Template talk:Infobox military conflict

This template was nominated for merging. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: No consensus, 9 April 2022, see discussion. Procedural close,, 22 June 2021, see discussion.

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Infoboxes This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles Military history This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Additional information: /  No existing task force includes this article in its scope; to propose a new one, please leave a message on the main project talk page.

See title: Is there a good reason for that extra line? If not I'd like it to go. Waste of space and slightly irritating. What do you think? ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ΟΥΤΙΣ, should be fixed now. Frietjes (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frietjes, this infobox is used on Insurgency_in_Punjab and one side looks wider than the other side of the conflict. Can you check what is the issue? Srijanx22 (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Srijanx22, if you search the wikitext for "nowrap" you will see that the "Central Reserve Police Force" line is not allowed to wrap. if you remove the nowrap, the sides will be equal. or, if you add nowrap to the other side, the entire box will be wider to compensate. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Frietjes for resolving the problem. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frietjes, the "Commander" subsection of the infobox used on Wars of the Diadochi has not equal levels. I tried to resolve it through manual enter and spaces but no avail. Can you please help to resolve the issue? Srijanx22 (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Srijanx22, I added abcd syntax for commander to match the abcd syntax for combatant, so it should work better now. Frietjes (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Frietjes for your kind help once again.🙂 Srijanx22 (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rules for the Result parameter seem to produce some problems in actual usage. The rules specifically state that an editor should avoid

...contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat"

(as an aside, why is this contradictory? It is not an infrequent situation.) This rule seems to be problematical in some articles, especially when editors ignore the advice of omitting the parameter if it cannot be completed with one of the permitted terms.

This has come up in Channel Dash, which is listed in the info box as a German victory, despite the sources (and the Aftermath section of the article) telling a more complex story that matches quite well with the concept of a tactical success but a strategic failure. In fact an important RS for the article specifically describes the event as such. The discussion can be found at Talk:Channel Dash/Archive 1#German victory or see aftermath in infobox result parameter?

For comparison, I looked at Dunkirk evacuation, where the Result parameter is not completed as per the template rules, but is, nevertheless, informative to the encyclopaedia user.

A problem with the template's rules is that the immediate result should be entered. That rule is completely invisible to the encyclopaedia user, so devalues the information that is put in the infobox.

I suggest that there should be some consideration of exactly how well the infobox and its rules for completion are working.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is for the barest distillation of facts. If there is any nuance beyond "X victory" or "Inconclusive", it is something best explained in the relevant article section. Having the rule set so simply avoids the otherwise constant arguing about how best to distil a complex result into an insufficient number of words to convey the correct meaning.

I don't see the "devaluation" that you suggest. We don't list more than the barest top level units or a summation of casualties in the infobox either. For them, like the results, more details are in the article body. (Hohum ^@) 22:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, on an article by article basis, if someone gains consensus on a satisfactory alternative wording, it may stick (or cause distracting, pointless arguments). The current guidance is, in my opinion, a good default. (Hohum ^@) 22:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment "If there is any nuance beyond "X victory" or "Inconclusive", it is something best explained in the relevant article section" would be very useful if it were part of the rules (and prominently so). They seem slightly less clear than that.

The "devaluation" that I mentioned is a subsidiary point - in short, if editors are following a rule that is invisible to the reader, it is difficult for the reader to take a full understanding of what is written unless the rule is totally intuitive.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the infobox instructions are what led me to my summary. Wikipedia rules and guidance are, depending on your point of view, all "entirely accessible" if you go look for them, or "invisible" if you don't. I don't think we expect readers to need to know the rules - what's presented in the article is what is important. For editors, obviously, the more you know, the better. (Hohum ^@) 23:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has come up in Channel Dash, which is listed in the info box as a German victory, despite the sources ... This is the problem with results for the infobox - particularly when editors try to distill a complex outcome into "simple" terms that are based their perceptions and which lack the nuance of what what a term might mean in different cases. It becomes a case of WP:OR. We must rely on what the sources say (quite explicitly) - not on what we think they are trying to say. Then there are arguments about who lost and by how much as different editors "push their view" as to why a particular result meets their perception of what a particular term means. Hence we have guidance based on the KISS principle because anything more complex invites original research. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS Dunkirk evacuation is a military operation and should be using Template:Infobox military operation/doc. Not a biggie that it doesn't but the "result" for an operation is different from the result for a conflict. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest in this and any similar situations, using "See Aftermath" and linking to the Aftermath section of the article. The infobox isn't the place for nuance. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And tons of nationalistic editors use this epic new rules as a way to enforce confusion in battle infoboxes by preventing needed precisions like "X Tactical victory and Y startegic victory". Or even worse, sometimes they turn, the whole thing into "See Aftermath Section" which causes superficial readers (and they are many) not to find out what the overall result is by a quick look at the box (which is the box's main pupose). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.150.142.207 (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can only assume this refers to your attempt to change "Mexican victory" to "Tactical Mexican victory; successful French delaying action". I have no sympathy whatsoever, as it's clearly an attempt to obfuscate the actual result by claiming some minor French overall strategic victory (that isn't even mentioned in the main body of the article, never mind properly referenced), instead of simply focusing on the actual result. FDW777 (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template is in great need of standardizing. A consistent set of guidelines needs to be established for this template in the near future. A few examples of inconsistency:

• WW2 and American War for Independence features flags for all leaders, but doesn't feature templates such as   or  
• Seven Years' War and Napoleonic Wars not only features flags for all leaders, but unlike the previous examples features templates such as   and  †
• Comparing the documentation of this template and Battle of Lutzen (1632) which the example uses, the documentation of this template features flags for all leaders, but the actual page does not feature them.

