Template talk:Infobox civilian attack/Archive 1

Archive 1

Punctuation

This is a bit minor, but the time-begin and time-end should really be separated by an endash, rather than a hyphen. I'd fix it myself, but I can't even begin to figure out how. Salmar 15:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel that would be much easier to type in if it's just a hyphen. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to type it in... the template adds it in automatically, someone just needs to change it.—Salmar 18:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I understand what you were saying. I thought you were saying that the time-begin and time-end parameters should really be time — begin and time — end. I made the change. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you even more, but you just changed the hyphen to an emdash, but it should be an endash (–) Salmar 21:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

But then, by looking at your edit, I figured out how to fix it myself (-: Salmar 21:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Width 2

2005 Al Hillah bombing
Location	Al Hillah, Iraq
Date	February 28,2005
Target	Police recruiting center
Attack type	suicide car bomb
Deaths	127

The template has to be wide to be in line with the campaignbox (see example) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

However the image should be put to express our judgement how wide it should be. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion: if you're going to be using this extensively with campaignboxes, it may be a good idea to use the MILHIST infobox style, to keep the two in sync. Kirill Lokshin 19:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Use of this template in non-terror contexts

Both Columbine High School massacre and Virginia Tech massacre use this template, although it's questionable whether the these two events meet the criteria of "the aim of creating fear not only to the victims but among a wide audience" (from Definition of terrorism).

Perhaps this template should be renamed, or a clone should be created for use in those events.

I recognize that, since the definition of the term is obviously controversial, the question of whether the term is appropriately used in these cases is obviously just as controversial. — JBazuzi (talk • contribs) 15:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This Infobox is in use, in Virginia Tech massacre, because it covers the fields that show the basic info surrounding the event. Although an extra box, Suspected perps would improve NPOV. Thanks, Monkeyblue 09:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and added susperps to the template. Now in use in VTm. Monkeyblue 09:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to point it out, Halifax Explosion also use this template, even though it is confirmed as an accident, for lack of anything better. SYSS Mouse 00:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

When I saw this on the Virginia Tech massacre article, I thought the same thing. I have moved the template to Template:Infobox civilian attack; that should cover the Virginia Tech and Columbine uses. -- tariqabjotu 17:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Weapons section

Is it possible to put a Weapons section in the template? This would make it possible to list the weapons used in these attacks. Griot 23:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I just added one. -- tariqabjotu 23:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Al Qaeda Operations?

There is a debate in progress at the USS Cole Bombing article, in which an editor objects to the use of this template on the grounds that the attack on the Cole was on a military target, therefore doesn't qualify as terrorism (or a civilian attack, as per the new name of the template). Is there any way to create a clone of the template under the name Template:Al Qaeda operations, to satisfy the editor in question, yet still provide the same information format? It is a matter of semantics, but I don't want to get into an edit war over the name of the infobox template. Ordinarily, I'd do it myself, but templates are tricky beasts and I don't want to screw anything up in the process. Horologium t-c 04:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Duh, redirects work quite well. :\ Horologium t-c 04:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove Motive section

I'd like to suggest that the Motive tag is unneeded in this template. By in large, speculation on the motives of an attack on civilians is subjective and ultimately unimportant. By definition, any attack on civilians is illegal and immoral. Debating the motive behind an attack rarely, if ever, serves any purpose but the attackers. Ronnotel 21:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's too hard to ascribe motive in these cases. Griot 23:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed "Motive" to "Claimed motive" as this is less likely to be in dispute. --GCarty 08:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. thanks. Ronnotel 11:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove Target section

This is the source of instant contention as it implies knowledge of the perpetrators' motives. Sources are unlikely to specify this separately from information concerning Location + Deaths and Injured, which can be established accurately and are sufficient by themselves. Target is redundant, as it is covered by Location, Deaths and Injuries. Tyrenius (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Also as stated on talk page Suspected perpetrator(s) Provisional IRA, should also be changed to Perpetrator(s) Unknown. BigDunc (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not relevant to this template discussion. It is a localised concern and can be discussed Talk:M62 coach bombing#Perpetrator(s) section. Tyrenius (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. e.g. 1983 Beirut barracks bombing - location was two specific buildings, while targets were US and French peace keepers. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I presume you're disagreeing with the first paragraph rather than the one you've posted directly under. In 1983 Beirut barracks bombing the info box gives the location as "USMC barracks, Beirut Airport" and "'Drakkar' barracks of French 1er Régiment de Chasseurs Parachutistes, Ramlet al Baida, Beirut", with deaths as "241 American servicemen, 58 French servicemen, 6 civilians, 2 suicide bombers". Nothing more will be achieved by saying, "Target: American servicemen and French servicemen." It is rather obvious, although, as it happens, there is nothing in the article to say they were the target and no reference to that effect, so in wiki terms it is therefore original research and vetoed anyway. The article says correctly, "Two truck bombs struck separate buildings in Beirut housing U.S. and French members of the Multinational Force in Lebanon". Tyrenius (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Template formatting

