Template talk:Infobox military conflict

See also: Module talk:Infobox military conflict

Infobox display: empty line between "Location" and "Result"

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)

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

One side looks wider

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)

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)

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

Infobox display: Both sides aren't at equal levels

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)

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)

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

rules for Result parameter

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

The "Result" rules are stupid to say the least

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)

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)

Template is in need of standardizing

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)

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)

Use of "Pyrrhic victory"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Issue

"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)

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)

Criteria of combatants/belligerents

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)

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)

Use of maps in the infobox

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)

"Place" parameter

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

More options than just "commanders"

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)

Assassinated template

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)

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

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

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)

Result in Lwów uprising

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)

I18n

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

Commanders and leaders

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)

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)

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

Add a structured element instead of a plain campaign list

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):

Structure

• • Napoleon's main army
    • Smolensk Borodino Moscow Berezina
  • Macdonald's Prussian corps
    • Riga
  • Schwarzenberg's Austrian corps
    • Gorodechno

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

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)

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)

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

Edit request to complete TfD nomination

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)

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

The 1859 Pig War and non-human casualties

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)

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)

Cause or casus belli parameter

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

Missing parameter check for subtitle

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)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC about exceptions to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and commanders/leaders in Template:Infobox military conflict

Please comment at the subject RfC.

Support a 'non-combatant' parameter

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)

"Pyrrhic victory" once again...

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)

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)

Campaignboxes causing infobox to stay above first paragraph

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)

RfC on "supported by" being used with the belligerent parameter

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to deprecate. With the strength of argument on both sides being equal we assess consensus by considering the level of support among the community, and in this circumstance there is a clear majority of editors in favor of the proposal.

However, editors must note that this does not constitute a complete ban on such sections in infoboxes, with even some supporters of this proposal noting that in some circumstances the inclusion of such information in an infobox would be warranted.

However, these circumstances would be rare, and considering the clear consensus in this discussion the status quo should be removal; inclusion would require an affirmative consensus at the article. BilledMammal (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Relist for further input: That use of "supported by" in Template:Infobox military conflict and related templates be deprecated. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That use of "supported by" in Template:Infobox military conflict and related templates be deprecated. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The addition of "supported by" within the belligerent field is a tendency for conflicts largely since WW2. The case to be made to deprecate such usage should be considered within WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE:

... the purpose of an infobox: [is] to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.

The case is as follows:

1. "Supported by" is not intrinsically supported by the template documentation. It is not consistent with the spirit and intent of the template.
2. "Supported by" are often extensive lists. This is not consistent with being a summary at a glance. It leads to infobox bloat which is contrary to an effective infobox.
3. Long infoboxes create accessibility issues for mobile devices. Drop-down lists in an infobox are not supported for mobile devices. This does not resolve accessibility issues.
4. "Supported by" is often populated without discriminating the nature of the support, which may include: advisors; provision of arms or munitions; provision of non-lethal supplies; or, diplomatic support, which may itself, range from sanctions through to statements of support. There is nuance to the nature of support for which infoboxes are unsuited.
5. "Supported by" is usually populated without such facts appearing in the body of the article - contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Entries are also often added without citation.
6. Editing "supported" by can be contentious and nationalistically motivated (to either defend or promote) within articles that are themselves contentious.
7. Arguments to retain or add "supported by" when this is broadly challenged usually fall to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS/WP:OTHERCONTENT. This is only a valid argument if this represents best practice as represented by being consistent with our best quality articles. I am not seeing this.

In consideration of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE in particular, there is a good case to deprecate the use of "suppoted by". Cinderella157 (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Some examples: Rhodesian Bush War, Soviet–Afghan War, Iran–Iraq War, Syrian civil war, Somali Civil War (2009–present), Boko Haram insurgency, Mali War, War in Iraq (2013–2017) and War against the Islamic State. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Notified at Template talk:Infobox military conflict#RfC on "supported by" being used with the belligerent parameter. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

