Talk:World War I

Press mention

For Template:Press:

• https://www.popsci.com/technology/most-popular-wikipedia-entries/

--Another Believer _(Talk) 23:25, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

"The Great War" in title case?

Hi @GodCipherDivine, can you provide a source substantiating your claim that "In practically every source it's always spelled as 'The Great War' with a capital 'T.'"? Practically every source which I have seen renders the T as lowercase. Pave Paws (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

https://mlpp.pressbooks.pub/ushistory2/chapter/the-great-war/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/znhhrj6

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/world-war-i

https://www.thehistoryreader.com/military-history/world-war-i-centennial/

https://www.dncr.nc.gov/world-war-i

https://libguides.library.ncat.edu/wwi

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781394259779.ch14

https://www.wvxu.org/history/2018-11-14/how-the-great-war-changed-the-course-of-history

https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2018/11/lessons-from-the-great-war

https://www.theachistorycenter.com/history-mystery-1/why-was-wwi-called-%E2%80%98the-great-war%E2%80%99%3F

GodCipherDivine (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Usage of "The Great War" is inconsistent even in these examples. For example:

MLPP Press Books reads: soldiers in the Great War used poisons such as chlorine and mustard gas on each other

Waibel in the Wiley source reads reads: Several new, modern weapons appeared during the Great War.

The Current Affairs article refers to a PBS documentary, the title of which is The Great War, so it is naturally in title case.

The ncat.edu source uses "The Great War" in title case because it is part of a title: World War I - The Great War: Home

The first sentence of the AC History Center source reads: This year, 2018, marks the centennial for the end of the Great War.

Not to mention most of these are rather subpar sources to reference for an encyclopedic entry. Pave Paws (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

RFC Concerning "Commanders and leaders" Section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:SNOW close against the proposal. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

---

Should people be listed in the infobox "Commanders and leaders" section? If so, who should merit inclusion? Emiya1980 (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• No I'm not sure why this has gone to a RfC without any recent discussion, but given there were lots and lots of national leaders (including multiple prime ministers in the UK and the unusual system in Germany where the military ended up as the de-facto government in the last period of the war), it seems best to keep the infobox simple given the only alternative would be lots of complexity. Nick-D (talk) 02:38, 19 July 2026 (UTC

  @Nick-D: World War II provides a list of "Main Allied Leaders" and "Main Axis Leaders". Can't a similar thing be done here? Emiya1980 (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  Why should it be added here? World War II and World War I were also quite different, in that the events of the first war destroyed several major governments leading to there being multiple leaders (and the leader of Austro-Hungry died half way through the conflict and was replaced) while the leadership in World War II was much more stable, resulting the ability to provide a much more concise infobox. Nick-D (talk) 03:48, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  It is generally agreed that the main participating countries in World War I were Russia, Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, Britain, Austria, Serbia, the Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria and the United States. The de jure leadership of the U.S., Germany, Belgium, Italy, Serbia, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire remained restricted to one person throughout the entirety of the conflict. Even when you look at the other countries, their official rulers were limited to no more than two people at most over the course of the conflict. While more extensive, listing the leaders of said countries would be significantly less cluttered than the leadership rosters featured in the infoboxes for the Seven Years War, Napoleonic Wars, Thirty Years War and pages for the Crusades. I don't see why expansive lists are allowed for those articles among others but the line is firmly drawn against this one. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• No, essentially per Nick - too complex for this context. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• No ditto Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• No. As per Nick. And an RfC isn't the place to launch a general discussion about who should merit inclusion in an info box. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• No per Nick... Better to keep the infobox simple. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 03:41, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• No per Nick. A.Cython(talk) 03:51, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• No. Better not complicate the info box unnecessarily. Giovanni Guasconti (a word with me) 04:23, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• No. (Summoned by bot) Better not complicate the info box unnecessarily. I'm inclined to think that infoboxes on certain subjects (including wars) have a tendency to try to 'cram in' so much info that they lose their 'at a glance' summary functionality. This infobox seems clear and uncluttered and links to the full 'personell' lists.Pincrete (talk) 05:31, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• No(ish) While we do it elsewhere, it will just clutter up infoboxes with huge lists of names (And in inevitable fights over who to include). Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• No Infoboxes are complicated enough. Keith-264 (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• No Mostly per Nick. Agree these infoboxes tend to get needlessly bloated. Best to avoid it where and when possible. Intothatdarkness 12:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
• No Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, any inclusion must be supported by the body of the article and evidence that they were key or significant in the context of the article, and that less is better. Accordingly, the guidance in the template doc is to limit to about seven a side. WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments citing examples that ignore the guidance and bloat the infobox lack substance and the OP's suggestion of who would populate the section is not based on whether the article supports the inclusion (or which persons the article does support) but this is not uncommon. This leads to bloated infoboxes and disagreements about who should be in the infobox. The example of World War II limits who is reported to a short list of the main leaders where sources are the basis for identifying who these are. We certainly don't have the benefit of such criteria for WWI. The present linking from the infobox to articles listing the various leaders an commanders (eg Allied leaders of World War I) and details of the changes is the most appropriate solution. An infobox is not the place for detail or nuance (per INFOBOXPURPOSE). The linking avoids bloating the infobox and disagreements about who should be in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• No. For the reasons already discussed, it's going to be awfully difficult to say "yes" to this without a more specific proposal. My hunch is that the best way to approach this is for those who like the idea, to present it exactly as they envision it. JerryGraf (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dissolution

