Forum:CT Archive/Succession boxes in Battle/War infoboxes

Wookieepedia &gt; Consensus track &gt; 

Right now, Template:Battle, Template:War, and Template:Triple battle infobox all have fields near the top for the previous and next battle or war. I'm not so sure we should include these fields, for the following reasons:


 * 1) Many battles are difficult to place in an exact chronological sequence.  When writing the Raid on Fara's Belt article, for example, the only clues I had were that the battle took place after the B-wing was invented, but before Jan Dodonna was captured.  This narrowed down the year, but 0 ABY was a busy year, so it wasn't clear to me when to place it.


 * 1) Even the battles which could be placed in sequence might not be well connected: if we had two battles which had sequential, canonical dates attached, but which occured on opposite ends of the galaxy, wouldn't putting them in succession imply a causal connection which isn't really there?

Over on Wikipedia's battle articles (such as Battle of Vimy Ridge), they don't do this. Instead, they have Wikipedia:Template:Infobox Military Conflict, the equivalent of our battle template, and a multitude of templates like Wikipedia:Template:Campaignbox Western Front (World War I), which give a sequential list of all the major battles in a particular war or campaign. If we used a similar two-infobox system, we could take "battle before" and "battle after" out of the battle template, and add templates like Template:Thrawn campaign infobox or Template:Operation Skyhook infobox.

The main problem is that we have nearly 500 pages linking to the battle template, so even if the community thinks this is a good idea, it would be a lot of work. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)