Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 3
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Halibutt in topic Proper maps
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Module:Infobox military conflict. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
3 combatants
When should we use the fields for a third combatant? Is there some example around? Cambalachero (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, I think the fields are most useful when a war has three politically and militarily distinct "sides", each of which battles the other two; one example would be something like the French Wars of Religion. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Preceded by and Followed by
Could we perhaps have these options - often an operation follows another Gbawden (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- The sequence of related operations is normally shown using a campaignbox template, either within the infobox or separately. I don't think we need to have additional sequence parameters within the infobox itself. Kirill [talk] 12:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Relief map
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. ~Asarlaí 15:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The template does have a provision for a ___location map (see map_type and related parameters); I assume you're referring to something different? It might help if you could point me to an example of what you'd like to include, and I'll see if I can incorporate it. Kirill [talk] 01:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- 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). 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 relief=yes under the name of the map. However, when I try to do that with a military conflict infobox, nothing happens. ~Asarlaí 20:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, that makes sense. I've added a map_relief parameter that should pass through to the relief switch on the underlying map template; please test it out and let me know if anything doesn't work as expected. Kirill [talk] 00:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- I just tried it and it seems to be working fine. Thanks! ~Asarlaí 00:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, that makes sense. I've added a map_relief parameter that should pass through to the relief switch on the underlying map template; please test it out and let me know if anything doesn't work as expected. Kirill [talk] 00:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- 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). 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 relief=yes under the name of the map. However, when I try to do that with a military conflict infobox, nothing happens. ~Asarlaí 20:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Main heading font size
Hi. I notice the font size for the main heading looks the same as that for the subheadings (after the picture). Could it be made a bit larger, please - maybe even 1½ times? 213.246.91.108 (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
4th Combatant
If there was a fourth combatant, what would the coding look like? JC · Talk · Contributions 18:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- 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). Kirill [talk] 17:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- A fourth combatant option should be allowed, because without that option we'll had to put groups who even fight between themselves in the same side. For example: Ukrainian War of Independence should have four sides (Ukrainian nationalists, Makhno's anarchists, Red Army and White Army) instead of three, same thing happens in several war infoboxes. I dont see the 3-combatants infoboxes as unreadable, it depends on the clarity used by editors, not on the number of combatants. Regards,--HCPUNXKID (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
USS Liberty incident infobox
There's a discussion on Talk:USS_Liberty_incident#Infobox on weather to have a full-fledged {{Infobox military conflict}} or not, largely based on weather it qualifies as a battle. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Belligerents if participants were not at war?
Is using the word "belligerents" on articles about conflicts where the participants were not in state of war (e.g. USS Liberty incident Tarnak Farm incident) appropriate? If thissup>[talk] is a problem, maybe we could call this "participants" instead of "belligerents".
I have no strong feelings about this myself, but there's been some concern on Talk:USS_Liberty_incident#Infobox about weather the word "belligerents" is appropriate because the US and Israel were not at war. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- There is no doubt that this infobox is the most informative. Would it be hard to simply add an extra field labelled "participants" to the infobox? Wayne (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- It might be possible to add a switch to change from a default of "Belligerents" to a different word. But you'll need a template code expert. As a workaround you can take the identity of the two sides and stick them in the |unit1 and |unit2 parameters. If the combatant parameters are empty the Belligerent title does not show. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- That shows up as "Units Involved", and "Units Involved" is far less accurate then "Belligerents". The infobox documentation says those parameters are for "the units or formations involved", so this work-around would mean we couldn't enter that info into it's proper field. This seems like far more trouble then it's worth. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's why I called it a workaround and not a solution. It avoids the word "belligerents" which is what you requested. The infobox is a summary anyhow - the opening sentences of the article should establish the situation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Even as a mere workaround, it seams like far more trouble then it's worth to cause those problems, just to avoid using the word "belligerents" when it doesn't quite fit ("Units Involved" wouldn't fit at all). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Adding a duplicate combatant field seams like a gross violation of the K.I.S.S. principle. Why not just use some other word instead of "belligerents" for the combatant field. