Template talk:Infobox military person/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Organization

Is it possible to change "Organization" to another word? In Commonwealth English this is spelled "organisation", so it'll look out of place on bios written in CwE. I don't know much about how these infoboxes work I'm afraid, maybe the template can be changed individually? I don't really like the organisation idea anyway, what do we put for Montgomery for example? During WWII he was in command of a division, an army and an army group in major actions. It seems to be very well suited to the example case but less so for senior figures but a vast improvement over the Infobox Biography, though. Leithp 08:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"Awards" might also be better renamed "Decorations". Leithp 08:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Easy enough to change. Keep in mind, though, that this template has only been around for a few hours; I expect it will change significantly between now and the final version adopted ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 11:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"Organization" could become "Commands" or "Notable Commands" --Loopy ^e 00:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Not all of these are officers, though; we have piles of VC recipients that died corporals. Maybe separate fields for officers and enlisted ranks? —Kirill Lokshin 00:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "Unit", "Military Unit" or even "Served in" would work better? Or maybe just for enlisted men, leaving "Notable Commands" for officers. For Monty, both British Eighth Army and British 21st Army Group would be "Notable Commands", while Alfred Henry Hook would get Served in: 24th Regiment of Foot. --Habap 23:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of "Notable Commands" for officers and "Served in" for other ranks. --Loopy ^e 00:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added a "Notable commands" field and renamed "Organization" to "Unit". I've also collapsed the various ranks into a single "Rank" field. Hopefully this will be somewhat more flexible. Any other ideas? How do we want to format multiple ranks/units/commands? —Kirill Lokshin 01:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of having both fields. To take another British general as an example, Michael Carver, I would use the "notable commands" field for time as Chief of the General Staff and the "served in" field for his role as an officer in the British 7th Armoured Division during WW2. I'm sure this is true for many officers who saw active service early in their careers before later rising through the ranks. Leithp 15:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Fields to add

Let's consider a few widely different people and see what needs to be added to make the box work for them; for instance (unless someone has any better ideas) Hannibal, Carmagnola, Jean Lannes , Robert E. Lee, and Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr..

Some initial observations:

• Some may serve multiple countries, and hold different ranks in each country.
• Some may be commanders but have no formal rank.
• Some may be part of a complex chain of command.

Any ideas? —Kirill Lokshin

For ranks in multiple countries perhaps it could just be up to the editor to do something like this:

Infobox military person/Archive 1
Rank	Coronel (1937 - Spanish Army) Lieutenant Colonel (1940 - French Army) Admiral (1947 - Royal Navy)

--Loopy ^e 00:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice! We probably need a separate country field for rankless commanders, though. —Kirill Lokshin 00:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

For rankless commanders the rank field could be ignored all together and what they commanded be shown in what is currently the "organization" field, or perhaps a "comparative rank" field or similar? --Loopy ^e 00:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we should go the simple route and change the attribute name to Rank(s). If they didn't have an official rank we can just say N/A. Oberiko 02:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Or just leave it blank. Would we want a separate "Country" (or "Allegiance") field beyond that, though? —Kirill Lokshin 02:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Let´s add the signature field too as in {{Infobox Royalty tempelate. --BorisGelbukh (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Entered Service?

What's the point of the entered service field, I'm not sure I see the relevance. Also wouldn't a "major actions" type field be beneficial? Leithp 10:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the entered service field and added "notable battles" and "allegiance" ones. Anything else we need? —Kirill Lokshin 16:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Percival

Per Kirill's suggestion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Arthur Ernest Percival/archive1 I've replaced the infobox biography there with this one. My first impressions are that it's very big and could do with a little trimming. Leithp 20:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Some of the parameters can be omitted if they're not particularly important; the "later work" section seems like a good place to start. Also, reducing the picture width can shorten the box considerably. —Kirill Lokshin 20:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Slim

If anyone is looking for another example of this box "in action", I've just added it to William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim. Leithp 22:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

And there is now a discussion on the talk page of that article as to whether it is appropriate. Anyone who's interested please participate, as I suggest this discussion is going to happen again and again for any military person who has had a significant other career. In this case it's Governor General of Australia. Leithp 09:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Trimming some fields

Would anyone object to removing the "family" and "currentlyresides" fields? They're not particularly useful in most cases, and would be better mentioned in the article text rather than in the infobox. —Kirill Lokshin 16:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Leithp 16:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Finished?

