![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 60 | ← | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 |
I've been thinking that Hideki Tojo should be listed as the Axis leader of Japan instead of Hirohito. Winston Churchill and Benito Mussolini, both prime ministers of the other two constitutional monarchies involved, are in the commanders section so Hirohito seems like an odd one out. From what I recall Hirohito was a figurehead who spent much of his time in his laboratory studying marine biology, while Tojo handled all military and political matters, planning much of Japan's military campaigns during the war. I do know that Hirohito had some considerable influence in Japanese politics of the time, pressing for and announcing Japan's surrender, and the Imperial Japanese forces fought in his honor. However, the British fought in King George VI's honor, yet Winston Churchill is still listed as the main Allied leader of the UK. In much Allied propaganda from the war, Tojo was portrayed alongside Hitler and Mussolini as the Axis leader of Japan much more commonly than Hirohito was, and was mentioned more often in speeches, newspaper articles, etc. as the man behind Japan's aggression and military expansion. In addition Tojo was executed shortly after the war while Hirohito stayed on the throne until his death. I know this is a highly important article so I thought I would try and get consensus for this before making what would probably be considered a major edit. HawkNightingale175 ( talk) 02:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
The American historian Herbert Bix wrote that Tojo was a "dictator" only in the narrow sense that from September 1942 on, he was generally able to impose his will on the Cabinet without seeking a consensus, but at same time noted that Tojo's power was based upon support from the Emperor, who held the ultimate powers.
... "the whole organization was split into three -that is, the Navy, the Army, and what is known as the government- and the only one who could coordinate the three was the emperor."We can find this in Fighting to a Finish: The Politics of War Termination in the United States and Japan, by Leon V. Sigal, published by Cornell University Press in 1988, p. 74. My personal point of view is closer to that held by Professor Herbert P. Bix, who states that
... although the emperor was more akin to an absolute rather than a constitutional monarch, he was not by nature a combative man eager to start wars. Neither was he a dictator or a Western-style wielder of despotic power like Hitler or Mussolini. Hirohito operated within a bureaucratic monarchy protected by his Meiji Constitution, and advised by his palace entourage or "court group." Not until the late 1930s did Hirohito become a real war leader, actually exercising his constitutional prerogatives of supreme command.So I repeat: my point of view is that the Japanese Empire was an oligarchy coordinated by its emperor rather than a "dictatorship" in Hitler's or Mussolini's model.
... the emperor was not only aware and informed of Japan's affairs, domestic and international, but took an active, if not always highly visible, part in them. The idea of a "Showa Restoration" - stripping the Diet, prime minister, and Cabinet of any effective power, reducing them to mere functionaries, in the process making the emperor an absolute monarch - reveals the presence of a more forceful personality willing to actually exercise his imperial power than would be expected of a detached, isolated monarch.
Joseph Stalin was an Axis leader and needs to be acknowledged as such. He was, with Hitler, a main initiator of the war.
Acknowledgement of his leadership of a Soviet state "Allied" with other Allied nations should also remain.
His name should be on both sides of the ledger. 148.75.168.181 ( talk) 20:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fourbigguys4545 ( talk) 17:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Make its date 2300 to 2400
Why you don't add Bulgaria 94.158.27.231 ( talk) 00:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
It is known that until the outbreak of World War II, the first war was called the Great War. It would be interesting to determine the date when the name World War II was first used in the media and when the name was changed from The Great War to World War I. Who and when? Mir.Nalezinski ( talk) 11:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Do you think adding this image is a good idea: Emperor Haile Selassie I with President FDR.jpg, if so which section of the page? CtasACT ( talk) 00:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
He should be removed as the allied ‘Big Three’ consisted of the US, USSR and UK. China does not qualify for a ‘main participant’ alongside the big three. AjunaJ1212 ( talk) 17:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
@
Quetstar: At
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history#INFOBOX: 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
(see also template documentation for the result parameter but this is essentially the same). At
Template:Infobox military conflict: 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.
Per
MOS:INFOBOXUSE: Each infobox type should have documentation giving instruction on how each part/field may be used.
The template documentation for the result parameter makes it clear that the parameter is for who won and not for ancillary information consequential on who won (or didn't). Multiple dot points are usually used to show such ancillary information. Per
MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.
Adding such additional ancillary information is arguably writing the article in the infobox and contrary to
MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The infobox is an adjunct to the lead. Such detail, if sufficiently key should be written into the lead, since such points are more prose like than single words or simple phrase. The infobox is unsuited to nuance and more complex detail usually represented by dot-point, where they do occur.
