Template talk:WW2InfoBox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history
MILHIST This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Temp Templates do not require a rating on the quality assessment scale.


The template is used in this article: World War II.

References[edit]

Footnotes

ar:قالب:معلومات الحرب العالمية الثانية pl:Szablon:II wojna światowa si:සැකිල්ල:තොරතුරුකොටුවදෙවනලෝකයුද්ධය simple:Template:WW2InfoBox


Allies.[edit]

As there has been disagreement as whether to include a "client & puppets" section in the Allied column, this is a poll to gauge consensus.

Anybody is welcome to participate in this discussion. The following editors have been notified on their talk page:

@The ed17:, @Nick-D:, @Srnec:, @Maunus:, @Moxy:, @FkpCascais:, @Rhododendrites:, @0x0077BE:, @Taketa:, @Canterbury Tail:, @Serialjoepsycho:, @Nikhilmn2002:, @Mastercoolio:, @AbelM7:, @CJK:, @The Madras:, @Lothar von Richthofen:, @Brigade Piron:, @Sahehco:, @Whoop whoop pull up:, @The Bushranger:, @Peacemaker67:, @Vecrumba:,


Please post your !vote with a short rationale:

Option 1: Keep the non-independent section in the Allied column[edit]

  • Support No reason to withhold the information that those countries contributed to the allied cause (very substantially in India's case), albeit not as fully sovereign entities. walk victor falk talk 03:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Keep the countries. It is a lot easier seeing the countries who participated in World War II in the column than going to the main page. I'm sure most people already know the main participants (Allies = SU, US, UK, France) and (Axis = Germany, Japan, Italy) and column is helpful in show the other countries that were involve since not everybody might go the main Allies and Axis pages. AbelM7 (talk) 09:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Keep the main countries. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose as this template at present appears to be trying to be all things to all people—therefore bloating linked articles—while instead it should just summarize basic information. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 16:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support if combined with option 5 below per Victor falk's reasoning. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 21:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose At least as now titled. I don't see how you can list in this category without introducing POV issues. What is the threshold for a country to be "non-independent"? --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
It's described accurately by wp:rs and wp:v sources and references, it's just that some nationalists don't like seeing their country being described as in submission to another one. walk victor falk talk 23:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per GenQuest: this leads to not terribly important information being included in the template, and is a disservice to our readers Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Alternative Why not remove the section and display similar to the article on the First World War with the non-independent nations and colonies bullet pointed under the Mother nation/Empire. For example the British Empire *UK, *Canada, *Australia, *New Zealand, *South Africa, *British India etc. or United States *Philippines
    J.Mieszała (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Option 2: Remove the non-independent section in the Allied column and the countries it contains (India, Philippines, Mongolia, Iran)[edit]

  • .Support for the reasons I gave in Option 1. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Option 3: Remove all countries from the infobox and simply link to Allies of World War II and Axis powers[edit]

