Talk:Australian honours and awards system/Archive 2

Proposal to rename article to Australian honours system

Long RM discussion

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. The result of the move request was: page moved. WP:CRITERIA recommends conciseness in article titles. Miniapolis 21:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia → Australian honours system – The page Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia addresses more topics and issues than just the "Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia". In particular, it covers: the history, background, and evolution of; the rationale for; and the operation of, the "Australian Honours System". (See below for more information.) Rather than simply move the page, this proposal is being made for two reasons: 1) To gain concensus for the move, and 2) (Because the target page already exists as a redirect to this page), the move requires an admin to perform it. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC) The following sub-section records prior discussion on the topic. New discussion commences below. Prior discussion - Rename to "Australian Honours System"? I am not sure what is involved in changing the title to ‘Australian Honours System’. Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia is a subtitle not a title. Anthony Staunton (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC) a) It needs consensus. b) In this case (for technical reasons, not political) it will require an admin to "do the deed". I would support such a proposal. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC) G'day, while I wouldn't be opposed to a move, at this stage I hasten to point out that this article uses the same name as others, for example: Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom, Orders, decorations, and medals of Canada and Orders, decorations, and medals of New Zealand. There may have been some underlying policy reason or consensus when this article was originally created, so it would probably be best to try to get as many people as possible involved in the discussion before moving. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Hmmm. It looks like I'd better survey the current article names before expressing any more personal opinions! Pdfpdf (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Pages Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia (ODM of Aus) Orders, decorations, and medals of Canada Orders, decorations, and medals of Estonia etc. - seemingly ad infinitum, but in fact there are "only" 163 Refer Category:Orders, decorations, and medals by country Other names (random selection) Orders and decorations of the Commonwealth realms Awards and decorations of the United States military Awards and decorations of the United States government List of Italian orders of knighthood etc. Nearly 500 pages link to (ODM of Aus)    Redirects to (ODM of Aus) - 6 pages Australia Day Honours Australia Day honours Australian honours system Australian Honours System List of Australian Awards Orders, decorations, & medals of Australia    Honours system / State decoration See Template:Decorations by country Pages (in Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of ...) Fijian honours system Irish honours system Papua New Guinea honours system Sri Lankan honours system etc. Redirects (to ODM of ...) British honours system Canadian honours system Hong Kong honours system New Zealand Honours System etc. It looks like the answer is: "Flip a coin" and/or "Take your pick". Pdfpdf (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Pdfpdf Thank you for a valuable summary. I agree with AustralianRupert's that there needs to be consenus. There are difference between orders, decorations and medals. Orders usually include the word order in their title but a decoration may have medal as part of its name. The Medal of the Order of Australia would be considered a decoration rather than an order or a medal. There is no such thing as military or civilian decorations or medals in the Australian system but there are general and military divisions in the Order of Australia. As well as orders, decorations and medals there are also commendations and citations which would comfortably be encompassed in the name the Australian Honours System. Anthony Staunton (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC) There are differences between ... - I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what point you are making here, nor what its relevance is to renaming the article. Sorry, could I bother you to descend to kindergaarten-level and explain? There is no such thing as military or civilian decorations or medals in the Australian system - Really? It's quite clear that civilians are never awarded a VC, or any of the gallantry awards, or any of the Military Long Service awards. Similary, I'm pretty sure no-one in uniform (other than a suit & tie) has been awarded the Public Service medal. So, I'm sorry, but I don't understand. As well as orders, decorations and medals there are also commendations and citations which would comfortably be encompassed in the name the Australian Honours System. OK. That one I understand! So, are you saying something like: 'ODM is not a very good name because this article covers "things" that don't fit well into any of "O", "D", OR "M".'? If so, yes, I agree. But for me, I personally think the most relevant thing is that ODM doesn't say or imply anything about the Honours system itself. Hence, in my no doubt biassed opinion, "Australian Honours System" is a much better title for this article. HOWEVER: ODM is a very widely used name. Does that imply we need two articles: one about the system, and one about ODM? I hope not! Surely one article (of whatever name), with a redirect to it from the "other" name, is sufficient? Note that whichever name has been used, they all seem to end up in a category named "ODM for xxx". I think we need to cast the net wider and get other opinions. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC) The first sentence of the Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom states ‘The British honours system ... consists of three types of award: honours, decorations and medals’. The British VC is described as a military decoration and the British GC is described as a civilian decoration despite the fact that civilians are eligible for the VC and five have been awarded although the last was in Afghanistan - in 1879! Perhaps half the the original awards of the GC have been to the military and it is nearly 40 years since a civilian has lived to receive the GC. Although the overwhelming majority of gallantry awards go to the military a much higher percentage of bravery awards also go to the military. Both the VC and the GC are decorations and they do not need to be qualified with the phrases military or civilian since hopefully it will be clear from eligibility criteria as to who will be the majority of recipients. Nice call on the PSM and you are probably right but in this case just because it is for public servant does not make it a public service decoration. I am saying ‘ODM is not a very good name because this article covers "things" that don't fit well into any of "O", "D", OR "M" and I thank you for putting it so succinctly. Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC) New discussion Sub-section 1 In the discussion below, I have suggested that we open this to Request for Comment as I feel that this needs to be considered in its global view and not solely on a one-by-one basis (this case the Australian honours system). Setting up an RfC would invite insights from a wider field than will be found with a proposed move. It would also allow us to create a consensus on how to name these types of articles and provide the impetus for them all to be dealt with appropriately in one go to follow the manual of style. I am happy to set up the RfC (I am proposing on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals as it seems the appropriate place; the alternative being Wikipedia talk:Article titles but I feel that is too general for this discussion). iComputerSaysNo 22:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC) (outdent) I feel this is something that needs to be considered more as a naming guideline issue than something that should be dealt with purely in the Australian context. There are issues for an against both. If we feel that this is something we should consider then perhaps this should be opened up to a Request for Comment and have this considered as part of the naming policy. This gives the scope to action it across all as it is clear that there are some using the "ODM" and others using the "... honours system" style. If I can get an idea if we agree this is the way to go, then I am happy to start an RfC. iComputerSaysNo 22:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC) The name Australian Honours System has been in existence since 1975 and there is consensus across the political spectrum for that title. However, for example, there is not the same consensus in the UK since the UK Honours are also known as British Honours or Imperial Honours. I expect titles will vary from country to country which suggests it should be looked at on a case by case basis. Anthony Staunton (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Thank you IComputerSaysNo for your suggestion and offer of help, but it seems I didn't sufficiently explain myself. "ODM of xxx" and "xxx honours system" are not interchangeable terms. Many of the "ODM of xxx" articles are just that - i.e. simply a description of and/or list of the orders, decorations, and medals of the country; they contain no information about that country's system of honours. Other articles describe both the country's system of honours, AND the orders, decorations, and medals. In other words, there are (at least) two different groups of articles. To give them all the same type of name would be inaccurate and misleading. (i.e. To suggest a "one size fits all" solution will result in a "one size that doesn't fit anybody" solution.) Therefore, although I appreciate your desire and offer to help, I don't think that's the best way to proceed. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Sub-section 2 Keep: This argument is complex but I suggest that we retain the status quo. I interpret that as: you Oppose the rename? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Oppose: Quite correct, my primary concern is that the Australian honours system is a defined term that only covers 55 specific awards, and the content of this page is broader. Therefore ODM is being used as a 'broader' or 'umbrella' term which is a little illogical, but to call this page the Australian honours system would be worse. Perhaps after reading the comments below what this needs is a complete rewrite as a 'category' or series of pages. One of those pages could be about the Australian honours system and the 55 honours that constitute the system. But all of the other material on this page deserves a home.AWHS (talk) 08:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC) The URL at http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/awards/index.cfm which is the government website calls the system the Australian Honours system. It includes ... medals awarded for exceptional feats of bravery. Similarly, acts of Gallantry in our military forces are recognised.. Further