Talk:Landing at Nadzab

403rd Troop Carrier Wing?

I have my doubts about the assertion that two squadrons of the 403rd Troop Carrier "Wing" were involved in this operation. First, there was no 403rd Troop Carrier Wing. There was a 403rd Troop Carrier Group in the South Pacific but it was assigned to the Thirteenth Air Force at the time. The drop at Nadzab was carried out by units from the 54th Troop Carrier Wing. I suspect that the two squadrons referenced here were actually from the 433rd Troop Carrier Group, which was part of the 54th TCW at the time. SamMcGowan (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Typo. It should have read "group" instead of "wing". The 403rd Troop Carrier Group was supposed to go to SWPA but half the group was "sandbagged" en route and only two squadrons, the 65th and 66th, arrived. They participated in the Nadzab op. I have corrected the group's name and linked the 65th and 66th TCS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"text book"

"Lieutenant General John J. Tolson described the 503rd Parachute Infantry Regiment's operation at Nadzab as "probably the classic text-book airborne operation of World War II" but the text book had not been written at the time."

are you serious? Gen Tolson's remark is a typical and well-known metaphor. the text after the quote shows some serious illiteracy on the part of the writer.....Ken (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; that phrase is lame. What Tolson said could as well be taken to mean that it was the kind of operation that would be written about in future textbooks. I'm going to be bold and pull it out. --Yaush (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

English variant...

Even though it should be written in Australian English, since it's not, should it be left as is, or should someone rewrite it in Australian English? Magus732 (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I wrote it, and it is in Australian English. Note the way we use "South West" instead of "Southwest", "favour" instead of "favor", "3rd" instead of "3d". Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you point out to me exactly where in this page those words are? I must've missed that in my extensive search through the page text. Also, it doesn't matter if you wrote it; it's not yours, so if it does need to be changed, for whatever reason, it's not simply up to you. Magus732 (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:RETAIN would seem to indicate that it is relevant. To me Hawkeye's cmt wasn't about ownership it was probably more to do with this guideline (and seems like a reasonable point to me). Anotherclown (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Flags in Infobox

User:Hawkeye7 I cannot follow your comment, please post a link to the relevant page on the MilHist MOS that says that flags can be repeatedly used in Infoboxes, because this conflicts with [1]. Mztourist (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no conflict. It says: Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 your comment indicates that a MilHist MoS exists that states that infoboxes can be full of flags and I am asking you to show me where that is. Mztourist (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Also I'm not sure it make sense to have flags on one side of the box and not the other (or vice versa). There would seem to be some value in internal consistency to me (whatever is chosen, i.e. flags or no flags). Anotherclown (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Anotherclown I deleted flags where there was only one side (the Japanese), on . Mztourist (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

G'day, yes I understand your reasoning. I was just advancing the opinion that there might be other considerations (i.e. internal consistency). Anotherclown (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. WP:MILMOS#FLAGS says that they should be used consistently. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying the relevant MILMOS. I still believe that my edit should stand because to quote the MILMOS: "In general, the use of flag icons is not recommended; neither, however, is it prohibited. When deciding whether flag icons are appropriate in a particular context, consider: Do the icons convey useful information to the reader, or are they merely decorative? Icons that differentiate among several parties (for example, icons used to indicate commander allegiance in Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945)) are likely to be useful, while icons that convey irrelevant or redundant information are usually not." As all the commanders on the Japanese side were Japanese, they don't each need a flag as that is redundant, however as the Allied side involved both US and Australian forces so it is appropriate to retain flags showing the nationalities of forces and commanders. regards Mztourist (talk) 07:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC

There is no justification for the change in the MOS. Next stop will be ANI. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

There is perfect justification for the change: it is in accordance with MILMOS. The Japanese flags are redundant as they do not "convey useful information to the reader" and are "merely decorative". All the commanders on the Japanese side, were, unsurprisingly, Japanese. So how is retaining these flags in accordance with MILMOS? Please do take it to ANI or the MILHIST Board. I made my comments on 8 February and there was no further response from you, 18 days later I reinstate my change, so I have clean hands here. Mztourist (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

You had two editors opposing your change on the basis of internal consistency. A 2:1 margin against you doesn't add up to consensus for change. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure where Anotherclown actually stands on the issue as he said to me "yes I understand your reasoning". Anyway as I stated above, on 8 February I provided my justification in accordance with MILMOS and you didn't reply. You did not provide any detail to your consistency "argument" , presumably you think it means you shouldn't have commander flags on one side of an infobox and not on the other side? Please elaborate and once you do we can refer this to RFC for resolution. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I am neither for or against flags. To me we either have them on both sides of the inbox, or on neither. To be clear though I am against them being partially removed as they have previously been. This is because I think it looks "incomplete" to the eye due to it being inconsistent, and I have no doubt that at some point someone would just come here and re-add the "missing" ones making this whole thing quite pointless. Anotherclown (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That is my position too, and it is also why ArbCom declared infoboxes to be a content creation decision, not a maintenance one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Noted, this obviously needs to go to RFC as I don't believe that is consistent with MILMOS.Mztourist (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Its quite clear that the flags are appropriate, because without them it is impossible to tell on the allied side which commanders belong to which country.XavierGreen (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

XavierGreen all the commanders on the Japanese side were...drumroll...Japanese. As I said above, as the Allied side involved both US and Australian forces it is appropriate to retain flags showing the nationalities of forces and commanders, however flags for Japanese units and commanders is redundant. Mztourist (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Landing at Nadzab. 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/20090226030631/http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/gen_kenney_reports.pdf to http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/gen_kenney_reports.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Landing at Nadzab. 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/20081201145955/http://www.awm.gov.au/journal/j34/shindo.htm to http://www.awm.gov.au/journal/j34/shindo.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)