Talk:Home front during World War II

message: * Burma - life under the Japanese
* France - Germans took the food
* Holland - eating tulip bulbs
* Switzerland - surrounded by the enemy
* Norway - Subjugated, resistance
* Singapore - no more dining out at Raffles.
these are just a small sample...
there are still gaps in WP.
Wallie 07:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Countries to Cover

message: Tagged article for cleanup -- major work needed. Much of it reads like an essay, and the intro includes the horrible sentence: "More than 18 million women served on the homefront during WWII and we couldn't have survived without them." -- mervyn 13:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The order of specific countries seems a little esoteric. What are the rules of precedence on such matters? Should they be in alphabetic order, chronological order (of entry into the war), or what? Nick Cooper 23:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup needed

message: *Australia and New Zealand
*Canada
*France
*Italy
*Philippines
*Poland and Ukraine
*Warsaw Ghetto
*Scandinavia
Why is there references for these countries, but no information on the article about them? Talk User:Fissionfox 07:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we want editors to get to work and add material, and to alert users these are important topics even if Wiki has not gotten to them yet. (We do have suitable bibliographical citations.)Rjensen 08:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Information? 

message: The tables in "Overview" are missing units and are therefore meaningless. The first one, "Munitions Production in World War II" has numbers in the magnitude of tens with no units for each country for each year of the war. Are these millions of pounds munitions produced? Billions of pounds? Millions or billions of kilos? Millions or billions of tons? If tons, are they metric or english? Millions or billions of dollars spent on munitions? Pounds of munitions produced per capita, etc? Update: I was able to find the source complete online and found the units for the table, which are annual expenditures in billions of dollars, quoted in 1944 munitions prices. I added it to the title of the table, but had a little trouble formatting it, so anyone is welcome to fix my formatting.
The "Real Value Consumer Spending" Table is little better. I assume the currency is dollars? Are they 1942 dollars? 1945 dollars? Is each year adjusted for inflation? Are these millions of dollars? Billions of dollars? I am assuming they are total dollars spent by all consumers, and not amount sent per capita because of the scale - I expect people spent more than $100 per person in a year and far less than $100,000 per person in a year - but who is to know when there are no units? I pointed this out in the article itself in March hoping that someone would just put the units in, but that was erased by Pyrotec without him actually fixing the problem.  Mmyers1976 18:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your change had the appearance of vandalism. It would have been better if you had used the template {fact|date=March 2007} - it needs double curly brackets {{}} at each end to work.Pyrotec (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion. I am always open to learning the formatting that will help me constructively contribute to Wikipedia. At the time I had less knowledge of formatting, but have learned quickly. If you could help me with the first table (Goldsmith) to get the units explanation (in parentheses) to line up better under the table title, I would greatly appreciate it.Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  is this what you want?
 Munitions Production in World War II
Country/Alliance	Year(Expenditures in billions of dollars, US 1944 munitions prices)	Year(Expenditures in billions of dollars, US 1944 munitions prices)	Year(Expenditures in billions of dollars, US 1944 munitions prices)	Year(Expenditures in billions of dollars, US 1944 munitions prices)	Year(Expenditures in billions of dollars, US 1944 munitions prices)	Year(Expenditures in billions of dollars, US 1944 munitions prices)	Year(Expenditures in billions of dollars, US 1944 munitions prices)
Country/Alliance	1935-9 ave                                                         	1940                                                               	1941                                                               	1942                                                               	1943                                                               	1944                                                               	Total 1939–44
U.S.A.          	0.3                                                                	1.5                                                                	4.5                                                                	20.0                                                               	38.0                                                               	42.0                                                               	106.3
Britain         	0.5                                                                	3.5                                                                	6.5                                                                	9.0                                                                	11.0                                                               	11.0                                                               	41.5
U.S.S.R         	1.6                                                                	5.0                                                                	8.5                                                                	11.5                                                               	14.0                                                               	16.0                                                               	56.6
Allies Total    	2.4                                                                	10.0                                                               	20.0                                                               	41.5                                                               	64.5                                                               	70.5                                                               	204.4
Germany         	2.4                                                                	6.0                                                                	6.0                                                                	8.5                                                                	13.5                                                               	17.0                                                               	53.4
Japan           	0.4                                                                	1.0                                                                	2.0                                                                	3.0                                                                	4.5                                                                	6.0                                                                	16.9
Axis Total      	2.8                                                                	7.0                                                                	8.0                                                                	11.5                                                               	18.0                                                               	23.0                                                               	70.3
Pyrotec (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was thinking more that the units be outside the table, as part of the title "Munitions Production in World War II", but lined up underneath it instead of trailing on as I had it. Does that make sense? Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  
 Munitions Production in World War II  
 (Expenditures in billions of dollars, US 1944 munitions prices)
Country/Alliance	Year      	Year	Year	Year	Year	Year	Year
Country/Alliance	1935-9 ave	1940	1941	1942	1943	1944	Total 1939–44
U.S.A.          	0.3       	1.5 	4.5 	20.0	38.0	42.0	106.3
Axis Total      	2.8       	7.0 	8.0 	11.5	18.0	23.0	70.3
How about this? Its truncated to save space.Pyrotec (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Try here Bracket - curly brackets, or braces, or Nances. The last two names are new to me.Pyrotec (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Curly brackets", simple, to the point. That's the way it should be. Why can't they call the schwa "upside down e"?Mmyers1976 (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables Missing Units 

