time the section on Wikipedia WikiScanner controversy looks to be unnecessary, both in part as a self-reference to Wikipedia and as meeting WP:UNDUE - any thoughts?--Matilda ^talk 23:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Nice work getting rid of it. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - covered in context at WikiScanner --Melburnian (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Department of defence.gif

Image:Department of defence.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template now used - description on image page was sufficient in my use but poor old bot couldn't cope without specific mention of the article in the rationale text.--Matilda ^talk 21:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Department executive

I have deleted all but the Secretary from the Department executive list. I think this is appropriate as it is consistent with other pages, not just other departments, but also corporations, for example Commonwealth Bank. Further, the positions change often.

If a consensus is reached that other users believe including this information is appropriate, then I would suggest it should not be in the side-bar and article space is the place to do it.

What do others think?

Clare. (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Deputy secretaries and equivalent hold important posts, but we don't need to name them (and doing so would be something of a maintenance issue given that there's a steady turnover). Anyone looking for this information can easily find it on the departments' websites. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Department of Defence (Australia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110095906/http://pmtranscripts.dpmc.gov.au/browse.php?did=16752 to http://pmtranscripts.dpmc.gov.au/browse.php?did=16752

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Department of Defence (Australia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

DefenceAustralia.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we clarify spelling?

Is Defense spelled the modern way "defense" or the anachronistic way "defence"? 203.46.132.214 (talk) 06:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]