Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 1

message: I will again protest that the commander field makes little sense for wars. The combatants field is often complicated, too. Who is to decide which countries are important enough to be included? And what of countries that switch sides? john k 02:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well for now this is just simple copy and paste from battlebox. As I told User:Piotrus yesterday this template now needs changing to be less battle-like and more war-like. I suggest changing commanders, to notable commanders or removing this section. Regarding countries that switch sides: such cases should be entered in both sides of the box (with appropriate dates inserted in parenthesis). Przepla 11:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commander field? 

message: I strongly oppose the systematic application of this kind of infobox to articles about any kind of war. Historical events are not suitable for systemtic classification of this kind since the events surrounding wars, like with all history, are inherently non-specific and hard to classify as is done with species of animals, languages or geographical locations. Particularly civil wars and low-level guerilla conflicts are very inappropriate subject to apply this to, since they often feature shifting alliances and very complex sequences of events. In Algerian Civil War the warbox completely obscures the far more relevant Algerian history template.
And, frankly, this infobox really doesn't look good. It's very bulky and disruptive when places next to any section that isn't a mile long.
Peter Isotalo 10:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable infobox 

message: casus belli, territory changes: It is almost never possible to describe these items briefly, especially territory changes. Also, formal casus belli is almost never "true" one. And the "de-facto" one is a hornet's nest of POVs. IMO they are redundant here. The infobox is already huge. mikka (t) 21:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Those fields are completely optional (but see the discussion just above for some technical issues). They're useful on a lot of 18th-century wars and such, but you should be able to omit them entirely in places where they're not appropriate. —Kirill Lokshin 21:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New fields

message: For historical battles, do we use the name of the place used at the time of the battle or do we use the name of the place as it is known today? deadkid_dk 05:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The general convention is to use the modern name, or at least to give some indication of modern location (e.g. "Place X, near modern Town Y, Country Z"). —Kirill Lokshin 05:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for having modern locations there, but let's keep modern flags off the location field as their inclusion might imply that they were used at the time. I'm going to remove them on sight. --Himasaram 04:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Location field

message: Something's wrong with the infobox and section headers running aside it; it can be clearly seen on the Battle of Milvian Bridge article: the edit links for the sections accumulate in the text of the last section running aside, immediately below the end of the box.
I've tried a dozen variations on the sandbox page using float and clear but couldn't get it right. Someone please take a look. --Filipvr 11:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a known issue with the way MediaWiki handles stacked floats, so it's not limited to this template. Not much we can really do to avoid it, in my opinion. —Kirill Lokshin 14:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it is actually due to the Infobox and Campaignbox combination; I've been mucking around the sandbox again and if I add campaign info at the bottom of the infobox, section runins work fine. I wonder if it'd be better to add another section at the bottom of the template (with another qif test) to include campaign info. And perhaps move the "part of" bit there too, or remove it altogether since it is sort of becoming duplicate information. --Filipvr 12:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We used to do that with the old battlebox model. It's not really a good idea now, since many battles have multiple campaignboxes, and some articles have campaignboxes positioned elsewhere in the text. —Kirill Lokshin 14:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: On another note, if it's really bothering you for a specific article, you can fix it by moving the campaignbox below the affected header. —Kirill Lokshin 14:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section headers

message: Is there a way to optionally merge the two cells "casualties1" and "casualties2"? In some military conflict articles, the number of casualties of each side is unknown, and an estimate is given about the total number, especially with civil war articles where civilian deaths is the greatest (see Algerian Civil War). If it's not possible, could you create a variant of the infobox? CG 15:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy enough; I've added a "casualties3" field that will allow the field to stretch across both columns. Be sure to clear the two other casualty fields if you use it, though; otherwise, it won't display. Kirill Lokshin 15:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to make the text in this field centered (to be clear that this number is for the two sides), but it didn't work. Could you do it? Thank you. CG 16:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Does that help? Kirill Lokshin 16:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thank you for your fast response. CG 17:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties

message: Although I guessed what the † symbol meant when I saw it in one of these infoboxes in an article, I think an explanation should be given in the infobox itself for readers who may be confused by it. - dcljr (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A valid point, but I'm not sure where we could insert an explanation without breaking the aesthetics in horrible ways. And would we want it to always be shown, even if the symbol isn't used, or just turned on (possibly by an extra parameter)? Kirill Lokshin 22:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of dagger/cross symbol 

