Talk:Attack on Sydney Harbour

message: Well done with the re-vamping of the article, particularly to Saberwyn. But is there a reason why the auxiliary anti-submarine vessels, auxiliary minesweepers and channel patrol boats are no longer referred to as "HMAS" and no longer redlinked in the article? I have seen all of these vessels referred to as "HMAS _______" in various sources. And any commissioned ship of the RAN is worthy of its own article. Grant | Talk 03:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: During my RAN time I served on vessels that will never merit an article (some of them in fact best forgotten by all concerned.) I agree, put in the honorific by all means, but the article isn't helped by splashes of red. Rumiton 09:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, a common convention is to list a warship as eg HMAS Warspite on first mention, then revert to Warspite (without a "the") if the name comes up again. Rumiton 10:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's unlikely that articles will ever be created about the RAN's harbour patrol boats, so I don't think that they need a red link. HMAS should be added where correct and appropriate. --Nick Dowling 10:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Names of harbour defence vessels

message: We've done a lot of good work on this article over the past few weeks, both in the realms of content and quality. Many of the concerns raised on this page and at the Peer Review have been taken into consideration and acted upon. Is there anything else this article needs before it makes a run at A-class review? -- saberwyn 10:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the article would - and should - pass an A-class review. However, it might benefit from an additional section analysing the results of the attack - eg, the mixed performance of Sydney's defences and whether the results justified the Japanese efforts (Jenkins thinks that one ferry and several small merchant ships didn't justify the deployment of 5 subs, and I tend to agree). --Nick Dowling 11:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got the books for a few more days, I'll see what I can dredge for an "Analysis" section. -- saberwyn 11:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jenkins and Gill both have good analysis of the battle - I can't get my hands on a copy of Jenkins, but I can help with Gill. By the way, this sentance: "Lt George Cantello of the 41st PS took off from Bankstown, but suffered mechanical failure soon afterwards, crashed and was killed" still has a citation needed tag. If it's from Peter Dunn's Australia @ War website I'd argue that it should be removed - that site is very unreliable. --Nick Dowling 11:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworked it using the Pacific Wreck Database as a source , but will not shed any tears if it is stripped until such a time as a relaible source concerning the subject can be found. -- saberwyn 11:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work. I think that it should stay - it illustrates the contribution the US was making to Australia's defence at the time and 1st Lt Cantello was essentially a casualty of the battle. --Nick Dowling 11:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding the question Was it worth it? I think you could argue either way. The toll in shipping was in favour of the allies, but in the perverted logic of wartime, it was worth it if it demoralised the enemy. I think it left many Australians feeling pretty vulnerable, but that may have just increased their fighting spirit. It's probably a subject better left for someone's PhD. Rumiton 12:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Analysis is now in the main article. Play with it there. -- saberwyn 05:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Now, do we need anything else before we run for A-class review? -- saberwyn 09:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Run for A-class?

message: I've started a run-up of material for an Analysis section at User:Saberwyn/Attack on Sydney harbour, per the discussion above. Its in point form at the moment, and any additional material or help weaving this into a couple of coherent paragraphs would be appreciated. -- saberwyn 07:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Analysis is now in the main article. Play with it there. -- saberwyn 05:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Now, do we need anything else before we run for A-class review? -- saberwyn 09:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Analysis

message: Does Carruthers specify the US ships which were sunk by midget submarines in December 1942 and early 1945 or provide a source for his information on these sinkings? These sinkings are not mentioned in Samuel Eliot Morison's definitive History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, and I don't think that it's likely that he'd not mention the loss of so many ships to such an unusual weapon. The slaughter off Mindanao seems particularly questionable. --Nick Dowling 08:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Carruthers does not specify the ships sunk, and does not specify the source(s) used to make this claim. Based on your lack of information, I'm removing the paragraph until it can be confirmed in a second text. -- saberwyn 10:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Midget attacks after Sydney

message: This article clearly satisfies all criteria easily, and in terms of comprehensiveness and style would have a very good chance at FAC as it stands. Well done. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 03:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA passed

