Talk:Battle of the Coral Sea#Request for comment

Hi all. I'm working on a rewrite of {{HMAS|Australia|D84}}, and am trying to sort out information regarding to the USAAF friendly fire incident mentioned in this article (citation/footnote 59). The text I have at the moment is:

:A few minutes later, the ships were attacked by another three heavy bombers, flying at a higher altitude to the first group; the bombing was much less accurate. It was later learned that the three aircraft belonged to the United States Army Air Force (USAAF). Although USN Vice Admiral Herbert F. Leary made plans to train aircrews in naval vessel recognition in response, USAAF General George Brett refused to implement them or acknowledge that the friendly fire incident had happened.

At the moment, that's all sourced to Gill's Royal Australian Navy, 1942–1945, p. 50 (with some educated guesswork to identify the USAAF and Brett at their respective points), which according to the footnote misidentifies the aircraft involved (I originally followed Gill, but based on what's said here stripped out that claim). Would someone be able to improve the text to identify the aircraft (and if possible, a reason for the oops) and provide a source (hopefully not all eight cited in the footnote) to supplement Gill? Thanks in advance! -- saberwyn 02:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This box, {{Campaignbox Battle for Australia}}, is producing peculiar crowding of text on the left of my screen on Safari, while there's a message at the bottom of the campaign box. Can somebody fix? I don't just want to delete... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

In the map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coral_sea.jpg the scale of miles seems to be incorrect by a factor of 6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.143.79 (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

This is what I came here for. The map in the Prelude section, which was copied from 21. USACMH Vol. I 1994, p. 48. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Coral_Sea#CITEREFUSACMH_Vol._I1994 https://history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur%20Reports/MacArthur%20V1/ch03.htm#b3 plate nr. 14, the scale bar is extremely wrong. Using the scale bar to measure the width of the map area puts it at about 155 miles (nautical or statutory?). Measuring with google maps puts the distance at about 950 statutory miles or 1,500 km.

There ought to be at least a note that the scale is incorrect. Usage of the map can otherwise lead to a great misunderstanding of the battle.

Der Orso (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

First off, this is a truly comprehensive and superlative article that does Wikipedia proud! Thanks to all who have participated in making it what it is today.

My question regards the “Commanders and leaders” box. If Nimitz is included, then shouldn’t Yamamoto be as well, as the former's analog, adjacent to the former’s name? Weren’t both overall theater commanders at the time? From the Wiki article on Yamamoto:

“Yamamoto rushed planning for the Midway and Aleutians missions, while dispatching a force under Naval Major-General Takeo Takagi, including the Fifth Carrier Division (the large, new carriers Shōkaku and Zuikaku), to support the effort to seize the islands of Tulagi and Guadalcanal for seaplane and aeroplane bases, and the town of Port Moresby on Papua New Guinea's south coast facing Australia.”

Thanks much.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

:Since no one deigned to weigh in, despite 132 watchers, I decided to make the change. It seems a “no brainer” to me and totally uncontroversial. As a courtesy, please do not revert before discussing it here if anyone believes the change should be reverted. Maybe there is some valid reason that I am unaware of why my change is unwarranted. If so, I am educable. Thanks again.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

::I personally think neither Yamamoto nor Nimitz should be on the list, since they practically had no real input during the actual battle. They both basically just assigned the forces to this particular area or operation, which in my opinion does not satisfy the criteria of commander/leader of this particular battle. It is enough that they are mentioned in Background section of the article. I would remove both of them from the list since they just make it cluttered. Path-x21 (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

:::As I argued above, I believe Nimitz and Yamamoto should not be on the commanders list, since their input during the actual battle was practically zero. I am therefore removing them from the list. Path-x21 (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The main contributor to this fine article, who saw it through the FA maze, Cla88, is still blocked.

I was just going over to my old friend's talk page to congratulate him on it finally making the main page after nearly 8 years (isn't "Wiki-Wiki" supposed to mean, fast/quick?!) when I discovered this sad fact.

At this rate, he helped create enough FA's to keep the main page busy for decades. And by the time they get around to the last one he'll still be blocked. This is how the "community" treats its high quality contributors-with indifference or little baubles at best, persecution at worst.

