Kirill Lokshin (talk | contribs) |
→Born and died fields broken: new section |
||
Line 275: | Line 275: | ||
:There's no real firm rule; for many people, listing the Cold War is probably more useful to the reader than not doing so. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] 18:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC) |
:There's no real firm rule; for many people, listing the Cold War is probably more useful to the reader than not doing so. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] 18:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Born and died fields broken == |
|||
The born and died fields do not show in the infobox— see the template example. --<i><b>— [[User:Gadget850|<font color = "gray">Gadget850 (Ed)</font>]]<font color = "darkblue"> <sup>[[User talk:Gadget850|''talk'']]</sup></font></b> - </i> 13:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:42, 9 March 2008
![]() | Military history Template‑class ![]() | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Organization
Is it possible to change "Organization" to another word? In Commonwealth English this is spelled "organisation", so it'll look out of place on bios written in CwE. I don't know much about how these infoboxes work I'm afraid, maybe the template can be changed individually? I don't really like the organisation idea anyway, what do we put for Montgomery for example? During WWII he was in command of a division, an army and an army group in major actions. It seems to be very well suited to the example case but less so for senior figures but a vast improvement over the Infobox Biography, though. Leithp 08:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
"Awards" might also be better renamed "Decorations". Leithp 08:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Easy enough to change. Keep in mind, though, that this template has only been around for a few hours; I expect it will change significantly between now and the final version adopted ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 11:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- "Organization" could become "Commands" or "Notable Commands" --Loopy e 00:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Not all of these are officers, though; we have piles of VC recipients that died corporals. Maybe separate fields for officers and enlisted ranks? —Kirill Lokshin 00:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps "Unit", "Military Unit" or even "Served in" would work better? Or maybe just for enlisted men, leaving "Notable Commands" for officers. For Monty, both British Eighth Army and British 21st Army Group would be "Notable Commands", while Alfred Henry Hook would get Served in: 24th Regiment of Foot. --Habap 23:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- I like the idea of "Notable Commands" for officers and "Served in" for other ranks. --Loopy e 00:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've added a "Notable commands" field and renamed "Organization" to "Unit". I've also collapsed the various ranks into a single "Rank" field. Hopefully this will be somewhat more flexible. Any other ideas? How do we want to format multiple ranks/units/commands? —Kirill Lokshin 01:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of having both fields. To take another British general as an example, Michael Carver, I would use the "notable commands" field for time as Chief of the General Staff and the "served in" field for his role as an officer in the British 7th Armoured Division during WW2. I'm sure this is true for many officers who saw active service early in their careers before later rising through the ranks. Leithp 15:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Fields to add
Let's consider a few widely different people and see what needs to be added to make the box work for them; for instance (unless someone has any better ideas) Hannibal, Carmagnola, Jean Lannes , Robert E. Lee, and Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr..
Some initial observations:
- Some may serve multiple countries, and hold different ranks in each country.
- Some may be commanders but have no formal rank.
- Some may be part of a complex chain of command.
Any ideas? —Kirill Lokshin
- For ranks in multiple countries perhaps it could just be up to the editor to do something like this:
Infobox military person | |
---|---|
Rank | Coronel (1937 - Spanish Army) Lieutenant Colonel (1940 - French Army) Admiral (1947 - Royal Navy) |
- Nice! We probably need a separate country field for rankless commanders, though. —Kirill Lokshin 00:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- For rankless commanders the rank field could be ignored all together and what they commanded be shown in what is currently the "organization" field, or perhaps a "comparative rank" field or similar? --Loopy e 00:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think we should go the simple route and change the attribute name to Rank(s). If they didn't have an official rank we can just say N/A. Oberiko 02:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Or just leave it blank. Would we want a separate "Country" (or "Allegiance") field beyond that, though? —Kirill Lokshin 02:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Entered Service?
