Template talk:Infobox military person/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Signature field

This template needs a signature field. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there an argument against having a signature field in this template? If not, could someone with technical know-how add it? Scewing (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Resting place

Is there a good reason that this template defaults to using the phrase "Resting place", despite it being in the list of words to avoid? Is anyone opposed to changing this default to "Place of burial"? ...comments? ~BFizz 21:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe that was done to account for the various other means of disposing of remains such as burials at sea but I do agree that place of burial should be the default since it is now possible change the field label. --Kumioko (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Presicely correct, the previous discussion, the term "resting place" was used because it was the most neutral of the available options (i.e. didn't distinguish between burial, cremation, dumping at sea, cryopreservation, being left for the vultures, etc.) based on consensus previously obtained for {{Infobox person}}. Since the label can be easily changed to suit whatever a particular article needs, there isn't much point in fiddling with the default. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about armed services icons

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Remove_icons_from_.7B.7BAir_force.7D.7D_.2C.7B.7BNavy.7D.7D_and_.7B.7BArmy.7D.7D Gnevin (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Now in the archives. De728631 (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Arnaugir, 7 May 2011

add iw to catalan ca:Plantilla:Infotaula biografia militar

thank you--Arnaugir (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Arnaugir (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The IW are on the doc page, which is not protected. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Party

It would be helpful if the template could also include the party parameter that is found in Template:Infobox person. Some high military officials are also members of a political party, and they are sometimes political appointees. Tataral (talk) 09:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Signature

Resolved

Can't we have a signature section?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It's on my plan to add this one. If I don't do it in the next 3 days leave a note on my talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do the birth and death dates have to be different from every other biography template?

My eye searches for the birth and death dates to be in the standard place as in every other biography template, but it isn't here. Why is that? What makes Wikipedia great is standardized information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, see Category:Infobox person using deprecated parameters. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

See also Category:Infobox military person using deprecated parameters. We are working on standardisation. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I propose that we move birth/death dates in the standard position next to birth/death place in the main box like in all other infoboxes. Agreements or disagreements? -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think they should be moved into the more normal position but nothing appears to be have come of this earlier discussion? MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I changed the format to match {{infobox person}}. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Spacing of year/date ranges is wrong

Well, the spaced en dash is ok when it's a full date, but not for just years, which I've just seen in an article (1196–1245, not 1196 – 1245). This needs to be fixed. Possibly the date needs to be written out manually if there's no other way. Please see WP:MOSDASH and just about every authoritative styleguide in English. Tony (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

no "education" (or "alma mater") parameter?

the infobox appears to not have basic parameter of "education" (or "alma mater"). do military people not get educated?--96.232.126.111 (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that one should be added. I do Army general officer bios and very very few of them weren't commissioned through ROTC or the Military Academy. Rockhead126 (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

War crimes

This template should include |criminal_charge=, |criminal_penalty=, and |criminal_status= parameters in order to enable users to input allegations related to their military career such as war crimes and their legal outcome. A note on the documentation stating that these parameters need to be supported by reliable sources like in the {{Infobox person}} template should also be included. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Rather than add additional parameters that are already in Infobox person why not just Embed Infobox military person in Infobox person on the article in question? Aside, from that I would say War crime is a criminal charge so its already covered, but thats just my opinion. --Kumioko (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You're assuming the person isn't known only for their military service. If that's the case then your solution is not a good one. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess it depends on your point of view. Is a War crime a crime or is it not? Just because someone is known as a murderer doesn't mean we use a different Infobox. Its still Infobox person. Same thing with birth date, its all the same. Its still a crime. --Kumioko (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

How would you go about adding war crimes to the infobox of Ratko Mladic for example? I have already attempted your suggestion of using infobox person and embedding infobox military person, but it is too compressed and impractical. The Spanish Wikipedia has implemented parameters similar to my suggestion very well. [1] -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Honorifics

Any objection to adding |honorific_prefix= and |honorific_suffix=, modelled on the equivalents in {{Infobox person}} Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Rather than add additional parameters that are already in Infobox person why not just Embed Infobox military person in Infobox person on the article in question? --Kumioko (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