message: That's not the rising sun, is it? --Thus Spake Anittas 13:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag of Japan

message: Hi Saberwyn, I notice you reverted my mention of her torpedos to its torpedos and wondered why. Surely ships deserve honor as females. Then I thought you are right. These things were not ships, they were objects, devices, contraptions even. There was nothing of the homeliness and dignity of a vessel about them, and they must have been a hell to operate. Yep. Its. Rumiton 16:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The one-use-only thing is interesting. What would have happened if they had made it back to the mother subs? Would they have been bolted back on and taken elsewhere, or just scuttled? Rumiton 15:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They would have recovered the crew and scuttled the sub. I'll try to find a specific cite if you're interested, but the books are all back at the various libraries and it will take some time. -- saberwyn 11:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, don't bother thanks, unless one comes to hand. They would have been quite expensive items to build, with all those batteries and huge electric motors. I wonder why they didn't arrange for reuse? Or maybe they never seriously anticipated that they would get back? Rumiton 12:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter. -- saberwyn 21:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read somewhere that the Japanese didn't consider the midget submarines to be suicide weapons in 1942 - as was demonstrated by the mother subs hanging around off Sydney at great risk to themselves in an attempt to recover any surviving midgets. However, the use of such fragile craft in well defended waters was incredibly risky, and the similar British X Craft also suffered very high losses - though the British crews surrendered rather than committed suicide when their sub recieved sevre damage. --Nick Dowling 10:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The Sydney midgets were not suicide weapons, but it was accepted that the chances of the midgets returning was slim to none. -- saberwyn 11:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: She or it

message: Alright, A-class has been awarded. The question is now do we run for Featured Article status? Or, if we are not ready for it, what needs to be done to push us to the mark? -- saberwyn 11:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It starts... -- saberwyn 06:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC

message: I just added spaces between dots and refs as advised by an admin on another article. Saberwyn has taken them out again, and now I see the admin has realised he was wrong. Sorry! (At least it was a quick job reverting them. It took me about an hour to put them there, and I still think it looked better that way. Never mind.) Rumiton 16:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Whoops!

message: I just have to ask - why the discrepancy between the name of the article and the section of text bolded in the first line? An "Attack on Sydney Harbour" and "attacks on the cities of Sydney and Newcastle" are different things. Why isn't Newcastle mentioned in the title whatsoever? Seegoon 13:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is appropriate, the Sydney attacks were the ones carried out by the midgets, and they were by far the more significant. Newcastle seemed to be an afterthought for the mother subs, and the damage done there was minimal. A lot more damage was done to lives and property in the Australian Merchant Navy when the BHP ships were sunk off the coast, which for some reason has not attracted much attention at all. The operation is generally known as the attack on Sydney Harbour. Rumiton 13:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole operation is commonly known as the attack on Sydney harbour, so this name best meets the criteria at WP:NAME. It's also easier to remember and search for than Japanese submarine offensive against Australia (May - June 1942), which would probably be the most accurate name. --Nick Dowling 23:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: After reviewing the abovementioned animation, Battle Surface by David Jenkins, A Very Rude Awakening by Peter Grose, and Japanese Submarine Raiders by Stever Carruthers, I've come to a few conclusions, and have included relevant page numbers so someone interested can check my methodology.
*First off the rank, the animation, while serving as a useful guide, has several inconsistencies with the printed facts in all of these sources.
*On the matter of M-24's interaction with Chicago on the first pass, the animation depicts the midget coming up to port. The various accounts in all three texts state that M-24 was spotted to starboard, approximately 500 metres out, and in the aft quarter. (Jenkins 210-212, Grose 123, Carruthers 133) Chicago's bow was facing west, towards the Harbour Bridge. This also accounts for the damage to Fort Denison, the shell fragments found in Mosman, all to starboard.
*On the torpedoes, there is no consistent information on the positioning of the torpedoes.
**Jenkins has M-24 "off Bradleys Head", approximately 800 m from and at right angles to Chicago (p 214). Grose claims that the midget was "south of Bradleys Head", 500m from Chicago (pp 138-139). Carruthers gives a generic "off Bradleys Head" with no other data. (p 136)
**Torpedo 1 (Kuttabul-sinker) variously "passed well in front" of Chicago (Jenkins 214), "passed between Perkins and Chicago, about 25 m of Perkins' starboard bow" (Grose 139), or "passed narrowly ahead" of Chicago (Carruthers 136). Only Grose gives the direction of the torpedo's path in relation to Chicago. The Coffin Boats by Warner and Seno supports the also-near-miss of Perkins, p 130. -- saberwyn 13:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your diligence. A couple of points. I don't want to come the old sea-dog, but I have seen in many a classroom that this arcane seafaring business of port and starboard baffles many an otherwise learned historian. Court accounts of collision cases can become unintelligible, and the true situation becomes indecipherable. I would also contest with you that the submariners necessarily knew where they were at the time. From what I have seen of the fog of peace, it can be hard enough to penetrate, and I can only imagine that the fog of war would be 100 times as bad. It is quite possible that Lieutenant Ban was disoriented and unsure of his position in the harbour, and may, as has been suggested, have mistaken Chicago for a ship under way and heading west. The truth of the relative positions of the vessels and torpedo tracks may today be simply unknowable, and all the "information" we have may be based on wartime conjecture. The exact tracks must be so. Perhaps that is what the article should say. Cheers. Rumiton 12:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a stab at rewriting the torpedo paragraph. -- saberwyn 13:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tracks and passes

