Module talk:Infobox military conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Template-Class)
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)

Result starting with bulleted list[edit]

Great October Socialist Revolution
Location Petrograd, Russia
Great October Socialist Revolution
Location Petrograd, Russia

The result parameter sometimes starts with a bulleted list but then the first asterisk is displayed as an asterisk because whitespace is stripped from the parameter and the asterisk doesn't end up on a new line. The first example shows it. The caller can fix it by adding something non-displayed before the asterisk and newline like the second example but many editors don't know this so a fix in the module would be better. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, yes, this would be easy for Jackmcbarn to fix, you just need a ':newline()' before the wikitext (see Module:infobox). Frietjes (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter and Frietjes: Yes check.svg Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Another image[edit]

Would it be possible to add another image parameter into the infobox? Uspzor (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


This infobox is used in some Putsch-articles, but IMO the infobox could be for these cases improved with a simple change.

A putsch is a (para-)military action against a weak government and often its effect is more based on the political correlation of forces than in military forces or deployments. Furthermore, the modus operandi is the principal factor to defeat the institutional (weak) order.

Hence, in order to improve the informative value of the infobox we should add an "action" row to the table and divide the "strength" row in a "Political Support:" and a "Military Support:" sub-rows. The best solution, as I believe, requires only few changes in the lua script, see Module:Infobox military conflict/sandbox.

Please take a look to the three infoboxes below. The three box contain exactly the same information.

  • The left one uses the existent features of the current infobox. The "action" information is within the "notes" row, and the pol. and mil. support information are given with simple <br/>s and '''s within the "strength"-row.
  • The box in the middle uses a new row "Action" in the head of the infobox, between "Location" and "Result". The pol. and mil. support information are given with simple <br/>s and '''s within the "strength"-row.
  • The box at the right uses the new row in the head of the infobox _and_ two new rows instead of the traditional "strength" row.

I would prefer the infobox at the right side:

  • It is clearer, the information is easier to find. I think, few readers would look for "Action:" at the bottom of the box, because of its importance.
  • the new code [2] doesn't interfere with the old templates.
  • the rename "Government-Insurgents" is a option of the current infobox

You can see other examples in User:Keysanger/sandbox3. I would like to know your opinion about other possibilities, the proposed change. --Keysanger (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Keysanger, thanks for starting this. Of the three, I prefer the one on the right; I'm not a big fan of the "strength" sub-header. My only concern is that the "action" parameter might become too wordy; but really, that's not something we can fix with the template. Also, could the header show in some way that this was a non-standard change in government, rather than a military conflict? Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Every information given in a infobox has its problems and must be considered as an approach to the issue. For example the date. It is not seldom that military deployments begin one or two days earlier. Also the strength of a military unit is only a number with no information about its effectiveness, etc. Let alone about political support, often they say we support you but go away just now!.
Yes, the "action" parameter became too long. But taht will be a problem or the editors as you said.
Yes, we can set the parameter "combatants_header" to "Government-Insurgents   ", with three non-blank spaces to center the string. The main name of the infobox is given by the parameter "conflict"
I had also a "Foreign Intervention" row, but, at least in my 6 examples in my sandbox, there were too few cases were we could use the row. I deleted it from the lua snippet. --Keysanger (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
At first sight the proposal looks good. As far as I understand the modification of the template will allow a better description of coup d'etats with the templates. Regarding the military support I'm not really sure how to interpret that. During coups small groups might engage physically while they claim a wide military support (which if successful might be validate but if it ends in failure might be denyed). Take for example the tanquetazo in Chile 1973. If this coup would have been successful the coup-makers would perhaps have claimed that that they enjoyed widespread support from the Chilean army, but since it ended in failure it is usually considered that it lacked real support. In the cases of coups and putsches I would suggest to define support strictly to avoid the "joining the victory parade effect". Dentren | Talk 23:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
It looks good for me. Although, if I may suggest, do keep the "Strength" subheader. As Dentren said, there might be physical clashes, say, the Bombing of Plaza de Mayo (check the Spanish article). It was a failed coup attempt, but the loyal forces did battle the bunch of traitors... ehr rebel forces. They lost 9 grenadiers and 5 police officers, whilst the rebels suffered 30 casualties and 3 warplanes were shot down — not to mention the hundreds of civilians.
There were sporadic skirmishes during the next three months, and certain cities of military importance saw heavy fire after the real coup took place on 16 September.
And there's no need to mention what happened in Chile... LlegóelBigotee (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you Keisanger! I think that the one on the right is the best infobox! -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I request that following changes, approved by consensus and very simple, are merged in the source code of the Module. --Keysanger (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Keysanger, done, could you update the documentation? Frietjes (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I updated the doc. Thanks to Vanamonde93, Dentren, LlegóelBigotee, Nick.mon and Frietjes. It was a pleasure to work with you. --Keysanger (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Keysanger. Your work is much appreciated. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Mark option[edit]

