Template talk:World War II/Archive 1

message: I like it! Looks much nicer than what we have now. And since it takes up much less space, we can maybe even put in some more campaign/operations articles there as well? At least I liked the compact way you could browse the various campaigns in that template so much that I immediately started to look for what major campaigns were missing ;-). But if we add more operations, the first coloumn will probably be too long. So either we just limit ourselves to the ones listed (we'll can't list every battle specific article, anyway), or we could maybe put the "Specific articles" below the Main Theaters, and let the yearly timeline-listing, with all the Campaigns and battles, have its own coloumn, so we could put in some more of the major ones. But, either way, what you have there is IMO better than what we have now. So I'm all for putting it in the article. Shanes 04:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: General thoughts on layout

message: I have changed the layout a bit (comprised bulleting of events/participants), trying to make it more overviewable, since the number of operations had a tendency to make the template IMO a little too big vertically. Nothing has been removed, but I switched a couple of things: (1) "North African Campaign" moved from events to theater "Africa",  "Phony War" from events to specific articles, "Eastern front" from events to theaters and "China" (2nd Sino-Japanese war) added as theater. I think that was all. 
*If you think it sucks say so here.
*If you think it's good please also say so, because I am thinking of making the same changes to Template:World War I, but I want to see the response here first.
Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 16:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New layout

message: I added a new column on this page. There was an objection on WP:FAC to the length of the main events section. The one problem is that I can't seem to figure out how to make the background the same shade of blue. I hope one of you would be able to do that better. Thanks RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 22:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Column

message: I see the templete is used in about 4 articles.  Where should it be used?  I have desire to re-open the :Template:WWIITheatre, this templete (and its concept) seems to aim at larger WWII issues.  A quick scan suggests these articles could benifit from this templete.  Wendell 01:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is this templete suitable?

message: I don't know why nazi germany is in front of it. Where is the reference and on what criteria is that based on? Japan was at the end entered some 1943? Tripartite is the official axis powers and Japan, germany and Italy were entered168.253.17.22 Stop entering biased and wrong info. What did Germany do to enter the "axis powers" on 1939???? 168.253.17.22 00:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who entered what year

message: What the criteria for a battle to be included here? For example Operation Torch is incomparable with Battle of Korsun and Battle of the Crimea (1944) both in casualities from both sides and in impact on overall war outcome.--Nixer 02:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the criteria? 

message: Don't you think it is time to convert this ugly template into a decent Portal:World War II? mikka (t) 19:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a very good idea, provided that somebody can be found to maintain it.  Maybe asking here would be productive? Kirill Lokshin 22:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good idea.  [Steps back as volunteers are called for]. ;-) Andreas 14:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWII Portal 

message: What is the criteria for the order of participants?--Will2k 19:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I would prefer an order according to military casualties, but currently it does not seem to be ordered in that way now. See World War II casualties for details. Regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 21:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order 

message: Operation Blackcock seems like an insignificant operation compared to e.g. Crossing of the Rhine, Battle of the Bulge/Ardennes Offensive, or  Vistula-Oder offensive. Andries 22:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - it is definitely not significant enough for this list, so I have removed it. I will also add a comment in the article source about adding battles. Furthermore, I have some doubts about the significance of the Dieppe Raid. I know it was a large operation and that it was an "exercise" for D-day (and a major Canadian sacrifice), but compared to the others in the list, I question its importance in the history of WW2. I'd like to hear opinions from others on this. My regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 22:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. --Guinnog 11:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also took out the Battle of Manchuria, on the same basis. The article itself makes no assertion that the battle was particularly pivotal. --Guinnog 11:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is [[Operation Blackcock]] in the template?

message: Like Churchill, Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, de Gaulle, and Roosevelt? Andries 22:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a good idea, and there is space available under "Specific articles", after "Aftermath". Let's hear what others think of it. Opinions, please! Regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 22:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should we add key personalities?

message: A discussion about possibly converting large footer templates for wars—such as this one—into portals has been started here; comments and suggestions would be very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 02:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion to portal? 

