Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 4

Why are campaignbox infoboxes wrapped?
It seems pages which use this module are getting below-par mobile experiences as the mobile view excepts any element which matches the css selector .infobox to be a top-level element, however when campaignbox is enabled self.args.campaignbox it is wrapped in a table like so:

Any reason why these styles cannot be added on the .infobox element itself? Jdlrobson (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Jdlrobson, outer wrapper was supposed to be equivalent to stack so that left floating elements are not bunched up at the bottom of the last right floating element. given that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Revolutionary_War&oldid=789342875 this is now completely broken], you should probably undo your changes and debug first. Frietjes (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reversed the changes and put more tests in the testcases. Frietjes (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Frietjes the changes look good. With regards to the text alignment - that can be fixed by adding `text-align:center;` to the element with .navbox-title

Wrapping in stack template would be a suitable alternative. We're considering a fix for infoboxes wrapped in stack template so that would be preferable on the long term than the current situation! Thanks for reviewing my change and helping make it better. Jdlrobson (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Jdlrobson, it's not just the title that's being left aligned, but also the content inside the box. we don't have control over the content passed through the campaignbox, so it's better the container doesn't enforce styling on the object being passed inside.  if you can come up with a fix for stack, then we can just the same fix inside this module. Frietjes (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Frietjes the plan would be to look for any .infobox elements inside a mw-stack class. So if you can add that class the parent element to the template, I can take it from there and get it fixed (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T170006) :) Jdlrobson (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Jdlrobson, we now have 'mw-stack mobile-float-reset' in the outer table class definition. note that stack uses a  div container, instead of a table container.  we can almost certainly switch to a div container if necessary.  a test case is now American Revolutionary War.  thank you for working on this. Frietjes (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Jdlrobson, I also added these classes to template:infobox civil conflict. I think those are the only two, but I will add to any others if I find them. Frietjes (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Revisions to general guidance and "Result"
I have just made revisions to the general guidance and "Result" parameter. This has been promoted by a recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and by a number of preceding discussions at Milhist and at individual articles notified at Milhist. These can be broadly divided as: For the first of these, my edit makes the matter of "venerability" in this infobox explicit and analogous to the requirements of a lead section. (see Usage section of template document)
 * 1) Lack of venerability of detail added to conflict infoboxes; and,
 * 2) Conflict over determining the "Result" that should be shown in an a conflict infobox.

Use this link Template:Infobox military conflict/doc

On the second point, the recent decision has highlighted that describing a victory as ""decisive" is something of an anachronism, if not an artifact. It has specific historiographical connotations, which, in many instances, are very "debatable". To this end, I have deprecated the term in favour of "conclusive". I have also narrowly defined the usage to the "immediate" outcome of the conflict and that it is "clearly disproportionate". In this respect, it must be supported by the sources. To this extent, while the sources may not "explicitly" describe it as such, they should certainly leave "little" doubt. I know that this isn't going to resolve every future dispute as to the "symantic" of what this means but I hope it will, at least limit the number of such disputes or prove clearer guidance in their closure. In this respect (as an example), I would refer to the recent discussion of the Battle of Agincourt. In the immediate outcome, it (IMHO) was clearly "conclusive" and this is supported by the sources even if, in the longer term, it was not "decisive". I would also refer to land battles of WWII in the Pacific in which the Japanese were "annihilated" but at a significant cost to the Allies. These were not "conclusive" to the the extent that the outcomes were not "disproportionate". On the other hand, I would refer to the initial North African Campaign against the Italians - "when never have so many surrendered to so few" (a close paraphrase). The immediate result was "conclusive" even if it did result in German intervention in the longer term.

I am notifying this at Milhist. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Suspect that adding more explanatory text will only serve to fertilise more endless debate on interpretation. If we're going to make a change, then I think we should recognise that the infobox is not the place for nuance and accept that we only need to know who the victor was or, if there is no clear-cut victor, where we can read more. FactotEm (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe, the template documentation should provide firm guidance that the result field should default to "See Aftermath section" if the result is in any way ambiguous, and a result should only be entered if the academic consensus is clear, in which case whatever term the majority of sources use should be entered, so long as it is cited in the body. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * @FactotEm and @Peacemaker67 I have tried to capture and address the issues that you each raised with the edits to both the usage section (per verifiability) and for the result parameter in particular. By this, there are only three accepted "outcomes", the assessment is constrained in time (immediacy), "conclusive" can only be used where it is clearly so and verifiable. There is a direction to defer to the "Aftermath". I have tried to make this guidance clear and unambiguous. If I have failed or there is any way to improve it further ...? Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I suggest that we change the example infobox result on the doc page, as it undermines what we are trying to achieve. It currently says "Swedish Pyrrhic victory", although the actual article infobox just says "Swedish victory". Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * @Peacemaker67, Good point. I have just made a further edit at the "result" guidance that makes the language even less equivocal. Is this a case where you would use "Inconclusive (See 'Aftermath' section)"? If not, would it be appropriate to use such an example? Can you think of one? Just having a look at that article now.


 * Reading the Battle's article, I can see it is a case of "Protestant Union victory (see "Aftermath" Section)". I revised the guidance to allow such - "Such a note can be used in conjunction with any standard term but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result of the "subject" conflict." Cinderella157 (talk) 03:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what that sentence actually means. What are you trying to achieve with it? FactotEm (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@FactotEm, my intent is to limit the "permitted" responses to the three standard responses and/or "see Aftermath section". Assigning the result is assessed in respect to the "immediate" or "short-term" - that is, it is specific to the "subject" conflict, it does not consider broader or longer-term implications to the campaign or war. "Victory X see Aftermath" might capture some "longer-term" nuances but the "immediate result" must be an unambiguous victory. Finally, any result must be supported by sources. To this end, edits were made to the "usage" section of the template document.

Things like: garrisoning the new conquest X left Y undefended when it was attacked a month later or the victory was at such a cost that it gave the enemy time to regroup and win the war... are nuances in the longer term. Initially, I had deprecated "see Aftermath" in all examples except "inconclusive". The example infobox for the doc (Battle of Lützen (1632)) initially described it as a pyrrhic  victory. The article "aftermath" describes it as a strategic and tactical victory for the protestant side but with a significant loss, including the death of the Swedish king. For these reasons, I thought it appropriate to use "Victory X see Aftermath". The victory was not ambiguous but there was nuance in the longer-term.

Hence the current iteration of the doc guidance. I think we have a common intent. Please feel free to add or discuss improvement in wording. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the Lützen article demonstrates the difficulty of what you're trying to achieve here, and in particular the dangers of trying to accommodate nuance in an infobox that is just not suited to nuance. The immediate result of that battle was a Swedish/Protestant victory. The death of Gustavus Adolphus had longer term consequences beyond the battle. What conflict doesn't have consequences beyond the immediate timeframe, and won't every article therefore qualify for a "see aftermath" rider?


 * What's wrong with: this parameter should state, without qualification, "X victory", identifying which side was the victor of the subject conflict according to reliable sources. If there is no consensus on the victor in these sources, then the parameter should state "See aftermath" and link to the section in the article where the result is discussed.?


 * Anything more brings more scope for dispute than it does understanding of the subject. Accepting a "conclusive" option is basically just making an exception to the no qualifiers rule that was implemented some time ago in an attempt to remove the grounds for dispute. I do believe we would be better served by finishing that process, and eliminate any form of qualification for this parameter. FactotEm (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Frankly, on further reflection I think it should probably be a choice of "Fooish victory", "Fooish defeat", or "Inconclusive (see Aftermath section)". Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * @FactotEm. I looked at the previous discussion and it came to include "decisive". I tried to capture this and subsequent discusion that "decisive" was an anachronism. It appears that only three of us have any real interest. Let me ponder this. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that it might help to reduce the number of choices but they will have to be enforced and that's not something that admins will agree to. How about "win", "lose" or "other" which would appear as See Aftermath section? Keith-264 (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A win for one side is automatically a loss for the other, so not sure that we need both. FactotEm (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If one side attacks and succeeds, it's a win, if it fails it's a loss. Keith-264 (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, nuance that has no place in the infobox. FactotEm (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No-one's accused me of nuance before.... :o)Keith-264 (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

