Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

City infoboxes and extra parameters

Continuing from Talk:San Jose, California#Airport parameter:

In the past few years, I have noticed city articles using the blank parameters in {{Infobox settlement}} to stuff more and more information that would better be explained in the lead as prose, such as listing off airports, highways, waterways, transit systems, and representatives in national and subnational legislatures. I have boldly removed these in the past (to de-clutter infoboxes and keep them easier to update) and discussed the issue at WT:CITIES, but had no definitive response either for or against them until today. My case is citing MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE ("The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.") and NOTTRVAELGUIDE, which discourages including information better suited for a travelogue. I appreciate feedback from the wider community on this, as internal project discussion has not yielded great results. SounderBruce 23:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: I effectively cannot agree with the removal of parameters like these. And you can't show an entire list of legislative members in the lead of an article. It would be too messy and wouldn't comply with Wikipedia's article style guidelines, the way it is done for articles like Calgary for example is the most condense and compact, as its a collapsed list that can be expanded. The infobox is used as a crucial information source that users can view at a glance to get key facts. Stuff like waterways, highways, airports, etc are key facts, functions, and features of a city. Especially airports, as they are a cruical transportation route in and out of a city. These parameters have existed in articles for years with no complaints or attempts at removals, until now all of a sudden, with the implementation of Wikipedia's new Vector skin. And to be honest, I'd argue that the purpose of infoboxes have no concrete definitions as to what should and shouldn't be in an article infobox, and is pretty vague in definition. While yes, it does say "the less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose", city infoboxes should at least have critical transportation routes like airports listed in the infobox. Obviously not everything under the sun should be in an infobox, but infoboxes don't become that much more compact by removing one or two parameters. And the airport parameter (I'm focusing on this one the most) was only ever used to list a city's major international airport, as international airports are super important. They are one of the key tenents of a city. Therefore, I cannot in good conscience agree with your statement that they only clutter infoboxes rather than help an infobox fulfill its purpose.

I additionally suggest an RfC be held to expand and properly define what an infobox's purpose is, as well as define what should and shouldn't appear in an infobox, mainly when dealing with special infoboxes that have options to set custom parameters with the blank parameter names. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 23:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

An RFC to define the infobox purpose seems unnecessary when we have MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. That has been quoted above by SounderBruce. Evelyn Marie, your argument appears to be that airports are a special class of transit hub that should be mentioned in infoboxes. This appears to be a US biased argument, where airports are more common in cities, but you could still argue the case. The RFC you should be considering is an RFC to add airport as an infobox parameter (although what constitutes an airport? does it have to be international? commercial? operational?). At this time, however, it is not an infobox parameter, and the use of the blank parameter to add in whatever an editor feels should be placed in the infobox is clearly at odds with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE as quoted above. It is just infobox bloat. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: My argument isn't that airports are special. My argument is that these blank infobox parameters exist for a reason, to be used and for storing information that is useful for viewers to see at a glance. And the infobox parameter was always used for international airports at least from what I know of. It isn't infobox bloat. And I'm suggesting an RfC because as I've said, that section is awfully vague and doesn't describe what should and shouldn't be in an infobox, just that it shouldn't be massively long. Not to mention, the purpose of an infobox varies widely between different infobox types. There are thousands of different infoboxes on Wikipedia, and you can't properly define what does and doesn't violate the infobox purpose guideline due to that. These parameters were used for airports and such for a reason, to show important information, and they shouldn't be removed except for on a per page basis when a significant amount of editors who usually maintain and edit that page oppose said parameters. But until now those parameters never really faced any opposition from any editors, until now all of a sudden when Wikipedia rolls out with a design update to Vector?

I've been an editor on the platform for a long time. These sorts of discussions never gain much traction and its likely that I'll be the minority in this discussion. However I should point out that these parameters have been removed in the past and immediately restored by editors. It is very clear that these parameters are useful to people. They shouldn't be removed out of the blue, therefore I am stating my concrete opposition to the removal of these parameters for a couple reasons: a) because they've been removed before and immediately restored by numerous editors, and b) because they are used for useful information that readers and viewers find helpful. It'd be like me removing the "Transportation" section from an article. That sort of information is severely useful, as is being able to see what major airports and public transportation systems belong to a city at a glance.