What about all the articles that currently have this template, with honorifics shoehorned into the |name= field? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Native name

Please can someone add |native_name=, |native_name_lang= and associated markup, modelled on that in {{Infobox person}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Rather than add additional parameters that are already in Infobox person why not just Embed Infobox military person in Infobox person on the article in question? --Kumioko (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Question as per honorifics section, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Bare filenames in |image=

I can change the code to use bare filenames like all other infoboxes. Check infobox standardisation process in User:WOSlinker/Infoboxes. are there any disagreements on this change? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think its a good idea. --Kumioko (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So long as the articles which use this template are fixed (or, alternatively, so long as the code is structured in a way that doesn't require them to be modified), I see no problems with the proposed change. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

My bot will fix all articles within a few hours.-- Magioladitis (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I updated the code. Now a lot of work must be done. Many fields are a real mess mixing images with signature or medals. I'll do the best I can and I already asked for help. Help is appreciated. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

New parameters

Please sync from the sandbox, where I have added:

• |honorifc_prefix=
• |honorifc_suffix=
• |native_name=
• |native_name_lang=

all copied from (and thus working in an identical manner to) {{Infobox person}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Magioladitis (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this example, some style tweaks may be advisable. It would be better to make the name larger, than the honorifics smaller. We should avoid a solution which requires markup to be manually entered along with the text values. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Header size

Does anyone know to increase the header size (the size of the name at the top)? It's currently very small and looks odd. I tried increasing it to 150 percent, which increased the size of the example on the page, but made no difference in the article I'm using it on (Bradley Manning). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I fiddle around a little with the template to see how to change it, and which size looks best? I would have to use the tools to do it, so I want to check here first. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The header styling is meant to shared across all military infobox templates (by way of {{WPMILHIST Infobox style}}); I don't necessarily have any objections to increasing the font size in the top header, but please keep in mind that this will (eventually) need to be a global change. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 12:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

URL parameter

From a website request post at COIN, I tried editing William R. Looney III, and found that the Infobox military person lacked a website parameter. However, Template:Infobox person has a website parameter and military person are just as likely to have official websites as civilians. If you agree, please add an official website parameter to Infobox military person:

• |website=

Thanks! -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree qith the addition. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, I support that addition. De728631 (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Done with exactly the same syntax as {{infobox person}}, that is, the parameter is |website= but it will also recognise |homepage= and |URL= as synonyms. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. As with {{Infobox person}}, values should be entered using {{URL}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 have now adjusted the prefix and suffix font size to equal that of the name. De728631 (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2013 (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)

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)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Native name

In most other Infoboxes for people, the "Native name" parameter displays up above the picture. Could this infobox do the same, or is there some reason why it's different? For example, compare Saddam Hussein or Aung San Suu Kyi… to Abdelkader El Djezairi. Widsith (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Width

Why is this template significantly wider than all the other Infobox person templates I've seen? !Timmyshin (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually that's a good question, but I don't know the full answer. {{WPMILHIST Infobox style}} sets the width to 315px which is quite wide compared to a standard infobox. De728631 (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

And I've just found an old discussion at Template talk:WPMILHIST Infobox style. This style parameter is also in use with other MILHIST infoboxes such as {{Infobox military conflict}}. And apparently the latter seems to require a stacked width so the campaignbox template will fit nicely below the infobox. But as I don't see how "Infobox military person" would ever be combined with a campaignbox, I think we should have a separate and narrower stylesheet for this biographical infobox. De728631 (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I see. May we do that? Timmyshin (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

@Timmyshin and De728631: I've changed the infobox to use the regular auto-width styling used by {{infobox person}}. Please take a look and let me know if that's what you had in mind. Kirill ^[talk] 19:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Um... I'm not seeing any changes in the width? Timmyshin (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

What page are you looking at? You may need to purge the cache to see the new styling. Kirill ^[talk] 03:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You are right, thanks for doing it.Timmyshin (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

