Template talk:War

Unsorted text

I saw that this box has an "edit" link on it. Since its so new, and may need additions, i'll leave it there for now, but as its not an infobox, I think it should come off eventually. Possibly one month after its creation? —siroχo 06:16, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

A number of other series boxes have permanent edit links (e.g. History of the United States, History of Britain). I think they are a good idea as the boxes are otherwise very hard to edit for new users. - SimonP 06:51, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

It's ugly and obstrusive. Keep it hidden. --Jiang 20:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to add wiki links to urban warfare and mountain warfare.--Kross 19:15, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Footnote template

I think that this template should be redesigned as a footplate template. I think it is now too large and dominates the pages it is on as a header template. Most people who go to a specific type of warfare are not looking for other types of warfare and on many war pages a picture in the top right hand corner is preferable to his template (eg total war). What do others think? --Philip Baird Shearer 21:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Time to upgrade!

History of Warfare
Eras
Prehistoric warfare
Types
Aerial warfare
Lists
List of wars

How's this for a start? (Have no intention of making edits until people were consulted) Palm_Dogg 03:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

History of Warfare
Eras
Prehistoric warfare
Types
Aerial warfare
Lists
List of wars

Nice idea, but the color scheme looks slightly garish to me. How about something more in line with our other templates? —Kirill Lokshin 22:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Yeah, it is pretty butt-ugly. Yours is nice. What do you think about widening the template, like Template:Israelis, so it's less of a list? Of course in that case, we have to figure out what we would put... Palm_Dogg 23:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. We could save a lot of space by omitting "warfare" from every term (see the topic list on Portal:War, for example). —Kirill Lokshin 23:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

True. Here's my rough draft (We could save a lot of space doing that...). Palm_Dogg 00:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Too wide, maybe? Here's another version, with short forms and a slightly lighter background.

On another note, it might be nice to put a similarly-proportioned ancient warfare picture (a chariot, maybe?) next to the M1-Abrams. —Kirill Lokshin 00:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, there are lots of other links we should probably add. —Kirill Lokshin 00:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

We can always add that stuff later. The important thing is to get the format set up now. Palm_Dogg 00:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I fixed most of the formatting issues; there's still some space after the pictures that I can't figure out how to remove. —Kirill Lokshin 01:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

AWESOME! It looks perfect the way it is. I'm going to switch templates. Palm_Dogg 02:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! Now we need to add back some of the other links. —Kirill Lokshin 02:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Compared to the original, this is a masterpiece! Good job guys. --Loopy ^e 02:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added back most of the links that were in the original template. If there are any that shouldn't be linked from this (due to not being important enough, basically), feel free to take them out. —Kirill Lokshin 02:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice job. Major kudos to a speedy and efficient project. Palm_Dogg 03:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, Land warfare simply redirect to War. Should we remove the link from the template?--Kross^Talk 08:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Kirill Lokshin 11:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I still say that this template should be turned into a #Footnote template --Philip Baird Shearer 18:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Cavalry?

Would it be possible to squeeze cavalry tactics into the template? I'd do it myself, but I'm afraid of messing with the code and touching something not mine. Thanks. LordAmeth 14:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Kirill Lokshin 15:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Supply line

Supply line is no longer used by the military the correct term to use now is Military Supply Chain Management. What123 00:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

We needn't follow whatever the current terminology fad is exactly. The predominant term in English usage—particularly in the context of history—remains "supply line". Kirill Lokshin 00:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, with respect, it is not a fad it is a fact that "supply line" is no longer used by militaries [1]. It has been replaced with Supply Chain Management [2] to differentiate between civilian and military SCM I created MSCM. Supply line has been #redirected to MSCM. I think the template should be updated accordingly. In addition, some of the links you have added to logistics are being redirected and don't really fit into this template. Thanks What123 01:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't need to use formal military terminology exclusively. "Supply line" is still standard both in common parlance and in historical works (Napoleon had supply lines, not SCM, for example). I'm not convinced that the term is prevalent enough that we should adopt it over something which would be more recognizable to the average reader.

