This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Data elements to include
I have reviewed several other infobox templates for country-specific military units, and here's a list of information elements. The template can be designed so that most of these are optional.
Official name ("3rd Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 4th Army")
Nickname(s) ("The Spartans")
Unit code (3B,2Br,4A) or something like that
Regime (allegiance?) it serves under (usually country)
Command structure it is part of (might be a link)
Branch (army, navy, air force, space corps)
Size (typically range)
Existence years (better than founded and disbanded dates, as sometimes units are resurrected)
Shield graphic
Colors
Motto
Notable actions (with links) - could include victories or defeat
Current commander and his/her rank
Garrisoned/headquartered location
Ceremonial chief (in UK, known as "colonel-in-chief")
Specializations (shock troops, rapid supply)
Subunits
March tune
Anything else?
--Leifern 14:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Notable defeats are not that interesting? Imagine an infobox for the U.S. 7th Cavalry Regiment without mention of the Battle of the Little Bighorn. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan club. ;-) Seriously, that field should be something like "notable engagements" or "notable actions". --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 15:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm all for including notable defeats. --Leifern 16:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Other ideas:
Replace "Regime" with "Allegiance"? "Regime" doesn't really work for mercenary units.
Allegiance sounds a little informal. The US 3rd Army isn't merely in allegiance with the United States; but aren't mercenary units always employed by a regime? I'm open to other terms, too.--Leifern 16:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Not always (see this article, for instance). I was mainly thinking about medieval mercenary bands, which were employed by many different regimes; but I suppose we might just have a different field to use for those, or omit the "Regime" field entirely. —Kirill Lokshin 16:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Some indication of unit strength?
Yep - I'll just call it that, and if people want to use different units of measurement (people, airplanes, tanks, etc.), they can modify. --Leifern 16:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Other than that, this looks quite nice. —Kirill Lokshin 15:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Where are the NCOs? Command Sergeant Major is an influential and identity-shaping position, at least in the U.S. Army. Can we add a field for that?
The latest draft looks very nice! A few more points to consider:
Should "branch" be optional? It really doesn't apply to most pre-20th century units.
Do we want a separate "image" parameter distinct from the CoA?
I think, broadly speaking, we could be in a position to try this on some articles quite soon. —Kirill Lokshin 03:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll say. Give the word when it's ready. Albrecht 01:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Thoughts:
"Notable Commander(s)" (or whatever phrasing works to that effect) ought definitely to be a field; many units are now defunct, and a great many more have unknown or unimportant current commanders but legendary past commanders. In short: a box for Deutsches Afrikakorps must have a spot for Rommel.
"A separate 'image' parameter distinct from CoA" is probably a good idea. I think enough units have iconic photographs or artworks to justify this. Albrecht 00:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I've already made the CoA into a generic image field; do you think we should have two images in the box? I'm afraid it might get too cluttered. The notable commanders field is a very good idea; the only concern I have is preventing the box from becoming too long, especially if a full-size image isn't used to stretch it to 300px. On the other hand, this could be less of a problem if only some fields are generally used. I suppose we'll just have to try it on some articles and work from there.
I actually had only a thumbnail-sized image in mind for the insignia. Maybe a space at bottom would do (much like the Campaign section rounds off the Warbox)? I've tried out unitboxes in Blue Division and Spanish Legion; they look great! Albrecht 02:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
On another note, any ideas about the order of the rows would be very welcome. —Kirill Lokshin 00:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Nationality has to be higher, perhaps the second or third row. Oberiko 00:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a suggestion for fields, esp as regards Candian army units (uning a fictional regiment as an example):
THE CIVI STREET LIGHT INFANTRY
image : the unit crest
badge: the unit cap badge, if different
Country: Canada, natch
Component: Primary Reserve → choices here are Regular Force, Primary Reserve
Command: Land Force Command → or Air Command, or Information Management Group, etc
Branch: Infantry → "Branch" in Canada means like Infantry, Artillery, etc
Active: Since 2005
Command structure: 13 Canadian Brigade Group, Land Force Nowhere Area → I assume this means your higher formation(s)
Sub-units: B Company, Kicking Horse Pass
Size: 5
Specialization: Unarmed Infantry
Current commander: Col J. Mufferaw, CD, BVD, 4F, WWJD
Garrison/HQ: CFB Head-Smashed-In-Buffalo-Jump
Abbreviation: CSLI
Nickname: The Casleys; The Fighting Remfs
Motto: "Sometimes You Feel Like A Nut"
Unit colours: Pink and yellow
March: The March of the Smurfs
Colonel-in-Chief: HM The King of Hearts
Regimental alliances: The Woking Fusiliers (UK); The Didjabringabeeralong Regiment (Autralia)
Anniversaries: Regimental Pay Day, February 30
Notable actions': Battle of Weerthehellarwefontein, 1901
Notable commanders: Col Johnny Chinook
I think the items should be grouped between the "hard" stuff (size, specialization, HQ, CO, command, etc) and the "soft" stuff (nickname, regt alliances, marches, etc). SigPig 08:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I have just added this infobox on 2nd Guards Tank Corps, and found that it does not include two items that are necessary for Soviet units:
In the Red Army, units could receive these decorations, and honorifics were given for notable battles. This was very common, and IMO should be included as an option in the infobox. It is very UK/US centric at the moment in my view, having lots of stuff that applies to these two countries only (e.g. Colonel-in-Chief, or differentiation between crest and badge). Andreas 16:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Would be easy enough to add; but I'm not very familiar with what the honorific is. Is it something that might appear in other countries, perhaps under a different name? Kirill Lokshin 16:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
It is a sort of 'Battle Honours', but more restrictive. E.g. on the flags of British regiments you usually see all (or most) of the notable battle names embroidered. My guess is that this is what 'notable battles' was meant for. But in the Red Army, the honorific would only be given for very important battles in which the unit played a crucial role, and then it could happen that it only went to the parent unit (in the above case 2nd Guards Tank Corps), and not to the sub-units (e.g. 4th Guards Tank Brigade). If we add a line for 'Battle Honours', that could cover it. Decorations in other armies are e.g. Presidential Unit Citations in the US armed forces. Not sure if other armies than the Red Army and the US armed forces do this. Andreas 16:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I've added a "Decorations" field as well as a "Battle honours" field; will that be enough, or do we need something else to make this work? Kirill Lokshin 00:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
That's good enough for me. :-) Thanks a lot Kirill! Andreas 07:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Order of data elements
But which should go first? (Personally, I think the "hard" should go first).
