Readers are going to be going to their local supermarket asking the sales clerks which aisle the "inter alia" is in. Couldn't we say it in English?
storing this here for now: "Within Australia (I am unsure about New Zealand) the ANZACs came to stood not just for the troops in World War I, but for Australian soliders in time of war more generally."
The above, minus the parenthetical comment, is already on the main page. Better a crime of omission than comission, IMHO. --KQ
I moved the following from Anzac and redirected that to Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. I don't think the biscuits are important enough to warrant turning Anzac into a disambiguation page, but someone might want to merge the content here if they think it's useful. Angela. 16:09, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Anzac - a type of biscuit (cookie) made to an original Scottish recipe from, inter alia, rolled oats, sugar, plain flour, coconut, butter, golden syrup or treacle but no eggs providing, when appropriately packed, good keeping qualities which enabled them to be sent as comforts to Australian and New Zealand troops in overseas theatres of war.
==Why only Australian Army== on the top right. Surely there should be a NZ flag etc as well! Hamedog 00:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- That's a template box pulled in by Australian Army with two curly brackets on each end. There's also a New Zealand Army lower down. They should be together, one after the other. When I tried to do that, however, they ended up side-by-side which looks crap. Can someone make them vertically under each other? Shermozle 09:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- External Links
There's already an well-established Anzac biscuits article, anyway. Can this article be moved back to Anzac where it started from? It doesn't have a great deal to do with the corps and so is out of place amongst the rest of the 1st AIF series. It seems it was cut and pasted first from "Anzac" to "ANZAC" and then to "Australian and New Zealand Army Corps" so somehow the edit histories need to be merged, at least between "Anzac" and this article. Geoff/Gsl 12:05, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
Why is there a separate article at Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (army corps)? Should the two be merged?--A Y Arktos 10:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree. There is a lot of redundant material duplicated between the two articles and the Army Corps (army corps) article has a confusingly redundant title. Either that, or the "Army Corps (army corps)" article should be renamed (see discussion on the Army Corps (army corps) talk page). Hu 02:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Can't there be more about New Zealand because they were in this organisation two, note the NZ in ANZAC.
It seems reasonable that these two articles should be merged. The existance of two similarly named articles is confusing. I am not familiar enought with the content to do the merge, but I am adding a "see also" to both pages, so that users can find both. Chimpex 16:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
ANZAC is currently a disambiguation page listing Anzac biscuits and so forth. Every single thing on the page is named after the Australian and NZ Army Corps, so it seems a bit ridiculous for ANZAC to be a disambiguation page rather than a redirect to here. I propose making ANZAC (disambiguation) the disambiguation page, and ANZAC a redirect to here. --Helenalex (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
ANZAC / Anzac
The original term 'ANZAC' began as a telegraphic address. We refer to it now as an 'acronym', but that terminology was never used in contemporary writing on the topic, probably because the use of acronyms - and I mean the actual definition of an acronym , not an abbreviation - was nowhere near as common in 1915 as it is today. The soldiers were known as 'Anzacs', the holiday as 'Anzac Day' and the location as 'Anzac Cove' and the 'Anzac sector'. All contemporary sources refer to these as proper nuns, not as fully-capitalised acronyms. For references see the Wikipedia discussion on the 'Anzac Day' page. Similarly, I Anzac Corps and II Anzac Corps were not named 'I ANZAC Corps' and 'II ANZAC Corps' (besides which the the final 'C' in 'ANZAC' stands for 'Corps' anyway), and the Anzac Mounted Division was not named 'ANZAC Mounted Division'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayaman (talk • contribs) 04:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was consensus against mass move. No prejudice to discussing individual cases where move is warranted on the relevant talk page. — ækTalk 05:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
