Talk:World War I

Date Correction for Doullens Conference

In the section entitled "German Spring Offensive of 1918", it states, "A Supreme War Council of Allied forces was created at the Doullens Conference on 5 November 1917." However, the actual date for the Doullens Conference was March 26, 1918. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeGiblin (talk • contribs) 01:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Too long

I suggest adding {{Too long}} to the page wih the hope of decreasing the length of the article, thereby improving the ease of navigability, and appropriately summarising the key points of the article. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there some argument for this that has not already been discussed in the archives of this talkpage? This article is ranked at 163 on the wp:Long pages, behind many less significant ones. In any case, few users are still running IE6 or Firefox 2.0, which had problems when pages reached 400k. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether it has been discussed or not, is not the issue. There remains problems which have not been solved despite all that discussion. Decreasing the length, is simply a means to an end, and not the main focus. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed the tag, leaving a detailed edit summary. As it was reverted without so much as a word of explanation, I undid the revert. As I said in the summary, certian articles are naturally going to be longer than others; the 2 World Wars particularly so. If you truly feel the article is "too long", you should either begin making some bold edits to reduce it, or propose some ideas here as to what exactly you think should be removed. Simply slapping a tag on it is lazy, sloppy editing. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't like being called lazy, it would do you well to actally read the comments here rather than ignore them, a comment was also left in the tag itself. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't call you lazy. I called one specific incident of your editing lazy. Big difference. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

An incident of editting is an inanimate, intangible object; it cannot be lazy or hardworking. In any case, this is besides the point. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It's also quite pedantic. I'm sure you know what I meant. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. My work is what it is because of me; you're calling me lazy. Are you actually going to discuss the issue of the tag, or whether or not you insulted me. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've already discussed the tag and I've already stated that I didn't call you lazy. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You're still obsessed with the lazy issue. You have not discussed the tag, you just made a statement (which does not take account of the preceding comments in this section, nor the comment in the tag.) Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussion of the article, not for petty quibbling or chat. Please stick to the topic, thank you.Mediatech492 (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

So, you don't have an legitimate reason for contesting the template? Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

the article is not too long--it covers one of the most complex events in world history--one that involved many countries and has a huge amount of RS to sort through. It is divided up so that most people can find what they want quickly enough. Rjensen (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You are not listening, I don't care about the length of the article. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

"I don't care about the length of the article." Then what possible reason could you have for a "too long" tag? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

As the tag suggests, the article is a challenge to navigate effectively. The artcle looks like a pot-luck of sections and sub-sections. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

that's a poor reason--anyone with a high school education can easily handle the navigation. Rjensen (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? Then why don't list the template for deletion then? Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

When there are few or no sections and sub-sections at all things are very hard to navigate. Were good sections and sub-sections are much more helpful to navigate. What is your proposal in detail? Moxy (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a detailed plan, but I recommend a better selection of sections and subsections than the current overspecified and obscure ones. Perhaps some with main article redirects can be removed and mentioned as a wikilink in a sentence instead. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Which ones? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Relevant and referenced material being removed

The following paragraph was added under the Opposition heading of this wikipedia page on the 13th of December 2011, it was then removed, and has since been added again. Is there any explanation why this material was removed? I will leave the paragraph here, as all the references check out:

The discussion of the opposition to the War in Ireland must include the controversial experience of an Irish Soldier fighting in the British Army. An experience that has been described as one of institutional discrimination, on average one British soldier out of every 3,000 was court martialed and executed by firing squad during the war, in comparison to the much higher, one out of every 600 Irish Soldiers. The disproportionate number of Irish executions began in 1914, before the outbreak of the Irish Easter Rising of 1916 .

Boundarylayer (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The deletion was justified. The whole addition is WP:OPED and gives undue weight to the topic; this is a general article, after all. Furthermore, the accompanying image is off topic. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Old Moonraker, and have removed the material. This article is about the global war, and including that material here adds undue weight to the topic. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the deletion. I've now done the Easter Rising image, as well. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.monbiot.com/2008/11/11/lest-we-forget/ and http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWudc.htm and was added in this edit. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)