text:
SMSC

SMSC may refer to:

Organizations

 * Seoul Metropolitan Subway Corporation, now merged into Seoul Metro, South Korea
 * Southwest Minnesota State College, US, now a university
 * Standard Microsystems Corporation, a company acquired by Microchip Technology
 * Smithsonian-Mason School of Conservation, Virginia, US, a partnership between George Mason University and the Smithsonian Institution

Other uses

 * Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, a tribe of Dakota people in Minnesota, US
 * Short message service center, in the mobile telephone network
 * Spiritual, moral, social and cultural development, provided in schools through the National Curriculum for England

title: SMSC


text:
User:Gotanda

Gotanda is a station on the JR Yamanote Line in Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, Japan. It also happens to be where this user resides. My main Wiki is Simple English Wikipedia.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Gotanda


text:
Talk:Australian Army

Royal Prefix
Question. Why doesn't the Australian Army have the Royal prefix like the Navy and Air Force? -Penta 06:48, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Possibly for the same reason the British Army doesn't have the "Royal" prefix. But I don't know what that reason is. Geoff 06:55, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * My guess would be that the Army did not have a unified command - units originally tended to be under specific lords quasi-independent of the king. We note that a number of individual old units are "Royal" though, those being the "King's Own". The Navy was always more like the personal fleet of the king - no "Duke of Lancaster's Frigate Squadron" :-) or the like, and then RAF copied consciously. Stan 07:56, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Question. Why doesn't the Australian Army have the Royal prefix like the Navy and Air Force?

The Answer-

The answer lies in the fact that the Navy and the Air Force are homogeneous bodies whilst the Australian Army is an elemental organization made up of a number of corps, services and departments. Our Defence Force is based on the British system where a person can enlist straight into either the navy or the air force but one cannot join the ‘army’. In the United Kingdom a person is enlisted straight into either a regiment or a corps (eg. the Royal Regiment of Artillery, the Grenadier Guards, or the Royal Corps of Transport)and recruit training is carried out by that formation. No one joins the ‘Army’ as such.

 * Why is it that Longhair placed this in the category of Royal Australian Army then (see link at the bottom of the main article, I'm having trouble putting it in here)? - Bambul 04:36AM, 22 June 2005 (UTC)

 * The Army does not have a Royal prefix (I don't know why), although the Royal Australian Regiment and several other units do. The category currently reflects this. --Scott Davis Talk 14:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The army does not have a prefix, because it is not "the army". The Australian army is broken down into a series of corps, such as the Royal Australian Regiment, Royal Australian Artillery, Royal Australian Ordnance Corps etc. That's where all your royalty is!

WW1
We really need details of 1916-18 battles, and of campaigns other than Gallipoli and the Western Front, including German New Guinea and the Middle East, if anyone would like to help with this. Cheers Grant65 (Talk) 13:09, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * I prefer having the detailed history in the 1st AIF article and a more concise version in this article. Otherwise the WWI section is going to outweigh the neighbouring peacetime periods.  Certainly there is no need to duplicate paragraphs.  I am happy to work on the WWI content. Geoff/Gsl 00:13, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks Geoff. I think the WW1 section does need trimming down, but I do think we need mentions of battles there, which -- after all -- is what many people are interested in. I think the "war sections" should be bigger than the peacetime ones, considering that the article is about an army. (By the way, I like the pages on Generals Bridges and Bennett.) Grant65 (Talk) 11:36, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * Makes sense to me. As I said, I am happy to work on WWI but didn't want to butt in while you were fleshing out the article.  I do intend to write a Military history of Australia during World War I which should provide an intermediate level of detail between this article (plus navy & political content) and the specific battle/unit/officer articles.  As for the generals, Bridges isn't one of mine but I had a need for an article on Bennett so when I noticed you needed one as well, I got it started.  I will do his WWI career but feel free to write the WWII sections (of which I know little). Geoff/Gsl 05:01, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The page is looking good, well done. Most of the significant battles are now there. I'll be too busy with other things to do much with it in the near future.Grant65 (Talk) 12:23, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Equipment
Compare Modern equipment and uniform of the British Army. Alphax τεχ 07:17, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hrm, still nothing on the Army website. Alphax τεχ 03:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The section under infantry says that the RAR is one large regiment of six battalions. This is a bit misleading as the infantry regiments aren't the same as other regiments. I'm not sure how to word this. Brettr 08:52, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

Simply mention that the Australian Army is modelled after the the British system, so that infantry regiments contain multiple battalions but that armour, artillery, engineer, special forces, etc 'Regiments' are the size of a single battalion. LamontCranston 04:31, 2005 Aug 20 (UTC)

Why does this article mention a possible increase in the number of Australia's Bradley armoured fighting vehicles? I am sure the Australian Army never had any, nor does it currently have any plans to acquire them.

Length of article

 * This article is starting to get quite long (or so the warning says every time you edit it). Perhaps it's time to make the History and/or Structure section(s) a separate article and collapse the relevant section(s) in this article? I would recommend making structure of the army a separate article and just including an overview of it in this article with a link to the new article (e.g. Stucture of the Australian Army). - Bambul 11:40, June 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Military history of Australia seem to have been started, coincidentally, at around the same time as my expansion of the history section. I guess the two should be merged somehow, but I'm not sure how to go about it and don't reall have time at the moment.Grant65 (Talk) 13:04, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hammersfan
Please do not fill the article with html comments. Comments should be made on this page.

Units of the Regular Army
This section is a mishmash of corps and units. Are the terms "combat support arms" and "Combat Service Support" (used under the heading "Units of the Regular Army") part of army doctrine. The terms I was taught are simple combat arms (inc sigs, sappers and aviation) and service corps. These terms sound very dubious to me, I can't imagine labelling the new attack helicopter units as "combat supprt".

Yes, they are... for example "10 FSB" (10 Force Support) "3 CSSB" (3 Combat Service Support Battalion). Also, 5/7 RAR is becomming demalgamated.

To back up the last note, yes the terms "combat support" and "Combat Service Support" are officially used as part of army doctrine. As for saying that you cant see the new attack helicopter as being "combat support" its not. I have it on good authority that Aviation is now designated as a combat corps. However, relegating the Royal Regiment of Australian Artillery as "combat support" Figure that one out!

Counting the Leopards
To whoever (IP 203.16.225.80) keeps changing the statistics to only 71 Leopard tanks, the ADF has 90 Leopard gun tanks. Or at least the Anzac Steel page on the Leopard thinks so: http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/leopardph_1.htm

As does several other sites such as Defense Industry Daily: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/11/gd-receives-final-416m-delivery-order-for-australian-m1a1-tanks/index.php

and a couple of more important pages like the Australian Army's own newspaper: http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1060/topstories/story11.htm

and the Australian National Audit Office: http://www.anao.gov.au/WebSite.nsf/Publications/555F03062BE2B6B7CA25700B0077785A see under Section 4 "Track Manoeuvre Systems Program Office" which incidentally also indicates only 59 M1s are being bought.

The ADF has 71 Leopard 1 Main Battle Tanks, the other 19 are recovery vehicles or something. Everything I've read says 71 Main Battle Tanks, not 90. Suck shit.

 * Straight to abuse, how nice. Obviously you haven't bothered to read the 4 links I provided. There are 90 AS1 gun tanks, 5 bridge layers and 8 ARVs. Ways 05:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

ROE people!!! be nice. im going with 90 Eevo 21:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ on a pogo stick have your bloody 90 Leopards I don't really even care!

 * Eloquent to the end I see, the tanks aren't mine they belong to the Australian Government and you very clearly did care or you would not have spent the time to edit the number in the first place. If Wikipedia is to be at all useful it had better at least be accurate and not based on the ill-informed opinion of an anonymous editor. Ways 14:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Look I'm sorry for the harsh language, I was a bit pissed off being challenged about my knowledge of the Australian army. Its just everything I've ever read said 71 Leopard tanks, but it looks I was wrong. Lets move on.

 * Fair enough. If it helps any I have a distant memory of being told once they only operate around seventy of the ones they have, the balance are either in storage/rebuild/overhaul or issued as replacement vehicles when one needs to be overhauled, or at the School of Armour. But I couldn't tell you which. Ways 05:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well where getting rid of them now, we should of got Leopard 2's in stead of Abrams. And besides, why did we only buy 59 Abrams?

 * I'm not really sure, I think it works out as around 4 squadrons (3 operational plus 1 for the School) plus an HQ section. Depending on which way the political wind is blowing there may be a subsequent purchase of aditional vehicles as there was for Centurion and Leopard after a couple of years, but I wouldn't count on it. It's a bit late to change now anyway, the first Abrams have arrived Ways 06:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess we'll have to wait and see. Besides, Tanks are expensive to run, seeing as the amount of fuel they consume. Apparently Abrams take 40 litres of fuel to start up. Won't be to good when fuel becomes really expensive.

