Template talk:Infobox military conflict

RfC on "supported by" being used with the belligerent parameter

Should the supported by parameter be reinstated on the basis of verified confirmation the supporting party thereof accused, therefore it should be renamed to Known Supported By, therefore not to give the majority POV but rather equal coverage to both sides PageMaintaince (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree, it should be allowed if it can be supported by (pun intended) reliable sources. Supported By was abused at times, but a lot of well-sourced and important information was also removed because of this new rule. So many modern wars are proxy wars, and by eradicating this crucial feature of info boxes, that context is instead being buried deep in articles if it appears at all. Holden3172 (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Can we have, supported by back?, it is useful for understand in which sides superpowers or other nations positioned in the conflict, particularly in the wars related to the cold war or the Second cold war (such as the Russo-Ukrainian war) it is useful for know if a side was aligned with USSR/Russia or USA or China. Wikitalovin1 (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I would hope that the “supported by” aspects would be clear in the lead and in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's a thing i don't want to eliminate, it's important to use it in a good manner and with the brain but sometimes it is really helpful, for example on the page relted to the Assadist-Saddamist conflict it would be nice to have it back for show with who the superpowers aligned. (USSR with Syria and US with Iraq until the invasion of Kuwait). Wikitalovin1 (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be useful for some sort of list to be made describing examples on scenarios of what warrants a "supported by" inclusion, and when it would cross over into actual belligerency in a conflict. I say this mostly in relation to articles on US "covert wars" in the war on terror, such as in Yemen and Somalia, where the lines can be blurry. Hsnkn (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Good idea. Wikitalovin1 (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I think if a reliable source demonstrates that arms or ammo were provided by a country to a party in a conflict, that's reasonable grounds for that country to be listed a supporter, or better yet if the country openly admits to supporting said party. Holden3172 (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Of course it should be reinstated, it was removed because of the minor issues on some particular conflict articles Marcelus (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree. While it was abused at times, they ended up throwing the baby out with the bath water by deprecating it across the board without discussion on an article-by-article basis. Holden3172 (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

• The issue with this parameter was that it was often being used in a very WP:POINTY fashion and often without reliable sourcing. The fact that a country buys its weapons from another country does not mean that country is supporting a war the first country is waging. Any restoration of this parameter would need some very clear guidance, and I'm sure it will still be abused immediately after it was reinstated by those with an agenda to push. My view is that, like the result parameter, it is often quite complex, and an explanation in the lead and body is far superior to a brief and bald claim in an infobox, which is all some editors want to achieve. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:56, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  The fact that a country buys its weapons from another country does not mean that country is supporting a war the first country is waging.

  I think it does, and I am sure many would feel that way. Many countries do not have an advance arms industry of their own and need to import them to be able to fight effectively.

  I don't think it would be hard to establish reasonable parameters to keep this from being abused. Yes, every supporting country should have to be reliably sourced. While some infoboxes were problematic, most were perfectly okay, and yet the result was they all got deprecated because of a few bad apples. We can have information in the lead, body, and infobox. I get the purpose of the infobox is to summarize and leave most of the work to the lead and body, but it does need to be as minimal as possible. This deprecation was excessively minimalistic. Holden3172 (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  "I think it does" - Which is exactly the problem. Particularly, it means you can literally end up with countries in both support and oppose columns, which is daft and definitely not helpful to the user.

  The open-ended nature of it (literally any country that ever supplied something that can be called "weapons" becomes listed as a belligerent so long as something that can be called a reliable source says that happened) means you are necessarily going to end up with dozens of countries listed for even the smallest conflicts. FOARP (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  If there are multiple countries supplying with weapons then there are a lot of pages named foreign involvement/support in country name-country name war. Wikitalovin1 (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  That wasn't the case in most articles, there were usually only about a few sourced countries (<10) even for major conflicts. The only infobox where there were literally dozens was for the Gulf War, a rare instance where this feature was indeed abused. In cases where a country is selling to both sides, like the USA in the Iran-Iraq War, I think it is reasonable to put that country on both sides and clarify in the lead and body. It was wrong to blankely deprecate this across the board without allowing consideration on an article-by-article basis. The admins who implemented this could not have known about every conflict, the circumstances, and research that went into putting countries into the "Supported By" section of an infobox. Holden3172 (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  Or how about Korean Conflict (not to be confused with the Korean War)? FDW777 (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, that would be another example of the feature being abused, but like with the Gulf War, infoboxes like that were rare and extreme examples. There was no reason for deprecation to be applied to every article and preventing discussions from happening on a case-by-case basis. Holden3172 (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - Having seen the absolutely endless arguments this parameter caused at Russia-Ukraine war articles, and the utterly open-ended nature of it, it is not helpful to the reader and just becomes a POV-contention point. FOARP (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Not seeing that this is actually a WP:RFC that has been notified accordingly. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• Strong support — some form of returning parameter as per above.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 02:32, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose -- "supported by" is an undefined, and undefinable term that, as we can see from this very discussion, means different things to different people. Moreover, the inclusion of "supported by" historically was frequently used as a way to ignore MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE -- a way to include groups or nations in the infobox as "supported by", without any serious attempt to explain or detail that support in sufficient depth in the article body. We've already been down this road, we know where it ends. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  What "supported by" means can be defined in the body. Holden3172 (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: as others have said, there are no clear criteria for what countries should be labelled as "supporting" others during a time of conflict. It isn't accurate to call examples of obviously excessive lists "abuse" of the template when there is no actual definition for what should or should not be called abuse to begin with. — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Infoboxes are good at showing simple uncontested information, everything that "supported by" isn't. It's information that shouldn't ever be included in Infoboxes as it always requires clarification, as has been shown by the endless discussions on article talk pages wherever it's suggested to be included. It's definitely not a field that should be restored, it's information that should be discussed in context within the articles body. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose As discussed ad nauseam on the Russia-Ukraine pages, this leads to absurdities caused by the lack of clarity in its meaning when the infobox is neither structured nor intended for nuanced data. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too much nuance and ambiguity for this context. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Strong support, but