And how do we go back to the previous width -- I've always considered the width of this infobox the right size for displaying useful information without wrapping lines. Clearly there wasn't much opposition to it the way it was, and I for one much preferred it that way. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: The template will still expand whenever a wider image is inserted, but I'm assuming you're talking about something more flexible than that? Would it help if we added a way to switch between the standard military infobox width and the standard person infobox width? Kirill ^[talk] 22:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kirill, having written or co-written over 60 military bios at GA, A, or FA-level, I think I must be one of the heaviest users of this template (and in all those reviews not one person has ever raised an issue about the width of the infobox!) so I'd prefer not to have to do anything to switch but leave the default as is (it's served as the default for the 8 years that I've been editing) and ask people who want a narrower box to set their width accordingly -- that's my ideal solution given the work needed to abbreviate unit/posting names and dates, etc, on existing articles to avoid too much ugly wrapping of text in a narrower box, or to add a "box_width=315" parameter everywhere if the narrower style became the default. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

@Ian Rose and Timmyshin: Okay, I've added a width_style parameter that can be used to adjust the styling on a per-article basis. If the parameter is set to "narrow", "auto", or "person", the narrow styling from {{infobox person}} will be used; if the parameter is set to "wide" or "military", or left blank, the wide styling from the typical military infobox will be applied instead. Please try it out and let me know if anything doesn't work as expected. Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] 00:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ur a champ, Kirill (but u knew that, be honest). Okay, I haven't had time to test a non-default width yet but the default is as I was hoping, tks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to add I'm glad to see this go back to the original width. I use this template a lot as well, and in some cases with some of the longer wars, battles and other conflict names, they were appearing on two or even three lines. Benea (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Please put the |width_style=person <!--optional--> parameter on the template page, not here! I absolutely love it and intend to use it in all my future articles, but it took me a long time to find it tucked in here. Thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 05:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Rank

For the sake of clarity, shouldn't the "Rank" entry in this infobox be "Final rank"...? That's how it seems to be used – at least, in the instances I've noticed thus far. 213.246.82.122 (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This is already included in the template documentation which recommends to use "the highest rank achieved by the person unless a reduction in rank occured". De728631 (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

What I mean is that this doesn't seem obvious to anyone looking at the infobox who doesn't already know or realize that the Rank entry is actually that person's Final rank. Sorry not to be clearer. 213.246.86.98 (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you're referring to the output displayed by the box template. I don't see any reason not to change it to "final rank". De728631 (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Disagree, I dont see any reason to change it "Rank" is clearly the final rank as it also appears in the lead. MilborneOne (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

alma_mater

Is there a reason we don't have an alma_mater parameter in this template? Looks like it was proposed once back in 2011 with some agreement; I didn't see anything after that so I am bringing it up once again. --CyberXRef^☎ 23:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably because not all military personal are graduates and is it really relevant to a military career. If relevant it can appear in the text but we dont have to include everything in the infobox it is meant to be a quick summary of the more important points. MilborneOne (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I was suggesting it as an optional parameter field, we have plenty of them. One could argue it's far more relevant than spouse. Secondly lots of other Biography Infobox have an alma_mater field. --CyberXRef^☎ 00:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I support this as an optional parameter.If academies like West Point or Sandhurt are mentioned in the article, they should show up in the infobox too, and so should universities and/or colleges. De728631 (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Cause of death

Can somebody add a "cause of death" parameter please? Pass a Method talk 14:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this really a key fact for any military biography? I could possibly imagine a line to indicate whether a military person was killed in battle, but for most retired mil people such information won't be available. If one died from a heart-attack at old age this should rather be mentioned in prose in the article instead of being featured in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by De728631 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 6 December 2013

Took the words right out of my mouth, De728631. I can imagine a minor benefit for noting those killed in action, but the potential for less useful info being included if they died from disease or advanced age is great IMO. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If the person was killed in battle, you can add a " †" template next to the battle in which they died. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit request (23 March 2014)

Please change:

| label3         = Nickname
| data3          = {{{nickname|}}}
| class3         = nickname

to

| label3         = Nickname(s)
| data3          = {{{nickname|}}}
| class3         = nickname