Recruiting issues in article
In regards to the bit about recruiting in the main article. Despite the media beatup about falling recruitments the facts are that recruitment is falling in PROFESSIONAL occupations in the Army, like Doctors, Nurses, Dentists etc They are still recruiting the dumb ones ;)

Numbers especially for infantry are that large that the School of Cool, aka the School of Infantry is actually full and that Diggers are getting their IET training directly at the Battalions now. I'd suggest checking this fact out and amending your article :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.215.163 (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
 * If the article's wrong, why don't you correct it yourself? This is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" after all. --Nick Dowling 22:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Ratings
I believe the start class and low importance ratings of this article should be re-evaluated. Especially the low importance rating, considering articles such as Fremantle Prison, 2006 Australian Grand Prix and 2006-07 Australian Capital Territory budget are rated high importance.

Totally agree! The Bryce 11:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The article hadn't recieved a rating. I've just rated it as being of high importance. --Nick Dowling 11:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks Nick, I actually removed the low importance rating with my edit. I thought it was pretty offensive.RP Bravo 11:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

 * OK - my mistake. I wonder why it ever received such a low importance rating ? --Nick Dowling 11:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

?Regular Force?
"Regular Force" is the templates name given to the link to the basic article "Australian Army" which is misleading; as the article (as it should) gives an overview of both Regular Army and Army Reserve elements.

If some regular member is keen to create an article specifically on the ARA (excluding the reserve elements) in addition to the overall "Australian Army" that would be good. Linking the entire army, under a reg only link is inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TInTIn (talk • contribs) 06:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles with specifically-marked weasel-worded phrases?
Where?--mrg3105mrg3105 06:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

 * In Australian Army, third parragraph:
 * Along with this announcement, many claim that a need for more and better equipment is required, possibly meaning an increase in the numbers of M113 APCs, Bushmaster IMV and M1A1 Abrams tanks being ordered.
 * Hope that helps. - BillCJ (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Guess what...http://www.warveteransaustralia.com.au/index.php?page=adf-army seem to agree by using the Wikipedia weasel words as a wholesale quote :O)--mrg3105mrg3105 07:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Rank Abbreviations
I agree with Nick that the common forms (eg Lt Gen) should be used not the official military abbreviation (eg LTGEN). I've never seen the latter used in non-military publications. I don't think the argument that the military abbreviation is more correct is valid, perhaps in an article about ranks. Brettr (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

 * It is a prefix to their names. Proper form should be used of the persons organization. The abbreviations LTGEN and GEN, are no more ugly than say, FM. Conversely, if you would like, we might spell out their rank titles. Which would be more appropriate. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

 * The Australian military's capitalisation of all letters in the short version of ranks is not normally used outside the military (for instance, in newspaper articles and books), and as such isn't appropriate here. Wikipedia is not bound by the ADF's style guides when writing about military topics and does not use these capitalisations as they are not generally used. Anyway, Defence generally doesn't use capitalised ranks in its press releases and other publications aimed at the general public (this press release is a good example - the capitalised abbreviation is only used in the bit at the bottom directed at the defence media). Nick Dowling (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

 * From what I see in the article, I gather you are advocating spelling out their rank titles, good. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Rising sun version 3.gif
The image Image:Rising sun version 3.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

Size of Army?
In the article, size is listed as "26,611 (regular) 15,892 (reservists)". http://www.dfat.gov.au/aib/defence_security.html says this; [quote]There were more than 51 500 permanent full-time military personnel in the ADF in 2006-07 and over 19 500 Reserve military personnel.[/quote] That's quite a difference in numbers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.140.145 (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's because those figures are for the whole defence force. --Searle, L. (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --21:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just from an old digger - Military comes from militia meaning ground forces, not Navy or Air force so when referring to the army they are military. Also HRH Queen Elizabeth is the Commander of the Australian Army and the entire defence force through the Governor General.

Under Section 68 of the Constitution, the Governor-General is the Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force, although in practice he or she acts only on the advice of Ministers of the Government. The Minister for Defence is responsible for Australia’s defence policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.175.187 (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Two comments relating to the statement "Military comes from militia". (1) The words "military" and "militia" both come ultimately from the Latin "miles" (genitive "militis") meaning "soldier", but neither of the two comes from the other. (2) When considering what a word means, what matters is what the word is normally used to mean and understood to mean, which is very often quite different from the meaning of another word it is derived from. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect equipment name
Although a small error, the FN Minimi is actually referred to as the F89 Minimi in the Australian Army, although practically the same thing.  JTod94 (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

2010 Reorganization
I have just finished updating the graphic commons:File:Australia Land Forces.png to reflect the 2010 reorganization. Two question remains tough:
 * are the 21 and 22 Construction Regiments still active or have they been folded into the 19th Chief Engineer Works??
 * is the 17 Signals Regiment of the 17 Brigade the same as the 17 Command Support Regiment??

thanks in advance, for answer to these two questions. --noclador (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Orientation
I have removed the following paragraphs from the article for now, as an article of this prominence is ill-served by the inclusion of un-sourced material. I agree that such information is important as it adds some context to the article, and I am happy for it to be included if reliable citations for it are provided. As a suggestion this could probably be included in a section on capabilities.

"The Australian Army is oriented toward low- and medium-intensity operations against symmetric and asymmetric enemies. The Army has traditionally been structured as a light infantry force. This has changed somewhat in recent years, with an increased emphasis on motorised and mechanised forces. In the next few years, two of the seven regular infantry battalions will be mechanised (using the upgraded M113 APC) and two will be motorised (using the Bushmaster). Nevertheless, the motorised and mechanised battalions still train with an orientation toward operations in close combat and have a high emphasis on patrolling and other dismounted operations, thus maintaining the traditional Australian skill set."

"Until recently, the main area of operations has been Asia, particularly South East Asia and the Pacific, so the light infantry orientation has not been a hindrance. In fact the Australian Army is known to produce troops and units with a very high standard of jungle warfare, patrolling, ambushing and other infantry skills."

"Due to Australia's small population, the Army will always make up only a statistically small role in coalition operations. Successive Australian governments since 1989 have deployed components of the ADF with specific skill sets, so that the Australian contribution is always of greater significance than raw numbers of troops would suggest. Often this has taken the form of the deployment of special forces, though this has changed in recent years, for example in Afghanistan. Australian forces have always trained with and maintained close relationships the US and British forces and are now being equipped to better interoperate with US/British/coalition forces. The defence relationship with US forces is probably now closer than it has been at any point since the Vietnam war, especially at a working level."

Happy to discuss. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

 * It looks accurate, but I agree that citations are needed. There are also differing opinions on these topics which should be acknowledged - for instance, some commentators argue that the Army's infantry battalions are too 'light' to be used in any kind of intensive combat and it's also been suggested that the M113s are now so outdated (even following their upgrade) that the mechanised battalions are ineffective and likely to suffer heavy casualties in open warfare. Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree, in fact I had been considering doing the same when I saw it last week but didn't get around to it. Agree also with Nick's comments, the removed text does appear to be broadly accurate, but there are certainly other opinions out there. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed as you say Nick, a full treatment of the topic would need to consider how the Light Infantry model limited the governments land power options during the 2003 Iraq War, given the concern about involvement in high intensity warfare and house-to-house fighting. Anotherclown (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Rising sun image
While SVG is a preferred format on the Wikimedia projects, SVG images should be the same as the original however this SVG image is not the same is not the same as the original Rising Sun. In the Australian military it is offensive to recreate an historic image which isn't the same as the original and also goes against what Wikipedia is about. Bidgee (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok mate I think you're coming on a bit strong. I'm sure Fry1989 means no disrespect and is only trying to improve the article. Personnally as a serving member I have be staring at a slouch hat for the last five minutes and can find nothing wrong with his addition. It certainly seems to be a clearer image than the current one. Maybe you could actually explain to him what is wrong with it (because its not cear to me). Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Bidgee, I'm glad to see someone passionate about the subject, but could you please explain exactly what is wrong with Fry's image? As per what Anotherclown has said, I'm not sure what is wrong with the image that Fry has added. I have served in the Army for five years and difference is not readily apparent to me (I am also looking at my slouch hat right now.) I'm fairly sure that Fry meant no offence by its addition. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the SVG (enlarging the SVG shows it well) has random triangles, no white/transplant background above the scrolls of THE and ARMY and the cross on top of the Queens crown is a little larger then it is shown on this "Rising Sun". Bidgee (talk) 06:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes, I can see the issue with the image not having the transparent background above the scrolls, but the "random triangles" do appear on the real thing (if one looks really closely). They are actually short sun rays/bayonets (depending upon one's take). AustralianRupert (talk) 10:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bidgee I can see those issues now also. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Would someone be able to upload the SVG file somewhere again? It would be valuable to have it viewable. RonCYA (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Recruiting Issues Redux 2011
I would like to re-open the issue of the recruiting section of the article. From reading the discussion page I surmise that much content that was on the main page has been moved to more appropriate sections, or has been expanded into an article of their own, as more information has been added over time. IMO this has made this page informative and concise, providing basic information while acting as a "portal" linking to more specialist pages. I think that this has left "Current recruiting issues" in the Personnel section as a problem for several reasons: Although I hesitate to cite the Chicken Little-like incompetence of The Australian on defence issues:
 * 1) The references are starting to get a bit old. An issue from 2006 may or may not be relevant to 2011, but the issues presented (additional recruiting needs, unit de-linking and raising, and a comment volley between (now former PM) John Howard and (now former PM) Michael Somare) are now 5 years old.
 * 2) Many of the statements aren't cited or are contradictory. Either there aren't enough recruits or there are too many, but how can there be both? There's no explanation. IMO if the information isn't a current issue then it shouldn't be so prominent (or maybe not there at all).
 * 3) Which leads to the final problem, it is particularly over-represented on the main Australian Army page. With all the other sections expanded into other appropriate articles or their own article, this section has been orphaned (in a way) and now appears to take up a disproportionate amount of space on the Australian Army page for what may or may not be an issue any longer. A quick search reveals no active "conversation" on the issue (by which I mean news articles and politician/commentator comments), and those that do reveal that there are TOO many recruits but that there are shortfalls in a few specialist roles.
 * http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/swollen-adf-puts-brakes-on-recruiting/story-fn8r0e18-1226065969415
 * http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence-missions-in-peril-as-recruitment-drive-stalls/story-fn59niix-1226065198726

