Talk:World War II

Seeking consensus to implement change in lead sentence

I am trying to modify the lead sentence. Given the notice appearing to seek consensus, I present my proposal hereby.

The lead sentence currently reads,

World War II or the Second World War, often abbreviated as WWII or WW2, was a global war that lasted from 1939 to 1945.

My proposal is to change it to,

World War II (WWII, WW2, or the Second World War; 1939–1945) was a global conflict and the deadliest in human history, with tens of millions people killed.

Also, a connected edit later in the paragraph to avoid redundancy. This part currently reads,

World War II was by far the deadliest conflict in human history; it resulted in 70 to 85 million fatalities, mostly among civilians. Tens of millions died due to genocides (including the Holocaust), starvation, massacres, and disease.

The new edit for said later part of the paragraph would be,

It resulted in 70 to 85 million fatalities, mostly among civilians. Millions died due to genocides (including the Holocaust), starvation, massacres, and disease.

Edit summary explaining the change: edit summary: moved alternate names to parenthesis for conciseness per MOS:FIRST, "global war" >> "global conflict" per MOS:REDUNDANCY, added a top notability (the deadliest in human history), copyedited relevant part later in first paragraph to avoid redundancy with first sentence. --Thinker78 (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I like your first half of the sentance, but the rest could be fixed

"with tens of millions people killed"

Poor grammer, and very poor word choice

A better sentance would be

"World War II (WWII, WW2, or the Second World War; 1939-1945) was a global conflict and the most destructive in history."

Better, more to the point, and quicker for the intro. It also flows better. Panda0317 (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Panda0317, Jack Upland Considering the feedback and MOS:ALTNAME that calls to only have up to two alternative names, I make another proposal:

World War II (WW2 or the Second World War; 1939–1945) was the most destructive conflict in human history. It was also the deadliest, killing tens of millions of people.

Although "most destructive" can include destruction of objects and human life, it doesn't necessarily has that effect on readers mind, who may only think of objects. Therefore, adding also immediately after the first sentence the number of people killed illustrates better the magnitude of the conflagration. Thinker78 (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I think some readers might find that redundant: "most destructive" and also "deadliest"...--Jack Upland (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The question is, would most readers find it redundant? I know I wouldn't because when I think of destruction I think of objects mainly. When someone says "the city was destroyed" it doesn't necessarily mean that people were killed. "Most destructive" may also include destruction or killing of human life but even if so, it doesn't necessarily is a synonymous for "deadliest". Thinker78 (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Wars do tend to kill people and hyperbole in the first sentence is a bad sign. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the hyperbole.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Keith-264 I don't understand why do you say hyperbole. WW2 is the deadliest conflict in human history. That's not hyperbole, that's seemingly a historical fact and one of the main notabilities of the subject. Thinker78 (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Wars are not football scores, sweeping claims like this (the Tai Ping Rebellion could have been bloodier) need to be quantified and not necessarily mentioned in the lead. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Keith-264 The number of people killed is quantified. Destruction amount is more subjective. Although these two are among the main characteristics of the war and maybe the easier to place in the first sentece. They also set apart this war from other wars. Thinker78 (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm highly doubtful that the death toll of the Tai Ping Rebellion even came close. Among other things, WW2 saw the mass bombing of civilians at a level unparalled before or since.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC about World War 2 first two sentences

{{rfc|pol|hist}} Should the first two sentences of WW2 in the lead be, "World War II (WW2 or the Second World War; 1939–1945) was the most destructive conflict in human history. It was also the deadliest, killing tens of millions of people."? (See discussion above). Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• 'Oppose I agree with the rest of the users that the second sentence seems redundant.Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: The current second sentence (" It involved the vast majority of the world's countries—including all of the great powers—forming two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis powers") would become the third sentence in the lead. Also, some tweaks in later sentences to avoid redundancies. Thinker78 (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Not essential but reasonable. Tweaks to avoid redundancies would, as you have said, be required. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support first sentence. Second sentence is redundant.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current opening sentences seem both fine and superior to the suggested alternative(s). Gog the Mild (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild why? Thinker78 (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

