This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Remsense (talk | contribs) at 18:48, 2 October 2024 (Reverted 1 edit by CHEESEGRENDADEnothing (talk) to last revision by Remsense). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:48, 2 October 2024 by Remsense (talk | contribs) (Reverted 1 edit by CHEESEGRENDADEnothing (talk) to last revision by Remsense)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the World War II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This  level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
.svg)
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
[REDACTED] 
wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
.svg)
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg)
 |
|
 | Show citation statistics for CS1 and CS2 citation elements in the article.
Stats: unnamed refs = 187; named refs = 101; self closed = 14. Click show for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Other talk page banners | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:WMAU_2017_vertical_logo_(colour).svg){kind=link}
 Archives |
2001–2005: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Combatants: Archive 1 (2006), Archive 2 (2007) |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Possible minor grammar change in lead?
"...and it set the foundation for the international order for the rest of the 20th century and into the 21st century." -> "...and it set the foundation of international order for the rest of the 20th century and into the 21st century"? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think "of international relations" sounds better than "of international order". "The international order" is a common phrase with a different meaning than "international order". Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Hermann Göring has an RfC
Hermann Göring has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Countries under the Allies and Axis
For the sides of ww2 it just says Allies and Axis and under that the leaders. Shouldn’t it have the actual countries listed like it does for every other war article? MaxwellWinnie102 (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Try clicking Participants, as there are too many and it clutters the infobox. Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Main Allied Leaders
A good idea would be to add Charles de Gaulle, leader of Free France. He was the leader of a country that became a permanent member of the UN Security Council (as did China). So I don't see the reason for it not being mentioned (like Kai Shek) Νίκος Αστέρης (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Try searching his name in the archives and you'll find countless times this has been discussed already. TylerBurden (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- And how I can find it? Νίκος Αστέρης (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Paste the n ame into the search box at the top of the page under "Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting." and then click "search Archive". Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- And how I can find it? Νίκος Αστέρης (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
When did WWII started in Europe?
One (non so common but possible) suggestion for the start date of WWII in Europe could be said to begin with the first day of the Italian invasion of Albania on 1939-04-07. 130.238.112.129 (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a forum, and it is highly unlikely this is mentioned enough in reliable sources to merit mention in the article. Remsense ‥ 论 19:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Philippe Pétain has an RfC
Philippe Pétain has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Names
The World War I article has a section titled "Names" that discusses the naming of the war. I think this article could also benefit from such a section. Based on a cursory glance at sources (such as 1 & 2), the naming of this war is noteworthy enough to be included with a brief mention. At the very least, an explanatory note stating that this war's name was chosen because of ww1. JasonMacker (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I should also note that it could be helpful to also include within the Names section wikilinks & explanations for Pacific war, Great Patriotic war, Second Sino-Japanese war (War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression), and other names used for either the conflict as a whole or a specific part of it. JasonMacker (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds like a worthwhile idea.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think that would place undue weight on comparative linguistic trivia; think about how much value 100 words has in an article like this one. The "sub-conflict listing" idea seems more like redundant clutter than pure trivia though, but certainly best avoided in any case. Remsense ‥ 论 11:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
The Axis leaders
Should the infobox not include the “KIA” template for Adolf hitler and the “executed“ template for Benito Mussolini? E4t5s.new (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Just because there exists a convention that is used on many articles does not mean it is logically necessary for every applicable article. I don't think there's a need to adopt it here, anyway. Remsense ‥ 论 11:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- But they are real historical events in the Second World War, and if not applied, it may lead people to believe that Hitler and Mussolini were alive for the duration of the war. E4t5s.new (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think you have real justification to believe strongly that this would be the case. People are encouraged to read the actual article if they wish to know anything but the plainest possible facts at a glance. If we treated such an element as vital to presentation, it would be codified in the Manual of Style as a guideline. It is presently not, so it is subject to inclusion based largely on per-article consensus as per usual. Remsense ‥ 论 12:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- But they are real historical events in the Second World War, and if not applied, it may lead people to believe that Hitler and Mussolini were alive for the duration of the war. E4t5s.new (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- No. Just because an option exists in a template it doesn't have to be used. And it is misleading: Hitler killed himself. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hitler was not killed in action with enemy (Russian) forces so definitely not KIA - if you apply KIA to Hitler you could also add it to Roosevelt. Arnoutf (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hitler was not killed in action with enemy (Russian) forces so definitely not KIA - if you apply KIA to Hitler you could also add it to Roosevelt. Arnoutf (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Page views chart among 'other banners'
Is anyone interested in having a temporary replacement for the page views chart that used to live among the headers at the top? There used to be one there, until the Graph software was deprecated two years ago for security risks; the collapsed bar lived on, with no chart inside it, until it, too, was finally removed a couple of weeks ago. You probably haven't noticed, but there is now an experimental bar chart banner at that location, collapsed among the 'Other banners'. Please have a look if interested, or remove it, if not. This is just a stop-gap until the original can be repaired or replaced. Mathglot (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Who should be listed at the top of the main Allied leaders?