I would suggest that the section is deleted and replaced with a smaller one addressing recruiting issues as they are now and not 4-5 years ago. If the information it currently contains is deemed useful if not crucial and needs to be retained, then perhaps a linked article that addresses recruiting and retention issues in the ADF, or even one with a historic perspective (recruiting and retention issues for the ADF is not a new phenomena). This is almost the exact same issue that was raised on the Discussion page four years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113727b (talk • contribs) 20:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, your proposals seem reasonable to me. I've not got much time to help rewrite the section at the moment, though. If you are keen, I'd like to encourage you to have a go yourself, although its probably best to see what some other editors think about it first. If I might offer a suggestion, perhaps you could work on rewriting the section in a sandbox in your userspace and direct editors there to see what you are proposing. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

 * I'd go further: the current material is hopelessly outdated and no longer relevant. The article should discuss the Army's manpower situation (I recall reading that it's now got lots of infantrymen, but is still very short on technical personnel) but almost none of the existing content is useful for this. As such I've boldly removed the material from the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Forces Command Link
When you click on the highlighted text "Forces Command", it links you to the US Army Forces Command page instead of the Australian Army Forces Command page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.137.2.8 (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've adjusted a point of aim right. I don't think that the Australian version has an article yet. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Addition of images
This is the second time I have had to remove the bulk addition of images to this page. Per the BOLD, REVERT and DISCUSS cycle this needs to be discussed BEFORE being added again (see WP:BRD). Whilst I have no issue with adding a few additional images indicative of the history of the organization care needs to be taken not to add too many as it causes overcrowding of the (limited) text. That said my main concern is that several of these images are non-free and need a fair use rationale if they are going to be used. These images are currently used on other articles and have an FUR for that use but not for this article. I believe it would be fairly difficult to sustain an FUR for this article as they are mainly being used decoratively and as such adding them here is only likely to draw the crabs (i.e. image police) and will result in their inevitable deletion and loss to the encyclopedia. Pls acquaint yourself with our image use policy before adding images in the future. Anotherclown (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have just re-removed the images. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok still no discussion but I'll continue for the sake of it. With this edit I restored the removal of an image depicting the Australian Army colours on parade as it seemed far more relevant to the section (entitled "Colours, standards and guidons") than two images of Australian forces in Afghanistan. I am of course happy to discuss this if any other editor disagrees. Anotherclown (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

 * http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsaustralian-army-orders-additional-bushmasters-thales
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

2017 changes
scale down regular.

ASG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.225.222.110 (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Commander in Chief: the English royals
The command in chief of the naval and military forces of Australia is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative.

This should be said clearly that the actual commander is the English queen or king. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.232.161.164 (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

 * That's pretty much a paraphrase of Section 68 of the Constitution, which states that "The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor‑General as the Queen's representative". As such, the GG is the commander in chief of the ADF, not the monarch. In practice though, the GG exercises no control whatsoever over the ADF, with the elected government doing this. The references at Chapter II of the Constitution of Australia explain this. Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

 * They're British, not English. GoodDay (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Retooled History Section
I have retooled this section in accordance with the British Army article, with all existing information being moved to the introduction. I may have gone too far by adding specific theatres in the world wars. This is meant to be a summary unlike the dedicated article. Again if anyone wants to revert this fine by me, after all I have haven't provided the sources, it is barebones and anyone will have better editing experience than me. IronBattalion (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Rank retooling
i think the rank section needs to be retooled into something like this:

it is much easier to digest than text IronBattalion (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, that would possibly be okay, but wouldn't it duplicate what is already at Australian Army officer rank insignia and Australian Army enlisted rank insignia? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it would, however I would argue this article is supposed to be a summary and legible to read, the current method is not the greatest and the articles you mentioned can go into further detail like different rank insignia for special units and their history. More examples include what the Staff Sergeant did, what ranks were the Staff Officers and what did they do. This is best exemplified by the British Army's page and its resultant rank pages; they still need work as do ours but do you see my point?IronBattalion (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, ok, no objections from me, then. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Revert Retooled Current organisation?
I have a conundrum, recently I have changed the section to include Corps and Regiments. While they deserve a mention in this page, I am starting to doubt that they should be included proper. The current information that I have inserted is as much as I could think to add. Also the references should be either replaced or additional ones added due to the lack of veracity of them. I am hesitant though, any opinions? IronBattalion (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, I wonder if this might be better dealt with in the Structure of the Australian Army article, instead. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes that would be quite nice, I have already deleted the section (wait for talk posts first before you go through with your plans ... idiot), however due to my relative newness to editing in Wikipedia and the class of the article I am reluctant to do this (he's scared of failure and edits getting rejected ... coward) IronBattalion (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, it's all good -- please don't worry too much. It is good to be cautious, but if you make a mistake someone will correct it. I think you have gotten off to a pretty decent start. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Retool Aircraft, Future Procurement?
I am suggesting that the Aircraft will be merged into the Equipment Section and that the Future Procurement will be transitioned to the Equipment page. The latter would need extra work in transferring the references, we could even merge everything I'm suggesting into that page. This is to reduce unnecessary repetition of sections and provide opportunities to enter the club of 'plunging down Wikipedia's wombat hole' via the potential increase in information.IronBattalion (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, yes, that makes sense, IMO. They are all related sub topics of Equipment, so probably should be grouped together. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll go ahead with my initial plans then. IronBattalion (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Question, do references transfer if a section is copy pasted onto another page? or do we have to do it Manually? Thanks IronBattalion (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, so long as you retain the html/mark up coding they will -- but you need to be careful copy pasting from other pages as copyright is important. For instance, attribution is required per Copying within Wikipedia. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant from one wikipedia page to another. Thanks IronBattalion (talk) 08:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Conscription
Hello, I'm trying to add conscription to the Article as a pervasive history throughout the years, and definitely deserves a better mention than being in the 'See also' section. Any thoughts/ideas? Thanks, IronBattalion (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, I'd suggest working it in throughout the narrative, rather than creating a separate section. For instance, perhaps it could be made clearer that the First AIF was an all volunteer force in the World War I section, while in the interwar years section you could mention the changing recruitment policies used to man the Militia. The Second World War section could also contrast the all volunteer nature of the 2nd AIF with the mixed nature of the Militia. Same same in the Cold War section. The current organisation section could also make it clear that the force is currently an all volunteer force. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rupert, I'll get onto it over the next couple of weeks IronBattalion (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd second Rupert's suggestion here. The tensions between the volunteer and conscript forces are also worth briefly noting (during the world wars, and the post-war periods of conscription). Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Page's Class
I'm wondering when does this page come out of Start-class; what issues does it have, if any? This is a) to get me more used to Wikipedia and b) allows me to possibly fix any issues I'm unaware of. Thanks. IronBattalion (talk) 05:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, you can request an independent re-assessment of a military history article's class/rating by posting a request at WP:MHA. I would say, though, that is still currently a start class (albeit close to C-class article). The main issues are that currently there are still a few places needing references (the equipment section mainly and a couple of places I've marked with cn tags). In terms of coverage, the World War I section should briefly mention operations on the Western Front in 1917 and 1918 and the World War II section doesn't really talk about operations in the Pacific after the return of the 2nd AIF divisions (would suggest mentioning Kokoda, Milne Bay, Buna-Gona, Salamaua as part of efforts to blunt the Japanese advance in New Guinea in 1942-43, then detail the shift to offensive operations with Lae, Nadzab, Huon Peninsula in 1943. The final actions in Aitape-Wewak and Borneo should also be mentioned. Also, I think the interwar years section needs expansion and the point about MFO being a non-UN peacekeeping operation probably should be added to the body (as it appears in the lead currently, uncited).  Technically, also, anything in the infobox should probably also appear in the body of the article with a reference. If all this could be rectified, it would probably be B class, IMO (although I would let someone else assess it as I am too close to the topic). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is finally complete, Australian Army is finally out of Start–Class.IronBattalion (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions
G'day, thanks for your work on this article. I have a few suggestions for further improvements: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

