Talk:World War I/Archive 6

message: L.S.
This article is unnecessarily difficult to read for a number of reasons, the main one being the excessive use of commas, moreover the incorrect placement of them. In paragraph three, we see:
On the Eastern Front, the vast eastern plains and limited rail network, prevented a trench warfare stalemate.
This early phrase signifies perfectly what is wrong with this article's prose. To the speed-reading eye, this sentence makes absolutely no sense, insofar as I can speak for all speed-readers. To those that read at a normal or leasurely pace, the phrase seems horribly odd, or so I would expect it. It is, at least, my fervent hope that the lecteurs of this mimic encyclopaedia are at least moderately appalled at this sort of low-brow writing. The more grammatically apt among us, of course, without a doubt recognise immediately what exactly the problem is. The reason that this redundant comma and the dozens others in like sentences persist, - and I do mean dozens - that they were not filtered out in the early stages of this article's development, strikes me as something of a conundrum. Perhaps those that are prone to recognizing errors like this are also those that are of a tendency not to involve themselves too much with something as ill-fated as Wikipedia. I would correct these matters myself, but I'm afraid I cannot count myself an exception to the preceding, despite what I proffer presently.
I would simply ask whomever be the main author of this article, if there is a main author at all, to seriously investigate what is proper grammar, and then turn a skeptical eye at his own commas, and where he's placed them.
I shall definitely not bother myself with using four tildes, at least not without being given the luxury of letters to place them on top of, so I'm afraid I'll scoff your irreverend convention and simply sign my name.
Yours truly,
I was, of course, not serious. You've no business at all knowing my name, and I refuse to invent a name for myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.171.29.158 (talk • contribs) 
:Too bad that you spelt "leisurely" wrong during the rant and used hyphens to represent dashes. Ashnard talk 17:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While this is an unnecessarily hostile comment, the point about the article's grammar is valid. There are comma splices, incomplete sentences, etc. all over the page, which is detrimental to the overall quality. (I apologize, however, if I missed something. This is my first non-anonymous contribution.) Alpha Centauri 04:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the grammatical errors simply stem from the text having been edited so many times by different people with different ideas and differing standards. Please feel free to copy edit when and wherever you see such errors. That is exactly what wikipedia is about. --LiamE 09:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scoff all you want, as long, as Google reigns, Wikipedia will be, where people turn to, for information.  WP:SOFIXIT. Haber 19:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably, true, and, if, they've, never, used, a good, printed, encyclopedia, probably, better, than not, trying, to find, information through, other means, than asking, friends. People, used to making, good use, of books, can only, be rather critical of Wikipedia, notwithstanding the merits it has.141.91.129.5 13:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar, and the proper use of it. 

message: I changed the phrase western Ukraine to western Galicia to maintain a neutral point of view.  Ukraine did not exist as a united political entity at the time.  The former Austro-Hungarian province of Galicia did have defined boundaries, but was in the process of disintegrating.  I added internal referrences to the two ephemeral republics that were in existence in western Galicia at the time.  Their borders are unclear, may overlap, and are probably not congruent with modern borders.  The Komancza Republic would have willingly joined a Ukrainian state, and the Lemko-Rusyn Republic had a specific aim of not joining such a state.  Both ended up as part of Poland, a solution not sought by either republic.  This becomes relevant to later history of the area after WW II.Pustelnik 15:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Galicia vs Ukraine

message: Image:In Hebrew it is Featured artical, can you sign it as one? 89.138.44.170 08:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Hebrew 

message: As far as I am aware, there were no 'Canadian' tanks, as all the BEF's armoured vehicles were operated by the British Army's  Tank Corps (formerly the Heavy Branch Machine Gun Corps). Am edititing therefore to change 'Canadian' to 'British', because this better reflects the reality and the close relationship of British and Dominion forces. 137.73.126.176 13:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Canadian' tank

message: Why is only the US mentioned specifically about the breaking of the Hindenburg Line? This section ought, at least, to include a mention of the BEF at the Canal Du Nord and the St Quentin Canal, and preferably of the Hundred Days as well. 137.73.126.176 12:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hindenburg Line