As Lukewarmbeer says, the proposed second sentence is redundant, which only leaves the first for me to consider. And, this may just be personal aesthetics, I prefer the version with both full names followed by both abbreviations and with no parentheses. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I know that MOS:ALTNAME is a guideline not a tight rule, but I will quote it so you can weigh it with your stated opinion. Let us know your analysis. "The title can be followed in the first sentence by one or two alternative names in parentheses." Thinker78 (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I was aware of it, and that it says that this "can" happen. It just happen to think that the current version works better than the particular alternative proposed here. YMMV. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as per above. Silikonz💬 16:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral/Somewhat Oppose. The modified first sentence is fine, but I don't see anything wrong with the first sentence as it currently stands, and I prefer the current version, perhaps because it lacks parentheses. In any case, I don't think there is a redundancy in the second sentence. "Most destructive" and "deadliest" aren't the same thing. The first refers to destruction of property, buildings, assets, and so on. The second refers, obviously, to loss of human life. Scapulus (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC-7)
• Neutral/Lean oppose - The proposed first sentence looks okay, but the current first sentence without the alternative name in parenthesis looks fine to me, so I have a more of a preference towards the current first sentence. Second sentence could use tweaking but as Scapulus mentioned, "most destructive" and "deadliest" are different. --Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 04:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - The current first sentence is vastly preferable imo. The proposal is tantamount to saying how bad WWII was before saying when and what it was and who fought in it. The 'most destructive' and 'most deadly' elements are certainly important, but they are more than adequately covered in the next para at present imo. The job of a first para is to define the topic, not to pass comment on the subject of that topic, even if it is pertinent comment - as in this case. Pincrete (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - for the reasons given by user:Pincrete, which pretty much sum up the thinking I was formulating. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Collage

I reverted the recent addition of the Iwo Jima flag. There are three reasons for that. First, by doing that, we shift a balance from Europe to Asia (there were two Asia-Pacific photos, and four Europe photos, the new change made it 3 and 3). Second, Iwo Juma picture would be too US-centric. Third, capture of Iwo Jima was not the most critical event of the was. I agree that Keitel's photo is not the best one, but, as soon as we are talking about iconic images, the image below is teh best candidate.

First, it is a picture from the European theatre, so the balance is preserved. Second, it shows the event that was a symbolic end of the LAST major battle of WWII in Europe. Third, its publication was the symbolic evidence that the WWII in Europe is over.

I recently learned that the picture was published by Russian Ministry of Defence under CC-SA (previously, all versions of this picture were non-free). That gives us an opportunity to use this file in a collage instead of Keitel. I propose to do that. What do you think about that? Paul Siebert (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd definitely agree. The current photo isn't very well known or visually interesting, and the proposed replacement is the iconic photo of the end of World War II in Europe. This is also one of the undoctored versions, as the soldier in the foreground has a looted watch on each arm. Nick-D (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Support the new photo.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been waiting for an outcome of the discussion at Commons to make sure this image is really under CC-SA. It seems it is safe to use it.

I also have a couple of additional questions.

First, for many years, the top left collage image was different [:File:Infobox collage for WWII.PNG]. It was replaced relatively recently. Do we all agree that was an improvement? Personally, I don't think so: in contrast to the previous image, the new one has almost no big details, so it is hardly suitable for a collage.

Second, instead of a single image, a current version of the collage is assembled from six separate images, and they are not properly aligned. I think, from aesthetic point of of view it would be better to make a single, properly aligned image. I can do that if there will be no objections. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Why not use https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%BD%D0%B0#/media/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:WW2_collage.jpg ? 109.252.128.135 (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I like the collage you posted IP address, though I think the photo of the nuke can replace the iwo jima flag, as I think it signals the “real” defeat of japan. Maybe replace the photo of the russian raising the pistol with the current stalingrad soldiers photo in this current wiki Justanotherguy54 (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Why do people keep automatically deleting my edits?

