Talk:World War II

Latest comment: 7 hours ago by 39.52.132.83 in topic End date of the war
Former featured article candidateWorld War II is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleWorld War II has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 18, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 22, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 20, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
January 26, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 13, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 18, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 25, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 17, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 23, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
April 14, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
October 8, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 10, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
March 6, 2010Good article nomineeListed
April 25, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
January 13, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of December 18, 2005.
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article


Sections

edit

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)Reply

seems reasonable JackTheSecond (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply

dates for photos

edit

@Goszei and Alexeyperlov: 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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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 [1] to see more information about it. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 15:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2024

edit
Jakebaboo (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I wish to edit this wikipedia page due to a misconception. Hirohito was a pacifist and He doesn't want any wars. Please change it to Hideki Tojo.

  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)Reply

The term in foreign tongues

edit

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)Reply

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)Reply

Raising_a_flag_over_the_Reichstag_600x778.png to Raising_a_flag_over_the_Reichstag_-_Restoration.jpg?

edit

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)Reply

I've now uploaded a cropped version that would probably be more useful. Salmoonlight (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

End date of the war

edit

@Aemilius Adolphin My edits do have to with the end date of the war, the sentence is about the last individual combatants to surrender, if this is not relevant I don't see how the 1990 treaty is. ManU9827 (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The formal termination of a war is a matter of binding agreements (armistices, treaties, diplomatic relations, etc) between the belligerents which are recognised in international law. The date that particular military units or individuals surrender to the victors has nothing to do with it. The 1990 treaty regarding the two Germanys is relevant because of the anomally that Nazi Germany had two successor states recognised in international law. There might be a place somewhere in the article for content on which were formally the last units of each Axis power to surrender, but it would need much better sourcing based on more rigorous scholarship than one book and a Times article. But let's see what other editors think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Tiny groups of combatants and individuals surrendering well after the end of the war doesn't need to be covered in this article given it's the top level article on the war. The circumstances that delayed these surrenders were all weird and they made no difference whatsoever to the war's outcomes. The bigger story is that many millions of German and Japanese troops stopped fighting when their leaders told them to. Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
If not a full sentence in the page it atleast warrents a note (perhaps at the end of the "history" section). Japanese holdouts were a well documented phenomenom and recived major news coverage (such as when Hiroo Onoda surrendered) and are therefore a notable event. ManU9827 (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The numbers of Japanese holdouts were tiny, so they are outside the scope of this article. Please don't post multiple times in this tread - it's really confusing, and rude. Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I can certainly find other citations from the respective pages for the units, its just a matter of if it should be included. ManU9827 (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Read wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
so crazy 39.52.132.83 (talk) 10:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

European Union to the aftermath of WWII?

edit

I was wondering should EU be mentioned in the aftermath? Of course the first treaty of EU was in the 50s, but the fundamental basis for EU was after WWII to make war between France and Germany economically and materially impossible, and to intertwine the economies to that war would not occur between member states. Now EU is a major political entity. I think there might be merit to mention beginning of EU in the aftermath part? 88.113.71.31 (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

A bit of a stretch, I think. There was a lot of socio-economic restructuring directly or indirectly as a result of WWII. The purpose of this article is to give a general overview of the war itself. There are many branch articles dealing with peripheral events. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I support this addition.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The EU was formed in 1993, which is a long way from being part of the immediate afterwath of WWII. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
We are talking about the predecessors of the EU. Jack Upland (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Which ones, precisely? All of them up to 1993? There is a separate article about that. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
European Coal and Steel Community (1951) and European Economic Community (1957, treaty still in force), which were founded with the idea of uniting European countries to prevent another WWII like war. These are the fundamental predecessors with the specific intent of uniting European countries and thus laid the groundwork to European Union of today. 88.113.71.31 (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Treaty of Rome, which was signed in 1957, is still one of the treaties making up the fundamental structure of EU. European Coal and Steel Community was founded in 1951 and merged with Treaty of Rome in the 60s. What was changed in 1993 was the name of the entity. It was changed from European Community to European Union. [The Schuman Declaration](https://en.luquay.com/wiki/Schuman_Declaration) date from 1950 is still celebrated as the "national day" of EU.88.113.71.31 (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
There's a good case to add a sentence or two on this. Could someone please propose draft text with supporting references that make the link to European integration being a legacy of the war? Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Combatant section in Infobox

edit

I propose that in the section of the Infobox where it lists which countries took part in the war, that rather than just saying "Allies" and "Axis" we insert a close-able list which when opened will show all the countries that took part. What do you think? Zakary2012 (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The current infobox reflects the results of literally dozens of discussions. There has never been much support for what you propose. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply