Template talk:War

—Kirill Lokshin 00:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply] Uh, Land warfare simply redirect to War.

What123 00:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] I think it is time to move the template to the bottom of articles in a horizontal format, it is to long now and will only grow longer vertically.

LindaWarheads 10:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply] These have been major doctrines in modern warfare, from WW II-era blitzkrieg to US operations today... shouldn't they be mentioned somewhere on this template?

61.7.120.59 01:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply] This is a terribly bloated template that is spoiling an ever-increasing amount of articles.

Peter Isotalo 23:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Air Information Land Sea Space Armor Artillery Biological Cavalry Chemical Electronic Infantry Nuclear Psychological Attrition Guerilla Maneuver Siege Total war Trench Economic Grand Operational Formations Ranks Units Equipment Materiel Supply line Battles Commanders Operations Sieges Theorists Wars War crimes Weapons Writers Mmm, I think it's overly convoluted; too many collapsing sections are as bad as too few ones.

--PeruvianLlama(spit) 04:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply] In both the 'Battlespace' and the 'Weapons' sections of this template, the information is organized alphabetically.

I think that the contents of the 'Battlespace' section should be reorganized like this; Land (the most basic place that we war; we live on land), sea (centuries ago, humans began making ships that went to sea and warred), air (real, practical air warfare began only in 20th century), space (so far, we are only beginning to use space as a battlefield, and even then, almost exclusively for reconnaissance) and information (which has been around a while, but is not even a physical battlefield).

In the weapons section, I think that Biological, Chemical and Nuclear weaponry should be grouped together (as they are all weapons of mass destruction, and might should be indicated as such in the template), infantry and cavalry should be grouped together (because they are both classified by the type of soldier that generally carries it), electronic and artillery should be grouped (as they are not weapons of mass destruction and are not named after the type of soldiers that use them) and armor and psychological should remain ungrouped (as they do not belong with anything else on the list).

Key examples include: attritional warfare, which is an overall policy of grinding down the opposing military force.

A few of the links, since i am not familiar enough with them, I have grouped in the "other" section along with the likes of Proxy War, which does not fit the current template nor the below expanded and restructured categories.

Edit: I have now inserted the rest of the current live template, and moved around and added several more links.Tempaccount040812 (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Please change the spelling of "materiel"... it should be "material" 72.55.246.150 (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Just wanted to say, this is a really interesting and useful template and I wish there were more like this.

Move Economic warfare from grand strategy to weapons 94.187.10.167 (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] Hi, I just saw this for the very first time with its new appearance on War film.

Horizontal navboxes can (and best should) be made to collapse to a simple one-line bar with a title, so they are "quiet" (barely intrusive) but readily available.

As a random example of better practice the National Gendarmerie article places its template at the foot of the main text, thereby presenting a tidy and well organised appearance without large gaps.

I noticed Blitzkrieg in mentioned under the operational category, however that tactic is a more specific strategy that should fall under the Shock and awe doctrine.

*ponders on my chin* --Legion (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] I have heard that you guys are trying to reduce the size of the template.