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. Belligerents has a specific meaning that typically applies to mutually warring parties. If no state of war exists between the parties or only one party behaves in a belligent manner (e.g., belligent attacker and neutral victim), then the parties as a whole are not belligerents. Thus, to make the infobox more generic, belligerents needs to be changed to some neutral word like "participants"; otherwise, it's misapplied in articles not involving mutually warring parties.Ken (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- This infobox isn't limited to conflicts where a state of war exits between the participants, so it's not misapplied in those articles, it's just that "belligerents" might not be the right word to use for the combatant field. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- {{Infobox operational plan}} would be well suited to this kind of issue. For instance, as used at September 2012 Camp Bastion raid it doesn't specify opposing sides (though I think that it's use in that particular article isn't great given that this was a clear-cut battle, but nevermind; it should work well here). Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- The concern here just weather the combatant fields should show up on articles as "belligerents" concerning that "belligerents" might not be the right word if the so-called belligerents aren't at war. {{Infobox operational plan}} is not a duplicate of this infobox, they have their slimmer but separate uses. My understanding is that this one is about combat and military conflicts, and that one is about military operations, or something sort of like that. It's not we use this one if the percipients are at war, and that one if the percipients aren't. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- The operational plan infobox is pretty flexible and can be used for a number of purposes; just ignore the fields that don't make sense. There's also {{Infobox historical event}}. I imagine that it's possible to tweak the coding of this infobox to allow a different term than 'belligerent' to be used though this doesn't make much sense; if an event isn't some form of battle, then this inbox isn't suitable for being used to describe it as it's structured around a one side vs the other event. A friendly fire type incident obviously isn't a battle, and a battle obviously isn't a friendly fire incident. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Werther a fire type type incident could strictly speaking count as a battle is just semantics, I don't see what relevance that has to this discussion. What if something were some form of combat, or battle (to use the word loosely), a one side vs the other event, but the percipients weren't at war? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- If it's a battle of some sort, then "belligerents" is an appropriate term (the Oxford English dictionary defines a belligerent as "a nation, party of person engaged in conflict", and there doesn't need to be a formal or de-facto state of war for it to be appropriate). If its not a battle, then presenting the event as being one side versus the other - as this infobox is entirely structured around doing - is not suitable as there were no opposing sides per-se (just ships and aircraft in a mess, to paraphrase Nick Hornby's novel High Fidelity). I think that the issue here is how to describe this event rather than the terminology in the infobox, and this isn't the appropriate place to discuss it: if you're not comfortable presenting the Liberty incident as a battle, with all that this entails, you shouldn't be using the infobox for battles. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Whether this should be used on friendly-fire (or possible friendly-fire) incidents is a diffident issue, for a different discussion. Nick-D, If I understand you, your position is that the percipients are belligerents regardless of weather their at war, at least as long as it strictly counts as a battle. What about articles like Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where strictly speaking it probably wouldn't count as a battle? Would the participants in that and the other not-battles count as "belligerents"? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- How is the use of the infobox in that article not suitable? These attacks formed part of a formal war betwen Japan and the US, and both cities were defended by anti-aircraft batteries. That the US forces didn't meet any opposition in these attacks is due to the technological superiority of their aircraft (which were flying at an altitude the Japanese AA guns couldn't reach), and the poor state of the Japanese air force at this time (it had ceased attempting to intercept small and high-flying American forces as doing so was judged to be an inefficient use of the limited supplies of aviation fuel available). Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- I never said that the use of this infobox in that article wasn't suitable. I just said that strictly speaking it probably wouldn't count as a battle, and I asked if you thought that in not-battles such as that, weather the participants would still count as "belligerents", or if it has to be strictly speaking a battle to count as "belligerents". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Per the Oxford dictionary definition, the term "belligerents" is appropriate to describe the differing sides in a battle and it doesn't really matter if this is considered as having formed part of a formal or informal 'war' or not. Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think the key phrase here is "differing sides". If a battle involves "differing sides" then belligerents is a reasonable word to use. In the specific case of the USS Liberty Incident, differing sides or parties were not involved. Instead, a belligerent of the Six Day War and a neutral (indifferent) party were involved; ergo, the parties as a whole were not belligerents; although, by definition, the attacker was a belligerent. In this specific case, the attackee did perform a minor and futile self-defense effort, against an unknown at-the-time attacker, but legally remained a neutral party relative to the attacker's nation, throughout the attack. To rephrase, the attackee only became "belligerent" when provoked by an unknown attacker, but otherwise had no established or standing difference with the attacker or the attacker's nation.Ken (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- According to Oxford online, ( http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/belligerent ) belligerent means:
- - adjective: hostile and aggressive.