Comments? Oh, and belated Merry Seasonsgreetingsmas to everyone. SigPig 08:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Interesting idea. On the other hand, many historical units won't have (much) of the "hard" stuff, for the obvious reason that they don't exist anymore. It's something flexible, in any case; we can try playing around with the order until we get it right. —Kirill Lokshin 08:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I am excited about how good this infobox is turning out - truly an example of excellent collaboration. As for the order, we should look at it from the point of view of the typical reader, if we can imagine such a beast. My guess is that he/she would want the formal name, the country, the branch, and the active years. After that comes interesting information, such as garrison location, specialties, etc., and then trivia, e.g., marches, mascots, etc. For visual purposes, I think at least the official crest or insignia should be fairly high up. --Leifern 21:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I've tried to arrange it in that rough order. More playing around is welcome; there are sets of related fields—"type", "branch", and "specialization", for instance—whose order we need to figure out. A guideline for what actually goes into each of them would also be great. —Kirill Lokshin 21:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
"Nickname" is probably best up top, as before: In many cases the field will be ignored, but with units that do have famous nicknames (Blue Division, Desert Rats, etc.), having it right below the "official" name is the logical arrangement. Also, "dates" might fit better a few spaces down, to keep it from breaking-up what should be a solid block of related descriptive fields (type, branch, command, size). Albrecht 19:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Mascot
Should we include the mascot as an optional element? Part of the trivia section for sure, but it is a little amusing. --Leifern 21:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
It's fine, I think—somebody will insist on having one, and we're not inconveniencing anyone else (they'll just ignore that field). —Kirill Lokshin 21:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I will also add patron field. In Polish military traditions, the divisions and regiments usually did not have their mottos, marches or mascottes (apart from the Polish II Corps). Instead, they were (and still are) named after some famous person or military unit. For instance the Polish 1st Legions Infantry Division of Józef Piłsudski. I'm not sure what would be the best wording, so feel free to correct my version. Halibutt 13:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me. —Kirill Lokshin 16:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Colors
I originally intended "colors" (spelled one way or another) to mean the colors of the unit's standard, not the colors of the uniform. It seems to me the colors of the uniform are less interesting than the other type. --Leifern 23:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. I suspect it's one of those disconnects with modern versus historical units. Napoleonic units, for example, had a wide variety of uniform colors but all carried the same standard; I suppose it's the reverse for modern ones. Can we use the field for both? —Kirill Lokshin 23:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps we should have one field for each. In all likelihood, Napoleonic (or Continental, or British) units of their pre-camouflage time both had standard uniform colors and colors in their standard. Some of these infoboxes will be pretty extensive when fully populated, though it seems that most don't have marches, mottos, mascots, etc. --Leifern 23:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking of having both values in a single field, like:
|colors= ''Uniform'': Red and green <br/> ''Standard'': Purple and black
but I suppose we could do two separate fields as well. I just want to avoid getting into a situation where we have 30 or 40 parameters that we need to keep track of. —Kirill Lokshin 00:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
For your information, US Army and Marine units - other than Divisions, Corps and Armies - don't have "colors" in the European sense. Most units do have coats of arms. Color-bearing units - and some unique units - have Shoulder Sleeve insignias, while almost all units above the Company level have Distinctive Unit Insignia. Actually, on reflection, this term has to definition for Army and marine units. The "Standard" or "Flag" that Divisions, Corps and Armies bear, the Flag that Regiments and some Battalions bear, and the official Colors assigned to specific Army and marine branches. For example, Infantry are assigned the colors Blue and White, while Transportation are assigned Brick Red and Gold, and Cavalry are assigned Yellow.
Fair enough; I assume the field can just be left blank in articles where it isn't appropriate, though. Is that causing some problem I'm not aware of? —Kirill Lokshin 02:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
English
Should there should be "British English" parameters added as alternatives to the US English "colors" and "specialization" fields? Systemic bias and all that ;-) SoLando (Talk) 04:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Can one infobox be all things to all people, or will it get too large an unwieldy?If we include all the parameters for UK, US, Cdn, Polish, etc etc...would it be fifty lines long? Or should there maybe be one infobox for each nationality?
F'rinstance, US units may have colors -- so do Cdn units (e.g. Sigs units are French grey and dk blue, Engrs are Dk blue and red, Royal Newfoundland Regt is claret and grey, etc); Cdn infantry regts also have colours -- i.e. Queen's Colour and Regt'l Colour, like their UK counterparts, which are flags as opposed to hues. Some -- but not all -- Cdn regts have facing colours, not unlike the UK's The Buffs, but non-infantry/armoured units do not. Yadda yadda yadda. So you see there can be major confusion there.
So maybe individualized infoboxes, or am I just making things worse? SigPig 05:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
One possibility would be to include overridable labels: the box would normally contain "Color: Blue", but if "color_label=Colour" was specified, it would contain "Colour: Blue". —Kirill Lokshin 11:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's make it "CwE = yes" -- МиборовскийU|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 02:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Confusing fields?
Looking over some of the articles where this is used, there seems to be some confusion over the distinction among the "Branch", "Type", and "Role" fields. Should we try to make some changes in this regard, or just ignore it and assume people will fix it as we go along? —Kirill Lokshin 03:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem is the fact that some military services use the same words for different things. For example: Within the US Army, the word branch means "Branch of Service", which means Infantry, Armor, Cavalry, Adjutant General, etc. At the same time, the branches of the Department of Defense are the Army, Air Force, etc.
I suggest that we use Branch to indicate the Branch of Service, as above, and use the word "Arm" to indicate the specific Arm of Service - Army, Navy, Air Force, etc. BTW, the National Guard is pleural - Air National Guard and Army national Guard, and they are NOT subordinate to the superior Arm of Service. Therefore, they get treated as seperate Arms of Service. Their units get subordinated to the superior arm of service when they are Federalized, but they remain National Guard units regardless of their chain of command.
"Type" should indicate the type of unit within the Branch. Thus, Airborne, Armored, "A" Team, etc.
"Role" should indicate their primary tasks. This can be found in their Mission Statement, and don't forget that National Guard units have TWO mission Statements, and therefore two sets of Roles.
To sum up, we need to add a line for "Arm", above "Branch".
PS BTW, I think ytou need to change the format of the Unit Name field from left Justified to Center Justified. I think that that would dress up the infobox better.
I'm not sure adding more fields is the answer here, as it makes it significantly more complicated for older units. Consider the average Roman legion; which of those four (five?) fields would need to be filled in, and with what? —Kirill Lokshin 23:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I pity the fool what leaves out the The A-Team -- B.A. Baracus, as channelled by Habap 18:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Box is good for British/Commonwealth countries only
Appreciate all of the hardwork done by those here but the bottomline is that this box just doesn't apply to US units. I don't know how to creat info boxs from scratch but I think that there needs to be separate ones created for the US Army and US Marine Corps. As much as we would like to try there is no way that one box can fit every country. Just my thoughts--Looper5920 12:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, please be specific what you think is missing. I am a Norwegian resident in the U.S., with a moderate interest in Israeli military units and Continental Army units; I certainly don't think my contributions have a UK bias. We can place optional fields and tags to accomodate a lot of variations. And you'll see there are lots of US military units that use the template, for example: 101st Airborne Division, U.S. 3d Infantry Division, U.S. 7th Cavalry Regiment, 7th Signal Troop, among many others. --Leifern 13:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. We can certainly make changes to this box, but you'll have to be more specific about what else is needed. —Kirill Lokshin 14:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Would it not be sensible to bring info that I guess is quite country specific (ceremonial chief, march) to the bottom of the box, so that important info like the notable battles can come further up? Andreas 15:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
That I agree with. -- МиборовскийU|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 02:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for the vague earlier post. What I should have said is that I would be very interested in working with someone to create an infobox that works for U.S. Marine Corps units. I have created a number of USMC pages. If you want to see the box I have been using please look at my user page and click on any of the links. My own thoughts on a USMC box. Based on the above template Colours, March and Ceremonial Chief would have to go. I would say Role should be changed to Mission and I am hesitant in listing major battles and notable commanders because these could easily make the box longer than the article itself. I am not versed in manipulating infoboxes so I would appreciate any help.--Looper5920 03:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, most of the parameters in this template are optional, and can be omitted if not desired. The only real change I can see is the "Role"/"Mission" distinction; I'm not quite sure what the best way to deal with that is (note the "Confusing fields?" discussion above). —Kirill Lokshin 03:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Looper, in looking over your own boxes, I find some of the information unneccessary. For example, in looking at 1st Tank Battalion (which probably needs to be renamed to avoid ambiguity - perhaps as simply as 1st Tank Battalion (USMC)), I don't think you need Description, Readiness, Specialization or Reason of creation. All of that information should be somewhere in the article to allow the viewer to find it, but it's either redundant or obvious for most units.