Would it be possible to add this to the module/template:

| mark = 
| mark_width = 

An example of how that is in use on an infobox map is Travis Park. — Maile (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your requested changes to the module's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Probably possible if you put it in the sandbox and make sure it works on the testcases. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, since I have no idea how to do any of that, I think this pretty much tosses the request out. — Maile (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Maile66 use |map_mark= and |map_marksize= Frietjes (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Frietjes Tried it. Does not do a thing on the Battle of Refugio. Looks exactly the same size 8 red dot as before I changed it to size 12 triangle. — Maile (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Maile66, try reading what I typed :) Frietjes (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Facepalm3.svg Oh, for goodness sake! I mis-typed it. Mucho gracias. — Maile (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Casus belli field[edit]

Adding a field for the cause of war would be a useful addition. Reigen (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree. People try to over-simplify in infoboxes far too much already. Causes of war are usually complex and multi-layered, not something easily summed up in a phrase. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Casus belli usually refers to "official" cause of war, rather than the actual cause of war, which means that it could actually be simplified. A belligerent may have ulterior motives, but the casus belli is usually reasonable or even noble. Reigen (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

If there is a discussion in the past about not having the "cause" or "casus belli" field in the infobox, then it would be very helpful if such omission is noted in the doc page of the template along with a link pointing to it. Unfortunately I don't know where the discussion is archived, so can someone familiar with the development history of this template do a favor? --Quest for Truth (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

In response to the above, the "official" justification for a war is usually one-sided propaganda. I don't accept the need for such a field in the infobox template, it will just add to edit warring and POV-wars. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox policy and fictional conflicts[edit]

Could we make it explicit policy somewhere to not use this infobox for fictional conflicts? I hope that most people who are working on military history issues in Wikipedia are in consensus with me in that it should be applied to historical, real conflicts and conflicts whose accounts are contested but arguably have some sort of basis in reality (e.g. the Trojan War).

I'm working on a research project whose ambitious goal is to try to mine interesting patterns in the human history of conflict as represented in this wonderful repository of knowledge, Wikipedia. We've already had to weed out conflicts from the Lord of the Rings and Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica because people are (in my opinion erroneously and incorrectly) using the military conflict infoboxes to describe fictional conflicts. We've already moved several steps into the analysis and we just happened to notice when sifting through this rather large dataset with a fine-tooth comb that the Ottoman Empire was being flagged as active in 1941. Obviously this was completely incorrect and after some backtracking into the bowels of the parsing algorithm we noticed that an alternate history novel's page was using the military conflict infobox. This was slightly trickier to catch because the info in the infobox was referring to real world entities.