message: "A supreme command of Allied forces was created at the Doullens Conference, in which British Field Marshal Douglas Haig handed control of his forces over to Ferdinand Foch."
I think this statement is quite misleading as it infers that haig moved aside and had no further involvement. In fact Haig retained full tactical control of the BEF. Foch's role was more co-ordination between the BEF and the French Army than anything else. He certainly had nothing like the control over British forces that Eisenhower enjoyed. 
I would suggest something along the lines of "Foch was appointed as supreme commander of the allied forces, and empowered with strategic direction of the entire allied force. Haig and Petain retained tactical control of the British and French armies respectively". 62.136.121.128 18:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haig handing control to Foch 

message: I have been looking everywhere on the internet and can't find a photo of the famous photo of the signers of the WWI armistice standing by Foch's railway car shortly after signing.  If it helps, it was in Compiegne on November 11, 1918.  The railcar is significant - it's the same one that Hitler used to dictate France's surrender terms in WWII.  Many kudos to whoever can upload a pic, preferably high quality!  Or if you can let me know if there's any books with the photo in it.  Thanks!   FranksValli 06:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The German Wikipedia has it: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Compi%C3%A8gne1918.jpg I don't know if we can use it from there. You may need to get a copy put on Wikimedia Commons. Regards, Grant | Talk 07:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!  Thanks for the fast response.  I'll put it on Commons later today.  FranksValli 13:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What? Were you actually trying to say something or just typing random things?Ryuugaki 18:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he's typing random crap.  By the way, the railway carriage armistice photo is now available here: :Image:Armisticetrain.jpg FranksValli 17:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the wagon was not "owned" by Foch (see wiki on trains) but granted to Foch for military use by the Compagnie Internationale des Wagons-Lits. The French Wiki even has an article about the railcar (fr:Wagon de l'armistice). Tazmaniacs 18:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thanks for the info I updated the description on Wiki Commons.  FranksValli 00:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous railcar armistice photo 

message: Is anyone interested in returning this article to "Featured Article" status?  I just reviewed the de-listing archive. 
The article was de-listed because there are almost no internal citations. Therefore, we need to add internal citations. Because the article is primarily an overview that refers to a (large) set of more detailed articles, I suspect we can glean citations from the detailed articles. When we have a valid citation for each paragraph, we can nominate the article for FA status again. The article has a huge collection of general references: so large that most of them have been moved to a separate article. The problem is that we need "internal" citations: a citation to a specific reference for each assertion in our article.
A secondary reason for de-listing was that the quality of the prose has deteriorated, but I think this is minor by comparison and we can upgrade the prose as we add citations.
A tertiary complaint amongst the "de-listers" is that this article is too long. 
If a project (e.g. the military history project) would like to take over, please place a comment here and tell the rest of us how to help. When that occurs, This proposal is terminated.
Proposal:
* If anyone wants to help, please declare an interest in a section of the article by placing a comment here. Then, go read the detailed article for "your" section and add citations to your section of this article. When you think you are finished, please leave another note to that effect here.
* If you can make "your" section more concise, please do so. You can move information from this article into the more detailed article if it is not already there, and then delete the information from this article. Clearly, you will need to use your judgement as to what must stay in the overview: ask for help here if you are uncertain.
* If you have a better idea, please leave a comment here.
A note on internal refernce style: This article as already adopted a reference style. Please stay consistent with this style. to add a new internal citation, add something like this example:
 Evans, David. Teach yourself, the First World War, Hodder Arnold, 2004.p.188
Thanks. -Arch dude 01:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before I say that I'll agree to this project or not, I want to know what you mean by "your section". Do we choose that or is that somehow already predetermined? Q E11even 03:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Return to feature status 

message: The defintion of commander will need to be cleared up. How do Wilson and Clemenceau qualify whereas Lloyd George does not (only Asquith is included for Britain). Additionally, these heads of governments didn't have official military capacities (at least not in their titles), so the heading needs to be re-defined as either military commanders or more general national leaders, both on the military and political front (which admittedly overlap in the case of World War One).
:I think it's because the original authors of that section were trying to limit the commanders to the most significant? I don't know enough about WW1 to be sure though..Ryuugaki 18:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having looked over the commanders list - perhaps it would be a good thing to distinguish between the political leaders and the senior military commanders by area. GraemeLeggett 08:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commanders 