I think this is about ready to roll out, isn't it? Leithp 20:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think so; it's beginning to come into use, and there haven't been many complaints. I'm sure we'll have further ideas for improvements at some point, but I'd say we're done for the immediate future. —Kirill Lokshin 21:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Just come by this template and think it looks great. Have taken the liberty of trimming the basic font-size used to 95% in order to reduce chances of otherwise unseemly line-wrapping; hope that's okay. Suggest that "Later work" reworded as "Other work", as in at least one instance (Hjalmar Riiser-Larsen) it's not necessarily later than (i.e. after) the person's military service. Best wishes, David Kernow 01:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The line wrapping is going to sometimes be ugly either way (see, for example, John Abizaid; reducing it in the left column causes more in the right). —Kirill Lokshin 01:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. How about the "Later work" → "Other work" field?  I could start working through those articles that use it. Regards, David Kernow 12:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

If we do that, we can just change the label in the template. Changing the actual field name isn't worth the effort, in my opinion. —Kirill Lokshin 15:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay; have just made change. Best wishes, David Kernow 00:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Alt text for images

"The image must be given in the form [[Image:Example.jpg|300px]]; ..."

It's good practice to include a description of an image, even if a caption isn't needed: [[Image:Example.jpg|300px|MajGen John Q. Example USMC, Burma, 1944]].
—wwoods 10:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes (although a caption should generaly be used here); the main point was that thumb or right or other image tags break the template. Kirill Lokshin 12:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Portrayed by?

I just don't think it's notable enough to name actors in the infobox. Space in the infobox should be premium, only important stuff should make it in. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|e|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that was in the original version somebody created; it's never really been discussed. If nobody drops by with serious objections, we can probably remove it. Kirill Lokshin 01:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've only used it once, on Brian Horrocks, and the actor is mentioned in the article anyway. It really doesn't need to be in the infobox. Leithp 10:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it. If anyone has any convincing arguments for leaving it in, I'm sure they'll drop by shortly ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Would this cause trouble with existing boxes with the field filled in? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|e|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No; that field will just disappear. Kirill Lokshin 00:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's good. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|e|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Problems?

Some of the sections don't work. See Eugene Roe for example. There's information about his nickname, where he lived, etc., but it doesn't seem to show up on the actual page. Morhange 20:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Strange, I see all of the fields on the page. Have you tried clearing your cache? Kirill Lokshin 20:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames

Hi everyone. I have a question regarding nicknames: I see that there is a field for them in the template but is there consensus on whether or not these are too trivial for an encyclopedia? At the Adolf Galland page for example there is some disagreement about whether or not his nickname should be included. As you can see from the page history, and my talk page, I think they should be included.Mumby 14:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, I can't see any reason why a nickname that can be found in reliable historical sources couldn't be legitimately included. Kirill Lokshin 15:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Allegiance and Military Branch

I certainly think that the Allegiance field is worthwhile and that many articles use it as directed on Template:Infobox Military Person. However, some articles replace they country with a military service (eg. they use British Army instead of United Kingdom). I have two thoughts about this. First, consistency is important and we're currently lacking it. Second, both national/non-state allegiance and military arm or service are of interest. I suggest that we include a new field called something like "Military Branch" or "Armed Service" which would contain data like: People's Liberation Army, Royal Navy, Israeli Air Force, United States Marine Corps, etc. Greenshed 02:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, wouldn't the branch/service already be indicated (perhaps implicitly) through the unit/command fields, for those cases where it's relevant? Kirill Lokshin 02:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That's often, but not always true (eg. multinational and inter-service commands or when personnel are attached to a unit). However I would suggest that the main point of info boxes is to provide quick-to-read summary information and not to leave the reader trying to work out implied details. If I were providing a quick summary of a military person, I think I would (at least in modern warfare) mention their armed service. Greenshed 14:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough; I've added a branch= field to the template that should be suitable for this. Kirill Lokshin 14:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In the US Army at least, "branch" means something like "infantry" or artillery". I suggest "service" instead. I've been putting that into the rank line, e.g.