An earlier discussion (Military Conflict Template) was resolved to limit the options and to include "Decisive X victory". I had thought there might be opposition to removing this, as opposed to substituting "conclusive". However, I take this discussion as a consensus to deprecate any qualifier (either "conclusive" or "decisive"). There is support for "Inconclusive (see Aftermath section)" and perhaps, "see Aftermath section" alone. I see no harm in it also being applied to "X victory" - even if every such case might qualify for this rider. Its inclusion does nothing more than direct the reader to where the matter is discussed in fuller detail. However, if there is consensus to not apply it in the case of "victory", I will write it out. I think there is some value in constraining the result in time to the "immediate" and emphasising there should be no ambiguity in ascribing the result as a victory. But again, I will write it out if there is consensus. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

More comments per revised version
see Template:Infobox military conflict/doc

, could I get some more feedback on whether we fly with this iteration or it needs to be refined some more. I need to update what appears in the parameter box to reflect the comments given in the usage section but I have been leaving this until we have an "accepted" version. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Speaking just for myself here, I've always favored omitting "decisive" or other such battle descriptors unless the decisive or otherwise unique outcome can be justified by multiple (read as 2 or more) independent texts. Without additional sources to back up the point I've always default to the position that including the descriptors was in violation of the NPOV guidelines sine it always seems to invite low level debates, arguments, and in some cases edit warring brought on nationalistic, alternative history, or other factions that feel its use in the article in unwarranted or unjustified. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * @TomStar81, do you have any specific comments on the revision as it now appears? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty comfortable with the current reading. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The trouble with allowing the RS to decide on decisiveness is that pop-historians and hacks writing for commercial publishers use hyperbole for salesmanship. I'd limit it to RS using the Clausewitzian definition. Keith-264 (talk) 06:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * @Keith-264, this iteration deprecates decisive. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a little worried about it but I suppose we can deal with it if and when the time comes. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal re: Result parameter - bullet points
I propose that the explanatory wording of the  parameter be amended to include an explicit permission for the use of bullet points setting out major consequences of the battle. As some of you will know, there has been tranch warfare on Battle of France for longer, now, than the battle itself took, and which in part hinges on whether bullet points are peritted in the results section. A discussion on bullet points, above, on this page, passed without anyone asserting that they're forbidden.

Bullet points are found in the results section of many articles, including, for instance, these FAs.
 * Battle of Svolder [[file:cscr-featured.svg|15px]]
 * Battle of The Cedars [[file:cscr-featured.svg|15px]]
 * Battle of Ticonderoga (1759) [[file:cscr-featured.svg|15px]]
 * Battle of Bosworth Field [[file:cscr-featured.svg|15px]]
 * Battle of Gonzales [[file:cscr-featured.svg|15px]]
 * Battle of Khafji [[file:cscr-featured.svg|15px]]

An initial proposal for the wording is to append a sentence "use of bullet points to summarise key outcomes is permitted." --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Opposed, I suggest that they be removed from articles for obvious reasons. Keith-264 (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously a reasonable idea that is already in common use. I have cited another half-dozen examples on the Battle of France talk page already. DMorpheus2 (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell the last change to the template documentation, discussed here, was designed to reduce the potential for disagreement by restricting the the number of choices available for the result parameter. If adopted, this change will reverse that course, and increase the potential for conflict and edit war whilst offering little advantage in return. It's also my opinion that infoboxes should present only the most basic, at-a-glance, factual data, and the type of information often presented in bullet point form actually belongs to aftermath and lead sections - I'm not sure that information creep in the infobox is a positive step. FactotEm (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * All systems to organise information create anomalies and boundary disputes. It seems to me that the three choice limit is designed to make people choose for the sake of brevity and when this is insufficient, to resolve the anomaly by linking to the article, where matters are discussed at greater length. Citing FA articles with bullet points as a precedent creates confirmation bias, since no-one has counted FAs without them. I've changed my views on them several times and settled on See Aftermath section, since I think that's what it's there for. Keith-264 (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention, that the other way to resolve a discrepancy, is to have no entry in the result criterion. Keith-264 (talk) 10:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The infobox is a blunt instrument that beats nuance to a bloody pulp on the altar of brevity. Its raison d'être is brevity, and I think any attempt to shoehorn nuance into it is nothing but a gateway to conflict (a mistake I have made myself before now). Keith, I think you're seeing the world in all its colours, but the infobox is a black/white thing. I don't like it either, but we're stuck with it. FactotEm (talk) 11:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I wrote, how could you interpret it as the opposite? Bullet points are nuance by the way. Keith-264 (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Basically agree with Keith and particularly Factotem about infoboxes being a blunt instrument. I've used "See Aftermath section" in several Milhist ACRs, and even a FA (I think). Bullet points would be a backward step and will just encourage disputation over something that should be explained properly in the lead and aftermath sections. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on Battle of Trafalgar talk page if anyone's interested. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Table.mw-stack to DIV.mw-stack
Hey! I noticed this template is inconsistent to the stack template which uses a div tag rather than a table. This is making it tricky for my team at WMF (and apis) to apply mobile optimizations by identifying the main infobox inside the page. According to my logs this template is the only widely used template on mediawiki using a table.

I was curious if this template needs to use a table element. Could this use the stack template directly ? Jdlrobson (talk) Jdlrobson (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Cc User:Frietjes thanks in advance for your answers! Jdlrobson (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Jdlrobson, I have changed to to use the same elements, styles, and classes as Template:stack. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the speedy edit User:Frietjes! The logs I'm looking at are running much more cleaner now and I can see the problem is also present in Template:Infobox_civil_conflict. I also notice lots of pages which could be using stack but are not so any guidance there would be appreciated! Jdlrobson (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Jdlrobson, I updated civil conflict as well. Frietjes (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 March 2018
I don't want to change anything, I just want to study the code used to see how it works. If you would rather not give me access, maybe just leave the code on my Talk page, and I can then delete it? 2samspan (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The source can be viewed by clicking on the "module tab" and on the "view source tab" that then appears. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The code is there below the documentation and or can be seen from clicking view source Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Test image with latitude and longitude
see "Template:Infobox military conflict/testcases" it errors with "". Yet it seems to work in the article Battle of Vukovar. Why the difference? -- PBS (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding the line
 * |coordinates=

to the template fixes the problem in the test. This does not seem to me to be the expected result. -- PBS (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

OK so now I have looked into the history of the edits to this module there are two editors who have been active in editing it regards this "feature" they are user:Frietjes and user:Jonesey95 who included a link to Coordinates in infoboxes in her/his edit history entry.

It seems that the template is working as programmed, but the documentation has failed to be updated. Ie the parameters "latitude" and "longitude" have been deprecated as the parameter coordinates= with the template ought to be used instead. In my opinion this means that the documentation needs to be updated and a bot run over instances of this template making sure that "coordinates" is being used instead of "latitude" and "longitude" with appropriate additions and subtractions to the parameters in the instances of the template used in articles. -- PBS (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have updated the documentation, except for the TemplateData programming code, which is not documentation and which I do not touch. Others are welcome to update that. As for the unsupported latitude and longitude parameters, they are no longer in use in article space, as far as I can tell, since is empty. A bot ran through all article space instances of this template to convert lat and long to use the coord template. Thanks for pointing out that we missed a bit of the documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

add "view edit talk" to bottom right corner


I'm not sure what the V•E•T template is called, or how to add it, but I recommend we add it to this template.

Request for comment
(moved from Talk:Battle of the Coral Sea)