Therefore, I find the removal of these parameters to be severely unnecessary and do not contribute to the betterment of articles, and as such I substantially disagree with their removal. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 20:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you have already stated your opposition. If you want to start an RfC, go ahead. That will bring in more editors to the discussion, but you'll need to sharpen up your question, because you say MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is vague and doesn't describe what should or shouldn't be in an infobox, but then you admit in the next sentence that infoboxes vary widely. That would be why, then. It seems to me, therefore, that what we have is right. "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." What are the key facts for a type of infobox? The ones that have parameters no doubt (and not all of them at once). The existence of a catch all blank parameter does not mean their use is a good idea.

So again, if airports should be in infoboxes, best to start an RFC on having an airport infobox parameter. Likewise train stations, harbours and docks. Also I don't understand how you get that there is a need for this information in an infobox, sorry. If every page had an airport parameter, maybe readers would search there for airport first, but they don't (because there is no parameter for it) and so they presumably just search for the text "airport" anywhere on the page, or they search Google which extracts the information from the page for them. But, of course, I could be wrong. What you need to demonstrate that is not to re-assert your opinion, but to find some HCI or user interface research that shows this is how people are looking for information. If you find it, that will be key information for your RfC.

and they shouldn't be removed except for on a per page basis when a significant amount of editors who usually maintain and edit that page oppose said parameters. That is not how it works. Wikipedia recommends (although it does not mandate) the bold-revert-discuss cycle. Any editor can make an edit, including an edit that removes a parameter recently added to a page (the one at San Jose was added 26 May 2021[1], which is quite recent in that page's history). If anyone disagrees with any edit that is made by another user, they may revert to the status quo, and a discussion should commence in talk to seek consensus. Any editor may contribute to any discussion. Discussion is core to finding consensus, yes, but it is not required prior to a bold edit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

As a more concrete example and a rebuttal of your "recent revision to San Jose" mention, similar parameters have been in the articles for Edmonton and Calgary as far back as at least September 17, 2018[2] and September 19, 2020[3], and sometimes even earlier for custom parameters listing highways and waterways. However the latter revision for Calgary is one I personally made, probably after having noticed it in another article, so I have partial bias there, however even then nobody has removed those parameters in close to 5 years (for Edmonton) and nearly 3 years (for Calgary), until now. So, I believe that having these parameters is the status quo for several articles, and while May 2021 isn't exactly a long time ago, it also isn't that recent. Therefore, there is pretty good precedent to have these parameters remain. While obviously not everyone has adopted it for all articles, it is at this point normal for these parameters to exist in these articles. And there is no concrete definition for what comprises "infobox bloat" to begin with, other than not using every single infobox parameter under the sun, especially if given parameters don't relate to a given settlement, e.g. city or town. If the parameters are being used for a useful purpose, and have remained for a long time, shouldn't that effectively indicate what the status quo is?

All I know is while its not super common on most city articles, it is still relatively common. I believe the reason why these parameters were added was because of the sheer popularity and traffic of some of these these aforementioned airports and systems. Take the Calgary International Airport for instance. It is one of the most popular airports in Canada, and one that generates a lot of foot and aerial traffic, for both residents and people who have had layovers at the airport. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox bloat is a perennial problem for infoboxes generally. The advice here is that less is more. There are accessibility issues for mobile users caused by excessively large infoboxes. These are not remedied by using drop-down hidden list since I have been advised that these don't work on mobile devices. WP:NOTEVERYTHING (not a travel guide and not a directory in this instance) applies to articles generally and particularly to the infobox. Just because a parameter exists in an infobox doesn't mean that it should be used! An example is in bios where there is a parameter for the person's signature! If I understand correctly, part of the issue here is that there are free-form or user defined parameters that provide more flexibility to the infobox but there existence is a bit like WP:BEANS - because they exist, we should|can use them. I have specifically looked at Calgary and what I see as the type of edits in question at this article. In my view the Calgary infobox is abysmal, occupying 22⁄3 PC screens. A list of councilors and MPs, even collapsed, falls to WP:DIRECTORY. It is asserted that stuff like the airport highways, waterways etc are important key facts. That is an opinion. A good part of this info can be found in the body of the article and the TOC helps us navigate there quickly. Argument falling to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:OTHERCONTENT to justify inclusion are only valid if this represents best practice (ie is consistently done in our best articles). Infobox bloat is a bit like pornography: it is hard to define but I know it when I see it. Unfortunately, most WP editors approach the infobox from a position of more is better, when this is clearly the opposite of the guidance. IMHO, if an infobox is longer than one PC screen, it is probably too long. Population of an infobox should be approached from a ruthless assessment of is this really necessary. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The "PC screen" mention is highly objective as screens and displays vary widely in size. I have a 4K screen, for example. That is not a proper comparison to make. And infoboxes on mobile (specifically the mobile app, which people should be using over the website) are collapsed by default; if viewers want to see them, they can expand said infobox, so that potential issue is a nothingburger. And the issue is, most city articles contain a lackluster amount of information on their transportation systems. That's why its easy to look at an infobox for example and go "oh, so thats what the major highways are." IMO these things are useful, but I've already said that. IMO, Wikipedia has too many policies that don't go into enough detail, which causes people to interpret things however they want, and it seems the purpose of an infobox is facing that exact issue.

