→Hon Suffix: forgot this |
Srich32977 (talk | contribs) →Service number parameter: new section |
||
Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
Are there any current examples or best practices for the (years of) Service field when you know when a person's career started or ended but not both? I could do something like "????-1945" or "Unknown-1945," but they look unprofessional. "-1945" looks odd. Or I could make an educated guess "193?-1945." We do things like that in the library field sometimes, when we're pretty sure something started in the 30s. --[[User:BDD|BDD]] ([[User talk:BDD|talk]]) 20:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC) |
Are there any current examples or best practices for the (years of) Service field when you know when a person's career started or ended but not both? I could do something like "????-1945" or "Unknown-1945," but they look unprofessional. "-1945" looks odd. Or I could make an educated guess "193?-1945." We do things like that in the library field sometimes, when we're pretty sure something started in the 30s. --[[User:BDD|BDD]] ([[User talk:BDD|talk]]) 20:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
== Service number parameter == |
|||
A few years ago there was a short discussion about including the service number in the infobox: [[Template_talk:Infobox_military_person/Archive_1#Service_number]]. Out of a concern for identity theft, I've looked at how many service numbers show up in articles. For the most part they are not posted in infoboxes, but can be found in the text. By far they are only included in British & Austrialian military articles. (They can be found because the ''London Gazette'' published them and the Austrialian archives uses them for locating records.) The other area where we find them is in Wafen SS articles. But as history moves along, I think we will have less and less disclosure of them. While FOIA might release them as part of records disclosure, I would not be surprised if the records centers starts (or is) redacting them out of privacy and ID theft concerns. In doing an internal search for "service number", I came up with 452 hits. Many, many of these hits have nothing to do with individuals. |
|||
So what is my point? I think removing the service number parameter from the infobox is wise. It is a seldom used line. The actual data (with RS) can be, and is for the most part, posted as part of the article text. Thus, people who wish to use the number for other, legitimate purposes have them available. Other than for use in searching outside of WP, it has very little usefulness. – [[User:Srich32977|S. Rich]] ([[User talk:Srich32977|talk]]) 17:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:18, 21 February 2013
![]() | Military history Template‑class ![]() | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Signature size
Could we replace the fixed size of 100px in the signature line with {{px|{{{signature_size|}}}|100px}} which adds control over the sizing?
I'm attempting to help a user solve a problem here where they can't get a decent magnification. I noticed that Template:Infobox person has the signature size parameter which was omitted in this infobox. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Done --slakr\ talk / 01:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- A late thank you. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- A late thank you. :)
Honorific
The third line of the parameter explanation reads "honorific_prefix – post-nominal honours such as "OBE"". It should be honorifix suffix right? Redyka94 (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think so. You can edit the doc page yourself though. No need for an EditProtected request. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Not protected Happy‑melon 16:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Image clutter
I noticed some uses of this template include images in some parameter fields, for example for rank and nationality. I feel this is unnecessary clutter : if we wish to give the reader more information, words are superior. The template documentation makes no mention one way or another on the subject, but I wonder if we should at least advise against images in fields which add nothing new? For example, I have already removed a rank image here before noticing there are several articles using such images in the infobox: Eberhard Heder, Otto Günsche and Henry H. Arnold. -84user (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Update: there has been previous discussion on icons in infoboxes here in 2009 and here in 2011. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Biographical use has "Flags are discouraged in the individual infoboxes of biographical articles", and while I can see some use for icons in tables, I feel they clutter up infoboxes. -84user (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- There is also some more detailed guidance here which is useful. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Spouse
Why do we exclude the field "spouse" from military infoboxes but have it in every other biographical infobox? Does this have something to do with Don't ask, don't tell? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- I was just prepared to ask the same question. It deserves an answer! My thoughts are that a military sponsor would desire the affiliation of his spouse in summarizing his comprise. The spouse is very integral to the soldiers ability to accomplish the mission. If political correctness has deemed this field inappropriate, it is undoubtedly political incorrectness, IMO. --My76Strat (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- I doubt it has anything to do with the political opinions. I would think it has more to do with the infobox's focus on the career of the subject. While I respect military spouses a great deal, I never felt that I performed my job to any lesser degree than my colleagues who were married. (Beginning to digress here, but-) Actually, I felt I had to work harder, because they were able to get out of duty more often, and those in the chain of command (most of whom were also married), gave special considerations to married personnel. (Back