 * page numbers for refs 17, 25, 27, 50 and 53 -- also they should probably use the same format as ref 4
 * suggest in the World War I section (when talking about the Western Front) mentioning that the AIF was withdrawn from the line around early October 1918 after Montbrehain and had not returned by the time of the armistice in November
 * format of ref 30 - Stockings, probably should use the same format ref 4
 * format of ref 29 -- this should be attributed to its author (Walker), should have the full bibliographic details (Middle East and Far East (1962 edition), including page numbers and be presented as a book in the same format as ref 4
 * a couple of lines in the equipment section still appear to be uncited (e.g. small arms, special forces, MBTs, radar)

Great work, cheers. I can't really assess it, though, formally as I am probably too involved. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the feedback, for the world war 1 recommendations I got a book referenced in the page, just need to reloan it to ensure I'm referencing properly (this and a latter thing I was concerned about beforehand). For the book page numbers, that's gonna take a while as I, again, need to reloan stuff. With the rest of the feedback I'll complete... and figure out... sometime tomorrow (I just need to go to bed early for the Dawn service), cheers. P.s. I am slightly concerned about the latter campaigns of WWII that I wrote as I think they go into too much detail. IronBattalion (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks. Hope the service goes well. I am away from home this year, but we will still have a service. You are probably right about the WWII detail, when compared to say the section on Korea and Vietnam, although arguably a couple of the more notable battles could also be mentioned in those sections, too, if you were looking to take this towards a GA-rating. I think the key is not to replicate the History of the Australian Army article, but to provide a broad brush stroke of the salient points. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Earnt
IronBattalion - Not found in any competent dictionary and not suitable for an encyclopedia. The correct spelling is 'earned'. Neils51 (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

 * The Macquarie dictionary, the official Australian English dictionary (used by the Government) lists both earned, and earnt without qualification. Earnt is acceptable in UK and Australian English. It is perfectly suitable for a page that has the template "Use Australian English" KarmaKangaroo (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism of service numbers
Please stop the changes to the service numbers outside of the figures listed in the government reports, it's not funny when they're edited to millions of people or "about 7". Thank you Seannie4 (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Rank Abbreviations
@Nick-D Can you please explain the revert of rank abbreviations? If this is a page of the Australian Army why are the rank abbreviations not those used by the Australian Army? Currently, it's US Military rank abbreviations. Seems for the purpose of an encyclopedia, and a page about the Australian army should have the Australian Army Abbreviations. KarmaKangaroo (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Australian Army


text:
Dassault Étendard II

The Dassault Étendard II was a French prototype fighter aircraft initially developed as a follow-on project to the Dassault Mystère series. It was presented to the French Air Force for evaluation but was rejected in favour of the Dassault Mirage III.

Originally designated Mystère XXII, the aircraft was developed in response to a French Air Force requirement for a light, jet-powered fighter-bomber. At around the same time, the NATO NBMR-1 requirement was circulated, also calling for a light strike-fighter, and Dassault developed a very similar aircraft in parallel for that competition (the Étendard VI).

The sole prototype of the Étendard II flew on July 23, 1956 but proved to be somewhat underpowered and showed nothing like the promise of the Mirage series and was quickly abandoned.

A further development of the Étendard concept, the Étendard IV was successfully developed for French Navy service.

title: Dassault Étendard II


text:
User talk:Dawidl

Replaceable fair use Image:FelixLaband-03.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:FelixLaband-03.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 71.176.83.93 (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Anton Rupert (Biography).jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Anton Rupert (Biography).jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Sound amplifier manufacturers
Category:Sound amplifier manufacturers, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Inviting you to WikiAfrica Incubator!
Hey Dawidl,

WikiAfrica invites you to support the Africa Incubator

WikiAfrica is pleased to invite you as a self-declared African Wikipedian to evaluate the Africa Incubator. WikiAfrica has created the Africa Incubator to support and assist new authors, as they create their first articles and learn the ins and outs of contributing to Wikipedia.

The Africa Incubator is a ‘soft landing’ for new authors to develop articles that relate to Africa. It assists them in becoming compliant and knowledgeable of Wikipedia principles and rules. Based within the Wikipedia framework, the Africa Incubator is fully interactive and enables feedback, assistance and forums.

This is where we need your help! For the Africa Incubator to be successful, it needs the intervention, interaction and experience of Incubator Mentors. We are looking for a pool of active experienced Wikipedians to consistently participate in ’owning’ the Africa Incubator. Incubator Mentors will assist new comers through the editing process. They will also help test and expand the Africa Incubator, and will play a vital role in encouraging newcomers to be Wikipedians for life

Please visit WikiAfrica Incubator to give us your honest feedback and evaluation. WikiAfrica is a ground-breaking project that is designed to Africanise Wikipedia by generating and expanding 30,000 articles over two years. Find out more about this project here WikiAfrica. To get involved, contact Francis [wikipedian@wikiafrica.net] Twitter: twitter.com/#!/wikiafrica Facebook: www.facebook.com/WikiAfrica --Awinda 12:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awinda (talk • contribs)

Call for Wikipedians in Residence in Africa
Hello,

I hope you are well and thriving!! WikiAfrica has just put out a call for two Wikipedians in Residence. One in Cape Town at WikiAfrica, at the Africa Centre; and the other for WikiAfrica Cameroon in Douala, at doual’art. If you are interested, please contact either Marilyn [marilyn.doualabell@undefineddoualart.org] for the WikiAfrica Cameroon call or Isla [islahf@undefinedafricacentre.net] for the WikiAfrica position in Cape Town.

If you are not interested in applying, I would be very grateful if you could spread this call far and wide among your networks to ensure that both projects get excellent candidates. Here is the link for the information page: http://www.wikiafrica.net/two-wikipedians-in-residence-for-africa/

Best regards, Islahaddow

(This message was sent using Lucia Bot at 22:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC))

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Ant Receives Honeydew from Aphid (Edit 1).jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Musical Fidelity for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Musical Fidelity is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Musical Fidelity until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dawidl


text:
Indian pitta

The Indian pitta (Pitta brachyura) is a passerine bird native to the Indian subcontinent. It inhabits scrub jungle, deciduous and dense evergreen forest. It breeds in the forests of the Himalayas, hills of central and western India, and migrates to other parts of the peninsula in winter. Although very colourful, it is usually shy and hidden in the undergrowth where it picks insects on the forest floor. It has a distinctive two note whistling call which is heard at dawn and dusk. It is listed as least concern on the IUCN Red List as the population is considered large.

Taxonomy
The Indian pitta was first known in England after an illustration by an Indian artist was sent by Edward Bulkley to James Petiver and given the name of "Ponnunky pitta". This illustration was included by William Derham at the end of John Ray's posthumous Synopsis methodica avium which was published in 1713. The bird was again described and illustrated by Mathurin Jacques Brisson in 1760 and George Edwards in 1764. The Latin names coined by Brisson do not conform to the binomial nomenclature and are not recognised by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. When in 1766 the Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus updated his Systema Naturae for the twelfth edition he included the Indian pitta, cited the earlier publications and coined the binomial name Corvus brachyura. Linnaeus specified the type location as "Moluccis" and "Zeylona". The Maluku Islands is an error as the Indian pitta does not occur there. The generic name Pitta was proposed by Louis Pierre Vieillot in 1816 for birds with a short tail, a straight pointed beak and long wing feathers. It is a monotypic species.

Etymology
The word 'pitta' is derived from the Telugu language meaning 'small bird'. The specific name brachyura is a combination of the classical Greek words βραχυς brakhus 'short' and -ουρος -ouros '-tailed'.