Which example(s) are correct? This lack of standardization is confusing for editors who are trying to work to improve the articles on this website, and likely may cause confusion for readers as well. If these are different use cases, then perhaps the Template should be split to reflect that. Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 06:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This reflects choices made by the editors in those articles, and I'm not convinced that strict standardisation would be helpful. I'm highly familiar with the WW2 infobox, which has been very extensively discussed over the years, and the use of flags is the result of a decision to keep the infobox very simple by not also listing the main countries and the use of graphics next to the leaders has been judged inappropriate given how FDR, Hitler and Mussolini died. I don't see anything wrong with diversity given that this infobox is used to cover an extremely diverse range of conflicts. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the word "pyrrhic" be included in the section 1.1 (Parameters) of this guideline as a non-standard term? There are several examples of articles still using it in the "result" parameter in their infoboxes, here some examples: Battle of Malplaquet, Battle of Callinicum, Siege of Ostend and Battle of Perecué.----Darius (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If sources clearly specify that an action resulted in a Pyrric Victory, i don't see a problem with that. Likewise, if sources clearly specify that an action was a Tactical Victory for one party but a Strategic victory for another i don't see a problem with that either. The problem becomes where individuals inject their own opinions into the article.XavierGreen (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue if there is a strong consensus among reliable sources for a particular description. But it needs to be that, not just one source or no source at all. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not disagree with the criterion given by Peacemaker67 but these are exceptional, in that few articles will achieve such a standard. DagosNavy, I have looked at the four links and perhaps, only the Siege of Ostend comes close, in that it cites four sources to support the claim that it is a Pyrrhic victory - but this is from over forty sources cited? Furthermore, there is a matter of definition. In this case, it was not so much the physical losses but the financial loss to Spain that causes this perception and undoubtedly, disease was the main victor in terms of casualties (as often the case of a siege). There is too much nuance in such "non standard" terms that can be misleading. Given the total number of sources on the subject and the nuance of this case, I would tend to describe the "result" in the infobox as "Spanish victory (see Aftermath)", since it is a qualified victory. This is the crux of the guidance, notwithstanding that many instances of non-standard terms will be the result of WP:SYNTH as to "who won and by how much" without any clear reference to sources. I hope this helps. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's already covered by the proviso "Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical" - "Pyrrhic" being even less standard. However, adding it specifically would cause no harm (imo) and prevent some edit warring. (Hohum ^@) 16:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be good if we tweaked the instructions to say "Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal", "pyrrhic" or "tactical" unless this is clearly supported by the majority of reliable sources". No template doc should ever be so restrictive that it deprecates what the reliable sources say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hohum, in my observation, most edit-waring occurs when editor/s apply WP:SYNTH to justify the use of a non-standard term when sources do not explicitly use the term or, perhaps one or two sources do but it certainly does not meet the exceptional criteria proposed by Peacemaker67. To example: "do you accept that sources can be summed up as a "decisive victory" even if those precise words are not used, or do you insist that the precise phrase is used in the sources?"[1]. The position by the proponent was the former. Peacemaker67, I do not think you would intend to support the former? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67, my initial response to your proposal is that the present advice was arrived at after extensive discussion that was broadly notified. The case you would remedy is an exceptional exception, while many less rigorous than you would see any degree of permission as an excuse to engage in WP:SYNTH. The infobox, by its nature, does not allow to explain the nuance of such terms. However, the deprecation of such terms in the infobox does not mean that the sources should not be represented in the lead, where prose can convey such nuance. When "decisive" was recently added to the list of deprecated terms, Hawkeye7 pointed that it is an anachronism in modern scholarship. The crux of the present guidance is to say: if there is any qualification to the degree of a victory, we should direct the reader to the article (ie - victory X: see ...) rather than use a term with a degree of uncertainty in meaning to the reader or nuance in meaning by the the writer. The option of "victory X: see ..." does not misrepresent the sources. However, any degree of permissiveness is likely to result in a misrepresentation of the consensus of sources by unintendedly encouraging WP:SYNTH. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Peacemaker67 (if you want to know my opinion).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"x victory

• Treaty of x" Is this allowed to use on the infobox? Doesn't say anything about it. Please ping if you reply. Beshogur (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beshogur, the result parameter is for "who won" rather than for consequences of the conflict. So, in short, no. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The template currently states of adding countries as combatants/belligerents: "This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict". Although this should be sufficent enough for most cases, there was a recent discussion on the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war article where this criteria may need some clarifying. User:Flalf suggested the need for a more consistent policy.

Turkey's armed forces participating, and the war being organized by Turkish generals, have both been reported by the Armenian government and the Russian newspaper Kommersant.[2] Large western news sources like The New York Times and Reuters generally took a neutral stance: 'Armenia claimed, Turkey denied'.[3][4]

However, even with Turkey's armed forces participation being currently disputed, Turkey was still involved in many confirmed ways that could be argued make it a belligerent. Turkey recruited, armed, and deployed thousands of Syrian mercenaries that fought on the front lines. This has been universally acknowledged by many large reliable sources,[5][6][7] despite Turkey denying this as well.

The European Parliament made the following statement:[8]

Strongly condemns the destabilising role of Turkey which further undermines the fragile stability in the whole of the South Caucasus region; calls on Turkey to refrain from any interference in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, including offering military support to Azerbaijan, and to desist from its destabilising actions and actively promote peace; condemns, furthermore, the transfer of foreign terrorist fighters by Turkey from Syria and elsewhere to Nagorno-Karabakh, as confirmed by international actors, including the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair countries; regrets its willingness to destabilise the OSCE Minsk Group as it pursues ambitions of playing a more decisive role in the conflict

In addition, it is also universally acknowledged that Turkey has armed Azerbaijan with drones, fighter jets, and other technological and artillery weapon advantages that decided the outcome of the war.