message: Is the any particular reason why The Great Gatsby is listed under WWI literature?
IanW 01:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Great Gatsby 

message: In the combatants section, Austria's national flag is shown as the flag of Austria-Hungary. The flag of Austria-Hungary was a split flag with the left half being the Austrian red-white-red horizontal tricolour while the right half being the Hungarian red-white-green tricolour. I tried to post this on the site but it has been changed back to Austria's individual flag and not that of the dual kingdom itself.
If the flag is to represent the nationality of the Austrian commanders, then why is there not the Hungarian flag of the time on the site to represent the existing Hungarian commanders and others of provincial nationalities in the Austro-Hungarian empire? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R-41 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Austria's individual flag shown for the Dual Austria-Hungarian state? 

message: Not a WWI authority, but at first glance the numbers given seem huge. 7.75 million missing soldiers? I had trouble finding online sources, but this one at firstworldwar.com lists under 2 million total missing personnel. Are we sure about the higher figures? Johnatx 07:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Enormous numbers of missing military personnel?

message: Who deleted the photo? My philosophy is to almost never delete material which was added in good faith? I feel Wikipedia is best served if all submissions are somehow given room, and those who feel something is wrong simply write their own response. Just wanted to note that. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 00:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion of wiki philosophy

message: I just did a search of this page to find that the word 'oil' appears only once - and then only applied to Germany fearing the loss of oil resources! Is it just me that thinks it should be mentioned a little bit more - and a little less one sided --- Sir Maurice Hankey, powerful Secretary of the British War Cabinet, wrote to Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour during the war’s final stage, to argue that oil had become absolutely vital to Britain and that oil resources in Mesopotamia would be crucial in the future.“Control of these oil supplies becomes a first-class war aim”  sbandrews (t) 15:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oil

message: Original:
With the death or absence of the primary wage earner, women were forced into the workforce in unprecedented numbers
Suggested alternate:
With the death or absence of the primary wage earner, women entered the workforce in unprecedented numbers out of necessity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wooster boy (talk • contribs) 20:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence flow - para. 5 - suggested alteration of 'forced into the workforce' 

message: Please add  in interwiki section. Thanks! -- Givegains 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA in zh.wikipedia 

message: Does anyone have any information about the soldiers themselves? As in more than the few instances of mentions of morale? I'm thinking it's pretty relevant to the war.. unless there's a page on this already? (Are my persistant question marks throwing anyone off?) Sorry about the poor layout skills, I'm new to doing this Talk business.. Ryuugaki 18:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military Personnel Attitude Towards the War? 

message: According to  The encyclopedia of weaponry (Ian V. Hogg) the first gas attack was on 27 October 1914, at Neuve Chapelle.  But it Failed. So ..can anyone support this?
(one more gas attack agaisnt russia also...)
"After a successful test, a batch of these shells was used agaisnt British troops at Neuve Chapelle on 27 October, 1914."
Knexxx 07:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gas Warfare 

message: Mobilisation != Mobilization. Please fix this embarrassing spelling error. Neodudeman
:It's an acceptable variant, used by the British.  See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. Haber 21:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On that Man. of Style page it says spellings within an article should be consistent, and that the article's original spelling should be kept as is. That means "mobilization" should be the spelling used here (and the z-spelling is certainly not incorrect in British English, most academic publishers still use it). --PeterH2 02:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mobilisation 

message: On your table, Italy chould be on the Axis side (or the German, Austria-Hungary side)
Eisenhower 16:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it shouldn't. Italy was neutral during the beginning of the war, and then came in on the side of the Allies in 1915. It was never a central power. Parsecboy 22:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Table is wrong 

message: World War I as a military conflict and as a social, economic, and political struggle are topics that can be separated.  The article is getting very long, and that would be a good way to shorten it. (24.26.117.61 05:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Create an article strictly for military history 

