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 off of the {{War}} template with slight modifications such as making the casualties 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)

Update: Merge

UPDATE: So after some time testing, User:Surafbrov/Template:Conflicts1. What do you guys think? This one uses the {{infobox}} template as well as the new {{Infobox3cols}} that I've asked pcj to port. The forces parameters have been removed from the template, so they'll need to be moved to a section on the article. The Belligerents, Commanders and leaders, and Casualties and losses sections are collapsed by default. The collapsed sections also use a new sub-template, similar to the {{Patchbox/chronology}} to place them into the columns. The |armies parameter was also removed. This one compared to the other just seems visually cleaner to the viewer and the editor. — Surafbrov T / C / P 02:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Any more suggestions would be appreciated. I would actually like to start merging all these templates together by the end of October. This template is planned to be merged into {{Conflict}}, as foxlit said that that is the intended template to replace them all. Some things that I personally would like an opinion on:

  • Where should the "previous, next and current" be located ({{War}} has them at the bottom, {{Battle}} has them at the top)
  • Should the title be in a blue box or where it is right now (the name of the war which is always located at the top of the infobox)
  • Should the forces parameters not have been removed or should that information be moved to a section on the article (some articles has those parameters bloated)

Surafbrov T / C / P 02:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd definitely go with a blue box for the title, makes it pop out more. -- MyMindWontQuiet 03:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Something seems to be off with the indentation. Notably, the bullet points are correcly positioned but the text is mis-indented and misaligned (whether it's in the Outcome part or the other sections), causing it to lose hierarchy, see before/after. -- MyMindWontQuiet 03:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
The indentations are the result of the infobox (the part under the Outcome). The text in the sections are probably caused by centering them which can be fixed. — Surafbrov T / C / P 03:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay. I changed the title to the blue box and fixed the bullet points indentation issue. — Surafbrov T / C / P 03:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

No real opinion as long as you can go on a page using {{War}} and replace the template by the new one without having to mess with all the parameters. Xporc (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The new template is base off of the {{War}} template. This is why I included the First War (which uses the {{War}} template) and Battle of Angrathar the Wrathgate (which uses this template, {{Battle}}). So far the content on both of them seems to be displaying well. All I did was copy and pasted each infobox from their articles into the template's documentation and just changed the template to point to the new one on my user page. They are pretty much exact copies from their own articles, just minus all the references that were included in the infoboxes. The only REAL difference is that the |armies and the |forces parameters are obsolete and are not displaying anything. The |armies will only need to be removed from the article while the content for |forces will need to move to a section on the article (that is if everyone is okay to have this parameter removed). — Surafbrov T / C / P 16:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I think I want the collapsible forces parameter there, but to not list every mob that participated in a conflict (that would go into a section, as agreed) but to simply list their classes and occupations. Possible? --Mordecay (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
So pretty much introduce it back but in the process of the merge, strip it to just classes and occupations? — Surafbrov T / C / P 00:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
If it is okay, yeah. --Mordecay (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I've added it. — Surafbrov T / C / P 12:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
It was suggested before but the Strength section should probably be merged with the Belligerents section. First, they're synonyms. Second, it's just redundant. See Battle of Angrathar the Wrathgate for example, we have a section (Belligerents) listing the Red dragonflight, we don't need another section listing "Red dragons", that's just redundant. And we have a section listing "Alliance" as one of the belligerents, it's redundant to write "Alliance soldiers" in another section. (Did the the Alliance really use Alliance soldiers?!) Same for Blood War, the Strength section is always just redundant and useless, its info is either duplicated from the Belligerents section, or could be merged with it. I believe we're in this situation in the first place because the parameters were not optional, they had to be filled or they'd break the template, so we just put redundant fluff in them. But since that's getting fixed, then so should this. We just need a Belligerents section stating "Alliance" and then if there are noteworthy subgroups, add them as bullet points under "Alliance" (see War in Kul Tiras). -- MyMindWontQuiet 03:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Yea, I'm most likely going to remove it and have these two sections merged while also keeping information simplified. — Surafbrov T / C / P 03:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
(1) having next/prev/whatever at the bottom is fine. (2) Your draft header seems fine. (3) The commanders/strength/casualties lists are still too narrow to not look silly; collapsing them by default just sweeps this problem under the rug until someone expands the infobox. See e.g. "Scourge-

clans" on your test page. Similarly, the commanders list for First War has four levels of unordered lists; it might be worthwhile to introduce CSS to reduce how much indentation this causes. Personally, I still don't think the three-column layout fits well with our content (something like a paragraph or a single bullet per side, all in the same column might work better); I also don't like that the column widths aren't consistent between the various sections, and that there's no obvious visual separation between them.
In general, while we might want to merge battle/conflict/war for the purposes of lore articles, it's not clear if we want to treat RTS mission pages (e.g. Twilight of the Gods (WC3 NightElf)) as "lore" articles -- a separate infobox for those might make sense.
The "Begin" and "End" row headers also seem to be in a weird tense. — foxlit (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Yea, I particularly do not like the line breaks for the lists but I'm not totally sure on how we could handle it except to increase the width of the infobox itself which still may not fix the issue (any idea on how to solve this w/o increasing the width?). On the bright side, each section (that contains the lists) is handled by a sub-template which can be adjusted to provide a visual separation between the four. The "Begin" and "End" row headers can be changed to something better. If it needs to happen, a separate infobox for the RTS mission pages can happen. Also, thank you for the response! — Surafbrov T / C / P 02:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
So, after adjusting and adding borders to the lists (to give visual separation).. I've placed padding to give some sections breathing room from the borders as some were touching it. The problem this caused is that when "Belligerents" section is expanded on the "Battle of Angrathar the Wrathgate" infobox... the infobox increases in width since it has more text than the more "simplified" sections below. One thing that could be done however is that there is a lot of information that can be simplified or isn't really necessary, such as we don't need to list every single thing/person who participated in the battle (just stick to notable ones). — Surafbrov T / C / P 02:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


How come the third group commanders here and here don't show up? --Mordecay (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Template is broken. Once we merge them all together, we can make sure it isn't. — Surafbrov T / C / P 00:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Looked at it and found the problem. Fixed them just so the content will be visible. The template is a nightmare, definitely would love this new template to become the real replacement. — Surafbrov T / C / P 16:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)