Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 3

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)

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  &middot; &#32; Talk &middot; &#32; 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 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. 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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
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 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)

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): . (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 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:, , , , , , .--Staberinde (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

showing causes of the conflict
Please add to show the causes. ---ශ්වෙත (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 February 2013
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)


 * ❌ 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 [//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. 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)

Re-add "Cause"
Many articles use the "cause" parameter, but it's not showing up. Please add it to the template.  [  Soffredo  ]   11:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That parameter was removed from the template almost six years ago, after a discussion concluded that it was likely to be misused and would need to refer back to the article in virtually all cases. I don't think it really makes sense to re-add the parameter after so long simply because some older articles still retain it in the template call. Kirill [talk] 12:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Casualties and losses
Please, change the heading Casualties and losses into Casualties. The last part is superfluous and covered by the first part. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The two are not actually redundant in this instance, since this field is also used to report equipment (e.g. ship, tank, plane, etc.) losses. Kirill [talk] 15:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Still more confusing. Good reason to separate material and human casualties. Choose two unambiguous headings. "Material losses" and "Human casualties"? --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason to complicate the template further by separating the two categories. For battles where the materiel losses are relevant, they tend to be discussed in combination with the personnel losses rather than separately, similarly to how the relative strengths of the armies are discussed in terms of both personnel and materiel (see e.g. Battle of Kursk, Battle of Jutland, etc.); splitting them out across the board will add a large number of extra fields to the infobox without providing any more clarity than already exists. Kirill [talk] 03:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm with Kirill on this - allows for flexibility eg you can put "five tanks" on one side and "20 troops" on the other and they will line up rather than being offset. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

What a big nonsense! You are suggesting that there is a direct relation between material and human casualties, which is sometimes true and sometimes untrue. You ignore civilian casualties, who usually have nothing to do with losses of tanks and warships. You suggest that you can compare material casualties with human casualties, which is even immoral. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Saying nothing of the sort with regards to moral equivalence or lack of it. I'm suggesting that


 * is a more flexible format than


 * An infobox is a quick summary of the battle, not a detailed table of data. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I suppose, the second one is your translation of my proposal. My idea was two fields above each other. If it is empty it simply disappears. The side template should be possibly small, thus I still prefer separate sections. Yet, there is no rationale to combine material and human losses. Rather, separate fields will encourage to give not only human casualties. The latter is the advantage of both your and my proposal, although your proposal may be gives a more complex template. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is an illustration - and nothing more - of my point showing how if you have non-identical categories of losses then you have an unbalanced presentation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

less pejorative heading
Wouldn't a heading of "Combatants" or "Parties" be less pejorative than "Belligerents"? 

(copied from Talk:Battle_of_Thermopylae) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "Belligerent" is being used here in its formal meaning; I'm not sure how that's pejorative, given that it's an established term under international law. Kirill [talk] 23:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Example infobox - Result
G'day all, I think the fact that the example infobox from Battle of Lutzen is used in the template page is problematic, as it uses the "Pyrrhic victory" which seems to go against the documentation:
 * result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. We don't want to encourage editors to try to simplistically explain outcomes in one or two words. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The example is just a copy of the infobox in the article; I'm not sure that it makes sense to have a discussion about it here rather than there. My suggestion would be to select another example if we think that this one isn't representative of the typical usage of the template. Kirill [talk] 03:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't so concerned about the article itself, just the example. I'll scout around for one that is more representative. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Alt text against | map_caption =
G'day is there a way to include alt text for the | map_caption = field in this infobox? I'm getting a "needs alt text" message for the map in the infobox at June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina, and I tried adding an |alt = field, but it didn't work. Ideas? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've added a  parameter to handle the alt text.  Please let me know if you run into any problems using it. Kirill [talk] 03:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kirill, you are a champion! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Next & prev
plz add, prev-war next-war،