  • Support - this was the established consensus some time ago until it was unilaterally changed in 2010. Infoboxes should concisely summarize an article, not attempt to contain tons of useless (and in this case, harmful – see my comments below) information. Parsecboy (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - as per below. --Moxy (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Wholeheartedly, best solution of out what is now a complete mess. The Madras (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I'd prefer to keep the major allies in there, but this seems to be the only realistic way of halting the detail bloat. Peter Isotalo 21:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Neither of these articles presents a short overview of Allies and Axis; for a reader just wanting to quickly check if Venezuela was an ally or axis, there is no way of doing so. A possibility would be List of Allies in World War II, in a sortable table form perhaps, but this raises the issue of duplication of content and multiplication of articles with overlapping topics. walk victor falk talk 23:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Clicking a link and searching for "Venezuela" seems pretty quick to me. We even have Venezuela during World War II. I'm going to make the daring assumption that our readers actually come here to read articles, not just briefly scan our infoboxes. Peter Isotalo 23:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • You can't find Venezuela at an eyeglance in "Allies of World War II". It's not mentioned in any section header. I had to do a Ctrl-F to find it mentioned for the first time in passing in section 6.2 (without pipelink), and then linked in the Charter of Nations bullet list in 6.3. walk victor falk talk 23:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Again: Venezuela during World War II. Venezuela was less affected by the war than neutral European countries like Sweden, Spain or Switzerland. Having info like that in an infobox is completely arbitrary. Peter Isotalo 04:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Having Venezuela in the infobox is not what I am suggesting; the point is that now it is evident that Venezuela was not an ally, or at least not important enough to be listed among the 20 first or so. Let's not fools ourselves and pretend there are no costs for the readers associated with this proposal, or not listing combatants would be standard in infoboxes. walk victor falk talk 04:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Including a full list of every formal participant is a completely arbitrary choice. It is entirely based on whether there's a simple "yes/no"-answer and has nothing to do with notability or importance. It's not encyclopedic. Fix the appropriate article instead. Peter Isotalo 05:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This template appears at present to be trying to be all things to all people. It should summarize information, not bloat an article. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 04:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Further exploration and discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of this and other options can be found in this section. walk victor falk talk 06:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is my strong preference. Having lengthy lists of countries (as is the case at present) looks silly, and gives WP:UNDUE weight to minor participants in the war. Having a small number of countries leads to endless arguments about who should be in and who should be out, and in what order they should be listed. Linking only to the central articles as proposed here lets readers with an interest in the topic read the articles and gain a good understanding of the roles the various countries played, and makes the infobox look much better as a bonus. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, the problems Nick highlights are exactly why those of who were active in the discussions back in 2007 and before settled on this option. One needs only dig through the archives of this page and the main WWII talk page to find the mind-numbingly endless discussions over these issues. It's a far better solution to simply link to the main articles on both alliances. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose That would be just boring, although the infobox should, of course, be limited to the main or most significative belligerents. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Reasons of Isotalo--Sahehco (talk)
  • Support per previous consensus (2007-10), though I do note that there is no obvious succinct list on either page. 206.117.89.4 (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I dont think merely listing Axis Powers is representative, Finland a major belligerent power in the war was not part of the axis.XavierGreen (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Not sure what you're opposing here. The proposal is to list neither Axis nor Allied powers, but to merely link to separate articles. Peter Isotalo 01:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - it was always best and simplest idea for a stable solution.--Staberinde (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

A different idea for infobox[edit]

I think that a better solution might be to list the powers listed in the leaders section. That would be USSR, USA, British Empire, and China on one side, and then Germany, Japan, and Italy on the other. Other powers in each alliance can be covered through a blue link to each alliance page stating "and others". On the Axis side there would be a break line with the word co-belligerents in small font, under it listed Finland, and then then a blue link stating "and Others".XavierGreen (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Option 4: Use collapsible lists[edit]

Never a good idea to hide content from users with disabilities and those that dont use a mouse - Best they are there for all to see as they are not linked in the article as per MOS:COLLAPSE - thus a visible link to a page with all of them listed would be best. All that said the country links dont help users understand the topic at hand so no big deal in this case if they are not seem. -- Moxy (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Option 5: 5 Allies + 3 Axis only[edit]


Discussion[edit]

Please post arguments and discuss them here:

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • Comment If the Allied subordinated countries were to be presented as equal in status to fully independent allies while the Axis ones' subordination is very ostensibly pointed out, it would be WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE in the extreme. Not to mention utterly factually incorrect. walk victor falk talk 03:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This would benefit from a lot more context to understand just what, exactly, is being proposed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oops. The first sentence disappeared somehow. Fixed now. walk victor falk talk 03:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not NPOV to observe that there's a difference between a dominion or colony and a puppet state, but yes, I agree with Ed, I can't make sense of this. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Though a commonwealth the Phillipines wasn't actually independent of the United States. Correct me if I'm wrong but it was a US executive order that first entered the Phillipines into the War. (well unless consider that the Phillipines was a part of the USA at the time and the USA was at War.) I'm not sure of the others listed. If they are just like The above they should be removed. If the contention is that the Phillipines was a subordinate equal in status then it would be necessary to provide a reliable source to show that.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It's not about the status of individual countries (the consensus after the archived debate above was that India was not an independent country), but whether they should be categorized as non-independent in the allied column. walk victor falk talk 04:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
      • It is about the status. The Phillipines was a part of the United States. As far as non-indpendnent, if you want to make a list like that then go ahead and put down Tennessee. It was non-independnet and had an impact on the war.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd suggest trimming this list (and the list of Axis countries) very heavily to get rid of the minor countries which played no significant part in the war (Luxembourg, Cuba (!), Mexico, etc). This would get rid of Mongolia and all the Axis puppets (none of which was actually a significant state) and solve most of the problem here. It seems a bit silly to list India as being in any way independent of the UK at this time (the British Government in India was not an independent body in the same way that the dominion governments were, and key policies were set in London). Nick-D (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a very wide spectrum of opinion among editors over what countries to include, from "5 Allies + 3 Axis" to "every country that that had shot a soldier or had one killed" (see the archives). A natural consensus has evolved, with disagreements about whether (allied) countries are just above or just below that de facto line (or lines, they are different for the allied and axis columns). walk victor falk talk 11:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The infobox was capped at 5&3 for a very long time and for good reason - it prevented these silly arguments from taking place every few weeks when someone's favorite country wasn't included. Remember that infoboxes should generally be as simple as possible, since they are meant to highlight only the most important aspects of the topic. Including every minor country that participated in some way or fashion in the war does not serve that purpose, and more problematically, it obscures the fact that the vast majority of the fighting was done by the USSR, USA, UK (the empire and dominions included), China, and France versus Germany, Japan, and Italy. Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
One should be open to a discussion on consensus, but not here and now. The 5+3 model was abandoned in 2007, and there were no flags until 2010. Consensus could change again, either to these earlier ones and or to a new one (or stay the same). The results of this poll could provide valuable information on whether to proceed further, if the discussion is a constructive and thoughtful one. Should this be the case, a wider input should be asked from the community with an RfC at wp:milhist and other eventually affected pages/projects. In the meantime, we should focus on the matter at hand, should the allied column include a client & puppet section. walk victor falk talk 13:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the 5&3 model was discarded in 2007, but only for an even more reduced link to the Allies and Axis articles. The current infobox atrocity was put into place only in 2010, at the same time flags were added. The idea that there is something fundamentally different between the question of whether client and puppet states should be included and the question of whether minor independent states should be included is patently false - the two are very obviously related, and your attempt to stifle debate is unwelcome. As for your edit summary, yes, that is why I commented here and did not vote in the section above. Parsecboy (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, then introduce an "Option 3" with your preferred outcome; that's why they are numbered, so that alternative proposals may be introduced as the discussion goes on. walk victor falk talk 14:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── For what it's worth, I have posted a link to this discussion at the MILHIST talk page here. Parsecboy (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment What about putting some or all of the individual countries into an expandable section (as-in a collapsable bit that defaults to hidden). I'm sure I remember seeing that in infobox's in the past (though I can't find any examples at the moment).. Gecko G (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't really address the issue of what countries should be included, and how, and in what order, etc. It's a solution that solves nothing. Parsecboy (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I am just posting this for reference and help people find relevant stuff in the archives, and avoiding recycling arguments. walk victor falk talk 21:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I was directing my comment on Gecko's, not yours. I suppose that wasn't clear. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a horrible template[edit]

