Talk:Norway Debate

Place in parliamentary culture

Removed this as probably trivia. The source only confirms the quote was made, without establishing any reason why we should report it.

If Boris Johnson actually IS removed, and we can source that this quote was influential in removing him, then yes, it definitely merits inclusion.

But as long as it is only a random MP making quotes, let's not. CapnZapp (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

My first thought was to just amend it, though I wasn't entirely convinced of its merit in being here. I agree it should be removed because, as you say, it's trivia and we don't want to detract from the greatest debate in parliamentary history by mentioning the worst prime minister in parliamentary history. Chamberlain certainly had to go, but there can be no doubt about his honour and integrity. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I would just make a further point about this because it's looking increasingly likely that Johnson will be facing a no confidence vote in the near future. As Davis is an influential member of the Tory Party, his comment will probably be revived in the media. I strongly recommend that anyone reintroducing it to this article is immediately reverted. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 11:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent revert

@CapnZapp:: "when you are reverted, you take it to talk. And cut it out with your unfounded accusations or I'll report you."

• You have to provide a valid reason for reverting an edit. Stating "please don't hide the "Nazi" of the name" is not valid revert. What accusation exactly? The wording in the article, "Nazi aggression" for example, it's just short-hand for German aggression; so why not be accurate instead? For those who may not be use to seeing such, it implies just card-carrying members of the Nazi party launched attacks across Europe rather than it being the German state that did.
• As for standing consensus, see (just to name a few): 2007, 2010, 2016, 2017, 2023.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for taking this to talk. First off, please realize you simply must not go around making unfounded "suggestions" (exact quote: are you suggesting that the Nazi party alone or just card carrying members invaded their neighbouring countries and not the German state?) This simply won't do and you need to stop, now. I will not respond further to such drivel, and will act as if you never said it. Please don't make me regret this act of assuming good faith; hopefully we can discuss without such unpleasantries.

Second, you don't get to decide what revert reasons are "valid". When you are reverted, please assume good faith; that is, that the reverting editor saw their actions as valid and necessary. Discussing on talk is where you attempt to find out what those reasons are.

In this case, if you agree "Nazi aggression" means the same thing as "German aggression" why make the change? One is more specific than the other: "German aggression" with no context could mean any historic period; "Nazi aggression" only one. Different articles are written differently; we certainly do not have to make all articles conform to the same standard. (Put simply: do not point to other talk discussions not involving this page as if they get to set site-wide precedents; they don't.) The current wording has stood for years without being seen as inappropriate, it it is certainly not wrong; it can stand for many years to come in my opinion. CapnZapp (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

When exactly did you assume good faith when you immediately reverted an edit (without taking it to the talkpage) with the claim that piping a link is hiding something? Or, with your inability to address a rhetorical question about the choice of wording, or your immediate jump to report without engaging? It looks like a lot of bad faith editing and arguing on your part (or "drivel" as you put it).

Your argument that well established wide reaching community consensus can be ignored, is not good enough. Why should it be ignored? You admit you are retaining the wording as shorthand, rather than being precise. Your additional argument that it can only mean one period, as opposed to a reader being confused as to what time period of Germany attacked Norway just lends to the notion that you have done a poor job of providing context to the reader if that is what you have to relay on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk • contribs) 14:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I have posted a message on your personal talk. You're clearly in no shape to have a AGF discussion right now. CapnZapp (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Archiving

There is no point in retaining discussions that are years old. If anyone should want to recover one from the archive, that is fine, and easily done. We've all done it, I'm sure. I'll agree, however, that we should perhaps keep one topic so that the page isn't completely empty. Jack (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Please don't assume the there is no point in retaining discussions argument means a consensus to depopulate talk pages. As evidenced by the following aspects of the practical how-to parts of our archiving guidance ({{Setup auto archiving}}, Wikipedia:One click archiving et al) keeping at least four talk sections regardless of age retains the look and feel of the talk page, which can be considered to be welcoming new discussions especially to new and insecure users. The number four (4) matters mostly to users using the legacy Vector skin, because for talk pages with fewer than four talk sections the TOC is automatically removed, again considerably changing the appearance of the page. Above and beyond retaining this basic structure, however, I believe there is zero objection to removing (i.e. archiving) old talk sections!

By far the easiest and least work-intensive way to accomplish this is to use an archiving bot and set the |minthreadsleft= parameter (if you use lowercase sigmabot III) or |minkeepthreads= (if you prefer Cluebot) to 4.

Best regards and thank you for allowing me to expound upon this here on talk! CapnZapp (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot the TOC. I've changed minthreadsleft back to 4. Thanks, and all the best, Jack (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Any books added to the bibliography must be cited in the article.

Per MOS:FURTHER you can indeed supply a bulleted list of a reasonable number of works that a reader may consult for additional and more detailed coverage of the subject, and specifically, that these works are not part of the referenced list of works: see WP:READING.

Encouraging users User:BlackJack and User:Inter-war Historian to discuss to sort out an amicable solution. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2026 (UTC)