ANZAC → Anzac — While "ANZAC" was originally an acronym for the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, the word (much like sonar) has entered common usage, as a word representing Australia–New Zealand co-operation as these articles show. Per WP:ALLCAPS, writing in all capitals is discouraged in Wikipedia, so it would make sense to change the usage of "ANZAC" to "Anzac". Some articles are already at the usage I am proposing, such as Anzac Day, which was moved after a discussion last year. Sorry about there being so many pages involved in the move, but I believe the policy is consistant for all of them. Note for the television show, currently at ANZACS (TV series), the disambiguator "(TV series)" is not required, as Anzacs already redirects there. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral on ANZAC → Anzac. I know the term principally as the acronym in all caps (WWI history) so I am going to differ to Australians and kiwis on this one. Oppose ANZACS (TV series) → Anzacs. I would support ANZACS (TV series) → Anzacs (TV series), I think the qualifier is needed. The term Anzacs appears to be more commonly used describe pluralized ANZAC troops. So I'd like to see Anzacs point to Anzac, not the show. Support the remainder. --Labattblueboy (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for commenting. I think with the tv show, you could just use a hatnote to direct people looking for the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, but whatever works. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose at this article as it is an acronym when referring to the Corps, but when used as an adjective, I agree that common usage means it would be "Anzac" in other articles - eg Anzac Day, Anzac biscuits and so on. Orderinchaos 21:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm of pretty much the same view as Orderinchaos. This article probably belongs at ANZAC, since it is an acronym. In other uses it's largely regarded as an adjectival word, so lower-casing the latter letteres makes sense. I see no rerason why there shouldn't be redirects from the alternative capitalisations in some cases, though - we should have an Anzac (disambiguation) redirecting to ANZAC (disambiguation) or vice versa, and this page's article should have a redirect from Anzac, for instance. Grutness...wha? 22:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keeping this article at this title seems fine, as I suppose this article actually discusses the usage of "ANZAC" as an acronym, rather than, say, discussing what the Anzac spirit is for example. I'm more interested in moving the other articles, like Anzac biscuit. I'll strike out the move request for this page. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Whilst some organisations have a policy of dropping the capitals for acronymns (e.g. The Guardian), this isn't the case for wikipedia. See UNICEF, NATO, ASEAN et al. Digestible (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. We should do what reliable sources do. Reliable sources are about 50-50 on this. Therefore there is no reason to change our own usage, yet. Hesperian 06:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose for this page as its the acronym. For the place, street names caution should be exercised to ensure the capitalisations are consistant with the official naming. Where its used as an adjective I support the change to Anzac xxxx. For the TV(hmm Tv, tv...) series again the article should be at what ever the official title is(plus dab/qualifier), I do agree with Labattblueboy ANZACS/Anzacs should redirect to this article with a hat note for the dab page. Gnangarra 16:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose While I agree with using lowercase when the word is used as an adjective, I'd also argue that we should be very careful about which form we use and, where the capitalisation is questionable, we should defer to ANZAC as the original form. ANZAC Bridge is one such case. I had hoped to find an official document that confirmed the spelling but I haven't been successful. The RTA page is titled "Anzac Bridge" but refers to "ANZAC Bridge" in the opening sentence. The reason for renaming the bridge would imply that "ANZAC" is the correct spelling but various photos of the bridge don't help confirm that either, even though they do show "ANZAC", not "Anzac". Being based on the spirit of the original ANZACS, which used the all uppercase acronym, ANZAC spirit seems appropriately titled, as does ANZAC Cove, which is named after the ANZACS. (They weren't referred to as "Anzacs" at the time). As far as I'm aware, ANZAC Parade and ANZAC War Memorial are the actual names of those places so their articles are titled appropriately. I was interested to find that ANZAC park in Raymond Terrace is listed on the NSW Geographical Names Register as "Anzac Park". I've seen the actual paperwork used to register that name and I've seen the return confirmation using "ANZAC" so even official registers seem to vary the capitalisation. Electronic media isn't always accurate! --AussieLegend (talk) 08:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result was merge ANZAC into Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. -- Labattblueboy (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Proposed merger of ANZAC into Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. All the content of Anzac relates to the WWI Corps. I certainly view the Corps as the primary topics. Opinions? --Labattblueboy (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'd be inclined to keep them seperate, but you do have a point in that much of the content is duplicated. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Merge If not identical topics then at least a very heavy overlap. Digestible (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support merge: seems like a sensible idea. Sceptre (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support merge Both are short, intimately related articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.