I hope someone sees that, it's been a while since the last answer... um... maybe I should ping someone...

I think one should make a guideline what counts at what doesn't count as "support" - I think it's quite possible. For example, I would define "support" as involvement in a war without a full belligerence as compared to the fully belligerent sides - maybe limited belligerence - I would propose sending military personnel as a basic criterion, since it seems to be appliable to most historical cases. For example: Free France was involved in the Eastern Front of World War II with its Régiment de Chasse 2/30 Normandie-Niemen - it was a French air force that did participate in the military effort, but it wasn't full belligerency as compared to the armies participating on the Eastern Front directly. Similarly, Croatia and Spain sent its soldiers to the German army - they were sent officially and de jure belonged to their armies, but it wasn't full belligerence. In the case of the Vietnam War, the infobox currently has the USSR and Philippines - maybe the USSR is a more dubious example, but it's better with Philippines - they sent military personnel, but it wasn't full participation, at least compared to the other sides, Military history of the Philippines says it was "primarily supported medical and other civilian pacification projects", and sources don't seem to describe Philippines as a fully belligerent side. In the case of the war with Ukraine, which is mentioned above, I would give North Korea as an example: North Korea sends only a limited number of soldiers to Ukraine, not armies - the number of the soldiers sent is comparable to the one sent by Croatia to the Eastern Front (Spain sent even more) - I believe that the North Korean soldiers are integrated in the Russian army, similarly to the Ustashe or Francoist legionnaries of the Wehrmacht. It's more troublesome regarding Belarus, since it's not confirmed that Belarus sends troops to Ukraine - and I'm not sure if it should be listed in the infobox as it is now - but maybe one could argue that the support given by Belarus is about of the same significance. One of the arguments is that it's described in the sources as "belligerent/co-belligerent" even without directly engaging in the conflicts, that it's a "violation of the law of neutrality" even without a full engagement - so I would support my suggestion for most cases while making somewhat an exception for countries as Belarus described this way in the sources, since this case seems to be more or less unique - but as I wrote above, such support is equal to sending Croatian regiments or even more important - so the line is arguably possible to be found in a discussion. Selling arms is clearly beyond that line.

My overall point is that some criteria should be offered and discussed regarding the "support" parameter - as you see, I was able to suggest my definition and criteria of "support" applied to most historical cases - so some common definition can be made in discussions - Opostylov (talk) 04:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Your proposition is prohibited by Wikipedia's no original research policy. Editor's are not empowered to concoct non-extant concepts for use in articles. There is no such thing as 'limited belligerence'; even 'qualified neutrality' is a political doctrine without legal standing. See for example this article by legal scholar Michael N. Schmitt which very succinctly explains that [t]he law of neutrality is binary and that [a] State is either a belligerent or neutral; there is no legal middle ground. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem we've discussed many times regarding Belarus. Some people want there to be a "special supporter" category but they arrive at that position entirely through WP:OR. Sources don't say that Belarus is a "special supporter". They say that Belarus is either a belligerent, or they say that it is officially neutral, or sometimes both. FOARP (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

What if we add the specific support that a country showed?