"| rank = [[Second Lieutenant]], [[United States Marine Corps|USMCR]]".

—wwoods 18:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, another one of those messy US/UK things. Could we perhaps get away with something like "Service/branch" as a label for that field (and perhaps suggesting that both be identified if they're different in the relevant country)? Or is that going to be too confusing? Kirill Lokshin 19:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think "Armed Service" would work fine in British English. If that works ok in US English then if there are no objections .... Greenshed 20:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ordering of Allegiance, etc

I think that the following order makes sense:

• Allegiance
• Branch
• Years of Service
• Rank

Having Branch down the list, as it is now, does not make logical sense. — ERcheck (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense; I've flipped the order of the fields. Kirill Lokshin 20:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Change 'allegiance' to 'nationality' or 'nation of service'

Greetings,

I don't like the below infoboxes because they use the word 'allegiance' which is POV:

Claude Choules March 3, 1901 – Place of birth Pershore, Worcestershire, England Allegiance British

Australian Service/branch Royal Navy Royal Australian Navy Years of service 1916 – 1956 Rank Acting Torpedo Officer, Fremantle Chief Demolition Officer Battles/wars World War I World War II

Note, for example, Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in 'pledging allegiance'. Not only that, but we have persons like William Seegers who only served tepidly/because they had to. Did the current pope give his "alliegance" to Hitler? Would it not be less jingoistic to say 'nation of service.' Note, for example, Lazarre Ponticelli served for France while an Italian citizen. His 'alliegiance' was not to France alone but to the Allies. "Nation of service" would remove the POV/patriotic jingoistic association that is attached to the word "allegiance." Sadly, even the example of the "American" soldier seems to be glorifying war. War might be a necessary evil in some cases but it shouldn't be glorified.

'Nationality' is less POV; it is simply a descriptor.Ryoung122 23:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that, of course, is that not all military personnel served a "nation". So far, "allegiance" (imperfect though the term is) is the only label we've found that can capture the full range of groups that organized armies.

(One alternative might be to split the field into national and non-national versions; but I'm not quite sure, off the top of my head, what the logistics involved in that would be.) Kirill 03:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Date of Birth

does anyone other than me think that the dates of birth and death looks kinda ridiculous at the top of the infobox? it really looks like an afterthought. --emerson7 | Talk 20:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is ok that way. It seems to be in line with more traditional print formats.Mumby 08:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is different from most other templates for people - Template:Infobox Actor for example - where it is below the picture. Inwind (talk) 10:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

hCard

I wish to add hCard microformat mark-up, as used on {{Infobox Biography}}, using HTML calsses:

• vcard - on whole template)
• fn - on page name
• nickname - on nickname

honorific-prefix could be used on "rank", but only if there is no content other than a prefix.

Andy Mabbett 15:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Kirill Lokshin 21:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but class="vcard" does not seem to appear in the output. Andy Mabbett 20:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it seems MediaWiki is too clever about trimming extra markup; it should work properly now. Kirill Lokshin 21:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to work, now. Thank you again. Please will you now add a subheading, "Microformat", followed by {{UF-hcard-person}} to the documentation? Andy Mabbett 21:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Kirill Lokshin 21:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Splendid, thanks. I'll leave you in peace, now ;-) Andy Mabbett 21:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki

{{editprotected}} Please add nl:Sjabloon:Infobox militair persoon as an interwiki. SalaSkan 18:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ck lostsword•T•C 19:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Priority of awards for that paramter?

The template guidelines say:

*awards – optional – any notable awards or decorations the person received.

