Talk:Allies of World War I
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theAllies of World War I article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
| Archives:1 |
 | This article iswritten inBritish English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour,travelled,centre,defence,artefact,analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from othervarieties of English. According to therelevant style guide, this should not be changed withoutbroad consensus. |
 | This level-5 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | On 3 January 2024, it was proposed that this article bemoved toEntente Powers. The result ofthe discussion wasnot moved. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Jesselees2016. Peer reviewers:Jesselees2016.
Above undated message substituted fromTemplate:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment byPrimeBOT (talk)13:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first map in the infobox seems to be badly wrong or wrongly labelled, and it should probably be removed.— Precedingunsigned comment added by87.115.23.33 (talk)02:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first map is confusing - it uses three shades of green which are difficult to distinguish, and has several insets in the lower-left that are unlabeled. (Also, it includes Antarctica, which I don't think is even relevant to WWI?)
See Cornelissen, Christoph, and Arndt Weinrich, eds.Writing the Great War - The Historiography of World War I from 1918 to the Present (2020)online free -- full coverage for major countries. Free download.Rjensen (talk)21:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I contest the chronology given here that he commanded the Cdn Corps from January 1915 to September 1915; in fact in January 1915 until the summer that year the Canadian Expeditionary Force solely comprised the 1st Canadian Division which Alderson did command. The Canadian Corps was formed when a 2nd Division joined the field in September 1915 when Alderson stepped up to command the Corps and was not relieved of his command until May 1916. I will amend the detail accordingly but give time for any comment first.Cloptonson (talk)07:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reference used clearly said that Andorra did not declare war, so I have removed the claim that it did.DuncanHill (talk)21:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The third paragraph of the section labeled "Background" starts, "In the East, between 7–9 August the Russians entered German East Prussia on 7 August, Austrian Eastern Galicia." I suspect an editing mishap, but I don't know this history well enough to trust myself to fix it. I think it might be right to say, "In the East, the Russians entered German East Prussia on August 7-9 and Eastern Galicia on August 18." -- at least, that's how I readRussian invasion of East Prussia (1914) andRussian occupation of Eastern Galicia, 1914–15. Any opinions?DSatz (talk)01:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since most history books and history related TV stuffs use the Entente or Entente Powers instead of "Allies of WW I"It is even more confuseing, since the simple "allies" term is oftren used rather for WW2 military block against the Axis Powers.
Do you support the usage of "Entente Powers" instead of the "Allies of World War I" title due to the popularity of "ENTENTE" in the books of academic historians?--Szudar (talk)11:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't the opinion of academic historians the most important thing? I see the ENTENTE term muc much much more often in their WW1 oriented books than the "Allies of World War I".--Szudar (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC) And it is very confusing with the WW2 Allies term... So the "Allies of World War I" is confusing and very rarely used term by academic scholars. I found only 60 results for the "Allies of World War I" term in Google Books, but even most of these books also write about it as ENTENTE more often. However ENTENTE had thousands of hits on Google Books. So "Allies of World War I"is not an accepted term for general use among academic scholars.--Szudar (talk)12:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong logic. Simply type of Allied can mean alliance gang band of children musicians polticians , business companies etc. in books. For the exact results type it with " " like that: "Allies of World War I"60 hits on Google books. Not really much. here is the RESULT:https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Allies+of+World+War+I%22&client=firefox-b-d&channel=nrow5&sxsrf=AOaemvLqTvcdEmz7kjGDddAytgXQ0NuWUg:1641839409325&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwje8JS26Kf1AhWMiv0HHW3tCNUQ_AUoAXoECAgQCw&biw=1971&bih=1249&dpr=1
--Szudar (talk)18:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MAybe the Google works "differently" in your country, but I can not see the "Allies of World War I" term so often on Google Books, However Entente is often mentioned in Google Books. How can you explain that Allies of World War I is so RARE in the Books?--Szudar (talk)08:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for "Allied Powers" "WWI" includes ww2 sources too. Google Scholar did not include books just short essays of researches and short papers, publications. --Szudar (talk)09:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)The best way is to inclue "Trench warfare" "Allied Powers of world war I" in the search. In this way you can avoid most of the ww2 stuffs. You have only 2 results:[reply]
"Allies of ww1" with "Trench Warfare" have only a SINGLE BOOK!!!!!!
However Entente and "trench warfare" have hundreds of results:
You can admit that it is a shocking huge difference!--Szudar (talk)09:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at thenomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk)23:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I heard that the Big Four from another page was France, Britain, Italy and the USA. Anotherwise known as the council of four, shall we eliminate Japan and Russia from the "Principal Allied Powers" and rename "Principal Allied Powers" into "The Big Four" or "The Council of Four"?44naytions (talk)00:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox threatens to grow like a cancer. It already lists 21 Allied powers and now some editors are adding two or three "leaders" for each one. Under policy an infobox is supposed to: "summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article...The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose" I propose that we cut the info box back to the bare minimum of key information. I suggest we just list the principal allied powers and the historical era. The info box is not the place to list all the Allied powers and all the their "leaders". This can be done in a table in a separate section of the article. Please discuss.Aemilius Adolphin (talk)23:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The redirectAlliedpower has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 26 § Alliedpower until a consensus is reached.LizRead!Talk!05:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Historians use this term more oftenNguyen280405 (talk)10:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the move request was:not moved.– robertsky (talk)04:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allies of World War I →Entente PowersEntente Powers – More common nameNguyen280405 (talk) 11:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)This is a contested technical request (permalink).– robertsky (talk)20:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The name was already kind of confusing with WW2 allies, but now it’s just ridiculous.
Can we go with Entente Powers? That’s been the norm to use for like a decade. The recent spike in usage of Allies or Triple Alliance for the central powers just makes it worse2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:9AF:6605:D8E9:8785 (talk)17:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find Canada on this list, even though it is listed on the map. Is it just included in the United States? I would hope not, because Canada was also a strong independent power during the war.2607:FEA8:BF41:CDB0:3D0E:434A:8C6A:A389 (talk)15:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Liberia should be labeled an allied power as Liberia did participate in the war in support of the United States, French, and British. While sending troops to fight in Europe, none saw combat in Europe but troops were used in Africa. Liberia was shelled by German ships and Liberian troops seized German economic assets in the nation. In addition to this, Liberia gave economic aid to the allies as well.Pat J. McCarthy (talk)00:50, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
