Talk:First World War centenary

Editathon

This article was started at the WWI Editathon at the British Library which is part of Wikipedia's contribution to the centenary. Andrew Davidson (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

Should the various countries commemorating the event be put in alphabetical order (as 'more obvious')? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There's no consensus at this time to do so. (non-admin closure) Hot Stop talk-contribs 03:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

---

First World War centenary → World War I centenary – Requesting move for consistency (WP:NC) with the article World War I. The move that I performed earlier was disputed and reverted, so I'm starting this move discussion instead. Anonimski (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The current title of First World War centenary is fine, being used by organisations such as the Imperial War Museum and its partners: see http://www.1914.org/. The proposed alternative uses the Roman numeral I for one which may be confusing to some and harder to search for. Andrew (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I oppose the move for thesame reassons as Andrew.Stepojevac (talk) 10:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Shouldn't WP:NC override the nomenclature in the main source, in situations like this, when the article relates to a broader topic for which Wikipedia uses another name? - Anonimski (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Andrew's reasoning. The most common alternative titles (except 'World War One Centenary') already redirect here. --IxK85 (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:ENGVAR. Also, my personal opinion is that as a title it flows better with all words instead of including an awkward numeral. ^walk victor falk ^talk 16:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support: Per the current title of the main World War I article, although perhaps "Centenary of World War I" works better grammatically? Brigade Piron (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, it sounds better than the suggestion I started out with. Anonimski (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'll give my Support for Centenary of World War I or Centenary of the First World War (with the other as a redirect but not "World War I centenary" (ungrammatical). GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Content fork

Hi,

Does anyone agree that the article, Centenary of the outbreak of World War I, is pretty much a content fork of this article? I'd personally advocate a merger.—Brigade Piron (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, a merger would be appropriate. However, for linguistic consistency with how Wikipedia describes this topic, the final article should be phrased with "World War I" instead of "First World War", regardless of the voting in the earlier move discussion. - Anonimski (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Criticism

Why has the "Criticism" section been removed. Isn't this a breach of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? Biscuittin (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• On the contrary, the section was a breach of NPOV because it was unbalanced towards negative opinion. A more neutral way of presenting such information would be a section title of Reception or Commentary. In any case, the section did not contain significant content as it only had details of a primary source - a hostile letter in a newspaper. By itself, that's not valid content per WP:SOAP. Andrew D. (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not standing on a soapbox. I'm just trying to present both sides of the story. Biscuittin (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The 49 people who signed the letter might be standing on a soapbox but I'm just reporting what they wrote, as was The Guardian. Biscuittin (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I have re-introduced the section, taking your comments into account. Biscuittin (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First World War centenary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130906105945/http://www.iwm.org.uk/visits/iwm-london/transforming-iwm-london to http://www.iwm.org.uk/visits/iwm-london/transforming-iwm-london

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 25 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

---

First World War centenary → Centenary of World War I – For consistency with the main article, and given "First World War" redirects to "World War I". Also, as the title is not a proper noun, "Centenary of..." seems a more natural, better-sounding descriptive title. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. A1Cafel (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Move to World War I centenary. It's better to start with "World War I" in the title for search and indexing reasons. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  I'd be fine with that, too, though it would be my second choice. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support, I agree with the original proposal. There are no search or indexing issues that a redirect won't solve, and it's better to go with the more natural sounding title. W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The current title of First World War centenary is best, being used by major bodies such as the Imperial War Museum and its 4,000 partner organisations: see IWM. The proposed alternative uses the Roman numeral I for one which may be confusing to some and harder to search for. The original, official name has been in place from the outset, through the centenary years of 2014–2018 and there was no consensus to change it in the previous discussion. If it works, don't fix it. Andrew D. (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  "First World War centenary" is a descriptive title, not an official one, just like "World War I centenary" or "Centenary of World War I". You are right to point out that "First World War" is commonly used in this context but then so is "World War I". The IWM link refers to the First World War Centenary Partnership, which is a proper name. Given the title "First World War centenary" is descriptive, not a proper name, why should this article deviate from the "World War I" convention used by the main article and (nearly?) all related articles? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• The current title seems quite official in its site here – it even has a logo. And there is no convention supporting the use of Roman numerals for wars. On the contrary, the use of "first" is more standard. See First War for numerous examples of this usage such as First Indochina War, First Opium War and First Punic War. It is World War I that is the odd one out, being given a Roman numeral as if it were a monarch or movie. Andrew D. (talk) 09:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps you have a point about naming standards for wars, but the fact remains that this article is not related to any war except World War I. For better or worse, the main article uses a Roman numeral, and your points seem more suited for Talk:World War I than here. If World War I is the odd one out compared to other articles about wars, then this article is the odd one out compared to other articles about that war. As for the link and logo, it supports your argument, to be sure, but I think it would be a stretch to conclude that a single country's website is somehow the "official" one for the centenary of a global conflict. I remain unconvinced but, nevertheless, thank you for explaining your perspective. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• That single country is significant per WP:ENGVAR. The article World War I explains that After World War II began in 1939, the terms became more standard, with British Empire historians, including Canadians, favouring "The First World War" and Americans "World War I". So, this page was created with British English usage from the outset with spellings such as "organisations" and "programme". MOS:RETAIN indicates that we should not change the variety of English used without good reason. Andrew D. (talk) 08:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• I would argue that alignment with the main article constitutes good reason, but your mileage may vary. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Data: Titles that include "World War I" vs. "First World War". "World War I" is the clear majority, with 328 articles, but the number of articles using "First World War" is not quite negligible at 31, though about a third of those are proper names. Colin M (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CONSISTENCY and (marginal) WP:PRECISION (How are we going to call 200 years from WWI, and does the "Second World War centenary" occur in 2039 or in 2114?). No such user (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. This really comes down to regional preference, "World War I" for the US and "First World War" for much of the Commonwealth; France translated media appears to largely following the British spelling[1]. If advocates wish to push this as a matter of consistency than this request is likely best withdrawn and re-framed with all relevant articles included, not simply the centenary. I see MOS:RETAIN as a clear guidance here, namely "an article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another".--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

