Talk:Bougainville campaign

message: I'm a bit confused. The article title says 1944-45, but the article itself says 1943-1944. Which is correct? -Etoile 00:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither. Fighting on Bougainville lasted until the end of the war (eg, 1943-45). While the article does not currently mention it, after the US forces left Bougainville the Australian Army launched a major offensive against the Japanese. --Nick Dowling 05:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be working on this article eventually and I'll make sure to include the final stage of the battle that included Australian troops. If you know of any references that detail the Australian portion of the battle, please list them in the references section. Thanks, Cla68 14:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: One more thing, whoever originally laid out the Solomon Islands campaign, placed an article for the land battle of Empress Augusta Bay (1943) as a seperate article from the later Bougainville campaign (this article). I'm not sure if they should be separate articles. Cla68 00:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which is correct? 

message: At the moment, citing Gailey, we have 65,000 troops and 44,000 dead. However the AWM website says: "At the surrender it was found that in November 1944 there had been 42,000 Japanese on the island. At the surrender in September 1945, 23,571 were left; 8,500 died in battle and 9,800 of disease and malnutrition." I wonder where Gailey gets the other 23-24,000 from. Grant | Talk 16:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll check Gailey's book and see what source he cites for his numbers. CLA 01:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gailey is insistent that there were 65,000 Japanese troops on the island. Rottman's book, however, states that there were 38,000 Japanese troops on Bougainville at the time of the Allied invasion and that 7,000 more arrived later. Since Rottman's figures are closer to AWM's numbers, I think we should use those. I'll make the changes and put Gailey's figures in the footnote. CLA 12:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, thanks. Grant | Talk 01:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I think the Allied forces numbers in the infobox may be too high also because Gailey is vague on the exact number of Allied soldiers involved. CLA 01:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese statistics 

message: Hello, I see that this article has been nominated for a GA review. I have a number of concerns about this. Firstly, this was done without consultation. While I understand that anyone can nominate an article for GA, I think it is best to notify the article's main contributors beforehand. That is a minor point, though, and I understand that the nominator was only acting on good faith, so I will move on. My main concern is the fact that I don't believe that the article is ready for GAN. I say this as the article's main contributor. It is missing a lot of things, for instance: the strategic context of the fighting (background), description of terrain/geography, logistics, air operations, aftermath/analysis, etc. There is a lot more that could be written here. I intend to add this to the article eventually, however, I am not in a position to do so at the moment. Unless someone has the inclination to add this information, I think that the GA nomination should simply be removed as I fear that without it, it won't be successful and it will simply be wasting a reviewer's time. As such, I propose to remove the nomination. I will wait for some feedback on this proposal before doing so, though. If I haven't heard anything by tomorrow night (it is currently 8:00 pm Sunday here), I will go ahead and remove the nomination. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns about GA nomination 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Bougainville Campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070109011150/http://www.nps.gov:80/archive/wapa/indepth/extContent/usmc/pcn-190-003130-00/sec14.htm to http://www.nps.gov/archive/wapa/indepth/extContent/usmc/pcn-190-003130-00/sec14.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article seems to heavily focus on the American viewpoint of the campaign, it is riddled with photos of American officers who took part in the campaign (their "hip" nicknames included). The description of the second photo of  the January–February 1944: Encircling Rabaul segment is borderline POV. The reference to the Thanksgiving Day as well as Eleanor Roosevelt's column My Day also seems out of place since it only resonates with American readers. I also spotted some peacock language, example below: 
"With experience learned in previous invasions and extremely detailed staff work, the landings went off with great efficiency."
Furthermore the article lists an insane number of locations without using enough wikilinks and overuses direct quotations.--Catlemur (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The material on the motivations for the Australian campaign on the island also needs work (which I'll do today). I agree on the photos. Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, gentlemen, thanks for your input. I've made a bunch of changes now, but TBH I'm finding it difficult working with the text given how complete the rewrite was that was completed a while ago by another editor. Anyway, I've added another Japanese source now; removed the images; and tried to copy edit the article a bit more. If you could both take another look and let me know how we are tracking for B class I'd greatly appreciate it. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Much improved IMO. I also had difficulty working with that text, which didn't present a well-rounded view of the campaign. Nick-D (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Serious Issues

message: The article mentions the carrier attack of 5 November 1943 but not the one of 11 November.  See Bombing of_Rabaul_%28November 1943%29#Carrier attacks. Although the latter raid occurred after Japanese withdrawal of warships, should not the 11 November raid be mentioned as well?
—Kablammo (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, thanks for this. Yes, I think this would be a good addition. I think there is something about it here:  on p. 260. Unless you beat me to it, I will see if maybe I can work something in tomorrow (it's getting late here). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I will check some sources also.  I believe that the AIRSOLS operation against Rabaul was in essence a battle of attrition against forces including the air groups of the two Shōkaku-class aircraft carriers, which were highly trained.  The success of that operation led to Japanese withdrawal of those groups and others, which gave the Allies command of the air and enabled further Allied advances.  It also allowed some Allied air elements to be withdrawn.  I'll be glad to work with you, but I leave it to you how much detail we should give to those elements in this article. Kablammo (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carrier raids 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bougainville Campaign. 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/20120614000050/http://www.pacificwrecks.com/airfields/png/kahilli/index.html to http://www.pacificwrecks.com/airfields/png/kahilli/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121107140716/http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/b8/bougainville-i.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/b8/bougainville-i.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) 00:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: * Support as nom – I proposed these as "technical" moves since there was general agreement on the last batch that these are not proper names, per evidence from books, and that MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS call for using sentence case, not title case. Dicklyon (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NCCAPS explicitly defers to MOS:CAPS which states: "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent [empasis added], reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." The evidence of an n-gram search is provided in satisfaction of the criteria (). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "Oh no it doesn't". If it does quote the line. Secondly even if it does, we make decisions on the policy Article title the MOS is not a policy and where it diverges from the policy then it ought to be fixed. In this case there is nothing in the policy that says "consistently capitalized" see WP:COMMONNAME. -- PBS (talk) 08:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , Quoting from the third para of the lead at WP:NCCAPS:   You will note (and can confirm) that the link in that text is to MOS:CAPS. At WP:AT, what it does say is: . Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: This is a fine article that appears well on its way to A status. Particularly for beefing up the introduction, my book South Pacific Cauldron, published in 2014 by the Naval Institute Press, could be of much use in providing background not available elsewhere. For instance, based on archival research, the book tells in great detail the remarkable story of the suicide of the designated commander, Marine Major General Charles Barrett, immediately before the invasion, covered up by a fabricated court of inquiry proceeding approved by Halsey. The book, which comprehends the entire So Pac campaign up to the Japanese surrender, should be of value at many other points in the article as well. Despite favorable review, it has flown under the Wikipedia radar here and elsewhere. AuthorNoteAuthorNote (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untapped Source