Turkey's role in the war has been described as "vital",[9] "crucial",[10] "critical",[11] and "direct".[12]

Al-Monitor stated: "The Azerbaijani military could not have reclaimed territory lost to Armenia in Nagorno-Karabakh without Turkish military support."[https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2020/12/t urkey-erdogan-iran-russia-syria-biden-trump-saudi-arabia.html] Stratfor stated: "The presence of the Turkish fighter aircraft ... demonstrate[s] direct military involvement by Turkey that goes far beyond already-established support, such as its provision of Syrian fighters and military equipment to Azerbaijani forces."[13]

Should the policy include other ways than a country's armed forces being confirmed to take part? Such as if that country supplied combatants that weren't part of it's official military, the country's military vehicles or weapons are used to support one side, or if that country is cited to have had a major role in the conflict? --Steverci (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, where support is provided by a "third party", it is common to show this as "supported by". this has been done in the article referred to. When it becomes contentious as to whether the "support" reaches the threshold of becoming a co-belligerent, we must rely on independent reliable sources and a consensus in such sources (deliberately plural). While this doc has some status as a guideline (through it generally defers to the broader P&G of weight, verifiability etc), you raise a specific issue that is more generally covered. In this instance, the question is whether Turkey reaches the threshold of being a co-belligerent. This is resolved by the sources (per my previous) or, if there is doubt, the the solution is to use "see X section" where the involvement of Turkey is more fully discussed in the body of the article. The other place to raise the distinction wrt to Turkey is in the lead. An infobox is brief and cannot capture nuance of this type. Therefore, I do dot think this is a matter to be addressed wrt the guidance provided by the documentation for this infobox but a matter to be resolved at the specific article - taking into account the P&G that is relevant (as I have indicated). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally, editors have added map detail to the infobox using these parameters:

| coordinates = | map_type = | map_relief = | map_size = | map_marksize = | map_caption = | map_label =

Each editor decided on which map to use in terms of resolution, quality and in most cases, maps have traditionally been jpg or other raster images. We have moved beyond raster images and dynamic, scaleable, vector based maps are now the norm. Is there any way in which we can integrate the { {OSM location map} } features into this infobox; initially as an optional item and possibly later, depreciating the use of raster based maps? See an example at Battle of Goose Green where OSM location map is used, but is not part of the "infobox military conflict" template.

OSM location map parameters are described at Template:OSM Location map Farawayman (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is a required parameter. Is it possible to have a "nil" entry recognised? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, this infobox only allows "commanders" to be listed, which can be problematic for certain cases where someone played an important role without having direct command. For example, many medieval battles involved titular leaders who didn't directly command; or figures such as bishops who sometimes served as a nominal leader but obviously were not military commanders, as well as certain religious figures who had some influence on strategy but without formal command. I've done some Lua programming and hence I could add new code to allow other categories or a more nuanced method of handling "commanders". GBRV (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know people use the {{KIA}} template all the time. But can {{Assassinated}} template be used for instances where a general was assassinated years later by the opposing side, and reliable sources believe that this assassination was a direct consequence of his role in said conflict?VR _talk 18:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific example in mind? It sounds confusing. Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like something that should be left to the "aftermath section". Cinderella157 (talk) 07:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D, yeah the example I had in mind was Operation Mersad. It was an Iranian victory, but the opposing side came back 11 years later and assassinated the Iranian general responsible for the victory, and at least one reliable source connects the assassination to the battle. Per Cinderella157's feedback I've now removed the template.VR _talk 13:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the template docs " this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." In Lwów uprising some editor is opposing Soviet victory and insisting on "Polish and Soviet forces together capture Lwów, afterwards Polish forces imprisoned by the Soviets". The Soviet totally defeated both the Germans and a day or two later the Polish forces. The Poles were disarmed, some fled, some defected, a total Polish defeat. Can a conflict infobox expert please examine this?--Erin Vaxx (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I recently imported this template for my homewiki (sqwiki) and was a bit surprised to find the template being a full wrapper for the module. I've dealt with a lot of infoboxes recently and this is the only one that fully acts as a wrapper with no code on itself apart from the invocation. Even though I'm a Lua fan myself, has there even been considered to have the infobox have a classical wikitext approach (while also lightly relying on the module)? If the current approach is deemed "mandatory" (my opinion would be to follow the wikitext approach like most, if not all, the infoboxes do) can we consider making a /config module subpage that allows for translation of the labels? - Klein Muçi (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Klein Muçi Not sure I understood your question, but if you wanted to translate the input (or replace wholesale with a different language) would TemplateData be an option? That's independent from the template's invocation. See Wikipedia:TemplateData and is stored counter intuitively in the Template:Infobox military conflict/doc section. See what I did for {{Infobox organization}} as an example here ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah, correct me if I'm wrong but TemplateData only facilitates the VE use of the template and doesn't do much on the other cases when editing "the traditional way". Yes, my goal is to translate the template and I don't know where to do that. I can find it while playing a bit around with the module but I was really surprised by what I saw and thought that maybe the community itself would be interested in changing the current state to either a traditional wikitext approach like 99% of the other current templates or add a configuration subpage (or section) to Module:Infobox military conflict that serves only for translations purposes. But if no one is interested in doing any of the proposed changes and this "exotic" approach is preferred, I'll just have to experiment a bit with the module to find out the parts where I can translate it myself. Or if someone with prior knowledge can help with that, some detective work may be spared. - Klein Muçi (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Klein Muçi yeah then I misunderstood you, so disregard my earlier advice. It is worth noting this specific Module is translated in 46 languages so you could more easily distinguish spoken text from code (which tends to be english) e.g. see No:Modul:Infobox military_conflict. That also means any rewrite will have wide ramifications for all the different language communities. Hope that's a helpful lead. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah, oh, yeah! That's great advice! I've been dealing with importation and localization for more than 2-3 years now and somehow I had never thought of that before. Thank you! I'll deal with it locally then given that there isn't much interest to do changes here at the moment being. - Klein Muçi (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this is its own module is because is one of the few (maintained) infoboxes that simply was never converted to use infobox/infobox3col, as can be seen in the documentation. At some point it might be so (and probably by/around the time that the core infobox styles are in TemplateStyles), but that day is not today. In the meantime, it probably should have a config file clearly laying out potential translation points. I can maybe help with that sooner rather than later. IznoPublic (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno, if you get to work on it, please let me know to update accordingly. I translated our local version yesterday using Shushugah's advice (basically it was just wikitext lines + 190-200 lines) but having a config section or file is a better option. - Klein Muçi (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Klein Muçi and others watching this page, I think I've done this. Please take a look at the sandbox and try it out locally as desired. Izno (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And specifically, the config page allows both translation of arguments as well as translation of a bunch of other stuff. It's missing the location map l10n treatment right now. Idk how useful this is totally, though I've done it elsewhere (e.g. at Template:Navbox). --Izno (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno, very useful I'd suppose considering we had no infrastructure whatsoever for localization before this. Thanks a lot! I'm waiting 1-2 days if anyone else has something else to add before importing. Do you agree on changing the 1l8n term to something less technical on the config. file? - Klein Muçi (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see a reason to. The name of the table makes it obvious what the table is for. Izno (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno, my prejudice is that in general people from outside EnWiki, especially from small wikis are less technically involved and therefore informed than people at EnWiki. Or better said, even if there are lot of uninformed people here, the community is big enough to be able to find enough people that actually are able to solve the problem, whatever it is, something which unfortunately isn't true on other wikis, especially small ones, which usually have only 1-2 users dealing with everything "non-article related". I thought "i18n" can be considered a rather obscure term for those environments, if Lua isn't considered obscure altogether on its own. And instead of it we could have something like "Parameter_Translation" or something similar or maybe keep "i18n" with an added comment below. Given that it is a section that's of interest only in communities wanting to piggyback of EnWiki, which are the communities I described above. - Klein Muçi (talk) 11:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If people can't do the basics of Googling the abbreviation, there's not much I can do about that. As for "parameter_translation", that's obscenely long and inhibits the readability on the code side. Izno (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno, that was just a first thought. It could be "para_trans", etc. But no problem. Let's keep it like that then if you insist. I'll deal with the importation for my homewiki. Thank you again! :)) - Klein Muçi (talk) 11:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the Commanders and leaders section of the infobox, is it considered standard to include constitutional monarchs with limited to no political power? I raise this question in reference to the infobox at International military intervention against the Islamic State, where Elizabeth II, Philippe of Belgium, Margrethe II of Denmark, and Harald V of Norway are all included in that section. (Yes, I am aware that other contemporary monarchs in other parts of the world, and monarchs of the past, may exercise or have exercised political power to a much greater extent and thus ought to be listed in the infoboxes for their respective wars.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: no. Slightly longer answer: we ultimately rely on the sources to determine who are the commanders. Practical advice: for a major conflict, we would include the "controlling mind" of a nation. For the US, this would be the president. For the UK, this would be the prime minister. For major battles within a major conflict, we would also include the "controlling mind" for the theatre or campaign. In general, we would list the senior commander that "fought" the battle and some (but not necessarily all) of their immediate subordinates. We might also list the immediate superior of the senior commander if they significantly influenced the outcome of the battle. Hopes this helps, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's the answer I was hoping for. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Example: The very complex battle structure of the French Invasion of Russia is described in the {{Campaignbox French invasion of Russia}}, a list where Klyastitsy is equally important as Borodino and Prussian, Austrian and Napoleon's battles are mixed up. An approach containing the same information but in a structured way is missing. This can easily be done by adding a new parameter like Structure that behaves exactly like Notes and adding this(shortened, see my sandbox for the full version):