What's the point of the entered service field, I'm not sure I see the relevance. Also wouldn't a "major actions" type field be beneficial? Leithp 10:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've removed the entered service field and added "notable battles" and "allegiance" ones. Anything else we need? —Kirill Lokshin 16:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Percival
Per Kirill's suggestion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Arthur Ernest Percival/archive1 I've replaced the infobox biography there with this one. My first impressions are that it's very big and could do with a little trimming. Leithp 20:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Some of the parameters can be omitted if they're not particularly important; the "later work" section seems like a good place to start. Also, reducing the picture width can shorten the box considerably. —Kirill Lokshin 20:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Slim
If anyone is looking for another example of this box "in action", I've just added it to William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim. Leithp 22:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
And there is now a discussion on the talk page of that article as to whether it is appropriate. Anyone who's interested please participate, as I suggest this discussion is going to happen again and again for any military person who has had a significant other career. In this case it's Governor General of Australia. Leithp 09:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Trimming some fields
Would anyone object to removing the "family" and "currentlyresides" fields? They're not particularly useful in most cases, and would be better mentioned in the article text rather than in the infobox. —Kirill Lokshin 16:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea. Leithp 16:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Finished?
I think this is about ready to roll out, isn't it? Leithp 20:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think so; it's beginning to come into use, and there haven't been many complaints. I'm sure we'll have further ideas for improvements at some point, but I'd say we're done for the immediate future. —Kirill Lokshin 21:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Just come by this template and think it looks great. Have taken the liberty of trimming the basic font-size used to 95% in order to reduce chances of otherwise unseemly line-wrapping; hope that's okay. Suggest that "Later work" reworded as "Other work", as in at least one instance (Hjalmar Riiser-Larsen) it's not necessarily later than (i.e. after) the person's military service. Best wishes, David Kernow 01:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- The line wrapping is going to sometimes be ugly either way (see, for example, John Abizaid; reducing it in the left column causes more in the right). —Kirill Lokshin 01:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. How about the "Later work" → "Other work" field? I could start working through those articles that use it. Regards, David Kernow 12:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- If we do that, we can just change the label in the template. Changing the actual field name isn't worth the effort, in my opinion. —Kirill Lokshin 15:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay; have just made change. Best wishes, David Kernow 00:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Alt text for images
- "The image must be given in the form [[Image:Example.jpg|300px]]; ..."
It's good practice to include a description of an image, even if a caption isn't needed: [[Image:Example.jpg|300px|MajGen John Q. Example USMC, Burma, 1944]].
—wwoods 10:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, yes (although a caption should generaly be used here); the main point was that thumb or right or other image tags break the template. Kirill Lokshin 12:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Portrayed by?
I just don't think it's notable enough to name actors in the infobox. Space in the infobox should be premium, only important stuff should make it in. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think that was in the original version somebody created; it's never really been discussed. If nobody drops by with serious objections, we can probably remove it. Kirill Lokshin 01:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've only used it once, on Brian Horrocks, and the actor is mentioned in the article anyway. It really doesn't need to be in the infobox. Leithp 10:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and removed it. If anyone has any convincing arguments for leaving it in, I'm sure they'll drop by shortly ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Would this cause trouble with existing boxes with the field filled in? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- No; that field will just disappear. Kirill Lokshin 00:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- OK, that's good. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Problems?
Some of the sections don't work. See Eugene Roe for example. There's information about his nickname, where he lived, etc., but it doesn't seem to show up on the actual page. Morhange 20:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strange, I see all of the fields on the page. Have you tried clearing your cache? Kirill Lokshin 20:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Nicknames
Hi everyone. I have a question regarding nicknames: I see that there is a field for them in the template but is there consensus on whether or not these are too trivial for an encyclopedia? At the Adolf Galland page for example there is some disagreement about whether or not his nickname should be included. As you can see from the page history, and my talk page, I think they should be included.Mumby 14:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Broadly speaking, I can't see any reason why a nickname that can be found in reliable historical sources couldn't be legitimately included. Kirill Lokshin 15:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Allegiance and Military Branch
I certainly think that the Allegiance field is worthwhile and that many articles use it as directed on Template:Infobox Military Person. However, some articles replace they country with a military service (eg. they use British Army instead of United Kingdom). I have two thoughts about this. First, consistency is important and we're currently lacking it. Second, both national/non-state allegiance and military arm or service are of interest. I suggest that we include a new field called something like "Military Branch" or "Armed Service" which would contain data like: People's Liberation Army, Royal Navy, Israeli Air Force, United States Marine Corps, etc. Greenshed 02:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, wouldn't the branch/service already be indicated (perhaps implicitly) through the unit/command fields, for those cases where it's relevant? Kirill Lokshin 02:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's often, but not always true (eg. multinational and inter-service commands or when personnel are attached to a unit). However I would suggest that the main point of info boxes is to provide quick-to-read summary information and not to leave the reader trying to work out implied details. If I were providing a quick summary of a military person, I think I would (at least in modern warfare) mention their armed service. Greenshed 14:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, fair enough; I've added a
branch=
field to the template that should be suitable for this. Kirill Lokshin 14:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, fair enough; I've added a
- In the US Army at least, "branch" means something like "infantry" or artillery". I suggest "service" instead. I've been putting that into the rank line, e.g.