As far as the other terms, we can figure those out once the redirects have all been sorted. (In any case, I think some of the redirects may be unnecessarily limiting the scope of the topics; but that's a separate issue.) Kirill Lokshin 01:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Change Box to Horizontal

I think it is time to move the template to the bottom of articles in a horizontal format, it is to long now and will only grow longer vertically. LindaWarheads 10:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That would force us to move it to a much less prominent position within each article, though. Kirill Lokshin 12:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your assertion, but it is getting to long and all the issues that go along with that length. If it was horizontal at the bottom we would be able to add more links as the articles are written. At what point would you consider the horizontal box ? LindaWarheads 09:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

At the point where this box were to be substantially larger than a normal infobox, probably. I'm not sure how much potential to expand it still has, though; there really aren't many links that could be added at this point. Kirill Lokshin 15:25, 3 September 2006(UTC)

Combined arms/Joint warfare

These have been major doctrines in modern warfare, from WW II-era blitzkrieg to US operations today... shouldn't they be mentioned somewhere on this template? 61.7.120.59 01:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I've added a link to joint warfare under the "Tactics" heading; if anybody knows a better place for it, please feel free to move it there. Kirill Lokshin 02:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hogging all that space

This is a terribly bloated template that is spoiling an ever-increasing amount of articles. It's a textbook example of what one would not want in a good article. Consider making it horizontal or splitting it up into several smaller ones. The acceptable size was passed already back in early 2006. By now it's even worse than the gargantuan Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to make a reduction. If someone feels like auto-reverting everything, please note that there are a few pointless duplicate links in there, like mechanized warfare. But let's at least try to discuss the merits of this many links in a such a basic topic template

Peter ^Isotalo 06:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This may become a moot point shortly; see WT:MILHIST#Standardizing navigation templates. Presumably the number of links wouldn't be a (major) concern in an auto-collapsing template? Kirill 12:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A massive amount of linkage is still overwhelming, even when it's not placed at the very top of the article. We don't generally tolerate excessive amounts of links in See also-section, so why is so much different?

Peter ^Isotalo 21:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This should really be several templates; at least two (a general "War" one and a more specific "Types of warfare" one) are fairly obvious. We've sort of been tied to a one-template approach in the past for layout reasons, but the collapsible floating box design being developed would allow this to be neatly split up into multiple smaller templates, any subset of which could conveniently be included in each article. Kirill 21:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

New Template

• Hello, I have created a new collapsible Template based on the Template {{{{Nazism}}}} that solves the problem about hogging space, but still allows the Template to remain on the top-right of articles. I was hoping for some input from other users to build a consensus, thank you. Chessy999 15:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

War Military History

Eras Prehistoric Ancient Medieval Gunpowder Industrial Modern Battlespace Air Information Land Sea Space Weapons Armor Artillery Biological Cavalry Chemical Electronic Infantry Nuclear Psychological Tactics Attrition Guerilla Maneuver Siege Total war Trench Strategy Economic Grand Operational Organization Formations Ranks Units Logistics Equipment Materiel Supply line Lists Battles Commanders Operations Sieges Theorists Wars War crimes Weapons Writers War Portal

Mmm, I think it's overly convoluted; too many collapsing sections are as bad as too few ones. I'd suggest going with something based on {{military navigation}} (which is the new standard base template for us); for example:

Or, alternately, a full-size version for the standard bottom-of-article position, which can then be expanded further:

Both of these have the added advantage of not needing the rather fragile collapsing-block code in the template itself. Kirill 17:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a fan of the bottom-page template. To me, the top-right position should be reserved for infoboxes and possibly a topic-specific navigation box of limited scope. Navigation should come at the end of the article, IMHO. It's the natural position for a reader, having finished reading the article, to move onto the next one in the series of events or locations. JKBrooks85 18:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm with JKBrooks. Where there is a relevant infobox or the like, this sort of navbox should probably go at the bottom. Though, if we were to go with a top-right box, my vote would be for Kirill's semi-collapsed version, as he makes a good point about too many collapsed sections being potentially a bad thing. LordAmeth 23:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Chessy999. As I said above I think better at the bottom. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that it should go at the bottom of the article. On a side note I just wrote the article Enemy (military), which has been +tagged for deletion, if you care to participate. Please note this is not an advertisement or solicitation as to, which way to vote. Chessy999 12:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a computer program that can change the templates automatically or do we have to make the changes manually ?? Chessy999 (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Template is broken

This template is broken on, it would seem, every page which uses is. It does not float properly, and using the show/hide links does not actually work. I know precious little about formatting these floating boxes or I'd look in to it myself, but this need to be fixed! Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 04:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Organization of the content of the 'Battlespace' and 'Weapons' sections

In both the 'Battlespace' and the 'Weapons' sections of this template, the information is organized alphabetically. In the 'Eras' section, it is arranged chronologically. In the other sections of this template, it doesn't matter, but I think the 'Battlespace' and 'Weapons' sections, the contents should be reorganized so similar things are grouped together. I think that the contents of the 'Battlespace' section should be reorganized like this; Land (the most basic place that we war; we live on land), sea (centuries ago, humans began making ships that went to sea and warred), air (real, practical air warfare began only in 20th century), space (so far, we are only beginning to use space as a battlefield, and even then, almost exclusively for reconnaissance) and information (which has been around a while, but is not even a physical battlefield).

