Talk:Burma campaign

Article titles Burma campaign (1944) and Burma campaign (1944–1945)

Another editor has raised with me an issue with these two titles and that they have the appearance of being a duplication. Is it possible to consider alternative names that resolve this? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

How about:

1. "Allied Reconquest of Burma (1944-1945) or;
2. "Allied Reoccupation if Burma (1944-1945) or;
3. "Allied Liberation of Burma (1944-1945)

2: is a bit tame; the process was not a peaceful post-VJ day march in. Both 1: and 3: might raise complaints of POV. I would go with 3: as it fits with the nomenclature of other allied campaigns e.g. Liberation of France. HLGallon (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 and Option 3 work for me. — Sadko (words are wind) 18:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox - colonies

British colonies were removed from the infobox for several reasons. Firstly, they are not separate state players but act under control of Britain. Secondly, their inclusion in almost every instance is unverified and not supported by the body of the article. Unverified material may be removed at any time and verification does not guarantee inclusion. Thirdly (per my edit comment): this is detail, which is not what the infobox is for (per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). I also removed Nepal. It is noted that Gurkhas served in the British army but this does not make Nepal a belligerent party. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Nepal should not have been removed from the list of combatants. Units of the Royal Nepali Army (not Gukhas) fought at Sangshak, Kohima and Mandalay. I researched the numbers in Talk:Burma campaign (1944–1945)/Archive 1. HLGallon (talk) 11:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Then, the inclusion in the infobox need verification, since Nepal is not otherwise mentioned in the article. Without verification, it should not be there. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no justification for removing colonies. British colonies and protectorates were separate polities in their own right. Nepal was sourced but the references were removed for some reason. They are now reinstated. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Only one is supported by citation and one other by mention in the body of the article. And I would disagree that they are separate polities (certainly not in the majority of cases) if they do not have a separate constitution. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Infobox changes

In response to @Cinderella157's revert:

First of all, I apologize for the error with Nepal; I did not intend to group it under the United Kingdom. As for my other changes, I fail to see how they were not an improvement or at any grounds to be reverted. The British Empire is not a country, but the empire that was, at the time, under the control of the United Kingdom. Thus it is accurate to elevate the United Kingdom. At the same time, Canada had already been made independent and should not be grouped under the United Kingdom. Wasting time is still my passion (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

OK but tree lists are not an improvement. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I suppose one can do without tree lists, but I would want to see a proper MOS written on this for the Template:Infobox military conflict. It seems that the use of tree lists is rampant, especially with articles on newer conflicts; here are a few examples:

• 1948 Arab–Israeli War
• Irish Civil War
• 2026 Iran war
• Sudanese civil war (2023–present)
• Greenland crisis

I adopted tree lists because it is more readable in source and easier to create a multi-layered hierarchy, but I am open-minded to hear why you discourage this. Either way, I would recommend an RfC on the Template:Infobox military conflict to codify the style used in combatants. Wasting time is still my passion (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Tree lists take up more space horizontally in the infobox, where space is of a premium and expand the infobox vertically, when we are trying to minimise the size of the infobox per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. I disagree that it is more readable and we shouldn't be creating a hierarchy with more than one indent in the infobox. More than one indent is too much detail for an infobox. It is also no easier. If anything, it requires more steps. WP:OTHERCONTENT is never a substantive argument on its own. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I did not mean to invoke WP:OTHERCONTENT as a point towards tree lists. I just wanted to explain why I started using it; since I never found any strict guideline on how to do combatants, I just followed what I observed from other pages.

I will say that I technically did get rid of vertical space in this particular infobox, since it is currently formatted with some interesting techniques that leave quite a bit of vertical padding. Wasting time is still my passion (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

If you compare it with lines in the TOC, it is slightly longer and it causes Rhodesia to wrap. Perhaps a more important issue is that most of those listed under the British Empire are not supported by the body of the article and lack verification. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2026 (UTC)