Ruedi33a (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HiRuedi33a, this is probably not the place to discuss the issue since Template:Campaignbox French invasion of Russia is quite separate from this infobox. It could be discussed there but if you want to get more input, it should probably be notified at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history‎. The campaign box should be in chronological order and I'm pretty certain there would be a strong consensus for this. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This might be the right place to discuss it, due to me reverting several attempts to add to this infobox. See for example Fire of Moscow (1812) where there's an attempt to add the collapsible list at the top of the infobox. This isn't the first time we've had similar problems with this editor.... FDW777 (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a discussion at MILHIST. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Template:Infobox military conflict has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:

{{subst:tfm|help=off|type=sidebar|1=2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine infobox}}

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. DownTownRich (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The discussion is closed Terasail^[✉️] 10:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does the "parameter causalities" refer specifically to human casualties, or can non-human casualties be included? For example, the Gombe Chimpanzee War lists the chimpanzee casualties. In the specific case of the 1859 Pig War, should the casualties include the pig (the only casualty) that was killed which sparked the entire war/dispute? WombatP (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WombatP, I have briefly looked at the article. Casualties include both killed and wounded. It was a "largely bloodless war" with no humans killed but there are no reports of the number of wounded? It might therefore be misleading to report in the infobox that the only casualty was a pig. Given the infobox is part of the lead, there is also nuance to this that would best be dealt with in the prose of the lead. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was working on an article and saw that someone had included this as a parameter but that it didn't display (because it isn't a listed parameter; don't think it used to be in the past either). I was thinking that it would be a good parameter to include though. Even though a bunch of casus belli(s) used in history are bullshit (rooting out "nazism" in Ukraine, Mukden Incident, Shelling of Mainila, Gleiwitz incident, etc), I think it's useful information to have in the infobox. If nothing else, it helps keep things in perspective when you compare what the belligerents do compared to what their original professed reason for fighting was. Thoughts? Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 02:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jasonkwe, per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, an infobox should be an "at a glance" summary. It is unlikely that a casus belli could be summarised in a handful of words and therefore, it would not be consistent with the purpose of the infobox. An infobox is a supplement to the lead. It does not capture nuance. Nuance and detail better belongs in prose of the lead. Also, there are many poor examples of infoboxes that try to write too much. We should not try to write the article in the infobox. MHO Cinderella157 (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinderella157 Hmm, that's true. I understand. I was interested in it because I felt that the casus belli often gets buried in the article or weirdly glossed over or not mentioned; like the article will mention everything about the when, the how, the different propaganda formats used to convey the cause for fighting, but somehow doesn't include the why. Or it's in a very weird place that the average reader wouldn't look toward. I'll try to revise or fix that as I can (within the body of the article). Thanks for explaining that. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 16:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasonkwe: casus belli used to be a parameter, but it was removed in 2007, see previous discussions:

• Module_talk:Infobox_military_conflict/Archive_3#Casus_belli_field
• Module_talk:Infobox_military_conflict/Archive_2#Casus_belli
• Module_talk:Infobox_military_conflict/Archive_1#Remove_casus_belli?

