Template talk:Campaignbox First Coalition
separate boxes for each campaign?
So, I was thinking, that as this template gets larger and larger, it might be helpful (at least for my understanding of the subject) to make separate campainboxes for the battles of each front (like we now have for the italian campaign) with a discussion page for each front, and on overall campaignbox that lists not to each battle, but to each campaignbox. Just off the top of my head, I might suggest:
Perhaps this might be too many, but instead of (or in addition to) having all the battles jumbled together chronologically, it might be good to have a box and a page that discusses the battles in terms of the other battles on that front, without having to bounce back and forth to other fronts. Other ideas? The Gomm 00:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Meh. As a general rule, creating very small campaignboxes is counterproductive; their main purpose is to serve as navigational aids, which doesn't really work too well when they only link to one or two articles. Splitting this by theater may be doable, of course; but a broad understanding of "theater" is better. Kirill Lokshin 20:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I share your concern about tiny campaignboxes, but IMHO these will not be tiny (except maybe the spanish one). This box is already getting unmanageably large, and subordinate boxes (italian, and rebellion) are getting fairly beefy. I think some organization is needed so readers can follow the back-and-forth of a single front, without having to bounce between battles on other fronts. ?Meh? Gomm 21:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- (On a related note: it may be better to have such organizational discussions at the Napoleonic task force, rather than on the individual templates' talk pages, which are watched by extremely few people.) Kirill Lokshin 21:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- This definitely needs a breakup now. I would go for the above solution by campaign. Shire Lord 13:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)