message: The list of allied combatants listed India but the flag that was provided alongside was the flag of Independent India ... India was a British colony during the second world war so I have replaced it with the flag of British India 
This is the image used in other WW2 articles (for eg. Battle of Singapore) that mention Indian forces fighting alongside the allies.
--Saggod 10:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Allied Combatants

message: A few days ago, I received an email via my user page from Peter Grose (author of A Very Rude Awakening). He congratulated me on the superior quality of this article, and after I pointed out that I was not the sole contributor responsible, asked that I pass these congratulations on to Nick, Rumiton, Grant, and everybody else who has contributed to this article over the past few months. -- saberwyn 12:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very nice of him. I note that his book has been getting positive reviews and looks like a good read. --Nick Dowling 08:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice indeed, and it means a lot. Please thank him from me also. Rumiton 12:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations

message: A 60 degree LEFT deflection? Surely, wherever the midget was, the deflection must have been to the right. And how could anyone estimate the amount so confidently when the position (and therefore range from Chicago) of the midget has never been accurately established? Rumiton 12:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deflection

message: Can this article be categorized Military history of Sydney during World War II. I have just start a new category for Sydney suburban articles with military history of that period which is a sub category for military history of Australia. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. 08:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: It seems both text footnotes, I and II, lead to the same footnote (I), and reverse searching from the notes to the text also leads both to number I. The notes appear to be properly formulated. Any ideas? Rumiton (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same name parameter ('name') is used in both templates. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ref#Simple I'm not correcting it 'cause i'm only a reader usually... and given your question and the complicated structure of ref's here:)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.110.155 (talk) 10:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see. Thanks. It might be better to change both footnotes to refs. I'll look at it later. Rumiton (talk) 10:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnote

message: I am not sure nautical measurements should be metricated. Nautical miles are still used at sea, and are different from land miles, which I suspect this Bot uses. I will change back if no discussion. Rumiton (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Maritime metrics

