Talk:World War I

Commanders and leaders

I think the Italian leader should be changed to Victor Emmanuel III since he was King of Italy for the whole duration of the war. Orlando was only Prime Minister for about the last year of the war. Also, since both British leaders are listed, I also think that Charles I of Austria should also be listed since Franz Joseph I died about halfway through the war. Does anyone have any thoughts? 2601:84:847F:2DF0:8C37:7D5:223:722 (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, entries need to be supported by the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

So based on this policy, it seems Yoshihito for Japan should be removed as well because he is not mentioned in the article anywhere. Alexysun (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Raymond Poincaré is also not mentioned in the article anywhere. Removing from infobox for now. Alexysun (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 Though there is actually this rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules (Wikipedia:Ignore all rules) Alexysun (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:IAR comes with caveats. Without the body of the article evidencing why the a commander/leader was key or significant, the reader has no idea why a particular person appears in the infobox. The caveats of WP:IAR would not be met. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 Would you like to remove Raymond Poincaré from the infobox then? Alexysun (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You should only ignore rules if you have a good reason. We're saying the rule exists for a good reason and you don't have a better one, unfortunately. Remsense诉 02:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

We should stop restricting certain people from being on the infobox because of the article and instead add certain people to the article so they can be on the infobox. In no way am I saying that random people can be added to the article and as a result be added to the infobox, but people significant to the war, such as Victor Emmanuel III, should be added. That way we can have Italy's actual leader instead of a general like Cadorna who's placement alongside the other allied leaders is very out of place. BrickIsGone (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

If you want to improve the balance of the article, that's great. The issue is an overfixation by editors on the infobox without care for how it's meant to summarize the article. Remsense ‥ 论 00:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Ditto. But we don't go putting the horse before the cart. Furthermore, the article should evidence how they were key and significant and not just a passing mention that they held a particular position. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Well yeah, that's exactly what I mean. Adding the actual leaders to the article in a meaningful way that shows how they were important, so that they can be put on the infobox. BrickIsGone (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I am thinking similarly. I was wondering why the leader of Italy is not listed in the infobox. Alexysun (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I would remove all commanders and leaders from the info box. The info box is meant to be the highest level summary of key information. It isn't meant to present complex and disputed information. Wikipedia:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The very fact that we have knowledgeable editors disputing who were the most important commanders and leaders for most belligerents indicates that this is a matter of opinion. Where are the citations from reliable sources supporting each of the people included? For example, the consensus of historians is that Hindenburg and Ludendorff were the real leaders of Germany during WWI so why aren't they top of the list in the info box? We either have no commanders and leaders in the info box or we have a section in the article on commanders and leaders with full citations which then can be summarised in the info box. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

My position has been that the article (and how often an individual is mentioned) indicates who should be in the infobox. But this and other parameters in the infobox are optional. I don't have a problem with your position either - ie that (in this case) it is too complex for the infobox to simplistically capture. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Commanders and leaders 2

Robert Nivelle as a leader of France is simply wrong 2A02:1388:15A:963D:0:0:2CFC:25F7 (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Following the successes at Verdun, Nivelle was promoted to commander-in-chief of the French armies on the Western Front in December 1916. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

And he was later removed from command in May 1917. At the very least, adding Joffre or Foch would suffice, as they were commander-in-chief for longer periods of time. Cesspool135 (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

So it is not wrong, just not ma complete picture? Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Far from it. Nivelle could be included in a more detailed list, but he should absolutely not be considered most important/consequential Frenchman in the war. Cesspool135 (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Clemenceau would make more sense, if the paragraph was edited to mention him his role in the the latter part of the war andaswelleas Treaty of Versailles, then he could be added to the infobox. BrickIsGone (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Clemenceau would make some sense. I am also starting to think that it would be best to just link to the lists of Allied and Central Powers leaders instead of constantly arguing over who should be in the infobox. Cesspool135 (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Why is Nivelle still listed? Cesspool135 (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

He was french cinc for a period. Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Only a short time though. Cesspool135 (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

So, as far as I know duration is not a reason not to list someone. Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue goes back to the first conversation, the list is a bit of a mess, we list nonmilliary leaders, but no generals (such as the UK). Military leaders but no political leaders (such as Italy). Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

That is why I believe it would be best to leave a link to the lists on each side. Cesspool135 (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Surely the issue is who we include, not where we go to, to look at it? Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I just think that a separate article would do a better job of explaining than just the infobox. And since there are so many people who could be considered "leaders" of their respective countries, it would be best to avoid arguments and compromise by listing them all on a separate page. Cesspool135 (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You do not require ours or anyone's permission to start a separate article, as long as Wikipedia standards are maintained. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Said articles already exist, I am simply asking for them to be linked in the "leaders" section of the infobox (and that nothing else be listed there). If I get permission to make the edit I will do just that. Cesspool135 (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

If I don't get a response or no revisions to remove Nivelle are made, I will make the changes myself. Cesspool135 (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Could it be a good idea to split off the military leaders to a separate article? That gives more room for the changing commanders and space for a better recognition of the military leaders per front. The Banner talk 22:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Definitely a good idea. Cesspool135 (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

See my comments above. It would be a better idea to start with a sub-heading on Commanders and Leaders in this article. If the section got too big it could be then split off. That's the usual procedure. In the meantime, the Commanders and Leaders section of the info box should be removed because it is unsourced, disputed and there are no clear criteria for inclusion and exclusion. Another good idea would be to merge the three ongoing Talk threads on this issue. However, I don't have the technical expertise to do so. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Neither do I, though I do support that idea. Cesspool135 (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

new theathre

what about South America? 73.76.106.53 (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Canada???

Wtf????

we lost porportionaly

as much as England yet no mention of Vimy or nfld’s lost the first day of the somme

what geocentric ass wrote this! 156.34.18.35 (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

wp:agf. Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

This article says "Operating as a separate unit for the first time, the Canadian Corps' capture of Vimy Ridge is viewed by many Canadians as a defining moment in creating a sense of national identity", accompanied by a photograph of a Canadian tank and soldiers at Vimy. DuncanHill (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

“The war to end all wars”

My revision altering the introduction of the article from calling this war "the Great War" to "the War to End all Wars" has been reverted.

However, I think the title of "War to End all Wars" is a much more appropriate description of this war than "the Great War", because the first was more widely used at the time. I think we should replace the current title with this. DementiaGaming (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The term "war to end all wars" is discussed in the article. The wording of the lead resulted from extensive discussion and consensus here on the Talk page. Unless a new consensus emerges, the current version will stand. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Also the "war to end all wars" term is wrong because it didn't prevent World War II from happening. So the term "Great War" is more appropiate.84.54.70.120 (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that this term was the most popular way to describe the war during the time. It was a global war that people struggled to understand so they dubbed it the war to end all wars, and the term has since become synonymous with WWI. Besides, this term has its own article and the "Great War" term does not. DementiaGaming (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

No we are not, we just do not think that is relevant to an encyclopedia being written for today's audience, using up-to-date sources. Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

More or less the above, the "war to end all wars" was an aspirational name coined out of a hope that 20 years later was proved to be futile. Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)