The lead states: The dissolution of the Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman empires resulted in new national boundaries and the creation of new independent states... Although "dissolution" may be accurate when referring to Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, I don't think this is the best term to describe the end of the German Empire, and this is definitely the wrong term to describe the end of the Russian Empire. After the Russian Republic was proclaimed, Russia still participated in the war and its territory remained intact (the key difference is that the political regime was changed). The body also does not use the term "dissolution" (except in a caption about Austria-Hungary). Mellk (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Dissolution looks fine to me. The Russian Empire officially ended after WWI and Russia lost Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Bessarabia. Germany also lost its emperor, its overseas empire and over 10% its European territory. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

The Russian Republic was proclaimed in September 1917. Russia began losing its territories following the Bolshevik coup (as this led to a civil war and some new states were created/declared independence). So we can't say that Russia's borders changed once it became a republic. Mellk (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

That's not what the passage you are objecting to says. It says that as a consequence of the war and subsequent peace treaties the Russian Empire was dissolved. It was. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

My point was the Russian Empire was never dissolved. "Dissolution" has a specific meaning here (we do not say every country with a monarchical system of government that became a republic was dissolved). That is why the "dissolution of the Russian Empire" cannot be found in the literature (unlike the dissolution of the Soviet Union). The Russian Empire being succeeded by the Russian Republic also was not the proximate cause of new states emerging.

If we want to be at least a bit more accurate, then we should use a term like "collapsed" and perhaps say something like: Following the collapse of the Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman empires, new national boundaries were drawn and new independent states were created. Mellk (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

"...dissolution of the empires, (which were consequences of the war), resulted in new nations..." Why not add someting like the suggestion here. None of these extra things, such as the Russian republic, would have happened without the war, so what is currently written is correct IMO, but could be clarified. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the war led to the end of the Russian monarchy, but I think it's a stretch to say that this event resulted in new states emerging (since Russia was on the winning side and it was not until after the Bolsheviks took over that the civil war kicked off and states like Finland declared independence). We could say something like: The war led to the end of the Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman empires, and new national boundaries being drawn and new independent states being created. We do not have to change the sentence that much. Mellk (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you are saying that there is a strong connection between the fall of the Tsar and the war but there is no strong connection between the Bolshevik revolution and the war. That means the Bolshevik revolution could have happened if there had not been a war (ie, currently it is wp:synth. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, revolutionaries were active before the war, including the Bolsheviks, and there was already a revolution that took place in 1905. But I don't see how this violates WP:SYNTH. We currently do not have any sources at all (the sentence about this in the body is also unsourced).

If we want to refer to sources to get ideas, then we can use The Oxford Illustrated History of the First World War (2014) as an example:

"First, four autocratic empires collapsed. One of these, the German, seemed young and dynamic in 1914. Opinions on the second, the Russian, were divided: for some the incipient clash between tsarism and revolution promised domestic disintegration, for others there was a latent strength which was reflected in Russia’s importance to great power calculations in 1914. The other two—the Austro-Hungarian and the Ottoman—were both deemed to be in terminal decline for much of the nineteenth century [...] The victors at Versailles took nationalism as one of their guiding principles, and in so doing incorporated in international relations a reality of domestic politics, thus creating an enduring, if not always easy, foundation for great power relations in the rest of the twentieth century. Of course the application was flawed [...] But, as within central and south-eastern Europe, so in the Middle East much of the political map of the modern world took shape in 1919." (p. 7).

From the books I've seen so far, all of them have used "collapsed" in this context (only Austria-Hungary is mentioned as being dissolved). Mellk (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Well then, are you simply suggesting we change dissoltion for collapse? Using 'end' would be simpler. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

"ends" (as each are discrete happenings) is good. If anyone wants to read about how they ended, then the relevant articles are available; linking "ends" might add value. Bazza 7 (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that would be an improvement. I would also say that "resulted" is a bit too strong (it seems like an oversimplification), but perhaps others disagree with this. For the time being, we can change "dissolution". Mellk (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

"Ends" is ugly and unnatural in English. I still think "dissolution" is fine but if it must be changed I would much prefer "collapse" or "dismemberment" than "end". The point is that large chunks of these empires split off into new countries; not just that their monarchies fell.

Dismemberment: (Cambridge English Dictionary

"the action of dividing a country or organization into different parts:

dismemberment of the empire He protested vigorously against the dismemberment of the empire. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, in that case, "collapse" is probably better since this is the term I tend to find in the literature when referring to the fate of the four empires. We can definitely say that the Russian Empire collapsed, but it wasn't dismembered (this was under the Bolsheviks instead). The source I mentioned above as an example elaborates on this (perhaps if someone can find a source referring to all four empires as having being dissolved then that would be a start). Mellk (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I am happy with "collapse". Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• I think this is splitting hairs. The lead is a summary of the article and the article makes clear what happened. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  My main gripe was the term "dissolution". But OK, if others think that the rest of the wording is fine then we can leave it as it is. Mellk (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Flag of Austria-Hungary

I don’t wish for a edit war again, however, the Cisleithania Flag is used on this page, however, I fear vandalism is going to happen, as the most popular flag is the Civil Ensign of Austria-Hungary. LeviLan1000 (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

You aren't edit warring, you are doing the right thing by raising the issue here. The problem is that we just had a discussion on this very issue which you will find in the archives. My vote is to remove the flag icons altogether because they just lead to time-wasting arguments about what is the "correct" flag for each combatant. But unless someone goes to the trouble to launch a RfC I don't think the issue will ever be resolved. In the meantime, if you have reliable sources which confirm that "the most popular flag is the Civil Ensign of Austria-Hungary" then by all means list them here. One or two sources won't do though: you need to show that the consensus of scholarly sources is that Austria-Hungary was usually represented by this flag. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2026 (UTC)