Talk:New Guinea campaign

Merge?

Referring to the tag to merge Organization of Japanese fortifications in New Guinea area into New Guinea campaign, the premise seems like a good idea as there is some harvestable content. A couple of issues/reservations though:

• The source article is lengthy list-type and without many sources.
• The source article is Japanese-specific, query how best to incorporate this article into the more Allied-centric destination article.

Dick G 04:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Great. The list format is a common problem, which is generelly resolved over time as people add content. I don't see "New Guinea campaign" as Allied-centric; I mean there is a companion Japanese Wikipedia article. Grant | Talk 04:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, I suppose my only thought regarding it being Allied-centric is that the battle names are generally the Allied monikers rather than the Japanese ones and also referenced sources are predominantly from Allied viewpoint. Adding more Japanese content probably auto-addresses any slight imbalance in any event. If you're going to write the merge, let me know if you need any help with the edit. Cheers Dick G 05:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

NO--LtWinters 13:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No what? Grant | Talk 15:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you really know what the Japanese names for the battles are? In my experience it can be hard to find that information. It's ok to name the articles after the most common western name for the battle since this is the English Wikipedia, but the intro should mention, if possible the Japanese name (see Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands for an example of what I'm talking about.). Cla68 17:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont believe this article should be merged into the New Guinea campaign, as this relates to the Japanese Invasion and Occupation of Papua and should stand alone. The New Guinea campaign is a seperate campaign to liberate Papua from the Japanese. --Newm30 (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Differing designations

This article appears to amalgamate two different campaigns as defined by the United States, the Papuan campaign, and the New Guinea campaign. Is this correct? If it is, perhaps a brief terminology section should be added.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it's four. The article also covers the Bismarck Archipelago campaign and the Northern Solomons campaign. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect quote from Morison

Can someone look up the quote from the Morison book (in the text box on the left side of the page in the article) that allegedly says this: 'The Boeing [B-25] is most terrifying,' wrote one survivor in his diary. 'We are repeating the failure of Guadalcanal. Most regrettable!!'

If the diarist wrote "the Boeing," he surely meant the B-17, since the B-25 was manufactured by Boeing's competitor North American. I'm not anywhere near a copy of the Morison book, but the quote is supposedly on page 60. If he simply said "the Boeing," then the reference to B-25s in brackets should be deleted. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoruku (talk • contribs) 17:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I checked the quote and found it is correct. The "[B-25]" is as written, and is also correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, it can't be "correct" for the reason I mentioned. Must be an error in the original Morison book. Isoruku (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a quote from a Japanese diarist, who presumably made the error regarding the company which made the plane. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Per Nick-D, see Fifth Air Force, the B-17 was withdrawn from Pacific service by this time. The Fifth Air Force didn't have any. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

G'day, per Nick, Boeing is probably a misidentification by a soldier who may not have had the full story. I believe that a similar example exists with Allied soldiers during the war misidentifying most German artillery pieces as "88s" for instance. I would say that "[B-25]" is probably an editorial correction. At least that is how I read it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The correction appears in Morison's original text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, I should have stated "editorial correction from Morison", although I note that he cites an ATIS publication in the footnote, so maybe the correction was theirs, and Morrison carried the correction through to his work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, good points from everyone, many thanks. The quote just jumped out at me, probably because my father flew B-25s! Isoruku (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Social science

The second WW2 in PNG 2405:9F40:BC:B36B:0:0:0:1 (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Which country involved in WW2 in PNG 2405:9F40:BC:B36B:0:0:0:1 (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Nation who fight on the same side for PNG

What is Propagandists 2405:9F40:BC:B36B:0:0:0:1 (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Commanders in infobox

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarise key points of the article - ie information in the infobox is to be supported by the body of the article and should evidence which commanders were key or significant. Also, the template doc would limit commanders to about seven aside. Flags are used in the infobox as a key to convey information related to the particular belligerents, such as the allegiance of commanders. As such, the flags used in other sections must be consistent with the flags used for the belligerents.

This edit, with the edit summary, Rm commanders not supported by body of article per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Use consistent flags per MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS, was a result of reviewing commanders listed in the infobox and whether their inclusion was supported by the body of the article. It also addressed a mismatch in the Japanese flags used.

The edit was reverted here with the edit summary, Why were Australian commanders removed?. The answer was evident in the initial edit summary. Unfortunately, the article has been written in a way that omits to tell us how and why any particular Australian commanders were key and significant in the campaign. The remedy is to edit the article so that it does evidence that Australian commanders (and others) were key and significant before adding them to the infobox. There is also the limitation of the number commanders to be reported such that only the most key and significant commanders are reported - based on evidence from the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)