Should infoboxes follow a strict interpretation of Template:Infobox military conflict/doc? Per the discussion above, articles like Wars of the Roses, World War II, World War I, Hundred Years' War, as well as War of the Austrian Succession, King George's War, War of the Spanish Succession, Samoan Civil War, and many more others are violations. Per the discussion with Cinderella157 above, we cannot use results like "stalemate", "indecisive", "withdrawal", "status quo ante bellum", "ceasefire", "truce", "compromise", simple "treaty" results, or any other description and bullet points as they are contrary of Template:Infobox military conflict/doc. EtherealGate (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Update: Looks like some people are misunderstanding this request for comment. See my comment below. I am NOT trying to change the template, but clarification on its interpretation. It gives examples of what we "may" use and examples "not" to use, leaving room for interpretation. Examples listed above are not explicitly addressed in the template for example. If a strict interpretation is to be followed, than the wording needs to be changed to make that clear, leaving no room for interpretation. EtherealGate (talk) 08:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC) This is a strange discussion it reminded me of those that used to take place about article titles before the change to relying on reliable sources, to decide the issue. Prior to 2008 many of the naming conventions had complicated rule sets which emulated reliable sources and worked well 95% of the time but broke down for the 5% edge cases. This was done because prior to 2008 WP:COMMONNAME was taken to be a survey of all sources not just reliable ones. So popular names like "Bloody Mary" would always win a simple ghits survey and hence the complicated naming convention guidelines. Once common name was redefined to be "commonly used ... in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources" the that removed the problem.
 * Yes the existing guidance remains appropriate. Infoboxes are not the place for nuance or "strategic defeat but tactical victory" etc. Results that involve any complexity should be summarised in the lead, detailed in a section (for example, an "Aftermath" section) in the body, and the infobox should just contain a link to the section with something along the lines of "See Aftermath section". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes This has been working well. I agree with Peacemaker67: it simply isn't possible to use this field to summarise complex outcomes, and attempting to do so does a disservice to our readers given that it's best to direct them to the part of the article where the results are discussed (noting that the lead should also provide a summary of the outcome, with this generally being workable as it can accommodate more words). Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * YesPrevious extensive discussions concluded as given by Peacemaker67; I recall three categories A victory, B victory, something like "indecisive" or "disputed" followed by "see article text/aftermath section". This presupposes an obligation by editors to address any complex or disputed result in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monstrelet (talk • contribs) 10:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes – per Peacemaker. Haven't we discussed this previously? Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes the infobox is no place for hair-splitting. Keith-264 (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How are simple results like "stalemate", "indecisive", "withdrawal", "status quo ante bellum", "ceasefire", "truce", "compromise", and "treaty" considered hair-splitting? Or bullet points? EtherealGate (talk) 07:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Instead of making up rules, follow what the sources say. For example in the case of the Battle of Waterloo it was not just a Coalition victory it was the decisive victory of the Waterloo Campaign and brought an end to 25 years of near continuous warfare. This is easy to show in reliable sources and so "Decisive victory" is appropriate in that case. (Likewise the Parliamentary victory at Worcester in 1651 was a decisive victory bringing to an end the English Civil Wars). So I suggest that instead of trying to make up strict rules here in a guideline, the guideline advised first and foremost to use what is used in a majority of reliable sources. Only if the reliable sources disagree then start to make up rules.