message: In the "Early Stages" section, under trench warfare, the information in the second paragraph is confusingly ordered.  The statement that Germany used chlorine gas comes before mention of the hole in the front produced by the Germans.  This hole was plugged by the Second Battle of Ypres, where the chlorine gas was first used.  This seems to me to be somewhat confusing.
Iain marcuson 05:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for cleanup 

message: I have failed this article for GA status. When I glanced through the article I noted an absence of inline citations. For an article of this length it is important it is clearly referenced. As well, te article qualifies for a "quick fail" as per the criteria under 2 listed at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles (it has a cleanup tag). I recommend this article undergo a peer review before nominating again. As well, references should be added, and maybe the massive lists at the bottom either culled, or removed. - Shudda talk 02:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed Good Article 

message: The following phrase is in the section Causes, under 1.3 Militarism and autocracy.
"Wilson hoped the League of Nations and disarmament would secure a lasting peace. He also acknowledged that variations of militarism, in his opinion, existed within the British and French Empires."
Since the League of Nations did not even exist until after the war, should it be mentioned in the causes?  Just curious.... CodeCarpenter 18:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should be moved to the aftermath. It might be said that Wilson joined the war with those goals in mind, but they are not the same as being causes for the entry of the U.S. into the war. Parsecboy 12:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this be moved to Aftermath? 

message: It seems to me that as long as a good effort is being made to shorten the article,  doesn't need to be there. It's a template aimed at editors anyway. Any ideas? -Phoenix 05:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove "Too long" box? 

message: The following refers to 3.5.2 - Ukrainian Oppression.
I was looking through the Ukrainian Oppression section and I noticed that in the second line down, about half way through it says 'where' rather than were. It also says 'where' rather than were near the end of the first line in this section. This might confuse people so I was just asking whoever can do something about this, please do. Thanks. 86.4.31.201 16:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: Why is this article semi-protected? I can't find any mention of it on this talk page. As others have noted above, the article has numerous grammatical errors. It seems unfortunate that any unregistered users that are inclined to correct these errors are prevented from doing so. Andrew Moylan 14:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They can register a darned account, wait four days, and edit as they please. --Phoenix (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected 

message: What about the subject of profiteering?  There is no mention of it at all.  For that matter, there ought to at least be a Wikipedia entry for the War Polices Board of 1930. Neoprote 15:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Profiteering 

message: An old Australian miniseries called ANZACS; about gallipolli, I don't see why it can't be added
there is no wikipedia page for it, so here's the imdb page for it http://imdb.com/title/tt0088479/203.206.55.143 23:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding miniseries to media section 

message: Pick one, as of today (04/27/2007) there are three examples of two different romanizations - Czar and Tsar.  Padillah 14:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just my personal opinion, but since the word is derived from "Caesar", "Czar" would be the better spelling. Parsecboy 17:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about throwing a Tzar in too? --LiamE 18:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think (although I may be mistaken) that Tsar is generally considered the best transliteration (note also that the derivation from "caesar" runs through "tsesar"). Carom 13:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Parsecboy 12:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Concur with Carom. For what it's worth, the Oxford English Dictionary says CZAR [is] formerly the usual spelling of TSAR.  Roger 14:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, the seventh Concise OED has a redirect from czar to tsar, another from tzar to tsar.  Under tsar it reads tsar, czar (z-),n.1. (Hist.)emperor of Russia; hence ~ISM(3), ~IST(2),ns. 2.person with great authority, f. Russ. tsar, ult f. L. Caesar.     doesn't shows this clear preference for one, but the three entries differ in quality, coverage, translations etc. LeadSongDog 18:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Onthe spelling of Czar. 

message: The images in this article are comprised entirely of Allied forces.  Why is there nothing depicting Germany/Austria/Hungary? -71.51.51.120 21:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you have them not in article uploaded. Understand you me? I am a Englishman, but I understand you, because I in Austria live. Do it (find and then upload) and look what happens. andreasegde 21:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photography in this article is strongly biased towards Allies 

message: A user keeps vandalising thispage. I have reverted 2 changes that they made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spacevezon (talk • contribs) 10:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is the place to go for consistent vandalism by the same user. --Phoenix 22:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: In He it is Featured artical, can you sign it as one? 89.138.44.170 08:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In hebrew 