Parham wiki (
talk)
21:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I asked ChatGPT 4 to produce an outline
Detailed outline collapsed
|
---|
User: Write a detailed outline for a Wikipedia article on World War 2 == Introduction == * Brief overview of World War II * Key facts (duration, participating countries, outcome) * Global significance and impact == Background and Causes == * Treaty of Versailles and post-World War I conditions * Rise of fascism and totalitarian regimes in Germany, Italy, and Japan * Failures of the League of Nations * Immediate causes: German expansion and invasion of Poland == Major Participants == * The Allied Powers: key countries and leaders * The Axis Powers: key countries and leaders * Neutral countries and their roles == Chronology of the War == * Early stages of the war (1939-1941) - Invasion of Poland - War spreads to Western Europe * Global expansion (1941-1943) - Eastern Front: German invasion of the Soviet Union - Pacific War: Japanese expansion and the U.S. entry after Pearl Harbor * Turning points (1943-1944) - Battle of Stalingrad - D-Day and the liberation of Western Europe * Final stages (1944-1945) - German retreat and fall of Berlin - Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Japanese surrender == Major Battles and Campaigns == * European Theater: Key battles and campaigns * Pacific Theater: Key battles and campaigns * North African and Middle Eastern Campaigns * Air warfare and strategic bombing == Holocaust and War Crimes == * The Holocaust: overview and impact * Japanese war crimes in Asia * Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials == Home Fronts and Civilian Impact == * Economic and industrial mobilization * Role of women and minorities in the war effort * Civilian suffering and displacement == Technological and Scientific Developments == * Advancements in weaponry and military technology * The Manhattan Project and the development of nuclear weapons * Medical advancements and their impact == War Diplomacy and International Relations == * Major conferences (e.g., Tehran, Yalta, Potsdam) * Formation of alliances and shifts in global power * Role of intelligence and espionage == Aftermath and Consequences == * Immediate post-war situation in Europe and Asia * Establishment of the United Nations * Cold War and the division of Europe * Long-term geopolitical and cultural impacts == Cultural and Historical Legacy == * War memorials and commemoration * Impact on literature, film, and art * Ongoing historical debates and research == References == * Source materials and bibliography |
Bot structure:
They're similar, partly because ChatGPT uses Wikipedia amongst other sources. But thought it might provide ideas. The word 'legacy' isn't currently used in the article at all, not even once? Tom B ( talk) 18:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i would like to change a grammer mistake. 196.50.198.189 ( talk) 15:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Nick-D faithfully standing guard over the WWII article and accusing other editors of and I quote: "revert disruptive edits made by an editor who should know a lot better". I made a couple of relevant edits, adding a map and an image + a couple minor text changes just slightly trimming an image caption, so how do you consider this "disruptive editing"? Also, I noticed that Nick-D who have been actively patrolling the WWII article for years did not object when in October of 2023 one editor removed a bunch of pictures. Care to explain why you did not react when 13 images were culled form the article (I would think this would have been disruptive), was this discussed somewhere? Consider yourself warned because making false accusations against other edits violates Wikipedia policy. E-960 ( talk) 22:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. How should such an RfC be structured and advertised? DavidMCEddy ( talk) 05:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
wp:ANI is where you discus use conduct, not here. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I think that this map of the Mannerheim Line should replace the current picture of Finnish troops during the Winter War. The Mannerheim Line is arguably the most famous historical takeaway from this campaign. As this defensive line along with the terrain allowed for the Finnish army to hold back the Soviet advance. E-960 ( talk) 22:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
The current ordering of captions in clockwise order doesn't make sense and is hard to follow. The WWI article's ordering is much more sensible. I think the captions should be arranged "left to right, top to bottom".
Note, I searched the archives and mainly found mentions from 2007. WP:CAPTION also does not seem to say anything on the matter. Opencooper ( talk) 15:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The infobox should have a photo from the chinese theater. It was a major theater and it deserves to have recognition in the photo collage. Yedaman54 ( talk) 08:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
37.222.96.160 ( talk) 12:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC) world war 2 was the most deadly war in history with really dangerous arms such as atomic bombs, nuclear bombs, nuclear arms and a lot more!
I think this photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Japanese_Special_Naval_Landing_Forces_in_Battle_of_Shanghai_1937.jpg would be better then the somewhat blurry image that is used at the moment ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shanghai1937IJA_ruins.jpg) Ruttoperuna ( talk) 20:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
@ ThunderGit: This order of commanders and leaders has been discussed many times, e.g., Talk:World War II/Archive 61#RfC: Main Allied Leaders. It cannot be changed without a discussion with other editors on this Talk page.