ex: arms supplies, diplomatic support, intelligence support. Wikitalovin1 (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I think diplomatic support is really stretching the definition of belligerncy. I don't think it would be necessary to clarify if spport is in arms or intelligence in the infobox. It only need say support. Holden3172 (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, i agree with that, but the problem about we are discussing is exactly that just "support/supported by" is too specific. Wikitalovin1 (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons already stated Holden3172 (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• Strong support - Just seeing this discussion after participating in the RFC further down the page. I think both the parameter and discussion might be worth reviving, and posting on WP:CENT to get more attention.
  I support reinstating the "supported by" parameter. It gives the reader a much more accurate picture of a conflict to see who the primary belligerents were, and who supported those belligerents. It tells the reader who was really on both sides, and whether it was a proxy war or not. In the case of Vietnam War, for example, currently listing both the US and the USSR as "belligerents" is misleading: the US was a belligerent, but the USSR was a supporter (even though they had a few troops, and a few casualties, and actually fired a few weapons, I believe virtually all RS describe USSR as a supporter of North Vietnam in the war, not as a direct combatant in the war, unlike the US, which started as a supporter but then became a combatant). In the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present), I think it's important for the reader to know that Ukraine is backed by US and EU, and Russia is backed by, e.g., Belarus, NK, and Iran. Both those infoboxes, in my opinion, give a misleading impression to the reader about who is involved in the war.
  To address some of the oppose arguments:
  • If a country is supplying a combatant with weapons, then yes, that country is supporting the combatant. And that's important info that should be in the infobox to give the reader that information at-a-glance, without having to read the lead or the body.
  • If a country is supplying both sides in a war with weapons, then they are supporting both sides in the war. (That's not actually that unusual. People are jerks.)
  • Some infoboxes might not be conducive to a "supported by" field. Some conflicts are too complicated and belligerents/supporters can't be easily distinguished. For those particular articles, we can do without a "supported by" field, but that is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater, or let a few bad apples spoil the bunch, or pick your metaphor... just because this parameter doesn't work in some articles isn't a reason to prohibit them in all articles.
  • In the Korean Conflict example given above, yes, that infobox was ridiculous, but that is not some inherent problem with the "supported by" parameter. Rather, the problem is that USSR republics are all listed individually, as are EU member states. That infobox could be cleaned up drastically by just listing "EU" and "USSR" rather than every individual member.
  • Whether a country is a "belligerent" or a "supporter" should be determined by WP:RS, and not by editors' WP:OR definitions of the term. We should not try to come up with a one-size-fits-all rule for who is a "belligerent" and who is a "supporter." As with all things, just follow the sources.
  • Just because some articles have become hotbeds of argument over belligerents/supporters isn't a reason to punish the readers by depriving them of this information in all infoboxes everywhere. Again, pick your metaphor, bad apples, etc. The goal of the encyclopedia isn't to "not have arguments between editors," it's to inform readers, and perpetual arguments between editors is the price we pay in exchange for freely accessible high-quality information.
  In my view, it's worth revisiting the decision to deprecate this parameter, and the discussion ought to be widely advertised to get a lot more input. Levivich (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  Agree, excellent argomentations. Wikitalovin1 (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose – In brief, 'supported by' is not a legitimate category of 'belligerent' and does not exist outside Wikipedia. I linked above an expert's analysis of the concept of 'qualified neutrality' which explains that: A State is either a belligerent or neutral; there is no legal middle ground. The same applies here, either a state is a party to the conflict (the IHL term for 'belligerent') or it is not. No in-between exists.
  'Supported by' was never a parameter of the military conflict infobox. It was a historical write-in subheader of the belligerent parameter. No non-belligerent should appear there. A long-standing bad practice, is still a bad practice.
  Providing materiel, intelligence, financial support, etc generally does not rise to the level of negating a state's neutral status. In the cases where it does, the state should be listed plainly as a belligerent. There is a Chatham article that discusses co-party status and gives concrete examples of how providing support can confer it to a nation. Supporting a participant in a conflict can, in fact, make you a participant in it.
  Simply put, following the sources – which we should and must do – leads away from the concept of 'supported by' especially when discussing it as a sub-concept of belligerency. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  'supported by' is not a legitimate category of 'belligerent' and does not exist outside Wikipedia - yes it is and yes it does:

  • UCDP/PRIO's Armed Conflict Dataset identifies supporters. For example, its page on Russia-Ukraine has an entire section called Secondary Support (bottom of the page)
  • In addition, UCDP has an entire External Support Dataset (UCDP/ESD) that is, as the name suggests, a database of supporters of armed conflicts (DOI, PDF)
  • Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights publishes War Watch (PDF), which identifies supporters, see e.g. p. 3 of the linked PDF, Russia (supported by North Korea) and Syria (supported by Russia until December 2024)
  • Civil War and Intrastate Armed Conflict, Cambridge 2025, Appendix D is titled Internationalized Intrastate Armed Conflicts Where Side A Received Secondary Warring Support, 1989–2023 and Appendix E is the same for "Side B" [1]
  • "A Revised List of Wars Between and Within Independent States, 1816-2002" (2004) [2] identifies supporters (e.g. p. 241, the U.S.A. is supported by troops from Australia, Canada, [etc.])

• • These countries were active belligerents. i.e. direct participants. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• • Entire academic books about the subject, e.g. Surrogate Warfare, Georgetown Univ. P. 2019 [3] and Proxy Warfare, Polity 2013 [4]

  Following the sources is right, but the sources do distinguish between direct participants (what we call "belligerents") and supporters of direct participants. Examples (from the list above) include USSR/Vietnam, USA/Afghanistan, Russia/Syria, and North Korea/Russia. So those sources would be RS for listing "belligerents" and "supported by" in the infoboxes (and body, and maybe lead) of the articles about Vietnam War, USSR-Afghan war, Syrian Civil War, and Russia-Ukraine War. Levivich (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose this is a classic case of editors wanting to shoehorn every possible thing into an infobox, and is often used to try to make a point. If the support from a particular nation is significant and well-cited in the body, mention it in the lead, which is supposed to be a summary of the whole article. There is no room for nuance in the infobox. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Dividing columns

Hi, if there is no entry in column2 of the infobox, a dividing line that separates the columns does not display and information fills the width of the infobox. This is not something that I can fix. Could somebody with the right skill set have a look at this please. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 24 May 2026

Add an equipment losses section separate from casualties:
It would be better to not make the casualties section be cluttered with equipment losses, a lot of modern day conflicts don't have an equipment losses place to not cluster up the casualties section. It's pretty important to ensure equipment losses are noted down as they help with analysis.