message: Hello, I'm new to this but found the cumulative Attack on Sydney Harbour entry to be greatly informative. I was browsing the entry because my father was on watch that night as a Marine Corps guard aboard the Chicago when one of the subs surfaced. He helped sound General Quarters and actually fired at the sub. His account of the episode is included in a 40,000 word memoir he wrote in the 1990s about his three-plus years in combat experience in the Pacific. I would be happy to share that part it with this site if it seems helpful or appropriate. I think his details pretty much mesh with the pertinent parts of the account here, although in one fairly major difference he described the sub as being so close to the Chicago that he could have beaned it with a baseball. Dad passed away in 2000 and I've been delving into his memoir as part of a long postponed project to edit it and publish it for my family.  I was reading this entry as a way of cross-checking the basic facts and dates of his stories.Jaxnandy (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting! As it is a self-published account, the article probably cannot use it, but we editors would sure like to see some of it. My father was on a train going to work over the bridge next morning and saw the salvage going on. Have a look at this []. I think it gets closest to accurately describing what happened, and does indeed show the sub getting very close to Chicago. Rumiton (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Eye Witness Account

message: Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this. 
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

message: Some wording is missing. At ref 47 and 49.
It passed within 500 metres (1640 ft) to the starboard of USS Chicago's moored position off Garden Island, and was heading on a course roughly parallel to the ship when a Chicago searchlight operator spotted it at 10:52 pm by .[47][49]
Boylo (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for spotting that. I think that the problem was that the word 'by' isn't needed, so I've removed it. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording missing from article

message: The commons version of the lead image has had it's watermarks edited out out. Admins may wish to replace version on en.Geni 11:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Ko-hyoteki_Sydney.jpg

message: No bolding in the lead? Isn't that required per MoS? —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 19:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if it's clumsy to include the article's title in the introduction. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bolding

message: While the Japanese planners undoubtedly intended this raid as a genuine attack in its own right, the timing of it was closely related to the Midway battle.
The Japanese planners believed (incorrectly) that their plans to attack Midway so as to draw the American carriers into battle against overwhelming forces were a secret.  To increase the element of surprise, two significant raids, on Sydney and to occupy some of the Aleutian islands, were timed to draw attention away from Midway shortly before the attack on Midway, in the hope of increasing the surprise of the Midway invasion.  The primary aim of the whole complex operation was destruction of the US carrier force.
See Walter Lord's book Incredible Victory, Pocket Books 1967. (the story of Midway)
The Sydney raid should be seen in the context of the overall issue of control of the Pacific Ocean.  Yamamoto knew that America would bounce back strongly, and it was vital to Japan's war plans that as much of the Pacific as possible be under Japanese control before that bounce back could gain ground.
Pcbavo (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Aleutian islands campaign was planned as a diversion, yes. I have never seen it stated - anywhere (and I have read quite a lot on the war in the pacific) - that the raids on Australia were intended as a diversion to Midway. Raul654 (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Sydney Raid as a Diversion to the Battle of Midway

message: According to this counter [], this article got looked at about 94,000 times last month alone. Take bows, guys. Rumiton (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Looks

message: There is an article on the aftermath of the attack in the current (on shelves now) edition of Wartime, the magazine published by the Australian War Memorial, that may be of use. I didn't pick up a copy (kinda broke at the moment), but based on my brief glance at the newsagents, the article focuses on the aftermath of the attack, particularly the Japanese perspective. There looks like there would be some useful information to expand the "Aftermath" section of the article. -- saberwyn 07:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As some probably much-needed contect... Issue 45 -- saberwyn 08:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Article in ''Wartime''

message: This engagement is widely considered a battle in mainstream history. On wiki its called an attack but really, An attack is a tactic in a battle and should not be used to name an engagement.
The Battle of Pearl Harbor is another engagement labeled as an attack instead of a battle.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ13090 (talk • contribs) 14 May 2009
*I have to disagree... the majority of the published works on this event refer to it by this title. Do you have any sources demonstrating otherwise? -- saberwyn 07:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle or Attack