there are only 55 awards in the Australian honours system. and they are listed here http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/awards/a-z.cfm However Members of the armed forces receive recognition by way of service and campaign medals. which are managed by Defence and are not only some of which are included in the 55 awards listed above. Many of these e.g. UN medals fall outside of the Australian Honours system. This page does not even begin to address the complex rules for wearing honours from foreign governments. So, if the subject article only lists the medals which are included on the government website then the page could be changed to the Australian Honours system. But clearly the page includes other medals for example the royal honours. To further complicate matters, in 2011 the Australian Defence Instruction for Battle Honours was rewritten. It is relevant to this discussion that two new honours were created which are the Honour Title and Honour Distinction. Neither of these involve an order, decoration or medal, rather these are additional awards, awarded to units. The stated rationale was that the traditional system of a Battle Honours Board is perhaps less relevant in the modern world since the vast majority of modern conflicts do not have a declared war or battle, and many take the form of peace-keeping or multi-national operations. The result is that a new category of Honour Distinction has been created, an an award is about to be made to an Army unit (see Australian contribution to UNTAG which I recently put up for WP:GAN). These two new awards do not appear to fall under any of the three title categories i.e. they are not Orders, decorations, or medals. Given the way the page is currently written, both answers are probably wrong. The most accurate title (for Australia) might be something all encompassing such as 'Orders, decorations, honours and medals of Australia; but that is a bit of a dogs breakfast.AWHS (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC) It seems to me that you have somehow avoided directly addressing the primary issue, that being: The page contains more information than just "orders, decorations, and medals"; the page addresses the whole of the Australian honours system, and related matters, and therefore "Australian honours system" is a much more suitable title. Everything you say seems (to me) to support the statement. (i.e. ... and therefore "Australian honours system" is a much more suitable title.) Yet, your conclusion is "oppose". I'm confused. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC) So, if the subject article only lists the medals which are included on the government website then the page could be changed to the Australian Honours system. But clearly the page includes other medals for example the royal honours. - Yes, the page includes "other medals for example the royal honours", because they are part of the Australian Honours System (refer Order of wearing), however, those you mention are not ODM of Aus. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC) If it is relevant, I just found a copy of the new Defence Instruction (Army) that relates, it is titled Administration of Australian Battle Honours, Theatre Honours, Honour Titles and Honour Distinctions, clearly terminology is a problem. There is no mention anywhere in the document of the Australian Honours System. The document is unclassified so I have copied the introductory paragraphs below: AWHS (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC) "The Australian system of Theatre Honours, Battle Honours and Honour Titles, drawn from the British system, was refined during World War One (WWI). It was characterised by campaigns and battles that involved large numbers of troops, with sustained and close combat that often resulted in heavy casualties. The same system of honours was subsequently used in World War Two and the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam. The challenge faced by Army is to retain the basis for which Honours were previously awarded while at the same time providing a mechanism to recognise more recent deployments involving Battle Groups/Task Forces and Task Units/Combat Elements that display creditable performance over extended periods. Normally, Honours will not be awarded below sub-unit level. In addition to the Honours defined below, other categories of awards are made for operational service. These include Gallantry and Distinguished Service Decorations, Chief of the Defence Force (CDF) and Service Commendations and foreign awards. These awards result in individual embellishments and should not be confused by the Honours covered in this Instruction. It is likely, however, that the actions leading to these individual awards may result in consideration for one of the four Honours. In this Instruction Honours refers to Battle Honours, Theatre Honours, Honour Titles and Honour Distinctions collectively." From http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/our_honours/ “Our Australian honours system is internationally renowned and respected and you can learn more about its history, along with the official creation, administration, design and making of awards as well as how they are announced and presented. Australia’s distinctive honours system began in 1975 with the creation of the Order of Australia, to recognise service to the nation or humanity, as well as the Australian Bravery Decorations and the National Medal. Since then, Australia has created additional awards to completely replace those areas of service previously recognised in the British system and to recognise additional areas of service valued by Australians. Australian honours are unique in that