  • Point blank Template:WW2InfoBox is horribly large and the country links lead to nothing helpful for our readership. The countries links go to main country articles like Canada and not the main country articles on this topic like Military history of Canada during World War II. The whole template needs to be reworked. As for the list all we need to do is link to Allies of World War II and Axis powers - as templates don't need to have everything in them ...its why we have articles on the topic. -- Moxy (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Very much agreed. Infoboxes should be very brief summaries of the article, not crammed full of extraneous information that does no good (and in this case, much harm, as I pointed out above). It was changed back in 2010 from that format (see the diff I posted in the section above) based on this non-discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I'd like to vote, but I've taken administrator actions here and would like to avoid a conflict of interest. Having said that, removing the countries from the infobox would immediately halt 95% of the contentious and time-wasting discussions here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Re: linking from the flags, I completely agree with you that they should link to the "Military history of X in WWII", it seems certain editors insist that a flag should always link to the modern state unless there has been a regime change. walk victor falk talk 19:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Please don't overwrite others' edits, thank you. Parsecboy (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for that, edit conflict accident.walk victor falk talk 20:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I have notified @Jean-Jacques Georges:, perhaps he could help us by describing the situation then from his point of view. walk victor falk talk 20:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Please clean out the commentary notes, too. Having an infobox full of them is completely pointless if when you have a full article where you can explain those kind of details.

Peter Isotalo 21:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. Personally, I don't think the template should link to articles like "Military History of XX during World War II". If Nazi Germany is listed as a belligerent, I, as a reader, prefer to have direct access to informations about the belligerent themselves (i.e., have info about Kingdom of Greece, not to the Military history of Greece during World War II. Such specialized articles are useful, but in the infobox, they're just annoying. Moreover, it would be impossible to make something coherent : Military history of Germany during World War II actually redirects to Nazi Germany !
As for the list of belligerents : it might be a little too long, so a few countries might be removed. But having just "Axis" and "Allies" without listing the main belligerents was just boring and frustrating. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Just to take another example : in Second Sino-Japanese War, the belligerents, in the infobox, point to Republic of China and Empire of Japan. If I want to learn about the Republic of China and the Empire of Japan, I don't want the links to point to "Military history of China" or "Military history of Japan". The "Military history" articles should be in a template like Template:WWII history by nation, not in the belligerent's infobox. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
So just to be clear here you think its best to link generic country articles over the articles about the topic at hand? You think our readers would like to be linked to the articles about the modern states over the articles about the conflict? Is this correct? Can you explain how linking to Kingdom of Greece over Military history of Greece during World War II is helpful to our readership in understanding this topic? Sure this is beneficial to our readers ...that is sending them on a wild goose chase to find the related articles? -- Moxy (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The custom is to link to the appropriate historical state, for example as a combatant in a Napoleonic campaignbox, France should link to Napoleonic France, and not France. So in this box it links to Third Republic. So the US, UK, & Co. point to United States, United Kingdom, etc. This logic is appropriate for most campaignboxes (link to modern states in modern wars, historical states in historical wars), but my opinion is that WWII is different or unique, being modern enough yet clearly historical, on the cusp between the two.
    Most countries have an "X in World War II" article, as I noted in my reply to you above. Those who don't have a "Military History of X in WWII", that's FI, ZA, NZ, CA, AU, US, UK.
    The question is, should we apply the unmodified standard? I for one would think they should point to "Military History of X in WWII" and not the modern states. walk victor falk talk 18:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I never noticed that most are like this (World War I) - very odd the main country articles are not linked at all from the main pages. This is somthing that has to be fixed - that is not orphaning the country articles from the main article on the topic. -- Moxy (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Why there is no magical options that will ever give everybody everything they want and a pony[edit]

Those are not considered problematic for one reason only: there are not as high profile as the WWII one. Despite this, the nature of the problem is of very narrow scope. There has been no problems on the Axis side, because it happens that the maximum number of combatants from a page layout point of view, approximately two dozens, happens to be more or less the number of all Axis combatants that could possibly be included.

On the Allied side, on the other hand, there are 50 or 60 possible theoretical candidates. Nevertheless, the combatant list has been remarkably stable over time, both in which are included and their ordering. The sole source of disagreement is who makes it above or below the cut-off threshold.

From a user perspective, this is of absolutely minimal impact: Iran might replace Cuba, which in turn might be replaced by another country a few weeks later, but there is no problem from an encyclopedic point of view, wikipedia is meant to be dynamic and not meant to present anything as definitive.

Any problem is purely editorial: this is where palliative remedies should be sought, as there can be no cure that can do away with source of the symptoms, the abnormally high profile. In this context, Option 3 is amputation for treating a chaffing blister.

