Talk:Central Powers

Kingdom of Finland

The kingdom of finland never actually became to be, it was a proposal but no king ever got in power, and never was finland officially called the Kingdom of Finland, should this be replaced or am i completely in the wrong? Finland didn't really even contribute in ww1, just fought it's on civil war and briefly against the russians NyawMeow 17.06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Merge into Triple... Death

These pages highly duplicate. Joncnunn 20:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree. While there is some overlap, unavoidable as the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance were at war with each other, the two topics are, and should remain, separate.--Anthony.bradbury 18:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

how many troops were involved in WW1

A lot of people faught. I mean like millions of people from all over the world. Hope that helped, Cupcake547 (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC).

The map is wrong

Greece was not part of the Central Powers! Can someone fix this? A.Cython (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The map in its current state does not show Greece to be a part of the Central Powers. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That is because I changed the map! the previous map was this one: [1] A.Cython (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Mustafa Kemal

The list should only include a political leader, and a commander-in-chief, of a country fighting for the Central Powers. Mustafa Kemal was a very important figure during the Turkish War of Independence to the extent that he should be listed as a commander in the infobox of the Turkish War of Independence article, but he was not important enough in WW1 to warrant listing him alongside the sultan, and the commander-in-chief, of the Ottoman Empire in this article. As a result, I have removed Mustafa Kemal from the list. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Zimmermann Telegram

If this article mentions alliances Germany tried to make with Afghanistan, then wouldn't it be also logical to include mentioning the Zimmermann Telegram, in which they tried to get Mexico to declare war on the USA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.218.111.247 (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sultanate of Darfur

"For instance, when the sultan of Darfur, Ali Dinar (ca. 1898–1916), proclaimed his kingdom's allegiance to the Ottoman Empire, a small British force quickly defeated his forces, with the sultan dying during the fighting."

Davis, R. Hunt, ed. "World War I and Africa." Encyclopedia of African History and Culture: The Colonial Era (1850 to 1960). vol. 4. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2005. Modern World History Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp? ItemID=WE53&iPin=AHCIV0591&SingleRecord=True (accessed October 29, 2009).

Maybe this should be added as a sub-bullet under the Ottoman Empire.--189.33.12.27 (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the Sultanate of Darfur should be under the Ottoman Empire, too. Should I make like that? Cupcake547 (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Succeded by

Is the Central Powers really a predecessor to the Axis? Out of the tripartite, only Germany was in the Central Powers while the others were fighting in the Allied powers. Juxlos (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Confused about the map

Are there any disclaimers or a key on to what the areas in the lower-left corner of the map are? I only recognize Tianjin IowaBird (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Translation

For accuracy's sake, I'd recommend changing the translations from modern Turkish to Ottoman. Sirius85 (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try. Cupcake547 (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC).

Ethopia and White Finland as supporters and co-bellingerents

Should they be listed as such?--87.188.75.185 (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

  @87.188.75.185 No, Ethiopia and White Finland should only be in the supporters category because they are controversial. Cupcake547 (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Renaming and Moving the Article

Should we rename the article from Central Powers to Central Powers of World War I, that way the title is more specific? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cupcake547 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do it. Cupcake547 (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

This page is super weird regarding listing German territory

It puts Lithuania under Germany? As well as Ukraine, Belarus, Crimea, Baltic States. What is up with that. If anything they were Russian at the time. Chefs-kiss (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

In 1918 between the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the German surrender, all of the countries you mention were German client states and as such members of the Central Powers. Furius (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

IB

@34780jgri: your own edit summary is illuminating here. If something is not "important" (your word), it should not be in the infobox, per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Remsense ‥ 论 00:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Missing reference

@History6042: Your edit here added a reference — {{Harvnb|Hart|2013|p=299}} — that does not point to a citation. Can this error be fixed? —GoldRingChip 16:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Missing references

@History6042: Your edits here added some references — {{Harvnb|Hoisington|1995|p=63}}, {{Harvnb|Fage|Roberts|Oliver|1986|p=290}}, {{Harvnb|Burke|1975|p=440}} — that do not point to citations. Can these errors be fixed? —GoldRingChip 16:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Central Powers/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: History6042 (talk · contribs) 21:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: ClaudineChionh (talk · contribs) 06:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Starting review. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 06:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to quick fail this on coverage and citations. However, I know I could be too harsh when I used to grade undergraduate assignments, so if another reviewer or GA coordinator thinks I'm doing the same here, I'll give it another go. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 22:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Coverage

Apart from the introductions to the German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman sections, this reads like a list with some padding. I would expect to see much more discussion of the context and relationships between the various powers. Many of the dependent states only have a one– or two–sentence section of prose – if you don't have much to say about them, the tables do a good enough job of presenting the minor belligerents.