DawnTheFirst (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE - less is better. Leave it to the body of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

RfC to deprecate collages in conflict infoboxes

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.

There is consensus against deprecation as proposed. Editors, writ large, did not find the arguments advanced by the nom convincing and found a blanket restriction too forbidding. Some editors, however, expressed concerns about collage image size and the number of images in collages, which may bear further discussion. Those concerns, for me, did not rise to the level of consensus. In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 15:42, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

---

This is an RfC proposing to deprecate the use of collages, whether created using {{Multiple image}} or compiled as a single image file, from use with military conflict infoboxes and similar. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Notifications at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images, Wikipedia talk:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Cinderella157 (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Link to WP:RFCBEFORE [5]. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Ping users from RFCBEFORE: David Fuchs, Chipmunkdavis, Nikkimaria, Johnbod, Masem, Sdkb, Moxy, SMcCandlish and Kusma. I avoided pinging anybody already here. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The case in support

Algerian War
Collage of the French war in Algeria
Location {{{place}}}

1. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, less is better. This applies equally to the infoboxes as a whole, including images. Collages and their captions add to infobox bloat. These types of collages can be described as a photo essay. Per INFOBOXPURPOSE, we should not be trying to write the article in the infobox. See {{Infobox too large}}, in which images are specifically mentioned as a source of bloat.
2. Per MOS:LEADIMAGE, It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image [singular] ... to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. It is not the purpose of the lead image to try to illustrate multiple aspects or points about the subject by way of a photo essay collage.
3. MOS:IMAGEREL tells us: not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting or cause undue weight: usually, less is more. This is particularly relevant when trying to cram multiple images (two or more across) into the limited space of an infobox, noting that WP:IMGSIZELEAD tells us that images should not impinge on the default size of the infobox. Such small images lack visual acuity and in some cases, the boundaries between individual images may be indistinct because of similar colour and/or shading. Such collages inherently creates visual noise (clutter). Visual noise leads to cognitive overload and reduces assimilation. Clicking on the small images within a collage in order to see detail is an inherent distraction for the reader. Such collages are not a net benefit to our readers.
4. WP is primarily a written encyclopedia. It is not a picture encyclopedia where a photo essay might have a place. Per WP:GALLERY: Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery [or collage] is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article. Per MOS:IMAGEREL, any argument that such collages look good is irrelevant.
5. Per WP:COLLAGE, collages are single images that illustrate multiple closely related concepts, where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way [emphasis added]. From the examples, appropriate collages would show a comparison (such as before and after), different views of a 3D object or similar. The component images are closely related in that they of the same or similar items.
   The individual images in conflict infobox collages are only broadly related to each other in that they relate to the topic of the article. They are selected from a large pool of potential images. Individual images might be substituted for others which are similar or have no similarity, depending upon editor discretion. The individual images are not closely related, they do not illustrate a point [singular] and they do not meet the threshold of necessary. Conflict infobox collages are not consistent with policy at WP:COLLAGE.
6. While editors creating such collages may have a rationale for selecting the images that make up the collage, in my observation, this is not readily apparent. Per WP:IMGCONTENT: The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central.

In conclusion, there are multiple P&G based reasons not to use such collages. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Add: A common argument in support of collages is the [mis]perception that the lead image should represent or "sum up" the conflict. What LEADIMAGE tells us is that we are looking for a a representative image ... to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. The two are very different premises. A suitable image would be one that resides in the collective consciousness as being associated with the conflict or at least, one which is recognisable by someone with a passing familiarity with to topic. Having two or more such images is redundancy. Any number of poor images does not achieve this. Emphasising the singular in LEADIMAGE means that the guidance has not envisioned collages as being an appropriate - particularly when the maxim at IMAGEREL and INFOBOXPURPOSE is less is better. While LEADIMAGE tells us to be aware of NPOV, it is not an insurmountable issue nor is it one that can only be resolved (or should be resolved) by a collage, particularly given other points for not using a collage. It would be hard to argue that an image that resides in the collective consciousness is not neutral. Fairness is the key point here. While the lead image is particularly important, images that might be used in a collage can be used elsewhere in the article. Every collage with images two or more wide suffers a reduction in visual acuity. Every collage with images two or more deep bloats the infobox. Every collage suffers from one or both issues. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Add: It has been posited below that, The Bosnian War one is ok, for example. As a reader with a passing familiarity with the subject, I observe that all of the images used are reduced from normal thumbnail size and suffer from a loss of visual acuity - some more than others. The first image is of a multi-story building afire somewhere (ie I don't recognise it). Next there is what looks to be a large, old, two-story house in a dilapidated state somewhere. The B&W image with low resolution gives the impression that the image significantly pre-dates the event. Next is an image somewhere of two women wearing head-scarves embracing with other people milling around. Next is a peculiar looking tank somewhere. Clicking on the image file gives text revealing that the peculiar appearance is because it is covered in rubber matting. Then, there is an image of several soldiers wearing cam uniforms. One stands out because of his age and build but the face is not recognisable at this image size. I would however, recognise the name and image of Ratko Mladić otherwise and associate it with this war. Lastly, there is an image of a soldier of indeterminant gender wearing a blue construction helmet with white lettering on the side that is not clear - even wearing my new glasses. A C-130 in the background indicates this is an airfield somewhere. The captions are a mass of text that certainly creates an accessibility issue of the type identified by Bazza 7 (see below). The one image that might meet with LEADIMAGE (readily recognised and associated with the article) fails because of its reduced size. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Other example conflict infobox collages