- - adjective: engaged in a war or conflict, as recognized by international law.
- - noun: a nation or person engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law.
- It seems to me that the intent of the "warbox" is more in keeping with the noun meaning; i.e., belligerents are typically comprised of people or nations -- nouns.Ken (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- For the special case of the USS Liberty Incident, the parties were not engaged in war or conflict, as recongnized by international law, with each other, nor was there an intent to engage in war or conflict with each other given that the attack was offically declared due to mistaken ID. Thus, using the term belligerents to describe both parties is illogical for this special case.Ken (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- In that case, it wasn't a battle so this isn't the appropriate infobox. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. This was an isolated event or incident, not a battle involving "differing sides" attempting to defeat each other.Ken (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- In that case, it wasn't a battle so this isn't the appropriate infobox. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- The template thinks "belligerents" means "the parties participating in the conflict", the template documentation doesn't say anything about international law. If Oxford online is right and "belligerents" is restricted to a legal, rather then normal English meaning, then the word "belligerents" will need to be replaced with word that would in this context mean "the parties participating in the conflict". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- By EHC proposal, a code change proposed below. -DePiep (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ken, what header do you suggest for "Belligerents"? -DePiep (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- I like Emmette's previous suggestion of using the neutral word "Participants".Ken (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Why "neutral", in what sense? There really was a fight going on, not a game of chess, and the only reason to change from beligerents is the possible formal misdefinition. So we look for the word "belligerents without war declaration". -DePiep (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral in the sense that it does not force a special state or legal status upon the involved parties. I assume you're referring to the USS Liberty Incident example when you say, "There really was a fight going on..." If so, I agree that there was a "fight," but the countries involved were not at war or in a state of conflict with each other; i.e., they were not belligerents. Instead, they were "participants" in a fight that was offically declared, by both countries, due to mistaken identity.Ken (talk) 05:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- The option is now in the template. Indeed I had the USS Liberty page in mind. I prefer the word combatants over participants, since it was a wartime attack, not a convention. -DePiep (talk) 09:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- It was an attack on a neutral nation's naval ship during the Six Day War. The two nations (USA and Israel) involved were not at war or combating each other.Ken (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- The option is now in the template. Indeed I had the USS Liberty page in mind. I prefer the word combatants over participants, since it was a wartime attack, not a convention. -DePiep (talk) 09:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral in the sense that it does not force a special state or legal status upon the involved parties. I assume you're referring to the USS Liberty Incident example when you say, "There really was a fight going on..." If so, I agree that there was a "fight," but the countries involved were not at war or in a state of conflict with each other; i.e., they were not belligerents. Instead, they were "participants" in a fight that was offically declared, by both countries, due to mistaken identity.Ken (talk) 05:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Why "neutral", in what sense? There really was a fight going on, not a game of chess, and the only reason to change from beligerents is the possible formal misdefinition. So we look for the word "belligerents without war declaration". -DePiep (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- I like Emmette's previous suggestion of using the neutral word "Participants".Ken (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ken, what header do you suggest for "Belligerents"? -DePiep (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- By EHC proposal, a code change proposed below. -DePiep (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- For the special case of the USS Liberty Incident, the parties were not engaged in war or conflict, as recongnized by international law, with each other, nor was there an intent to engage in war or conflict with each other given that the attack was offically declared due to mistaken ID. Thus, using the term belligerents to describe both parties is illogical for this special case.Ken (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Should this be used in Friendly fire incidents?