"" Guidelines are meant to follow best practice not to be used by a minority of editors as a bludgeon to force their opinion on others. People using this guideline as a rule based bludgeon ought to think again. "Follow the sources Luke". -- PBS (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "For example in the case of the Battle of Waterloo it was not just a Coalition victory it was the decisive victory of the Waterloo Campaign and brought an end to 25 years of near continuous warfare." No, the Waterloo Campaign was a coda to a generation wars that had already ended. Sources vary from scholarly, to Mickey Mouse to fraudulent so it isn't a facile solution as much as an invitation to endless argument. ******Keith-264 (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The war had not ended for as Brech wrote about another tyrant "For though the world has stood up and stopped the bastard, the bitch that bore him [was] in heat again". If Napoleon had not made some serious mistakes after the Battle of Ligny he would have beaten both Blucher and Wellington. However neither Ligny or Waterloo (more probably a second Quatre Bras on 17 June) would not have been decisive because the war would have continued. The wars would of course have ended months or years later, but that takes us into the realms of alternative history, because Waterloo was the decisive victory of the Waterloo Campaign and the end of the Napoleonic Wars. The point is that what I have written here is not my own POV, there are hundreds of source that consider Waterloo to be a decisive victory do you, User:Keith-264 have a source that argues that it was not? -- PBS (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes PBS, your Waterloo example well illustrates why elaboration is bad. The word 'decisive' is not only a matter of POV, it is an ambiguous term. The consequences may well have been decisive but the battle itself was not. Which meaning of 'decisive' are we to use? I echo all the other objecting comments. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually it was not only decisive its strategic outcome, but the French were decisively/comprehensively beaten. As the military historian William Siborne states "[Marshal] Gneisenau, helped to render the victory at Waterloo still more complete and decisive; and effectually deprived the enemy of every opportunity of recovering himself on the Belgian side of the frontier ... A defeated army usually covers its retreat by a rear guard, but here there was nothing of the kind: and hence it can not be said to have retreated; but truly to have fled from the field of battle". (Siborne 597, 617). -- PBS (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't mind leaving out decisive, as the template recently made that clear. I'm talking about the less clear stuff not addressed, or subject to interpretation. EtherealGate (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes per Nick-D - not the place for long, complex discussion of outcomes. Girth Summit  (blether) 07:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you are over-egging the pudding, a few adjective or even bullet points are not "complex discussion of outcomes". -- PBS (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not necessarily talking about long results or nuances. I'm talking about simple results like "stalemate", "indecisive", "withdrawal", "status quo ante bellum", "ceasefire", "truce", "compromise", and "treaty". The template does not say we can use them, but it does not say we can't use them either. Examples are given of what we "may" or may not use, leaving room for interpretation. If we are to follow a strict interpretation of this, than the wording needs to be changed to make it clear that the examples given are the only ones we can use. EtherealGate (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * One option is to leave blank, which would cover all the variations you mention, that could then be handled in the main article, where such detail beyond a simple 'victory' really belongs. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So you say, but then we could do away completely with the infobox as all the information "could then be handled in the main article", where it ought to reside, and usually does, as infoboxes tend to repeat what is already in the article. -- PBS (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Leaving blank is an option, yes. But I don't see any reason why the simple aforementioned, uncontroversial examples cannot be used. EtherealGate (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Question if a strict interpretation is to be followed, then there is the question of how First War of Scottish Independence should be handled. EtherealGate (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See Aftermath section simples....08:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC) Keith-264 (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Dubious – I don't believe Wikipedia works well when it tries to enforce "strict interpretations", especially at a sub-level, such as via a Wikiproject. Wikipedia works best with guidelines. When we start opening the doors (and therefore tightening the reins) to anything "strict" is causes tension amongst editors. You get editors mulling about changing itty-bits of articles, such as templates, with no actual understanding of the content, just to apply these "strict" standards for their own pleasure. I believe that editing Wikipedia not only requires competence, but respect for the content and context involved. Wikipedia has a history of driving experienced editors away, very competent article creators, because the guidelines often get so strict in areas that any amateur editor cancome along and apply backwards-thiking edits based on new "interpretations" on guidelines at template or MOS level. I think templates work well to give an "at a glance" overview of articles, but when we start minimising the way templates can summarise content for fly-by readers we're not doing any service. Yes, sometimes battle outcomes are disputed and editors using terms like "Decisive" are accused of POV. But if we remove all such terms that is also a POV, IMO. It is the POV that sufficient sources are "simply not good enough". I agree with that the Battle of Waterloo was decisive. Many, many verifiable sources say so. Are we seeking to cast doubt on qualified historians and expunge such determinations from Wikipedia templates?  If so, then that is an ugly POV. A POV that seeks to override Wikipedia policy. I don't agree that any guidelines with regards to templates should be interpreted stricter than policies designed to suit the entire Wikipedia project (e.g. If a "Decisive victory" claim is cited, then referencing policy is superior to template guidelines, so why would we need to remove the "Decisive" other than to suit an agenda?). I think that if MILHIST project memebers are in the opinion a huddled consenus here can be given more standing than long-standing Wiki policies, that they're probably getting too big for their boots. As good as the project is, it can't assume to speak for everyone, and whenever these "strict interpretations" come into question it's going to fall on MILHIST to interpret them 99% of the time. That feels wrong to me on many levels. I sometimes wonder if people forget that we're not editing for ourselves, or each other, but for the entire world. Some people need history summarising, and removing outcomes that are supported by valid sources is paramount to revisionism. I'm sure my "at the throat" opinions will trigger a few minds. C'est la vie! — Marcus (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Either there are criteria or there aren't; I'm in favour of them. Keith-264 (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Marcus, you seem to be trying to disprove your own preference. Having only minimal terms to use is precisely to avoid the strict rules that do cause the problems you highlight. Claiming that a lack of detailed information is a POV is an interesting approach, much like 'he said nothing in court so he must be guilty' Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There were two battle of Worcester in the English Civil War (the very first and the very last), "when their wives and children should ask them where they had been and what news, they should say they had been at Worcester, where England's sorrows began, and where they were happily ended" (Hugh Peter). The first was a Cavalier victory the second a Roundhead one. The first was a victory the second a decisive victory. After the first, the English Civil War continued (either side had opportunists to win it) and in it more English people died as a percentage of the population than in the First World War, so the first was not decisive. If the Cavaliers had won the second battle of Worcester then the war would have continued. The Roundheads won the second and it was decisive, not only tactically (the Royalists army was utterly destroyed with very few escaping), but also strategically as it ended the English Civil War (without any compromise being reached -- Charles II escaped to France with a price on his head). Again there are plenty of sources to back this up, both primary sources "Crowning Mercy" and lots of secondary ones. It is not the place of Wikipeia editors to impose rules that prevent the opinions of historians well represented in reliable sources being briefly summarised in the battle-boxes. So yes User:Roger 8 Roger insisting that the word decisive is removed from the second Battle of Worcester is (probably unintentionally) presenting a biased account of history as it equates the two Worcester victories. -- PBS (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your strawman analogy is noted. Your attempt to flip my point with a flawed interpretation is also noted. Thank you for proving that Wiki editors are only human and can make mistakes as well as hold questionable opinions. Your response to me tried hard to be ambitiously decisive, but clearly lacks forethought in its attempt to be critical. — Marcus (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not defining criteria which concerns me, so much as who attempts to enforce it and at what cost to the quality of existing material, esp. that which is sourced and valid. Sometimes "criteria" is propped up to sound like progression or balance but really takes two steps backwards and often reeks of authorative measures that inhibit content building. — Marcus (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment"" (Keith-264). The criteria could be something along the lines of a "succinct summary. If necessary supplemented with an inline-note, or link to the place in the article, with the details of the outcome". Which is I think a reasonable summary of what happens in many articles.-- PBS (talk) 11:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Who won? Is it really that difficult to answer? If it is, it isn't a matter for the infobox. Attempting to evade this goes in circles; how can a summary not be succinct? A criterion not enforced isn't a criterion and "See Aftermath section" is permissive not restrictive, in the body of the article, which is what the article is for. Keith-264 (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * easily! For example the Battle of Waterloo is a summary of reliable sources but the body of the article, at about 140k, is not succinct. As I have shown above Siborne takes pages to describe what was and why it was a "decisive victory" (which at 2 words is a succinct summary). -- PBS (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The description in the documentation sated "Decisive victory" for many years. Was changed with Revision as of 09:41, 18 October 2017 by user:Cinderella157. Perhaps that use would like to explain what this means: "" Using the Battle of Waterloo as an example. -- PBS (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Response @PBS, this was one edit in a series of iterations resulting from the discussion at this TP, which was originally initiated at MilHist talk here. As noted by, the notion of a battle being "decisive" has its origins in Creasey but, AIUI it is depricated in more modern scholarship. If it is used, the basis/criteria for assessing it as decisive is important - the scale of the victory, whether it was war ending of itself or whether it was the beginning of the end. Several authors analysing a result may refer to it as decisive but for different and possibly even conflicting reasons. Adding the term "decisive" to the result in the infobox does not capture and convey to the reader the nuance of the term. It will depend on the context given in the source and will vary with each specific conflict. There is the the case that has arisen, where sources do not describe a victory as decisive but editors feel sufficiently justified to describe the result as "decisive" because of (say) the relative magnitude of casualties or such. Such a case would fall to WP:ANALYSIS. I hope that this addresses your question. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Cinderella157 do you have any sources that argue that Battle of Waterloo was "" decisive? I don't doubt that if you dig hard enough you will find some, but they will is suspect be on the fringe. The debate over the last 30 years, ie by modern historians, has been (as it has been by other historians since the battle was fought) what the relative contribution of the forces engaged was to the outcome of the battle ("). -- PBS (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * @PBS, I find your post a little unclear, probably because of a typo? To respond: this is a general guidance. As such, while specific examples might serve to inform the discussion, they do not define it. Waterloo specifically falls to Creasey, being a subject of his work and his Victorian perception of history. It is also not surprising therefore, that more recent works since Creasey consider Waterloo within the construct defined by Creasey, since it was (I believe) quite influential. I have answered you question posted at the Battle of Trafalgar tp. That was a case where the "qualified" result in the infobox was not supported by sources. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that I have added red text to fix the problems. Cressey is one source but there are other earlier Victorian scholars such as Siborne (who tended to give more credit to the Prussians than later historians after 1870 and the perceived German threat to Europe and British interests). You make my point for me, when you write with ". My argument is that we should describe the outcome of battles and wars based on reliable sources not rules made up by a few editors, and that the summation ought to be a succinct accurate description. A succinct accurate description of the Battle of Waterloo is a "decisive victory", while Boneparte's victory two days earlier at the battle of Ligny was not decisive. To put in the infoboxes just "victory" as if there is some sort of quality between the outcome of the battles,--because the rules tell us we must--is misleading for the readers of the articles, because reliable sources sum up their outcome very differently. -- PBS (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Cinderella157 you wrote "" are you sure because a search of Google books prior to Creasey turn up examples like these two:
 * --PBS (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why is it that most of these linked "discussions" have been initiated by the same people and propped-up by the same "yes men" from MILHIST's elite bunch? I fail to see any sincere form of consensus that reflects Wikipedia's values as a whole, rather a huddled agreement being enforced by nay-sayers of specific outcome terms. Literally, hastily proposed and impractically applied manipulation of long-standing article content. Further, the majority of views that dispute Waterloo's decisive outcome are generally written by anti-Anglo historians, with shoddy research techniques and questionable interpretations, promoting populistic fringe theories that they market with determination but often fail to uphold against genuine Napoleonic historians of a higher calibre. A lot of this nonsense originated with Peder Hofschroer and other historians have since jumped on the "alternative history" bandwagon because mugs buy into it. As for "where sources do not describe a victory as decisive but editors feel sufficiently justified to describe the result as 'decisive'", please tell me what the title of these books are: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Waterloo-Companion-Colonel-Nick-Lipscombe/dp/1472801040, or https://www.amazon.co.uk/Decisive-Battles-World-Marathon-Waterloo/dp/1505524741, or https://www.amazon.co.uk/Decisive-Battles-Western-World-Waterloo/dp/0304358681. Since there are a multitude of sources which qualify Waterloo as "decisive" I will once again repeat what is being attempted here on Wikipedia: shameless revisionism by an isolated pocket of editors. I think, what we need presented here is evidence that these outcome terms are truly "deprecated" instead of expecting us to accept these claims at face value, as I have my doubts. Further, is Wikipedia an exercise in "modern scholarship"? Given that editors and readers come from all walks of life, it seems awfully pretentious and somewhat snobbish to expect everyone to adhere to language and terms only promoted (by which I actually mean "authorised") by a niche of scholarly idealists. — Marcus (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * @Marcus Hofschroer does not dispute that the outcome of the battle was decisive, its just that he thinks that some British historians for nationalistic reasons overplayed the contribution of the British Army to the battle and under played that of other nationalities particularly the Prussian contribution.-- PBS (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why is it that most of these linked "discussions" have been initiated by the same people and propped-up by the same "yes men" from MILHIST's elite bunch? I fail to see any sincere form of consensus that reflects Wikipedia's values as a whole, rather a huddled agreement being enforced by nay-sayers of specific outcome terms. Literally, hastily proposed and impractically applied manipulation of long-standing article content. Further, the majority of views that dispute Waterloo's decisive outcome are generally written by anti-Anglo historians, with shoddy research techniques and questionable interpretations, promoting populistic fringe theories that they market with determination but often fail to uphold against genuine Napoleonic historians of a higher calibre. A lot of this nonsense originated with Peder Hofschroer and other historians have since jumped on the "alternative history" bandwagon because mugs buy into it. As for "where sources do not describe a victory as decisive but editors feel sufficiently justified to describe the result as 'decisive'", please tell me what the title of these books are: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Waterloo-Companion-Colonel-Nick-Lipscombe/dp/1472801040, or https://www.amazon.co.uk/Decisive-Battles-World-Marathon-Waterloo/dp/1505524741, or https://www.amazon.co.uk/Decisive-Battles-Western-World-Waterloo/dp/0304358681. Since there are a multitude of sources which qualify Waterloo as "decisive" I will once again repeat what is being attempted here on Wikipedia: shameless revisionism by an isolated pocket of editors. I think, what we need presented here is evidence that these outcome terms are truly "deprecated" instead of expecting us to accept these claims at face value, as I have my doubts. Further, is Wikipedia an exercise in "modern scholarship"? Given that editors and readers come from all walks of life, it seems awfully pretentious and somewhat snobbish to expect everyone to adhere to language and terms only promoted (by which I actually mean "authorised") by a niche of scholarly idealists. — Marcus (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * @Marcus Hofschroer does not dispute that the outcome of the battle was decisive, its just that he thinks that some British historians for nationalistic reasons overplayed the contribution of the British Army to the battle and under played that of other nationalities particularly the Prussian contribution.-- PBS (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes To the original question by the OP. To the revised question, the advice in the template doc (per comments by others) is very clear (even if verbose but perhaps, because it is verbose). Some of the options presented by the OP might be considered as, "what followed", rather than the "result" of the battle/conflict (ie. who won). Qualifying the result with adjectives to quantify who won and by how much in a couple of words, lacks context, adds nuance and is therefore inappropriate to the infobox - per other "yes" comments. Summarising to such a micro level will frequently involve a degree of analysis of the sources to an extent that may be inappropriate. There is then the matter of disputes that arise from use of other terms not acknowledged in the current advice. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