they were designed for the community to make nominations. The Australian honours system is free of patronage or political influence. Anyone can nominate an Australian citizen for an honour. Prior to the establishment of the Australian honours system (and overlapping with it for a time afterwards), Australians were honoured by awards in the British Imperial honours system. Imperial honours (except for a few which are in the personal gift of the Queen) are no longer awarded to Australians. On the other hand Administration of Australian Battle Honours, Theatre Honours, Honour Titles and Honour Distinctions is a document of the Department of Defence and is unrelated to the Australian Honours System. Anthony Staunton (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Disagree that these are unrelated. For example the Vietnam Medal is one of the 55 Australian honours listed on the itsanhonour website but it is also a Theatre Honour and therefore forms part of the Army system which is described as The Australian Battle Honours, Theatre Honours and Honour Titles and Honour Distinctions by the army and perhaps deserves an article in its own right. It is also listed under section 4.6 Campaign and Overseas Service on this page. This is very much a Venn diagram. My thoughts are that: the Australian honours system is Set A (of a Venn diagram), the Australian Battle Honours, Theatre Honours and Honour Titles and Honour Distinctions form Set B (of a Venn diagram), and the sections in this article on Royal and Imperial honours form other Sets C and D etc. the Vietnam medal is in the intersection of Set A and Set B. I totally agree that Australian honours system is a great subject for an article but the current article contains material outside the system. If this is an 'umbrella' article, the current title Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia is as good as any or else create other articles for the other content. Happy to have a go at the proposed article above. I like the quote above that states that the system was designed for the community to make nominations etc but it is patently absurd for the community to nominate for theatre and battle honours, at least one of which forms part of this system.AWHS (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC) As evidenced by my #Splitting hairs? section below, I think your Venn diagram idea is a very good one. But I disagree with your set definitions, and you continue to avoid addressing certain issues that would unambiguously define the sets. the Australian honours system is Set A. the sections in this article on Royal and Imperial honours form other Sets C and D, and these are subsets of Set A. the Australian Battle Honours, Theatre Honours and Honour Titles and Honour Distinctions form Set B - If you say so. I have no idea what these are - you haven't defined them or provided references that define them. Campaign Medals are Set E. They are another subset of Set A. I have no idea what their relationship is to set B, because I don't know what set B is. ODM of Australia are Set F. This is yet another subset of Set A. I think Set E is a subset of Set F. Again, I have no idea about set B. Commemorative medals (Set G), Long Service Medals (Set H), Gallantry (I), Bravery (J), and others (Set Misc.) are all independent of each other, are all subsets of Set F, and hence are all subsets of Set A. Personally, I think Set B is a red herring and irrelevant to this discussion, but I am prepared to be convinced by a convincing argument. As I have said many times in many places in the course of this discussion, No, the current title Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia is not a good name for the article, and is, in fact, nowhere near "as good as any" name. And I have explained why many times. And you continue not to respond to those explanations. I totally agree that Australian honours system is a great subject for an article but the current article contains material outside the system. - What material does the current article contain that is "outside the system", AND, please explain why you believe that material is "outside the system". [Note Bene: Royal and Imperial honours are not outside the system - the various definitions include them.] Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Happy to retire gracefully from this discussion. In my first read I missed the subtle difference between "system" which is the key word missing from the government website. I think that Australian Battle Honours, Theatre Honours and Honour Titles and Honour Distinctions deserve a place, so if the "system" is taken to broader and all encompassing I am delighted with that. The best public summary that I can find of the Defence aspect is listed here http://www.defence.gov.au/medals/Content/+130%20Publications/system%20brochure.pdf The process in Defence varies from the civilian awards in that Defence differentiates between the process for individual awards versus the process for honours which are group awards. The public cannot nominate for "honours" for example a battle honour, theatre honour etc. such as the Vietnam Medal. This process is determined by the Battle Honours Committee (BHC) which met in 1981 and did not meet again until 2012. The army (and also other services) also differentiate between "warlike" and "non-warlike". Some of the information on this page is plain wrong if taken in context of defence awards, for example "Any person or organisation can make nominations of Australian citizens for Australian honours" is not true. The community does not nominate people for a Vietnam Medal. The defence position goes along these lines: Theatre Honours are Gallipoli 1915, France and Flanders 