Should this be used in Friendly fire incidents? Category:Friendly fire incidents may be of help in determining this. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- What are you hoping to achieve through starting a new discussion about the topic which is being discussed above? Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is about weather the the word "Belligerents" is appropriate when the "Belligerents" are not in a state of war, not weather this infobox should be used in Friendly fire incidents. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think not. By definition, true friendly fire incidents do not involve "differing sides."Ken (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Although, friendly fire incidents typically occur in battles involving "differing sides." Regardless, the parties directly involved are supposedly on the same side; i.e., not differing.Ken (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sure they can Tarnak Farm incident, Canada vs America, 2011 NATO attack in Pakistan, NATO vs Pakistan. In that kind of friendly fire incident, the parties are accidentally on different sides (being accidental is what makes it friendly fire instead of hostile fire). In the larger conflict that the FF incident is a part of, they would usually be on same side (or at least not on opposing sides), but in the FF incident itself, they're on opposing sides. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I do not think they are appropriate for friendly fire incidents at all. The firer and the those accidentally hit by the friendly fire are not on opposing sides, they remain on the same side and the engagement of friendlies is accidental. That is why they are called "Blue on Blue". The US A-10 and the British Warriors in the First Gulf War were not on opposite sides at any point in the Gulf War or even during that incident. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I guess it depends on if you determine sides by intentions or actions. In that kind of FF incident, by intention, they meant to be on the same side. By action, they were on opposing sides. (Mind you I'm talking about the sides in the FF incident and ONLY the FF incident, not the sides in the lager conflict the the FF incident is part of). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think they are ever on different sides, even in the instant when the Maverick missile hits the British APC/LGB hits the troops at Kandahar/Spooky engages the Pakistani border posts. Intent should be the determining factor. If it can be shown that the US intended to attack the British, Canadians, Pakistanis, they are on opposite sides, if it was accidental/incompetence/stupidity etc and they were otherwise on the same side, they are still on the same side. The fact that (for example) some friendlies mistakenly run in front of their own machinegun doesn't make them the opposition, it's generally just bad luck or bad management. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have to agree "blue on blue" events are incidents where friendly forces, accidentily send active munitions upon a fellow friendly force. Perhaps an event infobox would be more appropriate rather than a military conflict infobox.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- An event infobox appears to be an excellent fit.Ken (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just a correction. The attack was NOT "Blue on Blue". Blue on Blue refers to forces on the same side (allies) in an armed conflict. An attack by a friendly force on a neutral force (ie:USS Liberty) is a "Blue on Green" attack.
- similar to Afghan Army soldiers shooting their supposed allies. Agree wholeheartedly with using the event info box for blue on blue and blue/green incidents. Peacemaker67 (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just a correction. The attack was NOT "Blue on Blue". Blue on Blue refers to forces on the same side (allies) in an armed conflict. An attack by a friendly force on a neutral force (ie:USS Liberty) is a "Blue on Green" attack.
- An event infobox appears to be an excellent fit.Ken (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have to agree "blue on blue" events are incidents where friendly forces, accidentily send active munitions upon a fellow friendly force. Perhaps an event infobox would be more appropriate rather than a military conflict infobox.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think they are ever on different sides, even in the instant when the Maverick missile hits the British APC/LGB hits the troops at Kandahar/Spooky engages the Pakistani border posts. Intent should be the determining factor. If it can be shown that the US intended to attack the British, Canadians, Pakistanis, they are on opposite sides, if it was accidental/incompetence/stupidity etc and they were otherwise on the same side, they are still on the same side. The fact that (for example) some friendlies mistakenly run in front of their own machinegun doesn't make them the opposition, it's generally just bad luck or bad management. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I guess it depends on if you determine sides by intentions or actions. In that kind of FF incident, by intention, they meant to be on the same side. By action, they were on opposing sides. (Mind you I'm talking about the sides in the FF incident and ONLY the FF incident, not the sides in the lager conflict the the FF incident is part of). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I do not think they are appropriate for friendly fire incidents at all. The firer and the those accidentally hit by the friendly fire are not on opposing sides, they remain on the same side and the engagement of friendlies is accidental. That is why they are called "Blue on Blue". The US A-10 and the British Warriors in the First Gulf War were not on opposite sides at any point in the Gulf War or even during that incident. Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sure they can Tarnak Farm incident, Canada vs America, 2011 NATO attack in Pakistan, NATO vs Pakistan. In that kind of friendly fire incident, the parties are accidentally on different sides (being accidental is what makes it friendly fire instead of hostile fire). In the larger conflict that the FF incident is a part of, they would usually be on same side (or at least not on opposing sides), but in the FF incident itself, they're on opposing sides. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that we shouldn't use this for things like mere accidental shootings. This infobox was meant for more for combat incidents, and would not be a good fit for a mere accidental shooting.