message: there has been some vandalism on rationing in germany. i don't know how to revert it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.158.88 (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism on rationing in Germany

message: National varieties of English
Shortcut:
WP:ENGVAR 
See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) 
The English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than the others. Users are asked to take into account that the differences between the varieties are superficial. Cultural clashes over spelling and grammar are avoided by using four simple guidelines. The accepted style of punctuation is covered in the punctuation section.
Regarding recent back and forth changes of spelling of the word "labor" to either British or American variety of English in the "Labor" section:
An unregistered user had changed the spelling of the word "labour" in the sentence "The German industry used forced labour, called Arbeitseinsatz " to "labor". Pyrotec undid this revision. In this case, the unregistered user's edit is the correct one. Though the Wikipedia Style Guide states that neither spelling variant is more correct, it does stipulate that the same spelling be used consistently in an article. Since the spelling of the section is "Labor", the word needs to be spelled "labor" throughout the article. This is why I reverted Pyrotec's revert.Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you had checked the unregistered user, User talk:69.44.138.186, you would have found that the address was mostly used for vandalism; the user had been recently blocked for 31 hours for vandalism, and this was the first edit after the blocking had expired. Labour is used in the two sections Axis and and Allies and my reversion was in accordance with the requirement for consistent spelling.Pyrotec (talk) 11:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's all well and good, but not relevant here, as the unregistered user was not vandalizing on this page; his edit was entirely appropriate. I see you have changed the spelling of the section to the British variant spelling. As long as the British variant is used for all spellings in this article, I see no problem with that, however, I see many uses of American variant throughout the article, such as "mobilization" instead of "mobilisation". It looks like the article was originally written in American variant and "labour" was arbitrarily spelled British variant. Seems like this article still needs cleanup under WP:ENGVARMmyers1976 (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although -ise is generally perceived to be the British English form of spelling and -ize the American English, it seems it's more a matter of preference, with the OUP using the latter, see OUP spelling. Rich257 (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then how about the use of "defense" instead of "defence", another example of the article being written in American voice, along with the preponderance of American sources, even for non-American topics, as cited in the references? The fact that that section title was originally "Labor", not "Labour" shows that the article was written originally in American voice, and all subsequent editing should have maintained that voice. I am sure the unregistered user has committed vandalism before (though if you look at his Talk page, it shows that multiple users may be identified by that IP, and so the one who made the "Labor" change may not have been the person who had vandalized other pages before), but the fact is his edit on this page was appropriate in correcting to keep the original American voice. Pyrotec's revert was unnecessary and pedantic. Because I am not pedantic, I am not going to get into a revert war with him and am willing to let it stand. but if he's trying to justify his actions to me, I am going to point out inconsistencies. Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why make up "facts" to justify your own "pedantic" point of view. You can check the article itself, it is here , this is the fourth edit by the same editor on the evening of 8th July 2005. There is no section on labour or labor. It looks British English to me.Pyrotec (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The original editor states that he is Canadian of British origin. That could have been checked, as well instead of making up "facts".Pyrotec (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, more of these so-called "facts" do not accord with reality. There are only ten inline citations, Cohen (1949) is American and Mmyers1976 appears to have added it (well done) and Houghton Mifflin is a US publisher; one is a blog site site, so there is no independent verification. Of the remaining nine in-line citations, six are British - the Official Histories and the BBC. There is a lot of Further reading, but there is no evidence that they were used in the article.Pyrotec (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to get a grip. Three rapid-fire posts on this subject from you, it makes you look obsessive and foolish. There is no reason for you to get this bent out of shape over such a minor thing as British vs American spelling, esp. when I accepted your revert and took no other action. As far as me looking up the nationality of the originator of the article, or long past versions of the article, if that is how you want to spend your time, then be my guest, but I find it more constructive to focus on the style and content of the article as it exists today. By the way, I did not add the Cohen table, it was there long before I became aware of this article. Whoever originally posted it and the Goldsmith table into the article neglected to include the units for the tables, and so I, after you recognized the problem but did nothing, took corrective action and looked up the original source myself to find the units and add them to the Goldsmith table, but have been unable to find a free version of Cohen so I could confirm the units. Now of course you know all this as you just posted on the subject two days ago, but here say "Cohen is American and Mmyers1976 appears to have added it" and yet you have the nerve to accuse me of "mak[ing] up" "so-called 'facts'".Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Labour" Vs "Labor"

message: Should there be a section on the Japanese homefront?
-Why is there only a chart on rice and the word "bankai" on Japanese homefront? Im guessing this is vandalism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.237.187.152 (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Should there be a section on the Japanese homefront?