I appreciate your efforts to improve Wikipedia, but I suggest you focus on other issues. This issue has been discussed extensively for years. Accordingly, I feel compelled to revert your edit again. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 20:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To fix grammar. 66.206.114.194 ( talk) 17:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
The redirect
The Greater War has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 18 § The Greater War until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont)
04:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Taking a look in
World War I, we can clearly, no doubt, see that the introduction sentence does not conform the consistency as belongs to
World War II, where
World War I put the start and the end in full date format, and enclosed in brackets, but
World War II says otherwise.
Checking these for reference:World War I
[a] or the First World War (28 July 1914 - 11 November 1918) was a
global conflict fought between two coalitions...
.
But differently,World War II
[b] or the Second World War was a
global conflict that lasted from 1939 to 1945. The
vast majority of the world's countries,...
. Do you guys have any comment about this difference between two popular pages?
2405:4802:64C7:BF70:B50C:773B:1A40:16BA (
talk)
01:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
If you actually think Bulgaria fought on the German side so its interesting how its not on the Axis team when Bulgaria joined the 3th Reich without having to fight so,can you please add it 84.54.153.33 ( talk) 19:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template.
TylerBurden (
talk)
18:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)@ Slatersteven lets discuss here.
Sorry, I didn't see your edit reverting me since I was already working on my next one.
Please explain why you reverted my edits and we can go from there
Me Da Wikipedian (
talk)
15:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
We link in the section on the start of the war to the invasion Poland, and to Poland, nor do we need to say when it started as we already do, we do not need it again. Nor do we need a link to civilian, or indeed most of the other wiki links you created, they are meant only where people might not know what we mean. We also need to only link once to a page. That is just the lede. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Time for others to chip in, this is bludgeoning. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the reverts here. Many of the edits were over-linking - this included repeatedly linking some articles such as
Empire of Japan. The statement on who the supposed 'great powers' were adds nothing of use to the lead, and doesn't reflect modern historical writing, which includes a lot of debate over the status of France, Italy and - to a much lesser extent - the UK at the time given that their empires may have been overall burdens. The modern literature on the UK's role in the war also tends to stress the importance of the Commonwealth countries, India and key colonies to this as well. Making edits like this with hopelessly vague edit summaries is also a very poor practice.
Nick-D (
talk)
22:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 60 | ← | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 |
I've been thinking that Hideki Tojo should be listed as the Axis leader of Japan instead of Hirohito. Winston Churchill and Benito Mussolini, both prime ministers of the other two constitutional monarchies involved, are in the commanders section so Hirohito seems like an odd one out. From what I recall Hirohito was a figurehead who spent much of his time in his laboratory studying marine biology, while Tojo handled all military and political matters, planning much of Japan's military campaigns during the war. I do know that Hirohito had some considerable influence in Japanese politics of the time, pressing for and announcing Japan's surrender, and the Imperial Japanese forces fought in his honor. However, the British fought in King George VI's honor, yet Winston Churchill is still listed as the main Allied leader of the UK. In much Allied propaganda from the war, Tojo was portrayed alongside Hitler and Mussolini as the Axis leader of Japan much more commonly than Hirohito was, and was mentioned more often in speeches, newspaper articles, etc. as the man behind Japan's aggression and military expansion. In addition Tojo was executed shortly after the war while Hirohito stayed on the throne until his death. I know this is a highly important article so I thought I would try and get consensus for this before making what would probably be considered a major edit. HawkNightingale175 ( talk) 02:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
The American historian Herbert Bix wrote that Tojo was a "dictator" only in the narrow sense that from September 1942 on, he was generally able to impose his will on the Cabinet without seeking a consensus, but at same time noted that Tojo's power was based upon support from the Emperor, who held the ultimate powers.
... "the whole organization was split into three -that is, the Navy, the Army, and what is known as the government- and the only one who could coordinate the three was the emperor."We can find this in Fighting to a Finish: The Politics of War Termination in the United States and Japan, by Leon V. Sigal, published by Cornell University Press in 1988, p. 74. My personal point of view is closer to that held by Professor Herbert P. Bix, who states that
... although the emperor was more akin to an absolute rather than a constitutional monarch, he was not by nature a combative man eager to start wars. Neither was he a dictator or a Western-style wielder of despotic power like Hitler or Mussolini. Hirohito operated within a bureaucratic monarchy protected by his Meiji Constitution, and advised by his palace entourage or "court group." Not until the late 1930s did Hirohito become a real war leader, actually exercising his constitutional prerogatives of supreme command.So I repeat: my point of view is that the Japanese Empire was an oligarchy coordinated by its emperor rather than a "dictatorship" in Hitler's or Mussolini's model.