Contrary to User:Tariqabjotu's assertion that "infoboxes are not carbon-copies of each other", that's precisely the point of {{infobox}}, which is what I'm trying to migrate this template to use. As a first step, removing lots of hard-coded colours (such as all the black lines) makes it easier to work with the template. I'm willing to retain the formatting in the end result if there's consensus to do so, but I think that should be discussed here rather than just assumed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

{{infobox}} has been around for years, and I don't see any indication that there is a movement to force all infoboxes to use {{infobox}} and to remove custom formatting. From 2008, I see two discussions about the purpose of {{infobox}} (#Proposal to repurpose this template and #KISS). Neither of those discussions conclude that this template should be used for every infobox. Instead, they say that new and existing infoboxes can be created or converted using {{infobox}}, but don't have to be. When existing infoboxes are converted, they tend to replicate the appearance of the original infobox (which is why people keep asking for more and more options to be added to the template). The {{infobox}} template is merely there to help editors who want to use it (presumably to make coding easier or cleaner, although it's debatable whether this template accomplishes those tasks). What you're doing is not supported by the current purpose of {{infobox}}. There doesn't need to be "consensus" to keep the formatting; it's been there for more than two years, since this template's creation and there's no compelling reason to remove it. Borders to help separate different pieces of information are very common in templates. -- tariqabjotu 18:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This is mistaking consensus for inertia. Looking over the last year's edits, the lines were removed in the past, to be reverted back in by - you. So rather than have an edit war about it, I'm posting here to see if there actually is consensus. Further, as I said already I'm prepared to keep the weird formatting in that case after migration to {{infobox}}. While there's no movement to "force" people to use the master template (something which I never suggested), there certainly is movement towards it (~300 transclusions now) and scant opposition to the general principle (apart from Ned Scott's spat of reverts, which was later halted). Making infoboxen more uniform and easier to maintain is of benefit to the project, and it shouldn't be opposed just because "it was like that for years". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about when someone removed the lines over a year ago with no other reason other than that they were "weird" and didn't follow up on the issue afterward? I don't think that demonstrates "inertia". And, if you plan to keep the lines in the template after you migrate this to {{infobox}}, then why did you remove them and say uniformity is "precisely the point of {{infobox}}"? -- tariqabjotu 11:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that I "planned to", I said that I was prepared to if it is for some reason believed to be necessary by the community. And yes, I'm talking about that one time - because your edit summary ("some aesthetic purpose") is hardly more compelling. I happen to think that it is aesthetically pleasing for Wikipedia to have some semblance of standardisation in templates, but more importantly it makes the things much easier to maintain in the future. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Template's name

Anyone else find the name "civilian attack" slightly odd here? (Incidentally, per Wikipedia's use of sentence casing for topic names, I guess that should become "Civilian attack".) It's not quite the same as "Attack on civilians". Also, these kinds of attacks are not necessarily all directed toward civilians, e.g. attacks on the British Army in Northern Ireland or mainland Britain.
Was "Terrorist attack" found to be too "POV"? I imagine, though, that the people carrying out the attacks whose articles use this infobox either accept or intend the terror caused...? In lieu of any better, workable alternatives, "Infobox Terrorist attack" seems an apt name, perhaps with some disclaimer/qualifier included in the documentation and/or as a comment in the code in order to dissuade future renaming. Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

quantity of attackers

I noticed based on a discussion on the mumbai attacks talk page that there should be a section on the quantity of attackers, both in the action and conceivably in the planning. I am editing the template to include this, unless there are major objections. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

New section needed

I am not sure how to name it, but we need a section for "who tried (and succeeded?) in stopping the hostilities". Sometimes it is can be pretty important (for example, I have seen this infobox included in an article where the attacks where perpetrated by criminals and rogue soldiers, and stopped by the regular army; the infobox now misleadingly states that the event was perpetrated by criminals and soldiers, and does not note that majority of the soldiers were the ones who stopped the attackers).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What about "defenders"? I am editing it now and adding this too. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Outcome