I'm not sure that Chain of Command should be in the infobox. On the other hand, putting in the notable commanders and battles (not all of each) would allow the viewer to see immediately why the unit is important. --Habap 17:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Good points. Maybe we should do away with command structure and put in a "partof" field that would work like the one on {{Infobox Military Conflict}}? —Kirill Lokshin 17:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I would actually be more inclined to keep the command structure in the main box and move the numerous battles to a box like the one you just mentioned.--Looper5920 08:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Since I am one of the people who are using the current box, let me put my two cents in. Yes, the current box has a lot of information that is not appropriate to US units, and I've made several of the fields apply to US Units. I will copy one of the boxes I've worked on over here for you to see.
Algeria-French Morocco; Tunisia; Naples-Foggia; Anzio; Rome-Arno; North Apennines; Po Valley; Defense of Saudi Arabia; Liberation and Defense of Kuwait; Cease-Fire.
Gents, thanks for the help, I like the look of the new box and will begin changing over the pages however there are a few things I still would like to tweak. For USMC units, Base/Station would be more appropriate than Garrison/HQ. Not terms that are used in the USMC. Also I am a big fan of the "Chain of Command" section or something similiarly named to quickly show who is higher HQ. Interested to hear thoughts? --Looper5920 08:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, is there some way to have a short name for the "garrison" field that would work everywhere? "Base/HQ" or "Garrison/Base/HQ" maybe? —Kirill Lokshin 16:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Tartans?
Can we please discuss things before adding new fields? What's the point of having a separate field for tartans when we can already:
Discuss them in the caption, if the image includes them.
Discuss them in the identification_symbol field, setting the label to "Tartan".
Or, if we really must have another field, why not make a general field for secondary insignia, rather than one that's, by definition, going to see usage for relatively few countries? Kirill Lokshin 14:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I am also very concerned that this field appears to be being used to spam links to a particular site into articles on military units. Kirill Lokshin 14:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Relatively few countries? Practically every army in the Commonwealth has at least one unit that has Scottish connections, plays pipes and drums and consequently has use of a tartan. Have you never wondered why there are regiments in the Indian Army, Malaysian Army etc who have pipe bands?? Using identification symbol and resetting the label does not work, because identification symbol is set up for display of TRFs. Most units have a TRF, but not all have their own tartan (as not all have a Scottish ancestry). As for "spam" links, have you not noticed that all the links go to the same website, which provides images of each tartan, thus avoiding the unnecessary hassle of uploading images that may have copyright implications onto Wikipedia. Hammersfan 28/08/06, 16.15 BST
I would have assumed that actually adding the relevant content to Wikipedia would be the better option; many of the tartans on the site include descriptions and historical information, which should be added to the relevant articles here.
In any case: why not have a generic field for secondary insignia? Or must we have a field specifically for tartans? Kirill Lokshin 15:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
And, on a more subtle point: if we include a separate tartan field, what's the point of having a tartan_label parameter? Why would this field ever contain anything other than a tartan? Kirill Lokshin 15:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Suggested new parameter for military unit infobox
Quick suggestion here - for the military unit infobox, I think a subordinate unit parameter would be a good idea. Obviously, we wouldn't include lettered companies (A Company, B Company, etc) or sequentially numbered battalions (1/501st, 2/501st, etc), but I think it would be quite helpful for showing which units fall under which units, instead of having to search through the text.--Nobunaga24 01:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't seem like a bad idea, necessarily, but I'm concerned that we'll start to accrue full orders of battle in the infobox—particularly for higher-level commands such as corps or army groups, which have had many subordinate units rotated through them—which will bloat the template. How are we going to define "subordinate units" in these cases? Kirill Lokshin 02:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I would a) keep it to one level below b) for units presently in existence, only the current structure c) for units no longer in existence, perhaps just not use it, or limit it to units "permenantly" or historically assigned to the unit. The same problem potentially exists with the command structure parameter, but bloat hasn't really been a problem with it. I don't think it will become one with this. If it does, we could always eliminate it.--Nobunaga24 02:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Another idea as some of my infoboxes are staring to get a bit long, is that alot of the USMC articles go with a Subordinate units section in the beginning of the article. The usual layout is Intro, Mission then Subordinate units. The units are kept to one below and given in bulletized format and I feel it gives a reader a good understanding of what and who they are prior to stepping off into the History, etc... Just my thought. Every service and country seems to do it a little different using what works for them.--Looper5920 02:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
If we could generally develop a clear structure for showing subordinated content a lot more than the infoboxes for military units might benefit. Bulleted lists after a header is one possibility, appropriate indention in new lines could be another, furthermore numbered lists might be possible or sth. else. Wandalstouring 02:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
As I've been working on a few military units as well, I've often wondered myself how best to handle the situation, especially as the higher-level commands have had many many units rotate through their control. On the flip-side, lower level units like regiments often have a confusing history as well, for which parent unit they were part of. Personally I've been thinking that it would be easier to both understand and implement if the information was included in the historical timeframes, like a bulleted box (or maybe a special template?) for each timeframe/campaign/war, that would say something like "Parent Unit: XYZ Division", "Subordinate Units: 123 Battalions". It would benefit more I think with those "special" units that I've run across, like the various Task Forces of the Korean War, which seem )for the most part) to be a Regiment that had several other units attached to it, like an additional artillery unit, an engineer unit, and usually an AA battery. Trying to follow the "history" of some these units is confusing at best. wbfergus 15:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
We may be able to put something like that together based on the campaignbox design, which would allow it to be stacked with the main infobox; that would presumably solve the issue of separate timeframes. Kirill Lokshin 18:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this becoming a little more than it should be? If a unit is active then their structure is pretty sound sound and shouldn't be moving to much. However if they moved around in the past then that would best be put in the history section. Right? I think maybe I am reading the above wrong...are we talking "Campaign-box" like template for all of a unit's configurations over the years? Will the right side of many units be one massive wall of infobox and template? I guess I am trying to argue for keeping it in a prose format, or at least the body of the article, as much as possible.--Looper5920 19:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, either is possible; which one is actually better probably depends on how much information there is to be presented, and should really be decided by the editors of each article, rather than imposed from above. The templates are really just tools; people are free to use them however is most convenient in each case.
(And, just in case this wasn't clear, this would not entail creating actual separate templates for each possible configuration; all that we'd need is a generic template that would allow people to add in a snapshot of a particular place in the OOB (say, one level up and one level down). People would then pass in the correct units into this template directly from the article.) Kirill Lokshin 19:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
An example of a confusing hierarchy is 39th Infantry Regiment (United States). While the main unitbox would convey the information about the current structure, you would need to read the narratives in the remainder of the article to determine the command structures in place at that time (war or camapign). Having an infobox-type template that could be added to each appropriate section (World War I, World War II, etc.) so it could be readily seen what the hierarchy was at that pont in time. I imagine as the Army transistions into it's new brigade-force structure that historical lineage will become even more of a can of worms. wbfergus 20:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll go with Kirill on this one. Might be good to draw up a template for use. However it's use should be dependent on the page, author, etc... If it is deemed necessary then do it, if not then no reason to add it.--Looper5920 20:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Being a newby, I am hoping to add my current unit (4-101 AVN REGT) and its sister and parent units to the 101st article. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. You have a great forum here and would not want to intrude. Js02 20:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments and suggestions would be very welcome! (In particular: does anyone know of a better term for what's being shown than "command structure"?) Kirill Lokshin 02:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks real good Kirill! Right off hand, I can't think of a better phrase/term than command structure. wbfergus 12:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Thinking about it a bit more, maybe a horizontal rule to help separate parent unit from subordinate units, but it's hard telling without seeing it. Have you tried that yet? wbfergus 18:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Easy enough; does that look any better? Kirill Lokshin 19:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes it does look better. There may be some cases where there is a long parent unit name and the hr will help make for easier reading. Good job and thanks! wbfergus 19:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. Are we going to include it?--Nobunaga24 23:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
If nobody else has comments, I'll probably just add it to the instructions in the next few days. Kirill Lokshin 03:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
If you're looking for a regular summary infobox, {{Infobox military unit}} would probably be the most appropriate option here; most of the fields apply pretty sensibly to an entire service branch. Kirill Lokshin 16:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
'Fraid it's a little too unspecific, methinx. I considered using its code to "roll my own" but when my eyes started crossing reading the code...