I just write a damn description of how Blitzkrieg works but it keeps automatically getting deleted after a few hours. Magnificentry (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

See wp:brd if you are reverted you need to make a case here as to why this improves the article. So why do we need this? Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

the Allies (led by the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, United States, and China)

How is this accurate. By end of 1939 when WW2 started, most of China's population as well as their capital was already occupied by Japan. Isn't that like saying Vichy France led the allies too? I know I've seen the big 3 mentioned, never big 4. 172.11.79.48 (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

No, as China never officially surrendered. Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Wait, so you agree with me it's not accurate. Great. I think give this a few more days and hopefully it gets corrected. 172.11.79.48 (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

This has been previously discussed in great detail. Sources generally agree that China was one of the main Allied powers. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The sentence should be changed to: "the Allies, led by principally the United Kingdom, France, (and from 1942) the United States, the Soviet Union and China. There is no doubt that the United Kingdom and France led the Allies from the beginning of the war against Germany until the defeat of France in June 1940. After 1940, Free France participated in the First Allied War Conference in 1941. The Soviet Union was allied with Germany from September 1939 until they were invaded by Germany in June 1941. If the Soviet Union "led" the Allies from 1939 then the Allies invaded Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Finland. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The sentence is the second of the article's lead, so a broad brush approach is appropriate. The lead goes onto describe the course of the war, and the article then goes into more detail. Your edit is also nonsensical regarding dates, and it's odd that you aren't suggesting a similar edit for the Axis countries. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

How exactly is my suggested edit "nonsensical regarding dates". And a broad brush is fine as long as it isn't actively misleading. In what sense did the Soviet Union and China "lead" the Allies? The article is about WWII which, according to the article, began on 1 September 1939. The principal Allies against Germany at that stage were the UK and France. The Soviet Union was allied with Nazi Germany. The First Allied Conference was held in June 1941 and included the UK and its Dominions, Free France and several government in exile. They were the leading Allies. The Soviet Union became an Allied nation in July 1941. And yes, the Axis should read "principally Germany, Italy and Japan." Germany and Italy were the first Axis powers, Japan joined in 1940. I'm happy to reach a compromise on this. If you think adding dates would make the sentence too clumsy I could live with: "the Allies principally the United Kingdon, France, the United States, the Soviet Union and China" and the "Axis, principally, Germany, Italy and Japan." At least this indicates the order in which these powers entered into formal military/political alliances with each other. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The dates you are noting above in your proposed text are largely wrong. Free France was a relatively minor military power until the liberation of France in 1944 allowed the 1st Army (France) to be raised, and I haven't seen any sources that suggest that it was a significant player. I'm not sure why you're advocating for the start date of the war to be 1 September while also arguing that China and Japan didn't enter the war until 1942. Nick-D (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

My dates are correct. I'm not "advocating" for the 1 September 1939 to be the start of WWII, I am noting that that is what the article says. (I would advocate 3 September 1939 as the start of the war.) I never said Japan entered the war in 1942, I said they joined the Axis in 1940. The general consensus of historians is that Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 turned a largely European conflict into a truly global war. China declared war on the Axis powers in December 1941 and formally became an allied power in January 1942. January 1942 was the declaration of the United Nations, so was the date the US, USSR and China formally joined the Allied Powers. As for France being one of the principal allied powers, try the Oxford Companion to WWII:

"Allied powers,

those countries which actively opposed the Axis powers. The principal ones were China, France, the UK and its empire, the USA, and the USSR. From January 1942 all countries, including the governments-in-exile of those countries occupied by the Germans, which became a party to the United Nations Declaration were also regarded as Allied powers. See also Grand Alliance."