  From what I can see, most (though, admittedly, not all) of the other relevant articles are, unlike this one, specific to Commonwealth topics. I think there is a case for MOS:TIES there, which would seem to make it inappropriate to extend this proposal to all of those articles. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - "First World War" vs "World War I" is not an ENGVAR issue, as both forms are used in roughly equal amounts within the UK and other countries. WP:CONSISTENCY says that this should move.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • That is a bold claim without any supporting data. I would like to see the data you employed to support this argument as it may change my view. If we use the UK news (Google search) I get 24K hits for "World War I"[2] and "First World War" I get 133K hits. [3]. Beyond the Oxford Ditionary[4], I seem to remember at least the Economist style guide preferring a spelled out version (The Economist is pretty consistent with First World War). Either way I would be curious to see a further explanation of your argument.-Labattblueboy (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

    @Labattblueboy: isn't it the other way around? Shouldn't the onus be on those claiming there is an ENGVAR issue to prove their case, rather than me in saying that it isn't? Certainly your evidence above shows that "World War I" is well-used in British English sources, and I'm personally not sure where the idea comes from that it isn't. Certainly this is not in the usual clear ENGVAR realms such as writing "color" with no U, or calling trousers "pants", or saying "chips" instead of "crisps", which are things British people would never do. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

    My understanding (I have access to a lot of sources on the WWI topic) is that this is an ENGVAR issue. I may be able to rustle up something on this. The best place to look might be journals that publish on the topic. Though Andrew D. pointed out that this is covered in the article on WWI itself, and the sources there is: "Margery Fee and Janice McAlpine. Guide to Canadian English Usage (Oxford UP, 1997), p. 210." Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

    Oh hello Carcharoth, fancy seeing you here - are you following me around?! I would certainly be interested to hear if there's an authoritative view on this... I recall having a discussion elsewhere on Wiki last year on this topic, but I can't remember where it was now. But to be honest, even if some style guides say one is UK usage and the other is US, the facts on the ground say that UK sources, including "high brow" sites "world+war+i"+site%3Abbc.co.uk such as the BBC, frequently use "World War I" and nobody really bats an eyelid. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

    I did look at your contribs. I tend to do that when I get involved in a discussion with someone - it helps to have context. I then saw a WWI-related discussion, and well, there is ample evidence of my contributions on this topic (e.g. see my userspace pages related to that), so yeah, I got here from your contribs, but hopefully you don't mind that! :-) I wouldn't call the BBC high-brow in this context, but yes I see your point. Journals such as this one ('First World War Studies') and style guides such as OUP ("Use the First World War, not the first world war, or World War I.") give some idea, but you are probably right, there is no real way to be consistent on this, so it may be best to just be consistent within articles rather than across the whole of Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

    @Amakuru: I was specifically refering to your claim that both are used in equal amounts in the UK. So yes, I would expect you to be in a position to provide a defence to that remark.-Labattblueboy (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

    @Labattblueboy: oh, I see. I guess I can't substantiate the assertion that they're equal, and they probably aren't, so I've struck it. Despite that, I still maintain that this doesn't qualify for WP:TIES or WP:RETAIN, because "World War I" is still clearly valid and heavily used in BrEnglish, albeit not the most popular form. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support To match the main article World War I. Dimadick (talk) 11:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - the change would do nothing to improve Wikipedia. Nobody is so stupid as to be confused by some articles using "First World War" and others "World War I". DuncanHill (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

  I'm afraid that's a straw man. So far, the only other mention of confusion is part of an argument opposing the move. The policy rationale for moving is based on consistency in article titles, not confusion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  As I said, and you've not denied, it would do nothing to improve the encyclopaedia. So it would be pointless. DuncanHill (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  Not so. I admit this is not a necessary change (insofar as anything here is necessary), but it is an improvement for the reasons set forth at Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles#General description and purpose. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  The problem with making article titles consistent, is that some people will then insist that the text needs to be consistent across the whole of Wikipedia. It would be completely wrong to replace all instances of "First World War" with "World War I" in article text in Wikipedia. There are good reasons to use "First World War" where that is the style used in a particular country. Carcharoth (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  There are good reasons to use "First World War" where that is the style used in a particular country. You are right, and MOS:TIES supports your reasoning, but this article is not specific to a particular country, so I don't see how that applies in this particular case. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONSISTENCY with World War I. Calidum 01:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose because it really, really doesn't matter either way. Both terms are valid. Different Anglophone countries either use one or the other or a mix of both. This article uses both terms within the text. No-one gets confused about what is meant. It is make-work to go around trying to make this uniform. The time is better spent on actually improving the articles themselves. Carcharoth (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.