Wikipedia

Talk:World War II/Infobox/Archive 2

< Talk:World War II | Infobox
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Pietervhuis in topic Second World War photo montage
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Having the map as our infobox image

Latest comment: 16 years ago23 comments7 people in discussion

As Wikipedia's image policy states, images should not be used more than once in the same article no matter what. In our WWII article, we have a picture of the map with the WWII countries, twice, with exactly same caption. Since our WW1 infobox has an image of the 5 most major events of WW1, our WW2 infobox image should do the same as [Image:WW1 TitlePicture For Wikipedia Article.jpg]. I will be changing our infobox image to [Image:WW2 TitlePicture For Wikipedia Article.jpg] per policy.-- Penubag  04:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Good move. Duke o Puke 04:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, it only seems reasonable-- Penubag  05:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
view the WW2 talk page-- Penubag  04:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
My edit summary might have been not very clear. I meant that before replacing the map with an image the agreement should be reached over what image should be used. Alæxis¿question? 06:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I would assume that [Image:WW2TitlePicture For Wikipedia Article.jpg] should be used since [Image:WW1 TitlePicture For Wikipedia Article.jpg] is used for our WW1 article. I think we should keep consistency. Besides, in general, it is a good picture that reflects the events of WW2. The WW2map, merely shows the combatants of the war, and does not fully represent the article. -- Penubag  06:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that quite a few people are unhappy with this image. If you read this talk's archive you will understand why. So replacing the map with this image will most likely cause a good deal of revert warring which is not good imho. Alæxis¿question? 07:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand that people may be unhappy with the WW2titlepicture.jpg but it is definitely better than a map nonetheless. It also seems the discussion on which images are to be used have stopped. Maybe readding the image will start the debate again. I'm just saying WW2picture.jpg is a better placeholder than the double-used map until the debate on which pictures will be used are resolved. Having the map as the placeholder image is bad because it is already used in the article, and it violates the image policy (no multiple same images). Edit warring and revert warring may not be good in your opinion, but it would atleast force us to create a really good image that suits most people's tastes and one that reflects the article.-- Penubag  07:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The discussion stopped because the map was found to be acceptable for all sides. I can't agree that the contentious image is a better placeholder than the map. Btw, why can't the map be removed from the WW2 article itself and kept in the infobox? Feel free to start the discussion over the choice of the images. Propose your own version, for example. Alæxis¿question? 08:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
We already have great images on our WW2 article. But, an infobox image's purpose is not to just suit everyone's tastes, but to most represent the article. Sure, changing the infobox image to a picture rather than a map may leave some people unhappy, but that is not its purpose. The people were able to agree on the World War 1 infobox image, although I am sure not everyone was happy on the image selected. We will have to bust some guts and suit the purpose. -- Penubag  08:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've understood your opinion. I won't agree to this image though. Alæxis¿question? 08:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, that image isn't my favorite either-- Penubag  09:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This will be "entertaining." As Alæxis noted, the map solution was proposed and adopted because it put an acceptable end to all the contentious feuding over whose favorite image should be included, whose hated image should be deleted, and where each should be placed relative to the others in the montage. All this action and discussion will accomplish is more of the same. I find myself flummoxed by Penubag's rationale for reopening this cauldron of worms. The problem he gives as his principal rationale would have been simply solved by deleting (or at least commenting out) the map from the WW2 article itself. Guess I'd better stock up on beer and pretzels and hope the sequel is better than the original show. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Gosh, as I stated many times before...a static map of the WW2 combatants in an infobox is completley useless because we already have a map of greater value right under it, The information presented in the map is ambiguous (not necessary because we have a List of Allied powers and axis powers right under it, the same information presented in a map is not necessary), and sure, there are some heated debates over which images to use, but a consensus must be drawn no matter how difficult it is to represent the war in a few images (we can't just say "It's too hard to decide...Hey! let just use a map!" Most war articles I've seen have an image that icons the war, you can view American Civil War, World War I, American Revolutionary War, Napoleonic Wars, Korean War, or any other war article (1,2,3), and see that all these have montages because montages most represent a war. And no, we are not trying to pick which images we like best, but one that helps the article. Why don't you try and be constructive?-- penubag  21:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
penubag, the clear concensus is that the map stays. You have, as Askari Mark said, opened a can of worms. That you think an image would be better than a map is your POV, as you can see most people think that it is fine and prefer the uncontroversial map to stay. Just let it go.--Miyokan (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Well obviously you haven't been reading resent posts on this and the WW2 talk page -- penubag  01:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] Penubag, I was being constructive ... both the first time around, and this time around too – if learning from history rather than repeating it is considered “constructive.” Apparently you haven’t gone through the first cycle of debate over this issue. It wasn’t a matter of “Ooh, it’s too hard, so let’s use a map”, but a case of lengthy, rancorous, disruptive argument that was ended by a different idea. Also, for what it is worth, the original consensus map was a “dynamic” one, not this admittedly bland, unappealing, static one. I haven’t had the time to go back and find out when and why that was substituted, but an appealing, useful map is as good an alternative as a montage. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not only a matter of the difficulty of finding good images, and I have opened no can of worms. Ask yourself this question, What is the purpose of an Infobox? Your answer should be, to highlight and summarize the article (maybe for lazy readers, like me, who don't have the attention span to read the whole article to find out if France was Ally or Axis). Then if you go onto matters of an infobox main image, what's its purpose? To summarize WW2 in one image. Hard to do? You bet. Having multiple images is better to highlite the war. However, a map, does not represent the war, it just restates something right under it under the combatant list. That map should go in the article somewhere else, not in the infobox. This is no can of worms I'm opening, just restating the obvious. -- penubag  06:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Having multiple images is better to highlite the war. - This is only your opinion. This issue has already been settled. Just because you do not agree with the decision does not mean you can unilaterally reverse it.--Miyokan (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Many other people seem to agree with me, you can read down further or the WW2 talk page. And, yes, I couldn't just change the decision if more people agreed with you. -- penubag  04:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I, also, do not agree with decision to use the map and I think it's disingenuous of you to constantly cite an aging consensus. When an article is nominated for deletion, the "consensus" reached is neither definitive nor final, and yet, for this image, it's apparently both?
Further, I'm not even entirely sure what this consensus you're referring to is. Template talk:WW2InfoBox/Image archive 1#A different alternative? Askari Mark "voted" for it, I guess, as did M.V.E.i., and Dna-Dennis? That's your consensus? Some discussing hidden away in farthest reaches of wikipedia? If you want to take a real consensus, why not discuss it on the WW2 talk page as opposed to this template's talk page? You'd get a much wider audience there. TerraFrost (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
We actually did post notices of the discussion at the WWII talk page, and I believe MILHIST as well. You might also include Oberiko and me. We were the main people discussing the issues, so we did establish a consensus. And obviously, it wasn't "hidden away" if it was here on the talk page, with notices in relevant places. Parsecboy (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
If it was indeed posted on the WWII talk page then I guess I'll have to retract my "hidden away" claim to an extent. Certainly it was more hidden away then AfDs are, but I think it may potentially be unreasonable to have notices for every single contentious issue on the article, itself.
Anyway, I still believe the vote needs to be redone. So, I guess I'll go ahead and redo it TerraFrost (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Vote

