Talk:Operation Cottage

message: This makes absolutely no sense. If Japan didn't participate in that battle, who was the battle against?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.6.222 (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

message: Since this wasn't a battle since only one force was present, the battle infobox isn't needed.  Instead, the generic military event infobox should be used.  I'll replace it when I get a chance.  The Japanese occupation of Kiska and the associated air campaign and naval blockade are addressed in a different article. Cla68 (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cla68 (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: No battle infobox needed

message: Some numbers must be incorrect, e.g. there's no agreement on how many were killed aboard the destroyer. Even in the first two pages of google results you can find three figures: 61, 70 or 71. Other numbers are not conclusive as well, some say over 200 total casualties, some say 313. As for the friendly fire losses, the number was taken apparently from http://www.hlswilliwaw.com/aleutians/kiska-homepage.htm however some other sources claim that the number was 25. 
Egh0st (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers wrong

message: Why does the article say that US and Canadian forces landed on opposite sides of the island but the map shows them landing on the same side? There is also an arrow pointing into Gertrude Cove with no formation label attached to it. SpinningSpark 16:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the numbers in the article and the numbers in the infobox are wildly disparate. what's the deal? Ballchef (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  US and Canadian landing points 

message: Why is it considered a Japanese victory when they lost the island?
85.216.233.211 (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese tactical victory? 

message: The subject of the article is not a battle, so there is no reason to keep the infobox. A conflict with "no presents" on one of the sides is almost satirical.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:CC92:AEAE:49B7:E7E0:F422:4B20 (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  No need for an infobox 

message: Ok an operation can cover many battles, and so this operation can cover both the battle of USA vs Canada, and also allies vs Japan.  But no need to break this up into battles, its a story of the operation.
One sea mine WAS present.
Japanese Commanders,whereever located, had authority over the departure of the japanese forces,
and also the placement and recovery of the sea mines.
So there was a commander responsible ? Even if it wasn't deliberate ....
There was a strength of japanese which sufferred no losses ? I guess that would be their operation, Operation Scared Cat, or something.? But if  its almost the same time, the japanese knowing Operation Cottage was on, and the japanese escaped ? Isnt it the same thing ?  Isn't there room to say "2000 japanese escaped the island".
There was a unit responsible for laying sea mines. Didn't they achieve their objective ?
Weren't they an important presence in this ? by having one mine present and it actually carried out its duty ???
Japanese strength... well at least one sea mine WAS present, doing what sea mines do,  wasn't it??  thats how strong they were... one sea mine. ? 
But  it was an allied victory, even in the  war of attrition, because control over the Kiska area for 70 KIA, seems cheap compared to other invasions  KIA per acre , which are also considered a victory. 115.69.5.24 (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  One sea mine WAS present.