Template talk:Infobox military conflict

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
See also: Module talk:Infobox military conflict

Documentation Transclusions Readability

[edit]
This section is transcluded from Module talk:Infobox military conflict. (edit | history)


Missing parameter check for subtitle

[edit]

I don't edit much in template space, but I know the rough mechanics.

There's clear a use of argument subtitle in the template implementation, and no appearance of subtitle in the alphabetic parameter check list.

This seems to be a simple omission.

Page Operation PX is complaining about this, but there's no evident fix at that level. — MaxEnt 16:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to post about this. In layman's terms, entering text with the "subtitle" parameter doesn't actually do anything. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC about exceptions to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and commanders/leaders in Template:Infobox military conflict

[edit]

Please comment at the subject RfC.

Creating a separate label and argument for "Duration" of war

[edit]

Hi, nowadays, duration is part of "Date" label, like "Iran–Iraq War" which is in my opinion not good. So I propose to create a separate label and argument for "Duration" of war. This makes "duration of war" more readable. Something like Template:Infobox historical era. Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on "supported by" being used with the belligerent parameter

[edit]

Should the supported by parameter be reinstated on the basis of verified confirmation the supporting party thereof accused, therefore it should be renamed to Known Supported By, therefore not to give the majority POV but rather equal coverage to both sides PageMaintaince (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it should be allowed if it can be supported by (pun intended) reliable sources. Supported By was abused at times, but a lot of well-sourced and important information was also removed because of this new rule. So many modern wars are proxy wars, and by eradicating this crucial feature of info boxes, that context is instead being buried deep in articles if it appears at all. Holden3172 (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unknown parameter tracking

[edit]

I have added Check for unknown parameters to the template. I based my param choices off of the TemplateData on the documentation page (note that |mapframe_args=y includes all the mapframe related params so those are not listed out). There is def a chance I missed some params... I will monitor Category:Pages using infobox military conflict with unknown parameters (0) over the next few days as it populates and correct any mistakes unless someone beats me to it. {{Ping|Zackmann08}} me if you have any questions of concerns. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 09:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So this category absolutely BLEW UP overnight after I added it. I have consulted the parameter report and it looks like there are a lot of typos needing fixing but there are some widely used parameters that concern me:
  • |campaign= is used 103 times
  • |casualties4= is used 98 times
  • |casus= 335 times
  • |colour_scheme= 124 times
  • |name = 85 times
and a smattering of others.
Could someone who has a better understanding of this template (@Jackmcbarn, Frietjes, and Joy: as recent contributors to the module, I'm looking at you!) help me out by letting me know what params are missing from the TemplateData? Ideally if this can be done before the first of the month when the new Param Report runs that would fantastic. REALLY appreciate any assistance. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08 Hey, good work trying to tackle this. I've got one question though: Wouldn't it make sense to keep the casus= parameter and make it work, instead of just deleting it? It's used a lot on Dutch Wikipedia for a very brief description of why a conflict broke out. Casus is short for casus belli. E.g. with a war of succession, 99% of the time it is because monarch X died. For a quick overview and navigation, that's very helpful, just as a very brief result is (e.g. Fooian victory, or Treaty of Bar). Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nederlandse Leeuw So that is totally valid... What I would point you to is these three separate discussions about removing |casus=/|casus_belli= from the template/module. The TLDR version of it is that casus is often VERY subjective and depends on which side of the conflict you are on. There doesn't often appear to be a cut and dry casus. Thus it is much better discussed in the article body where you can clearly state both sides. To be clear, I have no real opinion on whether it should be added or not, but seeing as it was removed a while ago by consensus, I saw no harm in going ahead and removing the unknown parameters. For the record, I already did the clean up so the parameters are already gone... That being said, there is no objection from me on re-adding it to the Module, but I would encourage you to start a discussion at Module talk:Infobox military conflict to make sure there is agreement to add that parameter. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:19, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08 Fair enough, I was not aware that consensus on removing the casus (belli) parameter from the Infobox military conflict had already been established in October 2007, and had been implemented ever since. I suppose it seems normal for anyone who has used the Infobox military conflict in other language versions of Wikipedia (in my case Dutch Wikipedia), which has retained the casus parameter up to this day. I suppose that is the reason why I am seeing you remove it now from dozens of articles I've translated from nlwiki to enwiki. ;)
Pragmatically, I would say the Result parameter is often no less controversial than the Casus parameter, and we often need to refer to the Aftermath section as well if the results cannot be summarised briefly in a way that editors can agree on. Then again, reviving the Casus parameter probably won't do much good right now. So I'm okay with you removing them. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 06:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Display error with unused columns

[edit]

There is a display error when the first column of a parameter is used but the second column (combatant/commander/units/strength/casualties 2) is empty. In that case there is no dividing line between the columns, making it one large field for both sides together (with the text still being left-alligned). It can be circumvented e.g. by putting code into the second column, like a line break, which doesn't show up or actually create a line break since there is nothing to be broken up. Meanwhile that shouldn't be neccessary, and some editors delete those code parts thinking it to be an error instead of an edit with fixing purpose (example of display error and deletion right here [1]). I hope somebody knows a real solution within the template coding itself. ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:GELongstreet one workaround is to use   instead of the br tag, but would be great to get this fixed. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]