Should Joseph Stalin be listed in order of precedence above FDR in the infobox? Emiya1980 (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
@Nick-D, Paul Siebert, Parsecboy, E-960, Rjensen, and TheFreeWorld: In light of the significant extent of your contributions to the "William I, German Emperor" page (as well as relatively recent evidence of your continued interest in said article), you are invited to participate in a discussion regarding how the main Allied leaders should be listed. Should you feel so inclined, please share your thoughts below.
- If you made me choose, I would place Stalin on top, but I am not presently inclined to insist on this with confidence. In a four-member list it's comparatively immaterial, and right now I'm thinking of arguments one could pitch for any possible ordering—some better than others, but all logically consistent. Remsense ‥ 论 04:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- I would put them in alphabetical order by surname which is the usual practice for listing names in English speaking countries. Trying to list them by "order of importance" is subjective and has no support in the reliable sources. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think FDR should be listed at the top. While Stalin's Soviet Union was the most directly involved in the defeat of Nazi Germany, it must be remembered that he began the war initially as an ally of Hitler before the launch of Operation Barbarossa in 1941 whereas the U.S. began supporting Britain around a year earlier. Most significantly, the United States was the largest supplier of arms and material to the "Grand Alliance" without which neither Great Britain or the Soviet Union could have likely turned the tide against the Germans. Moreover, given the significant level of mistrust between Churchill and Stalin throughout the conflict, FDR played the most significant role in holding the Big Three intact; it's hardly a coincidence that the alliance began to quickly unravel almost immediately after his death. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- You can plausibly narrativize any argument you want, but the point is there's no clear answer rooted in what RS would directly say. Remsense ‥ 论 04:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- What plausible narrative do you have justifying Stalin's listing at the top? Emiya1980 (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have an RS saying Stalin was the most important leader of World War II, so I won't divulge. That's my entire point. Remsense ‥ 论 04:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- In that case, listing them in alphabetical order is probably the best bet. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think there's a good reason to change it. Fiddling with extremely arbitrary but highly visible things is what I will deploy the WP:BEENHERE argument in earnest for. It is a four-member list, famously called the Big Four. They were all very important, and there is no advantage in deliberating on an ordering, nor in deferring to a lexicographical ordering that's rarely done on Misplaced Pages in these cases. Remsense ‥ 论 04:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- There is no good reason to list Stalin, a mass-murdering dictator with a death toll that rivals that of Adolf Hitler, at the top of the Allied Powers. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- We need to keep moral arguments out of this. The only relevant argument is the consensus of reliable sources. Given the lack of such a consensus in this case, I think alphabetical order is the way to go. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- I’ve already indicated I would not be opposed to that.Emiya1980 (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- What plausible narrative do you have justifying Stalin's listing at the top? Emiya1980 (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- You can plausibly narrativize any argument you want, but the point is there's no clear answer rooted in what RS would directly say. Remsense ‥ 论 04:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- I would place Stalin at the top due to his pivotal role.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- That's hardly a justification to place him at the top. All of the Allied leaders listed played a pivotal role in defeating the Axis in some fashion. Emiya1980 (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
This has been discussed dozens of times. The infobox reflects the consensus of these discussions. The key factor in these discussions was the guidance at Template:Infobox military conflict that "Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict" - surveys of references tend to conclude that historians regard the USSR has having made the largest contribution to the Allied victory. Any further discussions of this issue should involve fresh surveys of references, not the personal views of Misplaced Pages editors. @Emiya1980: there is also no need to you to reply to every single comment being made here: this is badgering other editors. The other editors involved in this discussion should also note that Emiya1980 appears to have a history of starting these types of disputes, and may want to comment at WP:ANI#Emiya1980's use of RFCs. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
| Off-topic |
|---|
|