Citations

Verifiability is a core policy and it is the responsibility of the editor who adds content to provide complete references to support any quotations or statements. This is especially crucial when writing on a historical topic. At the bare minimum, I expect to see author, title, and publication date for books or author, article title, journal title, and publication date for journal articles, so that I can verify that these are real sources and that support the statements that they reference. For books, the name of the publisher can help us assess whether the book is reliable. In many of these references, I can't even tell whether it refers to a book, chapter, journal article, or some other type of publication, so I wouldn't know where to start looking for it. You should also gain more practice using citation templates consistently and citing different pages within the same book using {{sfn}} or {{rp}} templates.

These are the problems I found in my first scan of the reference list. Only the ones listed in Unacceptable citations warrant a fail on their own; incomplete citations on their own do not fail the GA criteria, but there are too many of them.

In case reference numbers change during editing, the numbers here are from this revision.

Unacceptable citations – insufficient detail

The following citations do not provide a title, let alone date or other publication details – the authors' names do not appear anywhere else in References or Further reading. This means it is impossible to verify them with any certainty. This is unacceptable in a Good article, especially on a historical topic where the majority of sources are offline.

• [17] Washausen, p. 116
• [22] Gottschall, p. 177
• [108] Shukri, "As Senussiya..." p. 156. I can't even tell if this is a journal article, book chapter, blog post, or something else entirely.

The targets for the following refs are not defined in this article so they're essentially missing title and other publication details.

• [41] Miller 1999
• [53] Hoisington 1995, p. 63
• [54] Fage, Roberts & Oliver 1986, p. 290
• [55] Burke 1975, p. 440
• [81] Nicolle (1997), p. 5
• [100–103] Hart 2013

Incomplete citations

A reader or reviewer can try looking up these incomplete citations in a library catalogue but I really expect an editor who is adding a reference to provide sufficient publication information, which you should already have in front of you.

• [7] Hagen, William W. German History in Modern Times: Four Lives of the Nation. p. 228. This doesn't even have a publication date, which is essential for us to know what this source means by "modern".
• [32] Pánek 2009, pp. 336-337 No title or other publication details.
• [33] Biondich 2000, p. 9 This links to a reference list in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article. The reference needs to be defined in this article. Was this ref just copied blindly from the other article?
• [63] J. M. Roberts. Europe 1880–1945. p. 232. No date.
• [68] Kataryna Wolczuk. The Moulding of Ukraine: The Constitutional Politics of State Formation. p. 37. No date.
• [76] Hala Mundhir Fattah. The Politics of Regional Trade in Iraq, Arabia, and the Gulf, 1745–1900. p. 121. No date.
• [77] Zvi Lerman, David Sedik. Rural Transition in Azerbaijan. p. 12. No date.
• [82] See Gilkes, Patrick / Plaut, Martin: Great War Intrigues in the Horn of Africa, in: Shiferaw Bekele, The First World War from Tripoli to Addis Ababa 2019. pp. 37–58. Incomplete citation and incorrect use of italics.
• [84] Dilebo, Getahun. Emperor Menelik's Ethiopia, 1865-1916 National Unification Or Amhara Communal Domination. UMI Howard University. p. 244. No date or indication of what kind of publication this is – a dissertation, monograph, report, working paper...?

Incorrectly formatted

• [95] Archives, The National (28 September 2018). "The National Archives - Milestones to peace: the Armistice of Salonica". The National Archives blog. Retrieved 6 October 2024. Incorrect author name – it shouldn't be hard to get this right.

Not using Cite templates

I'd really encourage using {{Cite}} templates to ensure that citations present full publication details and conform to the citation style guidelines.

• [5] and [6] Meyer, G.J. A World Undone – also, since this is the same book, you should use either {{sfn}} or {{rp}} to cite different pages within the same book.
• [30] Cashman, Greg; Robinson, Leonard C. An Introduction to the Causes of War has author, title, and publication details, but using {{Cite book}} would mean it's formatted according to the style guidelines.

Further reading

Author, title, and date are the bare minimum; providing the names of publishers helps us determine reliability of sources. You can use {{Cite book}} to provide full citations in this section.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.