Here's a summary of what I think an "Infobox Air Force" should have:
roundel → use "identification_symbol" and "identification_symbol_label"
motto → exists
country → exists
date formed → use "dates"
date abolished → use "dates"
size personnel → use "size"
size aircraft → use "size"? or maybe a new field?
headquarters → exists
nickname → exists
colors → exists
colors_label → exists
march → exists
mascot → exists
battles → exists
anniversaries → exists
current_commander → exists
current_commander_label → exists
ceremonial_chief → exists
ceremonial_chief_label → exists
notable_commanders → exists
fighter → is this meant to be a number, a list of types, a table, or what?
attack → "
bomber → "
COIN → "
transport → "
trainer=
So it should be easy enough to use the existing infobox here; all we really need it to add something for the planes. What exactly did you intend those fields to be used for? Kirill Lokshin 17:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess it could work...
For the planes it would work something like this (using a fictional air force of my own creation as an example):
It occured to me, also, that lines for these would work well for representing squadrons using the box, too. - AerobirdTarget locked - Fox One! 01:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've added six new fields to the infobox: aircraft_attack, aircraft_bomber, aircraft_fighter, aircraft_interceptor, aircraft_trainer, aircraft_transport; if there are any other types that need their own fields, please list them. :-) Kirill Lokshin 02:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
(restart indent) Very cool, thanks! I've infoboxed the Irish Air Corps article and it looks pretty good. :-)
Other additions... aircraft_recce (Recon), aircraft_elec (EW) and aircraft_patrol (Patrol) (in order of priority) would be good. Thanks again! - AerobirdTarget locked - Fox One! 02:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Added as aircraft_recon, aircraft_electronic, and aircraft_patrol. Kirill Lokshin 03:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Lately, I have been giving some thought to this myself, and I think the proposed infobox might work well for air force "units" (sqns., wings, etc.), but not so much for "national air forces" themselves. If the latter are not kept simple, they can grow enormous.
This is especially true with regards to the “Aircraft flown” entries. Consider the sub-box title “Aircraft flown” – Imagine if the USAF infobox contained every aircraft it ever flew! Even with only current inventories, these can be lengthy for larger, more complex aircraft … and worse still if variants get included. For example, you’d have a C-130 in almost every Aircraft category. (In fact, I’d recommend quantities rather than aircraft types/models here, if it the Military units infobox is to be used.)
Other entries I’d deprecate for a national air force are “Country” (it’s a given and usually in the air force name), “Battles”, “Ceremonial chief”, and “Notable commanders”.
My recommendation for an Infobox Air Force would be as follows:
To see what this would look like, please see my test on my sandbox. Let me know what you think. Askari Mark(Talk) 03:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, the logic here seems a bit backwards. All the fields of the infobox are optional; if some fields don't really make sense on a particular article, there's nothing obligating editors to use them. I am not, in general, a fan of creating stubbed-down versions of infoboxes in an attempt to foolproof them against editors putting silly things in the optional fields; it makes much more sense, in my opinion, to have a single fully-featured infobox and then handle the occasional strangeness as a regular editorial decision.
Beyond that:
Splitting up the active dates onto two lines seems like a waste of space.
Why split up the names into so many fields? (And the "short name" is basically the existing nickname field, no?)
The separate size parameters may be a good thing to add to {{Infobox military unit}} anyways.
The additional dividers don't seem all that useful. Is there some particular reason they need to be there? Otherwise, they just seem like wasted vertical space.
With regards to size, my intent is that for active air forces only current equipment will be listed in the 'aircraft' lines, and that they should be kept to only the most notable equipment (i.e. what will fit on a single line on my 800x600 monitor ;-) ). So - for example - the only "Fighters" listed for the USAF would be the F-15, F-16 and F-22.
So...I have to agree with Kirill that the current infobox is OK. Agree that seperate size entries might be useful tho. - AerobirdTarget locked - Fox One! 14:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
First off, based on my limited familiarity with this sort of markup, I based my coding on the infobox the two of you built. That is why, for instance, the “additional dividers” are there; I just located them where they made organizational sense to me (and somewhat follows yours). I don’t consider them hard-and-fast. Likewise, the reason why the fields are optional is so that lines with no data entries do not show up (as wasted space) — by no means was it intended to “foolproof them against editors putting silly things in the optional fields”; again, nothing hard-and-fast on my part. Whichever entries should be “standard” I’ve effectively left “TBD.” Likewise, if there’s some advantage to using the existing Infobox Military Unit parameter names (like, yes, “short_name” equals “nickname” or other popular variant), then fine by me; I simply used what was clear to me.
Re: “* Splitting up the active dates onto two lines seems like a waste of space.” I did so for one reason: I deprecate the “1992 - ” format as seen in Abkhazian Air Force and do not know how to code it to drop the dash when there is no “stood_down” date.
Re: “* Why split up the names into so many fields?” See List of air forces. It has sometimes required us to provide three “names” for a single air force.
|name_english = Bulgarian Air Force
|name_native= Български Военно въздушни Сили
|short_name= Bulgarski Voenno Vzdushni Sili (BVVS)
or
|name_english = Royal Cambodian Air Force
|name_native= Toap Akas Khemarak Phoumin
|short_name= Force Aérienne Royale Cambodge
Perhaps the “short_name” parameter should have been better named “alt_name”.
There are several reasons why I deprecate the “Aircraft flown” section. First and foremost, I believe that anything that looks like a list should be a list – and not in an infobox. It is very common for editors to add large, detailed sections identifying all aircraft formerly or currently being flown, current force structure beddowns, etc. Second, WP:Air editors have found that anything that invites adding only “notable” XYZ in an infobox will result in every possible XYZ being “notable” to somebody. As a case in point (and it’s just one of several examples I could post), check the F-16 Fighting Falcon infobox. There’s a line for “Primary users” and one for “Other users”. Nearly half of the some two dozen air forces that have acquired the F-16 have appeared under “Primary users” alone – most of them even at one time. In fact, most air force names had to wrap, so you can imagine just what it was beginning to look like. While we’ve managed to limit the “Primary users” to 1-2 (except for the F-35 Lightning II), they were just added to the “Other users” line. For a while, we tried to limit that to no more than three, but you can see what that led to with the F-16: “24 others”. The same thing will happen with “Aircraft flown”; that’s how it displays, and the “Major Current Aircraft Types” hidden note will be ignored.
It is for similar reasons that I deprecate entries like “ceremonial_chief”, “notable_commanders” and “battles”. I wouldn’t miss the “mascot” parameter either since I can’t think of a national air force that has one; I just gave it the benefit of the doubt. In general, it’s been my experience editing aircraft articles that “sub-lists” don’t work well. You might get other useful insights from other WP:Air editors on what should be “in” or “out”, and before this infobox gets finalized, I would encourage having a notice placed in that project’s talk page and transcluded here (and possibly that of the WP:MILHIST Military Aviation Task Force if you think they might miss the brief notice on the main WP:MILHIST talk page). I’d do it myself, but it isn’t one of those tricks I’ve learned to do. Askari Mark(Talk) 03:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Going through, point by point:
It should be trivial to get the correct formatting of the dates on a single line by using conditional logic; I'll see if I can put something together tomorrow.
I understand the bit about the names; but (at least in WP:MILHIST) the convention has been to space them apart at the top as needed, rather than trying to have a separate field for each. So you'd have something like:
|unit_name= Royal Cambodian Air Force <br> Toap Akas Khemarak Phoumin <br> Force Aérienne Royale Cambodge
which would be adaptable to an arbitrary number and type of alternate names, rather than trying to guess at all the possibilities in advance.