message: -in the canada section "ethnic" is not a noun, there isnt any such thing as "ethnics"   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.37.180.139 (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the section title to "Ethnic minorities from enemy countries. DuncanHill (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnics as a noun

message: While moving pictures and copyediting, I forgot to add: 'New material to the "Britain" ' section, on 4 May 2013. Trying three or four times, both yesterday and today, for some reason, it will not accept my input when I press 'Save' (it's only on this page). But it is there; I've looked.
RASAM (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You could seek help at WP:VPT. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New material 

message: I Changed India to British India,because India was a colony of Britain in WW2.Will change some thing more.Ovsek (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  India 

message: Editors Ebonelm and Dmol have both reverted my edits regarding the change of name of the island of (Great) Britain to the country name of United Kingdom (or UK).
Ebonelm's rationale, in the edit comment, was "IP doesn't seem to understand that Britain isn't an island". Kinda an aggressive and patronising charge to suggest that a fellow editor "doesn't understand".
I understand fully, as I suggested in my edit comment when I re-inserted my changes, the etymology of and even the current uses of terminologies.
I would suggest, in my defence against this charge, that most other people do not understand the terminology - AND that we can help avoid confusion and ambiguity. Take for example the Wikipedia article Britain. As I've argued recently elsewhere on Wikpedia (and Ebonelm has weighed in there also), the article itself has no single definition of 'Britain'. It is either a country or an island. In fact, it is mostly really a nickname for both, which is one step above less formal nicknames like 'Blighty'. As 'Britain' is also the name of an island (technically speaking, the full name of the island is 'Great Britain'), then confusion can arise - especially for foreigners who are not used to knowing the geography of the British Isles.
Further, historically speaking, Ireland could also legitimately be referred to as 'Britain' (technically 'Little Britain').
The confusion arises because of the fact that the territory of the NON-political, geographical entity (Great Britain) is not identical to the political entity and sovereign country (the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland). Many people are, of course, confused between the terms 'British' and 'English' - incorrectly confusing the two as equivalent. We can't necessarily do anything about that.
However, we can help avoid confusion by using the more formal country name 'United Kingdom' or 'UK' for short, when possible. Obviously many authors of great works have used the term 'Britain' (technically incorrectly) in titles of their publications. The encyclopaedia cannot change that. BUT, the encyclopaedia can help minimise confusion by using 'UK'.
You will note that in this article in particular, Belfast is mentioned in its own section. In fact, that section should be expanded and changed to Northern Ireland, to describe how much the province contributed to the war effort, in terms of equipment and produce etc, despite (or perhaps to some degree because of) conscription not being enforced there. I digress. Belfast is not on the island of (Great) Britain. It is, however, a part of the United Kingdom.
While many people, including professionals, (mis-)use the term 'Britain' AND it is not the job of this 'paedia to correct the world's mistakes, it IS the job of the 'paedia to present information in as clear, precise and unambiguous manner as possible.
I probably won't be able to follow this discussion up, but feel free to weigh in on this, and on the other discussion I've left at Talk:Evacuations of civilians in Britain during the Second World War. Cheers. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Correct" versus technically correct vs unambiguous 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Home front during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130415074611/http://www.mattapanchc.org/more_vitamin_d.html to http://www.mattapanchc.org/more_vitamin_d.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140911225053/http://artsweb.bham.ac.uk/vichy/ to http://artsweb.bham.ac.uk/vichy/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Do we really need such an enormous Bibliography section? I have trimmed it a little, by removing multiple entries of the same work, entries already listed in the Sources section, and by moving to the Sources section those works actually cited as references, but it is still very large. Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory or indexing service, and as none of the works in it are used as sources for citations I see little need for it. DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: don't worry about length--this is not a paper encyclopedia and the s-l-o-w days of 200 baud modems are long gone. It's not designed for casual reading it's designed for people who want to find further information.  Typically they want it about one country of interest.   A huge country like USSR gets a mere 7 entries. Scandinavia gets only four, Japan only 6  etc.  UK with a VERY large published literature gets 15 cites.  Reducing the number of cites hurts readers, it blocks them from information. Rjensen (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not reduced the number of cites, nor have I proposed doing so. Please refrain from further misrepresentation. What I have proposed doing is trimming or removing the excessively long list of works which are not used for citations. DuncanHill (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  "further reading" is the usual term here and in other encyclopedias for helping readers follow up the brief coverage here.  In my opinion we hurt readers when we deny them info they seek.  This is an encyclopedia for their benefit. I think the problem is that we are covering 15 countries.  Separated out these would all be short-to-medium articles with short Further Reading sections. Rjensen (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: please elaborate why you think www.projectinposterum.org is appropriate for further reading. MozeTak (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.projectinposterum.org