Is there a threshold for which awards should be listed and which shouldn't? It seems to me that if an individual has say several campaign medals along with others, the more notable ones should take precedence in the infobox, because all the decorations received are likely to be listed anyway on their page. Taking Richard Winters for example, I am wondering if his 5 campaign medals (American Defense Medal thru National Defense Medal) can be left out of the infobox in recognition that the others listed are more notable. --BrokenSphere 03:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say it's probably more dependent on the total number than anything else. If listing everything doesn't bloat the box too much, that's a reasonable approach; conversely, on the other extreme, someone like Georgy Zhukov is going to have a much higher cutoff point to avoid having the infobox stretch on halfway down the article. I don't think there's necessarily a one-size-fits-all answer that we can give here. Kirill 03:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Criteria that has been used for most USMC bios — in order of precedence down to the Purple Heart; adding lesser awards if particularly pertinent to the person's notability, such as POW. Also, include significant foreign awards. — ERcheck (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki +mk

{{editprotected}} Can you please add mk:Шаблон:Инфокутија Воено лице? Thank you. INkubusse 01:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Kirill 02:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki+bg

{{editprotected}} On 17 of August I create this template in bulgarian wiki, so I hope anybody of administrators to add bg:Шаблон:Инфокутия Военно лице. Thank you.--Desertus Sagittarius 11:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Kirill 15:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Lived" field

Recently, I was deciding whether to use this infobox or the regular person infobox in an article, which led me to compare the two. One difference is that this infobox uses the "lived" field, while most of the other bio infoboxes use separate birthdate and deathdate fields. Is there some reason you have chosen not to do the same?

This infobox also includes less attention to family than the standard person infobox, but that is true of many of the other specialized bio infoboxes. --Groggy Dice T | C 01:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the combined field is that this infobox predates the introductions of parserFunctions; at the time when it was designed, it wasn't possible to deal neatly with placing a combined birth-death range into a single field when the date of death was absent.

This is no longer an issue, though, so it should be possible to add the normal birth/death fields here. I'll try and do that when I get a chance. Kirill 01:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've added "born" and "died" parameters to the template; does that work? Kirill 02:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Image size

Is 300px the max? Is there a "preferred" size to specify if the image is larger than that or is it largely individual aesthetics? BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

300px is the maximum size for which template stacking will work properly, as well as the conventional size overall. A larger size can only be set if there are no auxiliary templates in the article that need to be stacked with the primary infobox. This particular infobox is usually used without auxiliary templates, so it shouldn't be too big a deal; but it's typically used with vertically-oriented portraits, so I'm not sure why a larger image would be necessary in any case. Kirill 17:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Size isn't a problem. I guess what I'm getting at is whether there's any preference for a portrait size within that parameter at all or it's up to what editors think looks suitable, as people will differ if a 250px size portrait vs. a 200px sized portrait from say 400px original looks better in an infobox. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Smaller sizes are perfectly fine. Kirill 17:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Blank copy

My reason for formatting the blank copy was to match the parent {{Infobox Person}}; what transclusions would that break? --Geniac (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The header is the part that would break transclusions; sorry if that wasn't clear. As far as the formatting is concerned, I think it causes more trouble than it's worth—note, for example, that in the "full syntax" version of Infobox Person, the alignment is broken—and doesn't really improve readability, particularly when the field values wrap onto multiple lines. That particular style of formatting is certainly not a standard; compare all the infoboxes in Category:Military infobox templates. Kirill 20:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I had a look at the transclusions and understand how the header would mess them up. However, I'm not sure what you mean with the "full syntax" version of Infobox Person. Do you mean the "Blank template with all parameters" or the Bill Gates example? What part of it's alignment is broken? Do you mean with the resting_place_coordinates field? --Geniac (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I meant. Kirill 14:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

listing the Cold War as a conflict the subject participated in?

