Template talk:Infobox civilian attack

Template:Infobox civilian attack is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox civilian attack template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2: 2 months

This template was nominated for deletion or considered for merging. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 28 September 2024, see discussion.
Merge with Template:Infobox event: keep, 31 July 2017, see discussion.
Merge with Template:Infobox event: keep, 1 October 2013, see discussion.

Proposal to replace "perpetrator" with "attacker"

The term "perpetrator" can carry a value judgment, and we shouldn't be saying that in wikivoice. That is the spirit behind WP:TERRORIST as well. Instead, we should consider a neutral term like "attacker" or "Responsible party". "Attacker" is natural and neutral, certainly as neutral as the word "attack" itself. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attacker and attack have more of a value judgement. Disagree. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think "attack" is very neutral and commonly used in WP:ARTICLETITLE, which policy dictates must be neutral. Besides, we already have a field called "Attack type".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Also, this parameter should never be used unless a criminal conviction exists anyway, or the person is dead. Any other use is inappropriate. This infobox is for terrorist attacks and other crimes, I think attacker is worse. A crime is usually said to have a perpetrator, not an attacker. In any crime that isn't a terror attack that parameter is confusing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we want a word that does not carry any value judgment whatsoever, "by" is an option. TompaDompa (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes it seem like the crime is an art piece or something. Jarring.

This is inherently an infobox for very contentious events and should not be used in more ambiguous ones where that would be an issue. If there is no convicted (or deceased and considered by RS to have done it) perpetrator, the parameter should not be used. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time understanding how "attack" is neutral, but somehow "attacker" is not. Its almost the same word! VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the name of this infobox has never been good since it's basically infobox crime. But we cannot call it that; the thing is, this infobox should not be used in a circumstance where the agent responsible having the legal status of a perpetrator would be inappropriate. It's for crimes! Given that this is an infobox for crime cases, "attacker" is very weird, and informal. I also don't think it is neutral, or at least any more neutral than "perpetrator" PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

multiple image support

can we support multiple image in infobox ? Cinaroot (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we need that? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? So that we can display select images in the info box, especially for big articles with many images. Cinaroot (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

like this Tamil Nadu Cinaroot (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's an eyesore and there's no reason to do that with events. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

mm. yah probably Cinaroot (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2 isn't so bad 2014 Gaza War Cinaroot (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are wars, which already support that. A 1-event article should not have more than 1 image. Adding this will encourage addition of superfluous images. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Gaza genocide should have 2-3 images. can i use different template ? Cinaroot (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue why that is using the civilian attack infobox... it is not for genocides, it's for generally 1-event kinds of crimes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

other genocide article are also using that. so whats the other template we can use here Cinaroot (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I would oppose adding multiple images to this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why can an event of such magnitude be represented by just one picture? Cinaroot (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because people are using this infobox incorrectly doesn't mean we should add features that will contribute to people adding useless images to pages. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 10 September 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add this more common undocumented parameter "sentence" to the list (seen i.e. Special:permalink/1308864700 and Special:permalink/1300038809.

Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 13:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. That list is for parameters that are supported by the template. There does not appear to be a |sentence= parameter in this template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sophisticatedevening I have requested we add this parameter for years, but you can’t add any unused template paramater without a full RfC. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]