On an even more personal note, the famous photo of sailors jumping off the stricken Lexington, was not in this article. One of those hundreds of tiny figures was my Uncle, Jack Lockhart.

--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It's called the Battle of Midway, not the Battle of the Coral Sea, and took place nowhere near New Guinea, and about a month later than the article claims, and was a decisive US victory. Seems like the article should be entirely rewritten??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RelicRelics (talk • contribs) 03:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

:Not sure if this is a joke, but that was a different battle with a different article. Brutannica (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

::Are we sure this article isn't actually referring to an even earlier battle? Only, if I remember right, it took place about 80 years earlier, in the United States and was called the Battle of Gettysburg instead of the Battle of the Coral Sea. Hmm, maybe I'm off a little bit on precise dates?The Famous Adventurer (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Coral Sea. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=779962884 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 http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20040626164242/http://history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/coralsea/coralsea.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/coralsea/coralsea.htm

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Coral Sea. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=790812778 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/20081021050140/http://www.navy.mil/midway/coralsea.html to http://www.navy.mil/midway/coralsea.html

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I see that in the summary box, this battle is listed as an Allied strategic victory (which is correct), but a Japanese tactical victory? As far as I am aware, both sides lost a carrier and a destroyer, while Japan lost more support ships, aircraft, and men. Seeing as the Japanese objectives were not accomplished, and each side suffered similar losses, I would say the most optimistic estimate would be a tactical draw, with an Allied strategic victory.The Famous Adventurer (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

:You're right both sides lost one CV, but Shōhō is in no way equivalent to Lex. Losses in aircraft & manpower aren't (AFAIK) usually counted in the calculation. That said, calling it a draw might not be inaccurate; most sources I've seen, however, credit IJN with a win. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

:I have removed the "Result", per Template:Infobox military conflict/doc. "See, Tactical and strategic implications section" might be an alternative but this is quite long and the result is touched upon in the lead. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

::A possible solution would be noting that Tulagi was occupied & the planned invasion of Port Moresby was foiled. 2601:204:C900:F045:C003:9E44:1CB4:370B (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

:::But the ship losses were also significant - Lexington would have been very handy at the Battle of Midway, and Yorktown was ready only just in time. I agree with Cinderella157's proposal: this battle had rather complex results, which can't be summarised in an infobox. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

::::The infobox summarized exactly what was in the article. It listed clearly, and explicitly, why it was it was considered a Japanese tactical victory and an Allied strategic victory. The very clear wording in the article would also need to be changed if we are going to remove this parameter. EtherealGate (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

::::::MilMos gives voice to Template:Infobox military conflict/doc and adding such nuance. The alternatives in this case would be "See X section" or to leave it blank. As the result is discussed with some degree of detail in the lead, removing the parameter and deferring to the lead appears the most (or at least the slightly more) appropriate of the two options in this case. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

:::::::Template:Infobox military conflict/doc says to "Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." It is not engaging in any speculation as it clearly states exactly what is in the article, and is not worded contradictorily. It accurately describe the outcome in this case. EtherealGate (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

::::::::@EtherealGate, I do not disagree intrinsically with your statement as to what the article might say. However, you should not cherrypick the advice given. It is quite explicit as to the acceptable options: victory x, victory y, see section or omit. I do not oppose the "see section" option. I would suggest that you either self revert or amend to the "see section" option, since your revert is contrary to guidelines. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::Am I wrong thinking the sources govern? Everything I've seen says it was a Japanese tactical win, but a U.S. strategic one. If that's true, shouldn't the infobox reflect it--if any result is included? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

::::::::::Sources govern what is said in an article. However, the infobox (and the guidance given for its use) is that it is not the place for nuance - particularly as nuance can be a source of dispute. Hence, in this case, the result should be left blank or direct the reader to where the result is discussed. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::::Many Vietnam War pages, as well as many other countless war and battle articles, have no problem with nuance, many even more controversial than this one. Are we going to change them all? The sources here are pretty much in agreement, and there is no dispute among them. Another option could be:

:::::::::::Both sides declare victory
(See tactical and strategic implications)

:::::::::::This example follows the format used in Winter War and could simplify explaining the result somewhat. EtherealGate (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

::::::::::::MilMos gives voice to the template documentation as if it were explicitly part of MilMos, so your recent edit is contrary to MilMos. And yes, other infoboxes will be gradually changed to reflect the guideline. I have no issue with the "see" part of your proposal but do, with the "both sides" part. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::::::The proposed wording is in the X victory format unless you're interpreting that more than one country cannot win a conflict. Your strict interpretation also leaves out any other wording results such as "stalemate", "indecisive", "withdrawal" or simple "treaty" results. In that case, pages like War of the Austrian Succession, King George's War, War of the Spanish Succession, Samoan Civil War, and many more others are violations. The template also does not say we could have complicated bullet lists, so that also means the Wars of the Roses, World War II, World War I, Hundred Years' War and many others are violations. It looks like the template was written to avoid arising disputes, but not when we can use simple results like "status quo ante bellum", "ceasefire", "truce", "compromise" or any other description. I note the template description was also written boldly by yourself. EtherealGate (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

{{outdent}}The template doc is very explicit and quite clear as to the responses that "may" be used for the result. It leaves nothing much to interpretation - strict or otherwise. I have already addressed the matter of the other articles to which you refer. That they are incorrect, does not establish precedent here. Please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists#Precedent in usage and particularly, the last point in that section. I note, that MilMos gives specific voice to the advice in the template doc and thereby has the same weight as if it were explicitly part of MilMos.

All of the "simple" results you refer to are "nuance" that require qualification and reflect the interpretation of a sources' authors.

Your note as to my role in the template doc is something of a misrepresentation, since it does not consider the fuller context, of which you may be unaware. My "bold" edit was made in the context of a broader discussion and substantially, it removed "decisive" from the acceptable options. This was because "decisive" can have very different meanings that need to be explained and was found to be contentious - depending on interpretations applied by editors. There were due notifications made at MilHist TP and my recollection is that the broader discussion was started there. The pre-existing advice, going directly to your arguement, was arrived at by considerable discussion and represents a strong consensus. Similarly, weight was given to the template doc because of tendentious editing contrary to the template doc in consequence of a centralised discussion. In short, this represents a broader community consensus that has explicit support here too. I would again ask that you self-revert. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

:Well it is obviously not very explicit or clear if we're having this long argument. Since we have reached an impasse, it'd be best to get consensus from others before making huge changes to long-established infoboxes of highly visible articles like the world wars, etc. I also seem to remember a comment by User:Director that said "The template documentation are not "rules" we are obliged to follow. What we are obliged to do is provide the reader with a clear and concise description of the outcome of a conflict. This is basic stuff that's generally understood across our project, that's why we write all sorts of things under "outcome", qualifiers, bullet points, links to all sorts of sections or other articles etc..." EtherealGate (talk) 06:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

{{U|EtherealGate}}, I have notified this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Battle of the Coral Sea and result in infobox for further comment. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

:That's good. EtherealGate (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Few observations:

• The infobox result parameter should present what secondary sources say the result is, as detailed in the main body of the article, within the constraints of the guidance provided in the template documentation and MILMOS.
• As currently written, the discussion about which side won, as detailed in the first para of the "Tactical and strategic implications" section, misrepresents the source. It emphasises the contemporary Japanese claim of victory and ignores the fact that Hoyt explicitly calls it a draw.
• The infobox is not designed to accommodate nuance. If there is no clear victor, then "See aftermath", with a link to where in the article the result is discussed, is the clearest and most concise way to present that information. Factotem (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

:Broadly speaking, I see the infobox "results" line for clear, unambiguous cases. Where there's less than total clarity in a single term, or where nuance is required, "see below" or "see Results section" (however awkward that seems) makes more sense. In this instance, explaining how & why it's a Japanese tactical victory, but a U.S. strategic one, not only makes sense, it's practically mandatory. (The same could be said about, frex, the Tet Offensive.) As for what Hoyt says, he seems to be in the minority; the sources I've seen agree it was IJN tactical/USN strategic win. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

