Open main menu

Topical archives


Request for comment on size of infoboxEdit

There is a clear consensus that Template:Syrian Civil War infobox should be reduced in size. In the discussion section, editors considered the proposal about:

limiting the "Commanders and leaders" section to only two names. In other words to the head of state (or leading council) and the top military leader.

There is no consensus to implement this change owing to lack of participation. There is no prejudice against boldly making the change and if the change is disputed then opening a new RfC to discuss the change.

Cunard (talk) 09:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Should the infobox of this article - Template:Syrian Civil War infobox - be reduced in size? Shearonink (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

this is how bad it could be for some viewers.
  • Yes as per MOS:ACCIM... even though the MoS is talking about sandwich between two images or the like.... clearly this is a case of sandwiching because something's too big..... resulting in the same outcome of sandwiching... the spirit of the MoS should be applied.--Moxy (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes Insanely large, and highly liable to mislead because it tries to give a snapshot view of a lengthy and still unfinished war. It's bigger than the article! The current version will come in useful in future as an example of how not to do infoboxes. Several sections should be moved off to text or tables - the leaders one for a start. Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes At least 80% of it needs to go. 90% would be better. Is there an editor who actually thinks that it is fine how it is? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes and no It should be reduced most definitely, but not at the expense of the remaining text in the infobox being sandwiched like in this attempt [1]. Cutting down on the commanders listed, or to be more precise their titles (which take up space), would be a good start. EkoGraf (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes The World War II infobox covers the largest and most complex war in history in a way which I think is quite useful for readers. This infobox is way too complex, and fails to summarise the topic sufficiently. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No World War II was more straightforward, with belligerents openly declaring war for the most part. Syria, however, is complicated by it being a proxy war with extensive covert fighting, and an insurgency with constant factional splits.GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes Could use some reduction in size. I'm going to reduce the size of the territorial paragraph as it seems wordy - MTWEmperor (talkcontribs) 22:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)a
  • Yes. Way too big. Good luck on deciding what to cut out on this RECENTish conflict though..... As complex as the situation in Syria is/was - World War II was certainly more complex (and has a decent infobox) - the issue here is cutting out the fluff and leaving what is important. Not every single group / proxy / supporter needs to be in the infobox (footnote it). Not every strength or casualty estimate (combine + range it). Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


The major problem with the present infobox is that the military conflict infobox (as seen in the WWII one) is set up really to only have 2 main belligerents/opposing factions. The Template:Syrian Civil War infobox has 4 so we will always be stuck with those 4 columns going across. I've reduced the length of the infobox in the sandbox but the major problem of that basically-intolerable width remains. Shearonink (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. But tables in text can handle 4 columns easily, & much of the content should be moved to these, with very brief lists of the real keys facts left in the box. Johnbod (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I see your point but I'm not sure moving the info into tables will solve the issue since the infobox is supposed to be a summary of content that appears within the article elsewhere... Shouldn't all that possible table-info already be somewhere else in the article? I just don't know how to get around the 4 column/4 factions problem and the resulting width they bring to the infobox. If anyone else can figure that out, have at it in the sandbox at Template:Syrian Civil War infobox/sandbox. Shearonink (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: What about limiting the "Commanders and leaders" section to only two names. In other words to the head of state (or leading council) and the top military leader. - MTWEmperor (talkcontribs) 22:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Limiting any of the various parameters would very much be a Good Thing. Your suggestion would limit the length of the article but the main visual issue for me is how wide the infobox is from side to side...just take a look at the article on a cellphone/mobile device, the infobox practically takes over all the initial space. Shearonink (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Hmm what about making the lists horizontal instead? In other words rotate them all 90 degrees. It's a bit unconventional vs other war infoboxes but I think considering how many sides it might be warranted. - MTWEmperor (talkcontribs) 23:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
MTWEmperor - Is there a reason you didn't use Template:Syrian Civil War infobox/sandbox before you edited Template:Syrian Civil War infobox? Shearonink (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
And the RFC is still ongoing and hasn't been closed... Shearonink (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Is it a requirement to use the sandbox? It's not like I'm removing info, merely condensing into a more efficient form. WP:Bold - MTWEmperor (talkcontribs) 00:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Also another method could be two rows with two columns. Would make its width inline with other infoboxes. - MTWEmperor (talkcontribs) 00:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's not a requirement I suppose - it's just that the article and the infobox are both sources of contention and are under community sanctions. I like to be careful when handling articles that can be tinderboxes. The RFC does look like it's a WP:SNOW and - taking a close look at the RFC instructions - a closure to the RFC isn't strictly necessary. But lol the sandbox is there for a reason... Have fun, Shearonink (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure whether the issue being discussed is the template taking up too much horizontal space or too much vertical space, but if it's just the former... I hope people here are aware that it's possible to make a template appear differently depending on the viewer's screen size? See WP:TemplateStyles. --Yair rand (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2019 (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. redirects to possible phishing scam?Edit

