Talk:The Second World War (book series)
Latest comment: 9 years ago by 37.24.11.29 in topic Synopsis
 | 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 article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
POV edit
I missed that the tag was removed before. My complaints with this article have not been resolved; only references have been added. That wasn't my complaint.—Chowbok ☠ 23:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually improving the article is a lot better than tagging it and then returning four months later to complain about your complaints not being addressed by someone else. Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, I thought we were supposed to collaborate on resolving controversial issues rather than unilaterally forcing changes through. Okay, from now on I'll edit-war my desired changes through. Thanks for clearing that up.—Chowbok ☠ 00:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that I follow you - you can just edit the article per normal conventions. If you'd like to discuss options to improve it, please do so. You tagged the article and posted a fairly unspecific complaint about it here last September, and then didn't participate in the resulting discussion of your post. Turning up four months later and re-adding the tag after it had been removed by another editor who had worked to improve the article and explained his or her reasoning and posting more unspecific complaints isn't an optimal approach. What are your suggestions for how the article could be improved? Nick-D (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, I thought we were supposed to collaborate on resolving controversial issues rather than unilaterally forcing changes through. Okay, from now on I'll edit-war my desired changes through. Thanks for clearing that up.—Chowbok ☠ 00:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Chowbok you will have to provide specific examples of how this article "poormouths" the work in order for us to take your tag seriously. If you don't elaborate we are automatically going to have to assume it is a frivolous complaint, since none of us can read minds. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- More specifically, we have proper citations (and quotes - we haven't only added refs) from reliable sources of independent authors who both praise Churchill and point out the book's limitations, so the tag is no longer needed. These additions have certainly improved the article so we can be grateful to Chowbok for the guidance. Given the amount that has now been published about Churchill's History by David Reynolds and others, there is plenty of room for extending the article to GA and beyond. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Synopsis edit
Is there a synopsis which compares the six volume edition with the condensed one? --37.24.11.29 (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)