message: Have run into a sit in Iraq War where the civ casualties don't really clearly belong in either column - one proposal was to have them in a cell which ran across the width of both cols (like the notes cell) in order to not attribute these civs as 'belonging' to one side or the other, or automatically assume that all were killed by the coalition. I tried using the notes field, but typeface is tiny & I am totally inept at editing this stuff. Any help/guidance would be appreciated.Bridesmill 15:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a casualties3 field that was introduced just recently for that purpose, but it's currently disabled if the other casualty fields are filled in. If you want, I can turn that off and allow it to be included in all cases. Kirill Lokshin 16:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be useful, esp in cases where there is a third group of cas/victim (like currently in Iraq) which cannot be put in either column without raising some POV hackles, or which is victims of both sides. Thanks muchly.Bridesmill 16:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. We may still need to play with the formatting a bit; I'm not sure how neat it'll look with all three fields set. Kirill Lokshin 16:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me - trying it at Iraq War. 'perhaps' a line across the top but maybe I'm getting pedantic 
. Thanks again.Bridesmill 16:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought of doing that, but that would be the same formatting as the notes field, which might make it more confusing. Maybe different styles of lines (single/double, normal/bold) would be worth trying? Kirill Lokshin 16:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point - only thing I could think of would be to have 'notes' on a blue background, or have all of the lines thicker so that the lines internal to a subject (Cas, combattants, etc) could be thin. (If I'm making any sense ;-))Bridesmill 16:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the internal lines dotted and added one above the joint casualties field; does that seem to work? Kirill Lokshin 17:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks good - I'm sure somebody won't like it, but works fine for me; not sure how else this prob could be solved. Well done!Bridesmill 17:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third casualty figure 

message: The alignment in some of these table cells is inconsistent. See e.g. Swiss peasant war of 1653: there is a clear offset between the baselines of "Location:" and the text to the right. Could someone fix this, please? Lupo 11:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very strange. I can't see any offset, and, looking at the markup, can't imagine any reason for one to appear. A screenshot might help with this. Kirill Lokshin 12:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed you're right. When I log out and load the page, the baseline offset disappears. Must be a problem with my own CSS, then. Sorry for the bother. Lupo 14:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, ok, that explains it. Maybe you're overriding some of the .infobox classes? Kirill Lokshin 14:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but I had a typo in the line height specification for . It's old stuff from the early days of monobook, probably not even needed anymore, but I'm too lazy to take it out. Fixed the typo, and now it looks fine. Lupo 14:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alignment 

message: I have a doubt on the casualty section. Is it only for concrete figures - no matter how diverse the different estimates - or can it include vague statements about casualties that doesn't specify a particular figure? 
I think we should just stick to numbers to avoid bloating up the infobox any further and include relevant statements in a casualty or relevant section in the article. --Idleguy 08:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be either, as appropriate in the particular article. While concrete figures are given most of the time, there are other ways to describe casualties, particularly for battles where limited information is available (e.g. "Almost all killed" and so forth). The infobox is supposed to be a summary of the article, so there's no real reason to omit things from it merely because a neat number isn't available. Kirill Lokshin 12:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties box only for figures? 

message: I would like to propose one small change: replace the current title with |+ . This is by far the more common way of creating titles for infoboxes, and it cleans up the code a little bit. Ingoolemo talk 03:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh. I don't really like the floating-outside-the-box formatting, and I don't think it's popular among other project members either (note that all the other military infoboxes use the same markup. Given that this template tends to have one or more campaignboxes following it, I think a fully bordered layout provides a much cleaner design, since the stacked boxes actually look like a continous block. Kirill Lokshin 11:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: This field is giving us headaches over at World War II. Casus belli is almost by definition POV, because it can be something untrue, like the Gleiwitz incident. I'd like a way to put "Invasion of Poland" in the infobox, but to be fair we can't really say that the Invasion of Poland was a casus belli for Germany, the US, or the USSR. See where I'm heading? My hope is that this discussion area will be a less heated, more academic place where we can talk about it without the pressure of coming to a solution. Perhaps a field labelled "Cause" should be added? Haber 03:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For all but the most trivial conflicts, the actual "cause" of the war needs a section (or even an article in its own right), not a two-line infobox field; so that's not going to work. As far as the WWII issue, though: have you considered simply not using the casus field? It's unused on most wars, and was really added more for the benefit of the more formalized diplomacy surrounding 18th century warfare than for general use in all cases. Kirill Lokshin 03:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the advice. It looks like it might stay off WWII. Haber 22:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casus belli and WWII 

message: I encountered recent news articles on the millions of Iraqis displaced by the current war and thought these should be used to update the Iraq War article. I thought these figures should be added to the concise information box on the right - your template - since the number of refugees is one of the objective measurements that can be made of the scope of a conflict. Unfortunately, the templating system does not readily allow this information from being added there. This needs to be remedied. Mike Serfas 22:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh. If the editors of an article want to put the number in the infobox (I suspect they won't—it's not a particularly useful statistic when compared to the numbers of dead or wounded), they can just use one of the (many) existing casualty field configurations for it. As a standalone field, it would be fairly useless, though, as it's only the handful of most recent wars for which meaningful statistics on this topic are available; older conflicts are considered well-documented if there's a ballpark estimate of the fatalities! Kirill Lokshin 23:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refugees 

message: As i understand it the word casualties only applies to people: it means KIA, WIA or POW. So it's not applicable to hardware destroyed during a battle. Yet for want of a better field its being used for ships sunk, tanks destroyed, aircraft shot down etc... Shouldn't it be changed to Losses, that has a broader meaning and would also cover material losses? Or maybe an extra field should be added?
Regards.Raoulduke47 00:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The convention is to use the field for (certain) hardware losses—mainly for ships sunk—regardless of the technicality; drawing a distinction may be possible, but is probably too subtle for the general reader. In any case: for land battles, losses of hardware are typically not given in the infobox anyways; it's not that useful of a statistic for most historical stuff (being meaningful only for WWII and later conflicts), and most editors prefer not to give extra lists of numbers in the template. Kirill Lokshin 01:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties field 

message: See Siege of Lathom House and let me know if you see what I'm doing wrong. Thanks in advance. --Leifern 16:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed; there were some mismatched brackets in the text. Kirill Lokshin 16:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the template not forming? 