Latest comment: 16 years ago30 comments12 people in discussion

I guess I should proceed in the image selection process? Sign your name if you support the image. 5 of the images with the highest scores will be used. Feel free to add your own images to the gallery. (all of these images will need to be cropped before implemented)

We cannot have an image for every major event during WW2, but I think these are the most major events/world wide impact and we should at least have these images at a bare minimum:

  • Battle of Stalingrad - Turning point of the war
  • The japanese campaign - Longest part of war, the creater of some present day conflicts (north/south korea)
    • Possibly Atomic bomb ,maybe merge with japanese campaign - created nuclear warfare, showed world power of nuclear weapons, coldwar, end of WW2
  • The Holocaust - Many influential documents written (ie. Night, Diary of anne frank), millions killed
  • Possibly D-day - end of WW2 in Europe


Discussion

Where is the Soviet flag over Berlin? Why the only Soviet picture you proposed is of such poor taste (there are plenty of much better pictures out there)? Where are pictures of other allied soldiers, at least of D-Day or something? Overall, if material of such quality is to be used, I strongly oppose having a picture in the infobox. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I do not have the time to find the all the best images we have, if you know of some better ones, then please add it. Sure, I may have poor taste to you, but all my votes may not necessarily go on the main picture. and, do you think I can find all the pictures representing WW2 in a few seconds? I will change my image votes when I see some better images.-- Penubag  10:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm all in favour of replacing the map with a montage, but anyone working on this should review the archived discussion of the image. It's... educational and makes it clear the kind of issues that will be faced. I'm not convinced that simply picking pictures will do; there needs to be some consensus on what particular features of the war the montage will represent, and then choose pictures to illustrate those. - EronTalk 11:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Good point there. I had a quick look at it but I will look that over when I have some more time. But voting for the suitable images also see like a proper idea, since the opinions and knowledge of one cannot overcome the the opinions and knowledge of many. To the top 5 that get the most votes, we will also have to view each individual image to see if they, as a whole represent the WW2 article. We could also check that list on the archives to see if our selected images truly do represent the article.-- Penubag  12:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
One thing to keep in mind is that an image in the box shouldn't be used in the article. Something like the Soviet flag in Berlin is much more appropriate for whatever section details the "End of the war in Europe" then the infobox. IMO, we're doing this backwards, once we've chosen the images for the article, then we should select those for the infobox. Oberiko (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The map needs to go. I suggest placing this image there for now. The map is also wrong, but that's another story! Thinkharder (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to this image... Alæxis¿question? 18:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I have compiled this image which I personally think is good because it is arranged in a cause-effect type manner and it is chronological for the most part; with the top dedicated to the Germans (Troops marching, Concentration Camp); the middle, soviets, (Battle of Stalingrad, Battle of Berlin); and the bottom the Japaneses campaign (Battles in china, and atomic bombing). What do you guys think? those are the most major points during the war.-- Penubag  10:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree with that. As Ko Soi IX pointed out above, there aren't any images of Western Allies. It's also heavily biased towards the European Theatre; 2/3 of the images are from Europe. There's nothing wrong with the original montage made by DNA-webmaster. Parsecboy (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Except that the image from the Western European front (D-Day) is the biggest of all for no apparent reason. Actually the discussions like this one led us to accepting the map as a template image. Alæxis¿question? 18:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem, I think, is that there are far too many good images that could be used for a montage, and too many aspects of the war that should be illustrated. In Penubag's image, there's no illustration of the naval fighting in the Pacific or the huge bombing raids in Europe; no brutal winter fighting in the Eastern Front. In other versions, there are no images of Japanese or Chinese troops. A map is a far better idea, because it's not trying to jam a thousand different aspects into 5 or 6 little boxes. An animated map is best, but there are problems with the one we have (i.e., having Japan colored as Axis from the start but not having China colored as Allied, having Vichy France colored as Axis, etc.). Unless someone can fix the animated one, that leaves us with a static map, like the one that has been there for a while now, until EAJoe started messing with things. I still think that map is the best available to have in the infobox. If someone can find a better map, preferably animated, I would be open to replacing the other map. Parsecboy (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's too tedious to vote under the blocks. I like the old infobox as DNA Dennis originally made, i.e., the bomb, Normandy, Nazis marching, concentration camp victims, Soviet flag over Berlin. Normandy is double-wide and on top. It's not completely all-encompassing but it's the best opening image ever and way more fun than a map. Duke o Puke (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no way a map is going to be better than an montage. The only benefits as a map as the infobox image is that it is easy for us (wiki editors) in a way that we wouldn't have to continue this discussion. A map with simply the combatant sides does not represent an entire war no matter how discussed. The purpose of an infobox image is to represent the war. You can view, American Civil War, World War I, American Revolutionary War, Napoleonic Wars, Korean War, or any other war article (1,2,3) and see that infobox images are generally a quick summary of the war in an image, or a single image that represents the war. The usage of a map is simply a quick way of escaping discussions and edit wars. Sure, there are way too many good article images to use in a montage, but the discussion on which images that would best summarize WW2 must be reached. I suggest you review my image proposal because my image most represents WW2. If you take a poll and ask a group of people from around the world what they most remember about WW2, the will say : the Holocaust, Atomic bombing. If you ask Historians, they will most likely say (including the above responses) : the Battle of Stalingrad, and possibly D-day. Yes, my image does not include any pictures of the western allies because there aren't any good pictures with them in it that helps sum up WW2 (with the exception of the Western European front (D-Day) which isn't of good image quality anyways (however, I may replace the picture of the Japanese in China with this picture because it is an important picture.)) But, overall, my image is good in other terms because it is chronological and is arranged in a cause-effect style. Parsecboy said "It's also heavily biased towards the European Theatre; 2/3 of the images are from Europe" the reason for this is because Europe is where most of major events occurred. There's absolutely no reason to include an image of less significance just to include images from other parts of the world. Also he stated that "In Penubag's image, there's no illustration of the naval fighting in the Pacific or the huge bombing raids in Europe; no brutal winter fighting in the Eastern Front" Again, this is because I do not see that these events are as significant as the other events. Readers can just view these other "less-significant" events by reading the article further, but I do not see that those events were as important as the ones states above; thus are to be excluded from the infobox image.-- Penubag  06:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so atleast we got the original montage up as a place holder. Does anyone have any suggestions on the improvement collage?-- Penubag  01:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Penubag says: "Europe is where most of major events occurred." Not at all and I find it amazing that an American can think this. How about the first and only use of nuclear weapons in history? The largest naval battle in history? The largest naval air battle in history? The first battle fought by aircraft carriers? Midway? Guadalcanal? Pearl Harbor? Bataan? Okinawa? Iwo Jima? The bombing of Tokyo? The Burma Railway? The epic battles in China, which occupied the vast majority of the Japanese Army for most of the war? Then there are all those that you have never heard of, probably because they did not involve Americans. Grant | Talk 03:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I am aware of the facts you presented but if you read what I typed above, you will see that a single image cannot address all these major events. Fine, Europe may not have been where most of the events occurred, but I'm sure you will agree with me that the most prominent events (the ones that average Joe know about) are the events stated in bold above. Your comment is totally irrelevant to the discussion of the images for use in the infobox but seems to more fall the guide lines of WP:PA. You need to check your inferences buddy, I am not even full American, but Italian and Japanese.-- Penubag  06:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 

