Module talk:Infobox military conflict: Difference between revisions

Military history Template‑class

This module is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Template This module does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. Additional information: /  No existing task force includes this article in its scope; to propose a new one, please leave a message on the main project talk page.

Useful links

• Link to Template:Infobox military conflict
• Link to Template:Infobox military conflict/doc (Documentation)

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

(moved from Talk:Battle of the Coral Sea#Request for comment)

Should infoboxes follow a strict interpretation of Template:Infobox military conflict/doc? Per the discussion above, articles like Wars of the Roses, World War II, World War I, Hundred Years' War, as well as War of the Austrian Succession, King George's War, War of the Spanish Succession, Samoan Civil War, and many more others are violations. Per discussion with Cinderella157 above, we cannot use results like "stalemate", "indecisive", "withdrawal", "status quo ante bellum", "ceasefire", "truce", "compromise", simple "treaty" results, or any other description and bullet points as they are contrary of Template:Infobox military conflict/doc. EtherealGate (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a malformed RfC. It should be narrowly focussed on resolving this issue for this article, not trying to change the documentation of Infobox military conflict on a global scale, which would be better done on the main Milhist talk page. I suggest it is reworded neutrally to focus on what is to be done with this article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]