Operation Barbarossa
Clockwise from top-left: German soldiers advance through northern Russia German flamethrower crew burns down a house in the background German Panzer IV stuck in the snow with white camouflage paint Soviet Ilyushin Il-2s over German positions near Moscow Soviet POWs on the way to prison camps Soviet soldiers fire artillery
Location {{{place}}}

Vietnam War
American Huey helicopters inserting South Vietnamese ARVN troops, 1970 North Vietnamese PAVN troops in action, c. 1966 Burial of civilians killed in the Huế massacre, 1968 American marines using a flamethrower, 1967 US Navy A-4 Skyhawk on a bombing run, 1966 Saigon Execution: South Vietnamese general Nguyễn Ngọc Loan summarily executes Viet Cong captain during the Tet Offensive, 1968
Location {{{place}}}

Gulf War
From top to bottom, left to right: U.S. Air Force F-15Es, F-16s, and an F-15C flying over burning Kuwaiti oil wells a U.S. Army M1 Abrams laying down a smokescreen British troops from the Staffordshire Regiment practicing casualty evacuation wrecked and abandoned vehicles on the Highway of Death camera view from a Lockheed AC-130
Location {{{place}}}

World War I
French attack from a trench at the Battle of Verdun, 1916 British artillery in action at the Battle of the Somme, 1916 U.S. troops and Renault FT tanks during the Hundred Days Offensive, 1918 German machine gun crew wearing gas masks, 1918 Ottoman Arab camel corps leaving for the Middle Eastern front, 1916 Aftermath of the Russian siege of Przemyśl in Austria-Hungary, 1915
Location {{{place}}}

World War I
From top to bottom, left to right: French attack from a trench at the Battle of Verdun, 1916 British artillery in action at the Battle of the Somme, 1916 U.S. troops and Renault FT tanks during the Hundred Days Offensive, 1918 German machine gun crew wearing gas masks, 1918 Ottoman Arab camel corps leaving for the Middle Eastern front, 1916 Aftermath of the Russian siege of Przemyśl in Austria-Hungary, 1915
Location {{{place}}}

Russian Civil War
Clockwise from top left: Soldiers of the Don Army in 1919 A White Russian infantry division in 1920 Soldiers of the 1st Cavalry Army Leon Trotsky in 1918 Hanging of Yekaterinoslav Red Guards by Austro-Hungarian troops in 1918
Location {{{place}}}

Second Hundred Years' War
Left to right, top to bottom: Battle of Beachy Head (10 July 1690) Battle of Blenheim (13 August 1704) Battle of Fontenoy (11 May 1745) Battle of Carillon (8 July 1758) Battle of the Plains of Abraham (13 September 1759) Siege of Yorktown (19 October 1781) Battle of Trafalgar (21 October 1805) Battle of Waterloo (18 June 1815)
Location {{{place}}}

Second Italo-Ethiopian War
Clockwise from top left: An Italian 65 mm mountain gun crew; Ethiopian soldiers assembling in the north; Italian bombers in flight; Column of Italian troops marching; Italian soldiers with a machine gun; Ethiopian soldiers in a trench.
Location {{{place}}}

Napoleonic Wars
Part of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars
Left to right, top to bottom: Battles of Austerlitz, Berlin, Friedland, Aspern-Essling, Moscow, Leipzig and Paris
Location {{{place}}}

Great Turkish War
From top left: The Battle of Vienna, the Siege of Buda, the Azov campaigns, the Battle of Zenta
Location {{{place}}}

Syrian civil war
From top to bottom, left to right: Destroyed vehicles during the Battle of Aleppo, 2012 Kurdish People's Protection Units fighters during the Battle of Ras al-Ayn, 2013 Opposition rocket artillery bombards government positions during an offensive on Hama, 2017 A neighborhood in Raqqa after being recaptured from the Islamic State, 2017 Turkish and U.S. troops on a joint patrol in northern Syria, 2018 Syrians celebrating the Fall of Assad, 2024
Location {{{place}}}

Iraq War
Clockwise from top left: US soldiers at the Hands of Victory monument in Baghdad, 2003; toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue in Baghdad, 2003; destroyed Iraqi Type 69 tank, 2003; U.S soldier during a leaflet drop from a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter, 2008; British armored vehicles on patrol in Basra, 2008; destroyed headquarters of the Ba'ath Party in Baghdad, 2003
Location {{{place}}}

