Template talk:Conflict

Defects
Well, I noticed an semi-arbitrary merge of the Templates War and Battle. I've been thinking in merge them fore weeks, but I ending not stating this at this very moment. While I agree with the merge I'm not liking about the way that is being done. Why?

I saw some... unhappy changes in Elemental War. Actually I understand some of the people's vision about simplicity and I must remember that both simple and detailed versions have its strengths and weakness:
 * Simple and short
 * As the name implies the simple way turns easier the reach to a (relatively weak) conclusion
 * However the information is cut out; the exactness and the very details are lost in the simplification process, a think that the curious ones and detail-oriented hate it deeply.
 * Full and detailed
 * As the name implies the detailed way show the most perfect version with all details exposed and resumed. The person who read this version has a more complete resume of the events and of th lists about the combatants in this case.
 * In counterpart the weak minded and the hurry ones may not like the wall-list of pure information and knowledge.

I suggest to 1st option - make both sides happy and merge both templates into Template:Conflictbox (or simply Template:Conflict) that would embody the actual parameter of the templates and move this simple version to Template:ConflictSummary and in the conflict pages put first the summary and soon below it the Conflictbox like I am about to do in th Elemental War article. 2nd option - leave the most important information on the top of the box and put the detailed information below. actually I think with few cheanges the actual body of the Tempales War and Battle server this propuse. I support the second option. Gabrirt (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There are, as I see it, three main differences compared to war: the top navigation links to previous/concurrent/next wars are removed/relocated, the lists of casualties and commanders are removed, and the list of combatants is set up to be significantly shorter; all of these seem justifiable to me. The top of the infobox is simply not the place for inter-article navigation. Casualties are often speculative to the point of silliness (though this does sometimes lead to such amusing gems as "presumably less than moderate" and "presumably significative"). The list of commanders and combatants tend to swell well past the point of reason.
 * I shudder to think of what sorts of conclusions one might draw from the old War against Deathwing infobox: for instance, it lists King Magni as a deceased commander, and with no mention of him in the article, it seems reasonable to imagine that Deathwing ate his face.
 * Ultimately, the purpose of the infobox is to act as a brief summary of the conflict, not contain an overly long list of NPC and faction appearance trivia that isn't even referenced in the rest of article. The changes in this template reflect this, and if there was important information in the sections it removed, it should be incorporated into the article text, not reinstated as a bonus trivia box. &mdash; foxlit (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I still wanting a list of the combatants and commanders, notably for listing and for comparison of the sides. The strength and casualities are not always speculative, despite in the vast majority of the times. I don't want that this gets unavailable anyway. My idea is, like the option to hide and show the battles, is hide the lists of combatants and only show if the reader want. This is important for me in overseeing the result of the conflict as well. If something isn't stated in the article, the fault is of the article that lacks information, not of the box.Gabrirt (talk) 06:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Consider moving those lists somewhere other than the infobox, then -- perhaps to a separate page (if such a page makes sense, like Might of Kalimdor in the Second War of the Shifting Sands); or into a section on the conflict's page. The infobox format is simply not a good match for how those lists tend to develop; see for instance Third War, where the lists of commanders/combatants nest 7 levels deep -- this is a readability *disaster* (the box is too narrow to read the lists comfortably; making the box wider would squeeze article text into an uncomfortably narrow space alongside it), and hiding those lists by default would only mask that problem. Even ignoring the aesthetics considerations, those lists are basically a collection of trivia (aiming to include as much as possible, regardless of significance), rather than a summary (which is what should be in the infobox) -- while commendable, they really belong elsewhere.
 * To recap: don't aim to get those lists back into the infobox, and instead think about what parts of those lists were important, and what parts were not (I doubt, for instance, that the "Dwarven Scouts" combatant in the Third War is significant to a reader's understanding of the war's results), then about how the important could be presented to the reader in other ways (perhaps in the outcomes section, in the article text, or somewhere else entirely). &mdash; foxlit (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I still think that like others wikis (almost all of the use this) we should have a box with combatants and leaders at least. Maybe you are right about the removal of the Dwarven Scouts and other less important factions of the list, but I can't agree with the method that this merge is going. I really like a side-by-side listing of belligerents, but I can agree that put a lot of sub-factions on it can be exaggeration. 14:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also I don't know how to add the lists, the Begin, the End and the inter-article navigation back to this Template. Can anyone add it to me? Also I see that the icon at the side of the name of the conflict can't be used all the time because there are cases of conflicts that occur in a time out of the games timeline can't have an icon. How we can fix this? 15:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Prev/Conc/Next
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.

20:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)