Before we turn to that, less drastic avenues should be explored:

  1. Semi-protected: Yes check.svg Done This has however only been in effect for a month, so it can't be evaluated yet.
  2. Enforce WP:1RR: I would very strongly support this. This gives time to discuss matters. It's no big deal if El Salvador or Nicaragua are at the bottom of the list for 24hrs, and there are enough people on the watchlist that listing Switzerland as an Ally will be promptly reverted even if someone insists.
  3. Hidden comments: Telling people with <!-- --> brackets that adding, reordering or removing combatants is contentious, and encouraging people to check the talk page. Which brings us to the next point:
  4. Presenting all the recurring arguments in the archives. There's quite a lot to wade through, and the same discussions keep being repeated. A subpage Template_talk:WW2InfoBox/issues linked on top of the talk page listing all problems with different options, organized in a methodical and easy to overview way and providing a platform for long-term discussion instead of the occasional flaring-up of the same issues as happens now.

I'm sure that's not an exhaustive list. Any other suggestions are welcome. walk victor falk talk 06:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I consider most of the other examples problematic. The Thirty Year's War is particularly bad. Where did you get the idea that everyone is okay with them?
Overall, I'd say this is wasting a lot of valuable time and effort. The amount of previous discussion only strengthens the argument for finding a simple solution. A minimal, permanent solution should be worked out as soon as possible so we don't have to keep arguing over what is merely a sideshow.
Peter Isotalo 10:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the two comments above. The World War II article is generally of a much higher standard than the articles on those wars, and its infobox should be as well. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The infobox has always been too simplistic in that the USSR is never listed with the "Axis" because it wasn't an "Axis" signatory. And then there are those that insist the USSR must be atop the Allies because of the losses they suffered, compounding the issue of an inappropriate image of the USSR's role at the outset of WWII. Then at the other end, the smallest contributors, you have for example Latvia, whose citizens were conscripted by both sides, which is generally denounced for fighting with Germany (when it was against Soviet re-invasion, different motivation), but the only official act by the then sovereign authority of the Republic of Latvia was to sign over its merchant marine in service of the Allied cause, in support of which it served with great distinction. I have to agree that the current infobox is lacking. I will give some thought to the proposals and hope to return with some additional suggestions. VєсrumЬа TALK 20:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the problems stem from "Allies" versus "Axis". There is, unfortunately, no fixing that oversimplification. If you strictly observe both, you need four, not two, columns, and at least two sections, not one. Something like...
Allies ◄Supporting Supporting► Axis
4 columns, prior to Germany's attack on the USSR
4 columns, subsequent to Germany's attack on the USSR
...and arranged in chronological order of actively supporting one side or the other in the war. This takes care of the USSR problem, the elephant in the room no one talks about, and can suitably accommodate all other participants. At this point it might make more sense as a "graphic" in the article body, but that's another discussion. VєсrumЬа TALK 21:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Now there's an unusual solution. Why not make an infobox-compatible graphic? It would solve so many issues. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

URGENT! Allies order[edit]

This is most certainly not urgent, nor is it necessary to address this for the five-hundreth time. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UK should without a doubt be before USA and Soviet Union. Here are just a few reasons. There are many more. It is false and inaccurate information that puts UK third when they are widely considered as doing the most. They should be first as if it was not for UK, Axis would of won.

  • UK joined before US and Soviet Union (UK was one of the first countries to declare war on Germany)
  • If it wasn't for UK encouragement USA would likely not of joined WW2.
  • UK participated in more individual stages of the war.
  • The Battle of Britain is widely considered the turning point for the Allies and the star of the fall of the Axis.
  • UK is why Australia, New Zealand, Canada and British India joined WW2. Without them Allies would of almost certainly lost.
  • UK was primary contributor on D-Day (UK was on every beach and Naval Support for Omaha.)
  • Winston Churchill is considered as the primary leader of Allies in WW2.
  • USA's war was centered on Japan and did not focus as much on Germany or Italy as UK
  • Soviet Union was not the wars driving force so should not be first!!!
  • UK being third neglects the millions of lives they lost in WW2.
  • UK helped guide USA in war.
  • For More information contact me on my talk page!