The problem is that it's still very much in use, despite being ignored thus hidden: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%2F%5C%7C+%3Fcasus%3D+%3F%2F&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1

Therefore, either the parameter should be restored or its invocation should be removed in all articles (hopefully by a bot). fgnievinski (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cinders, it's too complicated for the infobox and invites polemic. Fgnievinski is right too, away with it. regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't edit much in template space, but I know the rough mechanics.

There's clear a use of argument subtitle in the template implementation, and no appearance of subtitle in the alphabetic parameter check list.

This seems to be a simple omission.

Page Operation PX is complaining about this, but there's no evident fix at that level. — MaxEnt 16:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment at the subject RfC.

Might a case for 'non-combatant_header' and 'non-combatant1' to 'non-combatant99' be added? The example is Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#How_on_God's_green_earth_has_Ukraine's_"Supported_By:"_section_not_been_added,_still? A reader is looking to add Supporters for Ukraine. They are not belligerents. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a simple question regarding this issue: While most entries claiming a "pyrrhic victory" are being duly removed (see latest contributions by user Tarletonic) according to military conflict infobox guidelines, is there any reason to keep that non-standard term on the Siege of Ostend article's infobox? Thanks in advance.-- Darius (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is an old but still open discussion at the article's talk page. An edit removing pyrrhic was reverted. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The mobile site usually rearranges the lead section of an article to put the infobox below the first paragraph, so that some text is always visible when the page loads. At Carnatic Wars this process is failing. The campaignboxes seem to be the culprit: if you remove them, the infobox gets rearranged as expected. This is especially weird given that campaignboxes are hidden on mobile. Hairy Dude (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The template instructions say to "Refer the reader to an appropriate section in the article or leave the parameter blank" if the facts are disputed or controversial. The problem with that instruction is that WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE warns against linking from the infobox to the article, as that function is already carried by the table of contents. I think we should just leave the parameter blank. No link to a section within the same article. Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It says to avoid links, not never use them. I think we do avoid it where the result is simple. Since the result of a military conflict is a key piece of information, it seems like a useful courtesy to link to a relevant place in the article. Also - not having a results entry will probably cause it to be re-added repeatedly. (Hohum ^@) 22:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you view it as ignoring the rules then it is a case of WP:IAR that can be justified as it gives an alternative for when the result is nuanced. Without this alternative there would be a lot more editor conflict. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with that but we should not be providing advice in contravention of a guideline. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Er, but that is exactly what we do in our infobox usage instructions: "In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section")." Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This advice was first added in March 2009 [14] as a result of this discussion and an earlier discussion here. The subject instruction was not added without significant project input. The guidance at WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE states, to [a]void links to sections within the article but continues, the table of contents provides that function. If the TOC does not clearly point to the relevant section (ie there is no result section), then the rationale to avoid such a link is not met. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The current template directly contradicts that by recommending a section link. It should be revised or removed. Better advice might be to add a “Results” section if there isn’t one, instead of using the infobox as a poor replacement for the TOC to link to whatever serves as a poor replacement for a results section.  —Michael Z. 17:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, the relevant section would be titled "Aftermath" or "Analysis". Anyway, linking may technically violate WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, but Result is one of the primary parameters people will look at in this infobox, and providing direct link to section where it is discussed is the most comfortable solution for reader. Also, looking at the practical side, Result is usually filled, and people will expect it to be filled, so when left completely empty it is very likely to draw attention of people who see this as an error to be fixed.--Staberinde (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant an article section entitled “Results,” automatically providing a TOC link. Other titles work too. If you’re putting a section link in the infobox, you are literally providing a redundant TOC entry in the wrong place.

I’m not saying never link, but exceptions should be exceptional.  —Michael Z. 01:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether those commenting are familiar with the many articles that have complex and/or disputed outcomes/results. I have often edited in such areas over the decade or so I have been contributing here. A link to the results section in such cases has often proved to short circuit streams of TLDR on talk pages and incessant edit-warring. Some of us are sick to death of the latter, and I am all for any outcome that helps reduce it, and couldn't give a rat's whether it offends some guideline. No guideline trumps common sense. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should add a caused by or casus belli parameter. Many other wiki's have it included in their conflict template and it would be useful IMO. PalauanReich^🗣️ 19:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is something not easily and simply summarised in a way consistent with an infobox (per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE) and IMHO best left to prose in the lead. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few weeks after consensus was established opposing a write-in “Supporters” heading, we have a proposal to get around it by renaming it “Arms suppliers” (at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine #Rediscussing the Arms Suppliers Infobox proposal).

Any objections to adding a line to the docs discouraging this general practice? —Michael Z. 19:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The doc was amended following the RfC. I see changing "supported by" to something else (eg "arms suppliers") to be contrary to the spirit and intent of the RfC. Though not quite as problematic as the former, it still has issues of inclusion criteria and definitely leads to infobox bloat (re WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). No objection from me. Suggest amending: The practice of writing in a "Supported by" subheading is deprecated (see discussion) to The practice of writing in a "Supported by" subheading (or similar terms for non-belligerents) is deprecated (see discussion). Cinderella157 (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Issues of inclusion criteria can be alleviated if "Arms suppliers" contains the amount of arms (in estimated USD) supplied per country, ordered from greatest to least. Done like that there should no ambiguity as to which suppliers are notable, and one can even set a threshold for inclusion such as "providing 10% of total arms supplies or greater." Dazzling4 (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(WP:NOTABILITY doesn’t mean dollar value.)

Anyway, such a proposal should be made as an RFC to add a new parameter to the infobox, because some of us would consider it contrary to the consensus on a write-in “Supporters” subheading of “Belligerents.” The argument should address WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE.  —Michael Z. 15:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced discussion has been archived at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 15#Rediscussing the Arms Suppliers Infobox proposal.  —Michael Z. 15:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is conforming with the "result" doc non-negotiable afterall? And, if it is negotiable, what does it take to get a non-standard term in the infobox?

Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Coutinho (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is negotiable. Firstly, discussion that led to this wording was hardly decisive. Secondly, guidance on an infobox template DOES NOT trump the WP pillar of verifiability. If a result can be verified by reference to the clear academic consensus on the outcome of a battle or War etc, then whatever that consensus is can be put in the infobox as the result. But it needs to be cited to the reliable sources that support that consensus. Of the academic consensus is not clear, then “See Aftermath” is appropriate, and the nuances can be discussed there. Just remember that template guidance and even MILMOS is not holy writ or the Ten Commandments. Where there is contention, discuss it on the talk page of the article and thrash it out using high quality academic sources. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Though in this case such nuanced explanation should be present or linked in the documentation. Because as it stands now, editors will continue to get a false sense that it is a hard rule and may use such interpretation inadequately. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, I take it, you are referring the template's documentation page and what it says about the result parameter. It also seems that you have in mind specific instances, so there is context to this question that may be important. What is this context? What I have found is discussions at Talk:2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive and an RfC there Request for comment on infobox "result" parameter, which you opened and is still active. Consequently, this has the appearance of WP:FORUMSHOPPING and should have a speedy procedural close. Peacemaker67? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is that. However, it is yet another example of how the current wording is unhelpful. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? What does context have anything to do with this legitimate question/concern? I thought that people were relying on an erroneous interpretation of this template's documentation there and consequently I do have a specific page in mind (which doesn't bring up any inconsistency). But I also wanted to edit this template's documentation to make it clear whatever came out of this RfC (which is evidenced by my first reply). Furthermore, the discussion there was quite unsatisfactory in terms of neutral/uninvolved engagement. What better place is there to really understand the nuances of this contentious template parameter than here? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's interrogate the reason why the norms are what they are: in general, infoboxes are meant to be a concise summary of the body of an article. Part of ensuring this concision is using them consistently throughout Wikipedia, lest no one be able to expect that an infobox means roughly the same thing within any two articles. If there are interesting details or nuances to the result of a battle, they are at home in the actual body of the article. This is universal to every parameter any infobox may have. If an infobox needs footnotes, that's very often a sign that the infobox is being misused to do something it was not designed to do.

Having established this, in my mind the only "negotiation" that may be necessary are additional options. (The "Pyrrhic" suggestion I have often seen would not seem justified, imo.) The appeal to WP:V above confuses me, as this isn't a question about verifiability, it's broadly more about WP:NPOV—e.g. avoiding potentially confusing, fancrufty, or otherwise POV descriptions in what is meant to be a standardized presentation, when in reality it's very unlikely that the result of any given battle is so special or beyond the pale that it should fall outside the present options. Remsense诉 04:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of ensuring this concision is using them consistently throughout Wikipedia, lest no one be able to expect that an infobox means roughly the same thing within any two articles. I don't quite understand this argument. I view that an infobox can still be very concise and clear despite not using a standard term. I'm not talking about dozens of alternative terms. Just basically a couple more. when in reality it's very unlikely that the result of any given battle is so special or beyond the pale that it should fall outside the present options. Well, when this infobox is used to describe operation-like conflicts (group of battles), the standard terms often aren't the most adequate. "Failure" or "success" tend to be favored more by sources, for example. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I view that an infobox can still be very concise and clear despite not using a standard term

Of course, but in the context of a collaborative encyclopedia, I feel the present norm would be worthwhile on the "guideline" level (i.e. overrides local consensus all else being equal, but allows for the use of deliberation and the use of common sense in line with the spirit of things when exceptions crop up) though it's not presently enshrined as one.

"Failure" or "success" tend to be favored more by sources, for example. I could see this. Remsense诉 05:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with failure or success is that they are not necessarily reciprocal - ie the failure of one party does not ipso facto mean the success of the opposing party. There then arises an inherent issue of NPOV - who do we consider to have been successful and who failed? On the otherhand, I would point to Template: infobox military operation, where the success or failure is viewed from the perspective of who planned the operation. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that if we were to contemplate the extension of the usage of {{Infobox military conflict}} for operations, then the perspective to base the success/failure result should be from who planned it. The issue with failure or success is that they are not necessarily reciprocal if we wanted to tackle that, wouldn't it always be fixeable by appending the classic See §Section to the result? Considering the POV argument you raised in the end, would it really be a problem to potentially only show a partial/one-sided result in the infobox? Wouldn't it actually be good to have a somewhat standard option to characterize an unwanted/unacceptable draw? What always comes to my mind are well established history articles on operations like Operation Barbarossa, which says Axis strategic failure.

So it seems that the underlying issue is the gap in functionalities and guidelines between the {{Infobox military conflict}} and {{Infobox military operation}} templates. The former has more functionalitites and design advantages overall, while the latter I think has a more flexible guideline, more suitable for operation-like articles. I'm starting to believe that a major restructuring of them is needed. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would draw attention to the close of the RfC at Talk:2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive which directly relates to this RfC. A consensus there could have determined to report the result in terms of an operational success or failure and ignore the advice here (ie WP:IAR) but it didn't. The closer specifically considered this question within the spirit and intent of the guidance here. There are many issues with assessing whether a military operation is clearly a failure or a success. As Helmuth von Moltke observed, no plan survives first contact with the enemy. Consequently, operational objectives are initial aims and there may be several objectives which may change (ie become fluid) in response to the changing situation on the ground. Against which objectives do we assess success? Are the objectives actually know? The actual objectives might well be different from what is publicly reported for propaganda reasons. There are degrees of success or failure. What degree of success or failure should be reported as a success or failure in the infobox. Of course, all of the answers should not be our conclusions but the refection of reliable sources. As the closer of the other RfC observed, there is nuance to the outcome of the Ukrainian counteroffensive when considered as an operation (as represented by the discussion at that RfC) and therefore a see aftermath result represented the consensus of the discussion even viewed in terms of operational success rather than victory by one side - the closer has applied the spirit and intent of the guidance in considering this alternative way of describing the result in the infobox.

