Template talk:Battle

From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

See http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Battle --Hobinheim (talk · contr) 16:43, 4 January 2007 (EST)

Three-side battle?

Is there a way to include a third side to the battle template like in the Template:War? See Scourge Civil War.Dakovski (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Next, Previous, Concurrent

Previous and Next should actually follow the Milan and Urok tours of duties since the pages mission pages are primarily articles discussing the game, and their particular battles. The events of the games are limited to their units involvements and not anyone else.

Any differences between the game (and their accounts), linkages made between orc and human campaigns (in the game itself, and accounts), and other books should probably be put into "concurrent" (which should likely be seen as concurrent and "Other".)Baggins (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking for a good name for levels that are across from each other, I.E. mission 10 for horde relates to level 10 alliance, etc.Baggins (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Write it as the way that the Warcraft III missions are written, like here: "A New Power in Lordaeron is chapter 6 of the Legacy of the Damned." --g0urra[T҂C] 19:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Defining "Casualties"

It seems to me that the definitions for casualties in this template are rather ambiguous, especially in comparison to the larger conflicts and wars in which this template is used, and not just individual battles. I would like to see some appropriate definitions for when to use these terms. So far, I have come up with the following definitions based on the size of a faction's total standing armies:

Minor (<5-10%)
Light (15-25%)
Moderate (30-55%)
Heavy (60-75%)
Massive (80-95%)

I'd like to know if anyone else has any thoughts about how the terms for casualties should be classified. --Tycerius (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


I'd like to implement some kind of chart to the template, so we can stop adding Prev/Conc/Next wars to every template and stop making mistakes.

Please join the discussion.

IconSmall Hamuul.gif Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk/contribz) 20:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


Could someone take a look at the template, or at least point me to where I could learn to edit it myself? I noticed that if you have both a "campaign" and a "conflift" only the campaign will show. See Dragons of Blackrock Spire (WC2 Orc) for example, the conflict should be the Invasion of Draenor and the campaign should be the Orc campaign. Xporc (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


I would like to merge this and {{War}} into {{Conflict}}, any thoughts? --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 19:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

{{conflict}} is intended to replace these templates to begin with; some of the field omissions were intended because their content tends to be a disaster. — foxlit (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Aha! I think you and I share the same design goals there. Sadly most of the editors on the affected articles don't seem to agree. --PcjWowpedia admin (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 22:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Ehhh I don't know, I do not personally write articles about wars and conflicts, so I think it'd be too hasty to do a merge before the people usually doing them can chime in. Xporc (talk) 09:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, let's make this into a reality sometime sooner. — Surafbrov T / C / P 18:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
There's also {{Battle}} which is largely redundant. They probably could all be merged into 1 template. And make all parameters optional.. you always have to fill most of them with meaningless stuff or "Unknown" or "Not specified" because the templates break if they are not filled. -- MyMindWontQuiet 17:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello! How's this: Template:Conflicts? It is base on the War template with slight modifications such as making the casualities optional. Let me know what needs to be added/adjusted/removed before we move and make this as the replacement for the current three. — Surafbrov T / C / P 17:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

|armies=(anything!) feels like a mistake. There's no configuration of the War/Battle infobox in which the columns it creates are wide enough to display the content people want to stuff into the leaders/forces/etc sections, which results in infoboxes which are simultaneously too wide (encroaching on main content on narrow screens) and too tall/narrow due to the content inside them wrapping excessively. — foxlit (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Anyone opposed to removing the |armies= parameter? If any of you feel like this information is needed, I don't see an issue with adding a section to list the armies for each force that is involved. Also how about converting the template to use the {{Infobox}}? — Surafbrov T / C / P 20:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
What I'm worried about are the many, many pages currently using the two templates. Someone would have to edit and validate them all ... Xporc (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that's already the case or not, but it would be nice if all the subsections (Belligerents, Strength..) were collapsed by default so the template isn't 3 miles long and doesn't take half the page. -- MyMindWontQuiet 12:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)