I know there are a lot of interpretations of Wikipedia philosophy and a friendly philosophy of openness but on behalf of researchers who are doing wide-ranging research on Wikipedia as a body of knowledge (because over the decade it has proven to be a wonderful and interesting object of study) I implore Wikipedia policy makers to be more consistent about template usage and the boundary between reality of fiction. That being said, could we consider incorporating strengthening the recommended circumstances under which this infobox can be used? Vqmalic (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. I see no reason that we should prohibit infoboxes for fictional things, and I see no reason that we should create another template that's completely identical to this one, but just for fictional things. If this is a problem, we could instead create a "fictional" flag and a second wrapper for this module. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. I see plenty of reasons why we should prohibit infoboxes whose established usage are dedicated to historical events. I'm obviously no Wikipedia admin, but I think first and foremost of those reasons is established Wikpiedia practice. In particular, WP:WAF-INFO. There's a reason why James Bond uses the character infobox and Sean Connery uses the person infobox. If the fictional war in Settling Accounts is a military conflict (and it's not because its a fictional military conflict), then James Bond is a person. James Bond has a birthplace and a birth date, he has an occupation, he has a nationality, an employer, etc. If I go and edit the James Bond page right now and replace the character template with the person template, I'd expect for the sake of consistency that no admin would come and undo my update. WP:WAF-INFO indicates that infoboxes on works of fiction should contain data pertaining to the context of that fictional work, which is why the Infobox on the James Bond page indicates his creator, depictions, and appearances, and not his age or height or birthplace or any of that. Settling Accounts is a fictional military conflict, so it should be treated differently than an historical military conflict, in the same way that James Bond, who is a fictional person is treated different and in the same way that Atlantis and El Dorado do not sport geographic coordinates and settlement infoboxes. Just because a separate infobox doesn't yet exist for fictional historical conflicts doesn't mean that creating one won't make it more consistent with already-well-established-practice vis-a-vis characters, fictional locations, fictional organizations, and a ton of other boundaries between the fictional in the real that have been reified dozens of thousands of times all over Wikipdia. Unless, well, inertia. Vqmalic (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Vqmalic and Jackmcbarn: I actually just came to this talk page to make a proposal related to this issue, and I found this discussion. My proposal, which I will make below, is that an infobox be created for both fictional and real-time virtual world battles (there aren't enough notable examples of the latter, I think, to warrant a separate infobox).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

problem with insertion of picture[edit]

Hello, in the article Battle of Samarra (2004), the insertion of the picture "BatonRouge2.jpg" look to fail because of the infobox: the picture can be printed only after the end of the infobox. Any idea about how to fix that? Wikini (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not an issue with this module. It's an issue with floats in general. I set up a reduced test case at [3]. I'm still trying to work out a fix. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
fixed Frietjes (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Image size[edit]

Please, set the image size to 300px by default to save people the time to modify that. - Owain Knight (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to create a separate infobox for fictional conflicts[edit]

I propose that a separate infobox be created for fictional and virtual world conflicts. Right now we have battles from fictional works such as Star Wars, The Chronicles of Narnia, and The Lord of the Rings, and a real-time virtual battle from the video game Eve Online, just to give some examples. I came here to make this proposal, and in doing so found that Vqmalic, in an above discussion, makes a very good case why this should be done (the data-set for research project was being skewed by an military conflict infobox for an alternate history novel). Below are some ideas I had:

  • Most parameters would be the same (location, combatants, results, etc.) However, the infobox should be a different color, if only slightly, for differentiation.
  • Add the following parameters, which could be filled as needed: Universe (Star Wars, LOTR, Dune, Eve Online, etc.); Creator (either a specific author, such as Frank Herbert, or a publisher/company, such as CCP Games); and Adaptations (list of select adaptations in film or theatre, or novelizations from film or theatre)

Those are my ideas, and I'd welcome more. I'd go ahead and create the template myself, but I a) wanted some feedback as to the parameters to include and what color the infobox should be, and b) am not confident in the coding for such a template.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

