Putting other campaign info here, as it just doesn't seem as important now:
Insurrection of BrontesEdit
- Rise of the Fist of Redemption; attacks on local militia
- Arrival of the Hammer Strike Force
- Betrayal of Tsuname
- NDO defeats the Fist and Hammer
- The 7th Fleet arrives.
- The 7th Fleet splits. Protoss/terran alliance. Demioch rescued.
- Syndrea's forces attack terrans. The Slaughter of Harvesters.
- Aedus/Xerxes tells the heroes about Carpenter Cerebrate. Carpenter's Destruction.
- Syndrea's assault. The duel.
- The Ultimate Conquest.
- The real destruction of Carpenter.
- StarCraft Enslavers I
- StarCraft: Retribution
The Great War and other such articles are main overview articles. They should maintain their links to the smaller battles. It's like having a World War II article without a link to the Battle of France. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 11:32, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
I've maintained links via references in the text. At times, it warrants the template. At others, it doesn't, where "Main Article: X" cuts into the text and often doesn't even lead into a battle. A WWII article isn't going to link to every little skirmish that took place.--Hawki 11:34, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
In the timeline article, you would have noticed I've recently added links like this:
"2499, November: Battle of Chau Sara"
Instead of just saying "2499, November: Chau Sara was invaded..." (which, incidentally, was the way I used to write articles.)
Obviously things would work a little differently in a war article, since the battle is more important than the date.
It's to make things look clearer and more professional. People can tell the battle's name just by looking at the article. If this messes up the text in some places, please just "make do". That might mean moving the main article link a little, or moving an image, but for professionalism's sake, the clearly named article links need to remain.
Also, World War II was a hell of a lot bigger (or really, more detailed) than the Great War. The only way to remove all those skirmishes would be to cut the article up even more. We've already got sections for the Fall of Tarsonis and Fall of Aiur, but I don't know... do we need to make Fall of Mar Sara and Fall of Antiga Prime articles too? PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 11:38, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
It looks more professional in theory, but take a look at when it nears Tarsonis for instance. We have "main article, the trump card," a line of next, and then it goes to the next "main article." That looks unprofessional. I support the main article template, but I think the text has to warrant it first. Fall of Mar Sara/Antiga Prime articles would be a good idea, as the article would link to them in an in-universe sense. Linking to missions in the Rebel Yell article doesn't really warrant the template.--Hawki 11:47, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
It's done exactly how I described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France#The_Manstein_plan
Right underneath the section head is a link to the Manstein Plan, using the same indent and italics formula that we use, just like all over wikipedia. So I disagree that it looks unprofessional. The Great War article is supposed to point viewers to the smaller articles; otherwise those are almost never seen. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 22:51, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
My bad. Actually meant The Big Push.--Hawki 23:55, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
That section can always be expanded somewhat. It's there to set up the Battle of Tarsonis; I thought a reader would want to know how the Sons of Korhal got to the surface in the first place. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 01:25, July 9, 2010 (UTC)