Talk:Minister for Defence (Australia)

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Military history / Politics Mid‑importance Minister for Defence (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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Mid-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat'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 CL‑class 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 CL This article has been rated as CL-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not 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

Did Malcolm Fraser start as the Minister for Defence in 1968 or 1969?

In the article on Malcolm Fraser, it says:

in 1968 he was made Minister for Defence

In the article on Minister for Defence (Australia), it says:

36 | Malcolm Fraser | 1969-1971 | Liberal Party of Australia

Could someone please correct whichever article is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan O'Donnell (talk • contribs) 02:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been discussion of recent edits to this page on the talk page of an editor. I feel that the best place for discussion of those edits is here; so I am continuing discussion here.

I am really disappointed to return to the Minister for Defence page and see what has been done to it. While there are some good edits, (e.g. Massey-Greene/Granville Ryrie), there are some really sloppy and bad edits. Little consideration has been given to comparing the formatting in the tables on this page to similar tables for other Australian ministers. I'd like to point out a few facts:

1. Gillard was not Prime Minister in the latter days of the service of Stephen Smith as Minister for Defence. Rudd was.

2. Generally, post-nominals are not included in tables, unless of specific relevance to the table being completed. For example, if a Minister for Defence had military awards, that may be relevant. But not MP. The same relates to the use of the term Senator.

3. It is normal that the first mention of a political party is wikilinked, and all subsequent mentions of the same political party are not wikilinked.

4. The same occurs for Prime Minister and Ministers who serve subsequent terms, such as George Pearce.

5.

Sir James Dickson

died on 10 January 1901, so I don't know how he was appointed as Minister on 10 January 1901 and served until 17 January 1901. This is very sloppy editing.

6. There was no Minister for Defence between 10 January 1901 and 17 January 1901. Again, sloppy editing.

7. And I can't believe that an editor typed in actual dates instead of using the standard format of {{t:25 September 2013 (2013-09-25)}} that was already in place.

There are other edits that could be done to improve this page, but given all that has been destroyed here, I'm not going to waste my time. Rangasyd (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my opinion: points 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 seem fair enough. I disagree on points 3 and 4, though. I don't think it's normal at all - it's quite common for everything to be linked, just as it is quite common for it not to be. I personally prefer everything to be linked in a table format. Frickeg (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1, fixed. Point 2, I took the use of post-nominals from other lists, and I care not a bit whether "MP" is included. I fail to see the problem with "Senator" though. There is a difference, and it is of some interest to see how often a particular office is held in the upper house.

Points 3 and 4, as Frickeg says, is wrong. Both are normal, and linking makes more sense than not linking. Expecting people to hunt around for where in a table the link occurs is asinine. We should help users, not hinder them.

Points 5 and 6, fixed. Point 7 makes no sense whatsoever. How exactly is it easier to use what you call the "standard" {{start date}} template and why does it matter to you? And why do you think this is standard? The template is meant to add meta data to a page. Its use hundreds of times on a single page adds absolutely nothing for anyone, and using actual dates is just easier to work with.

And if we want to talk about sloppy editing, we can take the multiple mistakes you made (Massy-Greene for a start) or the bizarre use of the grey line to denote gaps lasting a mere matter of days, when such a gap is essentially meaningless. We can add to that the questionable decision to have a "Title" column for tables where only one title was ever used.

I always love vitriolic comments that are unsigned; editors who don't know when to add spaces or not; and editors who don't know how to indent. As to sloppy editing, the source used reflected the editing. Rangasyd (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most Ministers of Defence were MHRs, not MPs, because they were in office before the title was dumbed down. Grassynoel (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]