Talk:South West Pacific Area

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Name of article 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for confirming!  — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 00:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Command 

message: 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)
replies: text: Ok, thank you. --Bomzibar (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movement of the GHQ 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Clarification of USFIA/USAFIA/USASOS 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 01:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: South West Pacific Area (command) →  – Unnecessary disambiguation. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Support. Frostly (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Sure -- simple, unambiguous. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 9 June 2023