Local names in India are based on the colours and behaviours like the time of calling and these include Hindi: Naorang, Punjabi: Nauranga (=Nine colours), Bengali: Shumcha, Cachar: Dao bui yegashi, Gujarati: Navaranga or Hariyo; Tamil: Kaachul, Aru-mani kuruvi (=6-O'Clock bird), Kathelachi, Thotta kallan; Telugu: Polanki pitta, Ponnangi pitta; Malayalam: Kavi; Kannada: Navaranga and Sinhala:. The Sinhala interpretation of its call is that the bird is complaining about the theft of its dress by a peacock: ,which translates as: "Came and went! Came and went! I'll still be complaining when the next Buddha comes! I'll still be complaining!"

Description
The Indian pitta is a small stubby-tailed bird that is mostly seen on the floor of forests or under dense undergrowth, foraging on insects in leaf litter. It has long, strong legs, a very short tail and stout bill, with a buff-coloured crown stripe, black coronal stripes, a thick black eye stripe and white throat and neck. The upper parts are green, with a blue tail, the underparts buff, with bright red on the lower belly and vent. The bird hops on the ground to forage and has been known to get trapped in ground traps meant for small mammals. It has been suggested that the width of the coronal stripe may differ between the sexes.

It is more often heard than seen and has a distinctive loud two-note whistle wheeet-tieu or wieet-pyou or sometimes, a triple note hh-wit-wiyu. They also have a single note-mewing call. They have a habit of calling once or twice, often with neighbouring individuals joining in, at dawn or dusk leading to their common name of "Six-O-Clock" bird in Tamil. When calling the head is thrown back and the bill is pointed upwards.

Pittas are among the few Old World suboscine birds. The Indian pitta is the basal member of a distinct clade that includes many of the Oriental species. It forms a superspecies with the fairy pitta (P. nympha), mangrove pitta (P. megarhyncha) and blue-winged pitta (P. moluccensis).

Distribution and habitat
The Indian pitta breeds mainly in the Himalayan foothills from the Margalla hills in northern Pakistan to Nepal and possibly up to Sikkim in the east, and in the hills of central India and in the Western Ghats south to Karnataka. It migrates to all parts of peninsular India and Sri Lanka in winter. Exhausted birds sometimes turn up in human settlements. It is rare in the Thar Desert.

Ecology and behaviour
Indian pittas roost in trees. They feed on insects and other small invertebrates that they usually pick up from the ground or leaf litter. They have also been noted to take kitchen food scraps from the ground.

They breed during the south-west monsoon from June to August, with peaks in June in central India, and in July in northern India. The nest is a globular structure with a circular opening on one side built on the ground or on low branches. It is made up of dry leaves and grasses. The clutch is four to five eggs which are very glossy white and spherical with spots and speckles of deep maroon or purple.

Avian malaria parasites have been noted in the species. Five out of thirteen birds in an ectoparasite survey were found to have the tick, Haemaphysalis spinigera.

Their seasonal movements associated with the rains have not been well studied.

Other sources

 * Ingalhalikar, S. (1977). "Indian Pitta in captivity". Newsletter for Birdwatchers. 17 (7): 8–9.
 * Ingalhalikar, S. (1977). "Indian Pitta in captivity". Newsletter for Birdwatchers. 17 (7): 8–9.

title: Indian pitta


text:
User talk:Sundar

Current archives

 * Previous archives

/Archive0 /Archive1 (Tamil-related discussions) /Archive2 /Archive3 (of some aberrations) /Archive4 /Archive5 /Archive6 /Archive7 /Archive8 /Archive9 /ArchiveA /ArchiveB /ArchiveC /ArchiveD /ArchiveE /ArchiveF

Invite for discussion on Sector 13, Chandigarh
There is a discussion on the talk page section of Sector 13.

Disclaimer: This is just an invite for you to participate. I neither encourage you to vote against the topic nor in the favor of the topic. This is just a neutral message for participation and It is totally your decision.

Following is the brief of the topic :- Manimajra was renamed as sector 13 legally by UT government of Chandigarh in January 2020. Below are links to the decision:- 1). https://m.timesofindia.com/city/chandigarh/manimajra-to-be-renamed-sector-13-residents-elated/amp_articleshow/73114749.cms.

2). https://www.hindustantimes.com/chandigarh/chandigarh-s-manimajra-is-now-sector-13/story-ploFPCA4UGpDu9ksUxLtdL.html

It is true that the proposal had been initially opposed in december 2019. In the initial proposal, names like Sector M or Sector 26 east were proposed. Here is the link for initial proposals made :-

3)https://m.hindustantimes.com/chandigarh/manimajra-rwa-wants-number-not-m-after-sector/story-Q7ZPsdh5y120cEqlVAKuhP_amp.html

4)https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-chandigarh-to-finally-get-sector-13-after-54-years-of-formation-2813378 (these articles were published in newspapers in 2019 which is old).

5)https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/chandigarh/mani-majra-to-be-sector-m-863728

This link i provided over here was published in Tribune India in November 2019

But soon the final decision was made which overruled the previous proposals and finally the new name for manimajra was concluded as sector 13 by the beginning of 2020. The next link (6th Link) was also published in Tribune India with the final decision which was declared in February 2020 :-

6)https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/chandigarh/its-official-mani-majra-is-sector-13-of-chandigarh-39042

Keep in mind these wiki rules n regulations WP:OFFICIALNAME WP:COMMONNAME

TUSC token 44155a1b2bdd72fd96e3b6e8b2a93925
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Your feedback is requested

WikiProject Writing Systems is conducting a poll regarding its future goals, and we have identified you as a person with a vested interest in the future of that project. Whether you are a member of the WikiProject, a frequent contributor, or a passerby with an interest in the subject, we want your input as to the future emphasis that the Writing Systems project will take. Please take a moment to peruse the entries and add your comments where you have an opinion. You can visit the poll by clicking here, or on the project image, 書, on the right.

Wikimedia Stories Project
Hello,

My name is Victor Grigas, and I'm a storyteller at the Wikimedia foundation. We're telling stories of Wikipedia users, editors, donors, programmers and staff to paint a picture of who uses Wikipedia - for the 2011 fundraiser.

I am in the process of planning a trip to India to gather stories from Indian Wikipedians in face-to-face interviews (possibly on video).

My primary goal is to conduct 15-20 interviews, and hopefully enough of my interviews will make compelling stories that will effectively solicit donations from the public. These stories may also be used for other communication purposes by the foundation.

I found your userpage on a list of prolific Wikipedians and thought I’d reach out to you. Prolific editing is always a good story to tell!

If you are interested in participating, please contact me via my email:

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Thank you for your time!

Victor

About me: I have been a Wikipedia editor since 2005, and have a background in film, video and audio. My userpage can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Victorgrigas

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue
Books & Bytes ''Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013 (Sign up for monthly delivery)'' Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:
 * Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%
 * Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
 * New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
 * Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
 * Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
 * Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting

...Read Books & Bytes!

Books & Bytes – Issue 62
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes

Issue 62, March – April 2024
 * IEEE and Haaretz now available
 * Let's Connect Clinics about The Wikipedia Library
 * Spotlight and Wikipedia Library tips

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

About Tamil Script
Hello, Sundar. I have some questions about the Tamil Script. First question is do we have any evidence of usage of Tamil Script in 3000 BCE even the proto-Sinaitic script was first used in early 2nd Millenium BCE? I thought this is a mistake and I wanted to revert it. Now, I made a research about Tamil-Brahmi script and as per Wikipedia, the oldest recordings of this script dates back to 3rd century BCE. Maybe we should re-correct this. If you think I'm mistaking, please message me back. Crxyzen (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 63
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes

Issue 63, May – June 2024  Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * One new partner
 * 1Lib1Ref
 * Spotlight: References check

title: User talk:Sundar


text:
Charan Singh (disambiguation)

Charan Singh (1902–1987) was Prime Minister of India from 1979 to 1980.

Charan Singh may also refer to:

 * Charan Singh (Sant) (1916–1990), fourth satguru of the Radha Soami Satsang Beas
 * Charan Jeath Singh, Indo-Fiji politician
 * Chaudhary Charan Singh (airport), Lucknow, India, named after the prime minister

title: Charan Singh (disambiguation)


text:
CIMD

Computer Interface to Message Distribution (CIMD) is a proprietary short message service centre protocol developed by Nokia for their SMSC (now: Nokia Networks).

Syntax
An example CIMD exchange looks like the following:

03:007021:12345678033:hello 53:007021:12345678060:971107131212

Each packet starts with STX (hex 02) and ends with ETX (hex 03). The content of the packet consists of fields separated by TAB (hex 09). Each field, in turn, consists of a parameter type, a colon, and the parameter value. Note that the last field must also be terminated with a TAB before the ETX.