The optional fields issue may just be a different philosophy in terms of infobox design. WP:AIR tends to favor very minimalist infoboxes; WP:MILHIST tends to favor larger and more detailed ones. If it's truly an issue, we could always do what's been done with {{Infobox Weapon}} and add an |is_branch= flag that would turn off any fields we didn't want enabled for service branches. It would be a far better solution, in my opinion, than actually forking the infobox; maintaining sets of almost-the-same-but-not-quite templates tends to be far more trouble than it's worth, in my experience.
(There's no clean way of transcluding notices to talk pages, incidentally. In a case like this, the best solution is probably just to cross-post notes asking people to drop by this page to join the discussion.) Kirill Lokshin 03:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Changing "Aircraft Flown" to "Aircraft currently operated" might help, perhaps. - AerobirdTarget locked - Fox One! 03:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
That would mean it would no longer be usable for units that have been decommissioned, though. Kirill Lokshin 04:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Kirill Lokshin, what you have for unit_name above is fine by me. (In fact, that's the way we have it coded in List of air forces.) This was simply my first attempt at developing a template, and I started with the one you and Aerobird devised above. My modifications were limited due to time and to making coding changes I felt I understood (and I still needed your help to make it work). I also saw that there was a more or less standard unit template you were drawing from (and with nuances I knew I don't understand), so I tried not to vary from it by too much. My focus was more on capturing the content than any exact coding approach, so please feel free to be bold in improving it. ;)
Aerobird, I certainly agree that "Aircraft currently operated" would be clearer and it would tend to discourage the "every aircraft ever flown" syndrome. However, it will still produce a list — and in a narrow column at that. The US is not a good example; you need to think of an air force with a great number of different types of aircraft and see what that would look like. Then go and differentiate it by model (F/A-18A/B/C/D, F/A-18E/F, F-16C/D Block 25/30/40/50, and so on). I just don't think that something that will be in a list or table in the article needs to be a list, however abbreviated, in the infobox. The USAF example with just two or three aircraft mentioned looks nice ... but it's because the infobox looks best when each parameter has as few entries as possible (IMHO). Askari Mark(Talk) 04:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep, the amount of information that should be in the infobox is probably more of a philosophical issue rather than a technical one. ;-)
(As far as the technical side of it is concerned, though, parameter-based enabling/disabling of particular fields is very easy to do. If we know that we don't want to allow certain fields to be used for a national air force, for example, it's fairly simple to set up the code to just turn them off.) Kirill Lokshin 10:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, as a member of the Comprehensive Infobox Cabal (founded as of this very moment ;-) ), I suppose I'll agree to disagree with regards to aircraft in the infobox. :-) - AerobirdTarget locked - Fox One! 15:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Dirty, rotten, scheming Inclusionist Cabalist!!:P I award you the highly dubious distinction of being the "Cabalist of the Day" award: Askari Mark(Talk) 18:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, another reason for having the founding and stood down dates on separate lines would be to enable to give the full date (e.g., "17 December 1934"). Askari Mark(Talk) 00:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
That can be done anyways, of course; the use of plain years is just a common convention, not a rule.
In any case, this is merely a technical point. I've just added start_date and end_date parameters to the template that can be used instead of the combined dates parameter; try it out and see what you think. :-) Kirill Lokshin 02:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
That's a nice switch — and on the Active/Founded changeover! If they were supposed to show up on separate lines, then sorry I'm such a dummy, but I couldn't figure out how to input the dates to get that. Askari Mark(Talk) 03:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Nope, they're meant to show up on the same line if both are provided; the only real logic here is to turn it into a single "Founded" field if only the first date is given. Kirill Lokshin 03:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
but due to the fact that am new to wiki and wiki formats, I was not able to make the box render as it shuld have, it occupies a large portion of screen,
also the battle list is not falling into place..(i prefer a bulleted list)
Any pointers to correct this mess i've created would be greatly appreciated.
Tanx in advance
(you can reply me here or in the article's talk page.)
Swraj (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Fixed; the extra spaces in front of the bullets cause the entire line to be unformatted. Kirill 17:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Animated images
I have removed one animated gif from Ogden's Cavalry, but upon further research I noticed that other ones are used in e.g. 1st Kentucky Artillery (same image used in three other articles), or the image Image:Central Rebel Mascot.gif (used in a whole bunch of articles). There may be many more of course. I personally find it rather annoying to have animated gifs where the animation adds no info but does distract from the reading. Since these images are placed in this infobox, I would like some opinions on whether these images are beneficial or not. My preference would be to completely remove them. Fram (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The cavalry horse in Ogden's Cavalry is used to illustrate a type of military unit. The same with other types. There's no policy that I know of against use of animated images, so I don't think it's right for you to impose your personal preferences of animated vs. non-animated upon the authors of other articles. These images used are public domain images complete with releases. If you are able to come up with better images that better illustrate the subject and are also public domain or freely licensed, then (and only then) please feel free to replace them with such images. Sf46 (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have just as much right to remove such image as you have to include it. Including them imposes your personal preferences, removing them imposes my personal preferences. I'm trying to reach a consensus on what to do with such images by starting a discussion, after I discovered that there are quite a few articles which use them. That there is no current policy or guideline regarding such images is probably because they aren't used a lot outside these military infoboxes (I can't remember seeing them elsewhere, except to illustrate the working of some machine or something else where the movement of the image is crucial to the understanding). I have not removed them because of copyright reasons, so your statement that they are public domain is correct but irrelevant. I don't see how 1st Kentucky Artillery is better because of the moving image. I'ld like to hear from some other editors to get their opinion on this. Fram (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking through all of the articles linked, in every case the animated gifs look tacky and, more importantly, do nothing to better illustrate the article. Seriously, it looks awful and just detracts from the seriousness of the pages and their subjects. Skinny87 (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I ran into this when I came across the project banner for WikiProject Cuba where someone had inserted an animated flag icon. The animated cannon gif displayed on 1st Kentucky Artillery (and others, as noted above) is tacky, but problems with its use go beyond simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That particular graphic might be useful in the article cannon, or recoil. In its current context, however, it provides no encyclopedic content and does nothing to further anyone's understanding of the subject of the article, the 1st Kentucky Artillery. Its only purpose is for decoration, which makes it an inappropriate, and it and others used in a similar manner should be removed. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I examined the image and its licensing and have listed it at Possibly unfree images along with Image:Cavalry3.gif and Image:Central Rebel Mascot.gif. In the meantime because of the reasons I outlined above and since its copyright status is unclear, I have removed it from all the articles in which it appears. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Images to illustrate the type of unit
Based on a relatively friendly discussion between myself and Sf46 (talk·contribs) and based on the topic above concerning animated gif files, there seem to be two distinct opinions on whether {{Infobox military unit}} needs to have an iconic representation of the type of unit in addition to a word and a link. Sf46 is of the opinion that having, for example, the word artillery, a link to the artillery article and an iconic image (like a cannon) are necessary for complete understanding of the type of unit. (See this version of 2nd Arkansas Light Artillery for an example.) My opinion, and what appears to be a de facto consensus, is that the word and article link are more than adequate to convey the information, and that the image is merely decorative and, therefore, unencyclopedic. It also opens the dilemma of needing to have an appropriate image. In the case of the 2nd Arkansas Light Artillery mentioned above, does Image:CW Arty M1857 Napoleon front.jpg accurately represent the type of weapon that unit used? Do we have to have multiple images for a unit that used different weapons in different wars? What would you use for an infantry unit? A rifle? A grenade? Boots?