Outcome needed. Like to use at Black May (1992). Pawyilee (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is to big to include in an info box and belongs in the actual article. You cannot reduce an outcome to one word, as for example "victory" would violate WP:NPOV. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 10:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Weapons section is distasteful

Basically that. It's gross. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 02:16, December 7, 2007

Agreed. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem very informative or useful.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. In fact the whole template has a rather baseball card or Top Trumps feel. The weapons section is a particular problem. 86.44.27.26 (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Width

Some changes have been made to the template, and now it seems to be just slightly too narrow—on some pages (see, for example, World Trade Center bombing), the (s) in Perpetrator(s) is on the line under the word Perpetrator. —Salmar 01:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC) shg'kfgrkjoprdth fykrdpy tryultyi ]yt iy ti ygi y7 i —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.107.12 (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Location map

I have added support for a location map. I will update the documentation soon. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Assassinations, etc.

Assassination of George Tiller
Location	Foyer of Reformation Lutheran Church 7601 East 13th Street Wichita, Kansas
Date	31 May 2009 c. 10 a.m. (UTC-6)
Attack type	Anti-abortion violence
Weapons	Handgun
Deaths	George Tiller, M.D.
Perpetrator	Scott Philip Roeder of Merriam, Kansas

A field has been added for "assailant" for use in such criminal attacks as, say, the assassinations of abortion doctors, polical figures, etc., and other violent crimes. (See example of the "assailant" field being used in infobox at an article about Army-of-God militant Scott Roeder's murder of George Tiller, M.D., on right margin.--> )--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

References

Add an interwiki link

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BD:%D0%A2%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B0

An interwiki from ru-wiki. Лётчик Ли Си Цын (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. The doc page isn't protected. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"Perpetrator" instead of "Belligerent"

The infobox currently uses the word "belligerent". I think this is inappropriate, since a belligerent is someone who wages a formal war, not a surprise attack against civilians. I replaced it with the word "perpetrator", which is a more adequate description. Any other suggestions are welcome. --BomBom (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, BoomBom, I disagree with the change [1]

A perpetrator is someone who commits a crime. Merriam-Webster The Free Dictionary Wiktionary.

It seems to me that this is inherently WP:NPOV.

First, you can only commit a crime under a set of laws. You would have to decide whose laws to follow. If someone commits an attack against an occupying army, are they criminals under the laws of their own country, or under the laws of the occupying army? Wikipedia would have to decide which side is right.

Second, a criminal has to be judged a criminal by a competent tribunal. It's WP:POV and WP:OR to say that someone is a criminal, in controversial cases where there are combatants on both sides. Wikipedia would have to decide that someone is guilty.

It's like WP:TERRORIST; one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. --Nbauman (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Colors

Recently the color of the underbars has been changed to grey on Infobox military conflict and Infobox operational plan. This is the bar that says "Part of [insert conflict here]". I think, for consistency, it should be changed to grey on this infobox too.
Agree/Disagree? ~Asarlaí 01:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Victims

Is there a way to get this template to say "victims" (plural) rather than "victim" (singular)? For example at 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio there are 3 named and one unnamed victims so it seems incorrect for the heading to be singular. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

now fixed, use |victims=. Frietjes (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That was quick, thanks! Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Should death section be only human deaths or include dogs? Seriously, edit warring on this

