Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Why are campaignbox infoboxes wrapped?

It seems pages which use this module are getting below-par mobile experiences as the mobile view excepts any element which matches the css selector .infobox to be a top-level element, however when campaignbox is enabled self.args.campaignbox it is wrapped in a table like so:

<table style="float:right;clear:right;background:transparent;margin:0;padding:0" ><tbody><tr><td> <!-- infobox --> </td></tr></table>

Any reason why these styles cannot be added on the .infobox element itself? Jdlrobson (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Jdlrobson, outer wrapper was supposed to be equivalent to {{stack}} so that left floating elements are not bunched up at the bottom of the last right floating element. given that this is now completely broken, you should probably undo your changes and debug first. Frietjes (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I have reversed the changes and put more tests in the testcases. Frietjes (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Frietjes the changes look good. With regards to the text alignment - that can be fixed by adding `text-align:center;` to the element with .navbox-title

Wrapping in stack template would be a suitable alternative. We're considering a fix for infoboxes wrapped in stack template so that would be preferable on the long term than the current situation! Thanks for reviewing my change and helping make it better. Jdlrobson (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Jdlrobson, it's not just the title that's being left aligned, but also the content inside the box. we don't have control over the content passed through the |campaignbox=, so it's better the container doesn't enforce styling on the object being passed inside. if you can come up with a fix for {{stack}}, then we can just the same fix inside this module. Frietjes (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Frietjes the plan would be to look for any .infobox elements inside a mw-stack class. So if you can add that class the parent element to the template, I can take it from there and get it fixed (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T170006) :) Jdlrobson (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Jdlrobson, we now have 'mw-stack mobile-float-reset' in the outer table class definition. note that {{stack}} uses a div container, instead of a table container. we can almost certainly switch to a div container if necessary. a test case is now American Revolutionary War. thank you for working on this. Frietjes (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Jdlrobson, I also added these classes to template:infobox civil conflict. I think those are the only two, but I will add to any others if I find them. Frietjes (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Revisions to general guidance and "Result"

I have just made revisions to the general guidance and "Result" parameter. This has been promoted by a recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Decisive Battle and by a number of preceding discussions at Milhist and at individual articles notified at Milhist. These can be broadly divided as:

1. Lack of venerability of detail added to conflict infoboxes; and,
2. Conflict over determining the "Result" that should be shown in an a conflict infobox.

For the first of these, my edit makes the matter of "venerability" in this infobox explicit and analogous to the requirements of a lead section. (see Usage section of template document)

Use this link Template:Infobox military conflict/doc

On the second point, the recent decision has highlighted that describing a victory as ""decisive" is something of an anachronism, if not an artifact. It has specific historiographical connotations, which, in many instances, are very "debatable". To this end, I have deprecated the term in favour of "conclusive". I have also narrowly defined the usage to the "immediate" outcome of the conflict and that it is "clearly disproportionate". In this respect, it must be supported by the sources. To this extent, while the sources may not "explicitly" describe it as such, they should certainly leave "little" doubt. I know that this isn't going to resolve every future dispute as to the "symantic" of what this means but I hope it will, at least limit the number of such disputes or prove clearer guidance in their closure. In this respect (as an example), I would refer to the recent discussion of the Battle of Agincourt. In the immediate outcome, it (IMHO) was clearly "conclusive" and this is supported by the sources even if, in the longer term, it was not "decisive". I would also refer to land battles of WWII in the Pacific in which the Japanese were "annihilated" but at a significant cost to the Allies. These were not "conclusive" to the the extent that the outcomes were not "disproportionate". On the other hand, I would refer to the initial North African Campaign against the Italians - "when never have so many surrendered to so few" (a close paraphrase). The immediate result was "conclusive" even if it did result in German intervention in the longer term.

I am notifying this at Milhist. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Suspect that adding more explanatory text will only serve to fertilise more endless debate on interpretation. If we're going to make a change, then I think we should recognise that the infobox is not the place for nuance and accept that we only need to know who the victor was or, if there is no clear-cut victor, where we can read more. FactotEm (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe, the template documentation should provide firm guidance that the result field should default to "See Aftermath section" if the result is in any way ambiguous, and a result should only be entered if the academic consensus is clear, in which case whatever term the majority of sources use should be entered, so long as it is cited in the body. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@FactotEm and @Peacemaker67 I have tried to capture and address the issues that you each raised with the edits to both the usage section (per verifiability) and for the result parameter in particular. By this, there are only three accepted "outcomes", the assessment is constrained in time (immediacy), "conclusive" can only be used where it is clearly so and verifiable. There is a direction to defer to the "Aftermath". I have tried to make this guidance clear and unambiguous. If I have failed or there is any way to improve it further ...? Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that we change the example infobox result on the doc page, as it undermines what we are trying to achieve. It currently says "Swedish Pyrrhic victory", although the actual article infobox just says "Swedish victory". Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67, Good point. I have just made a further edit at the "result" guidance that makes the language even less equivocal. Is this a case where you would use "Inconclusive (See 'Aftermath' section)"? If not, would it be appropriate to use such an example? Can you think of one? Just having a look at that article now.