I've made my opinion known. The infobox fields are useful, and therefore should remain. However, you do have a point regarding Canada's city articles and the way some of them handle MP / MLA listings. I have gone ahead and removed the list of MLAs and MPs from the infoboxes of the Calgary and Edmonton articles. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 01:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I acknowledge that different displays will render differently. I had meant to indicate that IMHO a good infobox is not more than about 1 screen on my PC. With comparison to the Calgary article, this creates a proportionality transferable to different display environments. Another objective measure is that it should not end after the TOC (ie it does not encroach on the first section after the lead). As for a lackluster amount of information on their transportation systems being a justification for inclusion in the infobox, the lack of information in an article's body would tend to indicate that editors contributing to an article have not considered it significant. It indicates that the information is not a key point (per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). It is a justification for it not to be included in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

If the articles have "lackluster amount of information on their transportation systems", then that can be fixed with some prose work. And since this doesn't reflect what is in the body, those infobox entries would have to be cited or removed anyway. SounderBruce 21:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the transit info in the boxes. But maybe there could be a whole transportation or infrastructure infobox further down the article. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

These parameters have been used for major transportation elements for far more than just a few years. The purpose of an infobox is to summarize the article at a quick glance, and a major city is going to have a section on its significant transportation infrastructure, so the infobox should summarize that section in the barest way possible. Twice I've already had to reinstate the sole mention of the New York City Subway in the NYC infobox because of the misguided removal of such a critical element of the city as a settlement. The precedent is there (London has the same usage) and has been in use for years. Being that guidelines are to document practice, not dictate it, the guideline for city infoboxes is out of date and must be amended to match the actual use, not be used as a circle to remove key relevant information that is found in the article. oknazevad (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Follow up thought: what makes a postal code that's total administrivia to anyone not mailing a letter to a city worthy of inclusion, but the airport that someone actually traveling to a coty would use unworthy? Seems to me that one is actually relevant to the city as a settlement (since that's the infobox in question) and the other is just pointless numbers.

Also, this is not a question of style, but of content at one particular infobox (albeit a widely used one). This discussion belongs at the talk page of that infobox template, not here. oknazevad (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, if the guidelines are out of date, then an RFC on updating the guidelines and adding appropriate parameters makes sense.

Twice I've already had to reinstate the sole mention of the New York City Subway in the NYC infobox. If the infobox has the sole mention of it, it should not be in the infobox. keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Rather than restoring it to an infobox, surely you should be placing the material within the body of the page.

Follow up thought: what makes a postal code that's total administrivia to anyone not mailing a letter to a city worthy of inclusion In most cases it shouldn't be included. However, in the UK there is a concept of postal towns, and where a town article describes the postal town, then (and only then) does it make sense to include the postal code. The mere existence of a parameter does not mean it should be used. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand me. The infobox is not the sole mention of the NYC Subway in the article. In fact, there's already an entire large section about it, because it's a major and significant part of the city both as a piece of infrastructure and as a part of the culture. Which is why it belongs in the infobox. I was saying that removing any mention from the infobox is wrongheaded as not having it in the infobox leaves said infobox deficient as a summary of the article.

