Talk:Axis naval activity in Australian waters

message: I have, arbitrarily, selected a very broad definition of 'Australian waters' as being the massive area which fell within the Australia Station, with the exclusion of the waters around New Guinea following the Japanese entry into the war. My rationale for this definition is that Australia's maritime area of responsibility stretched significantly beyond the Australian coastline. As such, actions such as the Japanese cruiser raid on the Aden-Fremantle route in early 1944 constitute 'activity in Australian waters' as this raid was targeting shipping heading to or from Australia (though this is about as far west as I think should fall into this entry). I propose excluding the Japanese actions in New Guinean waters as these operations formed part of the New Guinea campaign, which has its own entry. 
There is, however, the question about how to treat Japanese attacks on convoys heading between Australia and New Guinea. I propose including these attacks in this article, though attacks on convoys heading between parts of New Guinea should be excluded. 
--Nick Dowling 01:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's reasonable to adopt a broad definition, including some events mentioned on Japanese air attacks on Australia, 1942-43. But I don't think we should mention air attacks on ships by land based planes, which really belong at the other article. Grant65 | Talk 05:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. --Nick Dowling 09:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of 'Australian waters'

message: Nick, great work on this article. At the moment I'm thinking that it might be better to organise the article chronologically, rather than with the division into surface, aerial and submarine attacks. For example, if we end with the U-Boat activity in 1945, it gives a better idea of the ongoing nature of the threat, throughout the war. I think the list of ships sunk would be better at the end also, following the convention in other Wikipedia articles of having lists at the end.  What do you think? Grant65 | Talk 12:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Grant. That's an excellent suggestion. I've set up a possible lay out at User:Nick Dowling/sandbox - what do you think? I think that it's much easier to read and definetly highlights the continuing, but changing, threat Australia faced during the war. The only downsides are that list of ships sunk should be expanded to include those sunk by surface raiders and a bit of new introductory/linking text is needed. --Nick Dowling 10:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, looks great to me. Grant65 | Talk 10:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, done. --Nick Dowling 11:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Organisation of article

message: There is a rumour of a submarine sunk by aircraft off SE victoria toward the end of the war, possibly axis, possibly allied. searches haven't found it as far as I know, but it's not mentioned in this article.
: It's just a rumor - all the sources I consulted in writing my contributions to this article state that no Axis submarines were sunk off the east coast. The I-124 was the Australian military's only submarine 'kill' in Australian waters and she was sunk off Darwin. --Nick Dowling 09:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Submarine sunk off Victoria

message: Nick, I went along with your reversion of my restucturing previously, but I still feel strongly it would be better to do away with the simple year headings ("1942", "1943", etc) and incorporate them into the other headings ("German surface raiders, 1939-41", "Early Japanese submarine patrols, 1942", "Japanese naval aviation attacks, 1942-43" etc). A simple division into years is not considered good practice in historical writing as (other than basic timelines) as the flow of events doesn't conform to calendar units.
That aside, it was a good idea to request peer review and I think the article is close to featured article quality. Grant65 | Talk 15:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Grant. I think that the single year level 2 (==) headings should be retained to make it very clear that these sections include all the Axis operations in Australian waters during these period. However, adding dates to all the other headings seems like a very good idea. I've had a go at doing this at: User:Nick Dowling/sandbox - what do you think? Due to the episodic nature of the Axis attacks against Australia I think that sticking to a conventional cronology is the best way to approach writing the article (eg, in broad terms, the Axis offensive against Australia was German suface raiders, then Japanese recon patrols, then Japanese air attacks, then the attacks on the East Coast, then the actions of Japanese raiders in the Indian Ocean and finally the 'U-862's cruise. --Nick Dowling 10:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've just incorporated new headings with dates into the article. I think that they definetly make things clearer. --Nick Dowling 01:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Headings

message: I think this article is ready for FA nomination. Cla68 06:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that it has made FA. Well done Nick. Grant65 | Talk 17:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot Grant. Thanks also to everyone who voted and provided comments. --Nick Dowling 07:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FA

message: This is a copy of the original image with the watermark removed per request at the bottom of the page.  Sadly, the image is locked because it's on the front page so I couldn't replace it. SteveBaker (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watermark removed 

message: The article gives the date of Italy's entry as 11 June 1940. The Italians would say it was 10 June 1940. Is the 11 June date Australian time? JMcC (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's correct. The reference (the Australian official history) states that "War with Italy began at 9 a .m. on 11th June Eastern Australian time". I've just tweaked the article to clarify that. Thank you for spotting it. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of Italy entering WW2