... the emperor was not only aware and informed of Japan's affairs, domestic and international, but took an active, if not always highly visible, part in them. The idea of a "Showa Restoration" - stripping the Diet, prime minister, and Cabinet of any effective power, reducing them to mere functionaries, in the process making the emperor an absolute monarch - reveals the presence of a more forceful personality willing to actually exercise his imperial power than would be expected of a detached, isolated monarch.
Joseph Stalin was an Axis leader and needs to be acknowledged as such. He was, with Hitler, a main initiator of the war.
Acknowledgement of his leadership of a Soviet state "Allied" with other Allied nations should also remain.
His name should be on both sides of the ledger. 148.75.168.181 ( talk) 20:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fourbigguys4545 ( talk) 17:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Make its date 2300 to 2400
Why you don't add Bulgaria 94.158.27.231 ( talk) 00:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
It is known that until the outbreak of World War II, the first war was called the Great War. It would be interesting to determine the date when the name World War II was first used in the media and when the name was changed from The Great War to World War I. Who and when? Mir.Nalezinski ( talk) 11:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Do you think adding this image is a good idea: Emperor Haile Selassie I with President FDR.jpg, if so which section of the page? CtasACT ( talk) 00:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
He should be removed as the allied ‘Big Three’ consisted of the US, USSR and UK. China does not qualify for a ‘main participant’ alongside the big three. AjunaJ1212 ( talk) 17:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
@
Quetstar: At
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history#INFOBOX: 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
(see also template documentation for the result parameter but this is essentially the same). At
Template:Infobox military conflict: 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.
Per
MOS:INFOBOXUSE: Each infobox type should have documentation giving instruction on how each part/field may be used.
The template documentation for the result parameter makes it clear that the parameter is for who won and not for ancillary information consequential on who won (or didn't). Multiple dot points are usually used to show such ancillary information. Per
MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.
Adding such additional ancillary information is arguably writing the article in the infobox and contrary to
MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The infobox is an adjunct to the lead. Such detail, if sufficiently key should be written into the lead, since such points are more prose like than single words or simple phrase. The infobox is unsuited to nuance and more complex detail usually represented by dot-point, where they do occur.
Parham wiki (
talk)
21:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I asked ChatGPT 4 to produce an outline
Detailed outline collapsed
|
---|
User: Write a detailed outline for a Wikipedia article on World War 2 == Introduction == * Brief overview of World War II * Key facts (duration, participating countries, outcome) * Global significance and impact == Background and Causes == * Treaty of Versailles and post-World War I conditions * Rise of fascism and totalitarian regimes in Germany, Italy, and Japan * Failures of the League of Nations * Immediate causes: German expansion and invasion of Poland == Major Participants == * The Allied Powers: key countries and leaders * The Axis Powers: key countries and leaders * Neutral countries and their roles == Chronology of the War == * Early stages of the war (1939-1941) - Invasion of Poland - War spreads to Western Europe * Global expansion (1941-1943) - Eastern Front: German invasion of the Soviet Union - Pacific War: Japanese expansion and the U.S. entry after Pearl Harbor * Turning points (1943-1944) - Battle of Stalingrad - D-Day and the liberation of Western Europe * Final stages (1944-1945) - German retreat and fall of Berlin - Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Japanese surrender == Major Battles and Campaigns == * European Theater: Key battles and campaigns * Pacific Theater: Key battles and campaigns * North African and Middle Eastern Campaigns * Air warfare and strategic bombing == Holocaust and War Crimes == * The Holocaust: overview and impact * Japanese war crimes in Asia * Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials == Home Fronts and Civilian Impact == * Economic and industrial mobilization * Role of women and minorities in the war effort * Civilian suffering and displacement == Technological and Scientific Developments == * Advancements in weaponry and military technology * The Manhattan Project and the development of nuclear weapons * Medical advancements and their impact == War Diplomacy and International Relations == * Major conferences (e.g., Tehran, Yalta, Potsdam) * Formation of alliances and shifts in global power * Role of intelligence and espionage == Aftermath and Consequences == * Immediate post-war situation in Europe and Asia * Establishment of the United Nations * Cold War and the division of Europe * Long-term geopolitical and cultural impacts == Cultural and Historical Legacy == * War memorials and commemoration * Impact on literature, film, and art * Ongoing historical debates and research == References == * Source materials and bibliography |
Bot structure:
They're similar, partly because ChatGPT uses Wikipedia amongst other sources. But thought it might provide ideas. The word 'legacy' isn't currently used in the article at all, not even once? Tom B ( talk) 18:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i would like to change a grammer mistake. 196.50.198.189 ( talk) 15:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Nick-D faithfully standing guard over the WWII article and accusing other editors of and I quote: "revert disruptive edits made by an editor who should know a lot better". I made a couple of relevant edits, adding a map and an image + a couple minor text changes just slightly trimming an image caption, so how do you consider this "disruptive editing"? Also, I noticed that Nick-D who have been actively patrolling the WWII article for years did not object when in October of 2023 one editor removed a bunch of pictures. Care to explain why you did not react when 13 images were culled form the article (I would think this would have been disruptive), was this discussed somewhere? Consider yourself warned because making false accusations against other edits violates Wikipedia policy. E-960 ( talk) 22:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. How should such an RfC be structured and advertised? DavidMCEddy ( talk) 05:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
wp:ANI is where you discus use conduct, not here. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I think that this map of the Mannerheim Line should replace the current picture of Finnish troops during the Winter War. The Mannerheim Line is arguably the most famous historical takeaway from this campaign. As this defensive line along with the terrain allowed for the Finnish army to hold back the Soviet advance. E-960 ( talk) 22:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
The current ordering of captions in clockwise order doesn't make sense and is hard to follow. The WWI article's ordering is much more sensible. I think the captions should be arranged "left to right, top to bottom".