That way it will be grammatically accurate for those with multiples. Thank you. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, LittleMountain5 01:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: Danke schoen. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

image_size

Is this parameter (image_size) currently disabled for this template somehow...? (See opposite.) Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks OK if you use the template as per the instructions, the code in your example look all wrong to me MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I must've been having a no-brain moment, thinking that 150px should look bigger than it does. Thanks for checking. Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Commands held for NCOs

Micheal Barrett: Commands held Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps

Does that really apply for NCOs? Hcobb (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

your right, it does not, something I've wondered about before. An NCO can have charge of or lead a unit, but not command. An officer meanwhile can lead or have command of a unit. Having said that, Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps is not a "unit" but rather a special rank and billet (or "position") so it doesn't fit in the "unit" entry either. In the specific case of SEA's [like Barrett] I think the rank entry alone covers it, but for other cases, I think that, of those two lines in the template [unit and commands] one of them needs to be expanded to include things like positions (not neccesarily changing the display, maybe just an explanation in the documentation about where billets and positions and the like should be included, ie what about the XO of a major unit or a Civil War era Quartermaster of a unit?). Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Some tweaks

Hello. This sandbox version (current as of this message) has a few tweaks which I think would benefit the template. Any comments, please? Sardanaphalus (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

the diff is unreadable. At this point, I would object, since it is not clear what is being changed. perhaps try again, but without the massive whitespace changes. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Try the testcases page? The massive whitespace changes reduced the unnecessarily massive amount of whitespace. Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would describe the changes you have made and the reasoning behind those changes. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 July 2014

Please remove "font-size: 100%" from the abovestyle parameter. As explained at Template:Infobox, a "font-size:100%" override should only be added to abovestyle if the header is not a title and should be displayed as regular text. Otherwise, the default 125% font-size should be allowed to have effect. In the case of Template:Infobox military person, the header is a title (the name of the person), and should be displayed prominently, i.e. not in tiny 12px text. Kaldari (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Kaldari (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this too for awhile so I've now made a few tweaks in the sandbox. Please view the result at the testcases page. De728631 (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done – Please make any necessary changes to the documentation. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC on Template:Infobox person

This message is to notify you that there is an RfC ongoing on whether to add pronunciation info to {{Infobox person}}, which this infobox transcludes. Your comments on the matter are appreciated. The discussion can be found here. Thanks! 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 17:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Plainlist

Propose to add the plainlist class:

| bodyclass   = vcard plainlist

This will allow embedded lists without using breaks or {{plainlist}}.

Current usage:

|awards= Purple Heart (3 [[Oak leaf cluster|OLC]])<br />Bronze Star (2 [[Oak leaf cluster|OLC]])<br />[[World War II Victory Medal]]<br />[[Presidential Unit Citation (United States)|Presidential Unit Citation]] (2 [[Oak leaf cluster|OLC]])<br />[[Orange Lanyard|Orange Lanyard of the Royal Netherlands Army]]

Or;

|awards=
{{Plainlist|
* Purple Heart (3 [[Oak leaf cluster|OLC]])
* Bronze Star (2 [[Oak leaf cluster|OLC]])
* [[World War II Victory Medal]]
* [[Presidential Unit Citation (United States)|Presidential Unit Citation]] (2 [[Oak leaf cluster|OLC]])
* [[Orange Lanyard|Orange Lanyard of the Royal Netherlands Army]]
}}

Updated usage:

|awards=
* Purple Heart (3 [[Oak leaf cluster|OLC]])
* Bronze Star (2 [[Oak leaf cluster|OLC]])
* [[World War II Victory Medal]]
* [[Presidential Unit Citation (United States)|Presidential Unit Citation]] (2 [[Oak leaf cluster|OLC]])
* [[Orange Lanyard|Orange Lanyard of the Royal Netherlands Army]]

While all three samples would appear alike, the use of breaks to create a list is semantically incorrect and can affect screen readers. The use of {{plainlist}} is an extra template that can be avoided by adding the class.

