→Usage of honorifics parameters: Agree with Abraham, B.S. and Dormskirk |
|||
Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
::The inclusion of honourifics in [[:Template:Infobox office holder]] may be relatively common, but it is not at all standard for [[:Template:Infobox military person]] and should not have been added to the code. The latter was not intended to include honourifics like postnominals and doing so serves to clutter the small space, which in my view gives rise to accessibility issues. My main argument against including honourifics in Infobox military person, however, is that of duplication. The postnominals are already recorded next to the name in the lead, and the list of honours included in the infobox (not to mention prose and categories). Why is there a need to over-clutter the article and duplicate the same information multiple times over? Perhaps [[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]], [[User:Dormskirk|Dormskirk]], [[User:MisterBee1966|MisterBee1966]] or any other editors who regularly edit biographical articles on military personnel may like contribute to this discussion, if they have an opinion? Cheers, [[User:Abraham, B.S.|Abraham, B.S.]] ([[User talk:Abraham, B.S.|talk]]) 22:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC) |
::The inclusion of honourifics in [[:Template:Infobox office holder]] may be relatively common, but it is not at all standard for [[:Template:Infobox military person]] and should not have been added to the code. The latter was not intended to include honourifics like postnominals and doing so serves to clutter the small space, which in my view gives rise to accessibility issues. My main argument against including honourifics in Infobox military person, however, is that of duplication. The postnominals are already recorded next to the name in the lead, and the list of honours included in the infobox (not to mention prose and categories). Why is there a need to over-clutter the article and duplicate the same information multiple times over? Perhaps [[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]], [[User:Dormskirk|Dormskirk]], [[User:MisterBee1966|MisterBee1966]] or any other editors who regularly edit biographical articles on military personnel may like contribute to this discussion, if they have an opinion? Cheers, [[User:Abraham, B.S.|Abraham, B.S.]] ([[User talk:Abraham, B.S.|talk]]) 22:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::Hi - I agree with [[User:Abraham, B.S.|Abraham, B.S.]] on the basis (i) rank and awards already appear lower down in the infobox as well as in the first line of the lead and (ii) we already have a standard approach across many thousands of military biographies viz. we do not use honorific prefixes and honorific suffixes in the infobox. [[User:Dormskirk|Dormskirk]] ([[User talk:Dormskirk|talk]]) 22:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC) |
:::Hi - I agree with [[User:Abraham, B.S.|Abraham, B.S.]] on the basis (i) rank and awards already appear lower down in the infobox as well as in the first line of the lead and (ii) we already have a standard approach across many thousands of military biographies viz. we do not use honorific prefixes and honorific suffixes in the infobox. [[User:Dormskirk|Dormskirk]] ([[User talk:Dormskirk|talk]]) 22:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::Fully endorse what Bryce Abraham and Dormskirk have said. Cheers, [[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]] ([[User talk:Ian Rose|talk]]) 22:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:34, 3 January 2016
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. |
Rank/Rate
An edit request was made on a article using this template. See Talk:Chris_Kyle#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_25_January_2015. Apparently for US Naval enlisted personnel, "Rate" is the term used instead of "Rank". See here. Would it be appropriate to change this template to allow for use of the term "Rate"? I have no opinion on the matter, but raise the issues in response to the mentioned edit request. B E C K Y S A Y L E S 05:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure we should add a new field just because of use in one service the reader will understand the term rank and it could start requests for more additional fields for service-peculiar terminology, and I suspect we would end up with both rank and rate filled in differently on the same article! MilborneOne (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Weighing in that Wikipedia is to be written in a global perspective, making service-specific fields in the info-box seems a terrible idea, although proper terminology should be encouraged in the article itself. BP OMowe (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Technically this could be done by changing to
| label10 = {{{rank_label|Rank}}}
where the label defaults to Rank. -- Gadget850 talk 17:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Technically this could be done by changing to
- Weighing in that Wikipedia is to be written in a global perspective, making service-specific fields in the info-box seems a terrible idea, although proper terminology should be encouraged in the article itself. BP OMowe (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Religion field
A field for "religion" (Christian, Muslim, etc) should be added, it would be relevant for at least some notable figures.--Sigehelmus (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- It would very rarely be relevant but if the field is there then some users will add it when it's irrelevant. I guess most uses would be irrelevant. Just write the religion in the article text if it really matters. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Coat of arms field
A field for "coat of arms" should be added, which should be useful for medieval generals and noblemen. Reigen (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Other name field