More input please. Should the Death section in the infobox be for humans only, or should we also include dogs that died? One editor is arguing to include the dog at Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson. Can we have consensus to add to the article page for this template that it applies only to human fatalities? Dream Focus 09:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Include dogs. They are victims, capable of being abused, killed, kidnapped, etc. No reason to make an arbitrary, POV judgment that humans deserve to be mentioned but dogs don't. In cases where both humans and animals die, most reliable sources will report on both the humans and the animals. We go by reliable sources, and they say: include dogs. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Include any verifiable, notable fatality per my reasoning on the Anderson talk page. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Exclude dogs, rats, earthworms, spiders and insects. Humans only please. Andreas JN466 17:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• Exclude dogs and any other non-human animals. This is not arbitrary or POV, it's exactly the opposite. To say that a dog is a "person", but some other animal isn't a person, or the deaths of other animals is not notable, carries the POV/bias that dogs and/or certain other "intelligent"/pet-worthy animals are deserving of a place alongside humans, that their lives are equivalent to a human's life. We draw a line between human life and the lives of other animals. The authors of the template page drew a non-arbitrary line in the definition of fatalities: "people". Humans are people. To maintain a strict definition, free of arbitrary interpretation, we should maintain that only humans are "people". - Boneyard90 (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Definitely no pro-dog bias here. If a raccoon, trout or ostrich is involved in a similar situation to Cali's, and given the same weight by reliable sources, he/she should count the same, per the same "lesser animal" definition of "people" Merriam-Webster gives. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I've come to respect User:InedibleHulk as courteous and level-headed in a debate, though I feel his position is in error, and his reliance on the 6th entry of a dictionary definition of "people" is faulty and is a grasp at a proverbial straw. The first and majority of those dictionary definitions refers exclusively to humans as "people". Boneyard90 (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, you've been cool, too. But if I can wear my sarcastic dick hat for a moment, did my position affect you physically, or did you touch it with your fingers? Or are you skipping the majority, down to 4b, because you mean "believe"? Taking off my hat, it's clear what you meant, because the primary definitions don't make sense in this context. In the current infobox, "3 people" likewise clearly refers to humans, but, in the parameter's description, either works. In English, we often run into words with many meanings, and they can't all be first in the dictionary. Calling a boob tube a "TV set" is perfectly valid, even though that meaning is way down at noun #22. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Exclude dogs and any other non-human animals, for reasons already discussed above and also because few readers would reasonably look for or even expect to find this information in an Infobox on an incident with multiple human fatalities. The event cited is not notable because of the non-human fatality (unlike, for example, 2011 Ohio exotic animal release which customized this template, where an itemization of the species of animals involved along with the suicide of the human was appropriate because it was the reason for notability). Dwpaul (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
• Exclude per the others. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
• Exclude Dogs ain't human. Illegitimate Barrister 11:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Exclude due to the obvious problem that would arise. If dogs, why not cats, ferrets, and birds? How dare you say that this dog's death is more significant than that horse's death? Are you a horse-hater?! Clearly not many would suggest that the infobox should show the collateral deaths of, say, four gerbils in a fire, so a line must be drawn somewhere between humans and gerbils. The only halfway justifiable place to draw that line is between human and non-human, which happens to be where virtually all reliable sources draw it when referring to fatalities. Right or wrong, we see ourselves as a very special kind of animal, and that will remain so for the foreseeable future. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Bioterrorism as an example for the type field

type – The type of attack (e.g. Suicide bombings, Bioterrorism, etc.)

Bioterrorism is the use of biological agents for a terrorist motive. As such, the word combines type and motive, and is therefore a misleading example for the type field (or the motive field).

Proposed: In the description of the type field, replace Bioterrorism with Mass shooting. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I'd also suggest, in the interest of clarity, coming up with a third example to be added. TompaDompa (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - according to bioterrorism, "Bioterrorism is terrorism involving the intentional release or dissemination of biological agents"; this is certainly a type of terrorism, not a motive for it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Od Mishehu: But is terrorism an attack type, like mass shooting, or an attack motive, like hate crime? The latter in my opinion. To my mind, type is the how and motive is the why, and the word terrorism says nothing about the how. Thus the term bioterrorism combines type (bio) and motive (terrorism), and is a poor example for the type field. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  this is certainly a type of terrorism, not a motive for it. Taking a different angle, the field is attack type, not terrorism type. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, this has been open for 36 days, I advertised it early at Village Pump, the lone opposer dropped out after !voting despite my ping. I think I've tried more than most would to play by the rules (and I avoid WP:IAR), but it's not reasonable to let this fail for lack of interest. Therefore, done.[2] ―Mandruss ☎ 10:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

adding some parameters from {{infobox event}}?