Edward L. Beach, Jr. lists this, but I'm wondering if there are any guidelines to list it or not, or should that parameter only be reserved for "hot" wars. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no real firm rule; for many people, listing the Cold War is probably more useful to the reader than not doing so. Kirill 18:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Born and died fields broken

The born and died fields do not show in the infobox— see the template example. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm? The dates are right at the top, just under the name; I can't see anything broken, but maybe I'm not looking for the right thing? Kirill 13:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah- I was looking in the body of the infobox. I can't recall ever noticing then in the header. Thanks. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

On Alexander Suvorov

Hello everyone,

On the Suvorov talk page there's been a message under the Wikiproject Biography template stating that "an appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article." This message has been there since at least September 2006 and since then apperantly no one has bothered to add an infobox to the article or remove the message. I decided to add one with this edit. I'm not sure whether I overdid it with information or what, but the infobox was removed a few days later by Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs).

Now, mind you, I really hate to see the work thrown in the trash without any apperant reason stated in the edit summary. However, as the aforementioned gentleman appears to be an admin, my only conclusion is that he knows what he's doing and an infobox does not belong in that article...for whatever reason that is. If that is the case, the message asking for one needs to be removed from the talk page so that others won't make the same mistake. My other conclusion is that the users who dominate that article just don't like infoboxes. In any case, I haven't reverted the edits but instead have come here wondering what you all think on the matter.

Regards, 71.112.145.211 (talk) 09:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This issue should be discussed on the Suvorov talk page— I have copied it there. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 10:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please put doun this language ru:Шаблон:Военный деятель--Ventusa (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please put doun this language ka:თარგი:ინფოდაფა სამხედრო მოღვაწე--85.117.43.111 (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

'Commands' field

I think that it should be changed (in the display) to something like 'commands(ed)', because 'Commands' clearly implies that it's the unit that the officers commands presently, and does not allow for a list of units he commanded in the past. There is no other field for such a list either. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Command" is being used in its noun variant here. Kirill ^(prof) 13:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not intuitive to the reader. It can still be changed to 'command posts', 'command positions' or something similar. On a side note, I think the width of the infobox should be reduced. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, fair enough. I've changed it to "Commands held", which should hopefully be clear enough without needing to go into the various subtle distinctions among posts/positions/etc. Kirill ^(prof) 14:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Cemetary optional field

Per this help request and this followup, I'm submitting a request on behalf of User:Jonathan Logan. Can the Cemetery field be inserted underneath Place of death in the infobox. Please give me a shout if you need help with template code etc. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 13:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Many military figures aren't buried in cemeteries, so I've added it as "placeofburial" (with an overridable label). Hope that helps! Kirill ^(prof) 13:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that works for everyone. Many thanks! Gazimoff ^Write_Read 14:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Add "Occupation" or "Previous occupation" field

Please. Complement to "laterwork". Thanks. Saintrain (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The actual label on the "laterwork" field is "Other work", so I think you can probably just use it for both pre- and post-military work. Kirill ^(prof) 13:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That will do nicely. Saintrain (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Spouse

Can somebody please add spouse to this infobox?--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There's already a "relations" field that I would think could be used here. Kirill ^(prof) 12:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Inquiring minds want to know...

Could someone please look at the recent history of Prescott Prince.

Someone else tried adding this template. The image didn't work right. They tried it with an extra "Image:" in front of the image name, but the image didn't work right when I removed it either.

In the meantime, I changed it to {{infobox person}}.

Inquiring minds want to know... Geo Swan (talk) 05:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The image has to be in full image format (i.e. [[Image:Example.jpg|300px]]) to work correctly; the template doesn't auto-link images on its own. Kirill ^(prof) 00:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is probably the better approach. But should that trump consistency with other similar infoboxen? Geo Swan (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That's how all the miltitary infoboxes work. Given that, in many cases, several separate images are placed in that field, I can't imagine how auto-linking could be made to work without removing existing capabilities from the templates. Kirill ^(prof) 09:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What consistency? Infoboxes vary widely as to how the images are formatted, field names and the look. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 10:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Burial coordinates

Please consider adding a "placeofburial_coordinates" parameter, like that on {{Infobox person}}, for people with notable grave sites. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Is there an associated microformat tag for these? Kirill ^(prof) 01:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Template width

