→How to deal with noble mil persons?: new section |
→Edit request on 28 May 2013: new section |
||
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
Many bios I write are of noble milpersons (ex. [[Tadeusz Kosciuszko]]). If I use mil person infobox, it doesn't have parameters for certain fields that the noble one ([[:Template:Infobox noble]]) does, and that I consider relatively core for Polish noble bios (per MoS from pl wiki), namely family (ex. [[Kosciuszko family]]) and the place to name and show the picture of the coat of arms (compare the infobox at [[:pl:Tadeusz Kościuszko]]). Can we add the family and coa fields to mil infobox? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</font>]]</sub> 06:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC) |
Many bios I write are of noble milpersons (ex. [[Tadeusz Kosciuszko]]). If I use mil person infobox, it doesn't have parameters for certain fields that the noble one ([[:Template:Infobox noble]]) does, and that I consider relatively core for Polish noble bios (per MoS from pl wiki), namely family (ex. [[Kosciuszko family]]) and the place to name and show the picture of the coat of arms (compare the infobox at [[:pl:Tadeusz Kościuszko]]). Can we add the family and coa fields to mil infobox? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</font>]]</sub> 06:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC) |
||
== Edit request on 28 May 2013 == |
|||
{{edit protected|answered=no}} |
|||
<!-- Begin request --> |
|||
please change |
|||
<pre> |
|||
| title = {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{embed}}}}}|yes|Military career}} |
|||
</pre> |
|||
to |
|||
<pre> |
|||
| title = {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{embed}}}}}|yes|'''Military career'''}} |
|||
| decat = yes <!-- remove from template:infobox tracking categories --> |
|||
</pre> |
|||
which will restore the missing bolding when this template is embedded, and will remove it from [[:Category:Articles which use embedded infobox templates with the title parameter]] which is being used to find and fix such issues after the latest change to [[template:infobox]]. |
|||
<!-- End request --> |
|||
[[User:Frietjes|Frietjes]] ([[User talk:Frietjes|talk]]) 19:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:45, 28 May 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. |
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 have now adjusted the prefix and suffix font size to equal that of the name. De728631 (talk) 20:35, 21 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)
- Oppose removal - I dont really see what the issue is the service number is handy for doing searches on individual records and in most cases it not something that doesnt regular occur in the article body itself apart from medal citations. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I am pleasantly surprised to see such a quick response. Thank you. I have posted invitations for other editors to comment here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Infoboxes#Discussion_re_service_numbers_in_militaryperson_infoboxes and here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Discussion_re_service_numbers_in_militaryperson_infoboxes – S. Rich (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Milborne, I don't quite understand your comment. (The double negatives are perplexing to me.) In my perusal of the search results it was very rare that the service number showed up in the infobox. When they did, the info was in the article text. My point is that we can dispense with this little used parameter. I think privacy concerns in BLPs and ID theft concerns overall outweigh its usefulness. (Let's see what results I get from my invitation. And if we don't get responses, I will drop my proposal.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK two points, I cant see the connection between ID theft (or even BLP) and a service number, I can only speak for the UK but knowing a service number is unlikely to be any good for anything except searching the london gazette, it is not used on paperwork outside the service. I also cant see why removing it from the infobox and not the article makes much sense either. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose, for all the reasons given above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- From the U.S. perspective, the concern about ID theft in regards to a military BLP article, is that if a U.S. service members service number is posted, it is identical to their Social Security number, which can be used in ID theft. For older service members, prior to 1974, there use to be service numbers, however after 1974 the SS# has been in use.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- As for FOIA documents, the SS# of the service member (if done properly) is redacted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- I appreciate the comments. FYI, my service number pre-dates 1974 by some years, but it is my SSN. Regarding the template, my concern is that ID thieves do not need an additional piece of the puzzle, however small, to accomplish their objectives. – S. Rich (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Then add a note to the documentation that SNs should not be given for living US servicepeople, per WP:BLP (that could be hard-coded if required). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- My concern is two-fold. 1. ID theft of living persons, and 2. creating fake IDs, as in using data from dead people to reconstruct a personal history. I'll add a caveat to the parameters about only using data from secondary & teritary sources. They are less problematic than using data obtained directly from services via FOIA requests, etc. Thank you all for the comments. If anyone considers the discussion as closed, please feel free to template it as such. – S. Rich (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- We have a duty of care to living people. We have no duty to censor useful information about dead people, which can be found elsewhere by legitimate means, in order to prevent hypothetical bad people from doing something wrong with it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- My concern is two-fold. 1. ID theft of living persons, and 2. creating fake IDs, as in using data from dead people to reconstruct a personal history. I'll add a caveat to the parameters about only using data from secondary & teritary sources. They are less problematic than using data obtained directly from services via FOIA requests, etc. Thank you all for the comments. If anyone considers the discussion as closed, please feel free to template it as such. – S. Rich (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The question of revealing SSNs on dead people is evolving. Until recently there were resources where you could look up dead people and find their SSNs. (Like the SSN Death Index.) But that resource isn't as accessible. (At least I'm not paying them for the info.) These resources were valuable to confirm that persons with particular SSNs were or were not dead. E.g., you could check the SSN that someone had given to you and verify that it wasn't fake. The analogy – admittedly thin – is that we are protecting living people from those who might mine our data for fraudulent proposes. In any event I've added WP:PRIMARY source caveats to the template. Thanks again for your comments. They've been very helpful to me in sorting this out. – S. Rich (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Awards vs Decorations
I suggested at Audie Murphy site info box (and other military info boxes like this) to replace "Awards" with "Decorations" because that's what's listed in these kind of boxes (awards not decorations are not listed). YahwehSaves (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
How to deal with noble mil persons?
Many bios I write are of noble milpersons (ex. Tadeusz Kosciuszko). If I use mil person infobox, it doesn't have parameters for certain fields that the noble one (Template:Infobox noble) does, and that I consider relatively core for Polish noble bios (per MoS from pl wiki), namely family (ex. Kosciuszko family) and the place to name and show the picture of the coat of arms (compare the infobox at pl:Tadeusz Kościuszko). Can we add the family and coa fields to mil infobox? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 28 May 2013
please change
| title = {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{embed}}}}}|yes|Military career}}
to
| title = {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{embed}}}}}|yes|'''Military career'''}} | decat = yes <!-- remove from template:infobox tracking categories -->
which will restore the missing bolding when this template is embedded, and will remove it from Category:Articles which use embedded infobox templates with the title parameter which is being used to find and fix such issues after the latest change to template:infobox. Frietjes (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)