This was also notified at MilHist when the RfC was opened. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Further notifications: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Cinderella157 (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Notifying relist per above. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• For me 4 is the big issue, what does it even mean? Yes, let us just remove it, what does it really add? Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
• I don't have a strong stance on the parameter, but a lot of the arguments above sound like documentation/guidance issues, rather than fundamental issues with the parameter being there in the first place. #1 can be solved by improving documentation. #2 is solved by adding guidance similar to what is there for combatants already (When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. #3 same as previous, and not really unique to this parameters. #4 I'd call it "support" when a reliable source calls it "support", this doesn't have to be complicated. #5-7 editors having conduct issues in contentious topics is hardly solved by removing a parameter from an infobox.
  I'd support (hah) some kind of more increased documentation with stricter guidance (see e.g. the "result" parameter), but the above doesn't seem like a good case for removal. I'd imagine there are plenty of smaller scale events where throwing in something like "Support: US" or "Support: Soviet Union" is due and helpful to the reader. -Ljleppan (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  I second (support?) what Ljleppan is saying here. Support sections can certainly be trimmed but there is due and useful information provided to the reader especially with proxy conflicts in the 20th century when the US and Soviets were heavily involved. And though its not the purpose of this RfC I actually think commanders and leaders sections could also be greatly reduced on a page by page basis. BogLogs (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  BogLogs, do you have any example articles where this is "done well"? Alternatively, I would observe that a proxy war is nuance, best summarised in prose in the lead and that the label "supported by" in the infobox does not communicate that those listed are belligerents by proxy. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  I’d cite the examples of Russo-Ukrainian War and Russian invasion of Ukraine, where repeated arguments to prevent the addition of a huge list of supporters have held sway.  —Michael Z. 16:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  In that case you would be disagreeing with this proposal wouldn't you? Or should Belarus be removed from the list of supporters on those pages? BogLogs (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  The note in the second article helps explain why Belarus and no other state is included. If that doesn’t make it clear (I agree the notes should be improved) you can find extensive discussions in the talk archives. it’s not for supporting, it’s for being an aggressor state by providing its territory for invasion and attacks.  —Michael Z. 14:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  They are listed as a supporter and this is a blanket proposal to remove all supporters on all war pages regardless of context or level. BogLogs (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  First Indochina War, Paraguayan Civil War (1947), First Sudanese Civil War, North Yemen Civil War are ones i spotted after a quick search. I can understand wishing to also summarize that information additionally in article intros but there seems to be no need to remove them from infoboxs wholesale. Some pages i've noticed are using drop down menus for actually listing supporters in the infobox this might also be a good solution for war pages with numerous supporters. BogLogs (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

First Indochina War: US is arguably also a covert co-belligerent and not a "supporter" by providing arms and/or training. Paraguayan Civil War (1947): Argentina ... gave vital support to the government and US backed is a vague as supported by. The article is only a good example of one needing a lot more work. First Sudanese Civil War: several entries have no mention in the body at all. Combat involvement is a co-belligerent. North Yemen Civil War: the nature of the support varies widely from clandestine combat involvement (an actual belligerent) to Pakistan [seeing] a chance to make money. The examples given tend to support points made in the OP. To the use of drop-downs, see point 3 in the OP. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

First Indochina War: Can you provide a definition of a covert co-belligerent and where the concept is used in RS? Can you show RS where the United States is listed as a belligerent during the First Indochina War rather than as a supporter of France? The involvement of China, Russia, and America are all notable and due to be mentioned in the infobox.

Paraguayan Civil War (1947); You have it backwards here the infobox is good but the article text does need improvement and additional RS. The text itself should be improved through the standard editing process not a blanket removal of supporters from all article infoboxes.

North Yemen Civil War: Do you have RS that Pakistan was an actual beligerent? If so please provide them and then the edit can be improved directly rather than any blanket removal of supporters from all articles. The other supporters may be of varying levels but that is the nature of war and just as a belligerent may field a small or larger army in conflicts supporters may have varying levels of support.

First Sudanese Civil War: Documentation and clear guidelines already exist for this situation: "information summarized in an infobox should follow the general guidance for writing a lead section. It should not "make claims" or present material not covered by the article. As with a lead section, there is some discretion in citing information in an infobox. The same guidance should be applied to an infobox as given for citations in a lead section. Information in an infobox must conform with verifiability, point-of-view and other policies.". Further changes are unnecessary and any editor can remove supporters that are not backed up by RS or add RS information to the text to give them needed context.

