Template talk:Current war

This template was considered for deletion on 2008 August 8. The result of the discussion was "snowball keep".

Icon

I dislike the icon. It's like medieval heraldry - doesn't seem appropriate - more like modern war would be a gun firing rather than some kind of stylized clean look. Tempshill (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean, although I think crossed swords in general is the best symbol of war. (Aside from a sad faces symbolising suffering, I guess crossed swords is the only generally accepted NPOV symbol of war.) I wouldn't be in favour of firing AK-47s and explosions; that would feel even more hollywood. Shining knight swords glorify war, something which should be avoided. I've reverted the icon to the original, unstyled black version. Better? - SSJ ☎ 03:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SSJ; but I think the grey version is better than black one. --DsMurat ^talk 10:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it looks sleeker, but could fancy medieval-looking swords be perceived as somewhat disrespectful? I guess that's the issue. Are simple black-silhouette swords more 'approperiate'? I don't have a strong opinion on this. - SSJ ☎ 15:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phrasing

I think we should replace "ongoing warfare" with "ongoing or recent warfare", and that the template should not be removed from an article until the conflict is clearly over. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's a good idea to add "or recent". - SSJ ☎ 10:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that the template will be removed when the number of editors and edits subsides. It's a notification not to step on each other's edits, not notice that there's a war or conflict going on. There are several dozen armed conflicts going on at any time in the world. The lede and text of the article will clearly state the nature and temporality of the conflict without the need for a template. See Template:Current war#Guildlines

Suggested amendments

I am in favour of the template, I think it does have a use, BUT just would like to suggest some stylistic amendments. Namely;

Lose the clock, it looks more suited to Runescape to have a timepiece over crossed-swords. On the swords, as it goes, I am in favour, after all the Ordanance Survey use crossed swords to represent battle sites.
I am not sure that "and initially be unconfirmed" is right...Does this not promote putting claims on articles without sources?

doktorb _words^deeds 20:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Unconfirmed" isn't synonymous with "unsourced". It's in my opinion important to point out that the information which journalists are citing in wikipedia's reference news articles might not be confirmed and set in stone. - SSJ ☎ 21:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]