Talk:Battle of the Coral Sea

message: Hi all. I'm working on a rewrite of , and am trying to sort out information regarding to the USAAF friendly fire incident mentioned in this article (citation/footnote 59). The text I have at the moment is:
:A few minutes later, the ships were attacked by another three heavy bombers, flying at a higher altitude to the first group; the bombing was much less accurate. It was later learned that the three aircraft belonged to the United States Army Air Force (USAAF). Although USN Vice Admiral Herbert F. Leary made plans to train aircrews in naval vessel recognition in response, USAAF General George Brett refused to implement them or acknowledge that the friendly fire incident had happened.
At the moment, that's all sourced to Gill's Royal Australian Navy, 1942–1945, p. 50 (with some educated guesswork to identify the USAAF and Brett at their respective points), which according to the footnote misidentifies the aircraft involved (I originally followed Gill, but based on what's said here stripped out that claim). Would someone be able to improve the text to identify the aircraft (and if possible, a reason for the oops) and provide a source (hopefully not all eight cited in the footnote) to supplement Gill? Thanks in advance! -- saberwyn 02:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{HMAS|Australia|D84}} and USAAF friendly bombing...help identify sources? 

message: This box, , is producing peculiar crowding of text on the left of my screen on Safari, while there's a message at the bottom of the campaign box. Can somebody fix? I don't just want to delete...  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  08:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sight unseen 

message: In the map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coral_sea.jpg the scale of miles seems to be incorrect by a factor of 6.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.143.79 (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scale of Miles on Map 

message: First off, this is a truly comprehensive and superlative article that does Wikipedia proud! Thanks to all who have participated in making it what it is today.
My question regards the “Commanders and leaders” box. If Nimitz is included, then shouldn’t Yamamoto be as well, as the former's analog, adjacent to the former’s name? Weren’t both overall theater commanders at the time? From the Wiki article on Yamamoto:
“Yamamoto rushed planning for the Midway and Aleutians missions, while dispatching a force under Naval Major-General Takeo Takagi, including the Fifth Carrier Division (the large, new carriers Shōkaku and Zuikaku), to support the effort to seize the islands of Tulagi and Guadalcanal for seaplane and aeroplane bases, and the town of Port Moresby on Papua New Guinea's south coast facing Australia.”
Thanks much.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one deigned to weigh in, despite 132 watchers, I decided to make the change.  It seems a “no brainer” to me and totally uncontroversial.  As a courtesy, please do not revert before discussing it here if anyone believes the change should be reverted.  Maybe there is some valid reason that I am unaware of why my change is unwarranted.  If so, I am educable.  Thanks again.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think neither Yamamoto nor Nimitz should be on the list, since they practically had no real input during the actual battle. They both basically just assigned the forces to this particular area or operation, which in my opinion does not satisfy the criteria of commander/leader of this particular battle. It is enough that they are mentioned in Background section of the article. I would remove both of them from the list since they just make it cluttered. Path-x21 (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As I argued above, I believe Nimitz and Yamamoto should not be on the commanders list, since their input during the actual battle was practically zero. I am therefore removing them from the list. Path-x21 (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the exlcusion of Yamamoto? 

message: The main contributor to this fine article, who saw it through the FA maze, Cla88, is still blocked.
I was just going over to my old friend's talk page to congratulate him on it finally making the main page after nearly 8 years (isn't "Wiki-Wiki" supposed to mean, fast/quick?!) when I discovered this sad fact.
At this rate, he helped create enough FA's to keep the main page busy for decades. And by the time they get around to the last one he'll still be blocked. This is how the "community" treats its high quality contributors-with indifference or little baubles at best, persecution at worst.
On an even more personal note, the famous photo of sailors jumping off the stricken Lexington, was not in this article. One of those hundreds of tiny figures was my Uncle, Jack Lockhart.
--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting Notes 

message: It's called the Battle of Midway, not the Battle of the Coral Sea, and took place nowhere near New Guinea, and about a month later than the article claims, and was a decisive US victory.  Seems like the article should be entirely rewritten???  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RelicRelics (talk • contribs) 03:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if this is a joke, but that was a different battle with a different article. Brutannica (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we sure this article isn't actually referring to an even earlier battle? Only, if I remember right, it took place about 80 years earlier, in the United States and was called the Battle of Gettysburg instead of the Battle of the Coral Sea. Hmm, maybe I'm off a little bit on precise dates?The Famous Adventurer (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  article is misleading? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Coral Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20040626164242/http://history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/coralsea/coralsea.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/coralsea/coralsea.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Coral Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081021050140/http://www.navy.mil/midway/coralsea.html to http://www.navy.mil/midway/coralsea.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Moved to Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 4#Request for comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EtherealGate (talk • contribs) 04:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment