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) 13:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove date-autoformatting 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Axis naval activity in Australian waters. 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/20081121141223/http://www.navy.gov.au/RAN_in_the_Second_World_War to http://www.navy.gov.au/RAN_in_the_Second_World_War
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109101849/http://www.navy.gov.au/Publication%3APapers_in_Australian_Maritime_Affairs_No._15 to http://www.navy.gov.au/Publication%3APapers_in_Australian_Maritime_Affairs_No._15
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109101849/http://www.navy.gov.au/Publication%3APapers_in_Australian_Maritime_Affairs_No._15 to http://www.navy.gov.au/Publication%3APapers_in_Australian_Maritime_Affairs_No._15
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) 23:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Axis naval activity in Australian waters. 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  tag to http://kimberleysociety.org/past95.html
*Added  tag to http://www.cofepow.org.uk/pages/ships_behar.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.library.unsw.edu.au/~thesis/adt-ADFA/public/adt-ADFA20031029.102545/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080926142319/http://www.navy.gov.au/Publication%3ANavy_Contribution_to_Australian_Maritime_Operations to http://www.navy.gov.au/Publication%3ANavy_Contribution_to_Australian_Maritime_Operations
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080926142319/http://www.navy.gov.au/Publication%3ANavy_Contribution_to_Australian_Maritime_Operations to http://www.navy.gov.au/Publication%3ANavy_Contribution_to_Australian_Maritime_Operations
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109101849/http://www.navy.gov.au/Publication%3APapers_in_Australian_Maritime_Affairs_No._15 to http://www.navy.gov.au/Publication%3APapers_in_Australian_Maritime_Affairs_No._15
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) 17:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Axis naval activity in Australian waters. 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/20080926142319/http://www.navy.gov.au/Publication%3ANavy_Contribution_to_Australian_Maritime_Operations to http://www.navy.gov.au/Publication%3ANavy_Contribution_to_Australian_Maritime_Operations
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109101849/http://www.navy.gov.au/Publication%3APapers_in_Australian_Maritime_Affairs_No._15 to http://www.navy.gov.au/Publication%3APapers_in_Australian_Maritime_Affairs_No._15
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) 12:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Looking at this as part of the ongoing WP:URFA/2020 sweep of older featured articles.  There's some uncited text in the Australia Station and Australian defences section, and from a quick look at the sources, I doubt that warsailors.com or bismarck-class.dk would be accepted at FAC these days, and combinedfleet and uboat.net aren't really preferable for FA level.  I'm not particularly familiar with this subject -  do any of y'all see any other content issues here?  If not, this shouldn't be too hard to tune up, as the majority of the sourcing looks fine to my untrained eye. Hog Farm  Talk 21:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Also ozatwar.com and cofepow.org.uk. From the looks of the article history, Nick has been most involved in trying to bring it up to scratch. Definitely salvageable. I'd be happy to help. I'll start a list. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 22:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This proves to be problematic. Gill (p. 260) states that I-178 was sunk on 25 August 1943 southeast of the Solomons by USS Patterson, and cites a 1946 White Paper entitled German, Italian and Japanese U-boat Casualties during the War. While this is fine, it contradicts the information at combinedfleet.com. Perhaps  have access to sources that clarify the sinking of I-178? Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 05:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we're going to be able to nail it down definitively, but we can note the claims. There's a journal article listed at Japanese submarine I-178 that supports the Patterson claim, but presumably it covers others. Parsecboy (talk) 10:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tweaked the text to address this issue, I think. Combinedfleet is a reliable source and Gill is pretty elderly for sourcing disputed information on losses given the amount of subsequent research into the topic. Nick-D (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think the Navy article by Crowhurst is far better than combinedfleet.com (it gives good detail of the RAAF claim and explains why the others are wrong). Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 05:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Striking as I address things. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 06:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds great, Nick. Let me know if you want any help? Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 06:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be really grateful if you could continue to plug away as you see fit, including covering any of the issues above: the article would definitely benefit from multiple sets of eyes and opinions! Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Great job, Nick. I'll give it a re-read and make any tweaks I see. Then we should be in a position to mark it as satisfactory for retention. Perhaps it could be run as TFA again soon? There are some suitable 80th anniversaries in 2022. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 05:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

text: G'day, Nick, that addition looks good to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Hi , I've been through now. Almost all minor stuff, but I did cut out a para and a pic about unarmed Italian liners. Put it back in if you wish, it didn't seem germane to Axis naval activity to me. I reckon it is adjacent to current FA standards now. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 11:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: PM, Nick-D, AR and Sturm, Hog Farm is traveling this week, so I will wait until he has more time to revisit before having a look towards adding my “S” mark, SandyGeorgia (Talk)  13:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020A]] 

message: A non-exhaustive list, feel free to add:
*replace warsailors.com re: capture of Storstad (I'd be surprised if Gill didn't mention this), and the three sinkings by Michel Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 05:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This proves to be problematic. Gill (p. 260) states that I-178 was sunk on 25 August 1943 southeast of the Solomons by USS Patterson, and cites a 1946 White Paper entitled German, Italian and Japanese U-boat Casualties during the War. While this is fine, it contradicts the information at combinedfleet.com. Perhaps  have access to sources that clarify the sinking of I-178? Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 05:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we're going to be able to nail it down definitively, but we can note the claims. There's a journal article listed at Japanese submarine I-178 that supports the Patterson claim, but presumably it covers others. Parsecboy (talk) 10:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tweaked the text to address this issue, I think. Combinedfleet is a reliable source and Gill is pretty elderly for sourcing disputed information on losses given the amount of subsequent research into the topic. Nick-D (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think the Navy article by Crowhurst is far better than combinedfleet.com (it gives good detail of the RAAF claim and explains why the others are wrong). Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 05:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Striking as I address things. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 06:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds great, Nick. Let me know if you want any help? Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 06:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be really grateful if you could continue to plug away as you see fit, including covering any of the issues above: the article would definitely benefit from multiple sets of eyes and opinions! Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Great job, Nick. I'll give it a re-read and make any tweaks I see. Then we should be in a position to mark it as satisfactory for retention. Perhaps it could be run as TFA again soon? There are some suitable 80th anniversaries in 2022. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 05:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

text: G'day, Nick, that addition looks good to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Hi , I've been through now. Almost all minor stuff, but I did cut out a para and a pic about unarmed Italian liners. Put it back in if you wish, it didn't seem germane to Axis naval activity to me. I reckon it is adjacent to current FA standards now. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 11:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: PM, Nick-D, AR and Sturm, Hog Farm is traveling this week, so I will wait until he has more time to revisit before having a look towards adding my “S” mark, SandyGeorgia (Talk)  13:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: List of points needing work to ensure retention as an FA