- I don't see a problem using this for FF combat* incidents largely if not mostly as we would use this for non-ff combat incidents. For combat incidents this is a very good fit and naiver {{Infobox news event}} nor {{Infobox operational plan}} can compare. My understanding it that {{Infobox operational plan}} often isn't meant to be used in it's own for combat incidents, and {{Infobox news event}} is often completely unsuited (imagine it's use on Battle of Rennell Island).
- *or combat-like incidents if you object to the use of the word combat for FF
- Besides, if we make a rule that we can't use this on FF, then for casess like USS Liberty incident, we'd be forced to chose between not using this and implying it wasn't FF, or useing it and implying it was FF. Things like that would be a huge mess that could be avoided simply by not saying "Don't use this on FF".
- Regardless of weather the two (or more) "sides" shooting each other would strictly speaking count as different sides, this infobox works very well for when two or more sides (or side-like entities) are shooting at each other. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- While you may find that this infobox works well for certain FF incidents, it's misleading (and technically incorrect) to label the participants as "belligerents" -- the issue that started this discussion. Here's Oxford's definition of belligerent: "a nation or person engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law." Here's international law definition of belligerent: http://thelawdictionary.org/belligerent/ Bottomline: belligerent has a specific technical/legal meaning that we should strive to use correctly, to use it outside its true meaning is essentially applying one's POV or spin to its meaning -- a WP no no.Ken (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's easily fixable by using a different word, or optician to use a different word (such as "percipients") in this infobox instead of "belligerents", if "belligerents" doesn't quite fit. That filed is supposed to be about "the parties participating in the conflict", not some strict international legal thing anyway. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- The word "belligerents" is a pretty minor issue compared to unnecessarily implying that a possible FF incident was or was not FF, or compared to having the most useful infobox for the readers. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- To a significant extent I agree with Ken. I also think we're in search of a solution without a problem here. This is not about the "infobox military conflict", it is about how to present FF incidents, and frankly I can't see why an infobox is necessary, and even more, desirable in such a context. The lead should clearly explain what occurred, and proper (manual) categorisation will fix the rest. We've got a square peg (infobox military conflict) and a round hole (FF incidents). I don't think the infobox fits at all and modifying it doesn't help, it will just encourage POV warriors and conspiracy theorists. I've more than had my say, good luck with it anyway. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- The dispute over the word "belligerents" isen't just about FF, it's about weather it's the right word if the percipients aren't in a state of war. In my opinion trying to fit {{Infobox news event}} into a military conflict (intensional or otherwise), such as 2011 NATO attack in Pakistan is usually square peg round hole, better to use this infobox or {{Infobox operational plan}} instead, and that seams to be the common practice for FF incidents. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Besides, how the heck would using this on FF "battles" encourage POV warriors and conspiracy theorists. If anything not making a special FF exception to using this infobox would discourage them because they couldn't say "this was intentional so let's use the infobox" or "this wasn't so let's not". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Staying with the USS Liberty Incident example: for people with the POV that the attack was performed on a known target (i.e., the attack was an act of war upon the USA by Israel), using the noun "belligerents" to describe the two parties supports their POV. The official view is that the attack was due to mistaken identity and that neither side realized the true identity of the other until the last shot was fired. Simply put, there was no state of war or conflict between the USA and Israel during the USS Liberty attack; ergo, they were not belligerents.Ken (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- To a significant extent I agree with Ken. I also think we're in search of a solution without a problem here. This is not about the "infobox military conflict", it is about how to present FF incidents, and frankly I can't see why an infobox is necessary, and even more, desirable in such a context. The lead should clearly explain what occurred, and proper (manual) categorisation will fix the rest. We've got a square peg (infobox military conflict) and a round hole (FF incidents). I don't think the infobox fits at all and modifying it doesn't help, it will just encourage POV warriors and conspiracy theorists. I've more than had my say, good luck with it anyway. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- The word "belligerents" is a pretty minor issue compared to unnecessarily implying that a possible FF incident was or was not FF, or compared to having the most useful infobox for the readers. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll put a note about this discussion on the talk pages of the FF articles that use this infobox. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I think we've been talking about two different things here, friendly fire incidents, and neutral fire incidents. USS Panay incident and USS Stark incident use this infobox in the same way as USS Liberty incident. At first I thought that USS Liberty incident wasn't categorized as a FF incident because of the dispute as to weather this was intentional, but taking a better look, I think it's because it wasn't a friendly ship being attacked, but a neutral ship.
