Talk:5th Battalion (Australia)

Merger proposal

Should this article be merged with Victorian Scottish Regiment? They both seem to cover the same ground. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. I don't see anything wrong with an entry for both. Given the complicated lineage of a lot of Australian Army units (esp Reserve units) if we followed this to its logical conclusion a lot of articles should be merged. To be honest I think that would be confusing, and less than useful. Anotherclown (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment. This is a difficult question because the lineage of many Australian Army Reserve/militia infantry units is very confusing. I recently wrote an article on 31st Battalion, Royal Queensland Regiment, which highlighted this to me. Basically it began as the Kennedy Regiment, which continued to exist at the same time as the 31st Battalion, AIF, then later after World War I it became the 31st Battalion (The Kennedy Regiment), perpetuating the AIF WWI battle honours. In reality it was a separate unit from the WWI AIF unit, but to maintain consistency I chose to have 31 RQR as the main article, with redirects from Kennedy Regiment and 31st Battalion. I also tried to write 31 RQR in a manner that described the history of 31st Battalion, AIF, as well as that of the militia unit of that same designation.

I know that other AIF battalion pages have been merged with the militia units that followed, i.e. 9th Battalion and 9th Battalion, Royal Queensland Regiment, so for consistency it probably should be merged. If this it to happen, though, I think that the 5th Battalion, AIF, should be a redirect to the Victorian Scottish Regiment, and the Victorian Scottish Regiment become the main article, which would then need to be expanded to provide a suitable overview that also includes the 5th Battalion's history. After all, it is not just about where the battle honours were held, but also about the unit that earned them. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Although the Victorian Scottish Regiment inherited the 5th Battalion's battle honours after 1921, they co-existed between 1914 and 1918, so could be confusing. 5th Battalion article should relate to World War I service and then link to Victorian Scottish Regiment for 1921 afterwards. Newm30 (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the tag given the above consensus. Tejanse (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-army-today/state-regts/victorian_scottish-5th.htm
  • In 2/5th Battalion (Australia) on 2011-05-25 06:56:24, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 2/5th Battalion (Australia) on 2011-06-10 04:50:30, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 5th Battalion (Australia) on 2011-06-19 20:25:19, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 5th Battalion (Australia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090429094520/http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-army-today/state-regts/victorian_scottish-5th.htm to http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-army-today/state-regts/victorian_scottish-5th.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)