message: There is a dispute about which section should be linked to in the infobox result parameter:
* Link to the "Significance" section which discusses both the immediate result, i.e. which side won, and the longer-term consequences, or...
* Link to the "Tactical and strategic implications" section, a sub-section of the "Significance" section which discusses only the immediate result.
The second of these, it seems to me, is the most appropriate, given the guidance provided by the infobox usage guideline which clearly constrains the assessment of the result as presented in the infobox to the "the "immediate outcome of the subject conflict". Attempts to implement this, however, have been repeatedly reverted. Rather then engage in an edit war over this, I have re-sequenced the whole of the "Significance" section so that it discusses first the immediate result (and incidentally removes the unnecessary "Tactical and strategic implications" section title now that that block of the narrative comes first), then goes on to discuss the wider impact. I see two advantages:
* It sequences the discussion of the battle's significance in a more logical flow, dealing first with the question of which side emerged from the battle as victor, then with the longer-term impact;
* It settles the dispute in a way that should satisfy both sides of the argument.
Happy to discuss. Factotem (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section")" [emphasis added].
The template doc is given voice as a guideline by virtue of MilMos (as you are already aware). Tactical and strategic implications is the section where the result of the battle is discussed in detail, including an assessment of why it might be considered a tactical victory for the Japaneses but a strategic victory for the Allies. It is a section within Significance, but that section deals with more than just the "result" - ie how it changed naval warfare and how events then unraveled at Midway and  the South Pacific (having already noted in the former section the strategic implications in respect to these in assessing it as a strategic US victory).
It is fairly clear to me that Tactical and strategic implications is the section most appropriate to direct a reader to, to establish briefly, the nuance of the result - IAW the guidance. Beyond what is written in the lead, it is the most concise explanation of the nuance of the result - thereby complying with the spirit and intent of the guidance (per WP:5P5).
Can you please explain how your preference for "See Significance" is preferable in complying with the spirit and intent of the guidance (or revert to the alternative). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

text: And don't also forget User:Illegitimate Barrister's (inadvertent) revert of your edit which originally removed the result altogether. The current version is fine, I don't see what problem you can have with Factotem's recent amendment. The "Significance" section already did include the immediate result (as it still does) and  discusses the outcome more in depth. It is now re-sequenced to where it is isolated at the top of the section. Furthermore, not everything is always about "winning and losing" and the "aftermath" section doesn't always address who won. Keep in mind that you did not previously bring up any argument about "immediate result", and Factotem's recent solution did not occur to me before. If you're still not satisfied with the current version, then the best result in this case would be to remove the result altogether (which you originally wanted to do) as we can all agree the template says it's optional. If your problem is wanting the tacky Tactical and strategic implications title added back, then that unnecessary title is going to have to change to something that better flows. I wouldn't mind linking to that specific section with a different title. Further, even the very example shown at the top of template doc shows "Protestant victory (see Aftermath section)" which according to you would be a violation as the doc doesn't say we can do that (but it doesn't say we can't either and therefore is not any actual violation). But in any case, the WP:DEADHORSE needs to stop being beat. EtherealGate (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Its general guideline is this: "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". And then: "Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result" (emphasis added). I see the consensus of referring to "significance section" instead of "Japanese tactical victory", but not the consensus against "inconclusive" (that is reserved for immediate result as alternative for "X victory" by template documentation") in addition to "see significance". Oloddin (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view, it should simply be a "Japanese victory", since the case is very similar to the case of the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands. The Allied naval forces withdrew completely and temporarily conceded the field to the Japanese (this is also supported by most of the sources). Like after the Santa Cruz, after the Coral Sea the Japanese could exploit the strategic advantage directly gained from the battle (yes, Zuikaku's aircraft capacity was limited, but they still had a strong surface force while the Allied had no immediate naval force to oppose it), yet the Japanese simply chose not to capitalise on that advantage. However, that does not change the fact that the battle actually gained them a temporary strategic advantage. Path-x21 (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The guidance at our Military History Project Manual of Style for  says  So the previous consensus of "See significance" seems to be consistent with that guidance. Mojoworker (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: My edits are also consistent both with the guidance (MOS) and consensus. Moreover, it is consistent with the infobox guidance itself. Anyway, consensus can change and all MOS should be applied with common sense. By the way, if it was tactical victory, I am not against simply "Japanese victory" (this is to ). Oloddin (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

text:  Any further suggestions? --Oloddin (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox result link 

message: would change the result to "inconclusive" with the summary  per this edit despite the consensus arrived at here that the result be "See Significance" and has stood since the end of 2018. Significance is a section within the Aftermath section which specifically discusses the result of the battle. That entry against the result parameter is quite consistent with the template documentation that states:  [emphasis added]. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Its general guideline is this: "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". And then: "Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result" (emphasis added). I see the consensus of referring to "significance section" instead of "Japanese tactical victory", but not the consensus against "inconclusive" (that is reserved for immediate result as alternative for "X victory" by template documentation") in addition to "see significance". Oloddin (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view, it should simply be a "Japanese victory", since the case is very similar to the case of the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands. The Allied naval forces withdrew completely and temporarily conceded the field to the Japanese (this is also supported by most of the sources). Like after the Santa Cruz, after the Coral Sea the Japanese could exploit the strategic advantage directly gained from the battle (yes, Zuikaku's aircraft capacity was limited, but they still had a strong surface force while the Allied had no immediate naval force to oppose it), yet the Japanese simply chose not to capitalise on that advantage. However, that does not change the fact that the battle actually gained them a temporary strategic advantage. Path-x21 (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The guidance at our Military History Project Manual of Style for  says  So the previous consensus of "See significance" seems to be consistent with that guidance. Mojoworker (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: My edits are also consistent both with the guidance (MOS) and consensus. Moreover, it is consistent with the infobox guidance itself. Anyway, consensus can change and all MOS should be applied with common sense. By the way, if it was tactical victory, I am not against simply "Japanese victory" (this is to ). Oloddin (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

text:  Any further suggestions? --Oloddin (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Continues

message: Modern historians have debunked the myth that the battle prevented the Japanese from invading Port Moresby. JackTyrell (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please provide references? Nick-D (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Port Moresby myth 

message: "[...] attacking over the horizon with aircraft carriers instead. [...]" Did they fire aircraft carrieres at each other? Or what is the exact mode of beeing attacked with an aircraft carrier? I know, it should be "attacking over the horizon with aircrafts from aircraft carriers instead."^^ But shouldn't it be written the latter way in the article? Ciao Pentaclebreaker (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semantic problem in the very first paragraph