  • In point of fact this has been raised before, although in each case the idea was tabled on grounds that the use of the military history conflict template in fictional articles doesn't cause any major problems. That having been said, if you guys want to re-discuss this, feel free to do so. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    TomStar81 It has caused fairly significant problems, recently, according to Vqmalic. See their convo a few threads up.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 07:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    I'd say that Vqmalic's case is specific to research. I do not think this is per se "a significant problem", though it may agreeably be said to be a "a problem". I think TomStar is commenting from the POV that use of this infobox in the fictional context does not cause problems with vandalism, seems fairly fit-for-purpose, and all-around does its job. (I would pre-emptively agree that addition to this template of fictional in-universe data fields, or data describing the fictional world from an out-of-universe perspective, would be out of scope, so that means we would need a new template. See also comment below.) --Izno (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • My personal concern is that it may make a fictional conflict seem too in-universe? Or, it's treating a fictional conflict on the level of a real-world one? I also generally wonder if most of these conflicts meet notability requirements warranting an article, in turn warranting an infobox. But that's a different issue. I don't really have any other more in-depth thoughts than that at the moment. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 05:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems a bad idea to use this infobox, or anything closely resembling it, for fictional battles on the grounds that they're, well, fictional. I don't see how the infobox would be helpful to readers in those circumstances. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    We use infoboxes for fictional characters, such as James Bond and Jabba the Hutt, as well as fictional objects, creatures, etc., so there is precedent for an infobox. The design should be different from the battle infobox, I agree. That's a reason I suggested adding the parameters I listed above.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • My concern lies along the same lines as TTP's as well as (somewhat) Nick-D: primarily, this information is too WP:INUNIVERSE. There might be a usefulness in using something like a generic {{infobox fictional event}}, but one dedicated to battles whiffs of being too-in-universe. --Izno (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    I'd say this is a good idea. The in-universe objection is one I don't quite understand; if you're talking about a fictional battle, how else but in-universe would you discuss it? (I had the same question about the history of Bolan.) I also think using the real-world infobox for fictional battles is a bit odd, if not quite a mistake. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    The in-universe objection, well as I'm interpreting your statement, is that using an infobox meant for a real-world conflict for a fictional one may "[treat] it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis." As it stands, because this infobox isn't meant to deal with a fictional element, it doesn't allow one to include real-world context. I have no idea how to make a template, but I've seem to have figured out how to make a mock-up of one? (I'm not sure if I did it properly though.) It's mostly drawing from the example of Template:Infobox fictional location, and that's all the necessary parameters I could think of at the moment. It's located at one of my subpages (permalink). Now, should there be a consensus to create one for fictional conflicts / events, I personally propose this is the direction it go into. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    I think that there should be some summaries of the conflict in there, but I like it otherwise. Personally, as a reader, I'd like an infobox that broke down the basics of a fictional battle, with the fictional location, forces involved, etc.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, just the same as a reader might want all the details of the 501st Pokemon... but we don't provide that information because we think it's not encyclopedic. --Izno (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    It's not encyclopedic to summarize the article content in an infobox?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    Basically, as long as the coverage in the infobox is a general overview of the article, I don't see a problem with including combatants, fictional date fought (with comparison of real-time date, if appropriate), location, commanders, units involved, and casualties. All these could be put in a "details" section below the information about the fictional universe. This isn't every little detail, but an overview of how the battle transpired, and if this info is placed below that detailing the fictional nature of the event, I don't think that will mislead readers.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    I actually do see a problem, which is the point I'm making: No-one unfamiliar with the topic cares or has an understanding of that information, and we are writing our encyclopedia for the generalist reader, not for generic X-fan in X-fandom who wants the details of the battle. Such interested users have any variety of pages (most-often external wikis) available to them for what essentially amounts to fancruft. As I said before and below, {{infobox fictional event}} makes sense; {{infobox fictional military conflict}} does not (amusingly blue-linked there, from some enterprising editor earlier this year). --Izno (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
    This Wikipedia reader, for one, is interested in the details of fictional battles that I'm unfamiliar with, which is why I'm arguing for them. I respect your right to disagree, and that's why I'm trying to establish a consensus, so that a template can be agreed on.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

    Indeed, that's the objection explained (or nearly so; I might have a quibble but it's minor).

    I agree, this is the direction to go, but it should be general to any fictional event, because I think there may be other articles that benefit. The template being general also helps us avoid falling into the trap of including a large number of primarily fictional paramters, which I can think of another template which has issues with.

    It's not much further to creating a template that any page can use: just swap the information you put in e.g. This sexy description of cosplayers for {{{1|}}} or {{{caption|}}}. --Izno (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I have two objections, though I would not mind in-universe templates.

  • "Most parameters would be the same (location, combatants, results, etc.)" Would not this be a duplicate template and covered by essentially the same WikiProject? War novels and military fiction are already covered by WikiProject Military history.
  • "However, the infobox should be a different color". If the color is the only real difference, it would be invisible to color blind users. Dimadick (talk) 06:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I've reconsidered the different color idea. I actually would prefer a template with similar parameters as those of the military conflict infobox, but with additional information about the fictional background. With most parameters being the same, it would be a very similar template, I agree. However, additional details, such as the author/creator, franchise/fictional universe, and adaptations of the conflict from the work it originally appeared in. These could be given at the top, and thus indicate the fictional nature of the conflict. Also, one of the problems with using the current template is categorization. A different template, even a very similar one, would not be categorized in the same way, and thus difficulties such as that Vqmalic encountered, where use of bot-assisted data collection is skewed, would not happen.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Nature of proposed template for fiction[edit]

Starting a subheading because I'm losing the train of thought because the conversation is continuing in the middle of the thread instead of at the end. Summarizing what we have so far:

There's obviously a conflict here. 3family6 is proposing a template for specifically fictional conflict closely mirroring that which currently exists for real-world conflicts. (Izno has pointed out that, funnily enough, said template already exists: Template:infobox fictional military conflict (talk links edit). (I actually laughed. I personally never checked for it, and it wasn't categorized properly, but Izno fixed the cat problem.) Dimadick points out that having a template for fiction mirror this one to closely may create an overlap and defeat the purpose of having separate templates. 3family6 states that the addition of real-world details "such as the author/creator, franchise/fictional universe, and adaptations of the conflict from the work it originally appeared in" would differentiate the two templates as would problems of categorization.

