This template is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles 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.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
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
I think the red links should be removed until an article on the topic is created.Pepsidrinka 21:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. I figured it would make more sense to keep them up, just as a reminder of what battles need to be added. BTW, someone is going to have to go back at some point and double-check the chronology. Palm_Dogg 03:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll point out that all of the other campaignboxes have red links still in them. Removing them is probably a bad idea—the campaignboxes are often the only places from which the battles are linked. —Kirill Lokshin 21:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI at some point there will probably be a split between battles which Muhammad participated in (Badr-Tabouk) and the battles of the "Conquest Period" (Dathin-Zab). It won't happen for a few more months, since the conquest period is still getting fleshed out, but I just wanted it out there. Palm_Dogg 02:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we have three seperate campaign boxes out there, can we also have a seperate one for the Civil War: Bossorah, Siffin, Karbala and just delete this campaignbox? OR maybe make this a box that lists the different campaigns that fall within the Muslim Conquests, because there are also the Arab Khazar Wars, and Maybe if someone adds Afghanistan, India, the battle with China that defacto fixed the border with the Tang dynasty etc. If we do India we probably need to cut-off at the end of Ummayyad period and stop at Muhammad bin Qasim campaigns in Sind--Tigeroo 09:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Having battles like Karbala and Siffin listed under muslim conquests is quite confusing. --aliasad 02:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I have gone ahead and changed both the template and its name to reflect that the expansions were a series of campaigns. So the template now lists the various campaigns of expansion, I was not sure which box to place the two redlink battles Ain Al-Jarr and The Nobles, I can add these as well. I will go ahead and make a similar new campaignbox for the Muslim Civil Wars. With likely three sections 1) Rashidun and the Umayyads 2) Uprisings against the Umayyads 3) Umayyads and the Abassids where the three battles listed Siffin, Bossorah, in catergory 1, 2 will have Kerbalah, Zaidis, Zanj, Mamun etc, 3) will have zab
Comment they link of Central Asia goes to the page Islamic conquest of Afghanistan which is not technically correct because it also an expansion into Transoxania and Khwarezm while at the same time a push was being made towards Sindh and the wars with Khazars in the Caucus, so I feel that article will have to reworked a little or a different link found because that article goes beyond in its scope to the modern days and on any possible overlap between this and the Khazar-Arab wars over Transoxania as well include the battle with the Tang dynasty in this section as well.
Am divided on wether Sindh/ Muhammad Qasim needs a seperate section or can it be lumped here.
Also am unsure of the correctness of the term Asia Minor because they didn't get into the area covered by modern day turkey in the time period covered by this campaignbox.--Tigeroo 10:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