I think it might be useful to add some of the parameters from {{infobox event}} to this template, especially for smaller-scale attacks. The parameters I'm thinking about are as follows:

• coroner (surely someone needs to determine the official causes of death)
• accused (the number of perpetrators charged)
• convicted (the number of perpetrators convicted)
• verdict (whether any perpetrators were found guilty)
• convictions (what tsamp perpetrators were convicted of)
• charges (charges that were filed)
• litigation (whether the attack resulted in civil action, which happens all the time)

Thoughts? --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those parameters should all be available for these kinds of events. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Those items are at least as applicable to civilian attacks as to the more general "event". ―Mandruss ☎ 00:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I also support this. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Ixfd64, done. But for some reason, I can't get all the codes to work in the 'demonstration' infobox. I also added <<inquiry>>. Rangasyd (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata coordinates clash

@Mike Peel: Approximately a month ago you enabled this template to read in coordinates from Wikidata, which is great. The issue is that this clashes when the {{coord}} template is used outside of the infobox of the article, as it is in many, and the resulting effect is two sets of coordinates overlapping each other. Please revert the change for now until a fix can be found. (possibly a bot can go move the templates into the infobox but I think it would be best to revert first and discuss a solution after) Opencooper (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've reverted that change for now. Having a bot go through to move the coordinates into the infobox would be good; better might be if coordinates that are identical to the ones on Wikidata could be removed from the article and fetched from Wikidata. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Loading images from Wikidata is inappropriate

It is not appropriate with the current level on consensus on Wikidata usage in infoboxes to autoload images from there. This is something that will need to be taken up at WP:VP in order to be overturned. Please keep it out, especially so considering that there was no discussion or even semblance of consensus for its inclusion. Carl Fredrik ^talk 21:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It's covered by Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2 - "It is appropriate to modify existing infoboxes to permit Wikidata inclusion when there is no existing English Wikipedia data for a specific field in the infobox". That is all that is happening here. This is working perfectly fine in other infoboxes. Why is it a problem in this case, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

There are other more recent discussions that made it very clear that Wikidata should never be used for any controversial information. The images chosen to be included on these highly sensitive articles are very controversial. You are going to need an RfC to implement such a use of Wikidata in this infobox. Please start one if you wish to include it. Carl Fredrik ^talk 22:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

For examples of related discussion:

• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_128#Discussion_re_Verifiability_issues_with_Wikidata
• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_146#RfC:_Wikidata_in_infoboxes.2C_opt-in_or_opt-out.3F
• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_128#RfC:_Wikidata_in_infoboxes.2C_opt-in_or_opt-out.3F

more exists, but the opt-in/opt-out discussion has the clearest and most recent consensus

Hmm, OK. I'll work on other infobox templates before this one, then. Mike Peel (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

adding more parameters from {{infobox event}}?

I'm trying to sort out the overloaded lead sentence at Katyn massacre and would request that this template include:

• native_name
• native_name_lang

as included on infobox event. For good measure (applicable in this case since the attack is a binational Polish-Russian event:

• native_name2
• native_name_lang2

Thanks.--Carwil (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Carwil, added. for more than one native name, you can separate the entries with {{ubl}} or {{plainlist}} and wrap each one in {{lang}} or {{native name}}. Frietjes (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Coroner parameter unknown type?

Hi, y'alls. In Preview mode using the text editor, the article Rancho Tehama Reserve shootings states that coroner is an unknown parameter. Please advise. Ping me back. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Rangasyd said they added |coroner= along with six other parameters in Aug 2016, here. Maybe they can help. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Checkingfax and Mandruss: I give up on trying to fix this. I tried using the |blank= parameters, but that did not work either. Any suggestions? Rangasyd (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rangasyd: Ask at WP:VPT? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Frietjes can troubleshoot anything. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Checkingfax, the problem was fixed with these edits. Frietjes (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

image_upright

Could someone please add support for |image_upright= as per many other infobox templates? To get image scaling we currently have to use File: syntax which puts the article in Category:Pages using deprecated image syntax. Never mind that it's needless complication to have two ways of accomplishing the same thing. Yes, WP:WIP, but this change is overdue in a widely used infobox template. I could sweeten the deal with a barnstar. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done. In the future, a {{TPER}} goes a long way to get this sort of thing done ;) Primefac (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: Thanks for the edit. And thanks for the advice, I'll remember that for protected templates. No help for unprotected templates, however. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 April 2018

Change {{{image_upright}}} to {{{image_upright|}}}, and {{{map_upright}}} to {{{map_upright|}}} so that unwanted alt text does not appear with images in the infobox. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 November 2018

Add variable for "Investigating authority" so that the lead police or law enforcement agencies involved can be specified. Jim Killock (talk) 09:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll oppose that. Not a "key fact" in my opinion, and of interest to relatively few readers. Can be covered in the body if deemed relevant (and it wouldn't be automatically relevant simply because it's reported by RS). ―Mandruss ☎ 09:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Include perpetrator(s) in fatalities, but specified?