1916–1918, Middle East 1941–1944, South West Pacific 1942–1945, Korea 1950–1953 and Vietnam 1965–1972 (mentioned above). A Theatre is a campaign or series of operations. Battle Honours are Landing at Anzac, Hamel, Tobruk, Kokoda Track, Kapyong and Coral-Balmoral. These are awarded to units and worn by all members. They are most visible on Anzac day and unit colours. They are only awarded to the arms corps. Honour Title is normally a unit award, for example the title "Coral" awarded to 102nd Field Battery for its outstanding achievement during the Battle of Coral in South Vietnam. Honour Distinctions are intended to recognise service under operational conditions in security-related, peace keeping and peace enforcement and similar operations, for example the award made to the 17th Construction Squadron, again this is a unit award. I agree that this is poorly explained on the Defence website. I am certain that there are other examples for the other services. This also seems to fall (almost) completely outside the http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au website My concern is that thousands of defence servicemen wear these Australian Honours and Awards daily, and take great pride in them. AWHS (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Sub-section 3 Oppose - Keep the current ODM name. ODM is a widely used term that specifically refers to particular state recognised awards to people. The comment about the new Battle Honours system is precisely why we should not confuse the issue any further by opening the page up to a wider range of "honours". The new Honours Distinction is purely for units and worn on their colours. As opposed to say Unit Citations which are also presented to individuals and worn on their person.--Oliver Nouther (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Support. I object to a long winded title in preference to a succinct descriptive title in popular use. Orders, decorations, and medals (ODM) of Australia should be redirected to the Australian Honours System which is much more than merely ODM. While the Australian Honours System includes ODM of Australia, ODM of Australia is a subset of the Australian Honours System. Oliver Nouther states that ODM is a widely used term that specifically refers to particular state recognised awards. I respectfully disagree on two grounds. This article only includes ODM of the Australian Honours System, ignoring Australian state and territory ODM and in Australia the widely accepted term is the Australian Honours System. I agree with the concern about the new Battle Honours system but they would not be a problem if the article was renamed since they are not part of the Australian Honours System. On the other hand the Unit Citation for Gallantry and the Meritorious Unit Citation have been part of the Australian Honours System since 1991 and are specifically mentioned in the Australian Order of Wear. Neither of these citations are ODM and should not be included if the title remains the same. Similarly the reference to Royal Honours and Foreign Honours should be deleted since they are not ODM of Australia but are awarded and worn under the policy of the Australian Honours System. One thing missing from the article, under whatever name is agreed to, is the Australian variants of the British Second World War campaigns stars. For instance, only Australia issues the Africa Star for service in the Syrian campaign which was not in Africa! Anthony Staunton (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC) State awards should be under a separate title and treated separately. They are no mentioned in the National Order of Wear and if worn are to be worn on the Right hand side with other unofficial awards. Service medals are not honours.--Oliver Nouther (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Service medals are not honours - However, they are part of the Australian Honours System. (refer Order of wearing) Pdfpdf (talk) 05:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Your link is entitled Order of Wearing Australian Honours and Awards and talks about Australian Orders, Decorations and medals. It mentions the Australian System of Honours and Awards, I don't see any mention of the Australian Honours System. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 07:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC) State awards should be under a separate title and treated separately. They are not mentioned in the National Order of Wear and if worn are to be worn on the Right hand side with other unofficial awards. - Yes, but what does that have to do with this discussion? State awards are not included in ODM of Aus, nor are they included in the Australian Honours System. I think I must have missed your point. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC) The inclusion of State awards was purely in response to Anthony Staunton's post.--Oliver Nouther (talk) 07:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Keep. Changing the title of the article will not change the value of the article. The title of the article does link with other associated articles. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 05:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC) After re-looking at this Pdfpdf, your quite correct mine should be and is Oppose. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 22:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC) I presume you mean Oppose? Pdfpdf (talk) 05:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Changing the title of the article will not change the value of the article. No, it won't. But it will give the article a title that accurately describes its contents, whereas the current title does not accurately descibe the contents. The extension of your statement is that you could change the article name to "Purple People Eaters" and that will not change the value of the article, and I agree. But I don't think it's a good idea ... Pdfpdf (talk) 05:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC) The title of the article does link with other associated articles. I don't understand - please refer to #Prior discussion - Rename to "Australian Honours System"? above. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Support. The first link following the article is: Australian_Honours_Order_of_Wearing. Surely by definition "Australian Honours" exist within an "Australian Honours System.Lexysexy (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Support rename to Australian honours system. This matches the lede, which should normally be the case. The current title is confusing with too much detail, and probably leaves out some honours that should be included. "Awards". "Prizes". Australian of the Year. Let the text explain the nature of the honorific awards. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Precisely! This page is specifically about ODM, or if you like, official Honours and Awards. It is not about the range of "other" awards given nationally. Australian of the Year, Mother of the Year, National Treasure etc are not ODM. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC) What page covers the other things? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Feel free to create a Category, List or page if you like. That would be more appropriate than lumping a range of other honours and/or awards onto a page that is specifically about Orders, Decorations and Medals.--Oliver Nouther (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Sub-section 4 Forked thread: Precisely! This page is specifically about ODM, or if you like, official Honours and Awards. It is not about the range of "other" awards given nationally. Australian of the Year, Mother of the Year, National Treasure etc are not ODM. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Actually Oliver, some of what you say is not accurate. In fact, this page is not "specifically about ODM". Nor is it "specifically about official Honours and Awards". It's about a number of things that fall under the umbrella of "The Australian Honours System", including the definition and description of the system. It is not about the range of "other" awards given nationally. - Agreed! (Who said that it was?) They are not part of "The Australian Honours System". As you concisely state, those other things are in the category: '"other" awards given nationally'. Australian of the Year, Mother of the Year, National Treasure etc are not ODM. - Agreed! (Who said that they were?) Nor are they part of "The Australian Honours System". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC) I am glad you agree. The page describes the ODM of Australia, the fact that it includes a little extra information is noy unusual... perhaps a cleanup is more in order.--Oliver Nouther (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC) I think that perhaps you may be missing the point? A major part of, and the focus of, the article is the Australian Honours System; it is not just "a little extra information". Yes, one of the things on the page is the ODM of Australia. But the page is not just about the ODM of Australia; the page is about all of the things that make up the Australian Honours System, including a description of the system itself. Pdfpdf (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC) ODM of Australia is about an important part of the Australian Honours System but presently ignores the system itself. It includes foreign awards which are not ODM of Australia but are worn by Australians as a result of the regulations of the Australian Honours System. On the other hand it is not ODM of Australia but ODM of the Australian Honours System since it does not include Australian State and Territories ODM – see pages 402 to 409 of the 2013 Medal yearbook. Anthony Staunton (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Splitting hairs? I thought this proposal was quite straightforward, but apparently not! (It seems I did the right thing by opening it for discussion, rather than just WP:BOLDly moving it.) We now seem to have descended into the realm of pedantry, and as I'm probably the most pedantic of the contributors to this discussion, I need to proceed with caution. We now seem to have a number of "titles" which all seem to have different meanings, but it's not entirely clear what everybody thinks each of these titles means. The titles include: Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia (ODM of Aus) Some (e.g. me) think this means just ODM; others think something else, (but I'm not sure what.) Australian Honours and Australian Awards The 55 awards listed at http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/awards/a-z.cfm Note that this page makes NO mention of an australian honours SYSTEM, only of Australian honours, Australian Awards, and Imperial Awards (http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/awards/imperial.cfm) Australian Honours System Some (e.g. me) think this means the whole "kit & caboodle"; others think something else, (but I'm not sure what.) Australian System of Honours and Awards Some (e.g. NOT me) think this means something different to what I think "Australian Honours System" means, (but I'm not sure what.) Maybe if we all had the same / a common understanding of the meaning of the terms being used, we might have a better chance of coming to some sort of consensus? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move it back?