Can we please get "other_name"? Nickname is not always suitable. That this field does not exist caused one article about a very real soldier to be tagged as a hoax, as his native language (Azerbaijan) uses a different (non-Latin) alphabet, he served in the Red Army (Cyrillic), and he became notable under a heavily modified name given to him by the French, who he fought for as a French resistance fighter in WWII. The article HAD his correct French name in the infobox under "other_name" (his article probably started off with infobox person at some point) but it does not display, and thus some "time-challenged" person tagged it as a hoax. Fortunately someone alerted me and asked me to check Russian sources. Thank you so much. Pinging Frietjes because he is the only active recent editor of this template (and is always helpful). —МандичкаYO 😜 14:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- This seems uncontroversial, so done. Please update the documentation. (Frietjes is a she.) Alakzi (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Awards
Does Awards paramater only show most senior grade of orders of chivalry in its list? e.g an officer has Knight Commander of the Order of The British Empire and Commander of the Order of The British Empire, can both be listed in Awards parameters? or only most senior grade (Knight Commander)? Ikatemag (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Just need to display the senior grade of the same order. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
General usage question
I've noticed many infoboxes being populated with template:Infobox military person for non-military notables, especially actors, who spent some time in the army. See for instance Telly Savalas and Karl Malden. The template description is vague about when to use it. Most are being macro-added by an IP, with some ruining the TOC formatting, as for James Earl Jones (now fixed). Is this a proper use of the template? --Light show (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Not answering the question, the IP is the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cause of death vandal and should generally be mass-reverted. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Another IP, 213.205.194.25 (possibly the same editor, per IP lookup), has added the template to such articles as Robert Loggia, Norman Lear and Leonard Nimoy. Like Light show, I'd like to see the template's usage narrowed (IMHO, placing it pretty much anywhere dilutes the template's intent to honor those for whom it is a badge of notability, so to speak). Therefore, I offer a:
Proposal
Change the wording of the first sentence from
A military person infobox may be used to summarize information about an individual military person, such as a soldier or military leader.
to
- A military person infobox may be used to summarize information about an individual military person, such as a soldier or military leader, who is or became notable due to military service whose service is likely to be of interest to the reader.
or something very similar. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 22:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think I'd agree. I added the template to Tim Kennedy (fighter) in part because Tim's military service is well-known although he fails WP:MILPEOPLE. The same is true for veterans like Lee Marvin and Ernest Borgnine that had some interesting but not necessarily notable military service. I like the spirit of this proposal but the wording is too strict. I think local consensus makes more sense. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- "... whose military service is likely to be of interest to the reader"? —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 22:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Support rephrased proposal as nom. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 23:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: The phrasing seems too vague and subjective. It could easily lead to endless disputes about what's "of interest to the reader." I'd suggest something like, "..., such as someone whose notability is partly based on their military service." The key word is "notability." Those military templates in an infobox are prominent features in articles, with flags, ranks, years, etc. and should be reserved. --Light show (talk) 02:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Light show, that was why who is or became notable due to military service was my original proposal. Hm ... how about whose service played a significant role in his or her notability? What say you, Chris troutman? —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 02:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Something like this would be less wordy: "... whose notability rests partly on their military service." --Light show (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not worried so much about brevity as clarity; the more clear, the less likely any potential issue would be. I would think, anyway ... —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 03:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- "... whose service is likely to be considered significant" comes to mind. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 09:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Light show isn't wrong. The wording I support is deliberately vague, as I'd like to see this template used more widely. If what's desired is to curtail its use then you'd want more specific terms about which we won't likely agree. As I said before, I'd prefer local consensus. Anyway,
"whose notability rests on partly on their military service"
would remove use of this template on articles like Don Rickles, where military service is no part of the subject's notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Light show isn't wrong. The wording I support is deliberately vague, as I'd like to see this template used more widely. If what's desired is to curtail its use then you'd want more specific terms about which we won't likely agree. As I said before, I'd prefer local consensus. Anyway,
- Something like this would be less wordy: "... whose notability rests partly on their military service." --Light show (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Light show, that was why who is or became notable due to military service was my original proposal. Hm ... how about whose service played a significant role in his or her notability? What say you, Chris troutman? —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 02:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Clarity was my only concern. (Edit: Chris troutman, my point is it shouldn't be on Rickles' or a similar page if the reasonable reader were to see "interesting but not notable" military service mentioned within the body and ask, "Why is this here?" When so, it would constitute a WP:N and/or WP:UNDUE issue—it's the very dilution of purpose that I raise.) So, given the above ...