Reading the Battle's article, I can see it is a case of "Protestant Union victory (see "Aftermath" Section)". I revised the guidance to allow such - "Such a note can be used in conjunction with any standard term but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result of the "subject" conflict." Cinderella157 (talk) 03:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what that sentence actually means. What are you trying to achieve with it? FactotEm (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@FactotEm, my intent is to limit the "permitted" responses to the three standard responses and/or "see Aftermath section". Assigning the result is assessed in respect to the "immediate" or "short-term" - that is, it is specific to the "subject" conflict, it does not consider broader or longer-term implications to the campaign or war. "Victory X see Aftermath" might capture some "longer-term" nuances but the "immediate result" must be an unambiguous victory. Finally, any result must be supported by sources. To this end, edits were made to the "usage" section of the template document.

Things like: garrisoning the new conquest X left Y undefended when it was attacked a month later or the victory was at such a cost that it gave the enemy time to regroup and win the war... are nuances in the longer term. Initially, I had deprecated "see Aftermath" in all examples except "inconclusive" . The example infobox for the doc (Battle of Lützen (1632)) initially described it as a pyrrhic victory. The article "aftermath" describes it as a strategic and tactical victory for the protestant side but with a significant loss, including the death of the Swedish king. For these reasons, I thought it appropriate to use "Victory X see Aftermath". The victory was not ambiguous but there was nuance in the longer-term.

Hence the current iteration of the doc guidance. I think we have a common intent. Please feel free to add or discuss improvement in wording. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the Lützen article demonstrates the difficulty of what you're trying to achieve here, and in particular the dangers of trying to accommodate nuance in an infobox that is just not suited to nuance. The immediate result of that battle was a Swedish/Protestant victory. The death of Gustavus Adolphus had longer term consequences beyond the battle. What conflict doesn't have consequences beyond the immediate timeframe, and won't every article therefore qualify for a "see aftermath" rider?

What's wrong with: this parameter should state, without qualification, "X victory", identifying which side was the victor of the subject conflict according to reliable sources. If there is no consensus on the victor in these sources, then the parameter should state "See aftermath" and link to the section in the article where the result is discussed.?

Anything more brings more scope for dispute than it does understanding of the subject. Accepting a "conclusive" option is basically just making an exception to the no qualifiers rule that was implemented some time ago in an attempt to remove the grounds for dispute. I do believe we would be better served by finishing that process, and eliminate any form of qualification for this parameter. FactotEm (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, on further reflection I think it should probably be a choice of "Fooish victory", "Fooish defeat", or "Inconclusive (see Aftermath section)". Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@FactotEm. I looked at the previous discussion and it came to include "decisive". I tried to capture this and subsequent discusion that "decisive" was an anachronism. It appears that only three of us have any real interest. Let me ponder this. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that it might help to reduce the number of choices but they will have to be enforced and that's not something that admins will agree to. How about "win", "lose" or "other" which would appear as See Aftermath section? Keith-264 (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

A win for one side is automatically a loss for the other, so not sure that we need both. FactotEm (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

If one side attacks and succeeds, it's a win, if it fails it's a loss. Keith-264 (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, nuance that has no place in the infobox. FactotEm (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

No-one's accused me of nuance before.... :o)Keith-264 (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

An earlier discussion (Military Conflict Template) was resolved to limit the options and to include "Decisive X victory". I had thought there might be opposition to removing this, as opposed to substituting "conclusive". However, I take this discussion as a consensus to deprecate any qualifier (either "conclusive" or "decisive"). There is support for "Inconclusive (see Aftermath section)" and perhaps, "see Aftermath section" alone. I see no harm in it also being applied to "X victory" - even if every such case might qualify for this rider. Its inclusion does nothing more than direct the reader to where the matter is discussed in fuller detail. However, if there is consensus to not apply it in the case of "victory", I will write it out. I think there is some value in constraining the result in time to the "immediate" and emphasising there should be no ambiguity in ascribing the result as a victory. But again, I will write it out if there is consensus. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

More comments per revised version

see Template:Infobox military conflict/doc

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: , could I get some more feedback on whether we fly with this iteration or it needs to be refined some more. I need to update what appears in the parameter box to reflect the comments given in the usage section but I have been leaving this until we have an "accepted" version. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Speaking just for myself here, I've always favored omitting "decisive" or other such battle descriptors unless the decisive or otherwise unique outcome can be justified by multiple (read as 2 or more) independent texts. Without additional sources to back up the point I've always default to the position that including the descriptors was in violation of the NPOV guidelines sine it always seems to invite low level debates, arguments, and in some cases edit warring brought on nationalistic, alternative history, or other factions that feel its use in the article in unwarranted or unjustified. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@TomStar81, do you have any specific comments on the revision as it now appears? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty comfortable with the current reading. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The trouble with allowing the RS to decide on decisiveness is that pop-historians and hacks writing for commercial publishers use hyperbole for salesmanship. I'd limit it to RS using the Clausewitzian definition. Keith-264 (talk) 06:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264, this iteration deprecates decisive. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little worried about it but I suppose we can deal with it if and when the time comes. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal re: Result parameter - bullet points

