Talk:World War II in Africa

Merge

For all practical intents and purposes, World War II in Africa was part of the European theatre, so I'm not sure we should even have this separate article in the first place. I therefore propose merging this into the World War II in Europe article, but with a disclaimer in the lede of that article saying that some battles in the European theatre were actually fought in Africa. What do you think? The dog2 (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

For comparison, Wikipedia organises the theatres into three main groups (see Wikipedia:List of theaters and campaigns of World War II): the European, the Mediterranean, African and Middle East, and the Pacific-Asian. If the articles are merged, to make it more accurate it could be renamed as World War II in Europe and North Africa. There is also the Atlantic theatre which don't havfe direct coverage on at the moment. Gizza ^(roam) 07:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

In any case, Wikivoyage:The traveller comes first is a more important principle than how military command was organized in the war itself. The European theatre including Africa is unlikely to be visited within a single journey, in any case. While the World War II in Europe article has decent quality, it is getting too large. /Yvwv (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I would oppose this, per Yvwv and my similar arguments at Talk:World War II in Europe#United States. Practically speaking, Africa and Europe are different travel destinations, and this a travel guide.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

This article differs from Pacific War in that the Pacific War article is about the war with no real geographic limits while this and the other article specify "in Europe" and "in Africa". I think to most readers, it would look odd to have "in Europe" featuring African sites. Certainly in the "Go Next" section they should link to one another and perhaps that would be a place to mention the most exceptional sites in the US and other places outside of both continents (not with mapped links, though). If it were called "World War II Western Front" or something, Africa would definitely not need to be separate, but it's a hard sell to include Africa in an article where "in Europe" is part of the title. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Africa and Europe are different travel destinations, but the WWII battles in Africa were a direct continuation of the warfare in Europe. Ypsilon (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Historical accuracy shouldn't take precedence over travel practicalities.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's a matter of the travel practicalities OR the historical accuracy. I think it's really about the wording. Our article says "in Europe". As long as Africa isn't in Europe, it doesn't fit the bounds set by the title. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The article name could be changed as CW suggested. Or if the article really needs to be separate from Europe, we could call this article "World War II in the Mediterranean and Middle East" just like Wikipedia divides up the war in three theaters; Europe, Mediterranean and Pacific, and add sites from Mediterranean Europe and the Middle East. Ypsilon (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘If it wouldn't make the article too long, we could just merge the two articles and call it "World War II in Europe and Africa". The dog2 (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

This is one of many cases in which it is counter-intuitive to go by the technically-correct methodology. I would oppose merging these pages. We should definitely link the articles about the various war theatres in a clear fashion, however, to make it easy for readers to get from one to another. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Menu

User:Yvwv has been adding menus like this to several articles:

Basically, this is a fine idea, but I'd like to quibble about some details.

It should not mention "travel topics"; that is local jargon that should not be inflicted on casual readers. Perhaps "articles"? No, then we'd need to add other WW II articles: Burma Road, Kokoda Track, D-Day beaches, perhaps more.

I'd have:

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I like your version better. The Holocaust was an atrocity perpetrated against defenseless people, not a war, so it should be a "See also" at the end of the article, not treated the same way as the theaters of war. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with Pashley that "travel topic" is jargon "for office use only". We have a portal called Travel topics and the phrase is used twice on the main page very prominently, to give just two examples.

But the proposed "theatres" box is a fine idea. Historians can debate until the cows come home as to how much the trajectory of the Holocaust was shaped or accelerated by the timeline of the war, but given that it had already started years before 1939 and ethnic cleansing was the flagship Nazi policy, it can be treated as a separate topic to the war.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, I'd probably alphabetise the theatres, but that's just me.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The Holocaust was certainly neither a theatre nor a front. One idea would be a menu which features articles related to the war.

/ Yvwv (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Or

Pashley (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

We should limit the menu to travel topics and itineraries concerning the war. Including every city affected by the war would be impossible. /Yvwv (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Definitely. I did not put Battle of Khalkhin Gol on that menu, for example. There are a few critical cities like Stalingrad or Hiroshima that might be added, but that depends mainly on what there would be to link to. Pashley (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Add Pearl Harbor? Pashley (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The article is about Honolulu/Western, a district of Honolulu. The handful of WWII-related destinations can be described in full in the Pacific War article. /Yvwv (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Limit the menu? I think the best choice is just one line with the theaters. Pashley (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Do we have consensus?

Would everyone be reasonably happy with that? Pashley (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I think a less busy menu as suggested by Pashley is the best option.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

China should be removed given that it falls entirely under the "Pacific War". ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep China. See Talk:Pacific_War#World_War_II_in_China. Pashley (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Remove China. China falls entirely under the "Pacific War". The link is about creating an article for WWII in China, right? The article's existence is not being questioned, so the discussion is irrelevant and doesn't refute that China was part of the Pacific War just like the D-Day and the Holocaust articles fall under Europe. It's very strange to separate China as if it were part of a different war than the Pacific War. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

By that logic we'd need to remove Africa as well since it was part of the European theatre.

We need to look at it from the viewpoint of a traveller. One might visit sites in the Pacific without setting foot in China, in Europe without going to Africa, or vice versa in both cases. Pashley (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a reason for China to have its own article, not a reason for us to pretend China isn't part of the war. Africa was separated because the bounds of "in Europe" was part of the article's name and users didn't want to call it "World War II in Europe and Africa" not because it wasn't part of the European theatre. Pacific War doesn't have that problem. The Pacific War encompasses a large region made up of many different countries. People are more likely to couple East Asian destinations with Southeast Asian destinations in general compared to coupling any of them with most Pacific Island nations. China is hardly an anomaly in this regard. Lots of people couple China with other countries in the same trip. The article is accessible from the Pacific War page, so people interested in only China should find the article easily enough. For the "quick bar", though, the 3 fronts/locations (Europe, Africa, Pacific) are all that is necessary. Alternatively, if you want easier access to the sub-articles, have each page list its subtopic articles under the main three like you did above in the 3rd and 4th examples, so the Pacific War page would have China, Kokoda, etc. under the main 3, the Europe page would have D-Day, Holocaust, etc. and Africa would have nothing underneath. Another alternative is to add these all to the World War II disambiguation page. They should probably all be there, regardless. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I presented the argument for the World War II in China in Talk:Pacific War#World War II in China. In brief, the war in China was a separate war which went on for 4 years before Pearl Harbor, with at least 15 million deaths in total. There are enough sites and information to motivate the article on its own. /Yvwv (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I am going ahead & inserting the "theaters"version. Pashley (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Usable?

I think this should be promoted Outline->Usable. Other opinions? What else would it need to be Guide? Pashley (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Vichy France, a non-belligerent state?

How is "non-belligerent" being defined? Since WWII was a total war, wasn't the fact that they forced all young French men to do slave labor in Germany part of the war effort? Of course they were also extremely enthusiastic collaborators in the Holocaust, but that wasn't a cause of the Allied war effort. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Good point. I've reworded it. Pashley (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit. I didn't know they were never officially an Axis power. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Nor I. w:Vichy France has more detail than I wanted. Pashley (talk) 08:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)