Talk:Second Army (Australia)
Latest comment: 5 years ago by AustralianRupert in topic Designation
| 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. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Designation
editBased 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)
- The war diary calls it Second Army. What does Mackenzie–Smith call it? Kges1901 (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- G'day, on p. 2020 in volume 2, he lists it as "Second Aust Army". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)