Talk:South West Pacific Area (command)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): Australian military history task force British military history task force New Zealand military history task force United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

[edit] Name of article

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Names/ranks in command structure section

I have reverted Hawkeye7's recent changes for two reasons. (1) There is more than one kind of "General" and "Admiral" (see Comparative military ranks of World War II) and we have separate articles for each rank. (2) It is against Wikipedia style to link the same thing many times in one article. Grant65 | Talk 02:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 appears to feel that there are no generally accepted abbreviations for Lieutenant General etc. I don't think there is much danger of "Lt Gen" or "Lt-Gen" being misunderstood, although I agree that abbreviations should be consistent. At the moment the section is very repetitive.

Also, when naming prominent Australians, the norm is to use simply "Firstname Surname" or "Firstname Secondname Surname", not "F.S. Surname". When there is more than one "Zeus Smith", they are usually differentiated as "Zeus Smith (soldier)" and "Zeus Smith (aviator)". It is very rare that Australian biographical articles appear as "Z.X. Smith" and they only usually only appear as "Zeus X. Smith" when there is more than one "Zeus Smith" with the same occupation. Grant65 | Talk 09:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I'm used to always referring to everyone in the conventional Australian form, ie "Z.X. Smith", as in the ADB. However, on reflection, I agree with you when it comes to wiki articles. I think that Firstname Secondname will be easier to read and to find, especially if it can be kept consistent. The results of not being consistent can be seen with the American links - all three forms are in use. Arrrggh. Hawkeye7 11:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)