Izno objects to a template that mirrors the real-world one too closely: "No-one unfamiliar with the topic cares or has an understanding of that information, and we are writing our encyclopedia for the generalist reader, not for generic X-fan in X-fandom who wants the details of the battle. Such interested users have any variety of pages (most-often external wikis) available to them for what essentially amounts to fancruft."

I, for one, agree with Izno. I feel that things like strength numbers, commanders, casualties and losses is too much WP:Fancruft. If it's significant enough to mention, put it in the body of the article itself. I support Izno's earlier proposal of a more generalized {{infobox fictional event}} as opposed to one specifically for wars and conflicts. My mockup of a proposed template (permalink) is designed with this particular suggestion in mind, as that is the proposal I support and thought best. I've added two non-military fictional events to the mockup as examples. (They're not exactly notable fictional events, but that's not the point here.) At the moment, the only parameter I could think to possibly include are: other name(s) (if somehow, the event is notably known by other names, whether in-universe or real-world) and location (if significant, or there's one single location). Also, I personally think there's a more elegant phrase than "[Source] narrative event" but I just really wanted to stress that it's fictional.

It seems between the few of us in this discussion, the conflict isn't necessarily whether there should be one, but whether it should be for specifically conflicts (and then how in-depth that should be) or for more general events. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I think your mockups are an excellent start at a generic fictional event infobox. It might make sense to structure it like Template:Infobox character (or an interesting derivative) which makes it obvious whether content is fictional. There are a few fictional parameters that I can think of that might be well-added, namely fictional location. Potentially also fictional date. I'm not sure if an "appearance" based parameter makes the most sense, since we are looking for an event or a series of events to be infoboxed. (Basically, I don't want the Red Wedding to have a "last appearance" sorting.) Nor do I want a list in the infobox. #musing --Izno (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
As far as appearance based parameters, the idea was actually appeared, not mentioned. i.e. an infobox for the Clone Wars wouldn't attribute first appearance as A New Hope even though it's mentioned twice in it, if the Red Wedding had lasted--to make up numbers--from season 2 episode 4 to season 2 to episode 7, those are the only episode episodes to appear in the infobox, even if it was mentioned for every single episode after from season 2 episode 8 to season 12. That'd be explained in documentation, with hope. I don't have any particular attachment to the parameters, so I could nix them if they're really unwise. I'll add in a fictional location and date to the mockup later. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • As stated above, I support keeping all the military parameters, but with details about the fictional background included. If this is deemed too detailed, I would settle for "part of" (if relevant), "date," "location," "territory," (if relevant) and "result." Also, some of my considerations for this are because I've proposed the same template for fictional battles and virtual battles. If we get more articles on virtual battles, they probably should get their own template, as they are significantly different. Virtual battles have an element of reality, as the participants are real people, but only simulating combat.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Need help, the name of commanders not appearing in an my infobox for a certain battle.[edit]

In my sandbox, I wwas trying to add the Wallachia and Moldavian commanders in the Battle of Khotyn and some other commanders of the Ottoman Empire, yet their name is not appearing. Here is the page it is the Battle of Khotyn, you have permission to edit it as you see fit, I need help urgently. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. It was a stray pipe - "|" - that was messing up the syntax for the wikitext.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I hate to bother you again, but I have another problem, on here. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The Siege of Kiev in 1482 to be exact. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 09:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Asterisk white space[edit]