WARNER one — Preceding unsigned comment added by WARNER one (talkcontribs) 15:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


WARNER one, speaking as an Englishman, I find your comments to be an utter embarrassment. I think you need to read up on the relative roles played by a number of other countries, as you are massively misguided on much you have written. It would also be worth your time searching the archives of this page to look at the previous discussions, and see why this particular order is there.n- SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There is already a similar at WWII's talk page. Like i said there, America led the war effort I. The Pacific from the beginning to end of that theater. Once the US entered the war, American commanders were also placed in charge of the European theater. Warner's claim about why the US entered is also fucking ridiculous and shows he shouldn't be taken seriously. Calidum Talk To Me 16:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a moot point about America "leading" the war (Russia would stand a better shout at going top of the list in my book), but that's part of the problem with trying to sort this list in anything but a neutral way: there is no hard and fast "right" way to do it, and anything aside from eg, alphabetical or chronological, will always get someone's back up somewhere. Either way, this has been flogged to death enough, and it certainly shouldn't be the subject of a slow-burn edit war. - SchroCat (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Why not short circuit this nationalistic twaddle and list them alphabetically? To rank them you are comparing apples to oranges to potatoes and there is no fair way to do this since you have to weigh unrelated variables - Russian casualties, American production and the British fighting the longest and in the most places.NiD.29 (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree: date of entry to the war would be my slight preference, but alphabetical would also work. There's no sense in trying to justify their placement in the IB on the rather debatable arguments of either WarnerOne or Calidum, so a neutral factor would be best. - SchroCat (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd go w/chronological order of the 5 major Allies (US, UK, USSR, China & France), though it could be tricky for China & France, followed by chronological order of the other minor Allies. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Chronological order of entry into the war by date of declaration of war makes a lot of sense.NiD.29 (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

<Reduce indent> My only questions would be when would we say China entered the war (they could easily be put 1st) & should minor Allies that declared war earlier be put ahead of major Allies that declared war later? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is the point - the order is not about who was most important, as we will never be able to create a stable consensus on that, - ever. We could make it even clearer by including the date with each country.
China would naturally go first (see Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) for start dates), since it was in a war with Japan, which the US involved itself in by threatening to halt exports of oil and aluminium to Japan, leading to Japan expanding its war to include the US, the UK, the Netherlands, France etc. This wasn't a new war but an expansion of an existing one, although it was originally independent of the war being fought in Europe. Cheers, NiD.29 (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
So, China, then the UK, France & Poland (in whatever order), etc.? I agree w/China going 1st (thus the part about China easily going 1st), but should we also then change the start date of the war?
Instead of including the date, we could just put "Countries listed in chronological order of when they declared war on the Axis powers." inside 1 of those hidden text things (there's currently 1 in the relevant area that says "Do not re-order, this is being discussed"). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd put a hidden note to say it, but also footnote, or comment in the IB, just so people can see the rationale before they click on the edit button. - SchroCat (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
A footnote sounds fine. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Should the Axis powers also be listed in chronological order & if so, should the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War or the date of Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor be used for Japan? For the 1st question, I'm fine either way, but for the 2nd question, I'd use the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War if we decide on using chronological order for the Axis powers. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd follow the chronology of the article (which the IB is supposed to reflect anyway): pre-1939 was a separate set of conflicts until the two wars (European & Eastern) merged in 1941. I'd go with March or July 1941 for Japanese entry. Pearl was a little after their entry to the war, not the start of things. - SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The earliest non-Chinese event I found for Japan was the Japanese invasion of French Indochina in September 1940. I saw nothing in March or July 1941. When would you say China entered the war? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Doh - yes, you're right on the Japan date. Tricky one on China: they had been at war with Japan for several years... - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The trickiness of when China entered the war (along w/what feels like an artificial separation of the Second Sino-Japanese War & World War II) is why I prefer using the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War as the date for when China entered the war. The other possible dates seem to be September 1940 (it sounded like the war w/China played a role in Japan's invasion of French Indochina) or soon after December 7, 1941 (when the US & China would've had official war ties w/each other). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Lol - yes to all those dates as possibles! Let's go with September 1940, along with the Japanese entry? - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
While I prefer 1937, I wouldn't object to September 1940, which would also prevent the headache of when did the war start? Also, would you put minor Allies & Axis powers who declared war 1st ahead of major Allies & Axis powers who declared war later? Personally, I would, but I'm fine either way. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd go with the major Allies (the Allies who became members of the UN Security Council) in chronological order, then the minor Allies in chronological order, and the major Axis states (members of the Tripartite Pact) in chronological order, then the minor Axis states in chronological order. 108.201.218.70 (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This is exactly the kind of useless stupidity that having the list of combatants always generates, and is why we should limit them to links to the respective allies and axis articles. Parsecboy (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Although occupied Vietnam and the Philippines were members of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, did they actually fight against the Allies? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

