Talk:Sparrow Force

Name lists

I wonder if it is really appropriate to have such a full listing of military awards, and a complete list of all australian service members missing or dead. This section is longer than the actual narrative, and it seems to me that sites like the AWM would be far more appropriate for this. It is not the type of basic, critical information most encyclopedia readers need. Rather a link to such information could be provided (as I am sure that the AWM AND other institutions list such info).Dewobroto 15:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I know what you are saying. I think we would have a problem if someone were to list KIA/missing for a whole division or larger formation. But there are not that many articles about battalion-level formations, such as this one and even if they all listed their casualties, it would not take up much space. If there is a WP policy specifically against such lists, I would say remove it, but I'm not sure that there is(?) Grant | Talk 05:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What on earth has been going on with this page? I looked at all the removed referencing and images. This page needs some work to improve it. Even the Winnie the War Winner page has had its references removed. --Pundit45 (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Minor edits

Firstly, the 2/2nd did fight in New Guinea, but not on the Kokoda Track. Secondly, it was not most of the 2/40th escapees that joined the 2/12th, it was only about 30, so I made appropriate changes. 124.179.232.177 12:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Some concensus on references on this page

I have noted that there has been some type of tug-o-war over the referencing and images used on this page and others related to Sparrow Force, especially in relation to topics depicted in a recently released book. I request that Wikipedia editors reach some consensus over what is now the authoritative account on Sparrow Force.

Firstly, can I say that I have been contacted by the author and discussed his concerns. He created this Wikipedia page (and others) years ago to help with his research for his book. Most of the information on the Sparrow Force page and others are original material mentioned in that book. Also, the research is supported by witness accounts, which can now be found on Youtube.

Another factor that has been brought to my attention is that the author claims that his main account was hacked and that several other accounts have been created in an effort to pretend to be him. This has jeopardized every edit to this page.

I would suggest that, rather than deleting every edit to this page, some latitude be given to improving the quality of these pages. Maybe a new account could be created which is sanctioned by the author? I could provide edits that properly cite the information on these pages? To prevent vandalism and other abuses to these pages, maybe they should be locked and only edited by certain users?

The veterans associations associated with Sparrow Force endorse the book in question.

Please let me know what the best course of action is. --DoubleReds (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works at all - we don't give exclusive rights to work on pages to single authors, or endorse one source over others. I very much doubt that Bofors40mm's account was hacked, and can see no sensible reason why anyone would set up accounts impersonating them. Nick-D (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't insinuating on exclusive rights, just monitoring to prevent a repeat of what's happened recently. I have gone through the sources of all the material on these pages and ask that you check to see if they are satisfactory. --DoubleReds (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Unit memorial?

To someone outside Australia without much knowledge about the subject this page looks more like some sort of unit commemoration without much context. I have fair knowledge of wartime history in that area but it is not helped a lot by unit citations and lists of awards (all would be better covered at a real commemoration web site). Comments about a Japanese major may be interesting along with the various slogans but the piece still does not help the overall picture. As one example; how was this force reinforced, supplied or evacuated? Units are noted as being elsewhere, did they teleport? I know ships were lost in the evacuation and can add piecemeal, but my interests lie largely elsewhere and I am not going to research background to the level needed for this interesting, but minor aspect of the war there. I think the "memorial site" aspect needs to at least migrate to a list type page or to an external link and the context of the force's deployment, mission, action and withdrawal needs serious attention. Palmeira (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Palmeira, I've done a major rewrite by collecting material from more recent sources, including several of the people who contribute to this page. Tell me whether there is anything further that should be added. I wish to add a photograph of the Australian, British, and Dutch badges and patches but may need some help with the coding. Bear with me. Please check with the citation code as I've noted it may need tweaking. --DoubleReds (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

G'day, it's good to see that there is interest in improving this article. I am slighlty concerned, though, about the current approach. The article currently contains a lot of icons, which probably breaches the policy of WP:ICON. Additionally, the long list of decorations seems excessive for an encyclopedia entry and possibly breaches Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. In this regard, I'd probably suggest removing them, although if you want to get a broad opinion, you might consider listing the article at peer review. There is a lot of good information in the article to work with, and with a little bit of collaboration, I think it should be possible to improve the article up to at least B class if everyone is keen. I'm happy to help with some minor things, such as formatting and copy editing (which I've started), but unfortunately I don't have much in the way of sources. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 79 LAA Bty Walton on Thames.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)