Module talk:Infobox military conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history
MILHIST 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.
Temp Templates and modules do not require a rating on the quality assessment scale.

Re-add "Cause"[edit]

Many articles use the "cause" parameter, but it's not showing up. Please add it to the template. [Soffredo] 11:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That parameter was removed from the template almost six years ago, after a discussion concluded that it was likely to be misused and would need to refer back to the article in virtually all cases. I don't think it really makes sense to re-add the parameter after so long simply because some older articles still retain it in the template call. Kirill [talk] 12:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Casualties and losses[edit]

Please, change the heading Casualties and losses into Casualties. The last part is superfluous and covered by the first part. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The two are not actually redundant in this instance, since this field is also used to report equipment (e.g. ship, tank, plane, etc.) losses. Kirill [talk] 15:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Still more confusing. Good reason to separate material and human casualties. Choose two unambiguous headings. "Material losses" and "Human casualties"? --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to complicate the template further by separating the two categories. For battles where the materiel losses are relevant, they tend to be discussed in combination with the personnel losses rather than separately, similarly to how the relative strengths of the armies are discussed in terms of both personnel and materiel (see e.g. Battle of Kursk, Battle of Jutland, etc.); splitting them out across the board will add a large number of extra fields to the infobox without providing any more clarity than already exists. Kirill [talk] 03:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm with Kirill on this - allows for flexibility eg you can put "five tanks" on one side and "20 troops" on the other and they will line up rather than being offset. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

What a big nonsense! You are suggesting that there is a direct relation between material and human casualties, which is sometimes true and sometimes untrue. You ignore civilian casualties, who usually have nothing to do with losses of tanks and warships. You suggest that you can compare material casualties with human casualties, which is even immoral. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Saying nothing of the sort with regards to moral equivalence or lack of it. I'm suggesting that
Casualties and losses
__________ 150 troops
10 vehicles
1 warship
5 bombers
is a more flexible format than
Casualties and losses
Casualties 150 troops
Materiel 10 vehicles
1 warship
5 bombers
An infobox is a quick summary of the battle, not a detailed table of data. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I suppose, the second one is your translation of my proposal. My idea was two fields above each other. If it is empty it simply disappears. The side template should be possibly small, thus I still prefer separate sections. Yet, there is no rationale to combine material and human losses. Rather, separate fields will encourage to give not only human casualties. The latter is the advantage of both your and my proposal, although your proposal may be gives a more complex template. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that is an illustration - and nothing more - of my point showing how if you have non-identical categories of losses then you have an unbalanced presentation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

less pejorative heading[edit]

Wouldn't a heading of "Combatants" or "Parties" be less pejorative than "Belligerents"? [1]

(copied from Talk:Battle_of_Thermopylae) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"Belligerent" is being used here in its formal meaning; I'm not sure how that's pejorative, given that it's an established term under international law. Kirill [talk] 23:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Example infobox - Result[edit]

G'day all, I think the fact that the example infobox from Battle of Lutzen is used in the template page is problematic, as it uses the "Pyrrhic victory" which seems to go against the documentation:

  • result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. We don't want to encourage editors to try to simplistically explain outcomes in one or two words. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The example is just a copy of the infobox in the article; I'm not sure that it makes sense to have a discussion about it here rather than there. My suggestion would be to select another example if we think that this one isn't representative of the typical usage of the template. Kirill [talk] 03:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't so concerned about the article itself, just the example. I'll scout around for one that is more representative. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Alt text against | map_caption =[edit]

G'day @Kirill Lokshin: is there a way to include alt text for the | map_caption = field in this infobox? I'm getting a "needs alt text" message for the map in the infobox at June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina, and I tried adding an |alt = field, but it didn't work. Ideas? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: I've added a map_alt= parameter to handle the alt text. Please let me know if you run into any problems using it. Kirill [talk] 03:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Kirill, you are a champion! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Next & prev[edit]

plz add , prev-war next-war،
Because، option ((part of)) is in template.
--Obaid Raza (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


I think there should be a line saying "purpose". Can an admin add such a line please? Vindkanadi (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean the purpose of the war/conflict? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Vindkanadi (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
My view is that is not something we should be trying to encapsulate in a field in an infobox. IMO, editors often try to do too much in infoboxes, when the matter at issue is far too complicated for a one-liner. My that is just my opinion. I suggest you raise it on the WPMILHIST talk page if you want a wider view, not many editors watchlist this page. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


Conflicts such as the Syrian Civil War (basically a four sided war between Syrian army, FSA coalition, Islamic State and the Kurds) need of a 4th side of combatants available. -- (talk) 11:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

adding a fourth column would make the infobox excessively wide, so we would need a different format if this is going to be added. better, would be to align the information in rows in such a case. Frietjes (talk)
Personally, I would avoid it, and use a link to a "Belligerents" or "Warring factions" section of the article where the information could be provided in prose, rather than trying to shoehorn it all into an infobox. IMO, many editors try to do too much with infoboxes. Just the fact that it is a civil war indicates that it is complex, and not suited to a couple of lines in an infobox. As I usually point out to editors posting here, not many editors watch this page, I suggest starting a thread on the MILHIST talk page. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


I think there should be a line saying "type", because some conflicts are for humanitarian and altruistic reasons. Others are for selfish reasons such as accumalating resources. not only is it immoral to group these together, it is also misleading. it is the equivalence of having a similar wiki-category for a sex position and rape. I find that offensive and deeply unsettling. Vindkanadi (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The lede sentence(s) is the place to describe the conflict. The infobox is a summary of a few points. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Your response is exactly the problem I was describing 30 minutes ago. You group all these very different confrontations together under a single simplified unmbrella - "conflict". Vindkanadi (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes; this is the infobox for military conflicts, therefore it is entirely appropriate to use the term. The 'cause' parameter was removed years ago (see the top of this page) for much the same reasons as the problems your suggestion would result in. How would we define the cause (or type) of the Second World War in a single word or line?
It is not misleading or immoral to use the umbrella term of conflict, or group conflicts together whatever their cause or type. A conflict is a conflict. Some may be started for more moral than others, but the end result is the same (the conflict the infobox is summarising). A comparison to sex positions and rape is so way off beam I can't even begin to consider it. Ranger Steve Talk 14:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Completely agree with Ranger Steve. And see my responses to other question threads above. Editors regularly try to get infoboxes to "do" things they just aren't designed to "do". Please work on the lead and the article prose of the article in question instead of worrying about whether an infobox encapsulates the complexity every conflict entails. It isn't going to. Ever. Regardless of how many fields it has. And it will just cause needless edit wars. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)