As for my suggestion about drop-downs if they don't work for mobile users, though my phone seems to have no trouble with them, happily withdrawn. BogLogs (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

A covert belligerent is a belligerent that acts covertly (secretly) to conceal their belligerent status. It is simple English. From First Indochina War, CIA operatives flew combat missions. We disagree about the Paraguayan Civil War (1947): supported by is a vague term that covers a spectrum of nuance unsuited for an infobox per OP. North Yemen Civil War: please read again. I never said Pakistan was an actual beligerent. First Sudanese Civil War: you presented this as a good example of being done well. It fails for the reasons given. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE (summarize ... key facts that appear in the article) it fails. As stated above, these examples tend to support points made in the OP. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Belligerents are states at war. Do reliable sources agree that the respective adversaries were in a state of war against each other during the conflict? If not, then they oughtn’t appear opposite each other in lists of “belligerents.”  —Michael Z. 00:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

That would call for the updating of templates not the wholesale removal this proposal pushes. A secondary problem is what do with alleged belligerents among others or ones that conflicting sources cant agree on. BogLogs (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

So you can not show RS regarding your use of covert belligerent. If a blanket proposal to removal all supporters from infoboxes goes forward it will lead to worse situation where editors will then have to decide what 'covert'/quasi/nomial/debated/contended/etc beligerents will be allowed into info boxes. Essentially what is now vagueness that can be corrected for the supporters in info boxes will be debated about instead for different possible levels of belligerency. Far simpler and far better to improve articles by the normal editing process. The points in this thread indicate the proposal should not be accepted. BogLogs (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

My statement was that [The] US is arguably [emphasis added] also a covert co-belligerent and not a "supporter" in the First Indochina War because CIA operatives flew combat missions and consequently, this is not a good example for the use of "supported by" because of nuance and point 4 in the OP. To the direct question, searches of JSTOR, Google Scholar and Google Books evidence the use of the term "covert belligerent" but there is nuance to meaning and usage in sources, just as there is for "supported by". Because of nuance, neither terms (or such parties to which they are applied) have a place in an infobox. Nuance belongs in prose, not the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Drop-downs in an infobox is completely contrary to the spirit and word of the guidelines. If you’re arguing for this, you’re missing the whole point. If they block WP:ACCESS, then the argument has been taken to such an extreme that it risks violating Wikipedia’s basic principles along with the rights of readers that depend on assistive technologies for access to knowledge.  —Michael Z. 14:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• I worry that there could be endless permutations of "supported by" and that the infobox isn't the place for such recondite minutiae. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm much more worried about the "Commanders and leaders" section, which is even more of a collection of minutiae. Ljleppan (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  Ljleppan, my experience is that the issue of "Commanders and leaders" you describe is reasonably easy to deal with, citing WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and the template documentation. The documentation would state that the parameter is for key or significant commanders and leaders and limits the number to seven a side. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox summarises key information from the article. Therefore, the body of the article must support that a commander/leader was indeed key/significant. Consequently, if they aren't mentioned in the body of the article at all or in a way that evidences they were key/significant, they don't belong in the infobox. Supporters is much more problematic. Even though the belligerent parameter is ipso facto for belligerents, silence on excluding "supporters" and "other stuff" are seen as licence (IMO) to misuse the belligerent parameter and add lots of extraneous material. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm struggling to read this as anything but you making the case to keep the argument (but improve documentation) on my behalf. Ljleppan (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support, per nom. Supported by should be depreciated in the infobox. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Support the well-explained argument against the common practice of sideloading a new field into this template. This practice is problematic because belligerent has a specific meaning in international law, and non-belligerent supporters do not belong under his heading. This is all the more problematic in articles about active wars in progress, such as Russia’s war in Ukraine, where a major point of one side’s propaganda is the characterization of non-combatants as involved. If their inclusion in the infobox is really desirable, then a separate parameter for a separate table row should be added to the template, placing a “Supporters” heading at the same hierarchy as “Belligerents,” not underneath it.  —Michael Z. 16:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. It is a very poorly defined term, which may lead to serious problems. Thus, before 1941, the US supported Britain in its war against Germany, but they also provided an immense economic aid for Japan in her war against China (actually, Perl Harbor happened because they ceased to support Japan, thereby putting her on a brink of a catastrophe). Is it sufficient for inclusion the US into the "supported by" category? Instead of arguing about that, it would be much reasonable to remove "supported by".