Two-digit parameter types are operation codes and each message must have exactly one. The number after the operation code is the sequence number used to match an operation to its response. The response code (acknowledgement) of the message is equal to the operation code plus 50.

In the example above, the operation code 03 means submit message. Field 021 defines the destination address (telephone number), with field 033 is the user data (content) of the message. Response code 53 with a field 060 time stamp indicates that the message was accepted; if the message failed, the SMSC would reply with field 900 (error code) instead. A good amount of supporting software to implement CIMD is available from Nokia's Website to build CIMD client. You can fire SMS from message center with the help of CIMD client tools.

Software

 * Kannel, Open-Source WAP and SMS Gateway with CIMD 1.3 and CIMD 2.0 support.
 * Ixonos MISP CIMD simulator, Open-Source CIMD v2 compliant server for testing CIMD client applications

title: CIMD


text:
Maybach 57 and 62

The Maybach 57 (chassis no. W240) and 62 (chassis no. V240) were the first automobile models of the Maybach brand since its revival by DaimlerChrysler AG (now Mercedes-Benz Group AG). They are derived from the Mercedes-Benz Maybach concept car presented at the 1997 Tokyo Motor Show. The concept car was based on the Mercedes-Benz W140 S-class sedan platform, as were the production models. The Luxury Brand Status Index 2008 placed the Maybach in first place, ahead of Rolls-Royce and Bentley. The models ceased production in February 2013 due to continued financial losses for the brand, with sales at one-fifth the level of the profitable Rolls-Royce models.

History
Wilhelm Maybach was an engineer who worked with Gottlieb Daimler to design combustion engines. The first Daimler-Maybach automobile was built in 1889. Over the years, the Maybach name developed into a brand name for automobiles that were typically very large, powerful, and luxurious. For example, the Maybach Zeppelin DS 8 Cabriolet built in 1929 had side sections that could be lowered completely to allow it to be used as a parade car. In 1998, DaimlerChrysler AG's competitor, BMW AG, purchased the ultra-luxury brand Rolls-Royce. The Maybach brand name was reintroduced in 2002 to be a direct challenger to BMW's top vehicle, the Rolls-Royce Phantom.

Design
Both Maybach models are variants of the same ultra-luxurious automobile. The model numbers reflect the respective lengths of the automobiles in decimetres. The 57 is more likely to be owner-driven, while the longer 62 is designed with a chauffeur in mind.

Features
Standard features of all models include, but are not limited to: a navigation system with voice recognition; power rear sunshade; rear-seat DVD entertainment system; interior air filter; front and rear seat massage; 21-speaker Bose premium sound system; power tilt/telescopic heated leather-wrapped-wood steering wheel with radio and climate controls; power trunk open/close; voice-activated AM/FM radio with 6-disc CD changer; keyless start; heated front and rear seats; cooled front seats; adaptive cruise control; premium leather upholstery; 18-way power front seats; 14-way power rear seats; heated cupholders; rear beverage refrigerator; rear pop-out folding table trays; rearview camera; pneumatic soft close doors; iPod adapter; wireless cell phone link; outside-temperature indicator; universal garage door opener.

Every Maybach has 2 climate control systems – one for the front compartment and one for the rear. Each can be programmed and operated independently, producing four-zone climate control.

An upgraded version of the Mercedes air suspension system called AirMatic Dual Control is standard, featuring air springs complemented by an additional spring-rate adjustment system with adaptive damping.

Options for the Maybach 62 and 62S include: 18-way power rear seats (replacing 14-way); power side sunshades; cooled rear seats; wireless headphones; electrochromic power panoramic sunroof (replacing power sunroof); steering wheel mounted navigation controls.

The company offered various options for customers to personalize their vehicles, and provided various equipment combinations.

Performance
The engine in the base Model 57 and 62 is the Mercedes-Benz M285, a 5.5-litre twin-turbo V12 developed specifically for the new Maybach cars. Output is 550 PS at 5250 rpm with 664 lbft of torque at 2300-3000 rpm. A slightly de-tuned version, denoted M275, was used in the 2003-2006 W220 S600 and CL600 replacing the M137, naturally-aspirated V12, which appears in the 1998-2002 W220 S600 and CL600.

The Maybach 57 accelerates from 0 to 60 mi/h in about 5.1 seconds; the Maybach 62 and 57 S, about 4.8 seconds; the Maybach 62 S, 4.5 seconds, and the Landaulet, 4.5 seconds. In terms of power output, the 57 and 62 have 550 PS; the 57 S and 62 S, 612 PS; and the Zeppelin has 640 PS.

Price
As of early 2008, European and United States prices were:

 * Maybach 57 - $366,934 / €341,750
 * Maybach 57 S - $417,402 / €381,250
 * Maybach 62 - $431,055 / €392,750
 * Maybach 62 S - $492,602 / €432,250
 * Maybach Landaulet - $1,350,000 / €900,000

Introduction
On 26 June 2002 a Maybach 62 enclosed in a glass case on the Queen Elizabeth 2 departed from Southampton, England, en route to New York City, with the media and company officials staying in the luxury suites on board. The ship arrived in New York on 2 July, welcomed by geysering fireboats and a motor boat. A helicopter lifted the car off the liner and onto a dock. It was then driven to the Regent Hotel, Wall Street.

Maybach 57
The Maybach 57 is the base designation. 1,104 units produced.

Maybach 57 S
Daimler revealed the Maybach 57 S at the 2005 Geneva Motor Show, with the S standing for Spezial. It uses a 6.0-liter version of the V12 engine manufactured by Mercedes-AMG. Power output is 612 PS and torque 1000 Nm, providing a sub-five second sprint to 60 mph. It also rides 0.5 in lower on 20-inch wheels. The North American unveiling was at the Los Angeles Auto Show in January 2006. 503 of the pre-facelift and 164 of the 2010 facelifted version produced.

Maybach 57 and 62 "Zeppelin"
Maybach revealed the "Zeppelin" nameplate at the 2009 Geneva Motor Show as an additional luxury package that could be ordered on both the Maybach 57 and 62. The name "Zeppelin" had been used for the pre-war Maybach models DS7 and DS8.

The package consists of special California beige leather with Stromboli-black stitching, piano black lacquer finishes, and silver "Zeppelin" champagne glasses. In addition to the interior changes, the exterior has exclusive 20-inch chrome wheels and dark-red taillights. The engine is the standard 6.0-L V12 Twin-Turbo with 640 PS, which is 28 PS more than the S versions. The word "ZEPPELIN" is also incorporated into the triangular Maybach hood ornament.

Maybach 62
The Maybach 62 included as standard features such as fully reclining rear seats, Maybach four-zone climate control, tinted windows, infrared-reflecting laminated glass all round, AirMATIC dual-control air suspension, display instruments in rear roof liner (showing speed, time, and outside temperature), folding rear tables (left and right), 21-speaker BOSE Surround Everywhere sound system, and a refrigerator compartment. The Maybach 62 also includes an array of additional features such as Cockpit Management and Navigation System (COMAND), which includes DVD navigation, CD changer in rear seats, DVD players and TV tuners front and rear, two rear LCD TV screens including remote control and two sets of headphones, and automatic closing doors.

Even though the Maybach 62 has all these features included, optional extras were available. Some of these are a panoramic glass sunroof at a cost of $11,670, and an external communication system, and a loudspeaker and microphone system which allows the occupant in the rear of the Maybach to converse with people outside the car. This option came at a cost of $1,780. Additionally, a retractable electrotransparent partition screen between the driver and the rear occupants costs $23,780 and, most expensive, a high-protection GUARD B4 Package costs an additional $151,810. 1,058 units made in total.

Maybach 62 S
The Maybach 62 S (Spezial) appeared in November 2006 at the Auto China 2006 exhibit in Beijing. It features the same engine as the 57 S, a 612 PS twin-turbo V12 made by Mercedes-Benz AMG. However, the suspension remains untouched. 236 of the original and 256 units of the model year 2010 (post-facelift) were made.

On February 26, 2019, North Korean's chairman Kim Jong-un came to visit Vietnam along with his cars, including a Maybach 62 S and a Mercedes S600 Pullman Guard.

Maybach 62 S Landaulet
The Maybach 62 S Landaulet, based on the Maybach 62 S, revives the classic landaulet car body style, which was popular in the 1920s and 30s. Powered by the 62 S's 612 PS biturbo V12, the Landaulet's front seats are fully enclosed and separated from the rear passenger compartment by a power divider window; the opacity of this partition can be electronically controlled.