message: Should this page includes the weapons and transportation they uses in the WW2? it could be very helpful for our WW2, weapons and tanks fans ^^
--COMMODORE64 19:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weapons, Transportation? 

message: Gosh, the main events list in the template is getting way too big...and there are quite a few there now, which can't be considered main events. I will remove the following events, as we can't list everything that happened in WW2:
*Invasion of Finland
*Occupation of Baltic Republics
*French-Thai War
*Greco-Italian War
*Invasion of Yugoslavia
*Battle of Greece
*Anglo-Iraqi War
*Battle of Crete
*Invasion of Syria and Lebanon
*Invasion of Iran
*Continuation War
*Battle of Singapore
*Battle of Madagascar
*Battle of Kasserine Pass
*Invasion of Sicily
*Battle of Leros
*Battle of Monte Cassino
I know I'm being tough, but, in my opinion, the events above are not qualified as main events compared to e.g. Operation Barbarossa, Battle of Normandy and Operation Bagration. Anyway, there is a link in the template to List of military engagements of World War II, which is quite a big one...
Any opinions?
My Regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 22:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thoroughly agree. Go ahead and prune! --Guinnog 22:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Good idea! Perhaps retain Battle of Crete, as that had an impact on German airborne tactics for the remainder of the war. Are there summary articles for the various theatres? Folks at 137 20:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 3 entries each year looked fine by me, but now its gone all bloated again. Fornadan (t) 00:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Operation Market Garden, Battle of Coral Sea and Battle of Iwo Jima should be returned to the list. Because Market-Garden failed, the war lasted longer. Because two Japanese aircraft carriers were rendered useless at the Coral Sea (one was badly damaged, the other lost nearly all her aircraft), the Japanese lost at Midway. Because Iwo Jima was captured, thousands of American bomber crewmen's lives were saved because their aircraft, damaged in the bombing raids on Japan, were able to make emergency landings there, rather than being forced to fly all the way back to their own bases in the Marianas Islands. Shibumi2 01:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree. The events you mention were important, but how much in comparison with the others? Which 3 now present events do you want to delete and replace with your suggested events, in order to keep this template small & compact? Regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 14:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compression needed! 

message: What is the use of the "more..." links on the participants lists? These links are identical to the links under the headlines (i.e. Allies of World War II and Axis Powers, and should therefor be redundant. --Tokle 15:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "more" links exist to refrain users from adding more participants to the template. It is quite long... (oh yes, I forgot, it was a world war...:) Regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 01:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Participants 