This RfC has posed a very general question for which it is difficult, if not impossible to answer without more specific context. As the discussion has progressed, it is clearer that you do have a much more specific intention in mind. Is gaining a very broad general answer based around WP:VER and WP:IAR any clearer for any particular instance? If there is a particular proposal, it should be stated instead of this beating around the bush. However, whether there would be anything to be gained by making such a proposal (ie is making a specific proposal going to be a productive use of time) should be weighed in the light of the other RfCs close. Also, any proposal should be formulated through discussion, either here or at MilHist. My view is that this RfC (as framed) isn't particularly useful. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I would like to point out that that RfC was mediocre at best. Its biggest problem was the lack of a comprehensive and focused review of sources, which would have helped it escape the cherry-picking pitfall. Then, there was the timid participation and apparently lack of deep knowledge of these core principles/concepts we are talking about here. I believe that if I had the foundation I have now, the debate could have been quite different and perhaps more fruitful. Thus, I wouldn't count on that RfC too much and I also intend to redo it depending on what conclusions come out of this (if a real issue is found).

and ignore the advice here That's why I think it's important to find a definitive fix for this issue. If we have a very robust set of guidelines and rules, then we have a solid ground to contest particular decisions that deviate from the norm without exceptional explanation (and new deviations would become less likely too). Of course, all of the answers should not be our conclusions but the refection of reliable sources. Exactly, that's why all such operation result summaries should be based on arrays of reliable sources. One should quantify the amount of sources that consider the result of the operation as overall success, failure, or inconclusive. Then all the nuance (if there is), which you questioned in the statements prior to the one I quoted, would be explained in a dedicated section. the closer has applied the spirit and intent of the guidance I would agree that they had the right spirit, but unfortunately they and we didn't have much info/sources to work with there. That's why inconclusive seemed to be the right decision then. I would also like to point out that the closer does not appear to be completely uninvolved as judging by their stated proficiency in Ukrainian and Russian, they're likely Ukrainian or Russian.

Regarding your last paragraph, that's the issue I'm trying to tackle: inconsistency. By endorsing particular discussions regarding this overall debate, we allow for inconsistent interpretations of the currently seemingly incomplete guidelines. That is, depending on the editor bias (or lack of bias) composition in each particular discussion, the debate might sway more towards the hard-line interpretation (if it suits the overall majority), or it might sway towards a more flexible, general interpretation founded around WP:V and so on. That's obviously not good.

That's why I'm leaning towards a potentially more radical and general solution which is bridging the gap between the two templates mentioned before. I.e. the documentation could make a clear exception for operation-like articles to use alternative terms like success/failure and tactical/strategic IF AND ONLY IF there's general consensus among sources to characterize that (which is already done in multiple history articles). I hope it's getting clearer where I'm getting at.

I would also suggest explaining a bit more in the documentation how to reach and show a consensus in sources (maybe link to a dedicated guideline page?). I've seen a couple of times already discussions derailing into the cherry-picking pitfall. This is especially problematic in discussions about the result of a battle/operation, since it involves a great deal of value judgement and there will always be contradicting sources. This obstructive pattern would probably be greatly minimized if there were specific guidelines against it in the relevant documentation sections. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexiscoutinho, the present guidance is quite robust and it does eliminate the quibbling about who won and by how much. I am not saying that they are perfect or ideal for every circumstance. If you have some particular ideas on how to improve the guidance, then this is what we should be discussing. Let's start with one particular thing you would change and see how this goes. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the present guidance is quite robust Seeing how doubts/debates about it keep popping up every now and then, and how some articles seem ok with using non-standard terms while others not, I would argue it's not robust enough. If you have some particular ideas on how to improve the guidance I do, and I've already hinted them:

1. the documentation could make a clear exception for operation-like articles to use alternative terms like success/failure and tactical/strategic IF AND ONLY IF there's general consensus among sources to characterize that.
2. explaining a bit more in the documentation how to reach and show a consensus in sources. In other words, a guide on how to verify consensus using the method you described in the first Battle of Bakhmut RfC.

Alexis Coutinho (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly support these two suggestions, especially the second one. Remsense诉 22:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[S]ome articles seem ok with using non-standard terms. There is WP:NODEADLINE. Such articles exist for a large part because they have been written in isolation from scrutiny by the broader community - ie it is not a fault of the guidance but an ignorance of it or an unwillingness of certain editors to follow it. Where I said Let's start with one particular thing you would change and see how this goes, I was suggesting/asking that we have something more concrete to discuss. What actual words and where? I don't see a place for strategic/tactical. These are too nuanced for an infobox. The guidance and the discussions formulating that guidance has specifically identified not to have them. Guidance from the broader community on how to assess consensus of sources might be appropriate but how would it read and where would it go. In opposition, I am sure some would argue WP:CREEP. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed armed conflict infoboxes lately have been missing this section, and I came here to find it was decided to be deprecated. Trash decision, and now sadly many existing articles have been stripped of important information and new articles lacking the same. In some cases this has led to some strange inconsistencies in belligerent sections, such as the 2023 Israel-Hamas War including the Houthi movement but not the United States (both are militarily involved overall and neither are involved in the actual theater of the war). If there was an issue with it being a subheading under "Belligerents" it could easily have been separated. If there was an issue with bloat or space, an expandable/collapsible button would have sufficed. If there was an issue regarding confusion on the nature of the support, categories could have been listed underneath. The concern that it was too vague regarding the "amount" of support (i.e. arms supplies) is nonsense, considering that individual belligerent groups vary greatly in size/impact/involvement. This was a very sad and disappointing decision, and helps to keep readers less informed about foreign involvement in wars. And not including it in new articles is one thing, but historical conflict articles did not need to be butchered by this poor concensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.125.255 (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate information can still be added to the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a minor sin if it is one, but is linking the start and end dates to the epochal moments à la Thirty Years' War proscribed? Remsense诉 11:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I see no good reason to. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the ambiguity I helped introduce—do you mean "It's fine" or "I don't like it"? Remsense诉 11:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the documentation that would suggest adding these links (ie sending to an article about a particular day). However, on closer examination the code is: [[Bohemian Revolt|23 May 1618]] – [[Peace of Westphalia|24 October 1648]]. WP:EASTEREGG applies and should be removed. I have done so at Thirty Years' War. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Remsense诉 03:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like we've already started to see the consequences of wholesale removal of "support sections" from infoboxes, but BogLogs's concern about improvements being done on a case-by-case basis seems pertinent. Major changes to the infoboxes of articles should not be made without discussion and consensus in the individual articles' talk pages. What's happening now is that support sections are being deleted in cases of "drive by" edits by contributors who are otherwise uninterested in the nuances of the specific conflict and simply cite the discussion here as a rule, while refusing to engage in contextual discussion. This is problematic. Katangais (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The community consensus is to not use "supported by" except in exceptional circumstances and where there is an affirmative consensus (ie RfG) that an exception is warranted. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read the RfC. My point stands that this becomes problematic when the RfC is regularly cited as grounds for removal of the support box but there is no willingness to discuss possible exceptions. It should be made clear that the above RfC in and of itself is not a substitute for nuanced discussion with other contributors in cases where the removal of the support section may not be supported by consensus. --Katangais (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with you @Katangais: Some articles are worse off for the indiscriminate removal of such. I would have opposed on the RfC.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 02:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In a general sense, the "guidelines" on specific fields in this infobox have not been decided by strong consensus, but driven by particular editors, some of whom then go around deleting the contents of those fields because they don't strictly conform with the guidelines or by way of "enforcing" the guideline. This is singularly unhelpful and frankly, tendentious, and I wish they would stop doing that. Eventually, a pattern of behaviour in this regard will be obvious, and someone with enough time will start taking the behaviour to a drama board. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The |result= field is a nightmare. Can someone please make it stop? I am constantly having to revert (mostly IPs and SPAs) who declare their side VICTORY! And they go on and on.. causing IP blocks, page blocks, etc.. it never ends. This is one of the worst infobox fields on Wikipedia. The word "victory" has no place on Wikipedia, in wiki-voice, without a longer explanation that an infobox can not provide. "Victory" is too emotive, unclear, subjective - it's imprecise. Even when a side clearly won militarily (often unclear), did they really "win", when there is also civilian, cultural and economic destruction. Or taking a longer view of the history aftermath. It is debatable. And so people revert and change.

