Talk:World War II/Archive Photos

message: There is a gross amount of pictures in this article which not only makes it hard to read but makes it look like a picture book. Someone within the last month added a lot of pictures and simply made the article look terrible. I only cleaned up a couple that were the least importance pertaining to the articles content but someone needs to go through and remove non-important pictures. These clutter up the article so bad that if you're viewing wikipedia with 800x600 resolution, you won't be able to read it at all. I'm also adding this to the to-do list because it is pretty bad. Ddahlberg 15:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: What has Rotterdam to do with London? (Different battles.) Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both photos show strategic bombing or its effects, I'm ambivalent either way but we don't need both. Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: Why? Are you trying to say that Crete was smaller than Dieppe? Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not but we need to be selective and we already have a number of German soldier photos.Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: Unqualified keep. But other pictures are removed of much greater events. Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put this as a keep so we'd have at least one  minor ally photo. I'm not that fussed though. And no - I'm not trying to say that Dieppe was bigger than Torch, crete, El Alamein, Cologne and Warsaw. Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: Why? Are you trying to say that Alamein was smaller than Dieppe? Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Crete above (same goes for Torch).Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: Why? Are you trying to say that Torch was smaller than Dieppe? Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: Why? This is a great picture, and an important event. Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: Why? I thought there was only one (photo of Germans at Citadel). Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant we only need one photo for this section - Kursk etc. Personally I find the Soviet picture more interesting but it's no biggie. Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: Why? Are you trying to say that Cassino was smaller than Dieppe? Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're going to have a lot of destroyed town photos and this shot could be almost anywhere. A photo of the destroyed monastery however would be more recognisable. Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: Why? Are you suggesting that raid on Dieppe was bigger than the destruction of a major world city? Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: Why? Again, are you suggesting that raid on Dieppe was bigger than the destruction of a major world city? Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: Why remove one of the most important pictures? Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's already in the montage at the very top of the page.Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: A memorable pic. Please don't touch. Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost all of the photos are memorable, but you're right we should show the liberation of Paris somehow. Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: Not minor. You may be not familiar with this battle. Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Operational commanders don't need to be shown in this article which is about the whole war. If we are going to show Peiper then surely we should show Montgomery, Eisenhower, Patton, Slim, Mountbatten, Aucheinleck Rommel etc. Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. Peiper is such a character that they based a whole film around him, namely the "Battle of the Bulge". He is like Custer, maybe a minor commander, but a noteable one. Of the group you mention, Montgomery, Eisenhower, Patton, Slim, Mountbatten, Aucheinleck Rommel, the odd one out is Rommel, as he is not a victor. The losing commanders are often more interesting and remembered more in history. Shakespeare writes about losers not winners. Wallie 05:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: Need pictures of major figures. Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As with some of the other pairs I'm not too fussed about which one we keep, I'm just trying to keep to one photo per section though. Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: Need pictures of major figures. Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was tempted to say keep but then we'd have the generals problem above, Zhukov on his white horse mgiht be a compromise. Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: Important Soviet pic. Keep. Wallie 06:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: Keep Brad. Need pictures of major figures. Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same reasons as for Zhukov and Peiper. Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: Please no. This is probably the most famous picture of the war. It is represents why the war was being fought. Wallie 06:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Instead of busting a gut over which pictures to keep and which to jettison, why not set up a picture gallery?  It would make the article less cluttered, yet provide illustrations for the subject.  Heck, World War II is a big enough subject to warrant an encyclopedia of its own, so why try to water it down to two or three pages of print?  Words alone will never do the subject justice.—QuicksilverT @ 17:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good comment. Thank you. Wallie 18:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the picutures that are removed were really iconic and also there are too many american pictures and not enough russian pictures. We need to sort this out. 72.140.14.106 02:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gross amount of pictures