In the weapons section, I think that Biological, Chemical and Nuclear weaponry should be grouped together (as they are all weapons of mass destruction, and might should be indicated as such in the template), infantry and cavalry should be grouped together (because they are both classified by the type of soldier that generally carries it), electronic and artillery should be grouped (as they are not weapons of mass destruction and are not named after the type of soldiers that use them) and armor and psychological should remain ungrouped (as they do not belong with anything else on the list). Look above for the current organization.--Star Trek enthusiast (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think they should be classified by role rather than by user. Chariots, Cavalry, and Armoured warfare fulfill essentially the same role in land warfare with differences in era so they should be grouped together with ships and aircraft as weapons platform. I think traps should be added like naval and land mines as well as other static automated defenses because of their unique roles. Countakeshi (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Tactics and strategy have been mixed up

It would seem practically everything under the, current live, template heading of "tactics" and "strategy" is wrong, and should be moved around. Key examples include: attritional warfare, which is an overall policy of grinding down the opposing military force. It is a strategy employed, which results in how tactics are employed; Total War is the complete mobilization of a nations resources to fight a war, which is not a tactical decision taken on the battlefield or in a foxhole; A Proxy War, is not a battlefield tactic employed but rather a full-scale war.

The template needs a complete overhaul. Thus I have made the below proposed change (for the tactics and strategy sections only), and have also included more links. A few of the links, since i am not familiar enough with them, I have grouped in the "other" section along with the likes of Proxy War, which does not fit the current template nor the below expanded and restructured categories.

I make no allusion to being completely accurate on every movement choice I have, or have not made, however I do feel what I have come up with is far more accurate than the current live template.

Edit: I have now inserted the rest of the current live template, and moved around and added several more links.Tempaccount040812 (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 January 2013 - Mispelling

Please change the spelling of "materiel"... it should be "material" 72.55.246.150 (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: "Materiel" is the correct usage in this context. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 20:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

General comment, this template is great

Just wanted to say, this is a really interesting and useful template and I wish there were more like this. LT90001 (talk) 07:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please add...

...Network-centric warfare to the "Other" section. --173.51.29.188 (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

done: I have added the above requested link.Tempaccount040812 (talk) 05:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2015

Add to Weapons Economic, remove economic warfare from grand strategy.

  --munir

178.135.87.140 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sam ^Sing! 21:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Move Economic warfare from grand strategy to weapons

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.

---

Move Economic warfare from grand strategy to weapons 94.187.10.167 (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I assume this has to do with the groupings in Template:War, proposing to move Economic warfare from the list under Grand strategy to the list under Weapons.

To me, it fits much better under strategy than weapons. Currently, weapons are things that are armed by the military. Since Economic warfare goes beyond the military, it sounds more strategic.

Can you give your reasoning for this change?

--A D Monroe III (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: I concur with A D Monroe III. Economic warfare is not a weapon. Arguably, we could discuss the weapons used in economic warfare, but the economy is not a weapon that can be aimed at a person (maybe economic sanctions could be classified under weapons?). Xaxafrad (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: I'm guessing that this request stems from the fact that our current article on Economic warfare is very poor. It currently describes Economic warfare as exclusively something that occurs during active military conflict, rather than a non-military substitute for total war. From that, I'm guessing one might assume its a military weapon option. But we cannot allow a bad article to infect other articles; we need to fix Economic warfare instead. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

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.

Bar would be better than sidebox

Hi, I just saw this for the very first time with its new appearance on War film. I agree the topic is "Related" but do not think that a sizeable box right at the top of (every) article, especially perhaps where the topic is only "related" to the matter of the box, is a good idea. For a start, many articles I edit have 2, 3 or more navigation sets (I choose a neutral word). These membership sets would (and once did) take up excessive screen space ("real estate" in user interface design jargon), all the more problematic when half our readers already view Wikipedia on small screens (smartphones upwards). A solution is to use horizontal navigation boxes placed at the ends of articles, rather than vertical ones placed near the top on the right. Horizontal navboxes can (and best should) be made to collapse to a simple one-line bar with a title, so they are "quiet" (barely intrusive) but readily available. An example is the {{Mathematical art}} navbox - see Mathematics and art for how it works when there is a second navbox also present. I think you'll agree that it's a tried and tested solution, and one that offers plenty of room for the designer. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2015

105.149.66.219 (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC) ءí

Cavalry article

Could the "War" template be repositioned at the bottom of the Cavalry article? This way it would continue to serve a useful purpose without breaking up and distorting what is already a lengthy article. As a random example of better practice the National Gendarmerie article places its template at the foot of the main text, thereby presenting a tidy and well organised appearance without large gaps. Thanks.(Buistr (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)).

هعبد

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)