Talk:World War I

“The war to end all wars”

My revision altering the introduction of the article from calling this war "the Great War" to "the War to End all Wars" has been reverted.

However, I think the title of "War to End all Wars" is a much more appropriate description of this war than "the Great War", because the first was more widely used at the time. I think we should replace the current title with this. DementiaGaming (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The term "war to end all wars" is discussed in the article. The wording of the lead resulted from extensive discussion and consensus here on the Talk page. Unless a new consensus emerges, the current version will stand. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Also the "war to end all wars" term is wrong because it didn't prevent World War II from happening. So the term "Great War" is more appropiate.84.54.70.120 (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that this term was the most popular way to describe the war during the time. It was a global war that people struggled to understand so they dubbed it the war to end all wars, and the term has since become synonymous with WWI. Besides, this term has its own article and the "Great War" term does not. DementiaGaming (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

No we are not, we just do not think that is relevant to an encyclopedia being written for today's audience, using up-to-date sources. Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

More or less the above, the "war to end all wars" was an aspirational name coined out of a hope that 20 years later was proved to be futile. Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Why not just add both? 2600:1700:B0D0:7310:513B:2E85:3E8B:4276 (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. That was my idea. Why not look at this war from two differing points of view? DementiaGaming (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh my, this again with the first sentence and the different names? We should just have a footnote with all of the big alternative names. Coulomb1 (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

History

Which of the follow was major cause of world war 1 102.220.158.5 (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

NOne of them, as you have not said what they are. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Recent revert

Regarding Aemilius Adolphin's recent revert of my edit in Special:Diff/1268658168, I think my addition is an improvement because the current lead chronology seems to skip over the period between the First Battle of the Marne in 1914 and the U.S. entry into the war in 1917. WWI as a war of attrition with millions of casualties and minimal territorial gains is a defining feature and how the conflict is remembered, and needs to be stated because simply mentioning trench warfare is insufficient. Also, any brief summary of WWI should include the names Verdun, the Somme, and Passchendaele, just as our lead on WWII includes the names Midway, Stalingrad, and Normandy. — Goszei (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the lead is fine as it is. It already states that the western front settled into a static line of trenches and that there were millions of casualties. If there is a consensus that we should state the names of some of the major battles of the western front it needs to be done in a way that flows naturally. Your sentence was awkward and ungrammatical. But let's see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

What is your opinion on adding a more simple statement, such as Major battles, including at Verdun, the Somme, and Passchendaele, failed to break the stalemate in the west.? Without stating this, it could easily be read as the two sides simply taking no action for years in the west, instead of the truth of both sides launching (ultimately ineffective) offensives which set off major battles. — Goszei (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that the change was an improvement or that a change is needed. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

British English

There is confusion over the English language variety used in this article. The talk page had the British English and Oxford spelling template. However, the article consistently uses the -ise spelling for verbs. I have therefore changed the template. Happy to discuss if there are any objections. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Summary Help

I have been working slowly over the past couple of months on Draft:Attacks on the United States, which obviously has several entries from this war (like the Black Tom explosion and the Attack on Orleans). If anyone familiar with one or several of the attacks against the U.S. during the war, feel free to help perfect the summaries or help by adding additional sources/references.

Any assistance is always appreciated! You can find the World War I section in the draft here: Draft:Attacks on the United States#World War I (April 1915–November 1918). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Russia belligerent role/year

Shouldn't Russia be "(until 1917)". I understand the footnote but it seems misleading without that. The US and Italy have their's. Karimyar (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)