Jump to content

Talk:World War I

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleWorld War I is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 8, 2004.
On this day...Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 11, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
February 15, 2005Featured article reviewKept
June 27, 2005Featured article reviewKept
February 26, 2006Featured article reviewKept
June 10, 2006Featured article reviewKept
December 9, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
April 16, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
November 23, 2009WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
May 17, 2017Peer reviewReviewed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 28, 2011, July 28, 2014, and July 28, 2016.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of February 2, 2008.
Current status: Former featured article

new theathre

[edit]

what about South America? 73.76.106.53 (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canada???

[edit]

Wtf????


we lost porportionaly

as much as England yet no mention of Vimy or nfld’s lost the first day of the somme

what geocentric ass wrote this! 156.34.18.35 (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wp:agf. Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article says "Operating as a separate unit for the first time, the Canadian Corps' capture of Vimy Ridge is viewed by many Canadians as a defining moment in creating a sense of national identity", accompanied by a photograph of a Canadian tank and soldiers at Vimy. DuncanHill (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“The war to end all wars”

[edit]

My revision altering the introduction of the article from calling this war "the Great War" to "the War to End all Wars" has been reverted.

However, I think the title of "War to End all Wars" is a much more appropriate description of this war than "the Great War", because the first was more widely used at the time. I think we should replace the current title with this. DementiaGaming (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term "war to end all wars" is discussed in the article. The wording of the lead resulted from extensive discussion and consensus here on the Talk page. Unless a new consensus emerges, the current version will stand. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also the "war to end all wars" term is wrong because it didn't prevent World War II from happening. So the term "Great War" is more appropiate.84.54.70.120 (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring the fact that this term was the most popular way to describe the war during the time. It was a global war that people struggled to understand so they dubbed it the war to end all wars, and the term has since become synonymous with WWI. Besides, this term has its own article and the "Great War" term does not. DementiaGaming (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No we are not, we just do not think that is relevant to an encyclopedia being written for today's audience, using up-to-date sources. Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More or less the above, the "war to end all wars" was an aspirational name coined out of a hope that 20 years later was proved to be futile. Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in World War I

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of World War I's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Britannica":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT 02:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commanders and leaders 2

[edit]

Robert Nivelle as a leader of France is simply wrong 2A02:1388:15A:963D:0:0:2CFC:25F7 (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following the successes at Verdun, Nivelle was promoted to commander-in-chief of the French armies on the Western Front in December 1916. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And he was later removed from command in May 1917. At the very least, adding Joffre or Foch would suffice, as they were commander-in-chief for longer periods of time. Cesspool135 (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So it is not wrong, just not ma complete picture? Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Far from it. Nivelle could be included in a more detailed list, but he should absolutely not be considered most important/consequential Frenchman in the war. Cesspool135 (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clemenceau would make more sense, if the paragraph was edited to mention him his role in the the latter part of the war andaswelleas Treaty of Versailles, then he could be added to the infobox. BrickIsGone (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Clemenceau would make some sense. I am also starting to think that it would be best to just link to the lists of Allied and Central Powers leaders instead of constantly arguing over who should be in the infobox. Cesspool135 (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Nivelle still listed? Cesspool135 (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was french cinc for a period. Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only a short time though. Cesspool135 (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, as far as I know duration is not a reason not to list someone. Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The issue goes back to the first conversation, the list is a bit of a mess, we list nonmilliary leaders, but no generals (such as the UK). Military leaders but no political leaders (such as Italy). Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I believe it would be best to leave a link to the lists on each side. Cesspool135 (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the issue is who we include, not where we go to, to look at it? Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just think that a separate article would do a better job of explaining than just the infobox. And since there are so many people who could be considered "leaders" of their respective countries, it would be best to avoid arguments and compromise by listing them all on a separate page. Cesspool135 (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do not require ours or anyone's permission to start a separate article, as long as Wikipedia standards are maintained. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Said articles already exist, I am simply asking for them to be linked in the "leaders" section of the infobox (and that nothing else be listed there). If I get permission to make the edit I will do just that. Cesspool135 (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I don't get a response or no revisions to remove Nivelle are made, I will make the changes myself. Cesspool135 (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be a good idea to split off the military leaders to a separate article? That gives more room for the changing commanders and space for a better recognition of the military leaders per front. The Banner talk 22:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a good idea. Cesspool135 (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments above. It would be a better idea to start with a sub-heading on Commanders and Leaders in this article. If the section got too big it could be then split off. That's the usual procedure. In the meantime, the Commanders and Leaders section of the info box should be removed because it is unsourced, disputed and there are no clear criteria for inclusion and exclusion. Another good idea would be to merge the three ongoing Talk threads on this issue. However, I don't have the technical expertise to do so. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do I, though I do support that idea. Cesspool135 (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reinstated the stable version which was introduced after the above discussion. Another editor had reinstated the older version without discussion on Talk. The problems I have the with version I reverted are:
1) It is unsourced and has been contested: Wikipedia:Verifiability
2) It does not accord with policy on infoboxes which states that they are supposed to summarise the key information in the article. Wikipedia:INFOBOXPURPOSE. There is no discussion of the main commanders and leaders in the article and therefore such information should not appear in the info box.
@Remsense @Yedaman54. Happy to hear your views on this. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is essential to include a select group of key leaders in the infobox. With over a hundred thousand people viewing this page each month, presenting a concise and non-convoluted section of key leaders is necessary. This approach aligns with Wikipedia:INFOBOXPURPOSE, as a lot of these leaders are already mentioned in the article. Additionally, the pages for the main leaders of both the Allied and Central Powers are not very straightforward. Readers who are not familiar with the dynamics of World War I politics may struggle to identify the key leaders. Yedaman54 (talk) 05:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what's the basis for your selection of key leaders? Which sources can you cite which identifies the key leaders out of all the generals, politicians and monarchs who were involved in WWI? Only including those who are mentioned in the article would be one approach, but this might omit some leading players and include some relatively minor ones. Do we include the likes of King Constantine I and Eleftherios Venizelos only because they are mentioned in the article? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your list fails MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The parameter is to summarise key facts from the article - ie the body of the article must support why they appear in the infobox. For a start, the inclusion of Yoshihito is not supported by the body of the article - ie they are not mentioned in the body of the article. Per the template doc, it should also be limited to about seven aside. My recollection is that this version is consistent with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE but some editors think other leaders/commanders should be substituted/included even though their inclusion is not supported by the body of the article. I do not object to the version reinstated by Aemilius Adolphin - a solution developed through this discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]