Ideally, infoboxes should include Boolean or numerical values, or some simple non-controversial facts (e.g. a geographical location). "Belligerent" is a Boolean variable: you are either a belligerent or not. In contrast, "support" is intrinsically vague, and it needs a more detailed explanation, which is not possible to do in the infobox.

Paul Siebert (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You chose a strange example to support your argument, because it is false, the US did not send military aid to Japan before 1941. Marcelus (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The Second Sino-Japanese war was possible only because the US provided Japan with a wast amount of oil and fuel. It was more important than sending tanks or planes.

Similarly, the importance of lend-lease for the USSR was not armament, but, food, trucks or crude materials , which, sensu stricto, was not a military aid.

That is what serious sources say. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

This is obviously not true, the U.S. has not provided Japan with military aid, either in the form of lend-lease or other related programs. American entities traded with Japan until 1939/40 when that federal government began to impose embargoes on trade with Japan. I would ask you not to propagate historical falsehoods. I hope you didn't write this anywhere in main space. Marcelus (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Just read history books about Pearl Harbor and US oil embargo. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Just stop spreading false information, that will be more than enough Marcelus (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Marcellus, that is a personal attack. I forgive you for the first time, but if you continue in the same vein< I'll report you. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

This, of course, is not a personal attack, so do as you please. Marcelus (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, China hadn't declared a war on Japan in 1937? It did that only in 1941, after the US joined the war officially. How do you explain that? Paul Siebert (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose It's probably clear from my points above but just in case I'll put this in as a formal !vote. Some pages can be improved but it should be done on those pages by editors directly rather than throwing the baby (due information for the reader) out with the bathwater. I would also be weary of making such a big change to these pages and the long precedent of including supporters in war infobox pages without the input and consensus of more editors.BogLogs (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Any editor is free to make appropriate notifications. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose outright removal per my (extensive) comments above, but I think stricter/more extensive guidance on usage is a good idea. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  And how would you formulate a threshold for inclusion? Is sending 5 bomber planes sufficient for that? And what about providing the warring party with 1,000 tons of kerosene? Paul Siebert (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support: subject to too much editorialising which should be avoided in the infobox. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, such issues should be decided on t/p of each article. Marcelus (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  ... and that opens excellent opportunities for NPOV or NOR violations. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  Can you elaborate? How it's more toublesome than any other form of editing? Marcelus (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  Take a look at my response to Ljleppan Paul Siebert (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  Your answer confirmed my assumption - it is impossible to set a one standard treshold for all wars in the history of the world, so we should leave this to be decided in individual discussions on articles' t/p. In general, I agree that "Supported by" shouldn't be used often, but there are wars and conflicts that absolutely require such a parameter. Marcelus (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  Then start a discussion to add a parameter to the template. A write-in subheading is not a parameter.  —Michael Z. 23:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  It serves the same purpose Marcelus (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  So consensus infobox parameters mean nothing and we should just subvert them all by adding bold-text headings willy nilly? Never mind consistency. Why have infoboxes at all. Just hand-code each one with whatever you feel like, because it serves the same purpose.  —Michael Z. 17:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support - no clear inclusion criteria, tend to contribute to infobox bloating.--Staberinde (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support - inherently ambiguous, and it often ends up giving minor details about a conflict undue prominence. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I would say "no" because having such field provides an additional option, which is always good from a programming/information resource development perspective. If you do not want such field for specific page, just do not use it please. This is not all black and white, i.e. a belligerent or not. After looking at a number of such infoboxes (like Korean war, Russian invasion, etc.) it becomes clear that having such option helps to reflect some important additional nuances in the infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