The only issue that would be introduced would be if someone were deliberately using a bulleted list in an infobox and I have not seen that in the samples I browsed. The use of the plainlist class is used in other inforboxes. --  Gadget850 ^talk 15:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

seems fine with me. if you want to be less aggressive, you could always use |class15=plainlist. Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

That was one example. Lists are also used in |unit=, |spouse=, |relations= and others. --  Gadget850 ^talk 16:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Are we sure that lists in this infobox are always of the types listed, and not shown "normally"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

could have a bot check? Frietjes (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Do you mean a bulleted list? I won't guarantee it, but I have cleaned up a lot of articles using various person infoboxes and have never seen bulleted lists in use. How about:

| bodyclass = vcard {{{liststyle|plainlist}}}

Then it would default to plainlist but can be readily changed to different styles.

plainlist

Line 1 Line 2 Line 3

hlist

Line 1 Line 2 Line 3

flatlist

Line 1 Line 2 Line 3

Or; we could just add the bare parameter and not make it default. --  Gadget850 ^talk 22:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

mixed

Line 1 Line 2 Line 3

So long as mixing the types works, as here, your original proposal seems OK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Done, tested and documented. --  Gadget850 ^talk 14:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Uh, was this change (or some other recent one I'm not aware of) supposed to require people to fix dozens of military bios to continue to display bulleted lists of awards or battles/wars? I ask because every such bio I've checked lately has lost its bullets, e.g. John F. Bolt and Vernon Sturdee, just to name two, but every Featured military bio I've checked is the same. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

John Bolt is using two list styles: |unit= uses <br /> for a plain pseudo-list and |battles= uses a bulleted list. I added |liststyle=flatlist to restore it for now, but |unit= and the others should be updated. As noted, <br /> should not be used to create lists. --  Gadget850 ^talk 12:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Tks for that, and I don't particularly have an issue re. not using <br /> to create lists. However it remains that scores of articles that used bullets to indent campaigns/battles underneath wars (e.g. Bolt) without the need for the |liststyle=flatlist will presumably now have to have that added to get the same formatting they had before. That's a helluva lot of work to reinstate the the same look the articles had before -- can you do what you wanted to do with the infobox template without causing all this extra work for the people who maintain these articles? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Reverted. As previously documented, use {{plainlist}} instead of breaks. --  Gadget850 ^talk 08:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Children and parents

Why is there a spouse= and no children= parameter and no parents= ? Most military people are from military families and the links and data would be useful. It is a standard biographical parameter. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I complain about this too!!! It should have the basic parameters of the infobox person. Cause of death should also be on there too (eg killed in battle, plane crash etc). Wikimandia (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

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). —Мандичка^YO 😜 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)

much better. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

—ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 23:40, 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)

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 honorifics 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 honorifics 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 honorifics 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)

Honorifics should be included the infobox in the same way that they are in most other biographical infoboxes, not least {{Infobox person}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Wikipedia is full of inconsistencies, so in order to avoid further confusion for the standard reader (not editor) we should treat all biographical infoboxes the same way. If the general biographical template, i.e. infobox person, uses them, the military variant should also have such parameters. De728631 (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

With respect, I feel that is a poor argument that verges on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As Dormskirk has pointed out, such a change would unnecessarily alter thousands of articles and the established status quo among military history editors. Further, if the concern is for the reader, then one would be unnecessarily bombarding them with the exact same information multiple times over, while cluttering the page. It just makes no sense, and decreases accessibility for the reader and the editor. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure that I fully understand the reason for being against its use. What about academic titles attained by soldiers? Are these not honorifics in this context? MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Ditto knighthoods. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS concerns it self with rationales for or against deletion; nothing else. As for the supposed "established status quo among military history editors" (however that group might be defined), Wikipedia recognises no such ring-fencing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Foreign terms allowed? And a tiny error...

Is there any consensus on the of use foreign terms in infoboxes? For example, if the soldier in question is a German soldier, is right/wrong/undetermined to use "Heer" as Service Branch?

