This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As of June 2016 this article is being expanded to cover the full scope of the Commonwealth war effort. Almost every section requires a through re-examination and rewrite. Please jump in!! As a great deal of the content that could go here is already in Wikipedia in other articles, this article is generally oriented to summary information and pointing readers to additional information found elsewhere. Robert Brukner ( talk) 16:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I notice the "British Commonwealth" thing is back in the title. Considering British Empire in World War II has been redirected here, I think it's only fair that the outcome of the (huge) discussion we had on this exact naming topic back in 2014 at Talk:British Empire in World War II#Empire or Commonwealth. The outcome was no consensus to move, meaning that this article should be "Military history of the British Empire in World War II" (World War II is also standard, see Template:WWII history by nation and Military history of the United Kingdom during World War II). I have moved the article accordingly. If this is disputed, we can discuss moving it back on talk. — Brigade Piron ( talk) 10:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Again, my apologies for tripping over the issues raised above. Henceforth please refrain from any edits whatsoever to this article. I too have requested input from other senior military topic editors into the matter brought to my attention by Brigade Piron, and request everyones patience. The former article British Empire in World War II has been reverted to its original condition prior to my edits. I note that this current article is a substantial expansion of the topic of the military history of the Commonwealth during this period, touch upon in British Empire in World War II, and that given the huge scope of the topic it is designed, intentionally, to be extremely summary and to point the interested reader to the extensive body of material found in many other articles. Robert Brukner ( talk) 01:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC) @ Llammakey: @ Herostratus: @ Mr rnddude: @ Mr rnddude:
Wait, hold on... do we have a WP:Content fork situation here now? Those are not good! and it looks that way. We have two articles, British Empire in World War II and Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War and they seem to overlap too much.
Both are fine articles BTW and skill and effort has gone usefully into making them. Lack of quality is not the issue here, possible duplication is.
As to the name, after reading thru the entirety of Talk:British Empire in World War II#Empire or Commonwealth (and summarizing it), it's clear that at this time the consensus is to use "British Empire" to refer to all the colonies and dominions -- and I speak as pro-"Commonwealth" person.
So what do we want to do?
I would say
Right? Or is there another suggestion?
Herostratus, I ought to mention why there are two pages that overlap. Robert took his work from the article British Empire in World War II, which he had renamed, Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War and separated it to this article when his work was challenged. The two articles now stand separate but were originally one and the same. What is happening right now is, first, what article name should be used, and second, how should we merge the articles back together.
@ Mr rnddude: @ Llammakey: Hey, thanks for the input. Content merger is a fantastic idea. "Empire" works for me with "Military history of...". I am more concerned about WWII vs Second World War. The later is the war citizens of the Empire and Commonwealth Dominions fought in. Second World War is dominant in British and Commonwealth scholarship about the war. WWII is dominant in the US and public press. I prefer to use the term most closely tied to the contents and social context of the article. But I will of course defer to the opinions of the majority as this discussion continues Robert Brukner ( talk) 00:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I said all I wanted to say on the issue of British Empire or British Commonwealth back in August 2014 in the section Talk:British Empire in World War II#Empire or Commonwealth. -- PBS ( talk) 16:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Robert Brukner please see the article Monument to the Women of World War II, the use of "World War II" and "Second World War" is not strictly a US UK (Commonwealth) split. -- PBS ( talk) 16:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Let's do this:
After that, if someone wants to create a new and separate article about the colonies of the British Empire specifically, and the totality of their experience during and because of the war, both non-military ( Bengal famine of 1943 and trade issues and Indian independence movement and so forth) and military ( King's African Rifles and exploits of Indian divisions and so forth) that's a separate thing and of course anyone is welcome to do that, but I wouldn't recommend doing it until the other issues above are settled. Herostratus ( talk) 17:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
No objections having been made, I will now proceed to pull the trigger on this. I'll do a merge as best as I can, I'll let you know when I'm done and others can then add or subtract or edit what I did. Herostratus ( talk) 04:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Done. This article remains as a redirect, anyone can mine the history to improve on the merge. Herostratus ( talk) 05:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Whether there is or is not an article on the military history of the Empire/Commonwealth is something I will leave to to others. However if the articles are merged in to military history what happens to the social issues and socio-political issues that are not strictly military history? For example the stubby India in World War II mentions the Bengal famine and what about political issues like Beveridge Report, the breaking down of class in Britain (eg lack of domestic servants), the effect on society of women working in much larger numbers than previously--particularly those from the professional classes (many working class women had been working, before the war in certain sectors). The changes in fashion brought about by rationing, the same for rationing food and the social impact of that etc. The lack of capital investment in Britain and the larger capital investment in other counties in the Commonwealth/Empire far from the Axis bombers. These things do no easily fit into an article about "military history of ..." and are likely to be sideline or ignored. So I think there is a room for both a "military history of the Empire/Commonwealth..." and "British Empire/Commonwealth in ...". However if there is not yet enough information to justify two distinct articles then "British Empire/Commonwealth in ..." is the better name as it can more easily encompass both military and social/economic issues until such time as there is enough for two distinct articles. -- PBS ( talk) 16:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