  You seem to misunderstand. There is no “Supporters” field (from a programming/information resource development perspective). It is being kludged in by writing-in an HTML heading into a different field. This RFC is about this practice.  —Michael Z. 04:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The poster of the RfC suggests that the "use of "supported by" in Template:Infobox military conflict and related templates be deprecated". My answer is "no" for the reason above. How this should be done technically is another question. I think this should be an additional field, hence "yes" in this regard. My very best wishes (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I a. In agreement with that. We should 1) stop overloading this field, and 2) discuss adding a supporters field. We should not encourage continuing to subvert the template fields as a convention. Discussing it in those terms without clarity just muddles the vote and risks no consensus.  —Michael Z. 15:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. And we need to find a way to encourage editors to edit articles, not just obsess with infoboxes. Bondegezou (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Infoboxes are not every true fact about an event, just the most important ones. "Supported by" can be discussed just fine in prose. SnowFire (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support, get rid of it. The infobox is not the place for nuance, varying levels of support can be discussed in the main text - Dumelow (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support, too vague to be useful. If clear inclusion criteria could be devised, I could see the value, but alas no one is proposing any and the present situation leads to PoV WP:OR and infobox bloat of trivial, or contested 'support'. Pincrete (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose- removing the "supported by" section often removes very relevant information from the infobox that would be relevant. Obviously we don't need to list every country that gave some sort of support to a belligerent, but we should most certainly keep information on support given to one side if that support is seen as notable enough. Take, for example, the Iran–Iraq War- American and Saudi support for Iraq is much more important and relevant than Albania's. French, British, and American backing for the MJTF in the Boko Haram insurgency are more important than Benin's (???). Russian and French support for the HoR in Libya is more important than Cypriot support.

The inclusion of "supported by" in the infobox should be limited to only those whose support is seen as very notable, and it could (and really should) specify what sort of support is being given- but a bunch of issues with it that have been noted are not justifications for complete removal. In fact, very often, the amount of direct belligerents listed in an infobox can be as excessive as the amount of groups put in the "supported by" section- the First and Second Congo Wars, and more. And sometimes, there may be no need for a "supported by" section because foreign support is not very notable, as in the case of the Anglophone Crisis, while other times, it's extremely important to note such foreign support (e.g. in Cold War-era proxy wars like Angola). So no, we should not remove it entirely- it should be tweaked, yes, but not deprecated as a whole. Presidentofyes12 (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

So you would favour a the guideline saying so?

The problems with this are 1) How to measure “notability” of support and define “notable enough” (to make it a “key fact” per INFOBOXPURPOSE)? Does that actually mean significant in magnitude? New guidelines should make infobox contents easier to determine, not create a new thing to argue over forever for each use of the template. 2) In the infobox omitting a state would be inferred as the state not supporting. Unless you call the field “Most notable supporters.”  —Michael Z. 19:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

If significant RS' cover the support, then it'd be added. There is no exact measure for things like this, but people would be able to reasonably distinguish between notable support and non-notable support. In the Congo Crisis you don't have Czechoslovak support for the Republic of the Congo because Czechoslovak support was not a notable part of the conflict. In most cases it wouldn't be too difficult to determine. Plus you could specify other, less notable supporters within the actual article rather than the infobox to keep it neater Presidentofyes12 (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I don’t believe that. You’ll often have editors that believe every supporter should be included and others who believe only belligerents should be listed under Belligerents.

And with respect, your definition of “notable enough” as “if significant RS’ cover the support” is not useful in the least, just giving us yet another completely vague thing to argue about when determining what is a key fact per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE.  —Michael Z. 17:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

No, actually- it is generally very easy to determine what supporters should be included. One sentence in a book describing Kuwait's backing of Zaire in a war is not notable. Multiple book sections, news articles, and journal publications describing the USSR's role in a war is notable. Looking through wars like the Iran-Iraq war and the Angolan Civil War shows that there would probably be very little discussion on whether the support from some nations there should be counted as notable or not.

And whatever the case, the fact that sometimes it'd be difficult to determine whose support is relevant or not does not, in any way, mean that it should be deprecated from the infobox. It is nearly always a key fact in the context of the war, and when it isn't, it doesn't need to be included. But when it is a key fact, then it must be. Many wars wouldn't be as significant as they are without such foreign support, so omitting it from the infobox entirely because there may be an occasion in which people argue over whether some support is notable or not is silly.