Also, I'd like to point out that the info box for Clifford Carwood Lipton used in the article has a small error. It currently gives his unit as, "Easy Company, 2nd Battalion, 101st Airborne Division, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment." In WWII the U.S. Army hierarchy was company/battalion/regiment/division, so the 506th shouldn't come after the 101st, should it? __209.179.86.123 (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You should really use the common name in English, a good guide is the article name, in this case it uses "Army". MilborneOne (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

When embedded

This infobox, when embedded in another one, say "Infobox person", get a fixed title "Military career". It is possible to make this title editable so to accommodate other types of careers, e.g. "Paramilitary career" or "Police career" or "Military and police career" or "Paramilitary and police career" or "Military and paramilitary career"? Carlotm (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Carlotm, added |embed_title= Frietjes (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Frietjes. Carlotm (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Cause of Death

Can we add a cause of death parameter? I was updating Kay Summersby, who died of cancer, but there is no way to indicate this in the Infobox.

The generic People Infobox has

   |death_cause=

so it seems it would make sense to include it as an optional parameter in this Infobox. — Safety Cap (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I would not have thought that in the case you quote that cause of death was not particularly notable and not needed in the infobox so it is unlikely to be needed and that is probably true for nearly all of the military person articles. MilborneOne (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MilborneOne. Although this is an infobox for military persons who naturally have a higher likelihood of being killed as opposed to a death from disease or old age I don't think we need to stress the cause of death by giving it a slot in the infobox. De728631 (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Children

Add children please, military life runs in families. I just counted 100 father-son wikipedia entries for military people before I stopped. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

There is already a parameter called "relations" in the template. It might not be very obvious but this is meant to host the entries for children and other relevant relatives. See also the documentation for an example. De728631 (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Why don't we implement a new filed "children=" so it matches the name of other templates, and no one has to read the instructions to figure it out, standardization is a good thing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

We could do that and use the |relations= for any other relatives. But speaking of standardization, we would then have to sort out any children from the existing |relations= entries. I suppose that's a pretty extensive task. De728631 (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Infobox clutter for non-military persons

There's a dispute at director Mel Brooks's article about whether this module belongs. One editor insists on having it there. I think for someone who was drafted, spent two years in the service, and whose career had nothing to do with the military, that module in his infobox looks ridiculous. It also undermines the bio, since infoboxes should quickly summarize the notability of the person. But this module, which takes up almost half the infobox, misleads readers because on first impression, seeing emblems, flags, military indicia, medals, etc., a casual reader would wrongly assume the person was a career soldier. I feel that this module should only be used for those whose notability was based significantly on their military career. --Light show (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It does look odd and is distracting. I prefer them for career military people or people who died while in service. Looking at the infobox, I would assume that his career was with the military. Now that the icons and flags are removed it is less distracting. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I entirely disagree. I took a quick look at several articles I've edited before to get an idea of what seems prevalent. For people like Rudy Boesch who's notability rests largely on military service, Template:Infobox military person is used. That's your career servicemembers, so those articles wouldn't use this module. Second you have people like Tim Kennedy (fighter) and Vladimír Remek who are primarily known for something else (Mixed martial arts and the space program, respectively) but both had military service. Remek retired from military service after 20+ years and Kennedy is still in the National Guard after already serving 10+ years. Each of them have the module. Finally you have people like Don Rickles as well as both Rooneys (Andy and Mickey who served during WWII because everyone did). The article about Rickles has the module but the other two don't.

I disagree with the argument that infoboxes "quickly summarize the notability of the person" as Light show claims. Infoboxes are where we can store the sort of data the average reader can pick out of a table like birth date, middle name, etc. Military service, being a widely-experienced phenomenon, is as fitting a detail to include as spouse and children. It has little to do with notability. If the unease of "seeing emblems, flags, military indicia, medals, etc." is an issue then simply enforce MOS:ICONS and remove the images. The text itself seldom takes up much room and certainly doesn't "take[s] up almost half the infobox" nor do I find it "distracting". I resist any attempt to truncate or remove this template as matter of community norms. Implementation of the template can be discussed with MILHIST. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: Infoboxes are where we can store the sort of data the average reader can pick out of a table like birth date, middle name, etc. While that may be true, it has little to do with including a module that, even after your icon removals, still takes up 40% of the infobox. His two years of service are not part of the misleading "Military career" heading. Per the bio, his career spans over 65 years in the entertainment industry. His "Years active" stated in the infobox do not include his army time. Nor does the lead mention it, and if it did it would look equally ridiculous. I feel that pushing an irrelevant module on non-military bios undermines them, as I said above. What it adds is much worse than being a mere distraction, IMO. --Light show (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Just leaving a notice to say that the account who insisted on inserting military data into Brooks' infobox was blocked as a sockpuppet of the long-blocked User:Atomic Meltdown. It therefore is probably best to revert any edits from the sock that weren't obvious improvements per WP:DENY. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Overlinking of US states

