Talk:Bibliography of World War II

Discussion on sensible subdivision

As the bibliography is once again growing out of proportions, we need to find a decent subdivision/chaptering to keep the readability.

My proposition would be the following:

• Causes of World War II
• Primary sources on World War II by type (Memoirs, Autobiographies, Source Collections, Historical Documents, etc)
• World War II in Europe, by theater (Invasion of Poland, Fall of France, etc.)
• World War II in Asia, by theater (Sino-Japanese War, Guadalcanal Campaign, etc)
• History of World War II by country (World War II in Germany, World War II in the United States, etc)
• History of World War II by topic (Women, Science, Espionage)
• Aftermath of World War II (Expulsion, War Crimes Trials, etc)

It is quite clear that the bibliography will primarily consist of secondary sources (which is only proper), so the current subdivision has some problems in that regard, as it all but wastes the top level chapter level.

Feel free to contribute, I will ponder further on this.

Ted52 (talk) 10:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

There's just WAY too much division and subdivision in this newly crafted Bibliography. While I appreciate compartmentalization as much as the next fellow, this just goes too far. This page will need to be re-organized in my opinion. The level of granularity is utterly ridiculous and there have been far too many additions of marginal interest. This page was originally created to help readers locate important works on the Second World War, not become a repository for everything printed under the sun. Works before the 1970s should only be included if they were written or edited by major participant figures (general officers, known field commanders of significance, etc.) There should probably be a page created for "Bibliography of books written by World War II military commanders, participants, or victims" which would trim this page as well as other similar ones. I was all for the general categories originally mentioned by Ted52 but this editor has taken the liberty of sub-categorizing the page to the point of confusion. Just my opinion. Would like to hear the viewpoint of others. Ted52 - Obwohl ich deinen Aufwand sicherlich bewundere -- leider, ist diese Seite nun durch Kategorisierung überlastet....keine Beleidigung gemeint. --Obenritter (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. I took care to export the marginal-interest side topics such as the warships and military units first. The only choice where I see the argument of sub-marginalization is that the military campaigns might want to be maintained with the main article, but I took inspiration from the American Civil War bibliography, which decided on a rather similar subdivision scheme, where battles and campaigns were exported first. And that article does also include significant quantities of literature that is not of great interest to a novice first-time reader. I do not think novices should be our main audience for the bibliography articles anyway, as each Wikipedia article also has its own "Bibliography"/"Literature"/"Further Reading" pages; meaning that a novice would look at the "Further Reading" section of World War II rather than at this article. There I would agree that the literature provided should be under all costs current and maximally informative, as well as written by renowned historians. But alas, I'll stop working on this then. My bad.

Ted52 (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Ted52 No need to stop. My intention is not to discourage you, since my opinion is but one and the other editors may agree with you and not me. Let's wait and see how others interpret it. I get what you were trying to accomplish but it's pretty confusing to me at this stage. The original categorizations seemed sufficient. Maybe I'm just old and the hyper-compartmentalization is helpful for others. --Obenritter (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

First, any moving or making of sub-articles needs to be discussed here before it is done. I believe some of the parts pulled out should be re-introduced into this main article. I agree with Obenritter the article needs an overhaul and that most older, more marginal and pedestrian works should be removed. I await further input from others. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I feel like the current state is too hyper-categorized. Additionally, I can't stand the table in Official Histories. It's distracting with the table layout, country flags, and separating the notes about each history from the history. Also, Morison's History of US Naval Operations of WWII is not an official history. It was commissioned by the Navy, and he was sponsored, but at least according to the WP article, it's not official history.  — sbb (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

sbb If you feel up to it, you could re-categorize the page closer to its original structure before all the over-compartmentalization occurred. Should you be so inclined that is. Like Kierzek mentioned, the pedestrian and marginal works need to be removed in the process. --Obenritter (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe that’s a good plan. Kierzek (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)