This template is unnecessarily wide, as can be seen on Mark Antony and many other articles, where the extra width is not needed. I think the default width should be reduced, or an optional width parameter added. Mr. Absurd (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see a width parameter on all of the standard infoboxes for people. There are some that have it and some that don't. Some awards have long names, so the wider infoboxes are nice to prevent wrapping. — ERcheck (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Burial

I would like to have the "burial" changed. Hindu, Buddhist, Sikhs, and Jains are mostly cremated, and Zorastrians are neither cremated nor buried -- left for the vultures. Could someone please change the template for accuracy? =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you want it changed to, though? Kirill ^(prof) 13:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on {{Infobox person}} is to use resting place, for those very reasons. Consistency across infoboxes is also sensible. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm. We do, at the moment, have a separate label field that allows that label to be changed. Based on the comment here, I'm guessing people would prefer that it read "Resting place" across the board rather than changing it on a per-article basis? Kirill ^(prof) 13:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the default label to "Resting place" but left the support for a per-article change in place; does that work? Kirill ^(prof) 13:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

We can offer the following text options 1. "burial" 2. "cremation" 3. "resting place" in the first column. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You can do that now by setting, e.g. "placeofburial_label=Cremation"; the label on that field is configurable on a per-article basis. I suppose the question is what the default label should be; at the moment, it's "Place of burial", but "Resting place" may make more sense for consistency. Kirill ^(prof) 13:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Not many would know of these customizable settings. This is what I suggest: For burial (Christians, Jews, Muslims) we use the text "burial", for cremation (Hindus, Jains), we use "cremation location", and for all other we use "resting place". Ashes of Hindus are immersed in the Ganges, so the text "resting place" is inappropriate. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's neither here nor there; if people don't look at the instructions for the template, then simply adding more variations won't help them. Obviously, all the variations you suggest can be done using the current template (although not automatically); perhaps the instructions can be changed to make the proper use of the "_label" parameter clearer? Kirill ^(prof) 13:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

<reindent>Ok, this can be resolved by having a funeral_type= parameter. This would change the text to:

1. funeral_type=burial --> "Place of burial"
2. funeral_type=cremation --> "Place of cremation"
3. funeral_type= blank --> "Resting place"

This issue stands out on Sandeep Unnikrishnan, where I noticed it renders as Place of burial. I'm not sure if everyone reads this template, its difficult to navigate to the template for a new person or anonymous editor. In my experience, editors usually copy-paste infoboxes from other pages, and then replace the necessary text. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what placeofburial_label= does; for example:

{{Infobox Military Person
| name          =[[James Bedford]]
| placeofdeath  =
| placeofburial_label=Place of [[cryopreservation]]
| placeofburial =[[Alcor Life Extension Foundation]], [[Scottsdale, Arizona]]<br />{{coord|33|29|35|N|111|55|34|W}}
}}

James Bedford
Place of cryopreservation	Alcor Life Extension Foundation, Scottsdale, Arizona 33°29′35″N 111°55′34″W

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry, got it now, although the label is misleading and I would prefer a simpler, more neutral label. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note my related request for #Burial coordinates, above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Support this, if the label is changed to allow cremations etc. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

placeofburial_label is the label for placeofburial; both names should match for consistency. As to coordinates, simply add them to placeofburial using {{coord}}. See the example above. What should the label be for Sandeep Unnikrishnan? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but a separate field allows for greater and better granulartity of data, especially when exported as metadata. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO the infobox has to be updated. There are many fields we can import from Template:Infobox person, and also ensure that the field names are neutral. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Recommend changes

I would like to recommend a couple changes to this infobox but I wanted to solicite everyones comments.

