# Talk:Central Powers

The kingdom of finland never actually became to be, it was a proposal but no king ever got in power, and never was finland officially called the Kingdom of Finland, should this be replaced or am i completely in the wrong? Finland didn't really even contribute in ww1, just fought it's on civil war and briefly against the russians  NyawMeow 17.06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

These pages highly duplicate. Joncnunn 20:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. While there is some overlap, unavoidable as the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance were at war with each other, the two topics are, and should remain, separate.--Anthony.bradbury 18:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
how many troops were  involved in WW1
A lot of people faught. I mean like millions of people from all over the world. Hope that helped, Cupcake547 (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC).

Greece was not part of the Central Powers! Can someone fix this? A.Cython (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The map in its current state does not show Greece to be a part of the Central Powers.  EasyPeasy21 (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
That is because I changed the map! the previous map was this one: [1] A.Cython (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The list should only include a political leader, and a commander-in-chief, of a country fighting for the Central Powers.  Mustafa Kemal was a very important figure during the Turkish War of Independence to the extent that he should be listed as a commander in the infobox of the Turkish War of Independence article, but he was not important enough in WW1 to warrant listing him alongside the sultan, and the commander-in-chief, of the Ottoman Empire in this article.  As a result, I have removed Mustafa Kemal from the list.  EasyPeasy21 (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If this article mentions alliances Germany tried to make with Afghanistan, then wouldn't it be also logical to include mentioning the Zimmermann Telegram, in which they tried to get Mexico to declare war on the USA?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.218.111.247 (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 

"For instance, when the sultan of Darfur, Ali Dinar (ca. 1898–1916), proclaimed his kingdom's allegiance to the Ottoman Empire, a small British force quickly defeated his forces, with the sultan dying during the fighting."
Davis, R. Hunt, ed. "World War I and Africa." Encyclopedia of African History and Culture: The Colonial Era (1850 to 1960). vol. 4. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2005. Modern World History Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?
ItemID=WE53&iPin=AHCIV0591&SingleRecord=True (accessed October 29, 2009).
Maybe this should be added as a sub-bullet under the Ottoman Empire.--189.33.12.27 (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the Sultanate of Darfur should be under the Ottoman Empire, too. Should I make like that? Cupcake547 (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Is the Central Powers really a predecessor to the Axis? Out of the tripartite, only Germany was in the Central Powers while the others were fighting in the Allied powers. Juxlos (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Are there any disclaimers or a key on to what the areas in the lower-left corner of the map are? I only recognize Tianjin IowaBird (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

For accuracy's sake, I'd recommend changing the translations from modern Turkish to Ottoman. Sirius85 (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I'll try. Cupcake547 (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC).

Should they be listed as such?--87.188.75.185 (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

  @87.188.75.185 No, Ethiopia and White Finland should only be in the supporters category because they are controversial. Cupcake547 (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Should we rename the article from Central Powers to Central Powers of World War I, that way the title is more specific?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cupcake547 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC) 
Ok, I'll do it. Cupcake547 (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It puts Lithuania under Germany? As well as Ukraine, Belarus, Crimea, Baltic States. What is up with that. If anything they were Russian at the time.  Chefs-kiss (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

In 1918 between the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the German surrender, all of the countries you mention were German client states and as such members of the Central Powers. Furius (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@34780jgri: your own edit summary is illuminating here. If something is not "important" (your word), it should not be in the infobox, per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Remsense ‥ 论 00:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@History6042: Your edit here added a reference — {{Harvnb|Hart|2013|p=299}} — that does not point to a citation.  Can this error be fixed? —GoldRingChip 16:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@History6042: Your edits here added some references — {{Harvnb|Hoisington|1995|p=63}}, {{Harvnb|Fage|Roberts|Oliver|1986|p=290}}, {{Harvnb|Burke|1975|p=440}} — that do not point to citations.  Can these errors be fixed? —GoldRingChip 16:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Central Powers/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: History6042 (talk · contribs) 20:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: BarntToust (talk · contribs) 13:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, so given that this article was unsuccessfully nom'd about a month ago with strict decline owing to the state of a few citations, I'll have to look into more of those, besides accuracy spot-checks, to see that those concerns from the prior reviewer have been fully addressed. -- Check ref 12, book it cites sure exists -- other refs the prior reviewer had complaint with, Burke, Nicolle, Fage, no longer appear to be used in the article. -- Hagen ref has year now, Pánek has a title, Biondich is in the article now, Roberts is now removed, Wolczuk has a date now, Fattah is gone, Sedik has a date now, Gilkes is removed, Getahun has a date and now links to Google Books. This is all good. The National Archives ref is set right, A World Undone book has repeat refs but not absolute killer to sfn or rp templates. I went ahead and fixed the Cashman and Leonard ref to use Cite book template, among minor instances to use Cite book / RP templates. Further reading is done with some online links, but Cite book not required. I'm impressed with the refs. Coverage I'll look at later.
Current GA review status: Work in progress.


