# Talk:South West Pacific Area

I do not agree with Kirill's move of this article to "South West Pacific Area" as there is now a separate South West Pacific Theatre of World War II article and the two are likely to be confused 
Grant65 | Talk 02:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the names are quite distinct, so essentially disambiguating the articles via title doesn't seem necessary.  It might be more helpful to simply place a hatnote of the form "This article is about the Allied command; for the theatre of operations, see South West Pacific Theatre of World War II" on both articles. Kirill Lokshin 04:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the names of the articles are distinct; the problem is with the formal name of the command, i.e. "South West Pacific Area" is also liable to be understood as a theatre. Grant65 | Talk 09:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I would think that a hatnote would be sufficient, for anyone that found their way to the wrong article; but it's not a major issue, in any case, and I'm willing to go along with whatever you think appropriate. Kirill Lokshin 21:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted Hawkeye7's recent changes for two reasons. (1) There is more than one kind of "General" and "Admiral" (see Comparative military ranks of World War II) and we have separate articles for each rank.  (2) It is against Wikipedia style to link the same thing many times in one article. Grant65 | Talk 02:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 appears to feel that there are no generally accepted abbreviations for Lieutenant General etc.  I don't think there is much danger of "Lt Gen" or "Lt-Gen" being misunderstood, although I agree that abbreviations should be consistent. At the moment the section is very repetitive.
Also, when naming prominent Australians, the norm is to use simply "Firstname Surname" or "Firstname Secondname Surname", not "F.S. Surname". When there is more than one "Zeus Smith", they are usually differentiated as "Zeus Smith (soldier)" and "Zeus Smith (aviator)". It is very rare that Australian biographical articles appear as "Z.X. Smith" and they only usually only appear as "Zeus X. Smith" when there is more than one "Zeus Smith" with the same occupation. Grant65 | Talk 09:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure. I'm used to always referring to everyone in the conventional Australian form, ie "Z.X. Smith", as in the ADB. However, on reflection, I agree with you when it comes to wiki articles. I think that Firstname Secondname will be easier to read and to find, especially if it can be kept consistent. The results of not being consistent can be seen with the American links - all three forms are in use. Arrrggh. 
Hawkeye7 11:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This page says that "in march [1942], the Headquarters of the United States naval Commander-in Chief, South-West Pacific was established in Fremantle".  Is this true?  Should it be added to this article?  I don't suppose it's a WP:RS, but still... — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 13:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not true. Rear Admiral John Wilkes established his headquarters in Fremantle on 3 March 1942, but he was the commander of the submarine force. The South West Pacific Area was not formed for another month. It absorbed Rear Admiral Herbert Leary's  Anzac Area and he became the commander, Allied Naval Forces, South West Pacific Area. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming!  — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 00:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

In the section General Headquarters it is said that the GHQ moved to Leyte in October 1944 but in the following section Allied Land Forces the GHQ moves to Leyte in February 1945. Which of both dates is correct? --Bomzibar (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Both of them. I've clarified it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. --Bomzibar (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Revision reflects the origin of that command with the Pensacola Convoy at sea and its original intent (interesting Eisenhower connection in that history) of supporting forces in the Philippines. Will try to get the cites into line with the others for some additions from Masterson, who detailed the formation of the SWPA fleet and thus the USASOS structure. That needs at least a paragraph or so under USASOS as that fleet became a major factor and also a point of major involvement of many Australians in the Small Ships Section. Perhaps the key problem the allies faced in defense of Australia and going to the offensive was that water transport and SWPA geared up a massive program to solve that problem. To quote Masterson (available in 8 parts at the link): 

In regard to transportation it was therefore mainly a war of ships and small craft. 
(3) Local transportation facilities were poor. Ports of Australia were inadequately equipped, and ships and small craft were old and worn; highways were mostly unpaved, and trucks were few and poor; railways had four gauges, and most of the stock of locomotives and cars was obsolete. These facilities, more or less archaic in 1939, had been strained and depleted by more than two years of war when the Americans arrived. In New Guinea there were no railways, only a few miles of highways, and only the most primitive and undeveloped of ports. 
Palmeira (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no need. I have all the references here. Just say what you'd like covered and I'll add it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
In the command piece here I think a very brief mention, a paragraph perhaps, dealing with the scope and particularly the role of Australians is enough. I will see if I can put something together like that for you to edit or you kick it off and I will see if I can add. I too have a small library (digital & hard copy) on the subject. Suggest we take coordination to that to our talk pages. As for the changes I made in USFIA/USAFIA/USASOS I think it necessary to point out the emergency and plan-on-the-fly nature of the creation of that command as the convoy was diverted to Australia and the command's initial somewhat arm's length subordinate position within MacArthur's organization during the time he was necessarily focused on and in the midst of the disaster in the Philippines. Palmeira (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)