Because، option ((part of)) is in template. --Obaid Raza (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Should
I think there should be a line saying "purpose". Can an admin add such a line please? Vindkanadi (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the purpose of the war/conflict? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Vindkanadi (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My view is that is not something we should be trying to encapsulate in a field in an infobox. IMO, editors often try to do too much in infoboxes, when the matter at issue is far too complicated for a one-liner. My that is just my opinion. I suggest you raise it on the WPMILHIST talk page if you want a wider view, not many editors watchlist this page. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Combatant4
Conflicts such as the Syrian Civil War (basically a four sided war between Syrian army, FSA coalition, Islamic State and the Kurds) need of a 4th side of combatants available. --118.69.69.239 (talk) 11:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * adding a fourth column would make the infobox excessively wide, so we would need a different format if this is going to be added. better, would be to align the information in rows in such a case. Frietjes (talk)
 * Personally, I would avoid it, and use a link to a "Belligerents" or "Warring factions" section of the article where the information could be provided in prose, rather than trying to shoehorn it all into an infobox. IMO, many editors try to do too much with infoboxes. Just the fact that it is a civil war indicates that it is complex, and not suited to a couple of lines in an infobox. As I usually point out to editors posting here, not many editors watch this page, I suggest starting a thread on the MILHIST talk page. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Type
I think there should be a line saying "type", because some conflicts are for humanitarian and altruistic reasons. Others are for selfish reasons such as accumalating resources. not only is it immoral to group these together, it is also misleading. it is the equivalence of having a similar wiki-category for a sex position and rape. I find that offensive and deeply unsettling. Vindkanadi (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The lede sentence(s) is the place to describe the conflict. The infobox is a summary of a few points. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Your response is exactly the problem I was describing 30 minutes ago. You group all these very different confrontations together under a single simplified unmbrella - "conflict". Vindkanadi (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes; this is the infobox for military conflicts, therefore it is entirely appropriate to use the term. The 'cause' parameter was removed years ago (see the top of this page) for much the same reasons as the problems your suggestion would result in. How would we define the cause (or type) of the Second World War in a single word or line?
 * It is not misleading or immoral to use the umbrella term of conflict, or group conflicts together whatever their cause or type. A conflict is a conflict. Some may be started for more moral than others, but the end result is the same (the conflict the infobox is summarising). A comparison to sex positions and rape is so way off beam I can't even begin to consider it. Ranger Steve   Talk  14:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with Ranger Steve. And see my responses to other question threads above. Editors regularly try to get infoboxes to "do" things they just aren't designed to "do". Please work on the lead and the article prose of the article in question instead of worrying about whether an infobox encapsulates the complexity every conflict entails. It isn't going to. Ever. Regardless of how many fields it has. And it will just cause needless edit wars. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Result starting with bulleted list
The result parameter sometimes starts with a bulleted list but then the first asterisk is displayed as an asterisk because whitespace is stripped from the parameter and the asterisk doesn't end up on a new line. The first example shows it. The caller can fix it by adding something non-displayed before the asterisk and newline like the second example but many editors don't know this so a fix in the module would be better. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * PrimeHunter, yes, this would be easy for Jackmcbarn to fix, you just need a ':newline' before the wikitext (see Module:infobox). Frietjes (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Another image
Would it be possible to add another image parameter into the infobox? Uspzor (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Putsch
This infobox is used in some Putsch-articles, but IMO the infobox could be for these cases improved with a simple change.

A putsch is a (para-)military action against a weak government and often its effect is more based on the political correlation of forces than in military forces or deployments. Furthermore, the modus operandi is the principal factor to defeat the institutional (weak) order.

Hence, in order to improve the informative value of the infobox we should add an "action" row to the table and divide the "strength" row in a "Political Support:" and a "Military Support:" sub-rows. The best solution, as I believe, requires only few changes in the lua script, see Module:Infobox military conflict/sandbox.

Please take a look to the three infoboxes below. The three box contain exactly the same information.
 * The left one uses the existent features of the current infobox. The "action" information is within the "notes" row, and the pol. and mil. support information are given with simple s and '''s within the "strength"-row.
 * The box in the middle uses a new row "Action" in the head of the infobox, between "Location" and "Result". The pol. and mil. support information are given with simple s and '''s within the "strength"-row.
 * The box at the right uses the new row in the head of the infobox _and_ two new rows instead of the traditional "strength" row.

