Template talk:Campaignbox Crusades

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

Military history: Medieval 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: /  Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Not sure if anyone watches this page directly, but I suppose it doesn't hurt to ask...

Might it be possible to reformat this template in the standard campaignbox format? It would make it much easier to include in conjunction with {{Infobox Military Conflict}}. Kirill Lokshin 02:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not a single conflict with a bunch of campaigns or battles, like campaignboxes usually contain. Although I suppose we could make a box to make it look like one...

We have a lot of them now that list a series of wars (e.g. {{Campaignbox Punic Wars}}, {{Campaignbox Italian Wars}}, {{Campaignbox Macedonian Wars}}), so it wouldn't be that unusual. Kirill Lokshin 02:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, I guess so. So it should be pretty simple to change this one? Adam Bishop 05:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very much so; it just needs to be changed to use {{Campaign}} instead of the regular table markup (and probably moved to {{Campaignbox Crusades}} for consistency?). I just wanted to make sure that there wouldn't be an angry mob on my hands afterwards. Kirill Lokshin 10:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I converted it, but it's hidden at the moment...is there any way to include an image, or is that just not a possible field in a campaignbox? Adam Bishop 03:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really possible (and it would probably cause alignment problems in cases where the box did actually follow a full infobox, if we added it). On the other hand, though, if {{Infobox Military Conflict}} is added at the top of the articles using this, an image can be included there. Kirill Lokshin 03:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've changed it to a campaignbox format; let's see what kind of comments we get.

One point of interest: I used short-form links here (e.g. [[First Crusade|First]]), since that's the general convention in most campaignboxes. I don't know if this is too confusing here, though. Kirill Lokshin 02:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1480, without cause or warning , the Turkish fleet invaded and landed nearby and took the city and its fort. The Pope called for a crusade,..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otranto —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fvdham (talk • contribs) 05:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The question you have to ask is "is this campaign widely known as $SOMEWTHING Crusade in historiography", not "has the term crusade ever been used in connection with it, ever, by anyone". --dab (𒁳) 10:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Launched in response to Frederick I's failure in the Third. I have created the article and have used a very good referece, so please check it out. I have also added it in.Tourskin 04:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linked as Crusade of 1197. Blue Danube (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the Reconquista deserves a mention in the box? It's not a Crusade as such, but it was a war of Religion, so I think it qualifies. 78.16.182.28 (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. As you yourself say, it's not a crusade. Case closed. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a question of what this navbox is supposed to achieve. I suggest it should help in navigating between the articles directly connected to the topic of "crusades". Template creep is a real problem, in this case, the natural tendency will be to list each and every article loosely connected to military campaigns by Catholic states, to the point of including "Spanish Armada".

The Reconquista is a major topic in its own right, which is of course intimately connected to the Crusades. It probably still isn't helpful to expand the scope of this infobox to include the Reconquista. --dab (𒁳) 10:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These were missing so I added them chronologically. Blue Danube (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Srnec—I think your recent edit has confused the headings. Previously, the info box differentiated political/Italian crusades and crusades against heretics and schismatics which is a common structure for the topic. These are now grouped as in Europe. This overlaps with other headings where Crusades are grouped thematically e.g. reconquista, Northern and some of the later crusades where geographically the crusades were also in Europe. What do you think ‎Dr. Grampinator Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the older version listed Mallorca, Aragonese and the Sicilian Vespers as Italian crusades! Or at least that is how it appeared. None of them were. In fact, the Aragonese was listed twice. That is why I changed it. But you are right that the heading is not good enough. Srnec (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On this basis I have restored the title Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a 100% match as some of the crusades can be in multiple places. I'm not sure it really matters as 4.0 Other crusades in Crusades isn't broken into subsections. As to the heading in the Infobox, I would suggest "Other crusades in Europe" or "Related crusades in Europe".