message: This article has a section on Naval warfare, but none on the Air War. I would suggest that such a section should be added. Afterall, how can you talk about WWI and not mention famous figures like the Red Baron?--Hughstew 03:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air War 

message: I like :Image:WWIchartX.png, but I also like :Image:Causesworldwar1.png. Any reason why one is usd instead of the other? Also, one quibble about the images - they don't show the relationship between France and Germany very well. France and Germany had a land border and a history of war between them (the Franco-Prussian War). This is not reflected in the alliances or the alliances diagram, but was central to why the  alliances formed. Carcharoth 13:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagrams 

message: When reading this lengthy contribution I found it intimidating. We need to shorten the length as to attract more people who might have just not even bothered to read it because of its length. I suggest that we look at the sources and see what is really critical or if information repeats itself lots, then we compile and minimize. Also the list of extras and suggested reading ect. is huge. We should make surethat all are relevent and worth while. If we got rid
of the weaker versions that would shorten the list significantly. Thankx and i hope we find a solution to this problem.  209.107.103.164 01:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was surprised how much listing there was on this page too, most of which could go somewhere else within :category:World War I media. In addition to List of World War I books, there's also an all-embracing Media of World War I. Lists of reference books, films and poems could also go into :Category:World War I history books, :Category:World War I films, and :Category:World War I poems.  Roger 06:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's certainly material that can go elsewhere, but I recommend that references be kept in place as they are helpful to determine the accuracy of many statements. After WWI there was a lot of governmentally generated misinformation as to the events that took place leading up to the war, and a lot of repainting of battles and outcomes. Some of this data still persists. Weeding it out is made a lot easier with sources attached to specific statements. I often provide many references when making additions, and would like to see the same from others.Aki Korhonen 07:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not suggesting moving the numbered references (labelled 'Notes') out of the article, just the long lists of books/movies/poems into subarticles. And you're right, we definitely need more actual references/notes for the statmeents made in the article.Lisiate 22:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I don't see anything wrong with it. Just a list of related books could stretch on for ever, so it's a good idea. Someone volunteering for the task? Ordinarily I'd have done it by now, but I've added only a little data to this topic, so I'm reluctant to cut&paste because I don't necessarily know to propose the best location to move things to.Aki Korhonen 14:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources needed? 

message: In this article their where multiple references to Russia's loss of finland as a territory.  This occured during the revolution not as a result of the german-russian peace treaty.  When the Bolshevik party took power Finland declared its independence and was allowed to by the Bolshevik party.  Then instead of becoming a republic, Finland elected Frederick Charles of Hesse, a German prince, but as the Germans lost the war the idea was abandoned.
Zaxzaxzax 05:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually a bit more complex than that. I've not verified the information relating to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk so I'm not positive the characterization in the wwi article is accurate. However, it's generally consistent with my muddy recollections of the complex events of 1918. If we have someone with better knowledge, please chime in... Aki Korhonen 14:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Finland

message: why can't Canada be in the list of Allies. Canada did much more in World War 1 then the U.S., and the U.S. is in the list. -Nelro 12:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By what measure other than length of official war involvement do you think Canada did more than the US?  At the time, the population of Canada was less than that of Belgium, or New York State.  It was not a leader as represented diplomatically or militarily.  Surely Canada belongs in this article - just not listed as a leader in the opening paragraphs. Haber 13:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Canada gained a lot of awareness as part of wwi, but so did Australia, New Zealand, India, and many others that I'm neglecting to mention here. And while the sacrifices were real, they don't compare to that of the US or of the other main participants. Finland, for example, provided a volunteer unit to fight with the Germans, and even the existence of that group is not mentioned in this article (as it shouldn't). Aki Korhonen 15:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what about Vimy,3rd Ypres, 2nd Ypres. discovering how to stop mustard gas. the Canadians did plenty. most American soldiers didn't arrive untill 1918. Then the American participate only a few battles. -Nelro 10:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada

message: Gavrilo Princip was a Serbian Student.
Yugoslavia was formed only AFTER the war! 90.186.176.39 16:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed it to Bosnian Serb. Kirkesque 05:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yugoslav student 