No to the original question. While the first sentence feels appropriate to me ("this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"."), a number of the articles illustrated as "violating" the policy actually follow the "strict" result with a summary of the conflict's place in the wider military context, which I think is appropriate for the infobox. I agree that in-depth treatment of context is more appropriate for prose, but readers look to infoboxes for quick summaries, and if readers are looking to find a quick indication of how that conflict fits into things more broadly, then it defeats the point of them scanning through an infobox to only be pointed towards lengthy prose; the more important and/or complex conflicts are more likely to want some sort of summary, and are therefore more likely to let down readers who get pointed towards a block of prose for a "quick summary". — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 11:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * No Disputes are not going to end. The terms like "decisive", "tactical" are proper representation of the outcome and per policy they cannot be even added without citing a reliable source. I am also not sure if this was the right place to propose this change. What needs to be stated would be decided by the consensus of editors and I don't think this kind of discussion would change things. 09:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatoliatheo (talk • contribs)
 * No - This strikes me as a false dilemma where you're stuck with either "victory" or "defeat", despite the fact that in many cases it isn't that easy to reach consensus on such matters. When that is the case, a reasonable thing to do is to omit the entire outcome section and leave result blank (this is the kind of "elaboration" I would support including on T:Infobox/doc). Just because a parameter happens to exist doesn't mean editors should be forced to pick one outcome or the other. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
The template documentation is a good faith effort to eliminate a cause of needless dispute, not a mechanism by which a few seek to impose a POV. This is the infobox, a very high level, bullet point summary of the key aspects of the article. Whether or not a victory was decisive, pyrrhic, tactical, strategic, , the underlying result remains a victory. A simple "X victory" is therefore a perfectly proper representation of the result and all that we need to state at this stage of the article. The only exception is when the result is genuinely ambiguous, in which case a link to where we can learn more is the only necesary alternative. The guidance reduces what can often be a complex, nuanced aspect of a topic to its most basic form, which is, after all, what the infobox is supposed to do. The main body of the article, reflected with a summary in the lead text, are the correct places for more detailed/nuanced representations of the result. Factotem (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

There is another aspect to this argument, exemplified by the discussion at Talk:Battle_of_Flodden. The source presented there in support of qualifying the result in the infobox as "decisive" uses that word as a simple adjective, without any analysis into why it was decisive. Other sources describe the victory as "accidental", "great", "memorable", "unexpected" and "extraordinary". If we're going to give such weight in the infobox to the simple use of adjectives then the scope for pointless arguments about which to use becomes immense. Even if the discussion in the sources about the nature of a victory is weightier than a mere adjective, the question posed above by User:PBS to User:Keith-264, asking if he has a source that argues the Battle of Waterloo was not a decisive victory, is another tangent that ends up in pointless time-sinks, the very issue that guidance is attempting to avert. The nature of a victory, while often a point of dispute, is not the point of dispute here. The question is not whether the Battle of Waterloo, for example, was decisive, but whether it is appropriate to state that in the infobox. Factotem (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "" Are you making a statement of fact or do you mean "I think it is a another tangent that ends up in pointless time-sinks". Why do you think it a tangent and a pointless time-sink? I think it is reasonable that if a person wishes to change the text in an article that they can back that up with sources that justify the change. Asking for a source that argues against a historical paradigm is not a time sink. Besides it seems from your engagement on the talk page of the Battle of Waterloo, that you are willing to engage in a "pointless time-sink". -- PBS (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, the point I was trying to make above was about simple use of adjectives. I've no idea why I digressed into a completely separate point. I've struck that part. Debating whether the BoW was decisive in this discussion is, in my opinion, a pointless timesink. It's not what this discussion is about. Debating it over on that article's TP is not, but that is incidental to the issues I've raised over there. Factotem (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * More on point, would something like "Both sides declare victory", "British and Russian victory", "Coalition and Iraqi victory", "Saudi-allied victory", American-led victory", or " Iraqi government and allies victory" fit in the 'X victory' format? EtherealGate (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I would also point out that First War of Scottish Independence demonstrates another common failure in these types of discussion. The infobox is part of the lead, and should thus summarise what is discussed in the main body of the article. That article's infobox presents the result as both a Scottish and an English victory. Not only does that fail to provide any meaningful understanding of the actual result, it is not based on anything discussed in the main body of the article. The only victories explicitly mentioned are individual battles, not the war as a whole. The failure of the Scots to invade Ireland, offered as the rationale for a Scottish victory, is only ever mentioned, without sources, in the infobox, and does not appear anywhere in the main body. Factotem (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The template documentation is, in my opinion, unnecessarily verbose, but it is nevertheless perfectly clear on what is and is not permitted. There is no scope for interpretation in the opening sentence. The text, "this parameter may use one of two standard terms..." clearly introduces the concept of the permitted use of standard options and constrains them to two possibilities. It later proscribes the use of non-standard options, in terms of an unequivocal imperative. In the statement "Do not introduce non-standard terms like...", the word "like" clearly signals that what follows are examples, not an exhaustive list. It would be impractical to list every proscribed adjective or outcome used in the huge body of milhist sources. Factotem (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Good points so far. However, the first sentence can be interpreted with the word "may", which should be changed to "could" to make it clearer. Definition of "may" from Google "expressing possibility", "expressing permission", "expressing a wish or hope". Definition of "could" (past of can), "be able to", "be permitted to", and "used to indicate that something is typically the case". The verbosity could also be trimmed to remove any interpretation, as not all cases are a one size fits all. EtherealGate (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Taking that first sentence in isolation, you're not wrong, but that second statement makes it quite clear, I think, that "may" in this context is an expression of permission. Factotem (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * True, however changing it to "could" would still make it clearer, because it might still be interpreted to justify the countless other articles mentioned that do not follow the guideline as of now, and would avoid a similar discussion like this popping up again. The template also lists examples of what not to use, and why not to use them. Uncontroversial terms, including bullet points, and their reasons are not addressed, so the verbosity could be trimmed to include them and avoid misinterpretation. EtherealGate (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Finally, the guidance we're discussing here is just that, guidance. The template documentation carries no more authority than an essay. It is given some weight by the statement in MILMOS that it should be respected, but MILMOS is itself just a guideline. These should, in my opinion, be respected as the default position when it comes to determining how to represent the result in the infobox, but does not override WP-wide policy. Local consensus can determine that both can be ignored, in which case that guidance and, more authoritatively, WP policies on POV (and in particular that policy's clause on weight) and verifiability (and in particular that policy's accompanying guideline on reliable sources) provide the foundations on which such consensus is determined. Factotem (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, this reminds me of a comment by User:Director on Talk:Battle of France that said "The template documentation are not "rules" we are obliged to follow. What we are obliged to do is provide the reader with a clear and concise description of the outcome of a conflict. This is basic stuff that's generally understood across our project, that's why we write all sorts of things under "outcome", qualifiers, bullet points, links to all sorts of sections or other articles etc..." EtherealGate (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but quite a few people have put quite a bit of thought into coming up with that guidance, spanning back many years. It's there for a reason, and there should really be a good reason to ignore it. The discussion over at BoF was extensive and quite heated – IIRC the user you mention got himself banned during the last round – and whilst there were good arguments for and against qualifying that victory as decisive, no-one was arguing that it wasn't a German victory, which was the result that was determined as consensus in the end. That's the level at which the infobox operates. Any more complex than that and it pretty much always becomes testy. Factotem (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "few people have put quite a bit of thought into coming up with that guidance" that does not mean that it is correct or even that there is a consensus for it as demonstrated by the person who starts this RfC states "and many more others are violations". Guidance is meant to be a summation of practice, not a dictate of what a few editors think ought to be done. As I wrote above it is not what editors think is a decisive victory or even a victory, it is dependent on what the reliable sources say. If the majority of sources agree it was a decisive victory then it is and ought to appear in the box.-- PBS (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * @ Ether "May" and "could" are synonyms, "may" and "might" aren't. The Battle of the Battle of France (which might be being re-fought here) did include the comment ascribed to Director but it was sophistry to claim that because something isn't a rule, ignoring it is of no consequence. I think that it's been done to death that the result criterion is narrow because that's what the infobox is for. If detail and nuance are needed then "See Aftermath section" is the only qualifier necessary. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * By that logic all that is needed in the lead is "See body of the article".!-- PBS (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * @PBS, I recall a discussion a while ago at Battle of Britain about decisive or not. I recall there being half a dozen reliable sources being used to confirm that the battle was decisive. On closer analysis, each reference did use the term decisive BUT, when the references were read fully and the word decisive was looked at more closely and in context, it became apparent that only one of the references described the battle as a decisive victory in the way the article and most editors intended it. I thought it was a good example of why we should avoid using the term in the infobox. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