I know what you are saying. I have expressed my opinion on this above, but there doesn't seem to be a groundswell to change the image to anything that I would consider more representative.

FWIW, my criticisms of the present collage are as follows: 1. Overemphasis on D-Day; 2. Use of an image of the Anschluss, which occurred before the war began; 3. Only one image from Asia/Pacific. 4. Lack of historical sequence in the way they are arranged; 5. Why only five images? A major article such as this justifies a collage of (say) 10 images

My "quick fix" for the present collage would be this: reduce the D-Day image by half, remove the Anschluss and Auschwitz images and replace with them with cropped versions of the images on the right, symbolising Nazism/the Holocaust/civilian suffering and the Pacific/naval/aviation/Japanese military aspects. Grant | Talk 08:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

10 images sounds like a little too much, but what about this one (In case you haven't seen it already)
File:Infobox image for WWII.png
It encompassed all the major (notable highlights) of the war and as stated above, is chronological (for the most part) and ordered in a cause-effect style way-- Penubag  09:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the Anschluss image (top left) for the reasons already stated, I think the top right one (concentration cam inmates?) is ambiguous, and there are no images represeenting naval warfare or aviation, both of which were highly significant in WW2. Grant | Talk 07:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that we need to have a picture of the Nazis in our picture (preferably with their iconic flag), I just can't find a better picture than the Anschluss one. The top right image ambiguous? Not sure about that, but I see your point, I can maybe fit in your picture although I doesn't depict the concentration camps as well as the other one. I also think maybe replacing the bottom left picture (japanese troops) with your kamikaze picture would be good, (but then the battles in China aren't depicted) (so quick question, which is more iconic in WW2, the air/sea battles in the pacific, or the long Sino-Japanese wars?). I really feel your stress of 'too many good pictures' now, since you are the only other person giving constructive thoughts...-- Penubag  07:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
In response to your argument that the montage should (yes, I'm ok with not using a map, if that's what consensus decides) include an image of the Nazis with their iconic flag, you might want to take a look at the altered montage that's currently on the template by User:Voyevoda. I'd say that's a pretty good picture for that criteria. Parsecboy (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't notice the change, even though I regularly check back...thanks for the update, parsec. Well, it seems the only difference is the replacement of the army picture with hitler and his swastika, which is a good change, I think maybe even better than my nazi pic, agree? But, still, it does not fix some of the issues that are fixable, such as ordering and placement, and a larger scope (maybe another asia pic, and replacing the picture of the gates to the cons.camp with something easier identifiable and iconic). I'm still trying for more agreement in changing more of the images in the montage though.-- Penubag  06:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: :-) Well, it seems Dna-webmaster reverted Voyevoda's change. Well, I suppose that's okay since we are working on a replacement image anyways. The original one suits as a good placeholder for now. -- Penubag  08:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, yeah, I didn't care for the new version over the old myself, I just thought the image of Hitler with the Nazi flags was a better alternative to the other Nazi images. I can't seem to find it anywhere, not in Wikipedia, nor on commons. Parsecboy (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Miyokan suggests we up the discussion on the image selection. I suggest the image I made to the left, but you guys had some other suggestions such as changing the Nazi picture and the concentration camp picture, and possibly the Japanese picture. Thoughts? If not, I'll just place my picture on the template.-- penubag  05:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree (and quite strongly so). Maybe I should have participated in the discussion before, but honestly, I haven't had time nor energy. But first, Penubag, I have to say I appreciate your efforts and your suggestion does not completely su*k. But there are however many problems with the current suggestion;