message: I see herethat it now seems certain that one battleship that rolled over and sank during the Japanese attack on Pearl was torpedoed by a midget sub from I-16. I am excruciatingly busy at the moment, but perhaps this article should reflect that? And maybe the Attack on Pearl Harbor article amended? Rumiton (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The question of the impact of midget subs at Peral Harbor has risen and fallen since the attack itself, when nine of the midget personnel were hailed as young war gods (minus the one that lived) while the role of the aviators was almost completely ignored. The success of that one midget has been proven, disproven, accepted, or rejected on several occasions (depending on who you ask). Discussing it would be relevant in the Pearl Harbor attack article would be appropriate, but I think the most that should be done here is no more that a couple of sentances and a link to the relevant section of the other article. -- saberwyn 10:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, there's no need to cover the mini-subs actions at Pearl Harbor in any great detail in this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I wasn't thinking of detail, but it is an interesting sideline. Rumiton (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see this article still states that the midgets at Pearl had "no effect." Sources say otherwise, but I don't want to make an undiscussed change. Comments? Rumiton (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Midget subs at Pearl Harbour

message: There's an Australian government website which states that the only shell that exploded was in Bellevue Hill. Presumably this is the house shown in this photo? Does anyone know the address? Is there enough evidence that this is the case to change the caption to make the location a bit more precise? Cheers - Gobeirne (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The caption to this photo on the AWM's website doesn't state that the shell exploded, and the amount of damage doesn't seem excessive from what might be expected if a 'dud' 140mm shell hit what appears to be a lightly built annex at the back of a house. That said, you could be right given the number of photos of this house on the AWM's website. It would be very interesting to know the street addresses of where the shells struck - Sydney's eastern suburbs would be a great place for some battlefield tourism! Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Sydney Morning Herald , I advise the following that "Grantham Flats", Cnr of Manion Avenue and Iluka Street, Woollahra - dud shell tore through flat injuring one man.
Another source  indicates a shell landed in Bradley Avenue, Bellevue Hill damaging the back rooms of a house and also damaging the house next door. It also identifies, 9 Bunyula Road, Bellevue Hill, 68 Streatfield Road, Bellevue Hill, 67 Balfour Road, Rose Bay, 1 Simpson Street, Bondi, Olola Avenue, Vaucluse, Yallambee Flats, 33 Plumer Road, Rose Bay. A wiki page  also claims On the night of June 7 1942 when Japanese submarines shelled Sydney, a contributor in Bellevue Hill was struck by a shell fragment and admitted to St Vincent’s Hospital. In due course a claim (No. H711683) was paid in respect to this injury. See damaged caused by shell that exploded here . Regards Newm30 (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Eastern Suburbs bombing

message: There's a new book recently/about to be published that appears to focus on the aftermath of the attack, specificly the shellings. May be of use to update/expand the article, andor the child article Shelling of Newcastle. Links from publisher's website and the Sydney Morning Herald.
*
Just a heads up. -- saberwyn 08:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential source: ''A Parting Shot''

message: I am in two minds about this, but I wonder if Capt Bode's suicide in April 1943, after some further combat misadventures, should be included in this article. In a way he was a delayed casualty of the attack on Sydney Harbour.  Rumiton (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you can explicitly link the suicide to his actions during the attack on Sydney Harbour, I'd say no. The impression I have is that it was a result of the disaster that was the Battle of Savo Island and its aftermath. -- saberwyn 19:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, after sleeping on it, I agree. Rumiton (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Capt Bode

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Attack on Sydney Harbour. 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/20091019113436/http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/Sea_Talk_2006-winter.pdf to http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/Sea_Talk_2006-winter.pdf
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) 05:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: You say "the only occasion in history when either city has come under attack" without saying what the other city may be.  I assume Newcastle, but you need to say what you were referring to.GeeDee (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Attack on Sydney Harbour. 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/20070828230133/http://minister.dva.gov.au/speeches/2002/05_may/fort_scratchley.htm to http://minister.dva.gov.au/speeches/2002/05_may/fort_scratchley.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) 14:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Attack on Sydney Harbour. 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/20081004040951/http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/PIAMA15.pdf to http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/PIAMA15.pdf
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) 23:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :THE SHELLING OF NEWCASTLE and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 12#THE SHELLING OF NEWCASTLE until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs)  05:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "THE SHELLING OF NEWCASTLE" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]