I would prefer the infobox at the right side:
 * It is clearer, the information is easier to find. I think, few readers would look for "Action:" at the bottom of the box, because of its importance.
 * the new code doesn't interfere with the old templates.
 * the rename "Government-Insurgents" is a option of the current infobox

You can see other examples in User:Keysanger/sandbox3. I would like to know your opinion about other possibilities, the proposed change. -- Keysanger (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keysanger, thanks for starting this. Of the three, I prefer the one on the right; I'm not a big fan of the "strength" sub-header. My only concern is that the "action" parameter might become too wordy; but really, that's not something we can fix with the template. Also, could the header show in some way that this was a non-standard change in government, rather than a military conflict? Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Every information given in a infobox has its problems and must be considered as an approach to the issue. For example the date. It is not seldom that military deployments begin one or two days earlier. Also the strength of a military unit is only a number with no information about its effectiveness, etc. Let alone about political support, often they say we support you but go away just now!.
 * Yes, the "action" parameter became too long. But taht will be a problem or the editors as you said.
 * Yes, we can set the parameter "combatants_header" to "Government-Insurgents  ", with three non-blank spaces to center the string. The main name of the infobox is given by the parameter "conflict"
 * 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. -- Keysanger (talk) 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'etats 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". Dentren  | T a l k 23:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks good for me. Although, if I may suggest, do keep the "Strength" subheader. As Dentren  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.
 * There were sporadic skirmishes during the next three months, and certain cities of military importance saw heavy fire after the real coup took place on 16 September.


 * And there's no need to mention what happened in Chile... LlegóelBigotee (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with you Keisanger! I think that the one on the right is the best infobox! -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I request that following changes, approved by consensus and very simple, are merged in the source code of the Module. -- Keysanger (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keysanger, done, could you update the documentation? Frietjes (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I updated the doc. Thanks to Vanamonde93, Dentren, LlegóelBigotee, Nick.mon and Frietjes. It was a pleasure to work with you. -- Keysanger (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Keysanger. Your work is much appreciated. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Mark option
Would it be possible to add this to the module/template:

| mark = | mark_width =

An example of how that is in use on an infobox map is Travis Park. — Maile (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your requested changes to the module's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Probably possible if you put it in the sandbox and make sure it works on the testcases. :) —  16:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, since I have no idea how to do any of that, I think this pretty much tosses the request out. — Maile (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Maile66 use map_mark and map_marksize Frietjes (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Tried it. Does not do a thing on the Battle of Refugio. Looks exactly the same size 8 red dot as before I changed it to size 12 triangle. — Maile (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Maile66, try reading what I typed :) Frietjes (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I mis-typed it. Mucho gracias. — Maile  (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Casus belli field
Adding a field for the cause of war would be a useful addition. Reigen (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. People try to over-simplify in infoboxes far too much already. Causes of war are usually complex and multi-layered, not something easily summed up in a phrase. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Casus belli usually refers to "official" cause of war, rather than the actual cause of war, which means that it could actually be simplified. A belligerent may have ulterior motives, but the casus belli is usually reasonable or even noble. Reigen (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

If there is a discussion in the past about not having the "cause" or "casus belli" field in the infobox, then it would be very helpful if such omission is noted in the doc page of the template along with a link pointing to it. Unfortunately I don't know where the discussion is archived, so can someone familiar with the development history of this template do a favor? --Quest for Truth (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In response to the above, the "official" justification for a war is usually one-sided propaganda. I don't accept the need for such a field in the infobox template, it will just add to edit warring and POV-wars. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox policy and fictional conflicts
Could we make it explicit policy somewhere to not use this infobox for fictional conflicts? I hope that most people who are working on military history issues in Wikipedia are in consensus with me in that it should be applied to historical, real conflicts and conflicts whose accounts are contested but arguably have some sort of basis in reality (e.g. the Trojan War).

I'm working on a research project whose ambitious goal is to try to mine interesting patterns in the human history of conflict as represented in this wonderful repository of knowledge, Wikipedia. We've already had to weed out conflicts from the Lord of the Rings and Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica because people are (in my opinion erroneously and incorrectly) using the military conflict infoboxes to describe fictional conflicts. We've already moved several steps into the analysis and we just happened to notice when sifting through this rather large dataset with a fine-tooth comb that the Ottoman Empire was being flagged as active in 1941. Obviously this was completely incorrect and after some backtracking into the bowels of the parsing algorithm we noticed that an alternate history novel's page was using the military conflict infobox. This was slightly trickier to catch because the info in the infobox was referring to real world entities.