Would a guideline be useful in establishing notability of support? Yes, and I could propose on at a point. Would "support" be more useful as a different parameter in the infobox as a whole? Perhaps. Should it be removed completely? Absolutely not. - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 15:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

If it is easy, then why does it seem like the content of these write-in headings is endlessly fiddled, debated, and inconsistent?

If these are “key facts” that must be in the infobox, then add a field for them and document its consensus use, instead of promoting an improvised solution. “Supporters,” in its own row below “Belligerents,” would be consistent IMO.  —Michael Z. 17:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd support an addition of its own row. It doesn't have to be lumped into the Belligerents row, it should just be included, as its own row or otherwise. - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 21:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Moral support I agree that what constitutes "support" is an unclear, broad spectrum of things ranging from diplomatic expressions of sympathy to giving away guns and tanks and training programs. I do think there are some better examples of infoboxes being curated to include only more major supporters in a conflict (Congo Crisis, which is sometimes described as a part-Cold War proxy war) or limiting only those supporters to actors which provided obvious aid for the war effort, like free shipments of arms. That said, there are some really terrible examples as mentioned above with comprehensive laundry lists of countries either because the conflict itself is incredibly complex and includes lots of actors offering lots of support or because the bar for inclusion has been lowered to practically allow every state actor which sent a Christmas card to a warring state to be considered a supporter. I think this is a problem made worse by the attention infoboxes seems to always receive from people trying to make a point or inject POV, or simply do a drive-by edit as a shortcut to avoid actually discussing the nature of a fact in the body text of an article. I fear a universal rule of exclusion might be somewhat constricting on articles involving proxy conflicts, where who was supporting who is indeed a basic fact that should understood up front. At the same time, there is a problem here, and this does seem the most effective way of addressing it. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  The more fundamental problem is that this entire spectrum of situations is being pushed under Supported by because none of it represents being a belligerent. It’s literally making “not belligerents” a subcategory of Belligerents. It’s confusing and misleading for editors, and more importantly for readers, and goes against the entire goal of infoboxes distilling key points.  —Michael Z. 15:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think that's the fundamental problem as much as it is more of a related one, which could itself be easily resolved by creating a new "Supporters" parameter in infobox conflict. But I don't think we'd do that because of the larger problem over laundry lists of actors in conflicts with an unclear bar for inclusion. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  I am very much in favour of a discussion about including a new field to put the idea to rest one way or the other. Your argument here suggests more than just moral support: if a Supporters field is too complicated, then clearly a Belligerent field with a write-in Supporters list is more so.  —Michael Z. 17:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  Take note of my final comment: "I fear a universal rule of exclusion might be somewhat constricting on articles involving proxy conflicts, where who was supporting who is indeed a basic fact that should understood up front. At the same time, there is a problem here, and this does seem the most effective way of addressing it." Perhaps you could say I wish it didn't have to be this way, but I am resigned to the fact that the proposed exclusion of such content in infoboxes is probably in the best interest of Wikipedia. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Well, if a well-defined proxy war is an example where such a subheading makes sense, then it ought to be explicitly disallowed in articles on non-proxy wars for clarity. Perhaps adding a combatant_proxy field with appropriate documentation would help enforce consistent logical use.  —Michael Z. 16:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support—Ill-defined and better explained/mentioned in the main text alone. Tony (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I think the OP lays out a good case, and perhaps the main point for me is that "support" is not defined, so people add whatever they feel like, bloating it into a long list of "supporters", generally without clear sourcing, and basically making a confusing mess.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Formally, the infobox statement: "Supported by: Gurunguwaju" is tantamount to the statement: " the state of Gurunduwaju supported the country X in the conflict (ref)". Usually, the term "support" may have a broad spectrum of meanings, starting from a moral support of some country's public opinion, and ending with a massive supply of materiel and technical aid. In connection to that, some universal criterion is necessary to avoid NPOV and NOR problems.