- "| rank = [[Second Lieutenant]], [[United States Marine Corps|USMCR]]".
- —wwoods 18:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- In the US Army at least, "branch" means something like "infantry" or artillery". I suggest "service" instead. I've been putting that into the rank line, e.g.
- Ah, another one of those messy US/UK things. Could we perhaps get away with something like "Service/branch" as a label for that field (and perhaps suggesting that both be identified if they're different in the relevant country)? Or is that going to be too confusing? Kirill Lokshin 19:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think "Armed Service" would work fine in British English. If that works ok in US English then if there are no objections .... Greenshed 20:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ordering of Allegiance, etc
- I think that the following order makes sense:
- Allegiance
- Branch
- Years of Service
- Rank
- Having Branch down the list, as it is now, does not make logical sense. — ERcheck (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, that makes sense; I've flipped the order of the fields. Kirill Lokshin 20:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Change 'allegiance' to 'nationality' or 'nation of service'
Greetings,
I don't like the below infoboxes because they use the word 'allegiance' which is POV:
Claude Choules March 3, 1901 – Place of birth Pershore, Worcestershire, England Allegiance British
Australian Service/branch Royal Navy Royal Australian Navy Years of service 1916 – 1956 Rank Acting Torpedo Officer, Fremantle Chief Demolition Officer Battles/wars World War I World War II
Note, for example, Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in 'pledging allegiance'. Not only that, but we have persons like William Seegers who only served tepidly/because they had to. Did the current pope give his "alliegance" to Hitler? Would it not be less jingoistic to say 'nation of service.' Note, for example, Lazarre Ponticelli served for France while an Italian citizen. His 'alliegiance' was not to France alone but to the Allies. "Nation of service" would remove the POV/patriotic jingoistic association that is attached to the word "allegiance." Sadly, even the example of the "American" soldier seems to be glorifying war. War might be a necessary evil in some cases but it shouldn't be glorified.
'Nationality' is less POV; it is simply a descriptor.Ryoung122 23:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with that, of course, is that not all military personnel served a "nation". So far, "allegiance" (imperfect though the term is) is the only label we've found that can capture the full range of groups that organized armies.
- (One alternative might be to split the field into national and non-national versions; but I'm not quite sure, off the top of my head, what the logistics involved in that would be.) Kirill 03:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Date of Birth
does anyone other than me think that the dates of birth and death looks kinda ridiculous at the top of the infobox? it really looks like an afterthought. --emerson7 | Talk 20:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is ok that way. It seems to be in line with more traditional print formats.Mumby 08:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
hCard
I wish to add hCard microformat mark-up, as used on {{Infobox Biography}}, using HTML calsses:
- vcard - on whole template)
- fn - on page name
- nickname - on nickname
honorific-prefix could be used on "rank", but only if there is no content other than a prefix.
- Thank you, but
class="vcard"
does not seem to appear in the output. Andy Mabbett 20:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, but
- Ah, it seems MediaWiki is too clever about trimming extra markup; it should work properly now. Kirill Lokshin 21:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that seems to work, now. Thank you again. Please will you now add a subheading, "Microformat", followed by {{UF-hcard-person}} to the documentation? Andy Mabbett 21:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Splendid, thanks. I'll leave you in peace, now ;-) Andy Mabbett 21:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Interwiki
{{editprotected}}
Please add nl:Sjabloon:Infobox militair persoon as an interwiki. SalaSkan 18:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Priority of awards for that paramter?