As this seems to be so controversial why not remove it altogether, what does it add? Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that it is actually controversial. The proposals to not list Stalin first tend to be from editors with little other interest in the article who are motivated by their personal beliefs. Oddly, I can't recall anyone ever suggesting that Hitler not be listed first for the Axis side, despite him being the most horrible of the horrible people who led the Axis nations. That said, I'd be quite comfortable swapping this to countries rather than individuals, which would also address the fact that the US had two leaders during the war and the UK three. Nick-D (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well I am interested in the whole article and I believe listing Stalin first is indeed controversial because I am not aware of a single reputable historian who ranks the allied commanders in order of "importance". Some would argue that the Soviet Union made the greatest contribution to defeating Germany in terms of casualties inflicted, territory gained and materiel destroyed, but just about everyone states that the US and Empire forces made by far the greatest contribution in defeating Japan and that the USSR would have been defeated by Germany but for the food and materiel supplied to them by the other allies and the damage caused by allied bombing and the diversion of Axis troops caused by allied forces in the Middle East, Italy and later France. Nowadays scholars tend to emphasise the joint contribution of all Allies (including smaller ones). I still think that alphabetical order (for both the Allies and Axis) is the best from a NPOV. Hirohito is also controversial (although plausible) as a main Axis leader. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- The discussions of this that established the current infobox included multiple surveys of reliable sources, and this reflected the consensus. These surveys revealed that quite a few historians note that the USSR played a major role in the Pacific War, even though it was only involved a few weeks of fighting, as the Soviet intervention was one of the major factors (in some historians' view the most important factor) that finally forced the Japanese leadership to acknowledge that they needed to end the war. Nick-D (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Based on my reading of most historians on the subject, the Japanese war effort had all but collapsed by the time of the Soviet intervention. If you want me to provide sources corroborating this, I'll be happy to list them.Emiya1980 (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- The general consensus among historians is that Japan lost the Pacific War on 7 December 1941 as it had no hope of defeating the US. The issue is that it took until August 1945 for its leadership to admit defeat, hence the issue historians focus on is what prompted the Japanese to surrender when they could have continued the war at this time. This is a much debated topic. As noted above, when this was discussed it involved large scale surveys of reliable sources, so picking out sources focused on a single issue is not helpful. Nick-D (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with the argument that Japan sealed its fate the moment it launched an attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. However, despite the wide disparity in industrial power between Japan and the U.S. from the war's outset, the fact remains that the former's capacity to wage war remained more or less intact up to 1944. Conversely, by 1945, Japan's navy was all but destroyed and its war economy was on the verge of collapse primarily as result of American (not Soviet) forces. Taking these facts into consideration, the Soviet "August Storm" Offensive was more of the coup de grâce to the Japanese war effort, not the turning point against it. Again, what I am saying is pretty much common wisdom on the subject, but I am willing to give you sources if you feel I'm basing this on OR. Emiya1980 (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Given that there is disagreement among those who regularly edit or comment on this article, I suggest that the way to change the relevant part of the infobox is through a RfC. I won't initiate one because I have better things to do with my time on wikipedia. However, if you initiate one I would vote for listing the main allied and axis leaders either in alphabetical order or in the order that they were leader of a country at war against the other side: thus Churchill (May 1940 to July 1945), Stalin (June 1941 to August 1945) etc. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Aemilius Adolphin While I do not object to an Rfc, I'm going to have to pass on opening it myself. As indicated in the link posted above by Nick-D, I'm currently on probation for how I've used the Rfc process in the past. Emiya1980 (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm familiar with the argument that Japan sealed its fate the moment it launched an attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. However, despite the wide disparity in industrial power between Japan and the U.S. from the war's outset, the fact remains that the former's capacity to wage war remained more or less intact up to 1944. Conversely, by 1945, Japan's navy was all but destroyed and its war economy was on the verge of collapse primarily as result of American (not Soviet) forces. Taking these facts into consideration, the Soviet "August Storm" Offensive was more of the coup de grâce to the Japanese war effort, not the turning point against it. Again, what I am saying is pretty much common wisdom on the subject, but I am willing to give you sources if you feel I'm basing this on OR. Emiya1980 (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- The general consensus among historians is that Japan lost the Pacific War on 7 December 1941 as it had no hope of defeating the US. The issue is that it took until August 1945 for its leadership to admit defeat, hence the issue historians focus on is what prompted the Japanese to surrender when they could have continued the war at this time. This is a much debated topic. As noted above, when this was discussed it involved large scale surveys of reliable sources, so picking out sources focused on a single issue is not helpful. Nick-D (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Based on my reading of most historians on the subject, the Japanese war effort had all but collapsed by the time of the Soviet intervention. If you want me to provide sources corroborating this, I'll be happy to list them.Emiya1980 (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- The discussions of this that established the current infobox included multiple surveys of reliable sources, and this reflected the consensus. These surveys revealed that quite a few historians note that the USSR played a major role in the Pacific War, even though it was only involved a few weeks of fighting, as the Soviet intervention was one of the major factors (in some historians' view the most important factor) that finally forced the Japanese leadership to acknowledge that they needed to end the war. Nick-D (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well I am interested in the whole article and I believe listing Stalin first is indeed controversial because I am not aware of a single reputable historian who ranks the allied commanders in order of "importance". Some would argue that the Soviet Union made the greatest contribution to defeating Germany in terms of casualties inflicted, territory gained and materiel destroyed, but just about everyone states that the US and Empire forces made by far the greatest contribution in defeating Japan and that the USSR would have been defeated by Germany but for the food and materiel supplied to them by the other allies and the damage caused by allied bombing and the diversion of Axis troops caused by allied forces in the Middle East, Italy and later France. Nowadays scholars tend to emphasise the joint contribution of all Allies (including smaller ones). I still think that alphabetical order (for both the Allies and Axis) is the best from a NPOV. Hirohito is also controversial (although plausible) as a main Axis leader. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) We've already had at least two huge RfCs on this issue ( and Talk:World War II/Archive 61#RfC: Main Allied Leaders), as well as many earlier and subsequent discussions. The current infobox reflects the results of these discussions over time. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
World War 2 start date
I have a problem. It is controversial about the start date. Please include both the 1931, 1937, or the 1939. Thank you! 24.19.225.27 (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- They are included. The first section in the article lists them, and is about all about the start (and end) dates of the conflict. 51.148.251.110 (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not to rehash old arguments, but it was not until Britain and France declared war on Germany that it became a war involving more than one continent. That is what made it a world war. Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
- Misplaced Pages good articles
- History good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- GA-Class level-3 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-3 vital articles in History
- GA-Class vital articles in History
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class military aviation articles
- Military aviation task force articles
- GA-Class military historiography articles
- Military historiography task force articles
- GA-Class maritime warfare articles
- Maritime warfare task force articles
- GA-Class military memorials and cemeteries articles
- Military memorials and cemeteries task force articles
- GA-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
- Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
- GA-Class African military history articles
- African military history task force articles
- GA-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- GA-Class Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles
- Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force articles
- GA-Class Balkan military history articles
- Balkan military history task force articles
- GA-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- GA-Class Canadian military history articles
- Canadian military history task force articles
- GA-Class Chinese military history articles
- Chinese military history task force articles
- GA-Class Dutch military history articles
- Dutch military history task force articles