message: I have a somewhat related issue about partof. Should it be used to describe the Korean War as a part of the Cold War or the Algerian War as part of the Wars of Independence. Carl Logan 16:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no rigid rule, but I would avoid stretching the definition here beyond clearly defined "series" of wars.  The Cold War might qualify as an overall conflict, but "Wars of Independence" clearly would not, at least using that terminology (as WoI have been fought throughout history). Kirill Lokshin 17:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Related issue

message: The header Campaignboxes after Notes and before campaign boxes did not format correctly.  A break is needed before the transclusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arcyqwerty (talk • contribs).
:I'm not sure I understand this request. Do you have any example pages that show this problem. Also, please remember to sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Kirill Lokshin 01:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Slight header problem

message: We're running into a problem over at World War II about who to list in the commander section.  While I know this is rather a tail-wagging-the-dog situation at the moment, I think it's something that could potentially become more common for large-scale conflicts, such as the Napoleonic Wars or World War I.  Preferably, I'd like to have a standard for us to use for such broad areas.
In short, assuming that we have the major combatants defined (which is a whole different can of worms) who should we be listing in the commanders section?  
* Should we be using the heads-of-state or the commander-in-chiefs (which I believe are not always the same)?  
* Should we be using the "official" individual (ie. a monarch) or the "functional" individual (ie. a prime minister)?  
* Which individual of the above should we then use: the individual in power when the war was declared, when the war ended or for the longest portion of the conflict (ie. Neville Chamberlain, Clement Attlee or Winston Churchill)?
Is there a point where it should be stated that it's simply to complicated to list and either a reference article/category be used (ie. :Category:World War II political leaders) or that the heading shouldn't be used at all? Oberiko 13:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Different wars, different solutions. One consensus for ancient times was command of a significant portion of the troops, since political leadership isn't always that clear. For modern times it is rather most influential office of states. Wandalstouring 16:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commanders for large conflicts

message: I recommend that the dates be separated into a start date and an end date.  Since most operations last more than 1 day I believe this would help make it more clear.
:Given the variety of things we're dealing with here, explicitly limiting the template to a pair of dates wouldn't be helpful; there are certainly cases where that field is used for more complex data. Kirill Lokshin 04:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start date and End Date 

message: Could someone please change the sequence of the items, placing the "casus belli" before "results" and "territorial changes". 
Also could you widen the margin of the first column a bit further so that "casus belli" will fit in?
Str1977 (smile back) 17:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Kirill 17:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Kirill. Str1977 (smile back) 17:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, done.  I guess you can't please everybody. ;-) Kirill 04:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sequence of items and space

message: What is the Wikipedia guideline on having the number of aircraft shot down/lost in a war infobox "casualties" field? Also tanks, helicopters etc? Yom Kippur War lists aerial and other types of victories along with the number of dead wounded. Zaindy87 21:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no real hard rule, but the general practice has been to list equipment losses for naval battles (i.e. ships sunk), but not for others (i.e. planes/tanks/guns destroyed). Kirill 21:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aerial victories in infobox

message: Could you please insert bg:Шаблон:Инфокутия Военен Конфликт? Thank you! --Desertus Sagittarius 14:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Kirill 20:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[bg:Шаблон:Инфокутия Военен Конфликт]]

message: The German WP is going to delete its template, so the IW link should be removed. Unbelievable, they're decreasing the quality of their WP instead of improving it. --213.155.231.26 20:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, done. Kirill 01:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IW link to German WP 

message: Is it possible to use the war box for revolts, uprisings, coup d'etat and mutinies since even resulted to bloodshed Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure; but some of the parameters may not be applicable, obviously. Kirill 05:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno since several of the "revolts, uprisings, coup d'etat and mutinies" were barely military in nature and the presence of the military on these events was not to make war. I was amused to see Loi Estrada as a "commander". EDSA III was a "military conflict"?! ROTFLMAO. --Howard the Duck 08:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the past, we've simply omitted all the parameters at "combatants" and below; so the infobox would just contain the image, caption, location, date, and result. Kirill 17:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes but I'm questioning the wisdom of using the warbox on events which the presence of the military is not to make war. If there should be an infobox for those events it may be Template:Infobox civilian attack. You'd have to assess every page the warbox would be used -- in the case of EDSA III, to call Loi Estrada or even Joseph Estrada as a "commander" as both laughable and ludicrous. --Howard the Duck 23:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, true enough.  Civil conflicts are always a bit of a gray area; some (e.g. the Red Turban Rebellion) are clearly "military conflicts", while others are not. Kirill 00:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it possible to use the warbox for revolts, uprisings and coups that happened in the Philippines