Content deleted Content added
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 26 discussions from Module talk:Infobox military conflict. (BOT) |
Anomalocaris (talk | contribs) m properly nest [[<font>...</font>]]; <font> → <span style>; <tt> → <samp>; properly close <p> tags |
||
Line 16:
The template doesn't seem to allow relief maps to be used. Could something be done about this? I think relief maps would be very helpful in articles about battles, skirmishes, ambushes, and so forth. [[User:Asarlaí|~Asarlaí]] 15:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
:The template does have a provision for a ___location map (see <
::Yes, it does allow ___location maps, but it doesn't seem to allow relief versions of ___location maps (see [[Template:Location map island of Ireland]] for example). [[Ballygawley bus bombing|Here]]'s an example of a relief ___location map in use. If you edit the page, you'll see that the relief map is shown by adding <
:::Okay, that makes sense. I've added a <
::::I just tried it and it seems to be working fine. Thanks! [[User:Asarlaí|~Asarlaí]] 00:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Line 27:
== 4th Combatant ==
If there was a fourth combatant, what would the coding look like? ''[[User:JCRules|<
:Unreadable, probably; there's only so many columns we can squeeze into a fixed width. To be honest, even the three-combatant setup is difficult to read, although the situation occurs often enough that it's probably necessary nevertheless; if we start having more combatants than that, I think the only solution is to list them in a single field (cf. [[Italian Wars]]). [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]</sup> 17:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Line 204:
[[File:Gory borowskie 1939.png|thumb|right]]
Could we add some way to display proper battle maps to the template instead of just the locator maps? Plenty of battles already have proper maps, yet the template only allows us to use the simplest locator maps. I mean maps with positions of forces marked, such as the one on the right (it's not the best example as it includes too much text in the legend, but that's the first one I could think of). ''<
: use {{para|image}}? [[User:Frietjes|Frietjes]] ([[User talk:Frietjes|talk]]) 15:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
::Yeah, I know I can use a map '''instead''' of a picture. What I would like to use is both. Say, a picture of the troops or a painting as the main image, and the map below. Just like you can use both pictures, maps and wikimaps in [[Template:Infobox settlement]]. ''<
::: you can actually [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Borowa_Góra&diff=562032348&oldid=561653243 stack multiple images there as well], or embed a ___location map, although it may seem like a hack. [[User:Frietjes|Frietjes]] ([[User talk:Frietjes|talk]]) 22:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
:::: Wow, didn't think of it. Thanks a lot mate. ''<
== Re-add "Cause" ==
Line 436:
::I had also a "Foreign Intervention" row, but, at least in my 6 examples in my sandbox, there were too few cases were we could use the row. I deleted it from the lua snippet. --<span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">[[User:Keysanger|Keysanger]] <small>([[User talk:Keysanger|talk]])</small></span> 11:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:::At first sight the proposal looks good. As far as I understand the modification of the template will allow a better description of [[coup d'etat]]s with the templates. Regarding the military support I'm not really sure how to interpret that. During coups small groups might engage physically while they claim a wide military support (which if successful might be validate but if it ends in failure might be denyed). Take for example the [[tanquetazo]] in Chile 1973. If this coup would have been successful the coup-makers would perhaps have claimed that that they enjoyed widespread support from the Chilean army, but since it ended in failure it is usually considered that it lacked real support. In the cases of coups and putsches I would suggest to define support strictly to avoid the "joining the victory parade effect". [[User:Dentren|<span style="color:green">'''Dentren'''</span>]] | [[User_talk:Dentren|<sup><
::::It looks good for me. Although, if I may suggest, do keep the "Strength" subheader. As [[User:Dentren|<span style="color:green">'''Dentren'''</span>]] said, there might be physical clashes, say, the [[Bombing of Plaza de Mayo]] (check the Spanish article). It was a failed coup attempt, but the loyal forces did battle the bunch of traitors... ehr rebel forces. They lost 9 grenadiers and 5 police officers, whilst the rebels suffered 30 casualties and 3 warplanes were shot down — not to mention the hundreds of civilians.
