Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Module:Infobox military conflict. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Proxy conflicts and diplomatic disputes
I spend too much time explaining to bored college kids with this bizarre flagicon fetish that this template is not suitable for topics like 2017–18 Qatar diplomatic crisis and Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict among others. My main issue with it is that almost every time you have this infobox in such articles, there will be a great deal of original research involved. It took me some time to illustrate this point on the Qatar crisis article and I was only successful because other well-established editors seemed to be in agreement with me. But I don't plan on doing this everywhere. The reason I'm saying it's not suitable for those topics is because nowhere on /doc are the words "diplomatic" and "proxy" mentioned. Thing is, I do want them mentioned, but along the lines of: "This template is not suitable for articles dealing with proxy conflicts and diplomatic disputes." I would also like to have friendly fire incidents (e.g. USS Liberty incident and 2011 NATO attack in Pakistan) included in the wording, but I can leave this for another discussion if it's too controversial right now. Should I convert this to an RfC? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Ordering of campaign boxes
Is there a preferred order for campaign boxes when there are several? Eg see Battle of Neville's Cross. The example in the template page lists the more "junior" conflict first. Neville's Cross reverses this. Is there a preference? Or can one freely choose? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)