Template talk:World War I

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Military historiography task force

Place your opinions/suggestions here...

Suggestions

The template looks really good. Great work! Some of the campaigns need revising; the primary African campaign was East Africa, not South-West Africa - can someone write up an article at East African Campaign (World War I)? It would be cool if Template:WWITheatre could be, somehow, incorporated into this template. The "Theatres" part in Template:World War I could be removed and the blank space at the bottom could be used to add all the topics in Template:WWItheatre. I'm not sure if its possible, though - is it? Anyway, again, great work Dna-webmaster! SoLando 01:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WWITheatre is already incorporated. It was the first thing I thought of:). But thank you very much for your kind words, SoLando! Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 20:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

Some of the miniature flags are wrong. India's flag in 1914-1918 was not the current, post-independence flag, but rather one looking like this. Canada's flag is also wrong. It should look like this. Newfoundland ought to be this; the Italian flag should have the cross of Savoy, as such; and there's a coat of arms in the old Romanian flag, as such. I'm not sure how to deal with this. john k 21:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing this, John! I was not the one who added the flags, and I am not sure whether I like to have them in the template. Since many of them are wrong, I think it's better, for now, to remove all the flags. I have done this, but I put a backup of them here:

Entente Powers

Central Powers

My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis^{talk - contribs} 20:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of having the flags, but I think they need to be correct...I suppose we need to find public domain images of the older flags. Someone could write to the proprietor of worldstatesmen.org to see if the flags he uses are public domain images? john k 20:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note - the ones that definitely need changing are Canada, India, and Newfoundland. It would be nice to find new images for Romania and Italy, but the tricolor images are essentially correct, so it would, I think, be acceptable to use the current images. john k 22:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the Canadian and Indian ones, since we seem to already have images. On inspection, the Newfoundland flag appears to possibly be correct.

Conversion to portal?

A discussion about possibly converting large footer templates for wars—such as this one—into portals has been started here; comments and suggestions would be very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 02:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template Update

I've changed all fixed width images to templates. All flags are identical, but some were changed from old GIF versions to better SVG ones. I've kept flag but maybe it should be changed to . Piotr Mikołajski 08:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporaneous conflicts

Regardless that they were smaller wars, Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian wars of independence should be added to this template. Besides, Estonian war of indpendence had a lot more casualties than Easter Rising and Irish War of Independence combined. H2ppyme 13:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arab revolt

Why this template does not include Arab revolt part of Middle Eastern theatre. It is part of Middle Eastern theatre of World War I. I this exclusion is injects biase against the Middle Eastern theatre. Specially, and rightfully Siege of Tsingtao is part of this template. --GoegAvachelli (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Siege of Tsingtao is not a major battle. It is one of a number of attacks on German colonies and territorial possessions at the start of the war. I think it’s inclusion on the Asian and Pacific theatre campaign box is more that sufficient.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to a claim: Removing parts of operations in a theatre on the basis "this is not a big enough" is a biased activity. These links are there to show what constitutes the specific "theatre." Rather than an individual authors' perceptions regarding what is important or not. --GoegAvachelli (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not debating the importance of the Arab revolt. I agree it should be included, just not as a sub-theatre of its own. The material I've read notes it as an uprising educed to support the Allied actions of the Sinai/Palestine campaign. That's why I'd suggest placing it under other conflicts?--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest placing the Arab Revolt under the Other conflicts section. It's similar to the Easter uprising in that it was an insurrection funded by the opposing side.

Arab Revolt operated along the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I. We do not need to break the article integrity. I do not know details of Easter uprising, but I suspect it was part of any major theatre.

