- Added to Clone Wars and Stark Hyperspace War. I would add it to more, but I don't have time right now. Also, quick question- do minor skirmishes like Invasion of Naboo count as "wars" for purposes of this template? --Thetoastman 04:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Umm... Thetoastman, that is not how you use a template. You don't just paste the source code of the template into the article. I just added this template to the Jedi Civil War article and I recommend that you take a look at the code...--Sentry 07:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- This needs to be cleaned up a bit for easier use, IMO (like the ship or battle templates are). Kuralyov 06:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Kwenn's changes
- I changed the infobox to include previous and next battles, and major battles. I'm currently editing the infoboxes on war articles, since some of them use the code rather than the template itself - Kwenn 10:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I like the changes Kwenn made to this template, as they allow for the provision of important information (there really was no need to revert Kwenn's edit, Sentry). KEJ 10:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I removed the succession boxes and the battle listings from the template because those elements are already in place within the text body of virtually every wookieepedia war article. More importantly, there simply is not enough room at the top of most articles to list such things without seriously distorting the page layout.--Sentry 10:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Having those fields negates the need for sucession boxes and lists of major battles, effectively condensing them into a smaller space easily found by the viewer. Besides, those fields were already present in the Clone Wars article, and conform to the style of the Battles infobox - Kwenn 10:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- You have not addressed my point. There is no room available on many articles to hold all of that information at the top of the page. And the battle infoboxes are notorious for breeding fanon...--Sentry 10:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- The counter-argument against your argument has kinda been presented by Kwenn - namely, that inclusion of such information in the info-box liberates articles from long, ugly, boring lists of battles. However, I'm starting to think that perhaps a battle sucession box for each war might be a good alternative solution to lists. KEJ 10:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- How is there no room? The pages look fine to me, but if you can provide a specific example, I'll take a look. And how do infoboxes breed fanon any more than the articles themselves? Besides, that's what we have the revert option for - Kwenn 10:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Succession boxes should be limited in use. They are already used too often. Battle succession boxes already prompt noobies to create an artificial continuity for events that are not well covered in canon sources. This is an encyclopedia and we shouldn't be encouraging users to guess about when one vaguely described event occured in the timeline in comarison with another. Great, now Kwenn has begun to remove succession boxes from ever war article without even attempting to achieve consensus.--Sentry 10:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that the succession boxes should remain, but I also see the usefulness in listing a couple of the most important battles in the infobox. As to fanon.... well, everything in this wikia could be seen as providing the oportunity for fanon. KEJ 10:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- If you need an example, look at Jedi Civil War which I just spent an hour fixing... Now it looks like a bloody mess again. OR check out Mandalorian Wars or Great Hyperspace War...--Sentry 10:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me. 99% of your repairs are retained anyway. KEJ 10:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know, maybe its just me, but when we have to start editing around the bizarre distortions caused by the infoboxes, I think that they have long ceased to be a convenience and become a major pain in the ass...--Sentry 10:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me. 99% of your repairs are retained anyway. KEJ 10:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Succession boxes should be limited in use. They are already used too often. Battle succession boxes already prompt noobies to create an artificial continuity for events that are not well covered in canon sources. This is an encyclopedia and we shouldn't be encouraging users to guess about when one vaguely described event occured in the timeline in comarison with another. Great, now Kwenn has begun to remove succession boxes from ever war article without even attempting to achieve consensus.--Sentry 10:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- You have not addressed my point. There is no room available on many articles to hold all of that information at the top of the page. And the battle infoboxes are notorious for breeding fanon...--Sentry 10:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Having those fields negates the need for sucession boxes and lists of major battles, effectively condensing them into a smaller space easily found by the viewer. Besides, those fields were already present in the Clone Wars article, and conform to the style of the Battles infobox - Kwenn 10:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I removed the succession boxes and the battle listings from the template because those elements are already in place within the text body of virtually every wookieepedia war article. More importantly, there simply is not enough room at the top of most articles to list such things without seriously distorting the page layout.