Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 1

Original discussion
imho-wikipedia should have pretty much everything put in it. So of course it should have seperate entries for all these battles. - Lir

At this point I would leave the subjective question of what is a qualifying battle an open one. I'm sure that somebody could easily find a counter-example of an important battle with fewer than 10,000 troops involved on any side. Many naval battles, for example, would involve considerably less manpower than land battles. Almost any battle that someone wants to take the time to write about should qualify.

That being said User:TeunSpaans makes some good points about what should be included in the text of a good article about a battle.

From my short run perspective I'm looking for feedback on the box. What should it include? Can the information be formated in a more useful manner? How can colours be used to greater advantage? A green background in the heading could indicate a naval battle, and a blue background could indicate an aerial action. Eclecticology 16:58 Oct 22, 2002 (UTC)

About 10% of the males seems to be color blind, so I would prefer an image or some other distinction between air, naval and land battles. To make a distinction, is imho a good thing. See my description of the Battle of Nordlingen for extra info: forces, which I would like to see. TeunSpaans 20:51 Oct 22, 2002 (UTC)


 * agree, eg. icon of an aircraft indicates an air battles, a bomb for bombing campaign etc.
 * After checking articles on battles, merging the two existing types of formats can be an option. An article about a battle can be formatted as here Kt2.

Sounds good! If someone is familiar with using icons, perhaps he can set that up in the template. Does this mean that we can now use the colours to show the continent for the battle. Possibly: Eclecticology 00:36 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)
 * Grey=Europe (just because we've started there)
 * Beige=Africa
 * Yellow=Asia
 * Orange=Australasia
 * Pink=North America
 * Green=South America
 * White=Antarctica (not very colorful, but there weren't many fought there anyway)
 * Blue=Open Ocean, with no clear continental association
 * Mauve=Fictitious or Legendary

Why not black or dark brown for Africa? Asia is already yellow. I had a similar idea about the county tables but then quickly rejected the idea because the colors that seemed logical to me are politically sensitive. It might be better to asign colors based on time period (ancient, medieval, early modern, modern) or some other factor. But I'm probably being too parnoid again so if you do harmer-out good colors for each of the continents then let me know and I will see about adding these same colors to the WikiProject Countries spec so that everything works nicely together. --mav


 * The geographic info definitely is a good one. Maps would be great, but copyright is an issue here. TeunSpaans 06:35 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)


 * While trying to expand the dutch wiki, I encountered the Battle of Agincourt. Some of these battles have some art work. Where do we put it in relation to our project box? TeunSpaans 21:58 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)
 * It likely a good idea to keep the box in a consistent place on all the battle pages. Of the two illustrations now on the Agincourt page, the group picture appears to be there only for aesthetic purposes, and can probably be moved to anywhere else on the page.  The map is more useful, but it too could perhaps be moved down if it interferes with the project box. Eclecticology 08:21 Dec 12, 2002 (UTC)


 * There is also an empty cell at the top of the box that could hold a ~200 px image similar to Typical owl. This could hold a map of the battle or any other image. Due to the small width I would suggest having the image for the map further down the article with no text wrapping around it. This should minimize table/image interference and also reserves a place for the more engaging image of the battle at the top of the table. --mav

For colours, are they meant to show the geographical region of the battle, independant of the combatants? I added a table to two Byzantine battles, Myriokephalon and Kleidion, and used yellow for both, because Myriokephalon is in Turkey (Asia), but also because the Empire was more "oriental" than the rest of Europe. Because of that I also put yellow for Kleidion, even though that took place in Europe (in Bulgaria). So should they both be yellow, both be grey, or one yellow and one grey? Adam Bishop 04:05, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * All that matters is where the battle took place geographically. --mav 05:09, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Battles Taxobox
I think that the table used in some of the battle articles is quite hard to read. See Battle of Lützen (1632) for an example. I propose something like this instead. This makes the width of the box larger but makes it easier for the reader to compare the two combatants. -- Jniemenmaa 11:26, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I like the content but it is too wide. --mav


 * Well, we could limit the width of the table to, say 300 pixels. That might still be too large (and the readability is reduced). Is there a recommendation for table sizes? The policy for images states 150-250 pixels.


 * Table's and images have the same width problems when text flows around them. --mav 19:13, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

mav's version 1.0
This is better, me thinks. --mav 19:13, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

minor edit on mav's version
A minor edit on mav's version kt2 23:32, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hmm... now this looks great! My only modification would be to remove the "extra" table around the combatants part. Any reason for it to be there? Other than esthetic I mean? So here is my version of kt2's version -- Jniemenmaa


 * I like nested tables. ;-) The reason was to give the Conflict, Date, Place, Result data more room since those sub-headings don't need as much room. But if having a less complex table is important then your version is a good compromise. Consider my work on this table to be a gift to the WikiProject Battles contributors. Do with it what you think is best. :) --mav

Thanks Mav for the heads-up about new activity on this topic. Although I was involved with the original design of this box, I see that the recent modification are clear improvements over my primitive contribution. &#9774; Eclecticology 09:40, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * No problem - glad I was able to help! --mav


 * What happens to my Opera. The three tables overlap each other! Anyway, I prefer the first wide table without floating.  Just fixed the table at the top of a page.  We don't need a floating table for all our projects. Wshun


 * It happens on IE too, to my knowledge. ugen64 02:45, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * Oh, and of the 5 tables on this page, which one should I use when I go ahead and tidy up some American Civil War and World War II battles? I was thinking the... middle one of the three that overlap each other. I'll use that one, for now, and such. ugen64 02:49, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * I've been using the one on the bottom, basically....but other people have been using different ones. I guess it's either for variety, or we just haven't decided on an official one to use yet. Adam Bishop 03:53, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Okay. Also, is combatants spelled correctly? ugen64 18:17, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * Not in the example tables, but you have it right, it's "combatants," not "cambatants." Adam Bishop 18:23, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Standard Headers
I wanted to remind you, that there was once standard header, like this:

History -- Military history -- List of battles

and eventually =-- History oF Poland... etc.

I proposed it once, and was sad to see that when i left wikipedia people forgot about it. szopen


 * Oops...well that's pretty easy to fix. Adam Bishop 16:43, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Instead of typing the header everytime, it is now encoded in a MediaWiki message. Now all we have to type is. Adam Bishop 21:45, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)