The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Template:Campaignbox War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
The contents of the Template:War in Afghanistan (2015–present) page were merged into Template:Campaignbox War in Afghanistan (2001–2021). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
No need for two, it was hard finding particular battles. Also, not typical style for campaignboxes either. Publicus 02:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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 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:
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?
~Asarlaà 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. ~Asarlaà 05:32, 27 February 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)
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Template:Campaignbox War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
The contents of the Template:War in Afghanistan (2015–present) page were merged into Template:Campaignbox War in Afghanistan (2001–2021). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
No need for two, it was hard finding particular battles. Also, not typical style for campaignboxes either. Publicus 02:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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 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:
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?
~Asarlaà 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. ~Asarlaà 05:32, 27 February 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)