Template talk:Campaignbox Korean War

message: I think this campaignbox should be rearranged, so that instead of listing the various battles, it instead reflects the various stages of the war, UN Defensive (27 June-15 September 1950), The UN Offensive (16 September-2 November 1950), The Chinese Intervention (3 November 1950-24 January 1951), First UN Counteroffensive-Chinese Spring Offensive (25 January- 8 July 1951), and the Outpost Battles (July 1951- July 1953). To do so will entail abit of work though, with many pages to change. This 'breakout' will enable sub campaign boxes to be more detailed, and similar to the example given on the campaignbox page under Military History. wbfergus 19:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearranging 

message: This template is massive and should be collapsed IMO as it is too invasive in many articles (the box is bigger than a lot of the articles themselves). Most similar campaign templates are collapsed also. Anotherclown (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapsing template 

message: Discussion regarding the end of the Korean War is in the article.  Recent change to template (which was not a minor change)implies that post Armistice Agreement events are part of the Korean War rather than aftermath.--S. Rich (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post Armistice Agreement 

message: IP 71.251.35.202 keeps on removing important battles of the Korean War that has no articles...can't we talk about this before systematically erasing history here? Jim101 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systematically erase red links is hardly productive editing.... 

message: Could  just increase "font-size" rather than blame the proposal for "[ [not] legible fashion]"? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it is done...Is there an actual proposal for changing the heading syntax in such complex manner which renders poorly on monitors with high resolutions? Jim101 (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Poorly on high-resolution, you said? I tried my original version on 1920×1080 with Firefox, and it looked better than on 1280×1024. Did you try to increase font.size? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I increase it from 80% to 110% for it to be readable, but it is still a strain to the eyes. The problem is the font change...the character strokes are just too thin to make out the details when compared with the original style with much smaller character. I still could not figure out how to change font in this case since this is purely CSS/html programming problem (which I am not an expert), thus I wonder is it really necessary to make the editing process this complex without relevant MOS guideline/tutorial to back it up. If there is a MOS requirement for such thing, then I would advise an competent editor to bold the characters so that it is easier to make out the character details. Jim101 (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bold is not bad. It is exactly the same style of headlines and degenerate links that is bad. Make headlines bold, if different in something else from articles' entries. P.S. I spoke about a browser setup (Firefox or so). Base font sizes are adjustable in a browser. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headlines' design 

message: No, they aren't italicked because there's a WP that says so (somewhere). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:MILMOS#CODENAMEKeith-264 (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operations