### Central Powers
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to Featured Article status and want to know some needed improvements.
Thanks, History6042 (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Rublov, just reminding you that you said you could get this done by the end of the week. That's in 3 days. So, if you can't do it by the end of the week that is totally fine. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@History6042 done. rblv (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


#### Rublov
Disclaimer: Not an FA reviewer or writer. However, from what I've seen secondhand, it's going to take significant work to get the article to FA quality.
Major concerns:

Your first GA reviewer wrote: "Apart from the introductions to the German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman sections, this reads like a list with some padding. I would expect to see much more discussion of the context and relationships between the various powers." I second this. The scope of the article as written is quite unclear. It covers the war justifications for each major power extensively, but has almost no information about the course of the war itself. There is already plenty of information on Wikipedia about the individual members of the alliance; this article should primarily be about their relations with each other, cooperation, coordination, etc. It would be ideal to find sources about the Central Powers as a unit/concept, rather than about World War I in general or the individual powers.
Along these lines, "Collaboration" section is just a list of three apparently unconnected facts. It should be greatly expanded.
The numerous lists and tables break up the article and make it difficult to read continuously. I'd remove the tables of declarations of war, at least.
Once you have expanded the article as suggested, you should also expand the lead, which is currently rather short.
The FA process emphasizes high-quality sources. In this case, there ought to be a wealth of good scholarship. So eyebrows will inevitably be raised for sources like New Zealand History and firstworldwar.com. Anything that's not a peer-reviewed scholarly article or a book published by an expert is going to be suspect.
There may also be questions as to how you were able to verify the source-text integrity of sources in Chinese, Italian, Lithuanian, Ukrainian, Russian, German, Hungarian, etc. Non-English sources are certainly allowed, but if you can find an equally good source for the same information in English, it will cause fewer problems at FA.
You might find greater success basing this article on a smaller number of sources that can be used as references for multiple facts, rather than a large number of sources each for only one fact.
I don't have the time to spot-check the article's references, but your FA reviewers absolutely will. You must ensure that the claims in the article are supported by the sources that it cites. Any suspicion of inaccuracy, however minor, will immediately imperil your nomination.
File:Collapse of the Central Powers.jpg claims to be licensed under the w:Free Art License, but I'm skeptical. The source URL doesn't mention a license but does attribute it to Times Books/HarperCollins Publishers. It's probably protected by copyright and thus ineligible to be in a Wikipedia article. Aside from that, it is quite low-res.
Minor concerns:

After successfully beating France in the Franco-Prussian War, – the chronological organization here is confusing; this jumps back to 1871 right after a section that takes place in 1914–17.
Aswell as the German Tientsin concession & In Hankou – this text is malformed.
Upper Asir section needs more context. Most readers won't know where Asir is located.
Romania fought alongside the Central Powers until it rejoined the war against them on November 10, 1918. – This intriguing fact deserves more explanation.
After Bulgaria's defeat… – This is an incomplete sentence.
General advice:

Read Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.
Find an existing, recently promoted FA, for example Armenian genocide or Union of Bulgaria and Romania (to pick two somewhat related examples). Study it carefully.
Read Wikipedia:Featured article criteria again.
Read through recent discussions at Wikipedia:Featured article review. Pay especially close attention to first-time nominators and nominations that failed. Get a sense of what the expectations are and how the process works.
Find a mentor with experience at FA. Have them review the article. Follow their suggestions closely.
Thanks for taking the time to improve Wikipedia. I hope this isn't discouraging. The article is not in a bad state – but the bar at FA is very high. rblv (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@History6042: Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

should we add occupied central powers territories and colonies below the clients section? 34780jgri (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)