Talk:Second Army (Australia)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Second Army (Australia) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Australia: Military history Low‑importance

	Australia portal Second Army (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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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 Low-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 / World War II

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion 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
	World War II task force

Designation

Based on what I can find in Dexter p. 280, it seems that this formation was officially called the Second Australian Army. I wonder if it should be moved to Second Australian Army, so that it is consistent with First Australian Army. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 07:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The war diary calls it Second Army. What does Mackenzie–Smith call it? Kges1901 (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, on p. 2020 in volume 2, he lists it as "Second Aust Army". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem to be an agreement of secondary sources for titling it "Second Australian Army", then. Kges1901 (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I will wait a couple of days to see if there are any more comments. If not I will move the article to Second Australian Army. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67, Nick-D, JarrahTree, and Hawkeye7:: G'day, do you have an opinion on the above? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second Australian Army is probably correct given the source, though I note that chapter of Dexter also just calls it "Second Army". There was a discussion on my talk page recently about whether we've also misnamed the articles on the World War II-era corps at User talk:Nick-D#patience please (from some quick checking of sources, I found little consistency in what the corps are called), so a broader discussion may be in order. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Nick. Yes, unfortunately it seems there is inconsistency in a number sources in relation to the corps and armies. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The official name was "Second Army". "Australian" is just a disambiguation. As noted, the war diary calls it "Second Army" and "Second Aust Army" interchangeably. But our standard disambiguation form is Second Army (Australia), and that is what it should be. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: G'day, Hawkeye, thanks for weighing in. From what I can tell, there is a lot of inconsistency regarding this, with multiple documents using multiple approaches. For instance, Long appears to favour X Army, Dexter uses both X Army and X Australian Army, and the war diaries seem to favour X Aust Army, but also have some inconsistency. Ultimately, I'm not really fussed either way, but would like to achieve some consistency between our articles, one of which is at "First Australian Army", and the other at "Second Army (Australia)". Given your point above, for consistency, would you suggest moving First Australian Army to First Army (Australia), which is currently a redirect? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]