American Civil War
Battle of Gettysburg Battle of Franklin US Horse Artillery Brigade officers Battle of Antietam A Harvest of Death Ironclad USS Atlanta
Location {{{place}}}

War of 1812
Clockwise from top: Damage to the United States Capitol after the burning of Washington Mortally wounded Isaac Brock spurs on the York Volunteers at the Battle of Queenston Heights USS Constitution vs HMS Guerriere The death of Tecumseh in 1813 Andrew Jackson defeats the British assault on New Orleans in 1815
Location {{{place}}}

American Revolutionary War
Part of the American Revolution, the Anglo-French War (1778–1783), the Anglo-Spanish War (1779–1783), and the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War
Clockwise from top left: Surrender of Lord Cornwallis after the siege of Yorktown, Battle of Trenton, The Death of General Warren at the Battle of Bunker Hill, Battle of Long Island, and the Battle of Guilford Court House
Location {{{place}}}

The "case in support" makes the case why collages aren't necessary. What is the case why they should be forbidden? Levivich (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I see that the "case in support" makes the case why collages should not be used (ie should be forbidden). Cinderella157 (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Almost everything you have said indicates that there is (or at least that you perceive there to be) a problem with some specific collages. You have not explained why this means that all collages are inherently problematic? Thryduulf (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

All collages (all that I have observed and that is substantial) fail on multiple points of P&G as listed in the case and that makes them inherently problematic. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the above here. I certainly agree that collages are being overused and that some of them use more pictures than needed, but when used in the correct way I think collages are helpful as they give an illustration of the many different facets of war. Also, for some major conflicts with multiple parties involved, I'm not sure there is a good WP:NPOV way of choosing a single image to represent the whole thing. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 01:09, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I would observe that the purpose of the LEADIMAGE is not to write a photo essay about the many different aspects of a conflict. A good [single] image is one that is commonly used in reliable sources (perhaps as cover art) and therefore, commonly associated with the topic. We can look at sources written at arms length from the topic. While LEADIMAGE tells us to be aware of NPOV, it is not an insurmountable issue nor is it one that can only be resolved (or should be resolved) by a collage, particularly given the multiple points for not using a collage. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Cinderella157 (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that the policies and guidelines quoted above are being stretched past the breaking point. For example: "Wikipedia is not an image repository." Fine, but irrelevant. These images are being stored on Commons, which is an image repository. And the start of that point says the prohibition is on pages that have "Photographs or media files with no accompanying text". As soon as you add a caption or other "accompanying text", you've complied with that point in the policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

NOTREPOSITORY appears in a quote from WP:GALLERY: Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery [or collage] is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article. GALLERY and COLLAGE are closely related (at COLLAGE: Galleries are an alternative way of displaying multiple images). The point being, neither should be used to shoehorn images, either into the body of the article or the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about WP:GALLERY. I was quoting from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

I see that you've added "[or collage]" in brackets, because those words don't actually appear in WP:GALLERY. That section probably shouldn't talk about whether Wikipedia is an image repository. Flickr is an image repository. Commons is an image repository. A <gallery> in a Wikipedia article is not an image repository. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

And I was quoting from GALLERY. I am not quoting from NOTAREPSITORY, so implying that I am would be a misrepresentation. Also, I explain why I have added "[collage]". As both are a means of introducing a block of images into an article, the considerations for using either should be similar - particularly on this point. Incidentally, <gallery> could be used in an infobox to render a collage similar to using {{multi image}}. Arguably, the link to NOTREPOSITORY is out of place but the phrase is not an image repository is fitting in that sentence and made clear by what follows in that paragraph - the purpose of the gallery or collage should be clear and central and not just a collection of images on the article subject. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

the purpose of the gallery or collage should be clear and central and not just a collection of images on the article subject indeed, but it is possible for a collage of images in an infobox to have a clear and central purpose. It doesn't support your contention that collages are incompatible with policies and guidelines. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I did not say that it was impossible. While editors may have a rationale in selecting collage images, in practice, generally they lack any clear and central purpose. Rather, they usually present as a somewhat random collection that are only broadly related to the conflict. Often, they are only identifiable as relating to the conflict because a caption tells us so - not because the images are recognisable by the reader (eg this image used here could be from any number of conflicts). Even, in the rare case that a clear and central purpose is evident to the reader, collages will fail on one or more other points identified in the case. Would you have a counter proposal that address the problems identified? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

The resolution to the issues you describe is to simply discuss the image selection on the talk page of the article concerned. Thryduulf (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Comments

