Template talk:WWII DP camps

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:
/
	World War II task force

International relations: United Nations

	This template is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
	This template is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

Soviet and French sectors?

I am finding and filling all the redlinks, but what about the Soviet and French sectors? Chris 04:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we make this collapsible and allow for more redlinks?

This is a very large template by now, because there were a lot of DP camps (even more than in this list, actually). I'd like to suggest we make it collapsible, so that it takes less space on the initial view of the relevant articles. Before any one of us goes off and tries to figure out how to do this technically, I'd like to get others' views on it. Also, I would prefer that the links went to articles about the DP camps themselves rather than the towns in which, or near which, they were situated. Perhaps we need a List of World War II DP camps article? --Leifern (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This MUST be urgently made into a footer, not a side template!!!!!=

This MUST be urgently made into a footer, not a side template!!!!! --Attilios (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the template in its current form is too intrusive to use. --Very trivial (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]