See Talk:British Empire in World War II#Requested move 12 July 2016. Herostratus ( talk) 14:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As of June 2016 this article is being expanded to cover the full scope of the Commonwealth war effort. Almost every section requires a through re-examination and rewrite. Please jump in!! As a great deal of the content that could go here is already in Wikipedia in other articles, this article is generally oriented to summary information and pointing readers to additional information found elsewhere. Robert Brukner ( talk) 16:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I notice the "British Commonwealth" thing is back in the title. Considering British Empire in World War II has been redirected here, I think it's only fair that the outcome of the (huge) discussion we had on this exact naming topic back in 2014 at Talk:British Empire in World War II#Empire or Commonwealth. The outcome was no consensus to move, meaning that this article should be "Military history of the British Empire in World War II" (World War II is also standard, see Template:WWII history by nation and Military history of the United Kingdom during World War II). I have moved the article accordingly. If this is disputed, we can discuss moving it back on talk. — Brigade Piron ( talk) 10:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Again, my apologies for tripping over the issues raised above. Henceforth please refrain from any edits whatsoever to this article. I too have requested input from other senior military topic editors into the matter brought to my attention by Brigade Piron, and request everyones patience. The former article British Empire in World War II has been reverted to its original condition prior to my edits. I note that this current article is a substantial expansion of the topic of the military history of the Commonwealth during this period, touch upon in British Empire in World War II, and that given the huge scope of the topic it is designed, intentionally, to be extremely summary and to point the interested reader to the extensive body of material found in many other articles. Robert Brukner ( talk) 01:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC) @ Llammakey: @ Herostratus: @ Mr rnddude: @ Mr rnddude:
Wait, hold on... do we have a WP:Content fork situation here now? Those are not good! and it looks that way. We have two articles, British Empire in World War II and Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War and they seem to overlap too much.
Both are fine articles BTW and skill and effort has gone usefully into making them. Lack of quality is not the issue here, possible duplication is.
As to the name, after reading thru the entirety of Talk:British Empire in World War II#Empire or Commonwealth (and summarizing it), it's clear that at this time the consensus is to use "British Empire" to refer to all the colonies and dominions -- and I speak as pro-"Commonwealth" person.
So what do we want to do?
I would say
Right? Or is there another suggestion?
Herostratus, I ought to mention why there are two pages that overlap. Robert took his work from the article British Empire in World War II, which he had renamed, Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War and separated it to this article when his work was challenged. The two articles now stand separate but were originally one and the same. What is happening right now is, first, what article name should be used, and second, how should we merge the articles back together.
@ Mr rnddude: @ Llammakey: Hey, thanks for the input. Content merger is a fantastic idea. "Empire" works for me with "Military history of...". I am more concerned about WWII vs Second World War. The later is the war citizens of the Empire and Commonwealth Dominions fought in. Second World War is dominant in British and Commonwealth scholarship about the war. WWII is dominant in the US and public press. I prefer to use the term most closely tied to the contents and social context of the article. But I will of course defer to the opinions of the majority as this discussion continues Robert Brukner ( talk) 00:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I said all I wanted to say on the issue of British Empire or British Commonwealth back in August 2014 in the section Talk:British Empire in World War II#Empire or Commonwealth. -- PBS ( talk) 16:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Robert Brukner please see the article Monument to the Women of World War II, the use of "World War II" and "Second World War" is not strictly a US UK (Commonwealth) split. -- PBS ( talk) 16:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Let's do this:
After that, if someone wants to create a new and separate article about the colonies of the British Empire specifically, and the totality of their experience during and because of the war, both non-military ( Bengal famine of 1943 and trade issues and Indian independence movement and so forth) and military ( King's African Rifles and exploits of Indian divisions and so forth) that's a separate thing and of course anyone is welcome to do that, but I wouldn't recommend doing it until the other issues above are settled. Herostratus ( talk) 17:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
No objections having been made, I will now proceed to pull the trigger on this. I'll do a merge as best as I can, I'll let you know when I'm done and others can then add or subtract or edit what I did. Herostratus ( talk) 04:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Done. This article remains as a redirect, anyone can mine the history to improve on the merge. Herostratus ( talk) 05:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Whether there is or is not an article on the military history of the Empire/Commonwealth is something I will leave to to others. However if the articles are merged in to military history what happens to the social issues and socio-political issues that are not strictly military history? For example the stubby India in World War II mentions the Bengal famine and what about political issues like Beveridge Report, the breaking down of class in Britain (eg lack of domestic servants), the effect on society of women working in much larger numbers than previously--particularly those from the professional classes (many working class women had been working, before the war in certain sectors). The changes in fashion brought about by rationing, the same for rationing food and the social impact of that etc. The lack of capital investment in Britain and the larger capital investment in other counties in the Commonwealth/Empire far from the Axis bombers. These things do no easily fit into an article about "military history of ..." and are likely to be sideline or ignored. So I think there is a room for both a "military history of the Empire/Commonwealth..." and "British Empire/Commonwealth in ...". However if there is not yet enough information to justify two distinct articles then "British Empire/Commonwealth in ..." is the better name as it can more easily encompass both military and social/economic issues until such time as there is enough for two distinct articles. -- PBS ( talk) 16:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
See Talk:British Empire in World War II#Requested move 12 July 2016. Herostratus ( talk) 14:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)