::Your statement seems contradictory to me. "Tactical Japanese victory/US Strategic victory" is a nuance that we really shouldn't be trying to accommodate in the infobox. It begs questions about what made it a tactical success for one side but a strategic success for the other, and to fully encapsulate the result requires something akin to a mini-article in itself. That kind of detail should be explained in the main body, and can be better summarised in the lead text. Don't forget, the infobox is part of the lead, so a wordy description strays close to just unnecessarily repeating what is said in the text anyway. As for the other sources, fair enough, but they should be represented in the main body as well. At the moment and in this context, only Hoyt is used, so that's the only information that can be taken into consideration. Factotem (talk) 11:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

:::"Your statement seems contradictory to me." Notice i said nuanced outcomes should not be dealt with in the infobox. This one is self-evidently nuanced. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

::::My misunderstanding. Thanks for clarifying. Factotem (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

{{od}} I took it upon myself to amend the infobox to make it congruent with Template:Infobox military conflict but perhaps See Aftermath section would be better? The existing edit was obviously untenable. Keith-264 (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

:{{U|Keith-264}}, I think the "see" option would be better. In this case, the section is Battle of the Coral Sea#Tactical and strategic implications. Please see an early comment in this thread by {{U|Nick-D}}. My edit was to omit the result as it is indicated in the lead - also an acceptable option under the guidance. Per above, I am not wed my option, so long as the result is an acceptable option IAW the guidance/guideline. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

::♠"Thanks for clarifying." No worries. I've been unclear often enough, you had me wondering. :)

::♠On the broader issue, AIUI, the guideline already recommends doing what was done here. Do we actually need to change anything, if that's true? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

::::{{U|User:Trekphiler}}, before Keith's edit, the result was "Tactical Japanese victory Strategic Allied victory" and contrary to the guideline. Sources and the article indicate the "see" option is better (or omit) but not the previous version. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

:::::I understood the way it is now is preferred, & that's what I was getting at: if the guideline is to do what's now in place, rather than the previous "mixed" version, changing the guideline doesn't seem necessary, just policing the use so infoboxes conform. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

::::::I support a "See section" in the infobox in this case, as the result isn't cut and dried. As others have noted, infoboxes are not the place for nuance, and these things are better summarised in the lead and explained in detail in a section of the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Revised result to "See option" per above. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

{{anchor|rfc_1BC31BC}} Moved to Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 4#Request for comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EtherealGate (talk • contribs) 04:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a dispute about which section should be linked to in the infobox result parameter:

• Link to the "Significance" section which discusses both the immediate result, i.e. which side won, and the longer-term consequences, or...
• Link to the "Tactical and strategic implications" section, a sub-section of the "Significance" section which discusses only the immediate result.

The second of these, it seems to me, is the most appropriate, given the guidance provided by the infobox usage guideline which clearly constrains the assessment of the result as presented in the infobox to the "the "immediate outcome of the subject conflict". Attempts to implement this, however, have been repeatedly reverted. Rather then engage in an edit war over this, I have re-sequenced the whole of the "Significance" section so that it discusses first the immediate result (and incidentally removes the unnecessary "Tactical and strategic implications" section title now that that block of the narrative comes first), then goes on to discuss the wider impact. I see two advantages:

• It sequences the discussion of the battle's significance in a more logical flow, dealing first with the question of which side emerged from the battle as victor, then with the longer-term impact;
• It settles the dispute in a way that should satisfy both sides of the argument.