Line 484:
:I disagree. I see no reason that we should prohibit infoboxes for fictional things, and I see no reason that we should create another template that's completely identical to this one, but just for fictional things. If this is a problem, we could instead create a "fictional" flag and a second wrapper for this module. [[User:Jackmcbarn|Jackmcbarn]] ([[User talk:Jackmcbarn|talk]]) 14:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
:: I disagree. I see plenty of reasons why we should prohibit infoboxes whose established usage are dedicated to historical events. I'm obviously no Wikipedia admin, but I think first and foremost of those reasons is established Wikpiedia practice. In particular, [[WP:WAF-INFO]]. There's a reason why [[James Bond]] uses the character infobox and [[Sean Connery]] uses the person infobox. If the fictional war in [[Settling Accounts]] ''is'' a military conflict (and it's not because its a ''fictional'' military conflict), then James Bond is a person. James Bond has a birthplace and a birth date, he has an occupation, he has a nationality, an employer, etc. If I go and edit the James Bond page right now and replace the character template with the person template, I'd expect for the sake of consistency that no admin would come and undo my update. [[WP:WAF-INFO]] indicates that infoboxes on works of fiction should contain data pertaining to the ''context'' of that fictional work, which is why the Infobox on the James Bond page indicates his creator, depictions, and appearances, and not his age or height or birthplace or any of that. Settling Accounts is a ''fictional'' military conflict, so it should be treated differently than an ''historical'' military conflict, in the same way that James Bond, who is a ''fictional'' person is treated different and in the same way that [[Atlantis]] and [[El Dorado]] do not sport geographic coordinates and settlement infoboxes. Just because a separate infobox doesn't yet exist for fictional historical conflicts doesn't mean that creating one won't make it more ''consistent'' with already-well-established-practice vis-a-vis characters, fictional locations, fictional organizations, and a ton of other boundaries between the fictional in the real that have been reified dozens of thousands of times all over Wikipdia. Unless, well, inertia. [[User:Vqmalic|Vqmalic]] ([[User talk:Vqmalic|talk]]) 03:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
:::{{u|Vqmalic}} and {{u|Jackmcbarn}}: I actually just came to this talk page to make a proposal related to this issue, and I found this discussion. My proposal, which I will make below, is that an infobox be created for both fictional and real-time virtual world battles (there aren't enough notable examples of the latter, I think, to warrant a separate infobox).--[[User:3family6|<
== problem with insertion of picture ==
Line 503:
* Add the following parameters, which could be filled as needed: Universe (Star Wars, LOTR, Dune, Eve Online, etc.); Creator (either a specific author, such as [[Frank Herbert]], or a publisher/company, such as [[CCP Games]]); and Adaptations (list of select adaptations in film or theatre, or novelizations from film or theatre)
Those are my ideas, and I'd welcome more. I'd go ahead and create the template myself, but I a) wanted some feedback as to the parameters to include and what color the infobox should be, and b) am not confident in the coding for such a template.--[[User:3family6|<
*In point of fact this has been raised before, although in each case the idea was tabled on grounds that the use of the military history conflict template in fictional articles doesn't cause any major problems. That having been said, if you guys want to re-discuss this, feel free to do so. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 05:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
*:{{u|TomStar81}} It has caused fairly significant problems, recently, according to {{u|Vqmalic}}. See their convo a few threads up.--[[User:3family6|<
*::I'd say that Vqmalic's case is specific to research. I do not think this is per se "a significant problem", though it may agreeably be said to be a "a problem". I think TomStar is commenting from the POV that use of this infobox in the fictional context does not cause problems with vandalism, seems fairly fit-for-purpose, and all-around does its job. (I would pre-emptively agree that addition to this template of fictional in-universe data fields, or data describing the fictional world from an out-of-universe perspective, would be out of scope, so that means we would need a new template. See also comment below.) --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 19:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
*My personal concern is that it may make a fictional conflict seem too in-universe? Or, it's treating a fictional conflict on the level of a real-world one? I also generally wonder if most of these conflicts meet notability requirements warranting an article, in turn warranting an infobox. But that's a different issue. I don't really have any other more in-depth thoughts than that at the moment. ~Cheers, [[User:TenTonParasol|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Ten</span>]][[User talk:TenTonParasol|<span style="color:MediumSeaGreen;">Ton</span>]][[Special:Contributions/TenTonParasol|<span style="color:LightGreen;">Parasol</span>]] 05:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
*It seems a bad idea to use this infobox, or anything closely resembling it, for fictional battles on the grounds that they're, well, fictional. I don't see how the infobox would be helpful to readers in those circumstances. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 07:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
