Template talk:Campaignbox First Libyan Civil War

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Africa: Libya This template is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles This template is supported by WikiProject Libya. Military history: African This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  African military history task force Politics This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles

With the current counter offensive in the east of the country I wonder if we should update the campaignbox accordingly. I mean

Ra's Lanuf 1 - Bin Jawad - Ra's Lanuf 2 (- Brega 2)

--Wikieditoroftoday (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no need for a second Ra's Lanuf battle article since in the first the rebels took the city on March 4 and secured it on March 5, however the second battle started with the constant bombing of the city on March 6, just a one-day difference. I already just broke up the synopsis of that battle into two phases, first - rebel victory, second - government counteroffensive and victory. However, I agree that, if government troops attack Brega, a second Brega battle article should be created since it has been 8 days since the last battle.EkoGraf (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we remove the italics from East Libyan Desert Campaign? It seems like that campaign has ended with a rebel victory.74.131.99.14 (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the pre / post 19 match division, it makes the box more confusing and makes it look bloated, the other chronological way was far easier to use and read. - 89.100.227.84 (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should '1st Tripoli' be changed to 'Tripoli clashes' and '2nd Tripoli' to 'Tripoli'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.8.106 (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone think this is a good idea? I.e. linking to both main timeline article and the three (in the future possibly four) separate "calendar articles" in infobox? Me think so.

--Paracel63 (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's done. Short article abbreviations make for small space on one line.--Paracel63 (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]