military leaders[edit]

Wondering about the list of Axis leaders, and the minimal role the Emperor played until the decision to surrender was being made, whether the heads of the Imperial Japanese Navy and Army shouldn't be listed there instead?NiD.29 (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd go with Tojo & his successors as PM if anyone were to replace Hirohito, though I'd probably prefer the PMs & Hirohito. Also, since the French were considered a major member of the Allies, should there be a French leader (or leaders) listed among the Allied leaders (probably De Gaulle, but possibly De Gaulle & Giraud)? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be an order of leaders for each nation, similar to other articles, starting with the Head of State, then Prime Minister (Political Leader) then a few notable Generals/Military Commanders (ex: George VI, Neville Chamberlain, Winston Churchill, Andrew Cunningham, Harold Alexander, Bernard Montgomery). Also including political leaders who held the same post during the war for example Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt & Harold Truman or Prime Ministers Neville Chamberlain & Winston Churchill maybe with dates of office in brackets. Rather than replacing Hirohito the head of state add Tojo and his successor and perhaps a Field Commander.
I also do feel there should be a more comprehensive list of leaders and commanders in the info box including those of all combatant nations (Poland, France, Free France, Canada, Australia etc.) if its a matter of the amount have a click to drop down list. J.Mieszała (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
A small point of fact - Truman was never "Harold", his given name was indeed Harry, after his uncle Harrison (who went by Harry). Parsecboy (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Belligerents in infobox[edit]

There was no consensus to change the belligerent section of the infobox to just listing Axis and Allies, this is npov as it excludes belligerents that were involved in the conflict yet did not joint one of the two alliances such as Finland. Various editors protecting this change have stated that there was consensus in May for such a change to occur. I note looking at the discussion above, there were only 9 individuals in favour of such a change as compared to 8 who supported other options. This infobox page is actually quite difficult to reach, as it is not linked on the main wikipedia page, any discussion on changing the layout of the belligerent section should be noted on the World War II talk page before any real consensus can be reached.XavierGreen (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That isn't exactly an accurate summary of the discussion above. Multiple editors voted in several sections - if you look more closely, only five editors expressed views in favor of other options over option 3, which had 9 supporters. Parsecboy (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
As someone who has been directly involved with various disputes like this in the past, in no way would even a 9 to 5 vote be considered consensus. The discussioned wasn't even structured as something asking for a vote, rather instead it was akin to a request for comment to seek peoples input. If you truly want consensus you should start another thread, publicize it on relevant pages (like i said above) and let peoples voices be heard clearly on whether or not they want the page structured the way it is now or with individualized belligerents listed as it was before.XavierGreen (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
9 to 5 is nearly a supermajority, which is good enough for consensus on most things. Nevertheless, consensus is determined via discussion, WP:NOTAVOTE. Parsecboy (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment opened[edit]

Please see Talk:World War II#Request for comment: WWII infobox. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This RfC has now been closed [1], and I have implemented the consensus. Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)