Talk:Royal Australian Corps of Signals

Bloody lineys

Apparently the line course goes for 18 minutes now, that must have been nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.82.133 (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

"Operator Bearer Systems (linesmen and riggers, unquestionably the corps superior members..."

Permission to take this out, as obviously geeks are the superior sigs

Trust a bloody geek to be on wiki while the rest of us are outside working.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.71.21 (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Guys, this is not a forum... ;) Cheers, DPdH (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

New

I've created a very quick page.

There isn't much wiki info on the Aussies corps. Brettr 05:40, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I've made a few more wikilinks. It reads a bit like a recruiting ad rather than an encyclopaedia entry still. There's more order of battle info at Australian Army#Signals that could be included and expanded on here, if it's still up-to-date - that article has a note about a reorganisation at the bottom. --ScottDavis 08:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I am a former sigs officer and I'd like to contribute more but I'm living in Japan now so I don't have access to my military library. Brettr 03:35, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'm interested to read and fix wikilinks and wording slightly, but won't be able to contribute much new information on the topic. --ScottDavis 04:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Royal Australian Corps of Signal → Royal Australian Corps of Signals – All the official Australian Army and Defence sites use the plural term Signals SigPig 11:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• I couldn't see any reason to oppose this move, and it conformed to the usage in the page, so I've just moved it. Shimgray | talk | 14:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Changed the name of 3 CSR to its new name - Combat Signals Regiment. I am not sure of the titles of the rest of the corp, so i wont change them. -Sig Bloggs

Updates Jan10

I have updated some of the sig units status's over Jan 10. After some research, I believe the updates to be reliable. If anyone has any probs with me doing these updates, please advise via this forum. HD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.51.196 (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes Nov 2012

I've removed the "...formerly known as..." unit history in the "Structure" section, because where does it stop? "7 Sig, formerly known as 101 Wireless", or does it get ridiculous "17 Sig, formerly known as 145 Sig Sqn, formerly known as LFSU, formerly known as 2 Sig, formerly known as 3 LofC Sig...". The unit/designation changes weren't recent (145 -> 17 Sig was 2006, and Land Force Signal Unit hasn't existed in...15 years?!), and if this information is still important it should be in a page dedicated to the unit history, not on the Corps main page. Similarly, removed long obsolete 1JSU.

Logistic Support Force (LSF) has become 17 CSS Brigade, and 130 Sig Sqn has been disbanded/renamed to 110 Sig Sqn. 110 Sig Sqn has been moved to reflect this change, removed from Forces Command and placed under 17 CSS Bde.

Someone has placed 130 Sig Sqn as a 1 Sig unit and marked it (notional) without removing it from Forces Command. I removed both. The (notional) is reasonable, but ambiguous. Does it mean that it might exist but unsure, that it is supposed to exist but it hasn't been funded/equipped/manned, that it does exist but has been reduced to cadre status, or is it just a rumour? In 2008 when it was disbanded, there was speculation by the Army that 130 Sig Sqn might at some point in the future be raised as a unit of 1 Sig. As far as I'm aware, that has neither been confirmed as happening nor that it already has happened. I can't find any reference for it lately, and something that might, *perhaps* happen shouldn't be .

Keeping track is difficult, and it isn't helped by some Defence administrative documents perpetuating long out of date unit info due (probably) to re-used templates and copy-paste. As I have been typing this I am half tempted to do a unit stub for some of these Sig Regts/Sig Sqns. I have enough resources to put in a brief historical timeline, but not enough for a full history, and I certainly don't have the time. But that is what Wiki is for!113727b (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

My Bad,re;130. I know that 127 is correct. -.-. . .-. - .- -.-. .. - --- .... --- .-. ... .