A sliding soft roof allows back-seat passengers to take in the sun from the comfort of their seats. The chauffeur's area is finished in black leather, while the rear is white with piano black- and gold-flecked black granite inserts.

Maybach publicly unveiled the Landaulet at the Middle East International Auto Show around the end of November 2007 as a concept car. Limited production was confirmed in January 2008. In total, 22 units were made, one of which was owned by rapper Birdman. DJ Khaled owns one as well and it has appeared in a few of his music videos. Also, Lee Kun-hee, former chairman of Samsung owns one as of 2011.

Only 18 units of the pre-facelift Maybach 62 S Landaulets were ever built, with a further four in a facelifted configuration. Ronald Bussink, a Swiss entrepreneur, placed an order for two facelifted Landaulets at the very end of production, in 2011, just when Daimler made the decision to cease production in the following year. Mr Bussink had also changed one of those orders for a one-off RHD model. A special-request 62 S Landaulet "One & only RHD" model was still being completed by a Maybach specialists in January 2013 on a single stand offside while the production line was being dismantled.

Maybach 57S Cruisero Coupé by Xenatec
In 2010, German coachbuilder Xenatec unveiled the Maybach 57S Cruisero, a 2-door conversion of the Maybach 57S. The Cruisero has the same length, wheelbase, and AMG V12 engine as the 57S it is based on, making it the longest 2-door that is not from 1970s. It is reported that the car was approved by Daimler and engineered to the same standard as other Maybachs. Only 8 cars were reportedly produced before Xenatec filed for bankruptcy. Cruisero car number 4 (as seen on the door sill), ordered new by Muammar Gaddafi, was listed for sale in early 2021 in the Netherlands.

Sales
Initially, Daimler-Chrysler predicted annual sales of 2,000 global units with 50% coming from the United States; however, such lofty sales expectations never materialized. In 2007, Mercedes bought back 29 US dealers, reducing the total from 71 to 42.

2013 cessation
With poor sales expectations and heavy impact of 2008 financial crises, Daimler AG undertook a review of the whole Maybach division. This included talks with Aston Martin to engineer and style the next generation of Maybach models along with the next generation of Lagonda models.

However, on 25 November 2011, Daimler announced that sales of all Maybach models and the brand would cease in 2013. Before the announcement, only 3000 Maybach vehicles had been sold, with estimated loss of €330,000 for each car sold. While it was originally planned to produce it into mid-2013, very slow sales convinced Daimler to pull the plug earlier and the last car left the Sindelfingen production line on 17 December 2012. Other sources claim that production ceased in February 2013. A special 62 S Landaulet model was still being completed by January 2013 on a singular stand while the production line was being dismantled.

The line was replaced by Mercedes-Benz S-Class Pullman models. An executive told a Frankfurt newspaper that Daimler "came to the conclusion that the sales chances for the Mercedes brand were better than that of Maybach."

One suggestion for Maybach's struggles was that parent Daimler had failed to differentiate it from its Mercedes-Benz brand. While all three ultra-luxury brands share platforms and engines with other luxury brands from their parent auto company, Maybachs are built alongside the Mercedes-Benz S-Class flagship sedan, whereas Rolls-Royce and Bentley are assembled in England (separate from the rest of BMW and Volkswagen Group's production plants), and thus are regarded as being more "exclusive". Furthermore, the Maybach's pedigree was virtually unknown outside Germany, unlike its British rivals which have long enjoyed renown worldwide; indeed the 2006 Rolls-Royce Phantom's interior evokes memories of a 1930s car, while the Maybach 57S's inside makes no reference to its brand's history.

In October 2013, Top Gear magazine placed the Maybach 57 and 62 on its list of "The 13 worst cars of the last 20 years", commenting that "Mercedes-Benz decided to reactivate a brand that nobody under the age of 90 outside Stuttgart remembered, slathering an ersatz reject Hyundai luxury body over an ageing S-Class platform and hoping that various oligarchs, rap stars and Paris Hilton wouldn't notice that it was actually an elaborate con. They didn't. But we did. The 57S version finally gave the hapless guy up front something to do other than stirring up revolutionary resentment towards his boss, but by the time the Landaulet appeared, the game was up, and Mercedes iced the brand in favour of six different versions of the new S-Class. Smart move. Rolls-Royce, meanwhile, is on course for a record year in 2013." In 2009, a 2004 Maybach 62 in Germany reached 999,999 kilometres with its original owner.

title: Maybach 57 and 62


text:
Talk:Tinglish

in part
Are there any features of Tinglish in particular that are not due to linguistic interference? Markalexander100 07:09, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't enough about Tinglish specifically so I defer to you living there, but it is true that errors that L2 (2nd language) learners make are not due entirely to contrasts between their L1 and the L2. TESOL research has shown that time and again. I do understand that Tinglish must contain English errors that look to be predicated solely on some differences between it and English, so if you don't want "in part" in there, it's no big deal. I'm just stating a general principle of 2nd language acquisition and error generation - there are other factors than the contrast between the L1 and L2. In this case, though, it's your call. Moncrief, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC).

I agree with your general principle, but the term refers solely to errors which are characteristic to native Thai speakers; I can't imagine how any of those could not be due to contrast with Thai. We don't seem to have an article on linguistic interference; I can do some more reading up and have a go. :) Markalexander100 07:22, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There also a Thailish article. Same thing as this article. Maybe one should be deleted and a redirect used. fataltourist 22:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks- I've merged the two articles here. Mark1 05:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Taiwanese-Americans also refer to broken English spoken by 1st generationers or their parents as Tinglish. Maybe this should be reflected in this article too so it's not just biased towards Thai-English.

new words
How about "english" words that have been adopted into Thai/are used by Thai's speaking english? The one I can think of right now is "hiso" (as in "That car/sweater/octapus is so hiso!"). It's from the words "high society" but really just means "cool" or whatever.Tomorrowboy 07:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

More Thai Interference
The article states that words like 'snore' and 'sleep' are pronounced as 'sanore' and 'saleep' which is true, but it should be considered interference from the Thai language as consonant clusters such as this do not exist, and where written, it is understood in Thai that a short a is implied. For example สนาม is pronounced as sanaːm and not as snaːm, which is most likely the reason why Thai people would say 'sanail' as opposed to 'snail'. Nintala (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

that bit about blood pronounced brush I just added
I, anonymous user, just added that after being driven nuts by my Thai girlfriend and her friends' pronunciation of that word, despite being confused and trying to reinforce some closer pronunciation over and over with all of them. I read this article because I was curious about the subject in general but this transformation violates a few of the stated rules. So I added it, it's my own original research, as yet unpublished. I also have a PhD (not related), does this count? Why not? I hear it consistently on the off chance that this word comes up among a group of like 18 people from Thailand  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.97.221 (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Soup
Is this soup? (means "are you drinking apple cider?"); This can't be right, Thailand doesn't even have apple cider (apples don't grow locally). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.89.168.181 (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

this needs to be reworded.
In Thai, between two consonats it's automatically added a short "a" (ah) to create a syllable. The only consonants that can blend together are pr, pl, gr, gl, kr and kl. All the other groups of consonants, especially the one starting with "s", will have a short "a" added in between: should probably be worded like this: In Thai, consonants generally cannot be blended together (exceptions to this rule are pr, pl, gr, gl, kr and kl.) A short "a" (ah) sound is automatically added between any other two consonants. 216.144.26.242 (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Statements of facts should be referenced or deleted
This article has been listed as unreferenced for over three years. It contains many statements that are no substantiated in any way, and should either be supported or removed. If the phenomenon described here is real, it should be possible to find references for its existence and its antecedents or causes. TippTopp (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, how many percent of Wikipaedia articles are unreferenced or poorly referenced for years?!
 * It's common knowledge that most of Wikipaedia is unreliable as an actual reference, and that it's
 * really more of a social networking type site that collects perceptions, experiences, and opinion
 * far more readily than credible references, due to it being largely compiled by non-professionals.
 * I would just accept it for what it is, and not let the facts get in the way of a "good" article. =P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.58.96 (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Entry listed as "original research" due to complete lack of substantiation
As stated above, the problem has been uncorrected for over three years now. How can one even be sure that Tinglish is a real phenomenon and not a hoax? If the phenomenon described here is real, it should be possible to find references for its existence and its antecedents or causes. Proposal for deletion will follow unless corrected. TippTopp (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Joegraff (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Tinglish is definitely not a hoax. I've lived in Thailand for over 8 years, I speak, read and write Thai. Anyone who has lived there even 6 months will know exactly what Tinglish or Thailish is. I don't know how to authentic that. The causes are as stated in the opening paragraph regarding language interference from their original language. In almost every case of where you hear a Thai speaking a word incorrectly or using incorrect grammer, I can trace the mistake back to their original language.