--Sentry 10:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not an expertise on infobox distortions, so I don't know what to say about that, but I do like having the previous/after war and the major battles, even if there is a succession box on the bottom as well. —Mirlen 20:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm confused. How is this infobox any different than many of our others? Do you propose removing previous/successor fields from other infoboxes, such as Template:Battle and Template:Government? I vote to include them, the risk of fanon is no more significant than anywhere else, in my opinion. And, regarding article distortion – we have been using dozens of infoboxes more or less effectively for a long time now, and once again I fail to see how this situation is any different than those. The addition of a new infobox might temporarily affect a page's appearance (which, by the way, is both subjective and variable, depending on things such as the user's window size and screen resolution) but this can be fixed by editors like anything else. RMF 02:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Its different because the succession boxes and the battle listings are already present in wookieepedia war articles and, therefore, I see no need to add them to the infobox. Its pointless redundancy and at the cost of aesthetics. As for your comments about screen resolutions... I know. I am a computer science student. The fact is that some users still view the web at only (800 by 600) and most of the rest of us view it at (1024 by 768). In any case, the top of an article is absolutely positioned and does not shift much based on resolution and/or window resizing. The problem cannot easily be 'fixed by editors like anything else'. The only solution is to add a dozen carriage returns or <br /> tags in order to add white space sufficient to make up for the infobox and that creates some very funky source code.--Sentry 07:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think I misunderstood your comment on infobox distortion, though I would like to know what you mean (could you upload a screenshot of an example, perhaps?). Also, although it is true many of our war articles already have a system in place, it is my opinion that this method is superior, and switching them over isn't that big of a deal. Succession boxes at the end of articles are far less accessible than infobox fields, not to mention less consistent with the rest of the wiki. And I don't think this is at a 'cost in aesthetics' at all – in fact, aesthetically this is much cleaner and neater than the poetic/image introductions that were used previously. RMF 00:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is what I meant by distortion (as seen in the Mandalorian Wars article):
- As for the poetic/image introductions, I was very much against them. (Forum:War intros)--Sentry 04:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, now I see what you're talking about. I think the only solution to that is to move all of the images downwards, so there is no narrow gap like in your 'after' pic. Regarding the other issue, about including the succession info in the infobox – I read Silly Dan's topic over on the CT, and agree with him that the best solution is to create a box underneath the main infobox, like Wikipedia does it. This would still make editing around the infobox hard, but would eliminate the succession problems. So, I guess those fields can be removed from the template following a consensus there. RMF 04:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'd actually like to see them removed from the battle templates, since it's hard to pin down a sequence for a lot of them: but I might just start up a thread at the Senate Hall about that, since it'd be a fairly big change. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think I misunderstood your comment on infobox distortion, though I would like to know what you mean (could you upload a screenshot of an example, perhaps?). Also, although it is true many of our war articles already have a system in place, it is my opinion that this method is superior, and switching them over isn't that big of a deal. Succession boxes at the end of articles are far less accessible than infobox fields, not to mention less consistent with the rest of the wiki. And I don't think this is at a 'cost in aesthetics' at all – in fact, aesthetically this is much cleaner and neater than the poetic/image introductions that were used previously. RMF 00:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Its different because the succession boxes and the battle listings are already present in wookieepedia war articles and, therefore, I see no need to add them to the infobox. Its pointless redundancy and at the cost of aesthetics. As for your comments about screen resolutions... I know. I am a computer science student. The fact is that some users still view the web at only (800 by 600) and most of the rest of us view it at (1024 by 768). In any case, the top of an article is absolutely positioned and does not shift much based on resolution and/or window resizing. The problem cannot easily be 'fixed by editors like anything else'. The only solution is to add a dozen carriage returns or <br /> tags in order to add white space sufficient to make up for the infobox and that creates some very funky source code.--Sentry 07:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Consensus track thread on proposed changes.
Please comment at Forum:Succession boxes in Battle/War infoboxes. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Sprot
Could someone change the icon to full protection? Darth KarikaPlease leave a message after the beep. *boom* 21:37, January 15, 2010 (UTC)