The template guidelines say:
*awards – optional – any notable awards or decorations the person received.
Is there a threshold for which awards should be listed and which shouldn't? It seems to me that if an individual has say several campaign medals along with others, the more notable ones should take precedence in the infobox, because all the decorations received are likely to be listed anyway on their page. Taking Richard Winters for example, I am wondering if his 5 campaign medals (American Defense Medal thru National Defense Medal) can be left out of the infobox in recognition that the others listed are more notable. --BrokenSphere 03:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would say it's probably more dependent on the total number than anything else. If listing everything doesn't bloat the box too much, that's a reasonable approach; conversely, on the other extreme, someone like Georgy Zhukov is going to have a much higher cutoff point to avoid having the infobox stretch on halfway down the article. I don't think there's necessarily a one-size-fits-all answer that we can give here. Kirill 03:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Interwiki +mk
{{editprotected}}
Can you please add mk:Шаблон:Инфокутија Воено лице? Thank you. INkubusse 01:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Interwiki+bg
{{editprotected}}
On 17 of August I create this template in bulgarian wiki, so I hope anybody of administrators to add bg:Шаблон:Инфокутия Военно лице. Thank you.--Desertus Sagittarius 11:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
"Lived" field
Recently, I was deciding whether to use this infobox or the regular person infobox in an article, which led me to compare the two. One difference is that this infobox uses the "lived" field, while most of the other bio infoboxes use separate birthdate and deathdate fields. Is there some reason you have chosen not to do the same?
This infobox also includes less attention to family than the standard person infobox, but that is true of many of the other specialized bio infoboxes. --Groggy Dice T | C 01:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- The reason for the combined field is that this infobox predates the introductions of parserFunctions; at the time when it was designed, it wasn't possible to deal neatly with placing a combined birth-death range into a single field when the date of death was absent.
- This is no longer an issue, though, so it should be possible to add the normal birth/death fields here. I'll try and do that when I get a chance. Kirill 01:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I've added "born" and "died" parameters to the template; does that work? Kirill 02:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Image size
Is 300px the max? Is there a "preferred" size to specify if the image is larger than that or is it largely individual aesthetics? BrokenSphereMsg me 17:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- 300px is the maximum size for which template stacking will work properly, as well as the conventional size overall. A larger size can only be set if there are no auxiliary templates in the article that need to be stacked with the primary infobox. This particular infobox is usually used without auxiliary templates, so it shouldn't be too big a deal; but it's typically used with vertically-oriented portraits, so I'm not sure why a larger image would be necessary in any case. Kirill 17:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Size isn't a problem. I guess what I'm getting at is whether there's any preference for a portrait size within that parameter at all or it's up to what editors think looks suitable, as people will differ if a 250px size portrait vs. a 200px sized portrait from say 400px original looks better in an infobox. BrokenSphereMsg me 17:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Smaller sizes are perfectly fine. Kirill 17:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Blank copy
My reason for formatting the blank copy was to match the parent {{Infobox Person}}; what transclusions would that break? --Geniac (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- The header is the part that would break transclusions; sorry if that wasn't clear. As far as the formatting is concerned, I think it causes more trouble than it's worth—note, for example, that in the "full syntax" version of Infobox Person, the alignment is broken—and doesn't really improve readability, particularly when the field values wrap onto multiple lines. That particular style of formatting is certainly not a standard; compare all the infoboxes in Category:Military infobox templates. Kirill 20:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I had a look at the transclusions and understand how the header would mess them up. However, I'm not sure what you mean with the "full syntax" version of Infobox Person. Do you mean the "Blank template with all parameters" or the Bill Gates example? What part of it's alignment is broken? Do you mean with the resting_place_coordinates field? --Geniac (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, that's what I meant. Kirill 14:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
listing the Cold War as a conflict the subject participated in?
Edward L. Beach, Jr. lists this, but I'm wondering if there are any guidelines to list it or not, or should that parameter only be reserved for "hot" wars. --BrokenSphereMsg me 17:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- There's no real firm rule; for many people, listing the Cold War is probably more useful to the reader than not doing so. Kirill 18:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Born and died fields broken
The born and died fields do not show in the infobox— see the template example. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)