Template talk:Infobox civil conflict

Image vs. File

For the link to images, I believe the preferred syntax is "File:" rather than "Image:". For example, "[[File:Example.jpg|300px|alt=Example alt text]]." See WP:EIS. I don't know how to change this in the template, or I would. —Diiscool (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think all the instances of the infobox uses their own format of either "File:" or "Image:". I don't think the infobox itself has reference to either. ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Casualties section

I would prefer the sequence be deaths, injuries, arrests. Not a big deal, but I think people are most concerned about the death count. Flatterworld (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Those fields are not in explicitly in the infobox (yet). Right now the order is specified on a per-article basis. However, if the version in the sandbox is used, then the order will be fixed. See Template:Infobox civil conflict/testcases, for example. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 07:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You can use the fields directly in the current version, although they are currently undocumented. The template will format them into a table if you use |injuries = xxx | fatalities = xxx | arrests = xxx. Generally though I recommend making a table or list and putting that in to the casualties1, casualties2, casualties3 fields as it's much more flexible. If put into the casualties3 field, it will show up with the full width of the infobox available to the table/list and only about half if put into casualties1 or casualties2. I changed the order for you, but only if you're using the {injuries, fatalities, arrests} fields. ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

300px

This is a poorly coded infobox as far as images go. Please help. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Uh, you're misreading the documentation. Where it says "The image must be given in the form [[Image:Example.jpg|300px|alt=Example alt text]]" it simply means that you have to specify the image: tags and a size. There's nothing to mandate 300px. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What I mean is that it should force the image to be 300px. An article I was working on had it specified at 250px, and I had to come here to figure out what size would fit the box correctly. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It can't do that using the current syntax as the image field is freeform. Images shouldn't be 300px anyway: they should usually be specified as frameless in infoboxes, which means they respect the user's thumbnail size without borders or being upscaled. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 19:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Law enforcement actions use this??

The AfD'd Law enforcement action template (which was poorly formed) was described as being duplicative of this one. But is it a CIVIL affair if the police/military are attacking people, be it in US, Syria, Libya, China, etc, and calling it a "law enforcement action"? Any thoughts? CarolMooreDC 15:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Colors

Recently the color of the underbars has been changed to grey on Infobox military conflict and Infobox operational plan. This is the bar that says "Part of [insert conflict here]". I think, for consistency, it should be changed to grey on this infobox too.
Agree/Disagree? ~Asarlaí 01:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

arrests vs detentions

I think a separate field is needed. People can be held longer than an arrest if detained. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 14:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Methods list

Hi there, anyone know why the |methods= list has items capped? "Protest, Sit in, Demonstrations" should be "Protest, sit in, demonstrations", shouldn't it? Sit in and Demonstration are not proper nouns. We typically use lower case, for instance at Template:Infobox person in the |occupation= field we'd write: Actor, dancer, singer, doctor (technically it would be in an {{hlist}} but that wouldn't render properly here.) Thoughts? Should I change this? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Documentation subpage

The doc subpage needs update. I can be bold and add some parameters. However, I may have to copy text from another doc subpage. Of course, someone else here can update it. --George Ho (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Updates

I am suggesting we permanently reinstate my recent edits. Tons of articles have both singular and plural information for the fields given. Several conflicts occur in more then one location, several conflicts occur longer then just one single date (even the events of the example article went on for 4 months), and a conflict may only have one cause, etc. Having "(s)" in each label ensures that each usage is correct. Also, the sub-header shouldn't match the above color, because is gets confusing becasue it looks like its one solid block. Grapesoda22 (✉) 04:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Grapesoda22: Thanks for taking this to the talk page. I understand your line of reasoning for the singular/plural edits, but I think the changes you made to address it make the infobox look worse. I was hoping to find a better solution. Perhaps a conditional code that can accommodate data that is either singular or plural and display the correct form. Frietjes is this possible?

As for the sub-header, I simply disagree. I don't have that issue. However, infoboxes that use Template:Infobox military conflict use two different colors to distinguish one box from the other. How about something like that? Mitchumch (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Mitchumch, yes, if there are any labels for data items which may be singular or plural, we can toggle the label based differing label parameters (e.g., allow both |cause= and |causes= and have the label changed based on which one is used). I find colour contrast tool useful for testing colour combinations. in particular, if I put CEE0F2 in the first box and slide the saturation bar you get other variations. I put a version in the sandbox with (1) alternative plural labels for some fields, and (2) a different colour for the subheader. feel free to experiment with other changes there (e.g., change the colours if you want to test something else). Frietjes (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Frietjes: Thank you. What do you think Grapesoda22? Mitchumch (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Frietjes:@Mitchumch: I'm not to enthusiastic about about this toggling idea at all. 100,000 years ago Template:Infobox award utilized toggling for its hosting field.[1]. It was a disaster because in most cases editors didn't utilize the toggling properly, and as a result most infoboxs weren't labeled properly, defeating the purpose. It would have been a long tedious mess to go thought every single page with the infobox to ensure that the fields are correct. I handled it there by changing the label to "Hosted by". All pages with that infobox with the field now say "Hosted by" weather the field listed is |host= or |hosts=. "Hosted by" is correct if there is on single host or 100 hosts, and it's cleaner then saying "Host(s)".

I would like to do the same or something similar here. For instance we could change "Causes" to "Caused by" and Date with "Duration". But its more difficult here then the awards box, so some info might be stuck with "(s)", but it would still be better the having them all that way.

With the sub-header, I'd suggest making it grey to sync up with its sister template. Grapesoda22 (✉) 23:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Grapesoda22: I can agree with the subheader. The terms in the infobox is more tricky. Here are the terms up for debate:

• "Date" or "Date(s)"
• "Location" or "Location(s)"
• "Causes" or "Cause(s)" or "Caused by"
• "Goals" or "Goal(s)"
• "Methods" or "Method(s)"
• "Result" or "Result(s)"
• "Concessions given" or "Concession(s) given"
• "Deaths" or "No. of Deaths"
• "Injuries" or "No. of Injuries"
• "Arrests" or "No. of Arrests"

I think "Caused by" is more acceptable than "Cause(s)".

For "Deaths", "Injuries", and "Arrests" what if we follow the Template:Infobox military conflict lead. There is no field for "Arrests", but there is a field for "Casualties". The terms "Deaths" and "Injuries" do not appear in final presentation of infobox, but the editor is left to describe the casualties. I also think the header for this section could be changed to "Casualties and arrests" instead of "Arrests, etc". Mitchumch (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mitchumch:I still say we go with the "(s)" format, with "Causes" replaced with "Caused by". Appearance wise I don't like it anymore then you do, but I feel our hands are a little tied. I do like your idea about having the "Casualties" field like the Military conflict infobox. I also want to point out that some of the issues sparking this plural vs. singular fields debate are also a problem on the military box as well, we should look into fixing that. Grapesoda22 (✉) 00:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Grapesoda22: Sorry about that. The editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history will probably want to weigh in on any changes to their templates. On that point, I'm more inclined to defer to their judgment whatever the outcome.

Unfortunately, the (s) edit to the civil conflict infobox appears unprofessional to me. If the the words were within a sentence, then I could understand the concern surrounding singular or plural forms. However, these words are fields within an infobox. The need for (s) does not appear warranted to me. Mitchumch (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mitchumch: That argument goes against WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I understand that its not very attractive visually, but it is certainly not "unprofessional" by any means. What's unprofessional is an article like this that has 9 locations listed on a singular label and has an almost 2 year history listed as a single date. Also, we can't have a whole sentences in a small space allotted for just a label. Grapesoda22 (✉) 04:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Grapesoda22: In regards to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines does the absence of (s) violate? Once Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines is followed, I think it comes down to editors tastes.

As for the Donald Trump protest infobox, the location field can state "worldwide" with a note attached for further details. I imagine that note is going to get longer over time. As for the Date field, I believe a date1 and date2 field could solve that issue. Any attempt to add a date range within one field would render it invalid. The Donald Trump protest infobox ought to have a start date with "ongoing" for date2 field.

I didn't understand your last sentence. Please elaborate. Mitchumch (talk) 04:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mitchumch:"Unfortunately, the (s) edit to the civil conflict infobox appears unprofessional to me" is very much an IDON'TLIKEIT statement. The Trump protests is just the example I pointed to for this debate. There are multiple examples of conflicts in multiple locations, not all of them could be fixed by just saying "worldwide". This notion that (s) is this terrible taboo thing for labels is ridiculous. It should be avoided if there are better options but, in this case its just not working out for the most part. Grapesoda22 (✉) 16:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Grapesoda22: WP:IDONTLIKEIT explicitly states, "Content on Wikipedia is judged based on its compliance with guidelines, not its physical appearance. Once you can make all the content comply, you can then work with that and tidy it up." Can you point to a violation of policy or guideline? If not, then "I don't like it" is what this discussion is for you and me.

Some edits on Wikipedia are "I don't like it" edits. Some editors don't like infoboxes, some do. There is nothing you can say that will change that. Therefore, some articles don't have infoboxes. There is no policy or guideline stipulating the presence of infoboxes on article pages.

I'm more than willing to work with you. Please keep in mind I am seeking changes that will produce a singular and plural form. There appear to be 1012 articles that use this template. I'm willing to help implement the changes. We've agreed on four fields that can be changed, not including the subheader.

