Talk:World War II casualties/Archives/2011/May
 | This is an archive of past discussions about World War II casualties. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
India
Change india to British India as that was its official name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.151.0.13 (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The commonly used name is India and the previous consensus on the talk page is to use India. For example Ireland is not Erie, the United States is not The United States of America --Woogie10w (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Why not put the Roma figures in the table?
At present, the figures of Roma dead for each country are in the footnotes. Why not add them as a new column in the tables? It would make it a lot easier to read. Epa101 (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
What source do you propose for each country?--Woogie10w (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to have done it already. Very efficient! The early Ian Hancock estimates here are lower than many other totals, but I'm not aware of any other sources that break down the losses country-by-country. Sybil Milton was known for her research in this area, so she might've done some. I'll look later (I'm not as efficient as you). Epa101 (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- The Roma may have been missed in the census figures in the 1930's in the Balkans and hence the war losses understated, I need to read the Hancock book, I however did read Kendrick anf Gunter Lewy--Woogie10w (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
You've done some good work. A lot of Ian Hancock's books are previewed on Google Books. According to page C18 on this document, Sybil Milton did a calculation in one paper. As she excludes most of Eastern Europe, it sounds as if her estimates for Western Europe are higher than most. Sadly I cannot access the paper. (By the way, I have looked up the Huttenbach reference for a 4 million estimate on page C16, and the reference was a Swiss radio broadcast decades ago. The announcer probably just miscounted the number of zeroes!) Epa101 (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link---Woogie10w (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Confusing note/ref system
I'd strongly suggest reformatting the footnotes to a, b, c. As it stands, it is confusing (particularly because for me, Wikipedia footnotes don't work half the time and I have to scroll manually to check refs). In this article, it is a tremendous pain. And I will not even speculate why Poland has a ref "56" that leads to, as far as I can tell, "footnote 45". And the fact that a bunch of tables has differently formatted notes, separate from footnotes, makes this even more chaotic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I will re-format --Woogie10w (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
what about allies death chart?
i think this |Graph should be where other pie charts are just at the side of axis deaths pie chart
and they will be good to compare proportions
both charts created by same user (allies and axis)
Gurkhas in WW2
We will need to provide a reliable source that can be verified to support the post that the Royal Nepalese Army was separate from the British Indian Army in World War Two. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Please read Gurkha#British Indian Army (c. 1857–1947). The Royal Nepalese Army did not serve in WW2.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nepal supplied battalions that served in British Indian Army formations, as well as the Gurkha battalions that were part of the BIA. See 268th Indian Infantry Brigade which had two battalion from Nepal in its ranks. There was also the 34th Indian States Forces Infantry Brigade formed by units of the Independent Princely states. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)