on track-) Basically, I'm not strongly for or against the inclusion of spouse in the infobox at the moment, but I don't think we should be pointing at phantom boogeymen (i.e. political or social climate). Boneyard90 (talk) 08:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- As with other generic parameters, we should have one standard for Wikipedia, not one for one infobox and another for a different infobox. The notable spouse of a military person is no less significant than the notable spouse of, say, a politician, artist or writer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)There was some liberty taken above; like hyperbole. My statement was not meant as a comparison to single soldiers. Without even considering who got over on who, I stand by my assertion that a married soldier would want their spouse credited as a significant part of his self, especially one with a long career. Soldiers like H. Norman Schwarzkopf for example. In resolving the edit conflict, I find Andy Mabbett sums it well; accurately. --My76Strat (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Now I think you are pushing the current cultural climate. You're probably right, Gen. Schwartkopf probably gives great credit to his wife in his autobiography (been a while since I read it), but can you imagine the backlash if he claimed the opposite? "My wife? She's great, but she didn't really help with my career at all. It was all me." - That would not have gone over well. On the other hand, how much credit did/would Julius Caesar give to his wifeCalpurnia for his victories in Gaul? I'm thinking "little to none". If consensus is that we should add the spouse, let's not delude ourselves into believing everyone in history thinks as 21st century Westerners; and just because other infoboxes have that feature, I don't think conformity is the best justification, either. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)There was some liberty taken above; like hyperbole. My statement was not meant as a comparison to single soldiers. Without even considering who got over on who, I stand by my assertion that a married soldier would want their spouse credited as a significant part of his self, especially one with a long career. Soldiers like H. Norman Schwarzkopf for example. In resolving the edit conflict, I find Andy Mabbett sums it well; accurately. --My76Strat (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The question is not "did the spouse contribute to the person's career" but "do we have an article about their spouse". If a military person is married to, say, a notable author, politician, scientist or singer, about whom we have an article, that should go in the infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I can concur that that's an adequate reason. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I've added the spouse= parameter, using the syntax from {{infobox person}}. Please test it out and let me know if anything doesn't work as expected. Kirill [talk] 01:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you Kirill Lokshin. The parameter is functional and an improvement to the template as well, IMO. --My76Strat (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Hon Suffix
When putting data into this field, the template makes the persons name smaller and the suffix in a bigger size font - can someone have a look at why this happens? Gbawden (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- For an example of this see James Upton Gbawden (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is discussed above; we're awaiting a bot to enable a fix. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think this needs a bot fix. The trick is to not set the font size in the template's
| above=
parameter. Currently the prefix and suffix font is set to<span class="honorific prefix" style="font-size: small">
but to match the font size of the name it should not have any style at all. See this sandbox version and the related testcase. De728631 (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think this needs a bot fix. The trick is to not set the font size in the template's
- This is discussed above; we're awaiting a bot to enable a fix. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Service field
Are there any current examples or best practices for the (years of) Service field when you know when a person's career started or ended but not both? I could do something like "????-1945" or "Unknown-1945," but they look unprofessional. "-1945" looks odd. Or I could make an educated guess "193?-1945." We do things like that in the library field sometimes, when we're pretty sure something started in the 30s. --BDD (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Service number parameter
A few years ago there was a short discussion about including the service number in the infobox: Template_talk:Infobox_military_person/Archive_1#Service_number. Out of a concern for identity theft, I've looked at how many service numbers show up in articles. For the most part they are not posted in infoboxes, but can be found in the text. By far they are only included in British & Austrialian military articles. (They can be found because the London Gazette published them and the Austrialian archives uses them for locating records.) The other area where we find them is in Wafen SS articles. But as history moves along, I think we will have less and less disclosure of them. While FOIA might release them as part of records disclosure, I would not be surprised if the records centers starts (or is) redacting them out of privacy and ID theft concerns. In doing an internal search for "service number", I came up with 452 hits. Many, many of these hits have nothing to do with individuals. So what is my point? I think removing the service number parameter from the infobox is wise. It is a seldom used line. The actual data (with RS) can be, and is for the most part, posted as part of the article text. Thus, people who wish to use the number for other, legitimate purposes have them available. Other than for use in searching outside of WP, it has very little usefulness. – S. Rich (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)