Template talk:WWII history by nation
This template is in obvious conflict with the more relevant "History of XXX"-series. WW II is about more than just military history, and this should be reflected in the articles. We don't need separate articles just to cover the martial aspects of history, especially not considering how grossly overrepresented military history already is on Wikipedia (particularly when it comes to WW II). I've changed the template and I advise everyone to rename the relevant articles by removing the "military" out the title.
- I support the idea of having nations during world war II articles first, but then creating military history. Military history may be overrepresented on Wikipedia but thats no reason for them not to have a template of their own. I just find this template most useful as it is now. However, I oppose any moving of the military articles if they deal only with the military operations of those nations and not other matters such as economy. 22.214.171.124 23:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Does the Apartheid section of History of South Africa really reflect what was going on in South Africa during World War II? As I recall, the Afrikaners were very much pro-Hitler and pro-Nazi … if memory serves, the Reich even promised some groups in South Africa the means to eradicate the "natives" after WWII was won by the Axis. --Micahbrwn 05:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
what does this template cover...
This template claims to cover "nations", but includes several potentially difficult examples. For example Manchuria, jews, the USSR. This is something that should probably be cleared up. Peregrine981 01:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Did someone added something like "Dylan is a Dildo Baggins" to the Finnish History of WWII article? This looks like it was vandalized and I had to correct it.
British Empire in World War II
British Empire in World War II - this article's been going for some years and is more relevant for this template's stated coverage than United Kingdom in World War II but doesn't exactly fit in as a substitute. Any ideas? --Brigade Piron (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Latin America should not be used as a section the way you are using it. All the other sections are geographical regions (continents, mostly), Latin America is a cultural region. I was just thinking, and I shouldnt have made that last edit, but all of the American countries should go back into one "Americas" section, like before. This template is for "nations and regions," so adding a link for the new "Latin America during WW2" article to the "Americas" section of the template is not inappropriate. Furthermore, British Guiana, modern Guyana, or any part of the British West Indies for that matter, is not part of Latin America, so you cannot put the link for it in a "Latin America" section.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)