This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Australia ADF Leadership is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles

Currently this template includes deputy chief navy, army and airforce and a number of commanders of forces. The problem is it misses the navy systems commander, commander 1 div, commander special forces command which are all three of equal status as commander forces commander, air commander and commander aus fleet. There are also numerous other 2 star positions not mentioned see Senior Australian_Defence Organisation Positions. Perhaps it should only include 3 and 4 star positions???--TinTin (talk) 06:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the three Forces Commanders hold a higher position (if not rank) than the other two star positions. Limiting this template to the Deputies and the three Forces Commanders provides a good summary of the ADF leadership. It would go on forever if we listed all the Army two star positions! ;) --Oliver Nouther (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder just how many "uniformed" 2 star positions there are?

Stealing from Senior Australian Defence Organisation Positions, see below.

P.S. Please correct the table.

Comments:

• "Senior Australian Defence Organisation Positions" needs updating!
• It looks like there are about 30 two stars (?)
• It's too bloody hard to track them all down!!
• I had thought about adding all of them to the template, BUT a) It's too hard & b) It would be impossible to keep it current.

Well, I guess that means that not only you two, but me third, all agree there are too many.

("So what?" I hear you reply. "We'd already come to that conclusion.") Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this is what one lets oneself in for by increasing the scope of this template, however well-intentioned that may be... ;-) When I created it (I think after discussion with Oliver or Pdf or both, it was a long time ago) it was deliberately restricted to CDF and the 3-stars. That kept it stable for quite a while. Now it's got some 2-stars, there's the risk that the flood gates will open... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this is what one lets oneself in for - Yes. So it would seem.

I extended it - "it seemed like a good idea at the time". Perhaps now I'm not so sure that it was such a good idea. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C? = May be a civilian position, not an ADF Joint position