I know there are a lot of interpretations of Wikipedia philosophy and a friendly philosophy of openness but on behalf of researchers who are doing wide-ranging research on Wikipedia as a body of knowledge (because over the decade it has proven to be a wonderful and interesting object of study) I implore Wikipedia policy makers to be more consistent about template usage and the boundary between reality of fiction. That being said, could we consider incorporating strengthening the recommended circumstances under which this infobox can be used? Vqmalic (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 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. 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. Vqmalic (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * and : 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).-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 04:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

problem with insertion of picture
Hello, in the article Battle of Samarra (2004), the insertion of the picture "BatonRouge2.jpg" look to fail because of the infobox: the picture can be printed only after the end of the infobox. Any idea about how to fix that? Wikini (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not an issue with this module. It's an issue with floats in general. I set up a reduced test case at . I'm still trying to work out a fix. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Samarra_(2004)&type=revision&diff=686531573&oldid=682252310 fixed] Frietjes (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Image size
Please, set the image size to 300px by default to save people the time to modify that. - Owain Knight (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to create a separate infobox for fictional conflicts
I propose that a separate infobox be created for fictional and virtual world conflicts. Right now we have battles from fictional works such as Star Wars, The Chronicles of Narnia, and The Lord of the Rings, and a real-time virtual battle from the video game Eve Online, just to give some examples. I came here to make this proposal, and in doing so found that, in an above discussion, makes a very good case why this should be done (the data-set for research project was being skewed by an military conflict infobox for an alternate history novel). Below are some ideas I had:
 * Most parameters would be the same (location, combatants, results, etc.) However, the infobox should be a different color, if only slightly, for differentiation.
 * 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.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 05:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * 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. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It has caused fairly significant problems, recently, according to . See their convo a few threads up.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 07:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.) --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, Ten  Ton  Parasol  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. 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.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 18:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 infobox fictional event, but one dedicated to battles whiffs of being too-in-universe. --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 Bolan.) I also think using the real-world infobox for fictional battles is a bit odd, if not quite a mistake.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  20:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC
 * 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 "[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 one of my subpages (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, Ten  Ton  Parasol  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.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 23:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 not encyclopedic. --Izno (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not encyclopedic to summarize the article content in an infobox?-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 03:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 05:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 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, infobox fictional event makes sense; infobox fictional military conflict does not (amusingly blue-linked there, from some enterprising editor earlier this year). --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.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 16:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that's the objection explained (or nearly so; I might have a quibble but it's minor). 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.  It's not much further to creating a template that any page can use: just swap the information you put in e.g.   for   or  . --Izno (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

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 novels 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 blind users. 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.-- 3family6  ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 02:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

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:

There's obviously a conflict here. 3family6 is proposing a template for specifically fictional conflict closely mirroring that which currently exists for real-world conflicts. (Izno has pointed out that, funnily enough, said template already exists: infobox fictional military conflict. (I actually laughed. I personally never checked for it, and it wasn't categorized properly, but Izno fixed the cat problem.) Dimadick points out that having a template for fiction mirror this one to closely may create an overlap and defeat the purpose of having separate templates. 3family6 states that the addition of real-world details "such as the author/creator, franchise/fictional universe, and adaptations of the conflict from the work it originally appeared in" would differentiate the two templates as would problems of categorization.

Izno objects to a template that mirrors the real-world one too closely: "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."

I, for one, agree with Izno. I feel that things like strength numbers, commanders, casualties and losses is too much WP:Fancruft. If it's significant enough to mention, put it in the body of the article itself. I support Izno's earlier proposal of a more generalized infobox fictional event as opposed to one specifically for wars and conflicts. My mockup of a proposed template (permalink) is designed with this particular suggestion in mind, as that is the proposal I support and thought best. I've added two non-military fictional events to the mockup as examples. (They're not exactly notable fictional events, but that's not the point here.) At the moment, the only parameter I could think to possibly include are: other name(s) (if somehow, the event is notably known by other names, whether in-universe or real-world) and location (if significant, or there's one single location). Also, I personally think there's a more elegant phrase than "[Source] narrative event" but I just really wanted to stress that it's fictional.