Happy to discuss. Factotem (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi {{U|Factotem}}, an edit conflict with you occurred per my following. I appreciate your intent and will consider it. However, I think a response to my ultimate question is nonetheless pertinant to the matter. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi {{U|EtherealGate}}, per these recent edits:

• My [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Coral_Sea&diff=873455440&oldid=873266156 amended] result in infobox from "See Significance" to "See Tactical and strategic implications" with edit summary: "The section "Tactical and strategic implications" more specifically deals with the result and is a better reference/link, rather than to a main section heading dealing with other issues too - ie, it is the relevant section per guidance (MilMos and template doc)"

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Coral_Sea&diff=next&oldid=873455440 Your revert] to "See Significance" with edit summary: "No consensus for this on the talk page or the RfC"

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Coral_Sea&diff=next&oldid=873894821 Revert] to "See Tactical and strategic implications" by {{U|Factotem}} with edit summary: "Undid revision 873894821 by EtherealGate (talk) Template documentation specifically says to link to "the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail", which in this case is the Battle of the Coral Sea#Tactical and strategic implications"

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Coral_Sea&diff=next&oldid=874173853 Your further revert] to "See Significance" with edit summary: "Undid revision 873897741 by Factotem (talk) See the discussion at Battle of the Coral Sea and Module talk:Infobox military conflict with Cinderella and the RfC where the closer says it "look like the issue is settled" here." Ping {{U|Newslinger}} as you are being quoted wrt your close at Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 4#Request for comment.

For completeness, there have been a series of edits to the result since the above discussion (Talk:Battle of the Coral Sea#Japanese Tactical Victory? commencing 27 February 2018). Of the more recent, edits between [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Coral_Sea&diff=prev&oldid=856001136 22 Aug] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Coral_Sea&diff=next&oldid=857551234 1 Sep] are similar and relevant. There is also a discussion at your TP: User talk:EtherealGate#Battle of the Coral Sea and Module talk:Infobox military conflict. The particular issued was forestalled by the RfC you commenced here and then moved to Infobox military conflict.

Per the template doc, the result parameter is used to ascribe the result of a conflict in terms of "victory" or otherwise:

:"this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section")" [emphasis added].

The template doc is given voice as a guideline by virtue of MilMos (as you are already aware). Tactical and strategic implications is the section where the result of the battle is discussed in detail, including an assessment of why it might be considered a tactical victory for the Japaneses but a strategic victory for the Allies. It is a section within Significance, but that section deals with more than just the "result" - ie how it changed naval warfare and how events then unraveled at Midway and the South Pacific (having already noted in the former section the strategic implications in respect to these in assessing it as a strategic US victory).

It is fairly clear to me that Tactical and strategic implications is the section most appropriate to direct a reader to, to establish briefly, the nuance of the result - IAW the guidance. Beyond what is written in the lead, it is the most concise explanation of the nuance of the result - thereby complying with the spirit and intent of the guidance (per WP:5P5).

Can you please explain how your preference for "See Significance" is preferable in complying with the spirit and intent of the guidance (or revert to the alternative). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

:And don't also forget User:Illegitimate Barrister's (inadvertent) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Coral_Sea&diff=829054821&oldid=829054731 revert of your] edit which originally removed the result altogether. The current version is fine, I don't see what problem you can have with Factotem's recent amendment. The "Significance" section already did include the immediate result (as it still does) and discusses the outcome more in depth. It is now re-sequenced to where it is isolated at the top of the section. Furthermore, not everything is always about "winning and losing" and the "aftermath" section doesn't always address who won. Keep in mind that you did not previously bring up any argument about "immediate result", and Factotem's recent solution did not occur to me before. If you're still not satisfied with the current version, then the best result in this case would be to remove the result altogether (which you originally wanted to do) as we can all agree the template says it's optional. If your problem is wanting the tacky Tactical and strategic implications title added back, then that unnecessary title is going to have to change to something that better flows. I wouldn't mind linking to that specific section with a different title. Further, even the very example shown at the top of template doc shows "Protestant victory (see Aftermath section)" which according to you would be a violation as the doc doesn't say we can do that (but it doesn't say we can't either and therefore is not any actual violation). But in any case, the WP:DEADHORSE needs to stop being beat. EtherealGate (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

{{U|Oloddin}} would change the result to "inconclusive" with the summary {{tq|per infobox doc}} per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Coral_Sea&diff=1100464092&oldid=1100446488 this edit] despite the consensus arrived at here that the result be "See Significance" and has stood since the end of 2018. Significance is a section within the Aftermath section which specifically discusses the result of the battle. That entry against the result parameter is quite consistent with the template documentation that states: {{tq|such as "See the Aftermath section"}} [emphasis added]. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

