This theater is not included in the “theaters” subtab at the top of the page.

Hey guys,

I was wondering if there was anything you wanted me to edit/create. I specialize in battles involving Germany vs USA and Germany vs USSR. If there is anything involving these two that need editing I encourage you to notify me.

Thanks a lot guys.

Hello everyone, I am an Obergruppenfuhrer from the Nazi Germany Wiki. This is a small community which I am trying to revive. The Wiki has 140 pages and gets around 60 views a week. Subsequently, I am trying to find new users to contribute and boost the number of pages we have and the quality of each page. If you are interested in WW2 and Nazi Germany, then this wiki could really use your help.

The Wiki is located here: https://nazi.wikia.com/

These are both two interesting books that first got me interested in WWll.  Is Paris Burning tells the story of the allied liberation of Paris and the central conflict is both the need to preserve the city from the fate of Warsaw and the political future of France (Gaullists vs Communists).  It is writing like a thriller but you should have google translate on hand as there are many German and French pharases that are not translated.

Tears in the Darkness is a book that tells the story of the American forces left behind on the Bataan peninsula and on Corregidor Island.  It goes into in depth detial of the last days of the battle of the Phillipines, the ensuring death march, and the other atrocities of the Japanese Empire.  

Both of these books won't really give you a larger sense of the conflict of wwll but instead have a lazer focus on a brief period which they do very well.  

Let's talk about History in History 1 or 2 what do you guys take in your school or College?

my history is Fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! we learn battles of Gettysburg here and many different battles you can Imagine its so my fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wooooooooooooo

Should we maybe also add another section or topic about the commanders of World War II on all sides? It may help people learn more in depth about a commander of a certain unit, or who did what the most effectively.

Maybe for each commander there could also be a list of major acheivements, to help emphasize what they did that was important in the war to their nation, or for the war itself as well?

I'm just wondering if adding such a topic could help people learn the strategies of each commander and his army.

For example, we could give their name and nickname, nationality, rank, things like that. There may also be a list of units they may have commanded, and for how long. We could also add what

battles/events/theatres each commander may have served in. Date of Birth, Date of death and how, things like that. I just think that, again, this would give people a greater perspective of the war.

And if there is already such a place, maybe make it easier to find?

The point of this post is to gauge everyone's opinion on this matter as it is quite important to both how the wiki is seen and how articles are organized. As it stands at the moment, many titles on the wiki are not translated and are formatted according to how they were used. However, many are translated and formatted simply. Below are a few examples of what I mean:

• Red Army - Not translated

Should be either 'RKKA' or 'Raboche-krest'yanskaya Krasnaya armiya'

• Luftwaffe - Translated

Would be 'German Air Force'

• A22 Infantry Tank Mk. IV Churchill - Not formatted

Should be 'Tank, Infantry, Mk IV (A22) Churchill'

• Projector, Rocket 3-inch, No. 8, Mk. I - Formatted

Would be 'Land Mattress Rocket Launcher'

• 1. Infanterie-Division - Formatted

Would be '1st German Infantry Division' or '1st Infantry Division (German)'

What I am worried about is creating a double standard, where all the German names for example are written in German (generally because more people know the German names) while all the Russian or Japanese or Italian names are translated. At the same time, I do not want the things people search for to lead to dead ends. People are probably going to be more likely to search for 'Romanian Army WWII' over 'Forțele Terestre Române', yet I still want to keep original names for the sake of being unbiased/presenting history as it is. If anyone has any thoughts or comments, feel free to write them below.