The current wording which states that the Soviet Union and China somehow "led" the allies is totally misleading. It imports a notion of leadership or precedence. Taking the war as a whole from Sep 1939 to August 1945 I would argue (and the Oxford Companion to World war II supports this) that the principal allies were UK, France, US, Soviets, China. You can order them alphabetically or in the order in which they took up arms against the Axis powers. What is the basis for the wording which currently exists? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see the literally dozens of previous discussions of the topic here. Nick-D (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I looked through the previous discussions, and couldn't find a recent one that addressed the specific points I am making. Can you refer to a specific one? Did it take into account the source I have quoted? Articles can be improved, and you seem to be digging in your heels against a fairly minor change which makes the article more accurate and is reliably sourced. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I actually don't understand what you are advocating, as it is confusing. You may wish to post your suggested edit. The Oxford Companion was one of many sources cited in the previous discussions - as there is a vast literature on the war, citing only a single source doesn't carry much weight. Nick-D (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the sentence I am objecting to was a recent addition (28 January 2023) which was made without discussion or consensus. I have reverted it back to the way it was. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

This edit. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Reverting that is a sensible change then: the editor didn't even bother leaving an edit summary. The edit reflected the consensus of previous discussions of the infobox though. Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Ha, never knew China was one of the Allies. You learn something new every day here! Drmies (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

William D. Leahy

If you're reading this, chances are that you have some interest in World War II. Well I have William D. Leahy up for review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William D. Leahy/archive1. When the article ran at DYK it got a lot of comments to the effect that they were unaware of the career of the man who was President Roosevelt's closest uniformed advisor and the most senior officer in the US armed forces during World War II. He served in the Spanish-American War, the China War, the Banana wars and World War I as well as World War II, and he was involved in some pretty interesting stuff. Reviewers welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Citation style

This article is mentioned (as one of several examples) in a discussion about citation style, at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. To accompany it, I've added the {{Ref info banner}} you'll find above among the talk headers. Please leave it for the time being, until that discussion stabilizes or is archived, and then it can be removed again if desired. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Sample questions

Due to the fact that this article has very good questions, we can ask great questions to challenge the viewers them.Mohammad.Hosein.J.Shia (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

What? TylerBurden (talk) 04:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I want to write questions according to the text of the article. Mohammad.Hosein.J.Shia (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the WP:HELPDESK can help. TylerBurden (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Why? Mohammad.Hosein.J.Shia (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

They will probably understand what you mean better than I, this is a WP:TALKPAGE, so it's only really meant for discussing improvements to the article. Questions shouldn't be on the article itself, but of course you could use the text to ask people questions outside of Wikipedia if that is what you meant. TylerBurden (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Ion Antonescu in the infobox

I was prepared to edit this in myself, but then I saw the warning. After the September 1943 armistice with Italy, Romania became the second Axis power in Europe (and yes, I do have RS that explicitly state this). This lasted roughly 1 year, until August 1944. Technically, Romania's leader was a main Axis leader, even if for 1 year. Transylvania1916 (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Uhh...Hello? I can add him in with a huge note attached on why Antonescu should be in the infobox. I can start listing my arguments along with their sources right here, provided you are willing to get over your biases and complacency and actually read them. Transylvania1916 (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Please see the many previous discussions of the leaders listed in the infobox before making any such proposal first. There is little chance that it would attract support per what sources on the war say. I have no idea why you are arguing that there are "biases and complacency" stopping this when no-one has even responded to your posts - I'd suggest losing the chip on your shoulder. Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I note also that this has been proposed at least twice in recent years, with it attracting no support on either occasion: Talk:World_War_II/Archive_60#Romania's_Ion_Antonescu_to_Main_Axis_Leaders and Talk:World War II/Archive 62#Romania's Ion Antonescu to "Main Axis Leaders" in the infobox. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Considering that:

• Romania was crucial to German war plans on all fronts due to its oil while Italy wasn't.
• Romania replaced Italy as the second Axis Power in Europe for 1 year
• Antonescu was the only foreigner Hitler consulted on military matters
• The Antonescu regime bears the second greatest degree of responsibility for the Holocaust
• Romania was the only non-German country with its own area of occupation in the USSR along with a major city
• An entire German army served under Romanian command in May-August 1944
• Antonescu was the first non-German to get the Knight's Cross

