Template talk:InfoBoxConflict

Features[edit]

One thing that seems missing is the side names. We have commanders and forces, but not faction names which seems odd. --Neufeld 07:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, the coloring of the box needs to follow the skin set in user preferences. It would also be nice to have an InfoBox better suited for whole wars, as opposed to individual battles. --Neufeld 07:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Several comments: I thought about faction sides too, but wasn't really sure how to implement. I'll re-engage on that one. I also believe you're right about integration with skin colors. I 'like' the colors of the new box style (which I believe Frabby developed), but skin integration is more important. I disagree that there should be an infobox for war instead of battles, but I can see one for wars also. I built the battles one because of my work on the UBP, but because I'm so involved in the Planet Overhaul right now, I don't see myself working on that again for a bit. If you see a need for a Wars one sooner, you could easily replicate my steps with the battles one. Otherwise, I'll put it on my To Do list.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I meant also for Wars. Regarding number of articles, we have more articles that covers wars or major campaigns than those that covers battles. As for formating, consider taking a look at how wikipedia does it. (left-right split) --Neufeld 11:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
For reference purposes, can you link to a WP page using that split? And, yeah, I agree with you regarding numbers of articles about wars vs. battles; I just meant that I myself was more interested in writing about battles than wars, so hadn't a need to develop a Wars box so far.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Here is an example: Battle of Breitenfeld (1631) --Neufeld 12:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Continued from Frabby's page[edit]

Hey - So I'm very appreciative that someone made this box. I was wondering if we could expand it, as Neu suggested above. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2012 (PDT)

I'm looking into it now. I've copied the Wikipedia infobox from the battle of Breitenfeld and I'll see about adding skin support and stuff.--Mbear(talk) 05:42, 30 October 2012 (PDT)
Mbear is a ROCK STAR! ClanWolverine101 (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2012 (PDT)
OK. I've added basic skin support to the infobox. So it should now have the same colors and fonts as the appropriate skin.
What else do you want added/changed? Do you want to add faction icons? reorganize the Aggressor/Opposition sections? Add a Campaign row to show the battle is part of the Fourth Succession War/Clan Invasion/whatever?--Mbear(talk) 06:09, 30 October 2012 (PDT)
Just FYI, reorganizing the sections to use a left/right split is going to be a pain in the neck and will take a while.--Mbear(talk) 06:10, 30 October 2012 (PDT)
Ahhh... okay, no biggie. I had to ask. I'm a fan of those wikipedia boxes. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 06:23, 30 October 2012 (PDT)

Prototype infobox replacement[edit]

I've got a prototype for the updated infobox up and running on User:Mbear/PlanetPageTest. I've left a note on the talk pages of everyone who's commented here to review it. Hopefully it'll be what you're looking for.--Mbear(talk) 07:28, 2 November 2012 (PDT)

Looks good. I have only two concerns:
1. Image - I don't think we need this. Conflicts typically do not have an associated image. When you look at the image at Great Lee Turkey Shoot and compare it to our Policy:Images then you'll find that it is in violation of the policy as the image has no informative value whatsoever. This is a serious problem because uploading an image here usually constitutes a copyright violation; in most cases, the fair use doctrin would support us but not in cases where the image is mere window dressing.
2. On a more general level, I'm very undecided about what needs to go into the infobox. Ask yourself: What is important, easily displayed, and also a piece of data that creeps up so frequently as to warrant inclusion in the infobox? Many items here need to be covered in the article text. Especially "outcome" is a weasly issue as it is often not clear-cut, and a complete answer may require a section in the article instead of the limited space provided by an infobox. I'm not saying what should be included and what not, because I've not written enough articles covering conflicts to decide what I'd expect from a helpful infobox here. Frabby (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2012 (PDT)
I added the image area because it was requested. I can remove it. Your point about it violating our image policy is a good one.
Outcome was in the infoBoxConflict template (I think). I was just trying to minimize the changes someone would have to make and that's one of the fields. *shrug* again, I can remove it.--Mbear(talk) 06:23, 5 November 2012 (PST)