Template talk:War
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)

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)

Restructure proposals:: 

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: 

Bar would be better than sidebox: Hi, I just saw this for the very first time with its new appearance on War film.