It would be pure BS to leave Antonescu out. I can expand on all of the above, and I have the required RS, but would anyone listen? This is precisely what I mean by "biases and complacency", because this is how I understand the situation: "Oh come on, it's just Romania, why do I have to make the effort and research?". It's bad enough that I'm pretty much alone in doing the research and digging up this stuff, least y'all could do is stay out of my way. You don't get to revert - in spite of the RS - just because it doesn't sit right with you, and you don't get to revert without reading all the edit and checking the sources. Transylvania1916 (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it is an issue of time, Italy was an Axis member (officially so, not just allied) from 1937, she was part of the Tripartite Pact from 1940 (the year she joined the war). This alone makes Itally separate from Rumania. She was one of the "Big Three" at the start of the war (and before it). Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Antonescu also took with him Germany's remaining allies: Bulgaria and Finland followed suit. Italy's surrender did not cause a chain reaction. I strongly insist you allow me to add him to the infobox, with a note attached detailing the 5 main reasons: personal relationship with Hitler (including an instance when Hitler asked for his advice), Romania's status as second Axis Power in Europe for 1 year, the vital role of Romanian oil, the impact of Romania's defection, and his contribution to the Holocaust. At this point...You really don't have any valid excuse not to add him, given what is known. Transylvania1916 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

"Take it to the talk page", yeah, I've been trying to, but it seems I'm talking to the walls. "This has been discussed extensively before" No it hasn't. From what I can tell, this is the first time Antonescu is being tackled properly, with RS and all. Like... How much would you like me to inflate a note? I can make it the size of an article. Transylvania1916 (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

There is some support in the sources for considering Romania as one of the principal Axis powers. The Oxford Companion to WWII states:

"Axis Powers.

A treaty signed in 1936 between Germany and Italy formed what was known as the Rome–Berlin Axis, hence the name. This was reinforced in May 1939 with the Pact of Steel. Japan became associated with Germany and Italy when it signed the Anti-Comintern pact in November 1936, and allied itself to them with the Tripartite Pact signed in September 1940. Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary were the other principal Axis powers."

However, my understanding is that the info box is meant to present selected key information rather than a summary of the topic as a whole, and discussion and broad consensus is important to avoid major articles on key subjects becoming the focus of edit wars. Transylvania1916 has made some productive contributions to the article on the Axis powers, and there are a number of historians who are reassessing the traditional views about the "minor" belligerents in the war. The way Wikipedia works is that articles follow the consensus of reliable published sources rather than the views of editors. Perhaps a way forward would be for Transylvania1916 to get together a small selection of authoritative sources which state clearly that Romania was a major Axis power. In the meantime, there might be scope for the body of this article to include some of the reliably sourced information that Transylvania1916 has contributed to the article on the Axis. By the way, I think France should be included as a major Allied power, but if others don't see it that way I'm not going to take it personally. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Personally, I do not see why the very fact that Romania replaced Italy as the second Axis power in Europe for 1 year shouldn't suffice for Antonescu's addition. The Allies did not undergo such shift: Allied hierarchy remained rigid, while Axis hierarchy was clearly more fluid, and as such should not be held at the same standard. There's also the fact that Antonescu was the only foreigner Hitler consulted on military matters, and since this was a war...I genuinely fail to see why he shouldn't be included. Transylvania1916 (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Those appear to be your personal views, which carry no weight here. Previous discussions included consideration of sources, despite what you claim, and your insertion of this material into the infobox despite plainly not having consensus to do so and then threatening to "inflate a note ... the size of an article" as part of re-inserting this material makes it impossible to believe that you are acting in good faith here. Your approach is needlessly confrontational, and I'd suggest that drop it. Regarding sources, neither the entry on Romania in Oxford Companion to the Second World War, Rolf-Dieter Muller's The Unknown Eastern Front (which has a chapter on Romania), A World at Arms by Gerhard L. Weinberg or The Second World War by Anthony Beevor state that Romania was one of the main Axis powers. These are among the standard works on the topic. All note that Romania was important in the context of German efforts on the Eastern Front, but that it was treated as a second rate country by the Germans. The Oxford Companion, for instance, notes that while Antonescu was nominally in charge of a German-Romanian army group, control was actually exercised by a German general and Weinberg gives the example of Hitler ignoring Antonescu's request that seven Romanian divisions be evacuated from Crimea in 1944 (p. 670). Beevor describes Hitler's alliance with Romania as a "cynical embrace" (p. 189). Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