If I'm right, then there are two questions here: Should we use this infobox on FF incidents, and should we use it on NF incidents. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- If the troublesome word "belligerents" is changed to "participants", then I see no problem with usage for FF or NF incidents; although, I believe that an {{Infobox news event}} box is a better fit.Ken (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- So Ken you support the proposed template code change, that allows changing the word "Belligerents"? Please state so. The exact wording can be decided from there, as you understand. DePiep (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I fully support your proposal. This added flexiblity will allow application of the infobox in situations where the parties involved are/were not belligerents per se, as abundantly discussed here and on the USS Liberty Incident talk page.Ken (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- So Ken you support the proposed template code change, that allows changing the word "Belligerents"? Please state so. The exact wording can be decided from there, as you understand. DePiep (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- In addition to my earlier statement, this would not be the right infobox for someone running in front of a machine gun or something, but for for military confects (intentional or otherwise), this is the right infobox. See how {{Infobox news event}} and {{Infobox historical event}} appear when you try to apply them to military confects. There's no section for the commanders, or the strength, or other fields we might find useful for a military confects. What information there is isn't as clear, partly because the two sides (or side-like entities) are mixed together. Trying to fit one of those into a military confect is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
- Further it seams to be common practice for articles about FF and NF incidents to use this infobox or {{Infobox operational plan}}. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with this last description, EHC, of issue and outcome. The USS Liberty notion that it was a mistaken identity only (still a POV pushed), does not alter the usefullness of this template. Apart from the legalize/dictionary limit of belligerents, now solved, it describes these NF and FF wattime attacks best. Specific NF or FF details (such as its origin), do not invalidate using this template. -DePiep (talk) 09:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- The fact that the attack was officially declared a case of mistaken identity, by both participating nations, is not a POV -- it's an established fact. Of course, whether or not you or I agree with this established fact should not be reflected in the article. To do so would be injecting a POV.Ken (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- That it is considered mistaken identity by both governments is a fact. That it was or was not mistaken identity is an opinion, and WP does not take a position on that, we do however present both opinions in a neutral way. Presumably, the same thing would apply to allot of other NF and even some FF incidents. None of that alters the usefulness of the this template, DePiep's point stands. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- The fact that the attack was officially declared a case of mistaken identity, by both participating nations, is not a POV -- it's an established fact. Of course, whether or not you or I agree with this established fact should not be reflected in the article. To do so would be injecting a POV.Ken (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with this last description, EHC, of issue and outcome. The USS Liberty notion that it was a mistaken identity only (still a POV pushed), does not alter the usefullness of this template. Apart from the legalize/dictionary limit of belligerents, now solved, it describes these NF and FF wattime attacks best. Specific NF or FF details (such as its origin), do not invalidate using this template. -DePiep (talk) 09:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- This edit, which places the participants in a friendly fire incident in roles as adversaries, doesn't make sense to me. It wasn't a battle between two USAF fighters and two US Army helicopters which this edit makes it appear to be. Cla68 (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Like I said on the talk page considering that {{infobox military conflict}} was already used there, I didn't think fleshing it out would be a problem. If you think we shouldn't use a military conflict infobox for FF and/or NF you'd probably want {{Infobox news event}} or {{Infobox historical event}}, but I made a point as to how those are poor fits above. Like USS Liberty incident, USS Panay incident, and USS Stark incident one party (USAF) attacked another party (US Army). The difference here is that this was definitely mistaken identity. Being an accident does not affect the usefulness of this template, besides the infobox doesn't imply that they were intensionally adversaries, it even says "friendly fire" samilery to 2001 Sayyd Alma Kalay airstrike. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- As it stands, I see nothing in the infobox that states the participants were adversaries. Although, I realize that the one-side v/s other-side design of the infobox may suggest this was the case. Like the USS Liberty incident, the offical finding says the attack due to mistaken identity. An obvious difference is that only one, instead of two nations were participants.Ken (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Edit protected 15 October 2012
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Issue: The header word "Belligerents" sometimes may be not exactly right. This change allows for using other text.
