Template talk:Infobox war faction
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
_-_The_Noun_Project.svg){kind=small}
Example?!
edit@Kirill Lokshin and GregKaye: The template begins with the example at the top right of the page. I think we'd better act as this template which uses an useful and explanatory infobox while at the top right and brings the example at in next sections. What do you think? Mhhossein (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't see a lot of value in the parameter mock-up version of the infobox, but I have no objection to adding it if others find it useful. Kirill [talk] 02:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- OK! let's see what Greg thinks about it? Mhhossein (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Seperate "Formed"/"Active"/"Disbanded/Disarmed" parameters
editAt the moment the only field that takes dates is "Active". However, this makes it a bit difficult to actually say how long a faction has been around. ETA (separatist group) for example was founded in 1959, but didn't become a militant group until 1968. It had several ceasefires on-and-off until 2011, when it permanently renounced violence, and will disarm tomorrow. At present, the infobox is rather confusing, since it has ETA as active from 1959 until the present day. Could we add some extra parameters for cases like these. So for instance:
- Formed 31 July 1959
- Active 7 June 1968 – 21 October 2011
- Disarmed 8 April 2017
This would be better for groups like ETA, the IRA and FARC. Smurrayinchester 10:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Seconded. The military unit infobox has this. For me, the active should only be used if an organization's existence was intermittent, such as it was disbanded but then reactivated at a later date (such as the ROKMC and USMC). – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 09:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
"Designated as a terrorist organisation by" Text Align
editThe "Designated as a terrorist organisation by" center-align looks bad IMO. For example Jama'at Nasr al-Islam wal Muslimin: at first glance it seems like NATO is an EU-subsidiary. Is there a reason why it isn't aligned like the rest of the points? --Kraligor (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)