*:We use infoboxes for fictional characters, such as [[James Bond]] and [[Jabba the Hutt]], as well as fictional objects, creatures, etc., so there is precedent for an infobox. The design should be different from the battle infobox, I agree. That's a reason I suggested adding the parameters I listed above.--[[User:3family6|<
*My concern lies along the same lines as TTP's as well as (somewhat) Nick-D: primarily, this information is too [[WP:INUNIVERSE]]. There might be a usefulness in using something like a generic {{tl|infobox fictional event}}, but one dedicated to battles whiffs of being too-in-universe. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 19:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
*:I'd say this is a good idea. The in-universe objection is one I don't quite understand; if you're talking about a fictional battle, how else but in-universe would you discuss it? (I had the same question about the history of [[The Executioner (book series)|Bolan]].) I also think using the real-world infobox for fictional battles is a bit odd, if not quite a mistake. [[User:Trekphiler|<
*::The in-universe objection, well as I'm interpreting your statement, is that using an infobox meant for a real-world conflict for a fictional one may "[[WP:INUNIVERSE|[treat] it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis]]." As it stands, because this infobox isn't meant to deal with a fictional element, it doesn't allow one to include real-world context. I have no idea how to ''make'' a template, but I've seem to have figured out how to make a mock-up of one? (I'm not sure if I did it properly though.) It's mostly drawing from the example of [[Template:Infobox fictional ___location]], and that's all the necessary parameters I could think of at the moment. It's located at [[User:TenTonParasol/Userboxes|one of my subpages]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TenTonParasol/Userboxes&oldid=695558391 permalink]). Now, ''should'' there be a consensus to create one for fictional conflicts / events, I personally propose this is the direction it go into. ~Cheers, [[User:TenTonParasol|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Ten</span>]][[User talk:TenTonParasol|<span style="color:MediumSeaGreen;">Ton</span>]][[Special:Contributions/TenTonParasol|<span style="color:LightGreen;">Parasol</span>]] 22:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
*:::I think that there should be some summaries of the conflict in there, but I like it otherwise. Personally, as a reader, I'd like an infobox that broke down the basics of a fictional battle, with the fictional ___location, forces involved, etc.--[[User:3family6|<
*::::Yes, just the same as a reader might want all the details of the 501st Pokemon... but we don't provide that information because we think it's [[WP:NOT|not encyclopedic]]. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 01:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
*:::::It's not encyclopedic to summarize the article content in an infobox?--[[User:3family6|<
*:::::Basically, as long as the coverage in the infobox is a general overview of the article, I don't see a problem with including combatants, fictional date fought (with comparison of real-time date, if appropriate), ___location, commanders, units involved, and casualties. All these could be put in a "details" section below the information about the fictional universe. This isn't every little detail, but an overview of how the battle transpired, and if this info is placed below that detailing the fictional nature of the event, I don't think that will mislead readers.--[[User:3family6|<
*::::::I actually do see a problem, which is the point I'm making: No-one unfamiliar with the topic cares or has an understanding of that information, and we are writing our encyclopedia for the generalist reader, not for generic X-fan in X-fandom who wants the details of the battle. Such interested users have any variety of pages (most-often external wikis) available to them for what essentially amounts to fancruft. As I said before and below, {{tl|infobox fictional event}} makes sense; {{tl|infobox fictional military conflict}} does not (amusingly blue-linked there, from some enterprising editor earlier this year). --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 12:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
*::::::::This Wikipedia reader, for one, is interested in the details of fictional battles that I'm unfamiliar with, which is why I'm arguing for them. I respect your right to disagree, and that's why I'm trying to establish a consensus, so that a template can be agreed on.--[[User:3family6|<
*:::<p>Indeed, that's the objection explained (or nearly so; I might have a quibble but it's minor).</p><p>I agree, this is the direction to go, but it should be general to any fictional event, because I think there may be other articles that benefit. The template being general also helps us avoid falling into the trap of including a large number of primarily fictional paramters, which I can think of another template which has issues with.</p><p>It's not much further to creating a template that any page can use: just swap the information you put in e.g. <code>This sexy description of cosplayers</code> for <code><nowiki>{{{1|}}}</nowiki></code> or <code><nowiki>{{{caption|}}}</nowiki></code>. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 01:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)</p>
I have two objections, though I would not mind in-universe templates.
*"Most parameters would be the same (___location, combatants, results, etc.)" Would not this be a duplicate template and covered by essentially the same WikiProject? [[War novel]]s and military fiction are already covered by WikiProject Military history.