So my question: Should the use of iconic images for types of units be considered acceptable? — Bellhalla (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think I've already stated that I think it should be acceptable. I also think it should be optional, not mandatory. In the 2nd Arkansas article, the text clearly states that the unit did use that particular piece of artillery at one time or another. As I also stated before, I personnally don't have a problem with the moving images. The main arguments I've heard against them such as tacky, appearance issues, etc, do seem to fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The moving gif files could very easily be change to non-moving ones such as this: File:Cavalry3.gifmoving gif filenon-moving jpg fileSf46 (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
You may view it as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but I see any image as unnecessary in that role. In my opinion, a word and a link are sufficiently explanatory as to what type of unit is being discussed, and the image becomes just decoration—even more so if it is an animated image. As the current de facto consensus seems to be against iconic representations, I brought up this suggestion to see if consensus had changed. Based on the lack of response so far, it would appear the consensus has not changed. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Moving images cause accessibility problems for people with a number of conditions, such as epilepsy or reading disabilities, and should not be used. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
In the template documentation, why does the Branch field mention Army National Guard, alongside the actual military branches? Army National Guard would be a subsidiary of the Army, not a branch in its own right, correct? I was brought here because another editor wants to use "United States Air Force Auxiliary" in that field for the article Civil Air Patrol, rather than just "United States Air Force", citing the inclusion of National Guard in the example as rationale. Thoughts? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be an inconsistency among the term branch on unit pages. For example 1st Engineer Battalion (United States), it mentions branch as Regular Army (the active-duty component of the U.S. Army). 7th Cavalry Regiment (United States) cites branch as Regular Army; 16th Military Police Brigade (United States) cites branch as Active duty; 179th Airlift Wing cites branch as United States Air Force/Air National Guard. So there seems to be inconsistencies among United States military organizations and how the information applies the term branch. -Signaleer (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, that is another very good reason to get clarification on this issue. The example is just a bit too vague. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Commandern and Commandern_label
These play out back to front, the label appears on the right and the commander to the left. Surely it should be the other way around?GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you have an example of where this happens? The example displays them in the right order (and, looking at the code, I can't imagine how they might be getting reversed). Kirill[pf] 00:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Forget my comment, I thought I found it to be the case with editing the Glider Pilot Regiment, but now going back to that case it's fine. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Since many Military units maintain their own website, can we add an optional parameter for listing it? Sherurcij(speaker for the dead) 18:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I too was wondering the same! Why is there no website parameter in the infobox? --JovianEye (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I've added the code to the template; please test it out and let me know if anything doesn't work the way it should. Kirill[talk][prof] 13:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Alt text
Hi! The template does not currently have a field for alt-text for the photo in the info box. Should this be added? --Diannaa(Talk) 15:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Are the two systems mutually exclusive? (In other words, would there ever be a case where a single unit would have both battle honours and campaign streamers?) If they are, we could probably just add a label parameter for the battle_honours= field to allow the label to be changed to "Campaign streamers" (or anything comparable used in other militaries) where appropriate. Kirill[talk][prof] 00:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
That appears to be appropriate, bot systems are very similar, but I believe that it shows an unnecessary cultural preference that one has a line, with embedded link to it, while the other is left out completely. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've added a battle_honours_label= field that can be used to modify the label displayed next to the contents of the battle_honours= field. Kirill[talk][prof] 02:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I added another aircraft type: aircraft_tanker. I noticed that several units that fly tankers did not have their aircraft listed in the infobox. After (very carefully) editing the template, I checked out several other articles to make sure I didn't screw anything up, including other (non-tanker) flying units, as well as some army and naval units. I think it is OK. --rogerd (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
If there is no opposition to the change, I will be updating the template in a few days.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Since the output is identical, I see no reason not to update to the new infobox module. Kirill[talk] 03:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I have updated the template with the content of the sandbox. Please let me know if there are problems.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
The small image of the Foo Command was center justified. In the current version it is right justified. A number of US Air Force units use this format in the infobox and the images have moved. --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
subunits
any objection to adding |subunits=? I am trying to rewrite {{Infobox Militärische Einheit}} as a wrapper (see sandbox), and we are missing this particular parameter. Frietjes (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
How would you intend it would be used? I'm only asking because when I read your comment I had visions of Eighth Air Force going on for page afer page with subunits of subunits. Well, actually, I also wondered about whether it was needed if the subunits were notable enough to merit their own articles. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
@Lineagegeek: see 31st Airborne Brigade (Bundeswehr) and de:Luftlandebrigade 31 for example, where "Unterstellte Truppenteile" are the subunits. clearly this parameter is optional, and if there are too many to list, then you would just list the number, or a link to an article or category or something else. Frietjes (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Although on the English page, I'm not sure I agree that Einsatzbereit translates well as "Ready". Kinda leaves out that whole Einsatz thing. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I didn't translate that one (see [1]). go ahead and contribute a better translation, e.g. "operational" or whatever. Frietjes (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Commonwealth spelling countries
Can someone fix the section of "Color" to enable the using of "Colour" for any article that use British English to use it as well just like the {{Infobox political party}} where I can use either American or British English when I just need to put "color" or "colour. Wakanebe Wizard (talk) 05:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
This field is confusing because it has 2 purposes: to describe the unit's uniform or to describe its flag or standard. It also uses a regional spelling for an infobox that is used for units worldwide, although I gather that was fixed above. Could we try and resolve this by adding a new field. This could be "Uniform" or "Dress". Then colo(u)rs can be used for the unit flag. Thoughts? --Bermicourt (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I would not be opposed to that, if it is necessary for a specific unit, given that certain units get certain specific uniform items particular to that unit.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Infobox Flags
A lot of articles use a flag rather than text for the country field in this template, although the example does not use a flag. Do we need to use the flag to emphasis nationality or remove it as not needed decoration. Any views. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The use of flage (and other images) in the template (or elsewhwre) is an issue that recurs. My impression is that there is not a consensus on the issue and "we" neither need to use it nor should we remove it as unneeded. I tend to use two templates, United States and United States Air Force in the infobox, each of which includes a flag image and a Wikilink. I've seen other uses of images in the infobox that I'm not altogether happy with, but I leave them alone.--Lineagegeek (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I realize that this is an old topic, but for the infobox if a flag is to be used it needs to be paired with the name of a country. The main infobox guidance states flags may be used in military history and human geography infoboxes, and looking at the spirit of the intent behind this it seems that it would be appropriate and within the full intent for flags to be acceptable for military units. Garuda28 (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 17 September 2016
And you'll need to be more specific. What flag? What subtitle? Cabayi (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Request
Any possibility of adding predecessor and successor to the field? This might just be for ease of navigation. For example: the United States Army Air Corps becoming the U.S. Air Force. Second example: when a unit has the same basic structure and responsibilities but is renamed/renumbered for administrative reasons, such as the (not real world) "17th, 352nd, and 418th Combat Operations Squadrons becoming the 30th, 31st, and 32nd COS respectively". Thoughts?Jlr3001 (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Office Symbol Suggestion
Can we add Office Symbol to the unit's general information? Every branch of the United States military makes use of office symbols on internal memoranda in some form or another, assigned to individual units. The office symbol is useful in identifying specific units and can give information regarding parent units and specific offices. Since it is used by every branch of the US military, and likely by other the armed services of other nations, can we have Office Symbol added to the template? I went to do it myself, but the template is permanently restricted. Thank you in advance for your timely response. — HiB2Bornot2BtalkGo Big Blue! 18:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 27 February 2018
As suggested here and here, I would recommend to reduce the lead image size to 200px. Regarding articles like US Army or Kriegsmarine, the current default value appears too high in comparison to comparable templates such as Infobox UK legislation. Boczi (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
This infobox uses Module:Infobox to set defaults. Our default image size is 200px wide. I do not understand how the US Army and Kriegsmarine images are too big in your eyes when they they use the default of 200px. — Huntster (t@c) 19:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Not done Would need a consensus for a change to a lower size. (The template currently uses the defaults (which are 220px actually, I believe); infobox uk legislation specifies a lower size of 140px.) Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Huntster and Galobtter: First of all, thank you very much for your reactions. Now, what I mean is just: regarding Kriegsmarine for example, the logo seems really oversized compared to the logo sizes in other infoboxes, don't you think?--Boczi (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Please don't flip |answered= unless you believe the original reason for answering "no" no longer applies. --Izno (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Boczi, not really, to be honest. Looks completely normal. — Huntster (t@c) 03:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
aircraft_helicopter_transport
Doesnt appear to display = any ideas ? MilborneOne (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
The parameter is used twice in the template code. ...GELongstreet (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 25 March 2019
There is a code error in the template that prevents said parameter to be actually used. The parameter aircraft_helicopter_transport is used two times. ...GELongstreet (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Also in the discriptive note for said parameter is a typo, instad of saying optional it says optiona, thus missing an letter. ...GELongstreet (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
previous and next unit
Is it possible to add parameters "previous" and "next" ?