In the example explicit wikilinks are provided for the states of Georgia and West Virginia. The way I have interpreted WP:OVERLINKING, and from examples given in other templates and explanations elsewhere, it would be much better to only link from the town/city, as readers would have a link to the state when they read the town's/city's article. Is a new consensus emerging in the last few years that I have missed, or did I have it wrong all along? My Gussie (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Violation of guidelines

This info box has an entry for "Service/branch". The meaning of this is not clear. See WP:SLASH. It should be replaced with a single word that covers the intended meaning. 86.187.174.203 (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Service number

|servicenumber= is no longer showing up. Could this be fixed please? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 22:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Spain Army?

Why does this template return "Spain Army" as at Enrique MacDonell? Spain Army redirects Spanish Army, but that looks bad on the infobox.--Trilotat (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Not this template but Template:Army that is being used, perhaps ask on the template talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I did a frig to change the display name using "name" {{Army|Spain|name=Spanish Army}}<br>{{Navy|Spain}} which gives Spanish Army it changes text but still links to "Spain Army" ! No idea why Army and Navy are different. MilborneOne (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It also does it with some other countries as well like French Army MilborneOne (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

OK I have found out why it fails because there is not an entry at Template:Country data Spain for Army so it just uses the country name. The one that works have an army flag parameter. MilborneOne (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to go on but I have left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template who appear to have an interest in the country data pages. MilborneOne (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!--Trilotat (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization of ranks

Military ranks are common nouns except "When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name" (from MOS:JOBTITLES and MOS:MILTERMS). So, "Williams was a brigadier general", but "he assigned Brigadier General Williams to a new post". I changed the example in the documentation (" rank = Brigadier General") to "Brigadier general", leaving "Brigadier" capitalized, as it begins a string of text that in these cases is usually in sentence case. User:GELongstreet undid my change, citing MOS:CAPS in general but not pointing out any applicable section of it. There is no point in capitalizing "General" in this case. The editor does not listen to me and will not follow the MoS. Please assist. Chris the speller ^yack 21:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

MOS:CAPS#Titles of people says When an unhyphenated compound title ... is capitalized (unless this is simply because it begins a sentence), each word begins with a capital letter. Brigadier General is a compound title, made up of Brigadier and General. The military uses it of course as it should be, e.g. the Americans over here or the British over here. So it should, especially outside of a sentence, always be capitalized. If it shouldn´t be clear, the rank in the field "rank" within the infobox is, as usually every other entry within the infobox, not part of a sentence. ...GELongstreet (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You're utterly misreading that, and it does not at all mean what you think it does. "When an unhyphenated compound title ... is capitalized (unless this is simply because it begins a sentence)" means "when followed by a person's name to form at title". You can't bible-thump one rule while ignoring the existence of the other. It's like if mommy says "You can have a cookie after you finish your homework", and Little Johnny runs straight for the cookie jar, having chosen to only hear "you can have a cookie", even though he's not touched his homework yet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The military commonly uses capital letters for all sorts of things that don't need caps. We're not in the damn army; this is Wikipedia, and we use Wikipedia's style. Any good dictionary, such as Collins shows "brigadier general" in lower case. Dictionaries determine proper usage, not the US military, or any other military. I didn't say that the "rank" parameter calls for a sentence, but that sentence case is usually used for provided values that are not otherwise capitalized; a parallel in the "infobox person" template: "occupation = Singer, actor", not "Singer, Actor" or "singer, actor". Chris the speller ^yack 21:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