In connection to that, consider the example on the massive US support of Japan and (in smaller scale) China during early WWII. They convinced China not to declare a war on Japan. Why? Because if there were a formal state of war between China and Japan, that would mean the aid provided by the US to both China and Japan would be inconsistent with the neutral status of the US. In other words, the US government realized that by providing Japan and (to lesser extent) China with the aid, they break their neutral status.

If we assume that "supported by" implies some support that goes beyond an aid provided by some truly neutral state, then, this term must be applied to a very broad range of cases. In the case of Second Sino-Japanese war that means the the US should be placed to both sides of the infobox: they provided a massive support for Japan, and they actively supported China. Do we really need that? I think, the answer is obvious: we don't. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Even your source does not confirm this. Page 448: By ignoring the obvious fact of war between the countries, Roosevelt allowed American businesses to profit by gasoline, steel, and other raw material sales to Japan, and to aid China by arms and other sales; Japan depended mainly on the United States for oil, and China depended almost entirely on the United States for its arms. Roosevelt did come close to applying the Neutrality Act in September 1937, in order to prevent any "incident" wherein the Japanese naval blocade might sink an American ship carrying airplanes to China. Roosevelt issued a statement that United States government merchent vessels could no longer transport arms or implements of war to Japan or China that were prohibited by his 1937 Neutrality Proclamation, and private merchant ships would do so at their own risk. Roosevelt, however, declined to actually invoke the Neutrality Act, declaring instead that the question of its application would be decided "on a 24-hour basis". In fact, the airplanes were actually shipped to China through England and its Hong Kong colony.

There is a difference between free trade between US private entities and Japan, and military aid sent by the US federal government to China. The latter is military aid, the former is not. Your example clearly shows why the "supported by" parameter is needed and why its use must be supported by sources. The statement that Japan was "supported by" the U.S. during the war with China is not supported by WP:RS, instead it is very close to WP:FRINGE. Marcelus (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

When “supported by” appears below the heading “belligerents,” there are other implications. We should do two things:

1. Better define the criteria for inclusion in the “Belligerent” (combatantN) fields. It should, at least in Modern historical and later contexts, correspond to the use of those terms in the subject of international relations. In simple terms: only states considered at war with each other should appear in opposing “belligerent.” In insurgent warfare, there should be a ruling regarding the inclusion and labelling of legal and illegal combatant groups, as they are defined in international law.
2. Formally deal with the desire to fill infobox fields with everything possible by considering the addition of supportersN fields in a separate table row outside of the combatantN row.

Both of these things can be done with respect for existing usage in hundreds of conflict boxes.  —Michael Z. 16:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

(While we’re at it, can we rename the field to belligerentN?)  —Michael Z. 16:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

What does "belligerentN" mean? Paul Siebert (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The template parameters for belligerents are called combatant1, combatant2, and combatant3.  —Michael Z. 16:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

What do we achieve by renaming combatants (i.e. participants of a combat) to belligerents (participants of a bellum)? Paul Siebert (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

If the advantages of the use of the one term for one technical thing is not self-evident . . .  —Michael Z. 17:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I seems obvious that any infobox statement is supposed to reflect a majority POV. That means if a country X is mentioned in the "Belligerents" section, then a significant fraction of the sources randomly picked from google scholar results say that the country X was de facto at war. In contrast, is some source says the country X was at war, but majority of sources say otherwise, this issue belongs to a "Controversy" section, not to the infobox.

I don't see how this approach can be applied to the "Supported by" subsection. The only conceivable criterion is the one I outlined above: if the country X is doing something that is inconsistent with its neutral status (e.g. continue trade relationship that involve strategic materials), then it can be included into the "Supported by" section. However, that means the US must be included into both sides of the SSJW infobox. Indeed this source says:

"(after US embargo) Japan had little room for manoeuvre, as the oil embargo would allow Japan to survive only for two years, and in the case of war, for one and half years.55 There were few options left for Japan."

That means had the US stopped providing Japan with oil, aviation kerosene etc in 1937, that would make the war impossible by in 1937. Based on that, one can argue the US must be added to the "Supported by" section.