  1. The Nazi pic from Austria is not allowed to be used, since its copyrights are uncertain (I know, since I am the creator of the original montage, and I was asked to remove it)
  2. The concentration camp is IMO a bad selection (not utterly), but, bad cropping and, furthermore, it's an image which actually could be from any prison (or prison camp), i.e. too undescriptive.
  3. Stalingrad image - that's a very fine image but, as I have said so many times before, this will seriously unbalance the montage, since 2 "Soviet" images is simply one too many.
  4. The Japan image is quite a good suggestion in principle, but the quality and resolution is simply horrible.
  5. Last, but not least, a montage without D-day would IMO be a very big mistake. Don't think I need to explain why, but ask me, or simply check with Battle of Normandy.

Therefore, I strongly disagree with the new suggestion. I'd say we need a thorough discussion with far more many participating editors until we can decide upon a new template image. I understand you have tried to engage folks in discussing this, so I do not blame you. But, alas, too few involved in my opinion, and too many problems with the current suggestion. My regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I was away for awhile, so excuse my lateness. I think that we will never have enough people to have a valid discussion, so I'm just trying to keep everyone and respect everyone's comments, so thanks for (re)joining and for your acknowledgments. Just as a quick cap, I think that the image must, at all costs have something on these topics:
  • Battle of Stalingrad or battle of berlin (nazis)
  • The japanese campaign
  • Possibly Atomic bomb ,maybe merge with japanese campaign
  • The Holocaust
  • D-day (using your suggestion)

So for sure, I will get rid of the nazi picture and replace it with something else (prefably something with their iconic flag). I couldn't find a better concentration picture then the one I have above, although the picture with the young boy above is a good candidate, I could also try for better cropping and zooming on my orig?, (the pic with just the top of the Auschwitz gates is hardly notable nor iconic). For a japan picture, I selected that since it icons both the battles in China (dating back to 1894) and their flag representing the navy. I really think that it is a good compromise over its low res (even though I don't really think the quality is bad at all)....I don't know, there just isn't very many images that encompass everything we'd like, if you suggest an image, please add it here. Although your criticisms is good, we also need some suggestions. Thanks again for your work on this. -- penubag  01:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with your choice of topics. Alæxis¿question? 07:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I've voted at the time of this sig. I would like to say breifly that I fully support an image over a map, but would have liked to see more options for images from the allied forces. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Whatever collage is made, I think you could never ever leave the picture of normandy out. Same as the Atomic cloud. They are just too contemptuous with the wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pietervhuis (talk • contribs) 03:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture should include something about the holocaust

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

One of the most culturally significant events of the second world war (and modern history) was the holocaust and I believe that this should have some representation in the collage Mikeonatrike (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

collages vs. maps: which do you prefer?

Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion

Collages such as Image:WW2 TitlePicture For Wikipedia Article.jpg have been contentious because of disagreements as to which images ought to be on them. To avoid contention, it was decided that Image:WWII.png ought to replace the collage. This is despite the fact that progress was being made towards resolving those disagreements, as can be seen in this very talk page.

So I'll put it to a vote. Wwhich do you prefer. Collages or maps? Just add your name to the list, below, saying either Maps or Collages. Thanks TerraFrost (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