SrnecNorfolkbigfish I just looked at the Campaign Box, and it seems that it's gotten out of control with all the dates. In my mind, it should be a quick reference, not a detailed view. I would suggest deleting the dates unless a crusade is identified solely by the date (e.g., 1197). Other comments:

• Is 1267 significant enough to be included?
• Anti-Mongol crusade is misplaced as it was in 1241, not after 1291. It probably doesn't belong in the box.
• "War of the Sicilian Vespers 1282-1302" should simply be "Sicilian Vespers"
• Ireland, Spanish Armada???
• Holy Leagues deserve mention but I'm not sure where and to what detail.
• Ideology and Institutions should be at the bottom.

Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dr. Grampinator—wouldn't see a problem with losing the dates, the insignificant 1267 and Mongol crusade, War of the etc. There is no generic Holy Leagues article the creation of which would solve the possible issue of listing them individually. Don't know why you would write that Ideology and Instituitions should be at the bottom, but equally wouldn't be able to make a case it should be at the top where it is. The inclusion of the Armada is supported by a citation in Crusading movement to Tyerman and he also mentions Ireland in Murray, Gods War and England and the Crusades. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolkbigfish Right you are on Ireland and Spanish Armada. I wouldn't regard the latter as a Crusade against Heretics but rather Later Crusades (1291–1578). Maybe a single reference Holy Leagues under the same? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible for this box to include every single campaign that was declared a crusade. When nothing in the article mentions it (e.g., Ireland), it isn't important enough for the box. Also, why the War of the Vespers? Srnec (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article to which Ireland wikilinks Second Desmond Rebellion has nine references Pope Gregory XIII, who funded these campaigns, who authorised these campaigns, provided papal banners and excommunicated QEI. As for Sicilian Vespers Tyerman for one writes of them Fresh crusading was initiated when Frederick of Sicily (1296-1337) younger son of Peter III, refused to surrender the island to the Angevins. Only the treaty of Caltabellota in 1302, which left Sicily in Aragonese hands, ended the Sicilian crusades Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish article has no reference to crusades. The question isn't whether it fits the definition, technically or otherwise, but whether or not it belongs in a navigational box. The Reconquista section, for example, could be expanded a lot. (See Bull of the Crusade.) But what would be the benefit? Srnec (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is an interesting conundrum. It is not clear what the criteria for inclusion in this campaign box is, and certainly there has not been a established consesnsus on this. Equally, there the definition of crusade is neither clear nor agreed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I think it's clear that the navigational box has gotten too busy. Some thoughts:

(1) Delete the dates unless that's the name of the Crusade (e.g., 1101), but include the dates in the major heading, e.g., "In the Holy Land (1096–1291)

(2) Collapse "Popular Crusades" with no subentries as it references a list article

(3) Delete "Anti-Mongol 1241," "Ireland" and "Spanish Armada."

(4) Move "Holy Leagues" as a single entree under "Later Crusades"

(5) Possibly have "Reconquista" with no subentries, as those are more along the lines of battles rather than sub-Crusades

(6) Probably don't need both "Sicilian Vespers" and "Aragonese", and I would go with the latter.

Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) Agree 2) Not sure what you mean by collapse Dr. Grampinator, although if you mean remove the various crusades I agree with that too 3) On removing 1241 I agree, could live without Ireland and Armada if that was the consensus 4) The Holy Leagues article is a disambig, if this was expanded I agree 5) Agree 6) Agree, but think Sicilian Vespers is better as it is wider and includes Aragonese.

Taken as a whole this changes would greatly increase the readability and utility of this campaign box, as well as moving thge various debates at Talk:Crusades forward. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this, disregard my (6) above. Could we be approaching a rare moment of consensus? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't want to tempt fate, but unless there are any late incoming objections it certainly looks like it. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all 6 of Grampinator's proposals and have implemented them. This meant removing Vespers and keeping Aragonese, which is also my preference. I also put in the dab link to Holy League, but I agree that that is not ideal. My only concerns with these changes are that now some articles with crusade in the very title are not in the box (e.g., the popular crusades). In separate edits, I also removed two minor actions that I don't think belong here. Srnec (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks an improvement, I removed the italics from Reconquista as well as they seemed exceptional Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to justify some of the smaller crusades while also lumping all the Holy Leagues together under one heading. Previously, I thought otherwise but the Campaign Box now gives undue weight to a number of minor conflicts. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]