Oliver Nouther objected to the page move on the grounds of precedence. Thoughts? Miniapolis 16:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Just want to find out your justification for the move the Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia to Australian honours system. There was a lively debate on the talk page, a couple of very vocal views but the support and oppose was pretty evenly spread. There did not seem to be consensus for the move. Furthermore, the shere number of other country articles of a similar name would imply a wiki wide consenus in favour of the old name. Cheers. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts? - Oh yes. Many. And they are ALL already recorded in the discussion above.

There is nothing new in what Oliver Nouther placed on your talk page, and EVERY one of the points he again raises has been addressed above, several times, by several people.

Also his assessment of the discussion is highly biassed, and incorrect, (as has been pointed out to him in the above discussion, several times, by several people).

• Just want to find out your justification for the move the Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia to Australian honours system. - I would be interested to know that too.
• a couple of very vocal views - MORE than "a couple"
• but the support and oppose was pretty evenly spread - Errrrr. No. It wasn't.
• There did not seem to be consensus for the move. - Well, that's a matter of opinion, not fact.
• Furthermore, the shere number of other country articles of a similar name would imply a wiki wide consenus in favour of the old name. - Nonsense. Analysis included in the above demonstrates that articles about Honours Systems are named "Honours System", and articles ONLY about ODM are named ODM. The shere number of articles on wikipedia with "song" or "album" in their title is NOT a precedence for putting "song" or "album" in the title of every article on wikipedia. Similarly, the fact that there are more grapes in a bunch of grapes than there are bananas in a bunch of bananas is NOT a precedence for calling both a bunch of grapes. The fact that different articles have different names for different reasons, including that they are about different things, is pretty obvious.

As explained to Oliver Nouther in the above discussion, this article is not JUST about ODM - it is about the Australian Honours System, of which the ODM are but one part. An that's why there was a proposal to rename it.

Just in case I wasn't clear, the matter of precedece is irrelevant to this renaming. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Vocal views by some indeed and I am not biased at all. Errrrr yes it was, 3 Support, 2 Oppose the move, hardly consensus not an opinion. Not nonsense at all, your table and the links provide the evidence as to the precedent for the number of articles named ODM. Whilst you "explained" your opinon at length it is not consenus. The article contains little about the honours system and a significant amount about ODM. The answer is not to rename the article but move the "extra" to a better place.--Oliver Nouther (talk) 06:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

and I am not biased at all - No. Of course you are not! Neither is anyone else. (And if you believe that ... )

Errrrr yes it was,3 Support, 2 Oppose - Umm. Err. No. I'm not out to pick a fight with you, but you are saying things that simply are not true. Please have another look at the discussion, and come up with a more accurate assessment of the numbers. And, in any case, as you should be well aware, these discussions are not about "votes" - they're about reasons.

And, despite the lengthy discussion that has occurred, you continue to ignore / avoid / whatever the FACT (not opinion, FACT), that this particular article is not just about ODM - this article is about the whole Australian Honours System.

your table and the links provide the evidence as to the precedent for the number of articles named ODM. - Again, you you continue to ignore / avoid / whatever the FACT (not opinion, FACT), that articles about systems are named system, and articles about ODM are named ODM. Yes, there are lots of articles named ODM. So what?

Why should we name an article about the system "ODM" because there are more articles written about ODM?

As I explained above, it is a non sequitur, and totally irrelevant.

The article contains little about the honours system - Nonsense.

and a significant amount about ODM - And so it should!!

The answer is not to rename the article but move the "extra" to a better place. - That's a completely different point of view that this proposal does not address. Such a suggestion has its pros and cons, but NO other country has found it necessary to have two pages - why should Australia be the first? To use your reasoning and language, there is precedence that this should NOT occur. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Look. I'm sick of this discussion. There is nothing new in what you have said, and nothing new in what I have replied. It has ALL been discussed, in detail, above. Unless you can come up with something new, why don't you give it a rest? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I am a strong supporter of the change but am embarrassed to say that the best argument in favour of the reform was not used in the discussion but in the final decision. WP:CRITERIA recommends titles that are recognizable, natural, precise, concise and consistent. Australian Honours System is preferable to the long winded Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia. Australia is the first word of the present title compared to the sixth word of the former title and logic suggests that the name of the country should be near the front of the title rather than lost in the rear. Anthony Staunton (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Crikey, what a response! On rechecking I agree my maths was a little out. I now get 4 For the move, 3 against. It is difficult to determine, given the confusion over suppport/oppose and the interwoven arguements. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

For a more leisurely and concise discussion on a medals issue see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Victoria_Cross_recipients_(A%E2%80%93F) Anthony Staunton (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

(Mainly here because your edit stuffed up the section heading, but never-the-less ... ) Why? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)