In fact, bluntly put, the fact that you didn't know that about the article body tells me that you shouldn't be commenting on the infobox contents at all. Again, infoboxes are summaries of the respective articles. People unwilling to actually look at the article body shouldn't be editing the article's infobox, because how are they going to know what the article contains without looking at it? oknazevad (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed I did not know that about the New York Article body, nor about the infobox, because that is a page you watch, not me. Are only people who edit the New Your City page allowed to comment on infoboxes? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying it's good manners and courteous to familiarize yourself with an article before making significant changes without discussion. Coming in guns blazing to an article and making major changes without familiarity is uncollaborative behavior. It's a real pet peeve of mine when it comes to Wikipedia editing. oknazevad (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The statement, the sole mention of the New York City Subway in the NYC infobox, does tend to convey that it is the sole mention in the article. Talk page communication is not always as clear as we would like. And personalising statements (you shouldn't be commenting on the infobox contents at all) is rarely a good idea since it can easily be seen as uncivil.

The fact is that infobox bloat is a widespread problem not confined to cities. Saying that airports and transit systems are key facts [for all cities] that should be included in the infobox is a personal opinion. While it might be appropriate in some cases, it is not universally done nor is it always necessary. Venice for example has a compact infobox and while it has a large section in the article on transport, there is no related entry in the infobox. To resolve bloat, we need to be ruthless. Many things might be important but not everything important is a key fact that belongs in an infobox. Being close to a subject is not always a good position from which to make such decisions and different editors have different views on what is important. Unfortunately, the result is more often to compromise on what should stay rather than what should go - hence bloat. Also, the lead, the TOC and the infobox all work together to summarise the article. If we specifically consider NYC, I could probably halve the infobox quite easily. The best solution is one that rarely leaves anybody happy. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

See example Cinderella157 (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I generally think an infobox should summarize key facts already in the prose of the lead. Too often, an inbox is a repository of trivial information or a replacement for writing prose. Obviously, WP:IAR exceptions apply, but they should be limited. As for airport codes, its surely useful to some readers, but so would a list of major local sports teams, fine arts venues, green spaces, shopping malls, etc. However, we can and do make editorial decisions to exclude, based on consensus. To me, an objective approach would be: "If it's too trivial to write similar prose in the lead, why is it important for the infobox?"—Bagumba (talk) 06:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Other "blank" fields

Sorry to drop this in the middle of a long conversation. As for community articles in United States, please keep the following "blank" fields, otherwise I don't care if you remove other "blank" fields. I assume you didn't mean to delete these, but thought I better say something since I didn't find the words "FIPS" or "GNIS" in your conversation.

• blank_name = [[Federal Information Processing Standard|FIPS code]]
• blank_info = 20-99999
• blank1_name = [[Geographic Names Information System|GNIS ID]]
• blank1_info = 477999

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

No, let's kill those with fire. They are better suited to an authority-control-type template. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox civilian attack and 0 value

I recently noticed editors have been adding 0 values to fields like {{{fatalities}}} and {{{injuries}}} within {{Infobox civilian attack}}. Is this best practice? I was under the assumption that we didn’t need to do this unless the content specifically talked about how there were zero deaths or injuries. In other words, if an article on a school shooting mentions there were three deaths we note that in {{{fatalities}}}, but if it doesn’t discuss that there were 0 injuries we don’t note that in the infobox. Could anyone point me to best practices in this regard? Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox university § Add Visitor as a field

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox university § Add Visitor as a field. Robminchin (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

RfC about exceptions to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and commanders/leaders in Template:Infobox military conflict

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.

No Consensus to do anything. I see that a few editors added comments recently, but this still has not emerged from the no consensus stage.