So you would vote collage if we had a better collage option? If so, we are currently deciding on the images above -- penubag  10:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
That is unlikely, since to create a balanced collage we would need too many images (6 is not nearly enough), they would be too small, and we would be wasting iconic images (allied flags over berlin and iwo jima, for instance) instead of using them to full effect in the article. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
We don't need every major event in the picture, just 6 is fine. Hey, look at the WW1 infobox, it looks great (better than if they used a map). -- penubag  12:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
WW1 picture also has serious deficiencies - there is not a single picture of the Russians or the Austrians (as if the Eastern Front didn't exist), the machinegun was given preference over artillery etc etc. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Fine example of Wikipedia's systemic bias :) Alæxis¿question? 19:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
World War I collage is clearly not made to give every side equal representation, but just to show different aspects(trenches, tanks, naval warfare, planes) of war. I guess we wouldn't be in such never ending conflict over WW II if we would use also such approach. But then someone would feel "underrepresented" and whole argument would start from beginning :)--Staberinde (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Voting is evil I'd also support collage, however consensus should be reached on what images to include. I myself support the Penubag's proposed 5 images, btw (provided D-day doesn't get two times bigger than everything else, that is). The map is more neutral and less pretty than any collage so I see no problem with having it temporarily in the template. Btw it would be impossible to list all the combatants in the template while the map does just that. Alæxis¿question? 10:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you support my image, however, other people feel it lacks images of allies, which I think is not a good enough reason to not support it. If my proposed image highlights WW2 best (encompassing most aspects), then we should use it. -- penubag  10:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Collage, It's best if all war pages have a collage as a header. Surely the map is informative, but it shouldn't be the header. People can always solve disagreements of collages through discussion. Replacing it with a picture of a map is not an option imo. I do think however that the map is nice for somewhere else in the article. - PietervHuis 03:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Collage, but keep the maps in the World War II article, obviously not in the infobox though.
  • Collage, A map shows the Allies and Axis countires but some of the countries did not support the war effort at all and should not be their. The map that shows the countries in Red, Black, and Blue is the article and shoud be used for that. Supergodzilla20|90 18:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Choice of map

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Staberinde has reverted the change of map to the animated map. He states this contains mistakes. I still prefer the animated map for the following reasons:

  1. Overall it is better than a static map in showing the dynamic changes in this six year period - it conveys much more information and is attractively eye-catching.
  2. It may not be 100% perfect but it doesn't need to be per WP:IMPERFECT. Perfect is the enemy of good, as the saying has it. Its imperfections can be tagged and this will encourage someone to fix them.
  3. The other map is inferior. It arguably is imperfect too, for example, in showing Finland as part of the Axis and showing the Soviet Union as unambiguously allied prior to Pearl Harbor. The choice of Pearl Harbor as the critical division point also seems tendentious. The animated map avoids such invidious choices by showing the changes.
  4. The animated map is used elsewhere in WW2 articles.
  5. It is not just me that favours the animated map - Supergodzilla2090 states a clear preference for it too above.

Please discuss.

Colonel Warden (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the animated map as well, essentially for the reasons provided above. It's a far better explanation of the countries involved than the static map, that uses tiny, almost indiscernible dots to denote countries that switched sides. Yes there are problems, but nothing on Wikipedia is perfect, nor is it required to be. Parsecboy (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I've (finally) started working on creating the map. I have the prototype up, but I still require more changes, such as fixing the borders for Romania and Czechoslovakia. Since it's SVG, it should be alterable quite quickly once the base is established. Oberiko (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That looks good. Once it's done, I think it should answer Staberinde's objection to the current animated map. Good work. Parsecboy (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. I prefer collage anyway, and eye-cathiness is no way priority over "boring" reality.
  2. Could you explain how we will tag imperfect map in WW II infobox?
  3. Other map has its problems(another reason why I support collage), but those are nowhere as serious.
  4. As it hasn't been repaired despite the mistakes being pointed out long time ago, its most obvious to remove it from all articles.
  5. Popular vote can not enforce obvious factual mistakes.

--Staberinde (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding point 2, we might tag the map with

{{Image-Poor-Quality}}

or

{{cleanup-image}}

The collage seems largely irrelevant to the choice between the maps as we will still want a map in the relevant articles like World War II.

Colonel Warden (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Bear with us a bit longer. With the main article replaced, we should be in a better position to choose among potential images for the collage. I'd adivce participating in the discussion(s) about photo selection. Oberiko (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you guys, I was waiting for you guys to finish revamping the article before I restarted the discussion. Although the infobox image collage needs to replace the map, a map is still essential to have in the article. A map somewhere in the article is more important than any collage, even if it's in the infobox. Hopefully Oberiko can make a good one. -- penubag  (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Restarting image selection

Latest comment: 16 years ago26 comments3 people in discussion

I know it's a bit late in the game, but having changed the bulk of WWII article I would suggest we have a new go at potential images for the infobox.