What's the consensus about perpetrators being included? Personally, I think that including them, but specifying (e.g. 44 including 2 attackers) avoids confusion about whether the number includes the perpetrators or not. Sjö (talk) 06:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any community consensus, and this is the wrong place to seek one (do we run RfCs on template talk pages?). Very likely it's one of those things that has to be hammered out in article talk if there is any disagreement. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Suspected perpetrator field?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I struggle to see the benefit of listing a "suspected perpetrator" in an infobox, especially when a suspect is part of an ongoing case and will be either removed or moved to "perpetrator" when that is complete. Looking at Christchurch mosque shootings and the contention over how prolific suspect Brenton Tarrant's name should be (see ongoing RfC about keeping suspect's/suspects' name in lead), I don't think his name in an infobox offers any encyclopedic value (officially and legally, as little doubt as there is over his guilt, it has not been proved yet) and if anything only unduly promotes his name which we should also avoid. This is one particular case, but I don't think it's unique in this regard. I suggest this field be removed. U-Mos (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I concur. There's no reason for this parameter to exist – when the identity is known and certain, the appropriate parameter is "perpetrator", and when it is not, it doesn't belong in the infobox at all to begin with. TompaDompa (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I would object to this change based on a handful of opinions from watchers of this page. If we had to watch every template where we might have input on a proposed change, our watchlists would be far larger—and mostly for activity that doesn't interest us. Otherwise, no opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Is that how Wikipedia works? I have already linked to this discussion at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings, and am happy to do so anywhere else appropriate. U-Mos (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a wide agreement on how to do this; I just opined that we need fairly wide participation for something like this, and I don't see how that can happen among the watchers of this page. This template is in only 47 watchlists, and that likely includes a large number of inactive users. If you advertised at that article, that helps a little, but probably not enough.
If I wanted to propose something like this, I would probably do it in a thread at WP:VPR, which is in 3,184 watchlists. Or, you could just advertise this discussion on that page, but I've found that those notices don't attract much attention because they don't receive comments—editors pay more attention to the recent page history than the table of contents. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Good advice, moved discussion as suggested. U-Mos (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"partof" field

As the previous discussion shows, there is an issue with the template's field "partof". At the moment, users revert each others' edits in "partof", because its current description (partof – a violent campaign containing the civilian attack event described in the article.) doesn't fully explain how to use it. As a result, some users consider that a sentence after "Part of", usually a wikilinked article, should begin with a capital letter like for Main cat, See also and similar templates. To some extent, it's based on the fact that an article's title begins with a capital letter by default, if no special template is used.

The other side, including myself, prefers sentence case (WP:MOSCPT). In this case, "Part of" is just the beginning of a sentence. In the following, there are several examples:

• An example (diff) by @Greyshark09:

Markup	partof = the aftermath of the [[Soviet invasion of Poland]] (during [[World War II]])
Renders as	Part of the aftermath of the Soviet invasion of Poland (during World War II)

Note: I have also seen similar titles like "Part of the spillover of the X" and "Part of the prelude to the X" (X is usually a war or conflict).

• An example (diff) by @Neveselbert:

Markup	partof = [[the Blitz]]
Renders as	Part of the Blitz

• An example (diff) by @Billhpike:

Markup	partof = the [[late Ottoman genocides]]
Renders as	Part of the late Ottoman genocides

• An example (diff) by @Brandmeister:

Markup	partof = [[terrorism in the United States]]
Renders as	Part of terrorism in the United States

• Examples (diff1), (diff2) by @Yerevantsi:

Markup	partof = the [[Assyrian_people#Persecution|persecution of Assyrians]] partof = the [[Anti-Armenianism|persecution of Armenians]]
Renders as	Part of the persecution of Assyrians Part of the persecution of Armenians

The above mentioned people are more experienced than me, I hope they have a spare time to reply here. In my opinion, it's important to reach a certain consensus on this issue and change the description of "partof" in accordance with it. This is the only way to prevent further edit warring.--Russian Rocky (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe that falls under MOS:HEADCAPS which advises to use sentence case for "the headers of infoboxes", among others. This means the stuff after "part of" should be lowercased, except proper names and this is grammatically correct approach. Otherwise it may give a false impression of a proper noun, when in reality it isn't. Brandmeister^talk 22:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