This has been going on awhile, and closure has been asked for at least twice at the WP:CR page, so at this point, maybe everyone can take what they've learned so far, and if wanted, start a new discussion. - jc37 11:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Are commanders/leaders (a parameter in Template:Infobox military conflict) specialised information per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and therefore exempt from the general advice at WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE that infoboxes summarize ... key facts that appear in the article - ie that information appearing in the infobox should be supported by the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

This question relates to a discussion at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Commanders and Leaders. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Notifications:

1. Template talk:Infobox military conflict [4]
2. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style [5]
3. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history [6]
4. Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine [7]

Cinderella157 (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

In response to some comments in the affirmative below. An entry in the infobox tells us nothing about a commander/leader except that they are being reported as a commander/leader on a particular side. If we are to know anything about what they did, what they led or anything at all that would make them significant in the context of the article, then this must come from the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

In many cases that they are the commander/leader on a particular side is the significant relevant information. If they said/did something notable in the context of the relevant battle/conflict then yes that will naturally be in the prose, but that is not always the case. It would be particularly confusing if one side's commanding officer did something significant in the context of a specific battle, and so was mentioned in the prose and so allowed to be mentioned in the infobox, but the opposing side's person of equivalent rank did not and so could not be included. It would be even more confusing if only one person from each side's chain of command got mentioned but they were significantly different ranks, indeed there would be a high possibility of this misleading readers (especially those unfamiliar with the rank terminologies of both sides) into thinking they were of the same rank. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

This argument would appear to make assumptions about rank and or position in a chain of command, yet no such information is evidenced from an entry in an infobox alone. Furthermore, while a chain of command is usually linear going up, it is branched going down. Nor is there necessarily a cross correlation between sides where there are different command structures and force compositions. Confusion arises from a lack of information - information which is not supplied by an entry in the infobox alone. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• No Leaders/commanders is not a term/concept specialised to military conflicts but applies in many other societal contexts outside the military. In articles on military conflicts, it is generally quite reasonable to write an article such that it is evident from the body of the article that certain leaders/commanders were key or significant to the conflict as indicated by Template:Infobox military conflict. Claiming that leaders/commanders is specialised information and an exemption under WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE it is not meeting the spirit and intent of the guidance at WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. IMHO (and in accordance with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and Template:Infobox military conflict) the body of the article should evidence how/why a particular leaders/commander was key or significant to a conflict through more than a passing mention that they simply held a position. It is unfortunate that many editors focus on the infobox and try to write the article in the infobox rather than improving the body of the article. This is precisely what WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE would warn us against. This is not particular to Template:Infobox military conflict. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• No. There's nothing "specialised" about the term or concept "commanders/leaders", and it is rather basic information on a military conflict that should be in the main article material along with source citations for it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• No, as per Cinderella157. I’ve been trying in a few relevant articles to tidy up infoboxes with respect to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and WP:RS. That’s what we should be doing, not excepting those infoboxes from general community standards. Bondegezou (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, but procedural close:  this vote is an attempt to hijack the consensus in a content dispute at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Commanders and Leaders. There the military conflict infobox lists no military commanders of a military conflict. Several editors have expressed interest in including them, but User:Cinderella157 is wikilawyering about the infobox guidelines to prevent them from being listed. A “no” vote here feeds the editor’s convoluted and nonsensical argument there. Please don’t indulge them. —Michael Z. 17:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC) Updated. —Michael Z. 18:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish, @Bondegezou, what the OP really wants to know is whether the defence ministers, top military commanders, and top commanders on the ground should appear in the infobox of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as is being discussed at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Commanders and Leaders.  —Michael Z. 01:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  That is not how I see the situation. Mzajac, you raised an interpretation of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE in that discussion. Cinderella157 has raised an appropriately neutrally-worded RfC to seek input and clarification on that matter. I suggest you back off from comments that might be seen to violate WP:AGF. Bondegezou (talk) 07:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  No, @Cinderella157 raised it. The question of “exemption” is razzle dazzle, sidestepping the common sense that the identities of commanders especially ones mentioned in the article, are key facts.

  I do not question whether the editor has a good-faith belief their logic should be followed. But it is WP:WL that doesn’t serve the readers, who currently must dig through a 17,000-word article to learn the names of seven commanders and leaders buried in it.  —Michael Z. 17:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Of course commanders and leaders in a battle or war can constitute “exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text.”

  That it is specialized information is self-evident by the fact that this infobox has fields specially defined for it, while other infoboxes do not.