There are still six fields that are unchanged. The core issue you had with changing the template coding was that users ignored it. If editors are placed in a position of not being able to ignore the changes, then those changes should stick. Using "location1, location2, location3, etc." should work. Any attempt to bypass will result in the contents in those fields not displaying.

• "Date" or "Date(s)"
• "Location" or "Location(s)"
• "Goals" or "Goal(s)"
• "Methods" or "Method(s)"
• "Result" or "Result(s)"
• "Concessions given" or "Concession(s) given"

Mitchumch (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mitchumch: What if we change:

• Date to Duration
• Result to Resulted in
• Location to Located

Grapesoda22 (✉) 18:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Grapesoda22: "Date" and "Duration" are not synonymous. Date = May 29, 2017. Duration = 5 days, 10 hours, and 5 seconds. "Resulted in" appears promising. "Location" is a noun while "Located" is a verb. Example, I located the car near the entrance of the restaurant. The term implies an action upon something, not the position of something.

As for the fields "Goals", "Methods", and "Concessions given" I'm inclined to remove them. The Template:Infobox military conflict doesn't use them. Those fields seem best addressed within the article body. At the very least "Resulted in" can cover "Concessions given".

Also, I think the "Caused by" and "Resulted in" fields should be displayed as a Template:Nowrap term. Mitchumch (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mitchumch:I'm really dumb... so bare with me.

We could change "Date" to "Start date" and merge "Status", "Result" and the end date together. Like for 2011 Wisconsin protests.... the "Start date" field just say February 14, 2011 and the "Status" field would read "Active protests ended on June 16, 2011 with several pending lawsuits".... which it basically already does now. As for the rest I really just want bight the bullet and just use (s). Grapesoda22 (✉) 01:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mitchumch: Maybe even change "Methods" to "Approach". Grapesoda22 (✉) 01:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Grapesoda22:

• "Status" should be left alone as there was no issue with singular or plural form.
• "Result" is designated for something entirely different than an end date would imply. "Resulted in" is good for me.
• "Methods" and "Goals" seem usually used for one faction, not all factions. Therefore, delete along with "Concessions given".
• "Date" seems only solution is code - startdate= and enddate=. If no enddate=, then singular. If enddate=, then plural.
• The (s) edit is a no-go for me.

The 2011 Wisconsin protests is about a demonstration that ended on June 16, 2011. "Status" should be blank as there is no ongoing demonstration. Hang in there. This infobox was in need of a review anyway. Mitchumch (talk) 02:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mitchumch: Give me a break on the (s) thing. I'm really getting frustrated. I've been trying to work with you for days and days on this. I'm just asking you to suck it up and deal with it for only 4 of these labels. I've compromised a lot to appease you on several of the other fields and even the sub-header. Its not an unreasonable request. Grapesoda22 (✉) 03:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Grapesoda22: I was very clear at beginning that I objected to (s). If you thought at some point I would agree to (s), then I'm sorry you thought that. We can always leave the template as-is. Or, we can continue to work thru this. I thought we were making progress. Mitchumch (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mitchumch: We have been making progress (some of the edits I've already enacted). But this is getting more complicated then it has to be. The (s) format is such a simple acceptable fix and its starting to annoy me that you're so dead-set against it, when its a tactic that has worked in countless other infoboxes.

I really just want to be done with this. I'm going though Wikipedia burn out in general (not just with this). I want to go away for a while and take a Wikibreak. Thats why I'm eager to get this done.

I have no animosity towards you personally. You've been very civil and quick with responses. I say this to clarify, because I could see how this could be perceived negatively. Grapesoda22 (✉) 04:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Grapesoda22: Please remember, I am here to avoid the (s) edit and to find an alternative that you and I agree upon. That's it. If you want to take a break, then take a break. This infobox is not going anywhere and I'm not going anywhere. But, there is no timetable to this discussion. Discussions can last several days or more and that is not unusual. Mitchumch (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mitchumch: Ok, I'm leaving Wikipedia for a while. I'd say make all of the updates we agreed upon (I've already done a few) and leave the unresolved stuff the way it was beefore. Maybe someday we can come back to it, but in the meantime I'm not up to it. Grapesoda22 (✉) 05:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Party that is officially not interfering?

Is there an option for adding parties who are parties to the conflict but do not take sides?Bohbye (talk) 06:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems like this template needs a leadfigures parameter that can be used when the lead figures don't cleanly fit into sides (i.e. the sides are amorphous or the groups involved are frequently changing allegiance), or when there are only lead figures on one side (i.e. people fighting against an institution or widespread practice, e.g. lunch-counter sit-ins to protest racial discrimination). It's also common that a lead figure will be a mediator or peacemaker between two sides, and thus not fit into the current scheme. Kaldari (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Supporting other map types?