Military Units tend to change their names regulary, so it could be interesting to link to the previous and next formation in the Infobox.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Could someone please add an "administered by" parameter (below the part of parameter) for ministries, high commands, military staffs and other bodies that administratively and operatively oversee a unit. I'm recommending this because I saw that the US armed service branches (Army, Navy, Air Force...) are indicated as part of their affiliated departments (Department of the Army, Department of the Navy...), although I would rather consider them – as a military branch – part of the US Armed Forces. I would therefore replace the departments with "United States Armed Forces" in the part of parameter and instead cite them in the administered by parameter. As an example the parameter could also be used on articles such as German Army (1935–1945) for the High Command of the Army and on German Army (German Empire) for the German General Staff (and the Supreme Army Command). Colonestarrice (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Please change template call {{ifempty}} to {{if empty}} to avoid the redirect. The call to that template is transcluded in over 22,000 articles through being called in this template, so that unnecessary redirect has to be followed every time one of those articles is viewed. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
is it required to put reference on native name? (Ckfasdf (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC))
WP:VER requires citations for that which might reasonably be contested (per WP:SKY). The lead does not generally require citations, in that it is a summary of the article and that the summary should be supported by citations within the body. The same is true of an infobox. One would not reasonably question some well known native names (ie the Imperial German Navy (German: Kaiserliche Marine, "Imperial Navy")) but in other cases, a citation might be required somewhere in the article. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@Cinderella157: Thank you... I am asking because, I've never seen any military unit wikipage that uses reference on native name. and AFAIK reference for native name will be in document/webpage in native language which may also difficult to be proved by English-only reader. So, is it WP:PROVEIT applicable for to ask reference for native name? Thx. (Ckfasdf (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC))
Use some discretion before invoking WP:PROVEIT lest it be construed as WP:PETTIFOGGING. For example, there may be references used on the page, in the native language, which give the native name in their title. Also, it only needs to be proven, not proven in English. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Noted. Thank you. (Ckfasdf (talk) 03:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC))
Spacecraft?
Would someone be able to add a spacecraft section like there is for the aircraft section? I'd do it myself but have zero confidence that I wouldn't break the template.Garuda28 (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@Garuda28: If you haven't used the equipment parameter in the infobox, you can use the equipment_label. | equipment_label = Spacecraft . In the aircraft section, there is a | aircraft_general= but the header is "Aircraft flown" however it doesn't have a label for example Tanker. A new section would be a new header "Spacecraft flown" and perhaps only one parameter spacecraft_general= .--Melbguy05 (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Have many military units operated spacecraft? I'm struggling to think of many (or any in particular to be honest). Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
AFAIK... only Russian, refer to hereCkfasdf (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Nick-D: also any U.S. space operations squadrons (ones that operate or fly satellites) or launch vehicles. Garuda28 (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
RfC on the usage of native_name field
ALLOW TO BE FILLED IN
(non-admin closure) There is consensus among editors that the native_name field should generally be permitted to be filled in as it adds useful and educational information, and displays it in a convenient summary form. It also assists in giving a keyword in the search for additional non-English sources. Some editors objected to the duplication of information already in the lead (or body) but others convincingly countered that this is intentionally and purposefully true of all fields in any infobox; its inclusion also poses negligible harm to the reader. This closure should not be interpreted to override other policies such as WP:V or localized consensus to exclude, arrived at through discussion on talk pages of individual articles, for reasons not discussed here. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the native_name of infobox on military unit to be filled in if the body of article already mentioned its native name, assuming native name is different from unit_name and not in English? 07:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Summary of the issue
I am currently in a dispute with User:FOX 52, regarding the usage of native_name field.
He argue since the article already contains native name then I should not fill in native_name field on infobox as the info is duplicated and provides no educational value.
While, I explain my argument to fill in native_name (also mentioned some of this on his talk page, which now been removed):
the purpose of Infobox is to provide summary of the page (this includes native name of military unit).
If the native name is already in English, then no need to fill in native_name field (example United States Air Force)
I even suggest to him if he dont like native_name field, he can propose to remove it from the template here.
But he is getting none of that. And keep insisting that duplication is not allowed and common practice is NOT a reason for the redundancy.
He also keep deleting the native name that I have filled in.
One of example of the article can be found at Mexican Air Force (it's not the only one).
As I dont want to engage on edit war. So, I am asking here to get consensus on the proper use of native_name field. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
My complaint was if a native name is provided in the lead, then why cram up the info box with a duplicate. And it is stated optional on the template its self, so it should be open for debate. Don't see the logic for giving the reader native name “বাংলাদেশ বিমান বাহিনী” for the Bangladesh Air Force. (how does one pronounce that?) what is the value to the reader? or this one Myanmar Air Force (Burmese: တပ်မတော် (လေ)? - FOX 52 (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
EDIT2: IMO, infobox is just summary of the article, so it is natural to have duplication there. need proof? just look up Russian Air Force (i pick this as sample since it is the 2nd largest air force in the world and naturally will have lots of people who more interested or edit the page). Russian Air Force's infobox also has the following field filled in:
unit_name (obvious duplication of the article)
native_name (duplication of the article, the one that annoy you)
size (duplication of the article)
battles (duplication on history section of the article)
commander3_label -> commander in chief of the airfoce (also duplication of the article)
aircraft inventory -> (also obvious duplication)
According to your logic whereas infobox should not have duplicated information then all the field above also should be removed. But, you only insist native_name field to be removed. So, I honestly don't understand your logic. (Ckfasdf (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC))
Yeah, this is a bit silly. Basically everything in an infobox is (or should be) duplicated info from the article. --SubSeven (talk) 04:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@FOX 52: I agree with Ckfasdf and SubSeven. Please refer to the guideline at WP:Infobox: "summarizes key features of the page's subject."
A summary consists of "repeating" the key information mentioned in the body of the introduction and in the body of the article.