This is the only way to prevent further edit warring. It may be the easiest way, to whatever extent involved editors are willing to defer to guidance in template docs, but it's not the "only way". See Wikipedia:Edit warring#Handling of edit-warring behaviors. Unlike guidance in template docs, the approach described there educates editors that edit warring is not acceptable. In the long term and the big picture, that's better for the project than seeking a "community consensus" for every little point of disagreement (as if a majority of a handful of editors on this page would represent much of a community consensus, anyway). ―Mandruss ☎ 23:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

There should be a spot for the perp's sentence

Why isn't there a spot for the perp's sentence? Attackers don't always die during the incident and are often charged, tried and convicted of a crime and sentenced accordingly. This needs to be fixed. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Set some fields to "leave blank until known" comment

I suggest that the "perpetrator" and "assailant" fields (and maybe others) should say something like

assailant =

in the template (not that it will make any real difference to the edit-warrers). Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Remove 'accused' parameter?

An infobox offers unaccompanied bits of info, without context, i.e. dates, names, etc. In order to follow WP:BLP about relatively unknown people, whic directs us to seriously consider not including material —in any article— that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured, we should amend the infobox acccordingly. An out-of-context, stand-alone presentation in the infobox of the name of a person or persons being accused trespasses into the territory WP:BLP warns us off. The template should rid itself of this parameter altogether. -The Gnome (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed. This is basically just a variation of the |susperp= issue. TompaDompa (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• See Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings#RfC about info box accused = Brenton Harrison Tarrant, where the !voting is currently 5–3 in favor of using this field in that article's infobox. To remove support for the field, taking that decision out of the hands of editors familiar with the unique circumstances of an article, I would want considerably more participation than I would expect on this page. In my experience, discussion notices pointing to pages like this do not attract that level of participation. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

If you examine the RfC you mentioned, you will see that it is not about keeping the field "accused" in the infobox template but about naming the suspect in the field in that particular case. (The RfC question is quite clear about that, i.e. "Should [the name of the arrested person] be included in the infobox as the accused?") The general discussion about the field in the template is being, quite appropriately, tabled right here. -The Gnome (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware of what the RfC is about, and I strongly oppose your attempt to nullify that consensus and all others like it, past and future, based on the very limited participation you will receive here. The RfC now shows six editors who not only think the parameter should be supported but think it should be used in that article. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm honestly surprised this seems so hard to understand. Again: There is a specific case and a general case. The specific case concerns the recent shooting in a mosque and there's anongoing FcF about whether to have the name of the arrested in the infobox's "accused" parameter. I started this RfC aftern taking part in the specific case's RfC because in my opinion the parameter is flawed - and this is the general case. There is no attempt to "nullify consensus"! People might choose here to keep the parameter as it is and decide in the specific case to leave it empty. But nothing stops us from having a wider perspective from particular cases. This is all I'm doing. And you should accept this at face value and get on with offering your opinions either way, which are most welcome. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

We are somehow failing to communicate, but I'm at a loss to see where. If that RfC reaches consensus to use the parameter in that article, and you reach a consensus here to remove support for the parameter, how is it that you haven't nullified the RfC's consensus and all others like it? Upon the first edit to the article after the parameter is removed from this template, the field value will suddenly disappear from the article's infobox.

It's not that that is improper in itself, as the same is true about the removal of any parameter from any infobox template. It's just that this one should require more than a majority of a handful of editors to do so.

For example, the |religion= parameter was removed from {{Infobox person}} after a consensus to do so was reached in an RfC conducted at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), not a non-RfC discussion conducted at Template talk:Infobox person. The two cases are not entirely equivalent—the |religion= parameter was more controversial—but we're not talking about a trivial parameter either. This goes right to the core of content policy and needs wide participation to make sure we get it right. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed simplification: Non-fatal injuries → Injuries

"Non-fatal injuries" is verbose. Within the context of the infobox, and coming right after 'Deaths', it would be perfectly clear that 'Injuries' would refer to casualties that haven't died, so where's the point in adding 'non-fatal'? Let's keep it simple and short. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Change the "Non-fatal injuries" label to "Injuries". No-one has objected to the above proposal in a month. Deeday-UK (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 16:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Results of Village Pump proposal

Howdy hello! As an un-involved editor, I recently closed this RfC relating to this template. As I am not a template editor, I cannot make the concluded change, but hope that someone out there sees this, and can wrap things up. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: thanks. I have made the edit. I have also filed Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 57 to clean up the transclusions DannyS712 (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you please also remove "susperps" from the Usage and Optional fields sections. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@WWGB: The docs aren't actually protected for most (all?) templates, so that's something you can usually fix yourself if it's forgotten. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 November 2019