If you don´t want to go with the army this is fine, though you´re wrong because the military makes up the ranks in the first place. But regardless of that then go with the MOS. Which says, again, When an unhyphenated compound title ... is capitalized (unless this is simply because it begins a sentence), each word begins with a capital letter. Your "Singer, actor" are two seperate entries, but Brigadier General is a compound. I´m not sure if I get your "that sentence case is usually used for provided values that are not otherwise capitalized" correctly; but as it is capitalized, otherwise or not, as compound according to the MOS both words should be. And if I´m not mistaken your dictionary shows everything in lower case that is not regarded as proper noun in itself because it could change the casing within a sentence - which we don´t have. ...GELongstreet (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a better example of a person's occupation would be "sound engineer", such as Steve Pederson (sound engineer), which in the article says he is a "sound engineer" but shows occupation as "Sound engineer" in his "infobox person". If you try changing a bunch of these to "occupation = Sound Engineer" you will soon run into a whole lot of resistance, yet you did it here. Whether "brigadier general" or "sound engineer", they are just job titles. That is the point of MOS:MILTERMS. Chris the speller ^yack 22:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Chris, I respect your work and your overall goal; and yes, I can see the point you want to make with your example. But I´m afraid we´re still not on the same line here. Sound engineer ... can´t that be substituted with sound technician for example? Ranks like e.g. Brigadier General aren´t interchangable at all; a compound word but a specific title. I am for preserving the already existing capitalization (even thinking it to be in line with the MOS). If I could I´d change MILTERMS to make ranks proper names again like the awards, but I think here I don´t even need to. Not that I care about grammar so much, I care about the military content. Most military ranks are very specific compound titles and, in my opinion, MOS:CAPS#Titles of people is for once rather clear. It is not in a sentence but on its own, so it is capitalized. As it is a compound title both words should be so. One might run into resistance with sound engineer but one apparently also does so with military stuff as we are here right now. ...GELongstreet (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

When using German ranks, German language nouns, even common nouns, are always capitalized; use of italics would also be correct for the phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not currently used in English, per WP:MOS. Kierzek (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Repeating and combining my comments from related pages: I believe that the following commentary is consistent both with Wikipedia's style standards and most style standards in the English-speaking world. Ranks are only capitalized when directly preceding the rank-holder's name as his or her title (e.g., Brigadier General John Jones) or when used in addressing that person (e.g., "Good morning, General," which is really just a shortening of "Good morning, [Brigadier] General Jones." All other usages are "generic": The name of the rank is not a proper noun on its own, any more than the names of other jobs or positions (manager, team lead, employee, worker, writer, secretary, assistant, linesman, firefighter, technician, etc.). Even a U.S. Navy style manual (http://www.navy.mil/submit/navyStyleGuide.pdf) affirms this, even though military, government, and other bureaucratic organizations are the worst offenders when it comes to what I call hyper-capitalization. Here is an excerpt: "civilian titles - Use full name and title or job description on first reference. Capitalize the title or job description when it precedes an individual’s name and do not use a comma to separate it from the name. Lower case titles when they follow the name or when not accompanied by one." Another excerpt: "titles - Capitalize titles when used before a name only. See titles entry in AP Stylebook." See also the usage of terms of rank throughout the guide.

As for infoboxes and tables, it seems that Wikipedia's standard is to use sentence case, not title case (browse several pages in diverse fields, and this is easy to see). Since titles used generically are not to be capitalized, and infoboxes and tables do not use title case, then titles should be in sentence case when they appear therein.

Just because an organization uses non-standard capitalization (e.g., my workplace often capitalizes job titles in all usages, such as "Technical Writer–Editor," which is incorrect per almost any style manual, including Wikipedia's), that non-standard usage does not trump consistent typography that we strive for. This type of hyper-capitalization can be found in almost any bureaucratic organization in the English-speaking world. Military (or government in general) and business organizations are notorious, both of which I am involved with. Holy (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

GELongstreet's defense.gov example is irrelevant. It uses "Warrant officer" at the beginning of a sentence. It has simply chosen to use title case in tables, which Wikipedia (and most major publishers) does not do. Also, military and government sources often are very inconsistent in their typography and application of style standards, even violating their own standards (e.g., Navy style manual, U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual)! Recognizing the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority," let me say that I have almost 29 total years of military service, with much administrative experience and formal credentials, and 11 years of experience as a civilian technical writer and editor. Holy (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)