*"However, the infobox should be a different color". If the color is the only real difference, it would be invisible to [[Color blindness|color blind]] users. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 06:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
::Yeah, I've reconsidered the different color idea. I actually would prefer a template with similar parameters as those of the military conflict infobox, but with additional information about the fictional background. With most parameters being the same, it would be a very similar template, I agree. However, additional details, such as the author/creator, franchise/fictional universe, and adaptations of the conflict from the work it originally appeared in. These could be given at the top, and thus indicate the fictional nature of the conflict. Also, one of the problems with using the current template is categorization. A different template, even a very similar one, would not be categorized in the same way, and thus difficulties such as that Vqmalic encountered, where use of bot-assisted data collection is skewed, would not happen.--[[User:3family6|<
=== Nature of proposed template for fiction ===
Starting a subheading because I'm losing the train of thought because the conversation is continuing in the middle of the thread instead of at the end. Summarizing what we have so far:
Line 539:
::As far as appearance based parameters, the idea was actually appeared, not mentioned. i.e. an infobox for the Clone Wars wouldn't attribute first appearance as ''A New Hope'' even though it's mentioned twice in it, if the Red Wedding had lasted--to make up numbers--from season 2 episode 4 to season 2 to episode 7, those are the only episode episodes to appear in the infobox, even if it was mentioned for every single episode after from season 2 episode 8 to season 12. That'd be explained in documentation, with hope. I don't have any particular attachment to the parameters, so I could nix them if they're really unwise. I'll add in a fictional ___location and date to the mockup later. ~Cheers, [[User:TenTonParasol|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Ten</span>]][[User talk:TenTonParasol|<span style="color:MediumSeaGreen;">Ton</span>]][[Special:Contributions/TenTonParasol|<span style="color:LightGreen;">Parasol</span>]] 23:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
*:As stated above, I support keeping all the military parameters, but with details about the fictional background included. If this is deemed too detailed, I would settle for "part of" (if relevant), "date," "___location," "territory," (if relevant) and "result." Also, some of my considerations for this are because I've proposed the same template for fictional battles and virtual battles. If we get more articles on virtual battles, they probably should get their own template, as they are significantly different. Virtual battles have an element of reality, as the participants are real people, but only simulating combat.--[[User:3family6|<
== Need help, the name of commanders not appearing in an my infobox for a certain battle. ==
In my sandbox, I wwas trying to add the Wallachia and Moldavian commanders in the Battle of Khotyn and some other commanders of the Ottoman Empire, yet their name is not appearing. Here is the [[User:Alexis_Ivanov/templatesandbox|page]] it is the Battle of Khotyn, you have permission to edit it as you see fit, I need help urgently. [[User:Alexis Ivanov|Alexis Ivanov]] ([[User talk:Alexis Ivanov|talk]]) 21:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
:Fixed. It was a stray pipe - "|" - that was messing up the syntax for the wikitext.--[[User:3family6|<
:: Thank you very much. [[User:Alexis Ivanov|Alexis Ivanov]] ([[User talk:Alexis Ivanov|talk]]) 09:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Line 593:
I urge editors to leave the dates in, in parentheses: "Part of the Anglo-Spanish War (1779–1783)" [[Special:Contributions/79.75.184.161|79.75.184.161]] ([[User talk:79.75.184.161|talk]]) 18:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
:This isn't a problem with the template, but with the [[Gulf Coast campaign]] article, which is, as you point out, not indicating ''which'' Anglo-Spanish War it is talking about.--[[User:3family6|<
::Sorry, I wasn't meaning that it was a problem with the template per se, but that more and more editors seem to be (from my viewpoint and apparently, in the example given, also yours) wrongly omitting distinguishing dates from the "partof" parameter, in numerous articles. I'm reporting it here to get some idea of whether this tendency which seems wrong to me (and worth amending wherever I encounter it) is in reality not wrong (and therefore worth reverting wherever I amend it). [[Special:Contributions/79.75.184.161|79.75.184.161]] ([[User talk:79.75.184.161|talk]]) 11:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
:::You are in the right. In the case of the Gulf Coast campaign, the previous version piped the link so that the date wouldn't appear, even though ''the date appears in the linked article's title''. I cannot see a valid reason for this. Please, if you find more instances like this, amend them.--[[User:3family6|<
::::OK, thanks. I've made a start! [[Special:Contributions/79.75.184.161|79.75.184.161]] ([[User talk:79.75.184.161|talk]]) 22:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
| |||