Arab revolt and Armenian resistance are not single (contained) events that can be claimed a "conflict" and located among the conflicts such as Battle of the Frontiers. Why? They did not occur at a single locality. They are not limited to single tribe or political group. Also, they are not limited to single day, month, even a year. They both aim to develop their own political structure (An Armenian Republic, or An Arab Kingdom). Both of them occurred where Allied operations were going on (Sinai/Palestine and Caucuses). There were Arab civilian forces at the Battle of Megiddo (1918) and there were Russian forces who come to relieve Armenian forces at Resistance at Van. They are part of Middle Eastern theatre. If we separate (remove) them it will create a bias against the Middle Eastern theatre. --GoegAvachelli (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware that they both events are within the Middle Eastern theatre but they are not sub-theatres or traditional military campaigns in onto themselves. The reason I was suggesting that they be placed under other conflicts is for the reasons you mention, that they are revolutionary / nationalist movements. I understand that they are not singular events but that doesn’t change their nature. All of the events listed under the other conflicts are revolutions or rebellions, so it appears to be an appropriate grouping. I notice the Senussi Uprising is also omitted and should also be included.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia Categories have multiple associations. One event may play in more than one capability. There is a truth in your point, but my point is also true. What about a middle way. Accept the fact that these events played (have a role) in different concepts. List them as part of armed conflicts in the middle eastern theatre and list them as nationalist/revolutionist entities. A game in a bigger game. --GoegAvachelli (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Eastern theatre: (Caucasus · Persia · Gallipoli · Mesopotamia · Sinai and Palestine · North · Arab · Armenian) This representation is correct regarding Middle Eastern (....) list. The Ottoman Empire of Central Powers was fighting all and sometimes loosing forces from front and back between 1914-1918 in this region of the world which is named as Middle Eastern theatre. Isn't that matters? I mean this simple fact. " --GoegAvachelli (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The political concept of Greater Middle East is rather contemporary concept and doesn't apply to the current geographical orientation of the world, or that of the world in 1914.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Associations (Arab, Armenian, Easter uprising, etc)

The representation of complex events (meaning has multiple associations (participating at multiple levels)) during this period should have the links (or added to the list) in all of the representations in this template. Such as in the case of Arab Revolt; it should be listed as part of "Middle Eastern theatre" as the Arab fighters were both operated at conflicts engaged by the Allies and part of "other conflicts" as some of the Arab fighters engaged based on their strategic goals. The idea behind is "We should not do over simplification by choosing one function based on our perceived importance". If there is not any other view, I will go with this idea. --GoegAvachelli (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully understand your proposal. What amendments are you seeking to the template? We still remain at an impasse regarding including the nationalist movements within the campaigns, so including that wouldn't be appropriate. Are you suggesting a new field within the template?.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a nationalist group tell its own people to get armed and be part of a campaign (fight along other national forces (such as British, German etc), why should we exclude them from that campaign? Especially the King, PM, Char or whatever the leader of the major participant already recognized their efforts during the time of war. You are clearly wrong on your idea "nationalist movements within the campaigns." --GoegAvachelli (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable sources that show the classify the mentioned nationalist movements as being classified as independent military campaigns? The books I have here in my apartment classify the Arab Revolt under Sinai/Palestine campaign and the Armenian resistance (at least the battles at Van, Erzinjan and Abaran) under the Caucasus Campaign. If you have a wide body of reliable resources that show the opposite, I'd be glad to change my position.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First they are Revolt, Rebellion, Resistance, Freedom movement etc. I'm not claiming Arab revolt is a Campaign. They were substantial events from time & place perspectives which effected the major events during the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I. So I'm stating that they are part of Middle Eastern theatre of World War I. They should be listed as Middle Eastern theatre: (Caucasus · Persia · Gallipoli · Mesopotamia · Sinai and Palestine · North · Arab · Armenian) If you have problems of linking them to major events of the Middle Eastern theatre: For Arab Revolt there "Jeremy Wilson, Lawrence of Arabia: The Authorized Biography of T.E. Lawrence (1990)" tells how British FO coordinated British military activities using Lawrence of Arabia in the region. For the Armenian Resistance you should consider the agreement by the Russia using the references in the Armenian congress at Erzurum, and later the Char's visit to the battle field and reference to Armenian volunteer units in the (Shaw 1977, pp. 314-315) use the link to Shaw in the Caucasus Campaign. Armenian activities during 1915 summarized as a heading "Armenian Revolt" in the Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War. You can read the pages (Erickson 2001, pp. 54-68). You should reach the French agreement with Armenian nationals using the page French–Armenian Agreement (1916). For the military activities under French Army, use the references at French Armenian Legion. I'm saying these were part of Middle Eastern theatre and should be listed in this template as being part of Middle Eastern theatre. If you want to classify, other ways go ahead. --GoegAvachelli (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe that both the Armenian and Arab resistance movements fit under pre-exisiting sub-theatres and that the Northern African campaign is part of the African sphere. In short, I still oppose your amendment suggestion. This appears to leave us at am impass without any consensus and I don't think any discussion between us will change the situation. I'll leave a messasge on the MILHIST WW1 talk page and invite some additional participation.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North African Campaign (World War I)