:Its general guideline is this: "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". And then: "Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result" (emphasis added). I see the consensus of referring to "significance section" instead of "Japanese tactical victory", but not the consensus against "inconclusive" (that is reserved for immediate result as alternative for "X victory" by template documentation") in addition to "see significance". Oloddin (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

::In my view, it should simply be a "Japanese victory", since the case is very similar to the case of the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands. The Allied naval forces withdrew completely and temporarily conceded the field to the Japanese (this is also supported by most of the sources). Like after the Santa Cruz, after the Coral Sea the Japanese could exploit the strategic advantage directly gained from the battle (yes, Zuikaku's aircraft capacity was limited, but they still had a strong surface force while the Allied had no immediate naval force to oppose it), yet the Japanese simply chose not to capitalise on that advantage. However, that does not change the fact that the battle actually gained them a temporary strategic advantage. Path-x21 (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

:::The guidance at our Military History Project Manual of Style for {{tl|infobox military conflict}} says {{tq|The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "See aftermath" (or similar) where the result was inconclusive or does not otherwise fit with these restrictions.}} So the previous consensus of "See significance" seems to be consistent with that guidance. Mojoworker (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

::::My edits are also consistent both with the guidance (MOS) and consensus. Moreover, it is consistent with the infobox guidance itself. Anyway, consensus can change and all MOS should be applied with common sense. By the way, if it was tactical victory, I am not against simply "Japanese victory" (this is to {{u|Path-x21}}). Oloddin (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

:::: Any further suggestions? --Oloddin (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Modern historians have debunked the myth that the battle prevented the Japanese from invading Port Moresby. JackTyrell (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

:Can you please provide references? Nick-D (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

"[...] attacking over the horizon with aircraft carriers instead. [...]" Did they fire aircraft carrieres at each other? Or what is the exact mode of beeing attacked with an aircraft carrier? I know, it should be "attacking over the horizon with aircrafts from aircraft carriers instead."^^ But shouldn't it be written the latter way in the article? Ciao Pentaclebreaker (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

:Fixed. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for an excellent article. It is exciting, neutral and detailed, especially given the complexity of the situation and the fleets' misapprehensions.

I do have a question - what is the time standard for the times given in the article? Given that the times are sometimes to the minute, I feel this should be clear. From the timing of sunrise and sunset it seems obvious that a "local time" is intended, rather than Greenwich, Washington or Tokyo time, but it is unclear (at least to a civilian) what "local time" would be for a battle covering hundreds of nautical miles of open sea. Thank you, CMV512 (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

:It's local time for the time zone in which the majority of the battle took place. 152.130.15.105 (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Within the article, the Japanese plan to attack Port Moresby from the sea is sometimes called MO (16 occurrences) and sometimes Mo or Mo (6 and 3 occurrences, respectively). The corresponding Wikipedia article, Operation Mo, begins "Operation Mo (MO作戦, Mo Sakusen) or the Port Moresby Operation was a Japanese plan..." which seems to indicate that MO and Mo are both correct but different transliterations of the Japanese name. Should one of Mo, Mo, MO, or MO be used consistently in the article?

Thank you for your consideration of this desperately important issue.

[[K

Dieter.Meinertzhagen (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

:I standardized on MO throughout the article.

:Dieter.Meinertzhagen (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

::This appears to be correct in that they were two letters (M and O) rather than a word. See [https://www.uso.org/stories/1798-naming-military-operations-is-a-war-of-words here]. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::"Mo" is the first syllable of the Japanese transliteration of "Moresby" into Katakana, i.e. "Mo-Re-Su-Bi". The Japanese grammatical style is to use the first mora (syllable) as the abbreviation. Thus it's (Operation) "Mo." (Mo sakusen). I believe you can capitalize the whole thing "MO" or just the first letter "Mo" and that either is fine as long as it's uniform throughout the article or composition. When the Japanese write an abbreviation in romanji, I believe they usually capitalize all the letters because using upper and lower case seems unnecessarily complicated. 152.130.15.105 (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)