Note, I searched the archives and mainly found mentions from 2007. WP:CAPTION also does not seem to say anything on the matter. Opencooper ( talk) 15:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The infobox should have a photo from the chinese theater. It was a major theater and it deserves to have recognition in the photo collage. Yedaman54 ( talk) 08:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
37.222.96.160 ( talk) 12:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC) world war 2 was the most deadly war in history with really dangerous arms such as atomic bombs, nuclear bombs, nuclear arms and a lot more!
I think this photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Japanese_Special_Naval_Landing_Forces_in_Battle_of_Shanghai_1937.jpg would be better then the somewhat blurry image that is used at the moment ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shanghai1937IJA_ruins.jpg) Ruttoperuna ( talk) 20:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
@ ThunderGit: This order of commanders and leaders has been discussed many times, e.g., Talk:World War II/Archive 61#RfC: Main Allied Leaders. It cannot be changed without a discussion with other editors on this Talk page.
I appreciate your efforts to improve Wikipedia, but I suggest you focus on other issues. This issue has been discussed extensively for years. Accordingly, I feel compelled to revert your edit again. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 20:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To fix grammar. 66.206.114.194 ( talk) 17:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
The redirect
The Greater War has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 18 § The Greater War until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont)
04:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Taking a look in
World War I, we can clearly, no doubt, see that the introduction sentence does not conform the consistency as belongs to
World War II, where
World War I put the start and the end in full date format, and enclosed in brackets, but
World War II says otherwise.
Checking these for reference:World War I
[a] or the First World War (28 July 1914 - 11 November 1918) was a
global conflict fought between two coalitions...
.
But differently,World War II
[b] or the Second World War was a
global conflict that lasted from 1939 to 1945. The
vast majority of the world's countries,...
. Do you guys have any comment about this difference between two popular pages?
2405:4802:64C7:BF70:B50C:773B:1A40:16BA (
talk)
01:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
If you actually think Bulgaria fought on the German side so its interesting how its not on the Axis team when Bulgaria joined the 3th Reich without having to fight so,can you please add it 84.54.153.33 ( talk) 19:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template.
TylerBurden (
talk)
18:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)@ Slatersteven lets discuss here.
Sorry, I didn't see your edit reverting me since I was already working on my next one.
Please explain why you reverted my edits and we can go from there
Me Da Wikipedian (
talk)
15:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
We link in the section on the start of the war to the invasion Poland, and to Poland, nor do we need to say when it started as we already do, we do not need it again. Nor do we need a link to civilian, or indeed most of the other wiki links you created, they are meant only where people might not know what we mean. We also need to only link once to a page. That is just the lede. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Time for others to chip in, this is bludgeoning. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the reverts here. Many of the edits were over-linking - this included repeatedly linking some articles such as
Empire of Japan. The statement on who the supposed 'great powers' were adds nothing of use to the lead, and doesn't reflect modern historical writing, which includes a lot of debate over the status of France, Italy and - to a much lesser extent - the UK at the time given that their empires may have been overall burdens. The modern literature on the UK's role in the war also tends to stress the importance of the Commonwealth countries, India and key colonies to this as well. Making edits like this with hopelessly vague edit summaries is also a very poor practice.
Nick-D (
talk)
22:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).