As an example, for the Mexican Air Force, the literature refers to it as FAM, and it is Wikipedia's purpose to inform what that stands for (Fuerza Aerea Mexicana). The same applies to Bangladesh Air Force, regardless of your inability to pronounce it. So, when filling the Infobox, yes, one must "repeat" or "duplicate" the essential information of the article in a summary point-style, including the native name. This guideline is not unique to military Infoboxes, but to all the different Infoboxes throughout Wikipedia. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@Rowan Forest: This text “বাংলাদেশ বিমান বাহিনী” gives the reader more info the subject matter? Can you explain - Further in the instructional part of the template its states very clearly (native_name – optional...) so no its not a must - FOX 52 (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Using your logic on you: so leave alone the information collected per the guidelines. It is not a must that you delete it. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@Rowan Forest: Sometimes less is more, the native native IMO is not vital information for the box WP:NOTFATRAT - FOX 52 (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
IMO other information in infobox is not vital information as almost all of it are reduplication of the article, so I disagree with that logic (Ckfasdf (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC))
I would suggest that repeating the native name from the main article text is not an issue if it is in Latin alphabet, anything else frankly is of no use to the English reader. MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with MilborneOne that makes sense - FOX 52 (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Other templates (such as Template:Infobox military person, Template:Infobox war factionTemplate:Infobox company, and many more) even have 2 field for native name (native_name for western alphabet and native_name_lang for whatever script it is), So what makes military unit template different than others so it can not accept native name in original script.(Ckfasdf (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC))
People for whom English is not the first language use and edit Wikipedia. I consider that repeating the native name in whatever script is completely acceptable in the infobox. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't address the education value it should bring to the reader on English Wikipedia. - FOX 52 (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
It can be useful for finding non-English sources on the subject. But really this is yet another argument about something that is really insignificant, it doesn't harm the reader, and it could help. Yet another storm in a teacup over infoboxes that have bedevilled the things from the beginning. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
It's not a "non-English source" it's a non-English script that has no significant value, and only crowds the info box, & it's why I said leave in the in the lead, but leave out of the box as a compromise. - FOX 52 (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The native name is often the actual, original name of the thing that the article and infobox is describing. The actual name of the thing has intrinsic value. What we call the thing in English is our translation as English speakers. The native name has more value than the English name in some cases.
The reason that |native_name= is listed as "optional" is that the template code does not require it as a technical measure. Concise language is sometimes confusing, and since almost all parameters are optional, it would probably make more sense for the documentation to specifically note required parameters, and leave the rest without any optional/required notation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
It adds additional information. Non-English native- speakers readers often search for information in the English language Wikipedia as it is more comprehensive than the ones in their own languages. If the Latin script is the only one someone can read, then our educational mission demands that we prompt them to learn. A dude on the TV in Texas opined that English was good enough for Jesus. Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: This Burmese: တပ်မတော် (လေ) adds additional information for the Myanmar Air Force huh? How exactly does it do that? And I'm sorry but how would you know what most non-English native speakers, prefer in their search on Wikipedia? (or English Wikipedia is more comprehensive, than other non-English ones) FOX 52 (talk) 04:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Go to the main page and you will see the situation. The English wikipedia is larger than any two others combined. The usual procedure is to translate an article into English, and thence into other languages. Hawkeye7(discuss) 04:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Put it in the infobox. The parameter is there for a reason; and everything in the infobox is supposed to be repeated from the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Noted. How about native name with non-latin script?, as he also insist that it should not be included in the infobox(Ckfasdf (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC))
To reiterate MilborneOne point, they have no business being on English Wikipedia. The article(s) in question are about those counties military forces (not the language). Its probably why other articles on foreign topics don't use native name -like here, here, here, here, & here - FOX 52 (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
4 of 5 article sample that you pointed out don't even have |native_name= on its infobox, so it's irrelevant to this discussion. Btw, If you accept to pointed out other pages as example now, I also have pointed out pages that do use and filled in |native_name= on the top section of this discussion.(Ckfasdf (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC))
Yet you have failed to do the one thing I've asked since the beginning, simply demonstrate how it (native name) helps the reader understand the material any better. - And to quote Ckfasdf"is just to show that the unit name have native name, not to teach anyone on how to read it/learn that language or anything" And that's exactly right it doesn’t teach anyone anything. It’s just fluff & it’s quite obvious other here just want it there cause it looks groovy or something - FOX 52 (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
That's my personal opinion. However, throughout discussion on this talk page, we have learned other experienced editor opinions such as here by Rowan Forest, here by Peacemaker67, here by Hawkeye7, here by Pigsonthewing, and here by Jonesey95. And all of them with their reasoning didn't object to fill in |native_name= with latin script or native script. Also I didn't want it there cause it looks groovy or something, I want it there simply because it meant to there (Ckfasdf (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC))
Personally, I would go the other way: eliminate the native name that craps up the lead sentence, and just have it in the infobox, not part of a sentence. Then readers can read. Dicklyon (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
No biggie. Infobox both supplements and is separate from the lead. Let it be. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)\
Support – yes, include native_name; its different from unit name, and not English. Mathglot (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the parameter may be filled. This reasoning, "since the article already contains native name then I should not fill in native_name field on infobox as the info is duplicated and provides no educational value", is invalid for three reasons: A) the purpose of an infobox is to reiterate, in summary form, information already found in the article (it is not a stand-alone "mini-article"; see WP:INFOBOX for details); b) "educational value" is not an infobox-related criterion (the relevant one is whether the information is generally helpful to the reader to be part of the summary, and if native names are not, then the entire parameter should be removed from the infobox, which is another RfC entirely); c) it is of educational value, anyway, since it's informative for anyone who reads the infobox (directly, or via summaries generated by other systems from WP content – see WP:REUSE) but who does not pore over the entire article. — AReaderOutThatawayt/c 06:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Support inclusion RfCbot brought me here, and looking over the discussion and the parameter itself, I can't see why it wouldn't be filled out; the infobox is full of concise forms of information that may or may not be repeated in the article itself, that's no reason to remove the information and irrelevant to inclusion in the infobox itself. While I do not understand the alphabet that FOX 52 used in their initial example for Bangladesh Air Force, but just glancing at it, I see that the text at the top of the infobox matches the text in the symbol itself, so that alone tells me what the symbol says. That adds value for the reader, even if I can't pronounce it based on that alphabet. - Aoidh (talk) 06:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Template-protected edit request on 10 May 2020
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Also make sure to add | image_coat | image_flag | image_flag2 | image_symbol | to the unknown parameters check to avoid any "unknown parameter" errors. Thanks. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 01:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Per my comment on Template talk:Infobox organization, please provide a rationale for the change and demonstrate consensus — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Please remove "aircraft_helicopter_transport" as it puts pages in the category "Pages using infobox military unit with unknown parameters"
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the "Usage" section of Military unit infobox please remove ""aircraft_helicopter_transport" and instead encourage users to use "arcraft_helicopter_utility" or "aircraft_helicopter_cargo." Thank you. Dhpage (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@Dhpage:|aircraft_helicopter_transport= is not a parameter in the infobox code. I'm not sure it ever was. It appears however on the documentation for the infobox Template:Infobox military unit/doc. I see you removed one instance in the doc. I have removed all references to the parameter in the doc.--Melbguy05 (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Melbguy05. Dhpage (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
The template contains specific parameters for battle honours and decorations, but what of the opposite; units responsible for infamous actions, eg war crimes? Take a relatively simple example: the 114th Jäger Division (Wehrmacht) took part in at least two incidents of mass execution of civilians. It does not seem to me the current infobox allows this to be mentioned with an appropriate parameter. Would be interested to hear others' comments on whether another parameter could be included or how to do it with the current parameters. Thanks, --Goldsztajn (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I personally think that should he mentioned in the battles field or the main history section. I don’t think we need to make a war crimes parameter.Garuda28 (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I would expect any such notoriety to appear in the lede if it was notable and where it can be put in context. Plus limited application given most units are not notorious for any dubious acts. And I suspect trying to find a suitable (neutral) name for any parameter in the infobox would be a nightmare. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think notable "incidents" would certainly be worth including in the infobox and are certainly capable of being as notable as battles involved. This has obvious application in WWII articles and a fair few others. Might be worth raising at WP:MILHIST, Goldsztajn? —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
United States and 
United States Air Force in the infobox, each of which includes a flag image and a Wikilink. I've seen other uses of images in the infobox that I'm not altogether happy with, but I leave them alone.--Lineagegeek (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Not done Would need a consensus for a change to a lower size. (The template currently uses the defaults (which are 220px actually, I believe); infobox uk legislation specifies a lower size of 140px.) Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
