Talk:French Somaliland in World War II

To do

http://www.schudak.de/timelines/frenchsomalicoast1708-1946.html

Information from this webpage should be researched to see if it can be corroborated in reliable sources. Srnec (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Title change

I oppose the title change from "during" to "in", since French Somaliland was not "in" World War II for very long or very actively when it was. Why the forced conformity? Srnec (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to justify my move of the article - according to WP:NC, "title [should be] consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles", and according to recent discussions at Denmark in World War II and Southern Rhodesia in World War I, the general consensus seems to be in favour of "in". But this in no way changes the intended scope of the article's content. Personally, I think "during" doesn't sound quite right and perhaps implies that there was no direct involvement. IMO, "in" doesn't carry any of these connotations.Brigade Piron (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Merging "Italian Invasion of French Somalia" with this article

It's been proposed that the new article Italian Invasion of French Somalia (btw it was an invasion attempt rather than an invasion) be merged with French Somaliland in World War II and I agree. The little of value in that new article that is not yet dealt with under the section "War with Italy and armistice" could be added. Really, that new article is a duplicate of that section. --Lubiesque (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Retain as a separate article. I disagree with Lubiesque. Sorry, but the invasion with occupation of 1/5 of French Somalia lasted only TWO MONTHS and cannot be merged into the FIVE YEARS of ""French Somalia during WWII". It is like merging the two months of the invasion of Sicily in 1943 with the article on "Italy during WWII"! And there are plenty of other examples about. BTW, I disagree with Lubiesque when he wrote that this article is of little value, because there are many articles in Wikipedia with lesser value (if needed I can add a huge list). Of course the amount of troops involved is minimal, but Wikipedia must enlarge itself and not reduce the articles. Years ago I remember that when was started the article on the Italian conquest of British Somaliland there were similar critics, but now this is a very well documented article and it is reproduced in many wikpedias. So, let's increase the importance of our en. wikipedia, adding more data to this article (I have just added a submarine blockade section, for example). Cheers, --Alsrigs (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I was misinterpreted: I wrote "The litte of value that is not yet dealt under the section..."; that is not the same as saying the article is of little value. That said, I still believe the article should be merged; and I don't see why the length of the episode, be it two weeks, two months or two years, justifies creating a new article that is mostly a duplicate. It would be better to complete and improve the section on this episode that already exists.--Lubiesque (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The voice "Italian invasion of French Somalia" has only one section similar to one of the five in the voice "French Somaliland during World War II". So, the section The 1940 invasion is similar to War with Italy and armistice, but all the other sections are totally different and unrelated. I suggest to rewrite the section of the Italian invasion of French Somalia, so that will disappear all the possible similarities. We will have in this way two completely different voices, one dealing on the 2 months of the Italian invasion and the second on the full five years of WWII. User IP 9688126217 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.88.126.217 (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Retain as a separate article. I agree with Alsrigs - the history of the colony during the war is not just a military one, as the current article demonstrates well. Plus, the invasion is at least as significant (militarily) as a battle and I don't see any objection to its existence as an independent article. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Retain as a separate article: The Italian Invasion of French Somalia was significant event and deserves its own separate article. We now have a good quality free-standing article, and it should be retained and kept discrete. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Garapunk66. I will follow your polite & kind advise and rewrite the section about the summer 1940 invasion.--Alsrigs (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Merge. In fact, redirect immediately. In terms of sourced content, it's practically a duplicate. The creator has admitted that the section on the invasion is basically a duplicate. That leaves just the sections on the background and the blockade: neither of which is the invasion. I have no problem splitting this article up if it gets to big. But (a) it's not there yet and (b) this isn't the way to do it. Srnec (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• FYI: anons and a bunch of users above were lta brunodam. I've just locked and reverted all the relevant accounts. Keep in mind brunodam uses to copyvio (most of times by translating) also faking sources. --Vituzzu (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)