Talk:Battle of Rennell Island

message: I am making this drawing of the US ship formation during the Battle of Rennell Island available for use in the main article if the Editor sees fit.Tvbanfield (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drawing of US ship formation 

message: Mention is made several times in the article to the fact that allied forces were involved, without ever mentioning who the allies were. I believe that Australian coastwatchers played a significant role, and that there were some allied ships involved as well. Were there any other allies apart from Australian forces? — Plerdsus 05:32, 29 January 2012‎ (UTC)
:There was, I believe, by this time a New Zealand reconnaisance squadron on Guadalcanal and several NZ naval vessels operating from Tulagi.  I don't know, however, if either had a role in this battle. Cla68 (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allied forces 

message: This sentence at the end of the current article:
"Building on their success in securing Guadalcanal, the Allies continued their campaign against Japan, culminating in Japan's defeat and the end of World War II.[36]"
seems overbroad relative to the specific subject matter. Does every article about World War II end this way? I don't have a better one off the top of my head, particularly with a reference, but the battle should only to be tied into the context of the Guadalcanal campaign.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.227.97 (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just coming to the Talk Page to complain of the very same thing.  Way too much of a jump from Guadalcanal to the end of the war - it makes more sense to link it to the next significant allied campaign in the Pacific. HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overbroad Ending Sentence 

message: It's nowhere near as far from Guadalcanal to Rennell as the first paragraph under this head states (states that TF 18 was at a point presumably between the two: 50 miles north of Rennell and 160 miles south of Guadalcanal). The correct distance, depending on exactly what points you measure between, is more like 115 miles. Source: Google Earth. The head of the black arrow on the chart that appears to the left of the referenced paragraph makes this location look like it's about halfway between the two islands, which is contradicted by the 50/160 split in the numbers in the paragraph. Maybe the "160" is a pure typo and should be 60 instead?PhilGaskill (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Action on 29 January 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Rennell Island. 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/20060923121405/http://history.navy.mil/photos/pers-us/uspers-g/r-giffen.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/pers-us/uspers-g/r-giffen.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) 23:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Rennell Island. 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://www.webcitation.org/67xQaBo6P?url=http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=8 to http://www.ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=8
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) 19:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article did not pass FAC with a jam at the top of an excessively long infobox, plus nav template, plus MOS:SANDWICH. This should be resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  13:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing excessive about the infobox, and the navbox is fine. I know some don't like them there, but it is hardly verboten. I've removed one image as I think the map is more important. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 04:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jam up at the top