Talk:North American Task Force

Article name
Anyone suggest a better name for the article. Japanese Canadian Pacific Fleet makes it sound like Canadians of Japanese decent. What is the Japanese name for the fleet or Operation name perhaps? -- Esemono (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Japanese name for the fleet was 遣米支隊 (Kenbei Shitai), which means "Task Force Dispatched to America". So maybe a name like IJN North American Task Force?--Cckerberos (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Japanese North American Task Force"? — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  14:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think "IJN" works because that was never an accepted acronym for the Imperial Japanese Navy. I'll invite input from WP:SHIPS on this. Cheers, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  02:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Or why not just North American Task Force? It's currently a redlink so no further disambiguation is necessary. "IJN" is really bad, in my opinion. Parsecboy (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think any abbreviation (including IJN) should be avoided in article titles. The big question is what do sources (preferably English-language ones) call the fleet? — Bellhalla (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize IJN was so controversial when I moved the article. North American Task Force sounds fine but I'll wait for any feedback from WP:SHIPS -- Esemono (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, one of the article's sources refers to the "American Expeditionary Squadron."--Cckerberos (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Pages
In a citation like this, "pg 126 - Desmond Morton. A Military History of Canada (Aug 7 2007 ed.). McClelland & Stewart; 5 edition. pp. 432. ISBN 0771064810.", which page is used? Pg. 126, p. 432, or both? — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  14:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * citation is on pg 126, there are 432 pages in the book. And looking at the book template I see you don't add the amount of pages in the book.  Changing cits now. -- Esemono (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. I think I messed up a similar citation in your list of sunken hospital ships as well... — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  02:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Misinterpretation
"The Royal Navy decided to strip ships defending Canada's west coast and get its ally, Imperial Japan to defend the West coast of British Columbia."

The given source says nothing about the Royal Navy stripping the west coast of any defences. It merely states that the Royal navy was concentrating its resources in European waters, a policy it had already pursued for a decade. "Strip" suggests that there any ships to remove in the first place, which a cursory examination reveals isn't the case. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 03:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How about now? Changed to address your concerns -- Esemono (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

18th century or 19th century?
Surely, in the sentence beginning "As Canada emerged from the 18th century…" that should be the 19th century—meaning 1801–1900—rather than 18th century, which was 1701–1800? — Bellhalla (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * fixed -- Esemono (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)