Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Proxy conflicts and diplomatic disputes

I spend too much time explaining to bored college kids with this bizarre flagicon fetish that this template is not suitable for topics like 2017–18 Qatar diplomatic crisis and Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict among others. My main issue with it is that almost every time you have this infobox in such articles, there will be a great deal of original research involved. It took me some time to illustrate this point on the Qatar crisis article and I was only successful because other well-established editors seemed to be in agreement with me. But I don't plan on doing this everywhere. The reason I'm saying it's not suitable for those topics is because nowhere on /doc are the words "diplomatic" and "proxy" mentioned. Thing is, I do want them mentioned, but along the lines of: "This template is not suitable for articles dealing with proxy conflicts and diplomatic disputes." I would also like to have friendly fire incidents (e.g. USS Liberty incident and 2011 NATO attack in Pakistan) included in the wording, but I can leave this for another discussion if it's too controversial right now. Should I convert this to an RfC? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Ordering of campaign boxes

Is there a preferred order for campaign boxes when there are several? Eg see Battle of Neville's Cross. The example in the template page lists the more "junior" conflict first. Neville's Cross reverses this. Is there a preference? Or can one freely choose? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Casualties and losses

I've added "and equipment losses" to the description for the "casualties" field to match current practice. The templatedata should probably be updated too. See discussions:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#RFC: What details should be included in Vietnam War infobox casualties section?
• Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 3#Casualties and losses
• Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 2#Equipment losses

Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I have tweaked this a little and added some guidance re listing equipment losses per the first of the discussions listed. I have also updated the "template data" section to mirror the edits made to the "parameters" section. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit template

The "map_caption" parameter is not in line with MOS:ACCESS#Text / MOS:FONTSIZE, which say to "avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference sections." It clearly produces a smaller than acceptable font. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, The processing for that looks to be carried out by Module:Location map line 228 which would probably have knock-on effects elsewhere, on over half a million pages. *Gulp* Cabayi (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Cabayi, gulp indeed. Thanks for identifying the source for me. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit request: remove center tag

Request to copy my changes from the sandbox (permalink). This edit removes the center tag around the location map which is obsolete, and in fact redundant to the float = 'center' passed to Module:Location map. An example of usage is at my sandbox, copied from Skirmish at Hunter's Farm. Many thanks, User:GKFX^talk 20:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC).

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Guidance/Dispute on using the "result" field

There is currently an ongoing discussion at Talk:Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu#Infobox, between me and User:Eastfarthingan. The discussion is about this edit, which removed the "decisive" qualifier and detailed results of the battle. I think the question is wether one would rather follow the infobox guidance (which discourages "decisive") or the local consensus (which, until now, was to keep the status quo because the battle was decisive). I have agreed with User:Eastfarthingan to take the matter here to get some input from the broader community. Averell (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

This would be the venue to discuss the template guidance generally, and I don't think it's appropriate to try and settle specific cases such as Dien Bien Phu here. If normal discussion at the article TP does not succeed in establishing a consensus, then an RfC there is probably the next step. Factotem (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit request: Mobile friendly version of this template

Please replace

			:addClass('mw-stack mobile-float-reset')
			:css('box-sizing', 'border-box')
			:css('float', 'right')
			:css('clear', 'right')

with

			:addClass('mw-stack desktop-float-right')

The styles have been moved to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_military_conflict/styles.css

See phab:T221695 for more information. Jdlrobson (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@MSGJ: @Jonesey95: @Frietjes: can any of you help me with this change? Jdlrobson (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Jdlrobson, okay, but I moved the templatestyles to the module. Frietjes (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

stray carriage return?

When implemented, why is there a gap between |place= and |coordinates=? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Can we please make sure that from now on display coordinates are shown as 'INLINE' only. 'TITLE' use is now redundant especially on mobile and tablet formats/browsers.

• Example:38°06′35.0″N 15°38′31.3″E

coord|38|06|35.0|N|15|38|31.3|E|type:event_scale:10000_region:IT|display=inline

Regards. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks I've amended my template. Keith-264 (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Bug involving the creation of an extra blank line

In the infobox of the Siege of Najaf (1918), there is a blank line between "Location: Najaf" and "Result: British victory". This does not happen in Afghan tribal revolts of 1944–1947. I am confident that this is a bug and should be fixed. Koopinator (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Number of belligerents

I think we should have a serious discussion on whether to have four columns for belligerents because of how it is used in Template:Syrian Civil War infobox and the Mexican Drug War. In the case of the former, the infobox is too wide and negatively affects the lead in Syrian Civil War; in the case of the latter, the infobox is too narrow and usually only one word can be fit in each line for the belligerents. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 22:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it works in the latter case, but not in the former. I don't think deprecating four columns is necessary, just that the infobox must not be so wide. That is a formatting issue, surely? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, the question becomes: how do you balance having four columns while not negatively impacting the formatting? Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 07:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Some uses of the infobox have resolved this by not using all four columns and instead listing information both side by side and in a few columns. See e.g. Second Congo War. The larger issue is why people are trying to cram all sorts of minutiae in the infobox that doesn't appear in the article. Template:Syrian Civil War infobox has more than a hundred references, when it should be based on what's already sourced in prose. It also includes collapsed lists against the advice at MOS:DONTHIDE (if it's not important enough to be shown, is it really important enough to be included at all?) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)