  We can’t leave out some or all top civilian or military commanders as a rule or by default, because they are defining in a battle: notable by their very role of leading it. In many battles only some military commanders are notable enough to be mentioned in the article: but they belong in a chain of command defining a military organization, which normally mirrors its opposing equivalent. It doesn’t make sense to make a hodgepodge by dropping in some notable figures but leaving out the rest by default, or to leave out one side by default.  —Michael Z. 18:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  Relevant previous discussions from October and November:

  • Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 10#Commanders and leaders
  • Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 11#Commanders and Leaders

   —Michael Z. 18:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, they can be. Militaries are inherently hierarchical, and each conflict has commanders on various levels on all sides. This is key information about the conflict that helps contextualize it for the reader: under whose watch did everything that the article recount happen? Ideally they would also appear in prose in the body of the article, but there are various reasons why it would be difficult to produce natural sounding prose. If it's about a small and obscure skirmish it would be ludacrous to require one to work the names of the commander, army commander, defence minister and president as commander in chief into the prose. As the Ukraine article proves, this does not necessarily even happen in a very developed article about a major conflict. Oftentimes a commander simply plays his role as expected. The role may also be fairly symbolic, administrative or bureaucratic, and there is nothing to note except that they commanded, but this is a key fact that should be mentioned in the article, and sometimes the infobox is the place to do that. Procedurally, this is a very lowly participated RfC ostensibly stemming from a specific discussion on one article but about a potentially massive sitewide application affecting 21,000 articles, so I would not put too much weight on it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, at least sometimes. I came here after seeing the closure request, but after reading the arguments I realise that I am not neutral. Finnusertop explains it well - the leaders are usually key factual information that is relevant to the topic as a whole but they are not always relevant to the prose. Thryduulf (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• No. Fundamentally infoboxes are supposed to be for key information, not filling every field, and the more you stuff in there the less attention is given to individual elements. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is pretty clear about this. If the military leaders are not playing a huge role in the article body content, then their inclusion at a high level article isn't really important. INFOBOXPURPOSE also makes clear the exceptions are supposed to be rare and specialized; commanders in a war don't meet that threshold and it makes no sense to compare them to ISO codes or chemical formulas. (Having read through the specific case this RfC was started about, I don't see any difference in that attitude—we recognize with World War II that ministers of defense and minor leaders or even major generals are so important they have to be included versus the overarching leaders of the major factions.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure what you mean by the last. World War II, a Good-rated article on the largest conflict ever, only lists leaders of seven states in the infobox, all mentioned in the article.

  But:

  • European theatre of World War II (C-class) 30 national leaders, fewer than 10 mentioned
  • Eastern Front (World War II) (C-class) 63 national leaders and military commanders, fewer than 20 mentioned
  • Battle of Kursk (Good) 15 military commanders, 11 mentioned
  • Operation Citadel (B-class) 10 military commanders, 10 mentioned

  (I did not attempt to count commanders and leaders mentioned but not listed in the infobox.)

  There seems to be an accepted practice to include integral lists of commanders and leaders that are suitable to the subject, and not only list everyone that’s mentioned in the article.  —Michael Z. 15:50, 14 February 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.

Nationality & citizenship

• Most biography infoboxes have nationality and citizenship. Generally, use of either should be avoided when the country to which the subject belongs can be inferred from the country of birth, ...

This is somewhat confusing to me. Are we saying that most biography infoboxes violate the guideline in the next sentence? If so, what are we doing about this? If that's not how I should be reading this, what's the purpose of the first sentence?

Can we perhaps reword the whole thing? Here's my suggestion:

• Use of nationality or citizenship in biography infoboxes should be avoided when the country to which the subject belongs can be inferred from the country of birth.

Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem we have is Americas adding American all over. So those from country of origin want it clear what their true nationality is over a passive citizenship. A good example is Albert Einstein where it's just full of junk that doesn't need to be in the info box because it really needs context for a proper explanation. Moxy- 12:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC on the infobox of the 2018–2022 Italian general elections

An RFC about the infobox of the two general elections in Italy, is being held.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox military conflict#RfC on "supported by" being used with the belligerent parameter

Please contribute. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)