We're back to the meaning of decisive which in my experience is used to mean war determining (according to Clausewitz) like the Battle of Smolensk in 1941 and "big". Historians who go in for the hyperbolic sense tend, in my experience, to be less reliable, produce re-hashes of secondary and tertiary sources to order and give undue emphasis to minor variations. In this discussion, we could easily have written "See []" and saved ourselves the bother. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you any sources that dispute that the battle of Waterloo was decisive? -- PBS (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@User:Roger 8 Roger you wrote "". That is precisely my point! This is something to be decided by an analysis of the reliable sources, not by rules (see my example of how the method of selecting article titles was radically changed in 2008 with the change from rules approximating usage in reliable sources, to following usage in reliable sources. It simplified things and allowed for more flexibility in selecting the best name for articles). In the same way following usage in reliable sources will allow for a more reliable (accurate) succinct summary of the outcomes of battles. -- PBS (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Your view is just as dogmatic as the one you criticise and who decides which sources are reliable? There is guidance but as has been pointed out here, this isn't definitive.Keith-264 (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am pleased that you agree that the approach I am criticising is a "dogmatic" one. However my alternative "view" follows policy. We decide on which sources are reliable by using the "Sources" section of the WP:Verifiability policy with, if necessary, the relevant guidelines such as "Identifying reliable sources" and if needs be using the "dispute resolution" starting with Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Such an approach is not dogmatic unless one considers the three content polices to be dogmatic. It seems that this is the method that was used to decide on whether the Battle of Britain was a "decisive victory". I put it to you that is the approach that ought to be followed whenever there is a dispute amongst editors over the outcome of a battle. In the case of the Battle of Waterloo I would be surprised if the canon of literature on the battle includes many sources that explicitly argue that the outcome of the battle was indecisive.
 * Therefore I put it to you that the guidance here should be altered so that it does not encourage editors to ignore policy when following this guidance. Now this may mean that if editors who like to make small copy edits (sometimes described as WikiGnomes) wish to edit the outcome of a conflict in an infobox, they will need to look at reliable sources before making such a change and be willing to follow BRD if the edit is reverted explaining via WP:SOURCES why they made the edit, rather than simply justifying it via a rule in a guideline as some editors do at the moment (example). -- PBS (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The article on the Battle of Waterloo has some issues with sourcing and POV in the section that discusses its historical importance, which in theory is the basis for the summarised result given in the infobox. I've started a conversation about that on the article's TP. The guidance relating to use of the infobox in no way encourages editors to ignore policy. Attempts to frame this discussion in terms of disputes about the actual outcome of a battle is to misunderstand the point of this discussion, which is whether it is appropriate to describe the result in the infobox in any more detail than a simple "X Victory". The guidance is that for the BoW, "Coalition victory" is all that is needed, and perfectly consistent with policy. Factotem (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "" Not necessaries it may be a breach of WP:Edit, WP:V, and WP:NOR to remove text and oversimple. For example the Battle of Ligny was a "French victory" (because they held the "field of slaughter"), but it was not a decisive victory because Napoleon did not follow up and let the Prussians retreat in relatively good order, and regroup and it was not a war winning battle. The Battle of Waterloo was a decisive victory for the Coalition, both tactically and strategically. To remove the word divisive is a disservice to the reader, because without that difference in summary it is not possible to gauge the extent of the victory from just reading the battle box. Why not change the guidance to a "succinct summary. If necessary supplemented with an inline-note, or link to the place in the article, with the details of the outcome". Rather than a limited list of potential outcomes? -- PBS (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * this is all very illuminating. are we talking about creating an either or option on "outcome" of a battle? Coalition victory? russian victory? whatever?  i recall a lengthy argument over the results of a battle — strategic tactical draw etc.  in part it rested on the imbalance of sources.  sometimes it relates to a new take on an old subject, archaelogical studies of sites and so forth. i like the boxes.  if it isn't clear who won, cant we leave it blank?  or say "mixed results"? auntieruth (talk),
 * We cannot practically leave it blank because someone will come and edit something in every fifteen minutes, ignoring any comments telling them not to do that. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Quite agree, I suspect that some of this is a Trojan Horse.Keith-264 (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keith-264 I do not understand what you have written please can you elucidate. -- PBS (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I've seen a few of these over the years, most recently on Battle of Trafalgar. I don't know what to think. More complex entries can produce an enormous amount of discussion over a trivial point (in particular the bleeding ulcer of people who think "pyrrhic" just means "heavy casualties", and yes, I produced an enormous amount of discussion over one of those, guilty as charged) and sometimes it produces a carbuncle where the entire article is trying to cram itself into the results field of the infobox. The scope to consider both tactical and strategic outcomes means two good-faith editors can easily end up vigorously opposed - let alone two idiot nationalists.

On the other hand, there are plenty of cases where I feel the infobox would actually be greatly improved by expressing a slightly more nuanced view. In an ideal world cooler heads than mine could get some of those done without going against MILMOS or provoking the difficulties above.

Practically speaking I think there is a WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS for more complex results in infoboxes. My impression is that the overwhelming majority of battles do not obey the current supposed policy, and that in spite of the fact that editors following policy can cite policy in support of their edits (ie, if policy said nothing on the subject, an even higher proportion of battles would have more complex result fields). Pinkbeast (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you don't treat the word Pyrrhic as a facile term but sadly that's what decisive becomes in an infobox. In my opinion, complexity needs fewer and more general terms in the infobox like German victory for the reasons already discussed exhaustively. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that there can be instances where the words "Tactical victory", "Strategic victory", and "Pyrrhic victory" are required in the result parameter. For example, it is well sourced and undisputed by any author that the Action off Lofoten was a tactical British victory and a German strategic victory and that the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands was a Japanese tactical victory but an American strategic when. I think where there is any amount of dispute in regards to the results, than it is better to link to the section of the article describing the results, but that if it is well sourced and undisputed that there was a Stragic victory for one belligerent but a tactical victory for the other that it should be reflected in the infobox results section.XavierGreen (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No
 * I used to get involved in these disputes a long time ago, and indeed there's lots of needless fighting that could be avoided by following a "strict" interpretation. Still, I think denying ourselves the use of something as basic as "indecisive" for the sake of adhering to rules verges on Wikilegalism on something that's not even policy. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , FYI, "inconclusive" is an acceptable response under the existing guidance. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Very well, but what about things like "operational success"? I can see ambiguity in some cases, but in others, like the TFA Operation Ke it makes very logical sense; the Japanese withdrawal was an operational success, but calling it "victory" would be misleading, as their goal was to essentially cut their losses and leave. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , I agree that you make a good case for the example you have provided. You may or may not be aware of the history that goes with the advice. The most recent iteration was to remove "decisive victory" from the short list of acceptable responses because it had become clear that this was subjective and prone to dispute - the issue being that the term can be used in sources and contexts to have different meanings. The consensus at MilHist TP leading to the removal was that the nuance of meaning could not be conveyed or was ambiguous in isolation from context or explanation and was therefore problematic - not the least for the conflict it created. At Argincourt, for example, opposing editors argued that: "decisive" was a suitable adjective for trouncing the French while on the otherhand, it did not resolve the conflict with the French. A similar editing conflict arose at Trafalgar, though this is being rekindled here. For the most part (until now) the guidance has been effective in resolving such disputes, as the guidance has been accepted.
 * The earlier iteration (dating to ca 2012?) gave rise to deprecating qualifying terms and the advice in its general form presently. This was arrived at after extensive discussion and for much the same reasons. I do not recall any arguement as strong as that which you have presented for this instance. To following comments here, this might best be dealt with in the present context by the "See Aftermath" option rather than being left blank.
 * I would support such a change (ie X success or X failure where the the objective was not to achieve a victory). I consider that it would likely obtain broad support. It is unlikely to be controversial in application but feel that to introduce it at this time would only muddy the present RFC. Instead, I might foreshadow a future amendment subject to the outcome of this RFC. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well in that case, and in many others, don't put anything in the infobox about victory or defeat. The detail can be explained in the article. There seems to be an obsession with having to tick a box because a box exists. Writing nothing is one of the guideline options, and is there for a very good reason. Indy, when you say things like "it was essentially to..." can you not see that you are giving a personal opinion of what happened? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The trouble with that is that someone will come and add it every 5 minutes, ignoring any comments saying not to. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Why not suppress the criterion? Every argument for allowing nuance guarantees conflict. Keith-264 (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * On 3 January, IGH informed the 8th Area Army and the Combined Fleet of the decision to withdraw from Guadalcanal. By 9 January, the Combined Fleet and 8th Area Army staffs together completed the plan, officially called Operation Ke after a mora in Japanese Kana vocabulary, to execute the evacuation....Yamamoto expected that at least half of Mikawa's destroyers would be sunk during the operation....The Japanese had successfully evacuated a total of 10,652 men from Guadalcanal, about all that remained of the 36,000 total troops sent to the island during the campaign....In hindsight, historians have faulted the Americans, especially Patch and Halsey, for not taking advantage of their ground, aerial, and naval superiority to prevent the successful Japanese evacuation of most of their surviving forces from Guadalcanal. Said Chester Nimitz, commander of Allied forces in the Pacific, of the success of Operation Ke, "Until the last moment it appeared that the Japanese were attempting a major reinforcement effort. Only the skill in keeping their plans disguised and bold celerity in carrying them out enabled the Japanese to withdraw the remnants of the Guadalcanal garrison. Not until all organized forces had been evacuated on 8 February did we realize the purpose of their air and naval dispositions."....Nevertheless, the successful campaign to recapture Guadalcanal from the Japanese was an important strategic victory for the U.S. and its allies. Do you disagree that the article testifies that their "their goal was to essentially cut their losses and leave" or "their goal was to essentially cut their losses and leave"? My "personal opinion" here is that we should allow for slightly more flexibility. I think the article is a good example of where "operational success" seems a very reasonable way to fill in the parameter. I was hoping it would not be controversial, though your suggestion that I'm misinterpreting the body of the article would say otherwise, which I guess is why we're having this dispute about the infoboxes in the first place. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * No. The world, and military conflicts, aren't binary. While pigeonholing this to a small set of outcomes is something to be encouraged - it shouldn't be required - as there are many exceptions. This should not be anything more than a recommendation. 19:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs)