What Nitala is describing actually *IS* language interference and explains why the consonant clusters that do not exist in Thai end up being pronounced this way in Tinglish.

Let me expand using the cluster "TW" as in twenty. If you transliterate twenty into Thai, the Thais will use the Thai pronunciation guide to say that word. In Thai, you often omit actually writing the vowel that is spoken--a silent vowel if you will. Since there is no TW in Thai, when you write the equivalent letters in that, it creates a silent "ah" vowel sound. So they read it, quite literally, tawentee.

The grammer mistakes you hear are usually because the Thai language does not have determiners (like the word "the" or most articles), does not conjugate verbs and does not have past nor future tenses.

There are other aspects of Tinglish that are phonetic in nature. Thai is a tonal language and the tones are often derived grammatically. This expresses itself when a Thai is saying the word "bread". If you transliterate bread into Thai, it ends up having what is called a "low tone". Most Thais will say the word bread in English with what I hear clearly as a low tone. The untrained ear will just hear it as a funny way of saying "bread". Another and far more obvious example is words like Adventure and Future. When transliterated, they end up with a "rising tone" on the last syllable. You asked any Thai in Thailand about Future Park (a chain of shopping malls in Bangkok). You'll hear the rising tone (this one is easier for the untrained to pick up).

Since I am not writing a doctoral dissertation, so I am going to stop here but I could go on and on. Tinglish is real. And it's generally due to language interference. Joegraff (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

English Language in Thailand
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/1002685/obec-orders-english-class-hours-boost

The Thai Government has increased the number of English language class hours in schools. This announcement is dated today (see time stamp below) in the Bangkok Post. English is the Lingua Franca of ASEAN - The Association of South East Asian Nations. Thailand, as a member state, needs more English speakers; that is, speakers of English and not Thaiglish.

This article is amusing to foreigners who live here in Bangkok. Of course, Wikipedia is not meant to be an amusement and requires solemn references to epenthesis and consonant mutation and so on in street Thai.

I offer only observations. Many Educated Thais, who form a small but significant minority, have been to English-speaking schools. These are the people you will meet at international conferences. They speak Thai well too.

Ordinary Thais do not speak Thai well. They tend towards Thai-Lao dialect which confuses / r / and / l / sounds (present in writing) or omits / r / altogether. One self-indulgent illustration: if I go out onto the street and ask a taxi driver, in Thai, to take me to RAMA III ROAD round the corner / pra ram sam / [tones omitted] he may repeat the destination back to me as / paam saam / which sounds close to the Italian cheese Parmesan.

As for English and other language words in Thai, the number has increased since the earliest dates on this talk page. One last illustration: Pizza Hat (not Hut) built a leaning tower of round, flat breads and called it The Leaning Tower of Pizza. This is an unkind joke on people who know no different. Thai phonology cannot distinguish between Pisa and Pizza.

Steve (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion
I suggest this article to either be deleted, or completely rewritten. It's an absolute mess. It does not use linguistic methodology correctly and consistently, it is not written in neutral tone, it does not contribute anything of value at all. In fact, it is condescending, elitist, prescriptivist, and racist in tone. There is a grand total of one (1) reference, and that is just a sentence in a newspaper serving as an example of the word "Tinglish" being used. Not a single statement made in the article is referenced. That means it's either original research (and bad one at that) or just made-up nonsense. The article on English-influenced pidgins links here, but this is not a pidgin. Honestly, this article reads like it was written to make fun of native speakers of Thai learning and speaking English. So I suggest it be rewritten from the ground up, using sources like the ones linked by the user above me, or it should just be deleted. --Qxentio (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Seeing your comment, I considered reducing the article to a one-paragraph stub, but looking at the current content it doesn't seem that bad, even if it's essentially unreferenced. The subject has been covered in academic sources, so it likely won't be deleted at AfD. I've identified the following. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tinglish


text:
USS Delaware (1776)

USS Delaware was a 24-gun sailing frigate of the United States Navy that had a short career in the American Revolutionary War as the British Royal Navy captured her in 1777. The Royal Navy took her in as an "armed ship", and later classed her a sixth rate. The Royal Navy sold her in 1783. British owners named her United States and then French interests purchased her and named her Dauphin. She spent some years as a whaler and then in March 1795 she was converted at Charleston, South Carolina, to French privateer. Her subsequent fate is unclear.

US Navy
She was built under the 13 December 1775 order of the Continental Congress in the yard of Warwick Coates of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, under the direction of the Marine Committee. Upon her launching in July 1776, Captain C. Alexander took command.

Delaware served in the Delaware River, joining with Commodore John Hazelwood's Pennsylvania state ships in operations that delayed the British Fleet in approaching Philadelphia and supplying the British Army. When the British took possession of Philadelphia 26 September 1777, Delaware, now under the command of John Barry, in company with several smaller ships, advanced upon the enemy fortifications which were being erected and opened a destructive fire while anchored some 500 yards from shore.

On 27 September she went aground on the ebb tide and came under the concentrated fire of the British artillery. After a brave defense against overwhelming odds, Captain Alexander was compelled to strike his colors. Delaware was taken into the Royal Navy.

Royal Navy
The Royal Navy took her in as an "armed ship", and later classed her a sixth rate. As an armed ship her captain was Commander James Watt. In April 1778 Commander Christopher Mason commissioned her.

On 1 December 1779 Delaware escorted a convoy of supply ships to Bermuda, and also brought some 100 officers and men of the Royal Garrison Battalion of Veterans to defend Bermuda. She and the troops arrived in time to forestall an American attack. When four American naval vessels arrived later that day they saw Delaware in place and British troops patrolling, and so left quickly.

On 6 June 1779 HMS Daphne (1776) captured the American privateer Oliver Cromwell. Delaware and the privateer Union were in company and so shared in the prize money.

On 21 and 23 April 1780 Iris, Delaware, and HMS Otter (1778) captured the American privateers Amazon, General Wayne, and Neptune. The capture had taken place a few leagues from Sandy Hook and Iris and Delaware brought them into New York on 1 May.

United States
The Royal Navy sold Delaware on 14 April 1783 for £300 to Mary Hayley, who renamed her United States. She sailed from Falmouth to Boston in April 1784. Hayley had the boat fitted out as a whaler and seal hunting vessel, shipping to the Falkland Islands in late 1784. The ship returned in 1785 with a cargo of whale oil, which was seized by customs agents. After a trial, the Crown lost its case against Hayley for duty, as she was a British citizen, and was ordered to pay her £4,000 for her losses.

United States first appeared in Lloyd's Register (LR) in 1786 with J.Scott, master, Mrs Hayley, owner, and trade London–Boston. She had undergone a thorough repair in 1784. She was no longer listed in LR in 1787.

In the fall of 1786, Francis Rotch reported that Hayley had sold the United States to the firm Brothers DeBauque and that he had advised them to send the ship to the Falklands rather than Greenland.

Dauphin
United States may have operated under both that name, and under Dauphin for some years.

French records that show Dauphin in 1785 with Paul Coffin, master. She was described as a frigate of 695 tons. Her known ports of call included Lorient (1792), New Bedford (November 1792), then Brazil, Delagoa Bay, Saint-Laurent Bay, Île de France, and Nantucket in November 1793. She became American again in November 1793, and was in Dunkirk in 1794.

As United States she made a second voyage to the Falklands in 1786. A whaler by the name of United States arrived at Dunkirk in July 1787 from the Falklands.

Francis Rotch commissioned her in August 1787 under the name Dauphin.

French records indicate that under Captain Uriah Swain, Dauphin, Francis Rotch, agent, sailed to the coast of Brazil on 18 August 1787, and returned on 4 July 1788 with 1452 barrels of whale oil and 16,000 lbs of whalebone. She returned to Dover in 1788, selling her 25,000 gallons of whale oil duty free. The 13,000 seal skins she had collected were sold in China for ten times their New York value, confirming the lucrative nature of the China Trade. After this voyage, the vessel was sold in 1788 to the French South Sea whaling partnership.

In 1791 Dauphin was under the command of Jonathan Parker.

On 22 November 1792 Dauphin sailed for Brazil and Delagoa Bay under the command of Captain Stephen Gardner. At some point he left and Captain Lallermant replaced him. She returned in November 1793 with 1900 barrels of whale oil.

In May 1794 Dauphin arrived at Charleston, South Carolina. She was sold at auction on 23 June to Jean Bouteille who wished to convert her to a privateer. Despite efforts by Benjamin Moodie, the British Vice-consul in Charleston to block her conversion, in March 1795 she was ready and sailed for Port-de-Paix. Her ultimate fate is unknown.

title: USS Delaware (1776)