We can still list immediate results: signing a treaty, refactor borders, etc.. precise and unambiguous information. But trying to encompass all that into a single subjective word that will make both sides happy is fraught. The docs should clearly state no victor/victory is defined by the infobox. It's the only way. -- GreenC 18:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The template guidance is pretty clear. If it's anything other than a well sourced, simple immediate result of "X victory" or "Inconclusive", the result should be empty, and/or refer to the relevant article section.

If reliable sources say it's victory, we are guided by them. I don't think that is emotive, unclear, subjective or meaningfully imprecise.

If the result parameter is removed from the template, the edit wars will just happen in the article body and lead instead. (Hohum ^@) 00:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are multiple words or bullet points better than a single word? They are not for the purposes of an infobox. Of course it's subjective, it's a historical analysis. Each permissible characterization tends to be extremely verifiable in sources, where the adumbrating, hedging, cherrypicking, and general warbling editors love to commit to the |result= parameter constitutes just about the worst disinformation Wikipedia has to offer on a regular basis. Remsense诉 00:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Were you advocating a solution? (Hohum ^@) 01:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Status quo; perhaps entertaining the notion that "victory" etc. is no less WP:V than any other claim made in an article. Remsense诉 01:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is in the result parameter must reflect the academic consensus established in the body of the article. If there isn't one, then the best answer in most cases to use "See Aftermath" and go through the nuances in the Aftermath section. It really isn't that hard. The IP and SPAs will still do what they do whether there is a result parameter or not, they'll just do it in the lead or wherever. Just revert them and if they continue, request blocks or semi-protection. I'm always happy to semi-protect articles subjected to this sort of nonsense. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK I will try deleting the results field from the problem articles. An empty results field is a welcome mat to add something. No results field might slow them down. BTW I am referring to IPs and red accounts who could care less about documentation, rules, sources, etc.. -- GreenC 00:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pain, but I would be wary if a link to the results section is objectively a better option. I appreciate the relative frequency of vandalisms in this particular parameter, but I'm not convinced it's worlds apart from people changing flags etc. Maybe it's worth investigating an edit filter for IPs/new users fiddling with the result parameter? Remsense诉 00:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete "problem" results without discussion, just start a thread on the talk page. More than half of the issues that arise with this infobox guidance on results is that some editors are too keen to make every article comply as if that improves Wikipedia. Nothing is broken, tread lightly. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, save that surely editors should be somewhat keen to rewrite parts of an article with guidelines in mind? Issues would arise when the reaction is to treat the guideline as irrelevant bullshit, rather than acknowledge and work with it. Maybe I'm naïve there, you would know better than I. Remsense诉 06:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly would not delete |results= without opening a talk discussion and also checking the body of the article to see if it's supportable. -- GreenC 04:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that if a field (eg commanders) is populated for the belligerent on the left side of the box (eg commander1) but not populated for the right side (eg commander2), no dividing line appears to distinguish the columns. Can this be remedied? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Module talk:Infobox military conflict § Edit request 7 October 2024. There is a proposal to add a "native_name" parameter to the infobox. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should casualties claimed by opposing side, and WP:Verifiably covered in a source, be included in the infobox, even if they are disputed? In many wars/battles casualty claims are often war time propaganda (eg "we killed thousands of your soldiers while suffering no losses"), and in some cases they are criticized as being too unrealistic/fantastical by WP:INDEPENDENT reliable sources. Nevertheless, one could argue that WP:NPOV requires us to present all sides, and the claims made by one of the belligerent parties are WP:DUE at that article. So in which cases should we, or should we not include such claims? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there is a parameter does not mean it needs to be populated. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is for key facts summarised from the article. It is unsuited for nuance which is best left to prose. The situation you describe is probably best left to prose - ie a section in the body of the article for casualties. Regardless, casualties should be reported in the body of the article. Good quality sources may give slightly different values but not so much that there is an apparent discrepancy. This can be reported in the infobox as a range. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]