Background: Both here and at USS Liberty incident is a dicussion on whether the header word "Belligerents" is appropriate when the involvend countries etc. are not formally at war. A major definition of "belligrent" could imply that it is wrongly used then. Another page where this issue might be in play are USS Stark incident.
Proposed change: Copy all code from the sandbox {{Infobox military conflict/sandbox}} into {{Infobox military conflict}}. The code change adds parameter option | combatants_header = that, when used, overrides the header word "Belligerents".
Effect: The default behaviour, that is all current uses that do not use or set this new parameter, is unaffected. The option in an opt-in.
Demo and test: See {{Infobox military conflict/testcases}}. Several variants are proving to work as promised.
-DePiep (talk) 09:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Shouldn't it be "combatants_header" instead of "belligerents_header" to match the rest of the code? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Good point. Will change right now. -DePiep (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Done -DePiep (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've made the change to the template; please test it out and let me know if anything doesn't work as expected. Kirill [talk] 01:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Looks fine, thanks. -DePiep (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've made the change to the template; please test it out and let me know if anything doesn't work as expected. Kirill [talk] 01:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Supported by - Combatants:
What is the guideline for the use of supported by combatants in the infobox; I refer this as an example Mozambican War of Independence or even First Indochina War for the United States being involved in exceptionally limited combat but heavily in finance, arms & equipment supply. This would apply also to the the United Kingdom giving the same sort of support for Pro Treaty forces in the Irish Civil War but it seems to get rejected. ChristiaandeWet (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- No guideline was written. The option was introduced for the situation where there are no formal combatants (that is: countries formally at war): [1]. (see below) -DePiep (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you.. so I should be able to put the United Kingdom as supported by in Irish Civil warChristiaandeWet (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I was wrong. The option I meant is
combatants_header=(to change the default caption "combatants"), not the italics word you pointed to. So your question remains. -DePiep (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I was wrong. The option I meant is
- Thank you.. so I should be able to put the United Kingdom as supported by in Irish Civil warChristiaandeWet (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't believe we've ever come up with a definitive guideline for this case; in the absence of one, it's pretty much up to the editors of each individual article to determine whether using "supported by" makes sense in the context of that topic. Personally, I would think that the usage you suggest for the Irish Civil War makes sense; but I'm by no means an expert on the period, and may be missing some subtleties of the matter. Kirill [talk] 03:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Result section
I suggest retire the "decisive" mention on this section, as it encourage that even minor skirmish be describe as that on wikipedia. The consensus should be build individually on each article, with sources supporting it every time. Moagim (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Lenght
I think that it should to be spelled out very clearly, that conflict infobox should be short and concise. This should be said right in beginning of Usage section in visible spot. Those three-screens-long-and-counting gargantuan monstrosities are becoming too common. Some examples: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].--Staberinde (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
showing causes of the conflict
Please add {{#if:{{{causes|}}} |<tr> <th style="padding-right:1em">causa<br />proxima <td>{{{causes}}} </td>}} to show the causes. ---ශ්වෙත (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 9 February 2013
| | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The example infobox is an old version of the 'Battle of Lutzen' infobox. Can someone copy-paste from the article to get the current version? Thanks.
86.97.186.109 (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Not done That's in the documentation not the template. The documentation isn't edit-protected, just the template itself, you can edit the documentation. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Proper maps
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). //Halibutt 10:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- use
|image=? 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. //Halibutt 22:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- you can actually stack multiple images there as well, or embed a ___location map, although it may seem like a hack. Frietjes (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, didn't think of it. Thanks a lot mate. //Halibutt 09:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- you can actually stack multiple images there as well, or embed a ___location map, although it may seem like a hack. Frietjes (talk) 22:32, 28 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. //Halibutt 22:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)