Template talk:Campaignbox War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Template-Class)
MILHIST This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Temp Templates and modules do not require a rating on the quality assessment scale.

Link to September 11 attacks?[edit]

Do we put a link to the 9/11 attacks in the template? I vote yes, it was important to the war in Afghanistan.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I vote "No". It was not a military campaign. 190.10.0.20 (talk) 06:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It was an act of war which began the American involvement in Afghanistan.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Not according to international law. 190.10.0.20 (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I vote no. It was part of the cause of the war, but not part of the US led campaign in A'stan. Chwyatt (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

cite relevant passage of international law, please WDW Megaraptor (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn’t an act of war need to be orchestrated by a nation-state? Bin Laden and his gang were not a nation-state. Chwyatt (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
If an act of war needs to be orchestrated by a nation-state, then why is this page called "US War in Afghanistan" since Al Qaida and the Taliban are not nation-states?WDW Megaraptor (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The Taliban were the government of Afghanistan when this war started. And the violence orchestrated by the Taliban is at such a level that the armed forces of many nations, under UN approval, have to respond. The 9/11 attack was not committed by any nation, but by a bunch of criminals. There is another problem. The US has sited other events that were the contributors to this conflict. The first WTC attack. The USS Cole, and especially the US embassy bombings. Deciding which ones are relevant and which ones are not is a whole other argument. There are other template boxes and articles listing such terrorist attacks that should, imo, be kept separate. Chwyatt (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox position[edit]

This infobox position is rather disruptive, it would be better to put the info box centred at the bottom of the page, however I don't know how to edit infobox templates to centre them.KTo288 (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Merged the two campaignboxes into one[edit]

No need for two, it was hard finding particular battles. Also, not typical style for campaignboxes either. Publicus 02:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

How is it not typical style? The Iraq War article has a separate campaignbox for terrorist attacks: Template:Campaignbox Iraq War terrorism. And there was a good reason for separating these attacks form the Battles/military operations box: they are different in nature (ie not two forces facing each other on the battlefield). Besides, the box is already too big, and as the war is still ongoing it's likely to grow even bigger. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
How about this campaignbox, which provides a link to the major ops, insurgent attacks, etc while still putting everything in one box? Publicus 16:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds like a good idea. Maybe also a separate sub-box for airstrikes. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure sounds good, do you want to take a first stab at it? Publicus 19:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I shortened the campaignbox, wikilinked all the battles, etc. Publicus 23:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Collapsed / expanded[edit]

Why is the navbox collapsed on 2009 Kabul Indian embassy attack but expanded on January 18 2010 Kabul attack? __meco (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Layout[edit]

Removing the battles from the campaign box defeats the entire purpose of having a campaign box in first place, if it must be shorter than there should be multiple campaign boxes for the differnt campaigns as there is for every other conflict on wikipedia. For example the helmeland campaign should have its own campaign box ect. XavierGreen (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the problem is most of the items listed in the campaignbox, weren't battles. They were mostly insurgent attacks/bombings/etc and coalition operations--and they ranged in size from involving just a few personnel over a couple of days to months long operations involving thousands. With these ongoing conflicts, I think this is the best solution for now, until editors create broader campaign articles that cover the more significant articles. Publicus 17:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The vietnam war campaign box is similar to this one, yet lists the actions within the campaign box. By simply linking everything in the campaign box to the same page you are defeating the entire purpose of the campaign box.XavierGreen (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Template:Campaignbox Northern Ireland Troubles is of a similar nature and uses the standard format as well.XavierGreen (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, let's go back to the old version. Vietnam is a tough example to compare tho, since it ended awhile ago. But let's try the old version, hopefully someone will clean up all the little ops into a broader article. Publicus 16:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be best to list all the operations and battles chronologically, rather than grouping them into campaigns.
The current layout is like this:

  • Operation Crescent Wind (2001) → Operation Mountain Thrust (2006),
  • Helmand Campaign: Siege of Sangin (2006) → Operation Moshtarak (2010),
  • Operation Kaika (2006) → Battle of Kamdesh (2009)

As you can see, the Helmand Campaign interrupts the order. I suggest we remove the links to the Helmand Campaign and Kunduz Campaign, and list everything chronologically.
Thoughts? ~Asarlaí 18:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's been a week and nobody has voiced their opposition, so I'll go ahead with the proposal. ~Asarlaí 05:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the articles should be listed chronologically, but how does that jusitify removing the links to the Helmand and Kunduz campaigns, which are both legitimate and relevant? --Raoulduke47 (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea if anyone cares, but I just made a Campaignbox for Helmand. I did a quick scrub of the main one and pulled out anything that didn't seem to happen there (maybe 85%+ accurate). I'd say make similar ones for Kunduz, Korangal, or any other significant extended campaign. The main one (i.e. this one) should just be the really significant stuff like Red Wings, Moshtarak, or pretty-much anything that made the front page of the New York Times. All the minor stuff can go under the more specific campaign boxes. Palm_Dogg (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice job Palm dogg, I'm going to shorten the main campaignbox with this new province campaign box, will help a lot. Publicus 16:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I also added a new "Invasion" campaignbox to the template, shortens it nicely and gives some more order. Publicus 17:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)