• Oppose. I see no reason for this to be a blanket guideline. The decision on the infobox image should be made on an article by article basis, and if a collage happens to be the best choice for a particular article, so be it. Editors at a particular article should discuss what lead image(s) best represent that article subject, and we should not overrule their judgment by blanket fiat. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  The case presented shows that these are contrary to P&G at multiple points. This is not a new guideline but an acknowledgement of the existing pertinent P&G in which WP:CONLEVEL applies. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, and if editors responding to this RFC form a consensus that those policies and guidelines aren't quite so contrary, or as pertinent as claimed, or that they should be ignored, then we'll have a full-on, documented community-wide consensus for using collages in this infobox. So thanks for starting this RFC: It's the best way to make sure that the community's current practice is what the community actually wants. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sometimes a single image could introduce bias, but a collage can provide a balanced variety information. Or, to put it another way: What single image from World War II could be representative of the global war? Do you pick an image about Germany, and leave out Japan? Do you pick an image about the atomic bombs, and leave out the death camps? Editors should be free to decide. And if they initially decide too many, then they should be encouraged to discuss the advantages of having fewer images. One rule of thumb might be: World War II has six images, and any war less complex and consequential than it should probably have fewer images. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Neutral Collages are generally not the best solution, especially as more and more images are added. You end up with a blur where no particular image stands out, kind of like banner blindness on talk pages. Rather than communicating what is important you create visual noise that gets ignored. I wouldn't support a blanket ban, but a preference for a single or lower image count collage would be a good idea. The image currently used for Algerian War is terrible. It fails to convey anything meaningful, while at the same time being visually cluttered to the point it could be an accessibility issue for readers with bad eyesight. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I can agree that some collages have too many images, that is completely different to saying that all collages are inherently contrary to policies and guidelines - a claim that is not backed up with any relevant evidence and is thoroughly unconvincing on even its own terms. Even if it is true that most conflicts are best summed up with a single image (something I'm neutral on), most is not all. Thryduulf (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose - I can back an update to our guidelines that says collages can be problematic (stating the issues) and their composition and use should be carefully considered but not an outright 'ban'. I don't see that any of the MoS quoted prevents us using them and where articles cross over into other projects, we would be imposing our position on them. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons I stated above, although I'd like to make it clear I do think there is some wisdom in this proposal as it is common to see infoboxes that use multiple images not because there is no good way to neutrally represent a conflict with just one image but rather because they simply feel like doing it, a practice that I'm opposed to. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 09:54, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. I really don't see the problem here. Sure, collages should be large enough that readers can see them, but we shouldn't be making major editorial decisions based on minor details of the MOS, such as the fact that "image" is written in the singular rather than the plural form. Other arguments listed are also flawed: "Clicking on the small images within a collage in order to see detail is an inherent distraction for the reader. Such collages are not a net benefit to our readers." – No, in fact, I recall WMF research that readers really like images and often click through the images rather than actually reading the article. I disagree with the unsupported assertion that collages are not a net benefit to readers. #4 reads like an argument for excluding all images from Wikipedia, which would be ridiculous. #5 is entirely a matter of opinion. I disagree that collages illustrating multiple aspects of an event violate WP:COLLAGE, which has been extrapolated far beyond its intended meaning here. For instance, WP:COLLAGE says nothing of component images being "closely related" –  it actually says that the concepts they illustrate must be closely related, which is not an issue when all images are illustrating aspects of a single conflict. On #6, I fail to see how the "relevant aspect" of images of military conflicts are not "clear and central". Even in the Algerian War collage selected as an example, all images are obviously of the war or of closely related political developments, with the caption explaining each one in greater detail. Toadspike [Talk] 11:45, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  Would you be referring to this WMF research?[6] Cinderella157 (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose reasoning is flawed, either through excessively-pedantic readings (the guideline mentions a singular noun! any instance of the plural must be BAD BAD BAD!) or just simple misrepresentation (e.g. "A gallery [or collage] is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article." is quoted but its actual obvious concern is just ignored). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose - like others, I don't see what problem collages in infoboxes are causing that would suggest they should be deprecated. A single image is preferred, as the policies and guidelines basically say, but for some articles, a single image isn't the right choice and multiple images are better, and I think it's ok to let editors make that decision on an article by article basis. Levivich (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose - We already had this exact conversation on the talk page at 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine and at the Russia-Ukraine war article where I and others tried to talk you out of this bizarre point of view. It simply isn't true that collages - which we've had uncontroversially for decades - are somehow against our PAGs and that you as a super-sleuth have somehow found the key to their wrongness. It's just strange seeing you repeat this point about WP:COLLAGE requiring that these pictures only be used when necessary when this position was universally rejected when you discussed it before.

We literally discussed the World War II collage before. Did you just ignore that? or do you really think it's possible to find a single image that could sum that conflict up? FOARP (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose the case that they should be deprecated has not been made. Are they necessary in many cases? Probably not. But that is a different question. In some cases they are a series of iconic photographs of a conflict. The Bosnian War one is ok, for example. I would use a few different images, but I see no reason to deprecate them. Also per GraemeLeggett on guidance. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:28, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• Moral support but I don't agree with a lot of what the RFC proposer wrote, and I suspect a few carve-outs for cases like World War II are inevitable. There is one and only one reason here: the first one listed, INFOBOXPURPOSE. That's it. The Infobox is not for cramming in absolutely every detail, and this requires discipline about trimming to exactly what's necessary. More generally, while images are great, postage-stamp sized images are substantially less useful. The Algerian War example is a case where the collage's images are too small - the value of an image is dimmed when they're all tiny. Even if we accept it had to be collage, we could top out at, say, four representative images. I suspect the issue is that for famous cases like World War II, where picking one image would be seen as prejudicial or not covering the full scope of a truly gigantic topic, the case for a collage improves, but this should be the rare exception, not the rule. And more generally I disagree with the slant that criticizes lots of images as "photo essays", which is not what our Gallery guidance says. If anything, we should be aggressively including more and larger pictures, as every web study you read will say that browsers love, love, love pictures. It's just that the Infobox is not the right place for them. If an editor wants to include galleries, that can absolutely have a place in the article and should be included, just elsewhere and with the individual images large enough to be legible. SnowFire (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