- GA-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- GA-Class French military history articles
- French military history task force articles
- GA-Class German military history articles
- German military history task force articles
- GA-Class Indian military history articles
- Indian military history task force articles
- GA-Class Italian military history articles
- Italian military history task force articles
- GA-Class Japanese military history articles
- Japanese military history task force articles
- GA-Class Korean military history articles
- Korean military history task force articles
- GA-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
- Middle Eastern military history task force articles
- GA-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- GA-Class Polish military history articles
- Polish military history task force articles
- GA-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
- Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
- GA-Class South Asian military history articles
- South Asian military history task force articles
- GA-Class Spanish military history articles
- Spanish military history task force articles
- GA-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- Failed requests for military history A-Class review
- GA-Class European history articles
- Top-importance European history articles
- All WikiProject European history pages
- GA-Class Africa articles
- Mid-importance Africa articles
- WikiProject Africa articles
- GA-Class Albania articles
- High-importance Albania articles
- WikiProject Albania articles
- GA-Class Australia articles
- Top-importance Australia articles
- WikiProject Australia articles
- GA-Class Austria articles
- High-importance Austria articles
- All WikiProject Austria pages
- GA-Class Bosnia and Herzegovina articles
- High-importance Bosnia and Herzegovina articles
- All WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina pages
- GA-Class Brazil articles
- Mid-importance Brazil articles
- GA-Class history of Brazil articles
- Mid-importance history of Brazil articles
- History of Brazil task force articles
- WikiProject Brazil articles
- GA-Class Bulgaria articles
- High-importance Bulgaria articles
- WikiProject Bulgaria articles
- GA-Class Canada-related articles
- High-importance Canada-related articles
- GA-Class History of Canada articles
- High-importance History of Canada articles
- All WikiProject Canada pages
- GA-Class China-related articles
- High-importance China-related articles
- GA-Class China-related articles of High-importance
- WikiProject China articles
- GA-Class Croatia articles
- High-importance Croatia articles
- All WikiProject Croatia pages
- GA-Class Czech Republic articles
- High-importance Czech Republic articles
- All WikiProject Czech Republic pages
- GA-Class France articles
- Top-importance France articles
- All WikiProject France pages
- GA-Class Germany articles
- Top-importance Germany articles
- WikiProject Germany articles
- GA-Class Greek articles
- High-importance Greek articles
- WikiProject Greece history articles
- All WikiProject Greece pages
- GA-Class Hungary articles
- High-importance Hungary articles
- All WikiProject Hungary pages
- GA-Class Italy articles
- High-importance Italy articles
- All WikiProject Italy pages
- GA-Class India articles
- High-importance India articles
- GA-Class India articles of High-importance
- WikiProject India articles
- GA-Class Japan-related articles
- High-importance Japan-related articles
- WikiProject Japan articles
- GA-Class Lithuania articles
- Top-importance Lithuania articles
- GA-Class Moldova articles
- Top-importance Moldova articles
- Moldova articles
- GA-Class Netherlands articles
- All WikiProject Netherlands pages
- GA-Class Poland articles
- Top-importance Poland articles
- WikiProject Poland articles
- GA-Class Romania articles
- Top-importance Romania articles
- All WikiProject Romania pages
- GA-Class Russia articles
- Top-importance Russia articles
- Top-importance GA-Class Russia articles
- GA-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- GA-Class Serbia articles
- High-importance Serbia articles
- WikiProject Serbia articles
- GA-Class Slovakia articles
- High-importance Slovakia articles
- All WikiProject Slovakia pages
- GA-Class Slovenia articles
- High-importance Slovenia articles
- All WikiProject Slovenia pages
- GA-Class Soviet Union articles
- Top-importance Soviet Union articles
- WikiProject Soviet Union articles
- GA-Class United Kingdom articles
- High-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles
- GA-Class United States articles
- Top-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- GA-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- United States military history articles with to-do lists
- GA-Class United States History articles
- Top-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- United States History articles with to-do lists
- United States articles used on portals
- WikiProject United States articles
- GA-Class Vietnam articles
- High-importance Vietnam articles
- All WikiProject Vietnam pages
- GA-Class Zimbabwe articles
- Mid-importance Zimbabwe articles
- GA-Class Rhodesia articles
- High-importance Rhodesia articles
- Rhodesia task force articles
- WikiProject Zimbabwe articles
- GA-Class International relations articles
- High-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
- Spoken Misplaced Pages requests