Template talk:Infobox military person

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Template-Class)
MILHIST This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Temp Templates and modules do not require a rating on the quality assessment scale.

When embedded[edit]

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[edit]

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


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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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)