Clarification of close
Hi, you have closed this RfC as "no consensus". The remainder of your closing statement is a restatement of the RfC proposition. There are no comments as to how you reached this conclusion or what it means. Per WP:CLOSE: "most contentious discussions benefit from a formal closing statement".

"No consensus" is not the same as "consensus against". In "no consensus", the result is to default to the status quo. The problem is that the proposition was phrased to determine support of the status quo. The status quo is long standing (several years - notwithstanding some minor tweaks recently) and arrived at after a broad discussion. Further, the result section guidance is given weight by WP:MILMOS. The close does not discuss how the close relates to MILMOS.

I would therefore ask that you clarify the meaning of your close to address the ambiguity that exists and provide some statement on how you assessed the close and arrived at your conclusion. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm reviewing the closure and preparing a response. —  Newslinger  talk   00:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. My response is below. —  Newslinger  talk   02:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Unlike most RfCs, the arguments made in this RfC are based on opinions with no explicit support from cited policies and guidelines. While you're mentioning WP:MILMOS now, the guideline was only mentioned twice in the RfC: once by, who argued against the applicability of WP:MILMOS (as "MILMOS is itself just a guideline"), and once by , who mentioned WP:MILMOS but didn't use it to support an argument.
 * As none of the opinions were supported by relevant policies or guidelines, I gave every editor's opinion equal weight. Here are summaries of these opinions:
 * The RfC starter didn't express a clear opinion, although their comments lean toward "no".
 * Yes. Recommends summary in article body for complex outcomes.
 * Yes. Recommends summary in article body for complex outcomes.
 * Yes. Recommends summary in article body for complex outcomes.
 * Yes
 * Yes. "the infobox is no place for hair-splitting"
 * No. "Instead of making up rules, follow what the sources say."
 * Yes. Believes that "decisive" is an ambiguous term.
 * Yes. "not the place for long, complex discussion of outcomes"
 * No. Prefers to include descriptors used by most verifiable sources.
 * Yes. Believes that including descriptors would lead to editor conflict.
 * No. Believes that most readers would prefer to have "quick summaries" in the infobox.
 * No. "What needs to be stated would be decided by the consensus of editors"
 * No. Recommends leaving parameter blank when there is no consensus.
 * Yes. Recommends summary in article body for complex outcomes. Believes that including descriptors would lead to editor conflict.
 * Didn't express a clear opinion.
 * Didn't express a clear opinion. Notes implicit consensus for including descriptors.
 * No. Recommends linking to the article section when the descriptors are contentious.
 * No. Opposes instruction creep.
 * No. "The world, and military conflicts, aren't binary."
 * On a purely numerical basis, there are 9 editors who believed that restricting the  parameter to   or   (per guidance from Template:Infobox military conflict/doc) was appropriate, and 8 editors who believed that it was too restrictive.
 * Since no editor made an unusually compelling argument that was based on policies or guidelines, I didn't see a clear consensus for either supporting or opposing a strict interpretation of Template:Infobox military conflict/doc in this RfC.
 * You're correct in that "no consensus" doesn't mean "consensus against". It doesn't mean "consensus for", either. "No consensus" here means that the RfC doesn't establish any guidance for the usage of Module:Infobox military conflict across all affected articles, and that editors should defer to to the relevant policies and guidelines (including WP:MILMOS) and local consensus for each article where the template is used. WP:MILMOS continues to take effect, and this RfC doesn't change that. Whether editors should follow WP:MILMOS's guidance on the "result" parameter can be discussed for each affected article, but the guideline wasn't used to support arguments in this RfC and didn't affect the closure.
 * Typically, I summarize the referenced policies and guidelines in the closing summary. In this RfC, there were none, and the arguments were quite scattered, so that's why the summary is so brief. —  Newslinger  talk   02:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * After typing this out, I noticed that it was ironic how you're dissatisfied with my "no consensus" closure despite advocating for using the word "Inconclusive" when a military conflict lacks a clear "X victory". I hope this response provides more clarity, because the length of the closing statement didn't reflect the amount of effort spent on assessing the RfC. —  Newslinger  talk   02:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A note on how this RfC relates to WP:MILMOS, taken from the above response, has been added to the closing summary. —  Newslinger  talk   03:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This note has been removed and replaced. The original text is reproduced below:
 * —  Newslinger  talk   04:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * —  Newslinger  talk   04:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Response/comment
Hi, The substantive question, as clarified by the OP, refers to the clarity of the advice, Which has been addressed by Factotem and myself. Your additional note to the close has the "appearance" of being contradictory and quite unclear (IMO). MilMos directly gives voice to the template doc guidance. This clarification now says to effect: ignore the template doc but follow MilMos and follow the template doc. Perhaps some problem arises from the RfC being moved, where there had been a preceding discussion. The OP and many others (perhaps half or more, including myself) were aware of the relationship to MilMos. To seek clarification is not quite the same as expressing dissatisfaction. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Since there was no consensus in this RfC, the closing summary was intended to tell editors that the RfC has no effect on the status quo, as you mentioned earlier. This means:
 * This RfC has no effect on any page where Infobox military conflict is being used, including Battle of the Coral Sea, because there was no consensus.
 * As the RfC statement concerns all articles where Infobox military conflict is being used, and not any specific article, this RfC has no effect on the discussion at . Since there was no consensus, this RfC does not resolve that discussion.
 * This RfC has no effect on WP:MILMOS, since the guideline is not under the jurisdiction of an RfC on this page (Module talk:Infobox military conflict), and because there was no consensus. Therefore, WP:MILMOS is still in effect with no changes.
 * As a result, the status quo is still in effect, which means:
 * Since WP:MILMOS is a guideline, editors should respect it.
 * However, as WP:MILMOS is not a policy, editors can argue for an exception for a specific case in a talk page discussion. If there is consensus to apply an exception, this would be considered local consensus and would not affect any other pages where Infobox military conflict is being used.
 * Both the revision at the time of the last RfC comment and the current revision of Template:Infobox military conflict/doc only reference WP:MILMOS. They do not reference the part of the guideline that is relevant to the  parameter (WP:MILMOS) or WP:MILMOS in its entirety. While it's likely that some of the commenters are aware of WP:MILMOS, none of them used it to support an argument, and I am only able to consider what the editors actually wrote in the RfC.
 * Even though you wrote the guidance on the  parameter into WP:MILHIST, you didn't mention the guideline in the RfC, and I wasn't able give your opinion a higher weight. Likewise, even though 's comments at  show that their position in this RfC would have been a "No", they didn't clearly express their opinion in the RfC, and I wasn't able to consider it. In a closure, I only consider the information presented in the RfC, and it works both ways.
 * Originally, I didn't think it was necessary to put an additional "note" into the closing summary, since all it does is explain that nothing has changed. I added it because I thought you were dissatisfied at the length of the original summary, but perhaps I assumed incorrectly. If the note adds ambiguity to the statement, then it should be removed. Would you prefer that I remove the note from the closing summary?
 * In any case, if you're looking for a resolution to, it may be useful to start an RfC scoped to only the Battle of the Coral Sea article, and not to any of the other articles that use Infobox military conflict. This way, commenters would only cite sources and make arguments relevant to this specific battle. I hope this helps. —  Newslinger  talk   08:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, the meaning of "no consensus" was potentially ambiguous in the context of how the OP phrased their question. I was primarily seeking clarification of the close wrt the status quo. Since the OP phrased the initial question wrt supporting the status quo, it might be argued that "no consensus" has overturned the status quo. This was the substance of my question to you. I have recently closed a number of RfCs. Where I have closed with "no consensus", I have clarified that the status quo continues and sometimes, what this is. IMO, this avoids any confusion.


