Template talk:Infobox military person

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history
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.


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 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Can we please get "other_name"? Nickname is not always suitable. That this field does not exist caused one article about a very real soldier to be tagged as a hoax, as his native language (Azerbaijan) uses a different (non-Latin) alphabet, he served in the Red Army (Cyrillic), and he became notable under a heavily modified name given to him by the French, who he fought for as a French resistance fighter in WWII. The article HAD his correct French name in the infobox under "other_name" (his article probably started off with infobox person at some point) but it does not display, and thus some "time-challenged" person tagged it as a hoax. Fortunately someone alerted me and asked me to check Russian sources. Thank you so much. Pinging Frietjes because he is the only active recent editor of this template (and is always helpful). МандичкаYO 😜 14:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This seems uncontroversial, so done. Please update the documentation. (Frietjes is a she.) Alakzi (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


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[edit]

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)