Alternate proposal
Change the wording of the first sentence from
A military person infobox may be used to summarize information about an individual military person, such as a soldier or military leader.
to
A military person infobox may be used to summarize information about an individual military person, such as a soldier or military leader, whose notability rests [partly/in part] on their military service.
- Support as nom. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 12:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose too strict. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Although I'd prefer tightening a bit to, "A military person infobox may be used to summarize information about a person whose notability rests in part on their military service." --Light show (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- No argument from me. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 21:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Usage of honorifics parameters
I've run into a conflict at Richard Peirse where Abraham B.S. keeps removing the |honorific_suffix=
. His arguments are that there is "no need for postnominals to be duplicated in infobox ", and "the majority of WP users do not browse by mobile. Also inconsistent with similar articles". I'd like to differ. In the mobile view, the infobox is displayed as one of the first elements even before the lead section of the article. So it makes sense to provide a summary of information that is found in the full text – which includes mentioning honorific titles and suffixes. While the majority of Wikipedia users may in fact still use a desktop PC or laptop for browsing, that is not a valid argument to deny a service to the mobile users. And if the majority of biographical articles does not display postnomimals in the infobox then they should be amended there instead of removing the parameters from articles that did already show them. The inclusion of |honorific_prefix=
and |honorific_suffix=
in the template code is consistent with {{infobox person}} that also uses them, but if there is general consensus to not use them at all, we should completely disable these template parameters. Otherwise I don't see a justification for removing them from articles. De728631 (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I am aware as well as the lead the infobox is a normal place for honorifics which is why they are in the code. MilborneOne (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- The inclusion of honourifics in Template:Infobox office holder may be relatively common, but it is not at all standard for Template:Infobox military person and should not have been added to the code. The latter was not intended to include honourifics like postnominals and doing so serves to clutter the small space, which in my view gives rise to accessibility issues. My main argument against including honourifics in Infobox military person, however, is that of duplication. The postnominals are already recorded next to the name in the lead, and the list of honours included in the infobox (not to mention prose and categories). Why is there a need to over-clutter the article and duplicate the same information multiple times over? Perhaps Ian Rose, Dormskirk, MisterBee1966 or any other editors who regularly edit biographical articles on military personnel may like contribute to this discussion, if they have an opinion? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi - I agree with Abraham, B.S. on the basis (i) rank and awards already appear lower down in the infobox as well as in the first line of the lead and (ii) we already have a standard approach across many thousands of military biographies viz. we do not use honorific prefixes and honorific suffixes in the infobox. Dormskirk (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- Fully endorse what Bryce Abraham and Dormskirk have said. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi - I agree with Abraham, B.S. on the basis (i) rank and awards already appear lower down in the infobox as well as in the first line of the lead and (ii) we already have a standard approach across many thousands of military biographies viz. we do not use honorific prefixes and honorific suffixes in the infobox. Dormskirk (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- The inclusion of honourifics in Template:Infobox office holder may be relatively common, but it is not at all standard for Template:Infobox military person and should not have been added to the code. The latter was not intended to include honourifics like postnominals and doing so serves to clutter the small space, which in my view gives rise to accessibility issues. My main argument against including honourifics in Infobox military person, however, is that of duplication. The postnominals are already recorded next to the name in the lead, and the list of honours included in the infobox (not to mention prose and categories). Why is there a need to over-clutter the article and duplicate the same information multiple times over? Perhaps Ian Rose, Dormskirk, MisterBee1966 or any other editors who regularly edit biographical articles on military personnel may like contribute to this discussion, if they have an opinion? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)