Currently, here's what is used by section:

Background War breaks out Axis advances The war becomes global The tide turns Allies gain momentum Allies close in Axis collapse, Allied victory
   
 		  
File:Aerial view of a convoy.jpg		 File:Soviet Offensive Moscow December 1941.jpg
 		  
 		  
File:Sovietic T34 battle of kursk.jpg		    
 

Now, I think we've got a pretty good balance between the Asian Theatre, the Western Allies-European Axis War and the Soviet-German War; as well as a nice progression and highlighting of some of the more important events.

Since I think we can all mostly agree that there's no need to duplicate images, here's my suggestions for the infobox:


Again, balanced between (IMO) the three major theatres, and showing aerial, nautical, armoured and urban warfare as well as massacres of civilians. Oberiko (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I especially like the U-boat, Japanese planes, and tanks in North Africa. The Soviet soldiers in the Berlin metro is good too. I suggest replacing the image of the fighting in Babruysk with this image: Image:Soviet soldiers moving at Stalingrad.jpg. Parsecboy (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I was originally going to go with the Stalingrad image, but I'm thinking that, from an aesthetic point of view, the Belorussia image works better being brighter and easier to see. I'd go with the Stalingrad one if we modified it a bit, which shouldn't be to difficult. Oberiko (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point. It shouldn't be a problem to lighten it up. I just noticed there's another soldier in the bottom dark area of the image; never saw him before :) Parsecboy (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You're right. It's actually pretty bright (and faint) at the top and very dark at the bottom. Is there any kind of wiki-group that covers photo-restorations? I'm thinking that fixing that one properly is beyond my humble skill level. Oberiko (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if it's the right place, but I created a request at the Philip Greenspun illustration project on Meta to get the image improved. Hopefully they'll be able to help us out. Parsecboy (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
How about a different photo of Stalingrad? The above also shows winter fighting, which we lack in the others. Oberiko (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave a quick ten-minute shot at enhancing the Stalingrad image. Thoughts? Oberiko (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OriginalEdited
File:Soviet soldiers moving at Stalingrad.jpg File:Soviet soldiers moving at Stalingrad2.jpg

That's a lot better. The figure in the foreground is much more visible, and the soldiers in the middle are quite a bit more defined in shape. Also, the top (at least as far as I can tell) isn't any brighter than it was. Good work. Parsecboy (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Oberiko (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposition 2

Background War breaks out Axis advances The war becomes global The tide turns Allies gain momentum Allies close in Axis collapse, Allied victory
   
 		  
File:Aerial view of a convoy.jpg		 File:GermanTroopsInRussia1941.jpg
 		  
File:Soviet soldiers moving at Stalingrad2.jpg		  
File:Prokhorovka.jpg		    
 

Thoughts? Oberiko (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got no objections to these pictures. I feel the infobox is pretty well balanced towards depicting the various aspects of the war (air, naval, armored, and urban combat, atrocities) I'm a little disappointed that we're essentially the only two discussing this. I had hoped for a broader participation. Oh well. Parsecboy (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. But I'll give it a few days to let others have a chance to weigh in their opinions. If there are no objections I'll go ahead and make the changes. Oberiko (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
A few changes. Since we don't show any other leaders, I don't think we should highlight Hitler and Mussolini. The new image goes as part of the invasion of Poland, shows the Soviet's co-operating with the Germans (which matches up to the Soviets meeting the Western Allies at the end, giving a better indication of the shifting alliances) and helps to depict more of the German forces, of which we had little. In the infobox, I swapped the Kursk photo (which isn't a great photo, it shows armoured recovery more then armoured combat) for the one of Moscow, as it also shows an armoured aspect, as well as bringing the "winter". Oberiko (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
No objections here; the Moscow battle photo is a good one. Parsecboy (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 

Alright, it's done. I also put back the Victory Banner, as it seems to be more notable for the end of the war. Comments? Oberiko (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the images, and the arragement is fine, but I'm not sure if it's completely aesthetically pleasing. My problem is that the images are different sizes (compare to the previous versions, such as Image:Infobox image for WWII.png). Is there any way to resize or slightly crop the images so that they're the same size? Other than that, it seems pretty good, and I would have no objections to placing it in the infobox. Parsecboy (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I already cropped them so that they were even across each row, making them of uniform height shouldn't be a problem. Oberiko (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
File:BuriedAlive.jpg
Strike that. The existing Nanking one doesn't shrink very well. Any objection to using this one instead? Oberiko (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
If it fits alright, I've got no problem with the second image. Parsecboy (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to note, I posted a notice at the WWII article that we're working on a new montage, so hopefully we'll get some more opinions. Parsecboy (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. I'll give a few days to see if anyone has suggestions / feedback and then make the changes. Oberiko (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to thank any work done on the infobox image, however, as balanced as the current suggestion is, I do not think that a common person could easily associate that collage with WW2. I think that we need to use a collage that has pictures more iconic and most easily recognized as being part of WW2 by the commoner, even if that means reusing images already in the article. If I'm not mistaken, an infobox image should be a summary of the article/ most represent the war. -- penubag  (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