message: italy entered also later. First it was participant of the central power's agreement, later they changed to the entente... 90.186.176.39 16:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. I just shifted Italy and added the year of entry so it's accurate.Aki Korhonen 18:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Allied Powers, led by France, Russia, the United Kingdom, Italy " 

message: "The war caused the disintegration of four empires: the Austro-Hungarian, German, Ottoman and Russian. Germany lost its overseas empire and states such as Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Yugoslavia gained independence. "
I'd argue that neither the Russian nor the German empire really disintegrated as both entities retained the core lands of their former power. The loss of a few unprofitable African and Asian colonies certainly did not hamper Germany's power base and their loss in land in Europe was less than 10% of territory of which aside of Alsace and Lothringa it was not of any economical/industrial significance.
Equally the Russian empire did not disintegrated but fell into a civil war over control over said empire. Again their territorial losses were of little significance.
Compare that to the total disintegration of Austria Hungary into half a dozen nations or the loss of two thirds of territory by the Ottoman empire.
:I don't agree with the conclusion that empire merely refers to territories. I agree that Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empire underwent a large territorial change. But in Germany the Kaiser was out of a job, and in Russia the Tsar. The economic repercussions were enormous. The Germans also lost the navy that they had spent enormous sums building up over the prior 30 years, removing their ability to project power. In case of Russia, the internal turmoil that befell the citizens of that country was particularly nasty, and the loss of their institutions could probably be termed the loss of an empire.Aki Korhonen 03:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Disintegration of empires " 

message: There is a picture seen next to the "Asia and the Pacific" section and located in text at the bottom of the "German Forces in Belgium and France" section that depicts German infantry defending a position against a French attack. It is labeled "German infantry on the battlefield 08/07/1914", but the picture depicts the German soldiers adorned with the Stahlhelm, which did not begin to be phased in until 1916. German soldiers at the time period labeled in the picture would beyond any doubt have been wearing the Pickelhaube. As a result, this picture needs to relabeled and moved to a more appropriate section of the article chronologically. I will refrain from tampering with it myself in favor of the original posting editor or someone else who can appropriately re-date it. Patrolmanno9 01:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it appears that the dating of the photograph is drawn from the National Archives database entry, although I don't dispute what you're saying about the helmets, etc. Carom 01:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even so, it is an undeniable fact that the Stahlhelm was not worn in 1914. I will look into the archives mentioned, but until the dating of the picture can be absolutely confirmed, it might be beneficial to relabel the photograph "German Infantry on the Western Front" or something similar, without a date, and place it in an area of the article where it can stand by itself without its date being a factor. As such, its true date wouldn't infringe upon historical accuracy, whatever it is later found to be. Patrolmanno9 02:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't seem at all problematic. I've edited the caption to something more neutral, pending some better information. Carom 04:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much appreciated. I'll continue to look into the photograph's history. Patrolmanno9 02:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've corrected the details for the picture following e-mail correspondance between myself and a member of the Still Pictures Reference of the NARA, which confirmed a mix-up between two pictures and their corresponding captions. Those details can be found on the image page here on wikipedia or on wikicommons. As it stands right now, the only source for my changes is that e-mail, so if anyone would like me to provide my sources I suppose I could forward the e-mail or publish it in someway. I'm not aware of any other method of verification at this point, so please let me know if there are any additional actions I should take if my corrections are to come under scrutiny. In the mean time I will correct the caption and place it more appropriately in the article, pending scrutiny or challenges. Thanks. Patrolmanno9 21:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Infantry 1914 picture 

message: Shouldnt the Irish Easter Rising be included which one of the main reason of the rising was "Britains trouble is Ireland gain " the Indian rising is included on the possibility of "It is likely that the tribal leaders were aware that Britain would not be able to field the required men" (Gnevin 01:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Irish Rising

message: It is stated many times in the article that the war changed the face of Europa a lot.  I see the map of the Ante Bellum Europa but it would be nice to see next to it the Post Bellum Europa so people can see just how big of a change was really affected.--122.249.63.246 09:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dual Maps

message: Probably the best First World War based film is missing.  I may have overlooked it but it seems 'The Trench' is missing.  It is based on the lead up to th efirst day of the Somme battle.
:add it,then!Kfc1864 04:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Films 