My approach is the complete opposite of yours: if one RS says something, it should be taken into account. I defy you to baselessly claim that those are my personal views when I provided RS both for Hitler's relationship with Antonescu and Romania's elevation to the status of second Axis power in Europe (at no point refuted in your response). The infobox as is makes it seem that Mussolini was that important throughout, while he was in fact irrelevant for the entire final third of the war, in half of it being replaced by Antonescu. I really don't care what other RS don't say, I fail to see how omission is an argument. Transylvania1916 (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Those standard works on the war, all which discuss the Axis alliance structure do not support your contention when they would if this was generally held to be the case by historians. I am not interested in getting into a 'prove me wrong' type debate with you, not least as this continues your confrontational approach. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Whose standard? Yours? Why are those the standard works? Who decides, you? Are those really the objective standard or are they simply those chosen for this article long ago and now you defend the status-quo? I am legitimately asking here. I found RS published by reputable universities and I find that to be quite enough. But why would it not be, and who decides? Transylvania1916 (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Compromise idea: let me add a note next to Mussolini stating that he was deposed mid-war and that Antonescu replaced him in the European Axis hierarchy. I'd settle for that. Transylvania1916 (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

No, sources do not support that. Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Your sources do not support that. And I still don't know who made you boss. You are lying by omission, Nick-D, and I hold you in contempt for it. Transylvania1916 (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

There is cleary no consent for this, and it needs to be closed. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I basically agree that for Hitler Antonescu was a servant, not a friend. And while Romania offered the Axis much-needed natural resources, it wasn't reputed for its military prowess. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

As early as 1941, Antonescu was on par with Mussolini in prestige. The fall of Odessa meant that Mussolini had nothing comparable in terms of spoils. Again: the RS are there, the arguments are there, it's only a matter of taking them into account. Also - in my defense - I haven't seen anywhere any proper guidelines to determine who exactly should be in the infobox. At World War I, everyone is duly represented in the infobox. Why are there no contraints there, but there are here? Transylvania1916 (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention the multiple RS that refer to Italy as one of the "minor Axis powers", largely in the context of the 1947 peace treaties. Transylvania1916 (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Why there is no photo of atomic bombing in info box?

Why there is no photo of atomic bombing in info box? I mean it was used first time in history of human civilization. 202.47.41.26 (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I concur. There should be an image of the atomic bombing given its top notability and uniqueness of the war event. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

There are two images related to Asia-Pacific theatre in the infobox, Battle of Changde and USS Pennsylvania. Which of those two are you proposing to replace with the bombing photo? Paul Siebert (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The ship depicts the naval aspect and is the only one in the collage. The pic of the Battle of Changde depicts land conflagration which is illustrated by at least two more pics. Therefore, I would suggest replacing the Battle of Changde. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems the aspect ratio is not suitable for this collage. Do you have other photos? Paul Siebert (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Thinker78 (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The navbox didn't even mention the Manhattan Project until I added it in 2016. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2023

Diff:

−

{{portal|World War II|War|World}} * [[Lists of World War II topics]] * [[Outline of World War II]] * [[Lists of World War II military equipment]] {{clear right}}

+

{{portal|World War II|World}} * [[Lists of World War II topics]] * [[Outline of World War II]] * [[Lists of World War II military equipment]] {{clear right}}

remove a Portal:War was closed is delete. 122.2.122.171 (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)