Talk:World War II/Infobox/Archive 12

military leaders
Wondering about the list of Axis leaders, and the minimal role the Emperor played until the decision to surrender was being made, whether the heads of the Imperial Japanese Navy and Army shouldn't be listed there instead?NiD.29 (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd go with Tojo & his successors as PM if anyone were to replace Hirohito, though I'd probably prefer the PMs & Hirohito. Also, since the French were considered a major member of the Allies, should there be a French leader (or leaders) listed among the Allied leaders (probably De Gaulle, but possibly De Gaulle & Giraud)? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there should be an order of leaders for each nation, similar to other articles, starting with the Head of State, then Prime Minister (Political Leader) then a few notable Generals/Military Commanders (ex: George VI, Neville Chamberlain, Winston Churchill, Andrew Cunningham, Harold Alexander, Bernard Montgomery). Also including political leaders who held the same post during the war for example Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt & Harold Truman or Prime Ministers Neville Chamberlain & Winston Churchill maybe with dates of office in brackets. Rather than replacing Hirohito the head of state add Tojo and his successor and perhaps a Field Commander.  I also do feel there should be a more comprehensive list of leaders and commanders in the info box including those of all combatant nations (Poland, France, Free France, Canada, Australia etc.) if its a matter of the amount have a click to drop down list. J.Mieszała (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A small point of fact - Truman was never "Harold", his given name was indeed Harry, after his uncle Harrison (who went by Harry). Parsecboy (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Belligerents in infobox
There was no consensus to change the belligerent section of the infobox to just listing Axis and Allies, this is npov as it excludes belligerents that were involved in the conflict yet did not joint one of the two alliances such as Finland. Various editors protecting this change have stated that there was consensus in May for such a change to occur. I note looking at the discussion above, there were only 9 individuals in favour of such a change as compared to 8 who supported other options. This infobox page is actually quite difficult to reach, as it is not linked on the main wikipedia page, any discussion on changing the layout of the belligerent section should be noted on the World War II talk page before any real consensus can be reached.XavierGreen (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That isn't exactly an accurate summary of the discussion above. Multiple editors voted in several sections - if you look more closely, only five editors expressed views in favor of other options over option 3, which had 9 supporters. Parsecboy (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As someone who has been directly involved with various disputes like this in the past, in no way would even a 9 to 5 vote be considered consensus. The discussioned wasn't even structured as something asking for a vote, rather instead it was akin to a request for comment to seek peoples input. If you truly want consensus you should start another thread, publicize it on relevant pages (like i said above) and let peoples voices be heard clearly on whether or not they want the page structured the way it is now or with individualized belligerents listed as it was before.XavierGreen (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 9 to 5 is nearly a supermajority, which is good enough for consensus on most things. Nevertheless, consensus is determined via discussion, WP:NOTAVOTE. Parsecboy (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment opened
Please see Talk:World War II. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This RfC has now been closed, and I have implemented the consensus. Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)