Template talk:Campaignbox Canadian military actions in World War II

Rawname

IP, can we perhaps discuss this? Why asre you reverting my edits? Thery're centering the template so it doesn't look odd, and it seems to be the same as many other templates. Skinny87 (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that it's to bring it in line with other campaignboxes. Including the underscore makes the v.d.e. options appear in my browser (safari), without the underscore they are absent. It isn't centred in my browser either I'm afraid.... I've tried to knock up a few changes here. There seemed to be a lot of big gaps that weren't very attractive or consistent with other templates. Any thoughts? Ranger Steve (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, yours certainly looks much better. If no-one else comes along to object, I'd suggest replacing the current one with yours in a few days, Steve. Much better. Skinny87 (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

Hi Skinny, it might just be my browser, but this template makes a mess of articles. Edit boxes get moved behind text and in this actual box, the (hide) option is obscured by the title. Any thoughts? I don't get this with any other infoboxes. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I can't see anything wrong my end, using Firefox, but I'm not a template expert to be honest. What browser are you using? Skinny87 (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Safari (prob not the best). I've just checked firefox and it is fine there, but it's odd because I don't get this prob with any other template box. Just me I guess, bummer. Ranger Steve (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Location of template

Do we need this template in each of the articles mentioned within the template, it just seems if they are added in for example the Invasion of Normandy article then it semms at one point there will be one for the UK, USA, France etc etc and the articles will be clutered with these things.

Would it not be more approbirate to have them in articles dealing with divisions, brigades etc that fought in the war?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

totally agree with the above. What makes the Canadians so special?! Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 18:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree with the reasoning, if not the condescending tone. This template should limit itself to the various History of Canada-themed articles—Canadians fought comparatively few and widely-scattered actions which would otherwise be difficult to locate and navigate—where its use is more obvious. Albrecht (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kirrages has removed the template from several articles. Where was this agreed or where was a consensus sought? I've advertised this on the Canadian task force page so we'll see if there's a consensus either way. My reasoning would be partly as Albrecht suggests and I would not oppose similar efforts for other combatants (particularly those that are otherwise overshadowed), subject to the template being restricted to a reasonable size by prioritising campaigns or major actions. I'm not sure that categories are sufficiently user friendly and a template draws a casual reader further into a topic, all IMO. Folks at 137 (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]