Template talk:Campaignbox Eastern Front (World War I)

Included battles

This template seems rather confusing to me. Major operations like the Brusilov Offensive are hidden behind names that seem only barely related (the Brusilov Offensive article mentions "Lutsk" only thrice, and not as an alternative name for the campaign). On the other hand, the template includes a rather detailed account of comparatively minor skirmishes involving the Polish Legions. This combination obscures rather than helps understand what the main events on the Eastern Front were. Thus I propose the following changes:

• Remove battles and campaigns below a certain threshold of importance and magnitude. Personally I'd set the cut-off at the level of corps at least, armies would likely be better.
• Use natural names for the covered events, namely, the names of the target articles. When the target article gives multiple names, additional names might be added in parentheses (ie "Kerensky (July) Offensive").

That should make for a more helpful template. The removed battles might be covered in more detailed campaignboxes if desired, similar to how Template:Campaignbox Hundred Days 1918 covers events within a specific campaign that's mentioned in Template:Campaignbox Western Front (World War I). Huon (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn´t remove battles unless the campaigns to which they belong have articles that can be included instead. Yes, this campaignbox is about a front and therefore campaigns would be much better but there simply are cases where there is no campaign article yet. So whenever a battle has its own article but no belonging campaign article it should, in my opinion, be considered notable enough for this template. However I share your confusion about the name hiding and support the use of campaign article names within the box. And just for the records, the Brusilov Offensive already has it´s own campaignbox (including Lutsk). ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)