A small offset occurs when an asterisk is added, which happens to be shown in the example on Template:Infobox military conflict/doc. The asterisk for Catholic League adds a little white space above the Holy Roman Empire, causing it to be uneven with Sweden on the other side. Can this small offset be fixed or is it an unavoidable part of the code? Spellcast (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding :css('position', i ~= 1 and 'relative;top:-6px' or nil) below :css('padding-left', i ~= 1 and '0.25em' or nil) aligns it for me but whole right side is lifted up so alignment of cells/parts (first items) below is broken, so no solution yet...--Obsuser (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I know such a small space may seem trivial in the example. But I first noticed this when editing and previewing an article where the difference becomes way more pronounced if one side has several bullet points but the other one doesn't. Spellcast (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Result parameter contradiction[edit]

The guideline for the Result parameter limits choices to "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive", yet the example gives the result for the Battle of Lützen as "Swedish Pyrrhic victory". Isn't this a contradiction? If so can it be fixed, please? FactotEm (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal re: Result parameter - bullet points[edit]

I propose that the explanatory wording of the Result= parameter be amended to include an explicit permission for the use of bullet points setting out major consequences of the battle. As some of you will know, there has been tranch warfare on Battle of France for longer, now, than the battle itself took, and which in part hinges on whether bullet points are peritted in the results section. A discussion on bullet points, above, on this page, passed without anyone asserting that they're forbidden.

Bullet points are found in the results section of many articles, including, for instance, these FAs.

An initial proposal for the wording is to append a sentence "use of bullet points to summarise key outcomes is permitted." --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Opposed, I suggest that they be removed from articles for obvious reasons. Keith-264 (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Obviously a reasonable idea that is already in common use. I have cited another half-dozen examples on the Battle of France talk page already. DMorpheus2 (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can tell the last change to the template documentation, discussed here, was designed to reduce the potential for disagreement by restricting the the number of choices available for the result parameter. If adopted, this change will reverse that course, and increase the potential for conflict and edit war whilst offering little advantage in return. It's also my opinion that infoboxes should present only the most basic, at-a-glance, factual data, and the type of information often presented in bullet point form actually belongs to aftermath and lead sections - I'm not sure that information creep in the infobox is a positive step. FactotEm (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
All systems to organise information create anomalies and boundary disputes. It seems to me that the three choice limit is designed to make people choose for the sake of brevity and when this is insufficient, to resolve the anomaly by linking to the article, where matters are discussed at greater length. Citing FA articles with bullet points as a precedent creates confirmation bias, since no-one has counted FAs without them. I've changed my views on them several times and settled on See Aftermath section, since I think that's what it's there for. Keith-264 (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I forgot to mention, that the other way to resolve a discrepancy, is to have no entry in the result criterion. Keith-264 (talk) 10:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The infobox is a blunt instrument that beats nuance to a bloody pulp on the altar of brevity. Its raison d'être is brevity, and I think any attempt to shoehorn nuance into it is nothing but a gateway to conflict (a mistake I have made myself before now). Keith, I think you're seeing the world in all its colours, but the infobox is a black/white thing. I don't like it either, but we're stuck with it. FactotEm (talk) 11:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
That's what I wrote, how could you interpret it as the opposite? Bullet points are nuance by the way. Keith-264 (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Basically agree with Keith and particularly Factotem about infoboxes being a blunt instrument. I've used "See Aftermath section" in several Milhist ACRs, and even a FA (I think). Bullet points would be a backward step and will just encourage disputation over something that should be explained properly in the lead and aftermath sections. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Change "result" parameter to "outcome"[edit]

We have a growing problem that |result= is being misinterpreted as if it were "|results=", i.e. any/all effects of the outcome of the engagement in question (according to often conflicting sources, or just editor viewpoint), rather than the outcome of the conflict, the actual purpose of the parameter. The template clearly calls for specific, formulaic wording, but it is being misused to shoehorn entire lists of supposed "results" into infoboxes. This raises all kinds of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR problems, defeats the purpose of an infobox, and causes conflict. (See, e.g., the disputatious RfC at Talk:Battle of France, where it is very clear that this exact misinterpretation is in play.)

This can be resolved and prevented by renaming |result= to |outcome=. More specifically:

  • Add |outcome= as equivalent to |result=.
  • Update the documentation to refer to this parameter as |outcome=, and clarify the purpose of the parameter if possible.
  • Use a bot to change all deployed instances of the template to call |outcome= instead of |result=.
  • Remove the |result= code, leaving only |outcome=.

 — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that people are trying too hard to ignore the straitjacket of the result criterion but outcome is a synonym of result so I doubt that it will make any difference. I suggest we keep result and add to the criterion notes what result isn't, which says (inter alia) no bullet points and no use of decisive in the sense of big. [NB I have a conflict of interest re: B of F.] Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
They're not synonymous at all in this context. The outcome of a war or other conflict is one side lost, or there was a compromise/ceasefire, or they annihilated each other, or something of that clear "just the facts" nature. A "result" of such a conflict can be anything any scholar or pundit publishing in, or quoted in, a reliable source imagines as a consequence (in whole or in part) of that outcome. The "I can put anything I want in this parameter as long as I can find any RS anywhere that suggests a causal link of any kind" misinterpretation of the purpose of this parameter is the source of most if not all editorial strife on the matter. (After all, it's rare for the actual outcome of a war to be questionable; no one – not even a crazy neo-nazi – argues that the Axis powers really triumphed in WWII, or disputes that the US pulled out of the Vietnam war and North Vietnam won against South Vietnam, or that the UK defended their claim to the Falkland Islands in the 1982 naval dust-up with Argentina.)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
You can't dictate context to people, its subjective; far better to gloss the result by pointing out what is isn't, than to create an untenable distinction between synonyms. This is an example of a word being inadequate for the meanings being loaded on it. I agree that the parameter is being misinterpreted but some admins etc have taken the line of least resistance and scapegoated me for pointing out the bleeding obvious. They will have to move before editors in the wrong will get constructive pressure to perform. Notice the conspicuous silence that has followed your comments here and on the BofF talk page.... Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I think "outcome" can be interpreted to mean not just who's doing a dance when the violence ends, but also what the consequences are, and will actually lead to the opposite of what you are hoping to achieve with this proposal. I think the template documentation clearly restricts us to 3 primary choices, with 2 options should none of those 3 be suitable. The problem evident from some of the responses in the BoF RfC that explicitly refute these restrictions is that the documentation has no authority, and addressing this might do more to clarify the intended purpose of the infobox than semantic changes. FactotEm (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Did I read something about Beans somewhere?Cinderella157 (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I think in most people's eyes "result" would equal "outcome", no matter how hard or how badly you wanted people to interpret these two parameters as different from one another. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
What he said... the words mean about the same thing. How about "Victor" or "Winner/Loser" or "Immediate Result"... I dunno. Herostratus (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
"Result" is a better known word for English learners than "outcome".
By the way, wars have no winners... --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
While I agree with SMcCandlish that people can't understand the meaning of "contested", especially when the one-line quote they just got from a 10 seconds Google search >>must<< represent the worldwide view of the subject, the first reaction when I glanced at the word "outcome" was exactly opposite of his proposition, as Factotem had explained. Unless everyone got a dictionary learned by osmosis, the only way to solve the problem would be a parameter that accept only combatent1, combatant2 or indecisive as a result, I don't know if this is technically feasible although. Bertdrunk (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd support it if it were feasible. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Inadequate "partof" parameters[edit]

A fashion seems to be developing for omitting, from the "partof" parameter, dates of conflicts which need to be distinguished by date, presumably because it looks neater. I think this is a bad idea because, although the link from the "partof" text will link to the correct-dated larger conflict, the purpose of infoboxes is to be at-a-glance helpful.

For example, a non-specialist reader who had heard of Francis Drake and the Spanish Armada, referring to events in the 16th century, would be somewhat confused by the use, in the infobox for the 1779-81 Gulf Coast campaign, of "Part of the Anglo-Spanish War". Did it really last over 200 years? No.

I urge editors to leave the dates in, in parentheses: "Part of the Anglo-Spanish War (1779–1783)" (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a problem with the template, but with the Gulf Coast campaign article, which is, as you point out, not indicating which Anglo-Spanish War it is talking about.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't meaning that it was a problem with the template per se, but that more and more editors seem to be (from my viewpoint and apparently, in the example given, also yours) wrongly omitting distinguishing dates from the "partof" parameter, in numerous articles. I'm reporting it here to get some idea of whether this tendency which seems wrong to me (and worth amending wherever I encounter it) is in reality not wrong (and therefore worth reverting wherever I amend it). (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
You are in the right. In the case of the Gulf Coast campaign, the previous version piped the link so that the date wouldn't appear, even though the date appears in the linked article's title. I cannot see a valid reason for this. Please, if you find more instances like this, amend them.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I've made a start! (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)