message: I changed the Candian flag for this template to the new red maple leaf flag (ca. 1967) as many, many more people world wide can identify Canada with the new flag as opposed to a _now_ obscure enign used during World War II.  The flags are there to help people who do not know the history of the war to quickly identify the participants.  If it is not a flag that is recognized by most people today, it is not useful as a tool to identify the combatants using the encyclopedia today (and I am not including Canadian war buffs). The actual flag used during the war can be identified in the details of the war articles. 
If the old ensign was widely recognized today as a Canadian war era flag, then it would be OK (e.g. most everyone today recognizes the war era Nazi German flag with the swastika, which is why it can be used to identify war era Germany... and diplomatically separate it from modern Germany). Unfortunately the Canadian war era flag is not recognizable outside of groups that are well versed in the subject already.  So I doubt _any_body who is not Canadian would recognize it as Canadian at all and might miss the entry in the list, which would be bad as Canada was one of the major combatants. In fact, I am sure the majority of Canadians below the age of 50 would not quickly recognize the old ensign that Canada used as a flag during the war (and likely not recognize it as representing Canada at all). As time goes by, this increases. The new flag came into being in the 1960s and so someone even in their 40s or early 50s might not quickly recognize the old ensign as designating Canada as they would have been quite young at the time of change. I missed the Canadian listing at first because I was looking for the flag I recognized (and I am quite well versed in Canadian war history). I identified the old ensign for what it was _after_ I went back over the list again, which defeats the purpose of putting the flag there in the first place.
Theshowmecanuck 21:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I am inclined towards the Red Ensign, which itself looks to be quite notable in history; I don't recall from History class, but see Great Flag Debate. And this is a history template, which should be representative of the period. Although it may slow navigation (only for those who look down the flag column, not those who skim the names quickly), an educational purpose is served by an unrecognized flag being there as well. It should be well-known that Canada was in the war. Pomte 18:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *One of the purposes of the Military History Project at Wikipedia is to promote an accurate understanding of history. It is historically inaccurate to replace the flag that was used during World War II with a flag that didn't come into use until the 1960s, that no Canadian soldier in that war would recognize. Shibumi2 01:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * Revert back.  If we use flags, they have to be the flags of the era that the event took place in.  Should Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union be represented by the flags of their modern counterparts?  Why Canada and not them?  What will we do about nations that no longer exist (like the Ottoman Empire in World War I)?  I find your reasoning inadequate, especially when the flag is right beside the name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oberiko (talk • contribs) 13:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * I believe it's not about people who were in the war, or about people who know the history of the war.  I am thinking about wikipedia users who are looking to learn about the war. The users live today, and identify countries today.  The article on the war has the info.  It is obvious that if the nations no longer exist, you use the last available flag.  However, I concede that there is merit in showing the old flag if this is a template that is always shown in context of world war II articles where the user should expect to see the historical representation.  Theshowmecanuck 16:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * On balance, I'd say use the flags from the period, since they're followed by the countries' names. I think only one of these – Czechoslovakia – has changed since that time. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian Flag

message: Would Treatment of Polish citizens by occupiers be a good addition to civilian side of the template?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition?

message: Would articles related to the Manhattan Project (which eventually produced Little Boy and Fat Man be relevant to this template? The project had in mind as its goal development of a nuclear weapon, which was eventually used. I have not added this to the template. Should it be part of it? AEMoreira042281 15:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Manhattan Project relevance?

message: Wow, you guys seems to be doing a good job keeping this infobox managable, while retaining it's informativeness. Compared to the infobox at the top of the WW2 article (which was originally very easily edited from the article, as it was a template that took about a dozen or more optional parameters and layed everything out "behind the scenes". This resulted in an edit-war-like condition regarding who should be included/excluded in the list of combatants.
I would ask how the list of involved countries on this template came into being without NPOV getting thrown around. Xaxafrad 17:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV accussations, and the evolution of infoboxes 

message: Shouldn't the Main theatres include Western Europe linking to Western Front (World War II) instead of the current Europe linking to European Theatre of World War II? The current link to ET covers the Western Front, Eastern Front (so duplication) and parts of the Mediterranean (so once again duplication).--Caranorn 17:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Link replaced. The general European Theatre of World War II could be kept, but it overlaps with the more specific articles. I guess it should be placed at the very left if someone feels it should be left in. –Pomte 21:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Europe or Western Europe 

message: What principle is used for the order of entries in the participant list.
Right now it's rather confusing, alphabetically the Soviet Union is indeed before the United States, but the United Kingdom should then be moved up one notch. Not to speak of France and Free France before Poland, heck Australia would then be first in the list.
If some kind of weighting for the political role is used (which I'd agree with) then Poland should be bellow the entries for France and Free France. Most sensible would probably be separation into major and minor states (yes that would once again create different disputes) with each group organised alphabetically.
Lastly one could use chronology though at that point one might debate whether the lists should start with China and Japan or Poland and Germany.
Anyhow the current situation seems rather confusing.--Caranorn 13:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  participants list 

message: The SU was German ally till 1941. Current template suggests it cooperated with the Western Aliies since 1939 - it didn't.Xx236 11:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But then again the Soviet Union was allied to France and indirectly Poland until 1939 when Poland refused military access in case of war... The reasons for the Hitler-Stalin Pact are too complex to resume it with Soviet Union an ally of Nazi Germany.--Caranorn 12:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SU since 1941 