It seems between the few of us in this discussion, the conflict isn't necessarily whether there should be one, but whether it should be for specifically conflicts (and then how in-depth that should be) or for more general events. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  16:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think your mockups are an excellent start at a generic fictional event infobox. It might make sense to structure it like Template:Infobox character (or an interesting derivative) which makes it obvious whether content is fictional. There are a few fictional parameters that I can think of that might be well-added, namely fictional location. Potentially also fictional date. I'm not sure if an "appearance" based parameter makes the most sense, since we are looking for an event or a series of events to be infoboxed. (Basically, I don't want the Red Wedding to have a "last appearance" sorting.) Nor do I want a list in the infobox. #musing --Izno (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 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, Ten  Ton  Parasol  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.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 16:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

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 page it is the Battle of Khotyn, you have permission to edit it as you see fit, I need help urgently. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed. It was a stray pipe - "|" - that was messing up the syntax for the wikitext.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 01:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I hate to bother you again, but I have another problem, on here. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The Siege of Kiev in 1482 to be exact. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 09:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Asterisk white space
A small offset occurs when an asterisk is added, which happens to be shown in the example on Template:Infobox military conflict/doc. The asterisk for Catholic League adds a little white space above the Holy Roman Empire, causing it to be uneven with Sweden on the other side. Can this small offset be fixed or is it an unavoidable part of the code? Spellcast (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Adding  below   aligns it for me but whole right side is lifted up so alignment of cells/parts (first items) below is broken, so no solution yet...--Obsuser (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I know such a small space may seem trivial in the example. But I first noticed this when editing and previewing an article where the difference becomes way more pronounced if one side has several bullet points but the other one doesn't. Spellcast (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Result parameter contradiction
The guideline for the Result parameter limits choices to "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive", yet the example gives the result for the Battle of Lützen as "Swedish Pyrrhic victory". Isn't this a contradiction? If so can it be fixed, please? FactotEm (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Change "result" parameter to "outcome"
We have a growing problem that result is being misinterpreted as if it were "results", i.e. any/all effects of the outcome of the engagement in question (according to often conflicting sources, or just editor viewpoint), rather than the outcome of the conflict, the actual purpose of the parameter. The template clearly calls for specific, formulaic wording, but it is being misused to shoehorn entire lists of supposed "results" into infoboxes. This raises all kinds of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR problems, defeats the purpose of an infobox, and causes conflict. (See, e.g., the disputatious RfC at Talk:Battle of France, where it is very clear that this exact misinterpretation is in play.)

This can be resolved and prevented by renaming result to outcome. More specifically:
 * Add outcome as equivalent to result.
 * Update the documentation to refer to this parameter as outcome, and clarify the purpose of the parameter if possible.
 * Use a bot to change all deployed instances of the template to call outcome instead of result.
 * Remove the result code, leaving only outcome.

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that people are trying too hard to ignore the straitjacket of the result criterion but outcome is a synonym of result so I doubt that it will make any difference. I suggest we keep result and add to the criterion notes what result isn't, which says (inter alia) no bullet points and no use of decisive in the sense of big. [NB I have a conflict of interest re: B of F.] Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They're not synonymous at all in this context. The  of a war or other conflict is one side lost, or there was a compromise/ceasefire, or they annihilated each other, or something of that clear "just the facts" nature.  A "result" of such a conflict can be  any scholar or pundit publishing in, or quoted in, a reliable source imagines as a consequence (in whole or in part) of that outcome. The "I can put anything I want in this parameter as long as I can find any RS anywhere that suggests a causal link of any kind" misinterpretation of the purpose of this parameter is the source of most if not all editorial strife on the matter.  (After all, it's rare for the actual outcome of a war to be questionable; no one – not even a crazy neo-nazi – argues that the Axis powers really triumphed in WWII, or disputes that the US pulled out of the Vietnam war and North Vietnam won against South Vietnam, or that the UK defended their claim to the Falkland Islands in the 1982 naval dust-up with Argentina.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't dictate context to people, its subjective; far better to gloss the result by pointing out what is isn't, than to create an untenable distinction between synonyms. This is an example of a word being inadequate for the meanings being loaded on it. I agree that the parameter is being misinterpreted but some admins etc have taken the line of least resistance and scapegoated me for pointing out the bleeding obvious. They will have to move before editors in the wrong will get constructive pressure to perform. Notice the conspicuous silence that has followed your comments here and on the BofF talk page.... Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think "outcome" can be interpreted to mean not just who's doing a dance when the violence ends, but also what the consequences are, and will actually lead to the opposite of what you are hoping to achieve with this proposal. I think the template documentation clearly restricts us to 3 primary choices, with 2 options should none of those 3 be suitable. The problem evident from some of the responses in the BoF RfC that explicitly refute these restrictions is that the documentation has no authority, and addressing this might do more to clarify the intended purpose of the infobox than semantic changes. FactotEm (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Did I read something about Beans somewhere?Cinderella157 (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think in most people's eyes "result" would equal "outcome", no matter how hard or how badly you wanted people to interpret these two parameters as different from one another. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What he said... the words mean about the same thing. How about "Victor" or "Winner/Loser" or "Immediate Result"... I dunno. Herostratus (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Result" is a better known word for English learners than "outcome".
 * By the way, wars have no winners... --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * While I agree with SMcCandlish that people can't understand the meaning of "contested", especially when the one-line quote they just got from a 10 seconds Google search >>must<< represent the worldwide view of the subject, the first reaction when I glanced at the word "outcome" was exactly opposite of his proposition, as Factotem had explained. Unless everyone got a dictionary learned by osmosis, the only way to solve the problem would be a parameter that accept only combatent1, combatant2 or indecisive as a result, I don't know if this is technically feasible although. Bertdrunk (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd support it if it were feasible. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Inadequate "partof" parameters
A fashion seems to be developing for omitting, from the "partof" parameter, dates of conflicts which need to be distinguished by date, presumably because it looks neater. I think this is a bad idea because, although the link from the "partof" text will link to the correct-dated larger conflict, the purpose of infoboxes is to be at-a-glance helpful.