 * I do think that the note you added only confuses matters more (but your explanation here is quite clear). I might simply state that "no consensus" does not alter the "status quo" wrt the advice in the documentation or the guidance for describing a result at MilMos (or something similar).


 * Looking at your initial response caused me to look at the comments etc again. I then noted in this section that only Factotem and I addressed the "clarification" by the OP. I did so with reference to comments by others of which Factotem's comments were a particularly strong analysis. I might have been more specific. However, the point I was raising (just above) is that the question or premise to which most commenters have responded (and which you have closed?) is not the substantive question as clarified by the OP. Consequently, the RfC may not be sufficiently well formed? This was not my original question but I would be interested in your opinion on this.


 * I would disagree with you, that all comments were opinions and thereby have equal weight. Strength of arguement is always a consideration unless the underlying premise is purely one of "preference". Reference to P&G adds strength but is not the only strength. It was pointed out to me recently that a close should be consistent with P&G, even if not specifically raised - ie that a closer should be sufficiently across the relevant P&G. This is reflected at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure: "Closers should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion."


 * You have analysed comments by individual contributors to the discussion even when they have not expressed an explicit opinion (Y or N). I would not agree with all of your assessments, particularly where they were not explicit. Indy beetle opposed on a particular issue of military operations which I thought I had accommodated by foreshadowing an amendment. I am now aware that there is a separate infobox for military operations, so their objections are non sequitur? Others against, appear to advocate a "see section" (as does Auntie Ruth?). I perceive that the issues of the RfC are not particularly clear to them and not unreasonably so? Tghe doc advice provides for a "See section" option. Consequently, care should be exercised in giving weight to their opinion one way or the other? Pinkbeast reflects on what might be ideal in a perfect world having noted that the world is less than perfect - "let alone two idiot nationalists". I raise this in the spirit of collegiate discussion and not with any intent to have you change your close.


 * I might have been looking for a resolution at Coral Sea but perhaps not in the way you believe. The result there was changed to "See section" near when the discussion began and achieved a consensus which was both explicit and tacit. Nearly four months later, the OP of the RfC rekindled against that consensus and the discussion that occurred subsequent to their revert (IMO) and then raised this RfC despite this.


 * Thankyou for taking the time to discuss and clarify your close. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do believe that the RfC was not well-formed. I think intended for the RfC to have these outcomes:
 * Consensus for "Yes": The  parameter should be restricted to   or   everywhere Infobox military conflict is used.
 * Consensus for "No": The  parameter should have no restrictions.


 * However, a consensus for "No" wouldn't have accomplished 's intent, because the RfC statement completely disregards WP:MILMOS. Here are the actual results of each RfC outcome:


 * Consensus for "Yes": The  parameter should be restricted to   or   everywhere Infobox military conflict is used. Editors may no longer claim an exception for the relevant part of the WP:MILMOS guideline, unless this consensus is overturned by a more recent RfC.
 * Consensus for "No": Nothing happens. Since WP:MILMOS is outside the jurisdiction of an RfC on this page, and the proposed question doesn't mention the guideline, no changes are enacted to WP:MILMOS. No changes were proposed to Template:Infobox military conflict/doc, either. This is equivalent to the status quo.
 * No consensus: Nothing happens. This is the status quo.
 * After typing this, I now understand how it can be hard to distinguish between No consenus and Consensus for "No". I'm sorry for the confusion.


 * The problem here is that most editors who !voted "No" were not arguing for the status quo (the actual result); they argued that the guidance from Template:Infobox military conflict/doc, and consequently WP:MILMOS, should be disregarded (the intended result). However, the correct method of proposing a change to WP:MILMOS is to start an RfC at WT:MILMOS, WP:VPP, or a similar venue. An RfC here has no teeth.


 * I agree that 's arguments are very potent, and most likely the strongest arguments in the entire discussion. However, they were difficult to classify, because they didn't conform to the "Yes" or "No" question in the RfC.


 * Instead, was advocating for the status quo, in that WP:MILMOS should be generally followed unless "the result is genuinely ambiguous", and that the guidance in Template:Infobox military conflict/doc should "be respected as the default position", but that "Local consensus can determine that both can be ignored". They did not specify "Yes" or "No" because their position doesn't fit neatly into either category.


 * While the RfC was framed in a way that doesn't allow a "Yes" or "No" !vote to support the status quo, I still had to to classify their opinion to assess the consensus in conjunction with the other commenters' opinions. I decided to classify their argument as "Yes", because their position (generally support, with exceptions permitted) is closer to "always support" than "no support". Although referenced policies and guidelines, they didn't support the "Yes" position, and I didn't assign their opinion a higher weight because it wasn't a full "Yes" !vote.


 * I do note that if we consider the actual outcomes of the RfC (instead of the intended outcomes), 's position would be perfectly aligned with a "No" !vote.


 * As for the other comments without explicit opinions, I didn't want to classify because they wrote, "I don't know what to think." Combined with the statement that they "think there is a WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS for more complex results in infoboxes", I see their position as very similar to 's, but closer to a "No" because their "impression is that the overwhelming majority of battles do not obey the current supposed policy".


 * While 's opinion would probably lean toward "Yes", their comment was not clear enough to classify. The same applies to, with their comments leaning toward "No".


 * All things considered, I dislike the way this RfC was framed, and I would not object to it being nullified. Declaring "no consensus" has the same result as nullifying it, and I thought it was a reasonable decision because I didn't see a clear "Yes" or "No" consensus, especially considering that the meaning of "No" has been confounded.


 * In regard to Battle of the Coral Sea, it does look like the issue is settled there, and I would advise to read through our discussion of the closure to understand why the RfC would not have resulted in their intended outcome.


 * I've replaced the note with a simpler note that directs the reader to WP:MILMOS and Template:Infobox military conflict/doc, and also includes a link to our discussion of the closure. I hope you find this acceptable.


 * Thank you for patiently discussing this with me. —  Newslinger  talk   04:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, I might simply have simply thanked you for your edits but choose to do so visibly. Your revision and this discussion resolve any potential misinterpretation of your intent, and hence my concern.


 * I did pick up on a point after your quoting Factotem: "[if] the result is genuinely ambiguous" ... The doc advice is not strictly binary/ternary: Victory X, Victory Y or inconclusive. The advice for cases of ambiguity is to use "See relevant section [for details]" or leave blank (unmentioned). I have been involved with Factotem at a number of articles and this has not been an issue - ie, to use the "see" option if appropriate. I am not certain if "all" here were aware of the advice in full or relied on the discussion to be informed?


 * Please feel free to contact me if I might be of service to you in the future. Regards and thanks, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I extend the same to you. This has been an enlightening conversation. —  Newslinger  talk   13:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)