Hello everyone, recently I had been thinking about how to encourage readers to contribute more of their knowledge to the wiki and among the thoughts I had was the idea, instead of focusing on the largest detract of editors (Described on the main page poll as 'No time'), we instead focus on how to solve the second two biggest detracts, both of which are things that I believe we can help. These are 'Lack of motivation' and 'Editing is too complicated'. It seems to me that it is possible that these two problems could go hand in hand, readers may lose motivation to contribute if they believe that they don't understand how to do so. Now, fiddling with the edit controls is not something we are allowed to do, but perhaps it is not the editing that people feel is too complicated. I have tried in the past to simplify our policies and citation rules in an effort to make them not look quite so intimidating, but I propose that we take it one step further. I am proposing the creation of a new project page, titled 'Recommended Reading', that has a list of all the websites, books, magazines, interviews, etc. that our editing team has used in the past and continues to use in the future. The content of this list will be generally voted upon as being reliable and good for use on the wiki. I have brought this idea forward here in the council forums because I wanted to see community feedback to it and collect some sample resources to be posted in the list. So if anyone has a good source they use often and would like to help new users start creating content quickly, please post it below.

As many of you may know, I've been trying to finish the banners for all the main list sections on the wiki. The last major list to be completed is the list for units. Now, I can get to work right away on creating the appropriate banners for the list, but honestly, I do not know how to organize the page. My first thought was to organize the page and have it list all units of the various nations down to the division level, however with the different branches of Army, Navy, etc. It became too much to fit on one page. I've compromised to what I put now, but I'm not satisfied with it. If you have suggestions, please write them below.

Certain weapon pages, like the MP 40 and M1903 Springfield , show historical photos of the weapons in action.  Others, like the MP 28 and the M1 Garand , show pictures of the weapons themselves.  Which should be the standard?

The question here is in the title. We can either combine the lists into one giant list like has been done for ships and vehicles, or we can leave them be. 

Note: Manual of Style V2 has been moved to here due to large size and format tests.

Hello everyone! Since it does not seem immediately clear, I'm going to go ahead and set up some guidelines for the creation of articles for vehicle specialty variants. As a World War II Wiki, I feel that it is very important that we cover certain vehicle variants in further detail than a paragraph or two in a section on the main vehicle page. I'm not saying that for example, a variant with minor changes to the hull deserves its own article, but major changes to armament, use, etc should be covered.

The guideline that I suggest be established is that all vehicle variants that have major changes in operation, structure, or armament can have their own article. I think that these changes should stick to vehicles for now since that is where most of the issue lies. I will need to think about how the same idea can play into aircraft, though that will come later. 

How this can be done from an organizational point of view, I found by accident. When testing the idea with the SdKfz 251/9, I rediscovered in a sense the fact that adding a slash makes a page a derivative of another. While convenient for German half-tracks which use the slash to denote variations, this won't be the same for other vehicles. My idea is to create pages such as M3 Half-Track/M15 Combination Gun Motor Carriage and then add {{DISPLAYTITLE:M15 Combination Gun Motor Carriage}} on the article so the title displays as M15 Combination Gun Motor Carriage, but the derivative function is still there. I will go on to test this later, but what concerns me is the possibility that this may damage the search structure of the wiki as well as be a mess when pages get moved. As always post thoughts and suggestions below. 

Hello everyone! I have returned from a day-long break with a new logo! I must say that for several hours work, it looks rather fantastic. I attempted to correct all of the previous logo's mistakes including the addition of an actually transparent background. I also hope that this new logo makes the distinction that we are truly a WWII Wiki, not just a US WWII Wiki. As always, post feedback below. 

Hello everyone,

Today I am announcing the latest change to how article quality is defined. Going through the categorization system, I went through many old articles that haven't been edited in a long time, some in more than a year. I was about to create a new template to mark them as deficient quality when I encountered the problem of stacking templates, e.g. the way the stub and need infobox templates are made, stacking them looks very bad. To fix this, I created a new series of templates that not only stack better, but detract far less from the actual content itself. They fall right into the corner of an article just as they should considering that it is not the reader who should be told that an article is a stub, but editors so that they may fix the article. I'll be experimenting with them for the next week or so and if they work well, then I'll implement them site-wide. 

The guide on the new icons can be found here. 

Please post suggestions below. 

EDIT:

The icons themselves may not be permanent. I didn't really know what else to use besides aircraft.