Template talk:Campaignbox Norwegian Campaigns (1941–1945)

Name and scope of campaignbox

I think this campaignbox is incorrectly named. The articles listd here are not campaigns as such, rather operations and battles. If this was a series of campaigns in Norway, which it isn't, then the title should be "Campaigns in Norway (1941 – 1945)". What it is is more along the lines of "Battles and military operations in Norway (1941 – 1945), which is a way too big scope. Manxruler (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I created this campaignbox because there was no campaignbox for actions in norway after the norwiegian campiagn, as such there were several articles which were rather orphaned, this at least brings them together and makes them more visable.XavierGreen (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

@XavierGreen: It's stood the test of time. Why the italics though? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Keith-264: It looks to me that the italicized names in the infobox are all the names of operations, as opposed to battles or smaller unnamed actions. I'm not sure what WIKI:Military History's style is in this regard, other editors appear to have made that change other than i.XavierGreen (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@XavierGreen:Thanks for the swift reply, I took them out of another infobox so I better put them back. Apropos the Arctic 1939-45 boxes, there do seem to be quite a few with duplicate entries. Is there scope for rationalisation or is the subject to big? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Keith-264: It seems to me that we have several campaignboxes that all overlap in coverage to some degree, this one here, Template:Campaignbox_Arctic_(1941–1944), Template:Campaignbox Arctic Naval Operations of WWII, Template:Campaignbox Scandinavia in World War II and Template:Campaignbox Raids and Commando Actions in Norway during World War II. Some of these could likely be merged together, but perhaps thats a discussion that needs to be opened on the main military history talk page since it affects a wide range of articles. What's most important however, is to ensure that the scope of what is left after the mergers (if they are to occur) is such that no article is orphaned. The reason i created this specific campaignbox here was that there were several orphaned articles which were in no campaign box and not generally linked to any other article, and thus had virtually no traffic to them.XavierGreen (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Quite agree, just a toe in the water. This box looks like it has the most expansive title so what if it looked like Template:Campaignbox Western Front (World War I) this? The other boxes could branch from it as needed so there is a hub connecting them, which would ensure no orphans. If you like, I'll broach the issue on the milhist page. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me!XavierGreen (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

A resounding silence so far ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@XavierGreen: Tentative reorganisation, any thoughts?Keith-264 (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Eastfarthingan: last I heard, ; was deprecated because machine readers can't read it. Keith-264 (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Haven't had any problems so far. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It does look better like that so perhaps least said, soonest mended. Keith-264 (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Looks good to me. What do we do with Template:Arctic (1941-1945)? Leave that for soviet operations against the Finns and Germans only?XavierGreen (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Not sure, I've copied all of them into Word to look at them simultaneously but Arctic does look a bit out of place. The trouble is that it dependes on the emphasis on the article - Gauntlet, Fritham and Gearbox might be better under Svalbard but then that's in the Arctic. We'll see. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I've given all of them a spring clean to make them as homogenous as possible. See whatcha think. Keith-264 (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

All looks good to me. Thanks Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I fixed a mistake on this infobox, but otherwise it all looks good. Nice work!XavierGreen (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much, your alterations much appreciated. I'm not as concerned as I was about duplication now because the boxes are easier to read and have been rationalised somewhat but I'm open to suggestions. I managed to glean a couple more articles too. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Italics

What should I italic, everything or just military operations articles? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Military operations please Keith. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

'Tis done, I'm having second thoughts about the parentheses, any views? Keith-264 (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Bolding

@GraemeLeggett: Apparently bolding with a semi-colon is deprecated because machine readers can't see it. I haven't found a WP on it though. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Well one of the bold elements had to go. I just picked the wrong one but i'll try to remember next time GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)