Of course, that is not what I support. But why do we need to open this Pandora box? Paul Siebert (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Again. Your source isn't saying that USA was supporting Japan in war with China; your example is false. Are you deliberately reducing it to absurdity? Marcelus (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

You gave a bad example, it's not the end of the world. But same with listing any information we go by what the RS say not idle speculation. I don't believe Germany would have won WWII if they kept receiving coca-cola instead of fanta but who know? BogLogs (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Please abandon this strawman. There are other more interesting, more clear-cut examples of actual historical, political, or scholarly disputes over what constitutes "support" for a country's war stance beyond keeping open a line a trade with said warring county in the early 20th century when you're officially neutral in that conflict. See Foreign support of Uganda in the Uganda–Tanzania War#Disputed or unconfirmed allegations of support for some examples. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Close request

BilledMammal, I made an earlier request at WP:CR to which you responded. Since then, there has only been one new editor comment and three other replies. I think it is safe to say that it has run its course. While I could make another CR, I thought you might look at this again, since you appear to have already put some time in to it. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair assessment. I'll close shortly. BilledMammal (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

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

"Refer the reader to an appropriate section in the article" versus WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

New parameter

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)

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)

Guidance on write-in parameters

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)

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

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)

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)

(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)

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)

RfC about |result= parameter

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

[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)

Loss of "Supported By" information

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)

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

Links on dates

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)

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

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)

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)

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

Loss of support section

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

"result" is a Wikipedia nightmare

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Column dividing lines separating information for different belligerents

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)

Discussion at Module talk:Infobox military conflict § Edit request 7 October 2024

 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)

Claimed casualties

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)

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)

WP:NPOV does not require us to present all sides, especially when it comes to claims. If one side is credible and the other is not, then those are the figures that should be in the infobox. If there is controversy, then it doesn't belong in the infobox. Claims can be mentioned in the article, but they have no place in the infobox. You don't even need wartime propaganda or ill-intentions; I can give you plenty of instances from World War II where the Japanese claimed they shot X Americans down, the Americans claim they shot Y Japanese down, and a post-war check of the records of both sides reveals that nobody shot anybody down! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Hawkeye. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't try opposing inclusion of something like that except if the figure has been commented on by reliable sources or can be shown fairly straightforwardly to be silly. It does need to be clearly attributed inline though. NadVolum (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I think one sided independent casualty estimates should be included, even if independent estimates dispute them it's not a clinching proof. A proof would be something like going through documents of the dead fighters. Besides we cannot judge true or false on our own. Also we have been historically including claims by opposing sides in a war. Linkin Prankster (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

One-sided estimates are unlikely to be key information about a conflict, so they should not be included in an infobox. There is an article body one can put a great number of things in. Remsense ‥ 论 06:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cinderella157@Hawkeye7@Linkin Prankster@Peacemaker67@Remsense. One example are casualties in in the various subarticles related to the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. We have:

• Israeli reports of Israeli casualties, which are fairly reliable and undisputed.
• Gaza Ministry of Health reports of Palestinian casualties, which, despite some disputes, have been upheld by vast majority of sources.
• Israeli reports of Palestinian casualties, which have been widely criticized as being inaccurate (and overstating militant deaths and undercounting civilian deaths)
• Palestinian reports of Israeli military casualties, which also sometimes appear to be propaganda.

In such a case, I would keep the first two sets of casualties for the infobox, while the last two sets should be discussed in article body in a nuanced way. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC) Edited for clarification.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 08:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I will not be touching that article within my natural lifetime, but frankly my intuitive position is to include no casualty figures in the infobox. Instead, they can be linked as a serial presentation in prose such that each concern is theoretically addressed from the start. Remsense ‥ 论 08:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Remsense and believe his solution to this issue are perfect. Linkin Prankster (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Remsense. There is too much nuance to these figures for the infobox. For the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the consensus is not to include casualty figures in the infobox, though some sub-articles do - but they don't get the same degree of scrutiny. However, for a major battle like the Battle of Bakhmut, this has prevailed. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

My position is that casualty figures that are widely considered reliable (in RS) or at least not disputed by RS should belong in the infobox, but those figures significantly under dispute by RS should be in the body instead of the infobox.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)