As many know, there are many mapping options available, including {{maplink}}, probably the best, easiest to create/edit, and with the most detail. This infobox should support these maps and probably others. I noticed this because right now, articles on the George Floyd protests need to have maps separate, below the infoboxes. ɱ (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I'd like to see a concerted effort to make maps easier to use across the board, especially within infoboxes. I'm an experienced editor and half the time I can't figure out which type of map can be used, or recall the exact name of which pushpin/whatever map is best. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Evad37: is this something that can be done here - are you able to add the mapping ability? Will want an image_map parameter that would support {{George Floyd protests map}} or Commons:Data:George Floyd protests map.map. ɱ (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking in to this now. To use {{George Floyd protests map}}, that template will need to support the frameless option. - Evad37 [talk] 00:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Alright - that should be an easy fix, right? Not sure the exact coding for it... ɱ (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Should be, will take a look shortly. I've added mapframe mapping ability to this template, see mapframe testcases and documentation. - Evad37 [talk] 01:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ɱ:  Done, {{George Floyd protests map|infobox=yes}} will make the map frameless and centered. - Evad37 [talk] 02:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Evad37: Thanks so much for your good work! Would you perhaps move it though to the end of the infobox? I think people would find maps less obtrusive there... ɱ (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Also would you add functionality for image maps? I believe that may be important for now, before the code for the Geroge Floyd map is moved to Commons which can support it better. ɱ (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ɱ:  Done. You can now use |mapframe-custom= to specify either an image name, or a {{maplink}} template that can e.g. show a map from a Data: page on Commons - Evad37 [talk] 04:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, great work. It works but still displays "Warning: Page using Template:Infobox civil conflict with unknown parameter "mapframe-custom" (this message is shown only in preview)." ɱ (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed, just missed adding that one to the list of known parameters - Evad37 [talk] 23:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

"Causes" parameter

Hello all- I think the wording produced by the "causes" parameter could be improved. Caused by is not necessarily accurate, as it ascribes motivation to peoples' actions. I would suggest changing it to something along the lines of Motivation, Provocation/Provoked by, Complaints, Issues, Genesis, Grounds. Eric ^talk 11:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Unknown parameter "damage"?

Why does this version of 2020 Serbian protests display this message in preview?

Warning: Page using Template:Infobox civil conflict with unknown parameter "damage" (this message is shown only in preview).

Nothing jumps out to me as an issue with how |damage= is specified. – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Infobox civil conflict and 2021 storming of the United States Capitol

Resolved

@Grapesoda22: @Frietjes: @Mitchumch: @Justin Ormont: @Plastikspork:

Template:Infobox civil conflict on 2021 storming of the United States Capitol complains:

• Warning: Page using Template:Infobox civil conflict with unknown parameter "timezone"
  • (this message is shown only in preview).
• Warning: Page using Template:Infobox civil conflict with unknown parameter "time-end"
  • (this message is shown only in preview).
• Warning: Page using Template:Infobox civil conflict with unknown parameter "time-begin"
  • (this message is shown only in preview).

No testcases use "timezone". "time-end", or "time-begin". Is Template:Infobox civil conflict broken? .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I have updated the unknown parameter check in the template. It was missing a bunch of supported parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Update heading

any objections to changing the heading from "Parties to the civil conflict" to "Parties to the conflict"? seems more concise and avoids to objections raised in these discussions. Frietjes (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Mandatory "partof" field

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I have fixed the WP:TDATA to reflect that the "partof" parameter is described as optional in the Usage section of the template. In the future, Parham wiki, Requests for Comment (RfCs) are used to reach consensus on issues after other types of discussions have failed to produce consensus. Please review WP:RfC. This should've been posted as an ordinary topic on this talk page, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Mandatory "partof" field is illogical, for example in the article Nahel Merzouk protests it is not part of anything, but when editing the infobox it says it must be filled! We should be able to disable the field. Parham wiki (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The documentation claims it's an optional parameter, and as far as I can read the code, it indeed is. Am I missing something here? Ljleppan (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

When I edit the Nahel Merzouk protests infobox, it says "Field is required" under the name of the parameter, after editing it says: "Required field missing

Are you sure you want to continue without filling the "Part of" field?". Parham wiki (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

size4, is it a valid field or not?

@Phuzion, @Jonesey95, something about this was added and reverted respectively by you two in Dec 2023. Ambazonian leadership crisis and 2018 Georgian protests are throwing an error at Category:Pages using infobox civil conflict with unknown parameters, yet the template documentation lists it as a valid field. So, what's up? Zaathras (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

|size4= is not a supported parameters. I have removed it from the documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Alrighty, thanks. So with this, I presume there's no need for the corresponding leadfigures4, howmany4, casualties4. Should these be removed as well? Zaathras (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, since there is no "side4" to provide a fourth column. I have removed them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for the assists. Zaathras (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)