Talk:World War II

message: ===Additional Reading===
*
* ThomasB15223 (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: where exactly should these go and why them and not the countless others that can easily be found? M.Bitton (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. TylerBurden (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2024 

message: *
* ThomasB15223 (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: where exactly should these go and why them and not the countless others that can easily be found? M.Bitton (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. TylerBurden (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Reading

message: @Slatersteven lets discuss here.
Sorry, I didn't see your edit reverting me since I was already working on my next one.
Please explain why you reverted my edits and we can go from there Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see what value your mass edit has. We do not need all that in the lede, people can read the article and know who the great powers were. Nor do we need links to words like civilian. Simply put there were too many changes that were problematic to single one to. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That note was because, in order to say that all the great powers were involved, it's not unreasonable to say who we are saying was involved. And whats wrong with linking to civilian. Understanding what a civilian is is pretty important to know what the sentence means@Slatersteven Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We do, the info box, and the body and in wiki links in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Info box says main leaders, not great powers. should we change it. And how about my other things@Slatersteven Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Participants. Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no place in the article saying what the Great powers of the time where, and that they were great powers. And how about everything else, if that was your only issue can I reinstate the rest of my edit@Slatersteven Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: As as I said there were just too many issues (one other of which I have already mentioned). Also who said these are the great powers? Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: List of modern great powers does, and it is quite well referenced. And I can't fix things if you don't tell me what you don't like@Slatersteven Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not an RS, and I did say at least one other, but OK. Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We aren't, but what I am saying is that that articles claim of them being a great power are backed up by sources. I know that if we wanted to actually cite we would need to get the citations from the article, not cite it, but for the purposes of this discussion can you just lookat that article. And I told you my reason for the civilian thing but you never responded@Slatersteven Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually that list does not seem well sourced, which sources says Italy was a great power? Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually thats a great point, it seems a bit borderline but in it (Least of the great powers)@Slatersteven Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Also, when you're making "lots of changes" to a somewhat stable, essentially complete article, it's best to explain in the edit summary what kinds of changes you're making and why. If the changes are hard to explain, then I've found it's best to break down into separate edits with their own explanations. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 16:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that's fair. Per WP:Work in Progress articles aren't done.@StefenTower Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

text: "they are meant only where people might not know what we mean" - that's true of all links and useless. every link in the article someone added is because someone might not know what they mean, and everything link could be linked under the possibly that someone doesn't know what it means. didn't know about the only linking once. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: See wp:overlinking. Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

text: In fairness, we are the 2 people with a dispute, so it's not unreasonable that we are the 2 main people discussing. Also, didn't know about the overlinking. Means I probably shouldn't have linked civilian, but I think some of those links still make sense. And I still think we should change it from "Main Powers" to "Great Powers" in the infobox to clarify or reinsert my footnote. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion About My Changes To The Article 

message: We link in the section on the start of the war to the invasion Poland, and to Poland, nor do we need to say when it started as we already do, we do not need it again. Nor do we need a link to civilian, or indeed most of the other wiki links you created, they are meant only where people might not know what we mean. We also need to only link once to a page. That is just the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "they are meant only where people might not know what we mean" - that's true of all links and useless. every link in the article someone added is because someone might not know what they mean, and everything link could be linked under the possibly that someone doesn't know what it means. didn't know about the only linking once. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: See wp:overlinking. Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

text: In fairness, we are the 2 people with a dispute, so it's not unreasonable that we are the 2 main people discussing. Also, didn't know about the overlinking. Means I probably shouldn't have linked civilian, but I think some of those links still make sense. And I still think we should change it from "Main Powers" to "Great Powers" in the infobox to clarify or reinsert my footnote. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: lede

message: Since the entire article is about an historical event, could the History section be divided into sections "Background", "Pre-War Events", and "Course of the War"? There is no body text under "History" so I wonder if it is redundant. Aspets (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: seems reasonable JackTheSecond (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also already there, there is text under history, subdivided into sections (such as pre-war events and background). Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: I'm with User:Alexeyperlov regarding the dates: Things were changing fast enough during World War II that I think the extra characters providing month and day as well as year makes it easier for readers to understand the flow of events. DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, including the month or day in captions for images in the collage is an excessive level of detail, especially for images in an infobox. Identifying the Stuka photo as taken on 22 December 1943 or the Matilda one as 18 November 1941, rather than just the year, doesn't provide much additional benefit to the reader. — Goszei (talk)  05:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of research where dates may be needed, or where the photos are used and more detailed attribution is necessary, the exact dates may be useful. Alexeyperlov 12:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find out more about any picture in Wikipedia by clicking on it and then choosing the "More details" button that appears at the bottom right of the screen. If you do that with the picture of the Matilda tank, second in the montage that appears at the top of the page, you will see that it is a picture from the Imperial War Museum and you can then follow that link to  to see more information about it. ThoughtIdRetired  TIR 15:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  dates for photos 

message: Jakebaboo (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. His involvement in the war is well documented at Hirohito#Accountability for Japanese war crimes. Liu1126 (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2024 

message: I wonder why no one has added such a topic. So, the Finnish name of that war mean "the war of the sky and the earth", and other tongues have their own meaningful words for both WW. --Tamtam90 (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This article provides a general overview, and is not meant to cover every possible detail. It might be suitable for a separate article, properly done. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term in foreign tongues 

message: I was going to replace the current low-resolution version of Raising a flag over the Reichstag but the restored image made the collage borders thinner and inconsistent. Would it still be worth it? Salmoonlight (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now uploaded a  that would probably be more useful. Salmoonlight (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raising_a_flag_over_the_Reichstag_600x778.png to Raising_a_flag_over_the_Reichstag_-_Restoration.jpg?