I clicked to view the live interactive map and it redirected me to an official looking google chrome update page on the domain. Probably a phishing scam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:D5F:F093:ECBD:DA86:867D:1D4A (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I've just removed this link (without clicking on it first, for obvious reasons!) - AGF that this report is legit, as I can't see any reason it wouldn't be. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The site works perfectly. There are ads but ads also exists in most news websites also chrome confirms the security of this site.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
ETA:After doing some explorations in that site. It seems very informative and useful. I suggest we readded it.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

ISIL central desert pocketEdit

Greek Hades, despite your edit [2] based on which ignores the existence of an IS pocket in the central desert, a multitude of sources confirm its existence and this needs to be rectified both in the infobox and on our Wikipedia map. Syrialiveumap, SOHR, ISWN and Polgeonow all show through maps [3][4][5][6] IS territory in the central desert which has yet to be taken by the Syrian military, as well as some others [7]. SOHR, which confirms the pocket is 4,000 square kilometers in size, especially has been extensively used by Wikipedia for territorial changes throughout the years. Pro-government Masdar media outlet and Reuters also reaffirm the existence of an IS pocket in the Syrian desert [8][9], which is entirely surrounded by Syrian government forces (not controlled) as per both Masdar and Reuters [10][11]. Last attempt by the SAA to clear the pocket was way back in September [12]. Multiple sources (which confirm it) trump one source which, for some reason, has decided to ignore the pocket in the central desert. EkoGraf (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I am pinging several editors who have been involved on maintaining the Syrian map over the years and are familiar with the subject Mehmedsons TheNavigatrr Kami888 LightandDark2000 Paolowalter Applodion so we could get their input. EkoGraf (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Further confirmation of the existence of the enclave [13]. Presented now both sources' statistics in the infobox as an attempt at compromise for now. EkoGraf (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@EkoGraf: Unfortunately, yes, there is a rather sizeable ISIL pocket in the northern Syria Badiya region, lying between the Homs–Deir ez-Zor Governorates boundaries. This is the conclusion I've reached after consulting multiple sources, mainly pro-Syrian Army sources. The pocket is actually not as large as some people might think, but it is significant enough to warrant more attention. In the combined Levantine conflicts map, I've done my best to illustrate the extent of the ISIL Syrian Desert pocket, based on the various sources I've referenced, which you can see in this link. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@LightandDark2000:, thanks for the reply. The Syria-Iraq-Lebanon map looks good. Like I said, the same illustration (of the pocket) should be put into the Syrian map as well (Kami888 could possibly help there) and taking into account the confirmed existence of the pocket its percentage (as per SOHR) should be presented in the infobox. Our detailed Syria map already properly shows ISIL held locations in that area, specifically the Doubayat gas field [14]. EkoGraf (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Newest source for the pocket [15]. EkoGraf (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) about the size of the infoboxEdit

Trying to get some more ideas about if the infobox can or should be adjusted/reduced in size and how to accomplish that...see the discussion at 'Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Is there any kind of policy or guideline that governs the size of infoboxes? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Shearonink: I think reducing the number of commanders in the infobox could be a good first step. EkoGraf (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Are leader/commander labels necessary?Edit

Template:Syrian Civil War infobox

Are the leader/commander labels necessary? They already have the titles in their respective Wikipedia pages and there are examples where the titles aren't there Battle of France Western Front (World War II) Iraq War War in Afghanistan (2001–present). Two options either:

  • Remove the repetitive/repeated faction names from the titles (unless very specific, Southern Front for example)
  • Remove the titles altogether as they're already on their Wikipedia pages

Either would reduce the size of the infobox - MTWEmperor (talkcontribs) 21:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Done/completed on some consensus with User:EkoGraf and consensus on the general size reduction of the infobox. All linked name already have the titles in their articles so it is unnecessary to have them in the infobox - MTWEmperor (talkcontribs) 16:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Syrian Civil War" page.