File talk:WWI-re.png

message: Guys, where can I find the source vector files of this map?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibananti (talk • contribs) 18:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original vector files 

message: No, that's map is wrong!
The map includes Mongolia as part of China, but not Tuva. Although Russia seems to have annexed Tuva in 1914, I don't think this move was recognized by anyone, so the area (Tuva) should at least be "contested". Yaan (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which was more recognized, russian tuva or chinese tuva?--Jakezing (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tuva 

message: I see that Bolivia and Uruguay are neutral but actully joined the Allies.Should Uruguay and the Other Latin American countries that took place in the war in green?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SovietRussia321 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin American Countries 

message: Ok wtf, how the hell is the Central Powers be able to hold of more than 50 contries? I do say thats WRONG!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.147.143 (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uhhh... 

message: It's misleading to show countries that swichted sides, like Italy, in the same group as countries which remained on the same side throughout the war. It would make sense to have four categories - Alliance, Entente, Both, and Neutral.
Thought should also be given to giving a different shading to countries which were colonies of the great powers, as the colonies were not countries in their own right at that point in history.
24.138.9.131 (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add another category 

message: Japan attacked German colonies in Germany yet had no connection with neither the central powers or allies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.114.33 (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Co belligerents 

message: Persia was jointly occupied by Britian and Russia from the start of World War I.--J intela (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Persia

message: Albania should not be coloured green; it didn't have government enough to align itself either way, and should thus be coloured grey. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albania 

message: Darfur should be coloured in as Central Powers as it was a cobelligerent and had a defined territory. It formally declared war against Great Britain.XavierGreen (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Darfur

message: I think that imperial colonies should be marked separately from sovereign nations with a different colour tone. This map leaves the impression that the whole world ganged up on the Central Powers, which really is not the case.
By my definition a colony would be a political entity whose participation in the war was decided by another government. Canada, for example, would count as a colony because it automatically went to war with Great Britain, even thought it was ostensibly sovereign. The sub-national entities of the Ottoman Empire, Austro-Hungary, Russia, Great Britain, France, and China would not considered a 'colony' if they were administered as an integral territory of the ruling nation.theBOBbobato (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now there are several states and other entities possessing territory that are not shown on the map but were aligned with the central powers. The basic problem is that these entities and states that are not currently shown were either claimed by other states or controlled by other states at the start of the war. 
For example the Zaian Confederacy and the Senussi controlled large portions of Morocco and Libya respectively but each never claimed to be an independent state and the territories they controlled were claimed by Italy at the start of the war. Then there are the cases of states like the Republic of South Africa and Azerbaijan which at the start of the war were part of other states and whos territories were in a state of flux. While Azerbaijan survived WWI, the South African Republic was defeated and what little territory it controlled was overrun by the Dominion of South Africa.XavierGreen (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differentiation of colonies 

message: I dont see any reason why these should not be included on the page, given that one Jabal-Shammar is shown on the map currently as a neutral when this was clearly not the case. Of all the co-belligerents on either side only three were exant as states before the war, Jabal Shammar, the Dervish, and Darfur. All the other cobelligerent states, Armenia, Hejaz, Asir, Azerbajian, ect, were formed after the war began. Thus i see two options, include only cobelligent states that were extant before the war or include them all. If we decide to include them all, they would have to be hashed to differentiate that they were not in existance when the war began. I do not think that non-state co-belligents (ie: Senussi / African tribal insurgencies) / states that were declared but occupied no territory (ie: South African Republic, Provisional Government of Ireland) should be included, or if they are be designated by a dot on the page reflecting their allegiance similar to how dots are used to denote occupation on the ww2 map.XavierGreen (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Co-belligerents