'Support" because of Image Browsing coming this month.Moxy🍁 12:42, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@Moxy I don't understand the connection between image browsing coming for some mobile app users and this proposal? Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

We simply dont need image after image after image in the lead before people even see prose text. Moxy🍁 12:58, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

But why does that require banning all collages, of all sizes, in all circumstances? Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

1) The link on Image Browsing gives instructions on how to restrict it in articles. 2) we could create single images in infoboxes by editing together multiple images which would also prevent the perceived problem. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Isn't this problem solved simply by making the collage a single image file? Levivich (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Bazza 7 [7] has reasonably argued that having a block caption for a collage creates an accessibility issue. In a collage saved as a single image file, this cannot be remedied. Furthermore, some have argued that the issue of size (lack of visual acuity) is overcome by clicking on the image. This is largely negated using a collage that is a single image file. While the component images in the single image collage might be slightly larger when viewing the collage file compared with the infobox, they will still be significantly smaller than viewing the image files of the comonent images. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Vietnam War
Part of Eek's counterexample of a good collage
American Huey helicopters inserting South Vietnamese ARVN troops, 1970 North Vietnamese PAVN troops in action, c. 1966 Burial of civilians killed in the Huế massacre, 1968 American marines using a flamethrower, 1967 US Navy A-4 Skyhawk on a bombing run, 1966 Saigon Execution: South Vietnamese general Nguyễn Ngọc Loan summarily executes Viet Cong captain Lê Công Nà during the Tet Offensive, 1968
Location {{{place}}}

• Somewhat support per SnowFire - this should usually be the case, although occasional carveouts may be needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
• Strong support per this well-argued nom. Not against individual exceptions,, like WW2, but thyere an awful lot of collages (purely because some editors enjoy making them, rarely contributing anything else to the article) and generally deprecating them would save a vast amount of arguing time. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree that the collage shown at the start of the RFC is excessive, but that doesn't mean we need to ban them outright. There are a number of conflicts (most conflicts to be honest) where a single image just isn't enough. Jessintime (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I agree that the example presented at the beginning contains too many images, I think many military conflicts benefit from multiple images to illustrate them. Unlike articles on individual things, companies, or people, there's often not one good image to illustrate the entirety of a military conflict. There are certainly cases where we can use fewer images, but entirely banning collages seems overkill to me. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs|in solidarity}} 10:24, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia's use of visual aids is quite primitive and this can be quite offputting to the general public which doesn't like walls of text. We should be encouraging experimentation with better support for video, animations, slideshows, graphs, maps, 3D and more. Collages are just a way of posting multiple still images and so are not at all problematic. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Clicking on the small images within a collage in order to see detail is an inherent distraction for the reader." What? Should we just delink all images in future, so that no-one can see them in better detail? Ranger Steve ^Talk 07:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support mostly because collages can make the infoboxes unreadable while using mobile devices, if readers only use desktop mode then there wouldn't be a problem. It can hog the entire presented screen and may create confusion. The rest of the images can be scattered in the different sections in the article. If consensus would decide to keep the collages maybe the collage should be limited to one image for each side (the main sides) of the conflict. Happypenguins82 (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Collages, when done right, are a great asset to Wikipedia. I had basically this same discussion with Cinderella at a recent GA nom Talk:Second_Italo-Ethiopian_War#GA_nomination. Now, I agree that single image collages are bad, and those should be discouraged, because if one image is out of date or problematic, its a real pain to replace. But multi-image collages are pretty standard and pretty easy to make look very good. See Vietnam War or American Civil War. There is an art to making good collages. I spent quite a lot of time on picking the images for Vietnam war and creating pithy captions (which I have excerpted on the right/above). How could you possibly choose just one of those to represent the entire 20 year conflict? Mechanical rules can't possibly capture the multi-dimensionality of these conflicts. Collages aren't for every military article, but they are for most larger conflicts. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:26, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Please see this edit in response [8]. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

This has been open sufficient time to judge a rough consensus, which looks to me to be for not deprecating collages in infoboxes, although there is some support for some additional guidance on collages in infoboxes. I don't think there is a need for a formal close, and it can just be archived in the normal course of events. If someone wants to advocate for additional guidance, the appropriate place for that is WP:VPPOL. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:04, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• Carousel We should note the launch of the Image Carousel feature which provides a collage-like display of multiple article images as standard at the top of articles. This is just in the mobile view but that's what most readers use. The WMF seems quite keen to encourage the use and display of images across the board and so this project discussion seems too parochial. Discussion and development of the carousel will be continuing and that seems the best place to consider collages too. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:02, 28 June 2026 (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.