With thousands of images to choose from, I don't think we need to repeat them. The common person that you speak of isn't likely to know any of the photographs regardless, except, potentially, just the Normandy Landings and Iwo Jima. Oberiko (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
That isn't necessary true, I also feel that we should only include highlite images, which more represent the war. If you just have a picture of a sub, some planes, and a tank in some snow, it won't nearly come close to represent the war as pictures of Hitler and his swastika, the atomic mushroom, or the emaciated Jews. Sorry if it feels like I'm rubbing this in, but I think my image, although unbalanced, does just this. -- penubag  (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The Holocaust isn't part of World War II, it was an atrocity committed by the Nazi regime. Likewise, the Anschluss also wasn't part of WWII. I also notice your image doesn't cover the Western Allied-European Axis War at all, and there are no tanks, planes or naval ships of any kind. Part of the infobox, in showing the instant overall of the war, is also, IMO, to show how its fought. Oberiko (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Second World War photo montage

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Why would you put two photos of Russian soldiers in the montage, and exclude any photos at all of United States forces? You have the British Empire, Japan, China, USSR, Germany covered - but a major player like the US that fought in Alaska, the south Pacific, Asia, North Africa, the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, Southern France, and NW Europe not to mention providing massive amounts of material aid to China and Russia and the Commonwealth - don't get a picture? I like that the desert and the winter are highlighted. I would suggest getting rid of the Berlin fighting - we've seen infantry in action and Russians in action in the other pictures - and show a US heavy bomber, perhaps a B-29, perhaps even Bock's Car, and I think it would be more representative of the war as a whole.139.48.25.61 (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We tried to break it down as follows:
  • Theatres / events:
    • 2 Soviet-German
      • Battle of Moscow
      • Battle of Berlin
    • 2 European-Atlantic
      • El Alamein
      • Battle of the Atlantic
    • 2 Asia-Pacific.
      • Rape of Nanking
      • Pearl Harbour
  • Aspects
    • Armoured
    • Submarine
    • Carrier
    • Static defences
    • Infantry close quarter
    • Massacres
  • Environments
    • Winter
    • Desert
    • Urban
    • Ocean
  • Combatants
    • 2 Japanese
    • 1 German
    • 1 Western Allied (British)
    • 1 Chinese (civilian)
    • 2 Soviet
I don't think it's a perfect montage (no jungles, beaches/amphibious, Chinese forces, American forces, Italian forces, French forces, artillery, heavy aircraft, destroyers/cruisers/battleships, commandos/special forces, paratroopers, flame-throwers etc.) but it's going to be impossible to get everything in six photos. If you have an alternate montage which you think captures as much or more and remains fairly representative of the war in a whole, please demonstrate it. Oberiko (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Reread my post and you'll see that I just did. As it is, the montage admirably covers the points you raise, but the duplication of the Russians is unnnecessary - substitute an American 4-engine bomber for the Berlin street fighting and you have a winner that covers most of the bases admirably.139.48.25.61 (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Except that we would then have three photos for the European-Atlantic Theatre and only one to the much larger Soviet-German War. We would also be losing urban warfare in a straight trade for aerial bombardment. IMHO, it's not an improvement. Oberiko (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 

How about this? I'm fine with replacing the Pearl Harbour image with one of American planes on the right (from the Battle of Leyte Gulf). It's the same theatre and aspect, but with American's pictured instead of the Japanese. Oberiko (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I still prefer the photo of the Japanese planes more. There are plenty of pictures of Americans in the body of the article, I don't think it's of the utmost importance that they be in the montage as well. Parsecboy (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course there has to be a picture of US forces in the image. They were one of two superpowers and one of the most important belligerents in the war. Two pictures of Soviet forces and no US forces accounts to wp:undue. - Pieter_v (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II/Infobox/Archive_2&oldid=1232549242"