Template talk:InfoBoxConflict


One thing that seems missing is the side names. We have commanders and forces, but not faction names which seems odd. --Neufeld 07:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, the coloring of the box needs to follow the skin set in user preferences. It would also be nice to have an InfoBox better suited for whole wars, as opposed to individual battles. --Neufeld 07:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Several comments: I thought about faction sides too, but wasn't really sure how to implement. I'll re-engage on that one. I also believe you're right about integration with skin colors. I 'like' the colors of the new box style (which I believe Frabby developed), but skin integration is more important. I disagree that there should be an infobox for war instead of battles, but I can see one for wars also. I built the battles one because of my work on the UBP, but because I'm so involved in the Planet Overhaul right now, I don't see myself working on that again for a bit. If you see a need for a Wars one sooner, you could easily replicate my steps with the battles one. Otherwise, I'll put it on my To Do list.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I meant also for Wars. Regarding number of articles, we have more articles that covers wars or major campaigns than those that covers battles. As for formating, consider taking a look at how wikipedia does it. (left-right split) --Neufeld 11:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
For reference purposes, can you link to a WP page using that split? And, yeah, I agree with you regarding numbers of articles about wars vs. battles; I just meant that I myself was more interested in writing about battles than wars, so hadn't a need to develop a Wars box so far.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Here is an example: Battle of Breitenfeld (1631) --Neufeld 12:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Continued from Frabby's page[edit]

Hey - So I'm very appreciative that someone made this box. I was wondering if we could expand it, as Neu suggested above. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2012 (PDT)

I'm looking into it now. I've copied the Wikipedia infobox from the battle of Breitenfeld and I'll see about adding skin support and stuff.--Mbear(talk) 05:42, 30 October 2012 (PDT)
Mbear is a ROCK STAR! ClanWolverine101 (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2012 (PDT)
OK. I've added basic skin support to the infobox. So it should now have the same colors and fonts as the appropriate skin.
What else do you want added/changed? Do you want to add faction icons? reorganize the Aggressor/Opposition sections? Add a Campaign row to show the battle is part of the Fourth Succession War/Clan Invasion/whatever?--Mbear(talk) 06:09, 30 October 2012 (PDT)
Just FYI, reorganizing the sections to use a left/right split is going to be a pain in the neck and will take a while.--Mbear(talk) 06:10, 30 October 2012 (PDT)
Ahhh... okay, no biggie. I had to ask. I'm a fan of those wikipedia boxes. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 06:23, 30 October 2012 (PDT)

Prototype infobox replacement[edit]

I've got a prototype for the updated infobox up and running on User:Mbear/PlanetPageTest. I've left a note on the talk pages of everyone who's commented here to review it. Hopefully it'll be what you're looking for.--Mbear(talk) 07:28, 2 November 2012 (PDT)

Looks good. I have only two concerns:
1. Image - I don't think we need this. Conflicts typically do not have an associated image. When you look at the image at Great Lee Turkey Shoot and compare it to our Policy:Images then you'll find that it is in violation of the policy as the image has no informative value whatsoever. This is a serious problem because uploading an image here usually constitutes a copyright violation; in most cases, the fair use doctrin would support us but not in cases where the image is mere window dressing.
2. On a more general level, I'm very undecided about what needs to go into the infobox. Ask yourself: What is important, easily displayed, and also a piece of data that creeps up so frequently as to warrant inclusion in the infobox? Many items here need to be covered in the article text. Especially "outcome" is a weasly issue as it is often not clear-cut, and a complete answer may require a section in the article instead of the limited space provided by an infobox. I'm not saying what should be included and what not, because I've not written enough articles covering conflicts to decide what I'd expect from a helpful infobox here. Frabby (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2012 (PDT)
I added the image area because it was requested. I can remove it. Your point about it violating our image policy is a good one.
Outcome was in the infoBoxConflict template (I think). I was just trying to minimize the changes someone would have to make and that's one of the fields. *shrug* again, I can remove it.--Mbear(talk) 06:23, 5 November 2012 (PST)

Documentation update[edit]

While looking around, I found that the "Usage" section here wasn't up-to-date, and diverged from the actual function of InfoBoxConflict in several ways. I've made the following changes to the "Usage" section:

  • Added a bit of text covering the intended use, and instructions for insertion into an article.
  • Added 'faction3', 'commander3', and 'forces3' to the list of fields. The InfoBox supports three-way conflicts and displays these fields using a three-column format if faction3 is not blank.
  • Added 'enddate'. The InfoBox supports an 'enddate' (displayed as End Date). The field is hardly ever used, which seems a shame. Many of the articles that use this InfoBox cram the start and end dates together into a field displayed as Start Date.
  • Added 'status'. The InfoBox supports the use of a 'status' field. If both 'status' and 'result' are specified, only the 'status' is displayed. It's presumably meant for ongoing conflicts, though I can't find any instances where it's actually used.
  • Moved 'result' to a position more analogous to where it's displayed in the InfoBox.
  • Deleted the default text "(Attacker)" and "(Defender)" from the 'faction1' and 'faction2' fields. It seems to me that a lot of conflicts don't neatly fit into an attacker/defender framework. It seems especially out of place as default text when three-way conflicts are an option, and the text seems a bit clunky to me in practice. I did put a bit of guidance into the "Explanation" (which see) directing the attacker and defender to be put into the 1 and 2 slots, if possible.
  • Fixed a broken closing brace which was making a direct copy-paste nonfunctional.

I've also put an "Explanation" into place, with my best effort at explaining the intended use of each field. I'd appreciate some peer review. Tosta Dojen (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

Follow-up questions[edit]

Place (Location) is always displayed, even when blank (and it's often blank). Is that desirable? Tosta Dojen (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

Place (Location) is used very inconsistently:

What's the intended use here? I can see a reasonable case for either of the first two options, but they're exact opposites, and the intent isn't evident to editors using the InfoBox. Tosta Dojen (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

Is 'status' deprecated? I can't find an example of it being used, and I'm hard-pressed to think of an instance where it'd be useful. To the extent that we'd mark the conflict as "Ongoing" (and therefore having no 'result') it seems simpler to just put "Ongoing" or "Unresolved" or something into the 'result' field. Tosta Dojen (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

I have removed the "status" because it is a time sensitive category that serves very little to enhance the function of the infobox. I also reinstated the Attacker/Defender because although a bit clunky it serves to inform a reader in a quick manner who is attacking who. The vast majority of users are not editors and even less of a number will actually go and read the explanation on a template page.
As for the location part, I admit I did not build the initial template so I am not sure what the original author intended, as such anything that has been put in until now has been entierly at the discretion of the article editor.--Dmon (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2020 (EDT)
Good moves, though my intent on attacker/defender was to guide editors toward an intuitive layout, not to provide readers with an explanation on a page they won't ever see. For location, I think the better approach is to use it for locations that are more than a single planet. InfoBoxConflict is meant to encompass wars and other large-scale conflicts, and it seems a good fit for something like the Fourth Succession War or the Capellan-St. Ives War. Tosta Dojen (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2020 (EDT)
I would ultimately like to see something similar to what we have with the Military commands where we use the Regiment as the base unit for an article (Fifth Sword of Light > Sword of Light > Draconis Combine Mustered Soldiery with anything below regiment being included in the "Compsition History" section unless it is a special case like Sorenson's Sabres). I think planet scale "Battle of xxxx" articles should be our base article because it allows for the scope of a fully detailed planetary campaign or instances where we have little more info than a battle happened between two factions. The next level is a bit more vague in my head at the moment but I am thinking things like the various waves and multi-planet operations of the various wars, and then finally an article about the war itself that will mostly deal with the political and historical reasoning and ramifications.
In this kind of structure Location could either be used on the planetary level to denote locations of individual actions that would be then detailed in the body of the article ("Beckvern Hill") or we could use it in the middle level articles for more geopolitical-regional locations like ("Commonwealth/Combine Border")--Dmon (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2020 (EDT)
I like everything you've said except the part where 'Location' gets used in exactly opposite ways. I see the need to have both 'on-planet' and 'beyond-planet' locations, but I think using the same field for both will lead to problems. I don't have a better suggestion at the moment, though.
Any thoughts on the current implementation displaying 'Location' even when it's blank? I've been trying to think of a reason why it shouldn't be hidden like every other field, and I'm coming up empty. Tosta Dojen (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2020 (EDT)
Sorry, rereading my reply I was not as clear as I intended, I meant for those two options as being what I see as the possible options of what we could make the future standard. Not that we try to use both.
I think we would be safe to change the template code to make it not display if it is not used. We have no idea what the original intent was so we can only work from our own concludions.--Dmon (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2020 (EDT)
I understand now and I agree completely. I've changed the template so that 'Location' no longer shows in the InfoBox if 'place' is unspecified. Tosta Dojen (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2020 (EDT)