message: In a manner similar to Ante Pavelic’s Croatia, Serbia was also governed from 1941 until 1945 by an Axis ally, the Serbian general Milan Nedić. So if Croatia is on the list of Axis Powers, I think Serbia should be there, too.--MaGioZal 08:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Serbia added

message: No suppreses here then. There is no mention of the South-East Asian Theatre of World War II, but then the Fourteenth has always been known as the Forgotten Army -- Philip Baird Shearer 17:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Forgotten Army 

message: How can Japan have entered the Second World War before 1939, if the war started in 1939. Japan was at war with China before WW2, and when the war started, the fighting continued and the fight between the Japanese and Chinese became apart of the war. Japan was not fighting a world war before 1939. TheGoodSon 14:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan in the second world war 

message: This template contibues to improve, but there's a couple of omissions that (IMO) qualify for inclusion - Battle of the Atlantic (critical to the UK's survival and Overlord) and Malta (convoys needed to sustain a critical forward base). I'd add them but they both covered several years, so I'm unsure how the timeline could be adapted. Perhaps the consensus is against me? Folks at 137 20:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Omissions

message: For your edit. This is vandalism and doing nonsense if you don't provide sources. 168.253.18.31 01:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grant64 please provide sources now!

message: What is that about. What makes person put germany under 1939. Didn't they (japan, italy, germany) create the "axis Powers" on the tripartite pact. What did germany do to be on 1939? Is that the anti-comintern pact. Stop trying to make germany look militant and extremist and negative, just because of hitler. 67.41.157.5 Need really source now! or all three nations will be put under tripartite pact at first.
:Poland, United Kingdom, France, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada fought against aggressor since 1939. Can you explain who was this mysterious aggressor if Germany entered in 1940? Piotr Mikołajski 06:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So is Japan invading China in 1937, but that doesn't make Germany join axis powers in 1939. That's not formal, that's just a guess. In that pretense, Japan started axis powers in 1937 67.41.157.5 02:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This template talks about World War Two, not about "legal issues of Axis". With your approach all countries mentioned above fought against ghost or another mysterious enemy, because Third Reich joined war in 1940. Look at history of this template and one of my edits - several weeks ago this template had much more sense and was informative, current version brings disinformation and is senseless. Piotr Mikołajski 05:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not making sense. Are you saying that Nazi Germany founded Axis Powers?67.41.157.5 07:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: So, because the "Axis" didn't formally exist until 1940(?), it's argued that the term can't be used for combatants before then (although it's a commonly understood tag for the nations opposing the "allies"). Is that the point? It's a bit fussy. The table seeks to reflect the year in which combatants became involved - not when formal agreements were made. What alternative tags could be used? We could use "Fascist" or "Agressor", but there are probably quibbles with these. Does User 67.41.157.5 have a proposal? Otherwise, I agree that "Axis" is an understood term for a particular group of nations during WWII - I think User 67.41.157.5 is being pedantic. Folks at 137 18:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why Germany is in 1939. My suggestion is put 1937 put Japan, then 1939 Germany. That seems fair. I don't understand this. Who decides Japan wasn't involved in axis powers until 1940? If the same rationale is used to put 1939 Germany, Japan should be put under 1937, right? You get the idea? This whole ordering seems POV and little hypocritical. 67.41.157.5 00:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with 96T's views and action. For me, it comes down to accepted and widely understood names. In the 1930s and early 1940s, there were continental wars: Sino-Japanese from 1937 and a European one from 1939 (which included European possessions in Africa). I don't think these became truly a "world war" until the Japanese attacked the US and European possessions and Germany declared war on the US. That said, I have yet to see a reputable (or other) historian or text that that doesn't quote September, 1939 as its start. User:67.41.157.5 latest comment confuses me since it seems self-contradictory - clearly I've missed something. OTH, How come Japan at war from 1937, yet China only from 1941?! Folks at 137 04:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some people keep putting germany in 1939