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

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?--KrossTalk 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.