The North African Campaign (World War I) geologically located as North African but the African theatre of World War I rightfully does not include it as part of its operations. As rightfully, it was a different operation waged as a side operation in the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I. The Middle Eastern theatre of World War I includes the operations in this geographic location. The readers who want to learn Middle Eastern theatre could not see North African Campaign under the operations as somebody without knowing what they were doing classified wrongly. This has to be fixed. It needs to be classified where the operations belong to. --GoegAvachelli (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to come up with new styles, as the list of articles following the theatre shows what operations included as operations on he respective theatre. Removing these operations breaks the meaning of putting inside brackets and misleads the people. --GoegAvachelli (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoners of War

I added a category on prisoners to the "aspects" section of the template. At the moment the only available internal link I can find is to German POWs in the United States, but I am working on other WWI POW populations and will add them shortly. Please do comment on, edit, rename or re-arrange the edits I did on this template if it enhances clarity; you certainly don't need MY approval and it looks like this template is infrequently discussed anyway. Leidseplein (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

all those minor middle-east battles

User:RoslynSKP seems to either overestimate importance of middle-eastern battles or misunderstand obvious limitations of template space. With his latest additions year 1917 has 11 battls from middle-east (previously was 1), while rest of the world has 6 battles (3 western front, 1 eastern front, 1 italy, 1 romania) + 1 armistice. Obvious scales of battles are completely different too, most of those middle-eastern battles don't break 10k casualty mark, from the rest of battles its very hard to find anything below 50k, with most going solidly over 100k casualties. Considering that adding similarly less important battles from other theatres too isn't really viable, because it would make those lists extremely long and not very readable, only logical solution is to limit list only to most important battles and remove all those trivial minor clashes.--Staberinde (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a question of relative importance or scale of battles but rather of balance. Clearly the western front was the most important campaign of the war and most resources concentrated there. But if only the western front operations are listed, then the very successful middle east campaign is lost sight of. The opportunity for an overview of the war, which this template provides, would be compromised by questions of discrimination between battles and campaigns, which the casual reader won't know anything about. The battles which have been cut resulted in the capture of Jerusalem and southern Palestine from the Ottoman Empire. These battles were not "trivial minor clashes." --Rskp (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, if its question about balance then I would say that previous balance was quite solid counting battles:
1914: west-4, east-3, serbia-2, caucasus-1
1915: west-2, east-2, italy-1, serbia-1, middle-east-1, gallipoli-1
1916: west-2, east-2, italy-1, midle-east-1, macedonia-1, caucasus-1, romania-1, naval-1
1917: west-3, east-1, italy-1, middle-east-1, romania-1
1918 west-3, east-1, italy-1, middle-east-1, macedonia-1, caucasus-1
Total: west-14, east-9, italy-4, midle-east-4, serbia-3, macedonia-2, caucasus-2, romania-2, gallipoli-1, naval-1
I would say that middle-east already had very solid presence considering peripherial importance of the front.

With your last version it changed to:
1916: west-2, east-2, midle-east-2, italy-1, macedonia-1, caucasus-1, romania-1, naval-1
1917: west-3, east-1, italy-1, middle-east-9, romania-1
Changing total to: est-14, east-9, italy-4, midle-east-13, serbia-3, macedonia-2, caucasus-2, romania-2, gallipoli-1, naval-1
So yeah, its question of balance, but your version doesn't really have one while previous one was quite solid. I dont see how you could argue that middle-east was any more important then for example Italian front.--Staberinde (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I will cut Magdhaba from 1916 and Tel el Khuweilfe, and Hareira and Sheria from 1917. --Rskp (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interlanguage links

The red links resulting from the use of Interlanguage links appears out of place for a centralized topic template particularly when there doesn't appear to be any prospect of the article being created in English. Labattblueboy (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]