Template talk:Iraq War Coalition troop deployment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was moved to Template:Iraq War Coalition troop deployment Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Operation Iraqi Freedom Troop Deployment → Template:Iraq War troop deployment — Since this template is for Iraq War, it should probably be moved to Template:Iraq War troop deployment. Operation Iraqi Freedom is a US only operation name. Australia calls it Operation Catalyst. [1] UK apparently called it Operation TELIC.[2] I'm not sure what S. Korea and Poland call it (Don't know Korean or Polish), but chances are it isn't "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Bobblehead 22:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
  • Support Don't see why not. I created it to replace a lengthy section with the "oper iraq freedom" label on the Iraq war page, so renaming this "Iraq war troop deployment" seems pretty logical. I say go for it. Publicus 16:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, too. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - if the nom's argument is true, then the whole point of the template is to show international involvement, not just US involvement. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

The proposed change in name, I feel would require the original Iraqi defending troops to be included. I however do think the the term Iraqi Freedom is POV, even if it had been used by more than one country 86.12.249.63 17:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point 86.12.249.63, Bobblehead--maybe we should change the name to "Coalition Troops Deployed in the Iraq War" or something. Publicus 21:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Although, is there any reason not to include the pre-War Iraqi military numbers? But I would not be opposed to Publicus's suggestion for an article name. --Bobblehead 02:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
So, Template:Coalition troops deployed in the Iraq War? Neither that target nor the other is taken so anyone can complete the move. There seems to be consensus for it, except possibly on the precise name. Does somebody want to be bold? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I would have done it already, but that template name is so ugly. How does Template:Coalition Iraq War troop deployment sound? -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 08:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I think this template is quite messy, could it be split into two, one for current forces, and the other for withdrawn? I find it hard to tot up numbers with mixed lists! 86.12.249.63 08:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
At the moment, we're discussing a rename, and already trying to figure out how we're going to go about it. Perhaps, we can talk about this issue once the rename is complete. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 09:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Split up

[copied from above, Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)]

I think this template is quite messy, could it be split into two, one for current forces, and the other for withdrawn? I find it hard to tot up numbers with mixed lists! 86.12.249.63 08:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caps

It seems unecessary to have "WITHDRAWN" in caps. I don't want to arbitrarily change it... but, I think there are other ways to make it easily readable without using capital letters. It just seems "unprofessional" looking to have it like that. Agree? Disagree? gren グレン 11:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks fine, but if you can find another way for it to still be obvious, then it doesn't much matter to me. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 14:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I put it in caps to try and make the status pretty clear, since there's so much info in the box. Instead of caps, we could go with reg text in boldface or just reg text no boldface--just so long as it's easy for people to find the status.Publicus 14:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What about something along the lines of that shown below?
I like the changes, looks good--go for it.Publicus 14:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Is it reasonable to list the UN part of the Iraq War Coalition troop deployment? I think this needs addressed on the template too! Fasach Nua 17:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Good point Fasach Nua--since the template has been renamed, I'm going to take the UN forces out of this and just add them to the Iraq war article under the "Troop Deployment" section. Publicus 18:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Since were talking about cleaning up this template. What are peoples' thoughts on splitting this template up into two? One for the invasion numbers and the other for current (or numbers prior to withdrawal). The current template seems to be doing too many things and none of it very well. As an example, Japan's 600 troops didn't arrive until after the invasion was over and one may be left with the impression that they were involved in the invasion. --Bobblehead 19:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Iraq War Coalition troop deployment
1,000+ 1,000-100 less than 100
Active Military
Withdrawn Forces
  • Flag of Italy Italy: 1,800 troops (withdrawn (9/06)
  • Flag of Ukraine Ukraine: 1,650 troops (withdrawn (12/05)
  • Flag of the Netherlands Netherlands : 1,345 troops (withdrawn (3/05)
  • Flag of Spain Spain : 1,300 troops (withdrawn 4/04)


TOTAL INVASION DEPLOYMENT, REGULAR TROOPS
315,263

TOTAL CURRENT DEPLOYMENT AS OF OCTOBER 2006
162,725 Regular Troops
~48,000 "Private Military Contractors" (~21,000 UK)

Active Military

Withdrawn Forces

Active Military

Withdrawn Forces



Flag of the United Nations United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI)

[edit] Invasion vs non-Invasion Forces

Bobblehead had a good point above asking if we shouldn't add some info stating when a particular country deployed their forces. Japan was used as an example, since they didn't deploy troops for the invasion but right now it kind of looks that way. Not sure how to split up the template, but I'm going to start adding a deployed date to the respective country so at least we have the info to go on. Publicus 15:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added MNC Units to Template

I added the various units of the MNC-Iraq to the template(also moved all Active and all Withdrawn to their own columns), only 2 articles here on the units so we need some articles to fill in. Publicus 19:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Percentage

The absolute number of troops per country is fine, but it doesn't really say much about the investment from the perspective of the individual countries. An issue that frequently brought up by smaller countries – and latest by Australia in regard to the Australian PM's spat with Barack Obama. I think the numbers ought be accompanied by a number detailing the number of troops as a percentage of the population of the nations. Rune X2 10:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but I'm not sure this template is the place for it. There's the Multinational force in Iraq page which discusses the overall coalition force. This template is just a list of the known troop strengths. Publicus 15:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Using Sources on Edits to the Strengths

If possible it would be a good practice to add a source in the edit summary box whenever an editor makes a change to the strenghts of a particular country--otherwise there's no way to verify the change. Thanks Publicus 13:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)