message: The line "The heaviest railway gun was the German Schwerer Gustav, that could fire 7 ton payloads up to 37 km (23 miles)." indicates that the Gustav was used or produced in WWI; it was made and used in WWII.Nosferatublue 14:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technology 

message: The opening paragraph begins:
"World War I, also known as the Great War and "The War To End All Wars," ..."
# While at school in the early 60s, people generally referred to the 1914-18 War as the "First World War", the "First War", the "Fourteen-Eighteen War", and we typically wrote about the "1914-18 War". 
# Logically, names incorporating "First" or the arabic or roman numeral 1 or I could not have been contemporary with the 1914-18 War, and would not have been likely until the WW2, known initially / informally as the "Hitler War", especially as the Great War was supposed to be "The War To End All Wars".  Can anyone find the first recorded uses of these retrospective names?
# My grandparents who lived through / fought in it, referred to it as "The Kaiser War" or "The Great War". 
# The word "great" described its magnitude, not in its modern slang sense as a term of approbation as some people have indicated, evidently being unaware of the (non-slang) meaning of the word. 
# "The War To End All Wars" was used as a description of the 1914-18 War. Is there evidence that this was commonly used as its name, as implied in the opening paragraph (above)?
May I suggest listing and indicating the chronology of various names of the war, in the introduction or elsewhere, e.g:
World War I was referred to initially as "The War" or the "Kaiser War". As its scope widened it became known as the "Great War" ("great" referring to its magnitude). Once ended it also became known as the "1914-18 War", referred to colloquially as the "14-18 War". When the 1939 "Hitler War" was named the "Second World War", the 1914-18 War was named the "First World War" and was often referred to colloquially as the "First War".
In reaction to the horrors happening during the Great War, and the expectation that mankind could not possibly be foolish enough to repeat them, it was described at the time as "The War To End All Wars".
Subject to confirmation, editing to comply with style guidelines, & finding suitable citations of course. Expert help needed.  GilesW 15:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of the Great War 

message: I've read that this is merely an oft-repeated myth; that there were sections were one trench system ended and the next began in an overlapping but unconnected fashion.
I didn't add a note to the article itself because I can't remember where I read this, and I don't know how to add a "citation needed" reference! :-)
Critic9328 03:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it seems highly unlikely that a single trench system went from the Channel to Switzerland. Perhaps a series of trench systems like you suggest, but I seriously doubt you could walk from the coast to Switzerland and never put your head above ground. To add a "citation needed" tag, you just type  or . Parsecboy 11:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The article doesn't claim it was a continuous single trench. It says a system of trenches and fortifications separated by an area known as no man's land. These fortifications ran from the North Sea to Switzerland. In any event, there's no shortage of references for this and to set people's minds at rest will cite it shortly. --ROGER TALK 12:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I've also inserted the word "breastworks" (which were used on swampy ground), between trenches and fortifications to clarify this entirely. --ROGER TALK 12:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed for reality of trench extending from English Channel to Switzerland 

message: I've studied about the youngest soldiers during the war who died, and the oldests who were in action and some of the oldests who even got killed in action. Should we add that in?--Willy, your mate 04:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, that sounds fine to me. Perhaps in the "Soldiers' Experiences" section? Parsecboy 04:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, added it. Feel free to improve it!--Willy, your mate 05:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soldier's age record 

message: The last paragraph of the article makes me wonder about the why's of it's protected status.
It poses many nations call this war the great war , ... because of a recognition for it's relevance in the history of european imperialism. I think that is wishfull thinking.
It is probably perceived the "great" war mostly, because of the stability of several of its major frontlines. WW2 can be thought of as the "great" occupation in many more european nations.
That beside we owe the respect to the then soldiers who fought a war called the great war in their times (so before 1939). Also it is very doubtfull if ww1 can be viewed so remote from ww2 as a result of the ruling circumstances of the 19th, early 20th century. Not in the least because the decline of colonialism only started after 1946. IMHO in that sense the basic (racist and classist)system of colonialist exploitation have been influenced by ww2 , the russian revolution or even napoleon way more.77.248.56.242 13:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  revolutionairy impact