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

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

• Battle of Svolder
• Battle of The Cedars
• Battle of Ticonderoga (1759)
• Battle of Bosworth Field
• Battle of Gonzales
• Battle of Khafji

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

Opposed, I suggest that they be removed from articles for obvious reasons. Keith-264 (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Obviously a reasonable idea that is already in common use. I have cited another half-dozen examples on the Battle of France talk page already. DMorpheus2 (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the last change to the template documentation, discussed here, was designed to reduce the potential for disagreement by restricting the the number of choices available for the result parameter. If adopted, this change will reverse that course, and increase the potential for conflict and edit war whilst offering little advantage in return. It's also my opinion that infoboxes should present only the most basic, at-a-glance, factual data, and the type of information often presented in bullet point form actually belongs to aftermath and lead sections - I'm not sure that information creep in the infobox is a positive step. FactotEm (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

All systems to organise information create anomalies and boundary disputes. It seems to me that the three choice limit is designed to make people choose for the sake of brevity and when this is insufficient, to resolve the anomaly by linking to the article, where matters are discussed at greater length. Citing FA articles with bullet points as a precedent creates confirmation bias, since no-one has counted FAs without them. I've changed my views on them several times and settled on See Aftermath section, since I think that's what it's there for. Keith-264 (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, that the other way to resolve a discrepancy, is to have no entry in the result criterion. Keith-264 (talk) 10:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The infobox is a blunt instrument that beats nuance to a bloody pulp on the altar of brevity. Its raison d'être is brevity, and I think any attempt to shoehorn nuance into it is nothing but a gateway to conflict (a mistake I have made myself before now). Keith, I think you're seeing the world in all its colours, but the infobox is a black/white thing. I don't like it either, but we're stuck with it. FactotEm (talk) 11:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

That's what I wrote, how could you interpret it as the opposite? Bullet points are nuance by the way. Keith-264 (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Basically agree with Keith and particularly Factotem about infoboxes being a blunt instrument. I've used "See Aftermath section" in several Milhist ACRs, and even a FA (I think). Bullet points would be a backward step and will just encourage disputation over something that should be explained properly in the lead and aftermath sections. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on Battle of Trafalgar talk page if anyone's interested. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Table.mw-stack to DIV.mw-stack

Hey! I noticed this template is inconsistent to the stack template which uses a div tag rather than a table. This is making it tricky for my team at WMF (and apis) to apply mobile optimizations by identifying the main infobox inside the page. According to my logs this template is the only widely used template on mediawiki using a table.

I was curious if this template needs to use a table element. Could this use the stack template directly ? Jdlrobson (talk) Jdlrobson (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Cc User:Frietjes thanks in advance for your answers! Jdlrobson (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Jdlrobson, I have changed to to use the same elements, styles, and classes as Template:stack. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy edit User:Frietjes! The logs I'm looking at are running much more cleaner now and I can see the problem is also present in Template:Infobox_civil_conflict. I also notice lots of pages which could be using stack but are not so any guidance there would be appreciated! Jdlrobson (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Jdlrobson, I updated civil conflict as well. Frietjes (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 March 2018

I don't want to change anything, I just want to study the code used to see how it works. If you would rather not give me access, maybe just leave the code on my Talk page, and I can then delete it? 2samspan (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The source can be viewed by clicking on the "module tab" and on the "view source tab" that then appears. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The code is there below the documentation and or can be seen from clicking view source Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Test image with latitude and longitude

see "Template:Infobox military conflict/testcases#Test image with latitude and longitude" it errors with "Lua error in Module:Location_map at line 418: No value was provided for longitude". Yet it seems to work in the article Battle of Vukovar. Why the difference? -- PBS (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding the line

|coordinates={{coord|45.35|18.99|display=title}}

to the template fixes the problem in the test. This does not seem to me to be the expected result. -- PBS (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

OK so now I have looked into the history of the edits to this module there are two editors who have been active in editing it regards this "feature" they are user:Frietjes and user:Jonesey95 who included a link to Wikipedia:Coordinates in infoboxes in her/his edit history entry.

It seems that the template is working as programmed, but the documentation has failed to be updated. Ie the parameters "latitude" and "longitude" have been deprecated as the parameter coordinates= with the template {{coord}} ought to be used instead. In my opinion this means that the documentation needs to be updated and a bot run over instances of this template making sure that "coordinates" is being used instead of "latitude" and "longitude" with appropriate additions and subtractions to the parameters in the instances of the template used in articles. -- PBS (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I have updated the documentation, except for the TemplateData programming code, which is not documentation and which I do not touch. Others are welcome to update that. As for the unsupported latitude and longitude parameters, they are no longer in use in article space, as far as I can tell, since Category:Pages using infobox military operation with unknown parameters is empty. A bot ran through all article space instances of this template to convert lat and long to use the coord template. Thanks for pointing out that we missed a bit of the documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

add "view edit talk" to bottom right corner

I'm not sure what the V•E•T template is called, or how to add it, but I recommend we add it to this template.