For example, a non-specialist reader who had heard of Francis Drake and the Spanish Armada, referring to events in the 16th century, would be somewhat confused by the use, in the infobox for the 1779-81 Gulf Coast campaign, of "Part of the Anglo-Spanish War". Did it really last over 200 years? No.

I urge editors to leave the dates in, in parentheses: "Part of the Anglo-Spanish War (1779–1783)" 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.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 04:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 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). 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.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 19:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I've made a start! 79.75.184.161 (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Image syntax
This template is obviously affected by the updates to Module:InfoboxImage which deprecate image syntax in the format  in favor of the bare filename  to be consistent with other infoboxes. Pages which transclude this infobox and use the deprecated syntax are automatically placed into the maintenance category Pages using deprecated image syntax.

The problem I'm seeing here is that this infobox has a non-standard default width of 315px, but of course the default image size now being invoked is smaller than that. It seems to me that the standard width should be reduced to 240px or whatever the actual MOS-recommended default is these days, and the parameter image_size (not currently included) should be made available for situations where the size of the available image needs to be customized to fit or display properly. I'm not even sure why the width customization is here, but I'm not up on the latest infobox trends.— TAnthonyTalk 21:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Converting this to an edit request. — TAnthonyTalk 23:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Example.jpg can already be used, and image_size is already available as an optional parameter. (I've updated the template documentation.) I could add image_upright (see WP:IMAGESIZE) if desired. As far as width goes, I don't know why it is handled as it is currently. or  might be able to shed some light. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 08:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * the width is for setting the width of the infobox. as far as I can tell, it is not related to the image or map sizes.  of course, if you set the box width to be less than the image sizes, then the box is stretched to match the box.  I could see making the default image size slightly larger, since this box is wider than the typical box (due to the multiple column format). Frietjes (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I thought I tried image_size and it didn't work, but I must have made an error. I see now that the multiple column format demands a larger default width of the box and the inclusion of width.— TAnthonyTalk 16:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Help needed
I am trying to change what is in ..the infobox in use on, say, the page Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The article named Jordanian occupation of the West Bank should be changed to Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, as that article has been re-named. Does anyone know where, how to do that? Huldra (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Infobox military conflict
 * conflict=Israeli–Palestinian conflict
 * That link is part of the value of the infobox  parameter, about 12 lines down the wikitext of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article. You should be able to edit it like any other article's infobox. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * you are right, didn't see that! Thanks! Huldra (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Questions re: appropriate warbox usage
Dear all, I need a brief consultation from those of you better acquainted with wikipedia-ing than myself. Thought I would start a new topic to ask my question, given that the relevant section on the main page was too laconic for me to understand whether a warbox is in order for page I'm working on.

I'm dramatically expanding the stub article "Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan", and was wondering whether a warbox should be used. The (eh) article currently residing on the page does not go into detail on the (very important) events surrounding the military withdrawal, but uses a warbox. I am expanding the scope of the article by detailing certain events and providing context. This, however, means that the article will no longer be exclusively focused on a self-contained military of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, but rather on a series of military, diplomatic, and other events. Pls help me out of this predicament: warbox or nah?M903 (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)