Please change the label for the number of people injured from Injuries to Injured to improve understanding of the data. Currently you cannot tell whether "Injuires 5" means that one person received five injuries or five people each received one injury, or somewhere between the two. "Injured 5" very clearly conveys what I think is intended for this field. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC) -- DeFacto (talk). 10:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done as this change was made without consensus, any request to revert will be accepted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 May 2019

Remove the |susperp= field per this discussion. TompaDompa (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I don't see consensus there, but I may be wrong. I suggest seeking official closure of the discussion by listing it at WP:ANRFC. DannyS712 (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion has been closed. See below at #Results of Village Pump proposal. TompaDompa (talk) 06:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 06:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, where is the discussion? I cant see it in the links. It is no longer there.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It has been archived. See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 160#Remove "suspected perpetrator" field in Template:Infobox civilian attack. TompaDompa (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Map

Is there any way a "pushpin_map" can be added, for those articles with coordinate data? Liverpoolpics (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Width

DannyS712 or MSGJ Is it possible to make default width equal to Template:Infobox person? This is a repeat request first asked Template talk:Infobox civilian attack/Archive 1 § Width 2 on 15 February 2007. Mitchumch (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Mapframe style maps

Does this template support the display of mapframe style maps? If not, would a template editor be able to add support? Those types of maps are a little easier to use and more flexible, as well. Headphase (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

"Attack type" field

In addition to terrorist attacks and attacks against civilians within conflicts, this infobox is being used on various articles about crimes against humanity such as genocides. On a number of these the way that the field |type= is displayed (Attack type:) doesn't seem to fit particularly well. For example, The Holocaust infobox reads Attack type: Genocide, ethnic cleansing and Uyghur Genocide reads Attack type: Forced abortion, forced sterilization, forced birth control, rape (including gang rape), forced labor, torture, internment, brainwashing, organ harvesting, killings. "Attack" just doesn't seem appropriate in these contexts to me, I think it would probably be better as "means" or "method" (or another synonym of "course of action"). Is it possible to change the field so it's simply displayed as "type", or one of my suggestions, or is a different/new infobox needed for these articles? Jr8825 • Talk 00:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Seconded. It’s off-putting, and sounds like a Pokémon card. UsersLikeYou (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Add optional fields for state and federal charges?

For example. Feoffer (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 July 2023

2601:642:4601:CFC0:44C4:B970:A06D:DFB2 (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Can I add the “| defender =” and “| defenders =” on the defender label as a it’s a formal term?

It’s this one: | label14 = Defender | data14 =

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. The request is unclear. Please edit the sandbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 November 2023

I think a "sentence" field should be added to this template. My justification is that this is already used in articles for several high profile terrorist attacks and mass shootings - see Christchurch mosque shootings or 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting, but must be done through an awkward and not intuitive infobox event, which is annoying for a relevant field that applies to most civillian attacks where the perpetrator is taken to court. Testcase shown here. Thanks! PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 Does the fact that it's used in articles already not count as consensus? What would count as consensus here? This is basically just standardizing something that's already used in a more convenient format. As WP:Consensus says, "Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly." The usage of it qualifies, IMO.

More examples of how this is used (citing only extremely high profile cases with well watched, developed articles):

• 2011 Norway attacks
• Parkland high school shooting
• 2019 El Paso shooting
• 2022 Buffalo shooting
• 2009 Fort Hood shooting

This infobox event being used in many of the infoboxes in articles where the perpetrator survived establishes consensus, imo. There is no conceivable pro to having to manually create an infobox event every time this has to be added. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no objections, but a proposal to add a parameter to a template should not be accompanied by an edit request template. That is why I deactivated the template. When a discussion results in consensus for addition of the parameter, feel free to reactivate the edit request template, and I will happily add the parameter. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah. That's fair, sorry, didn't know that. However, I am unsure where I should go to discuss this. A relevant WikiProject? This template page? PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussions about templates are usually held at the template's talk page, which is this page. You could post a note at relevant wikiproject talk pages asking for feedback and linking to this discussion. The feedback should be provided here, not at the scattered wikiproject talk pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Sorry for any bother. Re closing request until I can get consensus then. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)