Suggestion 1: As someone else mentioned above there are some fields within the Infobox Person that I also think should be added to this template. Here are the ones I think would be useful to add with comments as to why after each:

• |body_discovered = (there are quite a few who's remains where never found)
• |death_cause = (There are a lot with KIA in the death place or in other locations but I think this would be a good addition in general)
• |callsign = (This pertains almost exclusively to military pilots and is better suited to be here)
• |spouse = (Although the relations is already in the template it is better to have the spouse, parents and children seperate and use the relations for things like cousins, brothers, grandparents, etc).
• |children =
• |parents =

Suggestion 2: There are at least 120 Infobox templates for people and many of them operate differently. Several of these others could apply to a military member and although I know that it would be impossible to incorporate every field I recommend adding something that identifies if another could apply, for example if we added a criteria for Astronaut or aviation and it was marked with a Y then that could tell readers that the person was an Astronaut or Aviator. This would also make it easier for editors to add the additional infobox criteria if appropriate and this field could be automatically or semiautomatically be updated using AWB or a BOT. --Kumioko (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll add the fields when I get a chance. I'm not sure how you'd want the second part to be set up; if we use simple yes/no tags, then people are going to complain about the standard display being misleading. We could use them as mere metadata, with nothing actually being displayed, but then they have no immediate benefit.

Generally speaking, I'm not sure that the infobox model is a good fit for what you're trying to do here; this seems more suitable to the category system or some derivation of that. Kirill 17:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--Kumioko (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to reiterate my related request for #Burial coordinates, above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That was done a couple of weeks ago; is it not working correctly? Kirill 17:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I missed that. It seems to be fine, Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Three's a lot to be said for standardising those 120+ biographical infoboxes - they should all take the same generic fields, with the same name, for instance; and merging those which only differ slightly. Some work has been done on this, but it is currently stalled. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Your right and virtually all of them have ten or twelve fields in common for example (name, image, caption, date of birth, death date, etc) and what I have seen in the past is that when a field that should be common to all gets added to one, it frequently does not get added to all. Place of burial is a good example, there are only a few that have this built into it and it should be a common field to all. I know that typically we try and avoid building templates into templates but it seems like we should be able to do something to standardize some of the templates. Plus there are a couple that are extremely close to each other and only vary by a couple fields. I think if we use the Person data template as the core to the others then it would minimize the changes required to maintain them all and it would help to standardize them throughout WP.--Kumioko (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Place of burial - class for microformat

{{Editprotected}}

Please change:

{{!}} {{{placeofburial|}}}

to:

{{!}} <span class="label">{{{placeofburial|}}}</span>

to apply the label (aka "unstructured address or location") property for the hCard microformat used in the template. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, done. Kirill 19:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine, thanks. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

nesting function

In working with several biographies, I've noticed that many military people tend to lead entirely different lives after leaving military service. Some of these subsequent careers have thier own infobox, for example, Template:Infobox astronaut to Template:Infobox wrestler to Template:Infobox Officeholder. This can result in a single biography having two or even more contrasting infoboxes, which looks unsightly and disorganized. The latter template has made an imprefect solution, to include parameters for prior military service, but it does not offer as much functionality as this current infobox provides, and it would be impractical to add these parameters to every type of professional infobox.

The solution I've come up with is to add a nesting parameter to this template, to allow it to be inserted into another infobox and merge seamlessly. Template:WPMILHIST nests perfectly into template:WikiProjectBannerShell, we could do that for this.

Thoughts? bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea in theory, but keep in mind that the nesting of project banners in {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} is highly standardized—in other words, the form the banner should take when nested is clearly defined, and there is only a single wrapper template it needs to work with. I don't believe it will be feasible to create a nesting format that can be neatly used with an arbitrary wrapper template, since infobox styles are so variable (unless we use no style formatting at all).

In any case, to get something like this to work, we need to define what the template should look like when nested, ideally in a way that's not dependent on the formatting used by the outer template. Kirill 13:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not particuarly skilled in coding, or I'd try to offer an example, but what I have in mind is simply a variable function that includes all of the fields of the navbox without the outer box or any spacing/padding. I think this means that inserting it into another infobox should look just like inserting plain text, and the shell infobox will format everything to look like a native entry. Ideally, it would look a great deal like Template:Infobox Officeholder. It also occurs to me that we could simply create this as a seperate template, if it is not possible to use a variable to strip away the excess formatting. bahamut0013^words_deeds 10:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This is why, where possible, biographical infoboxes should be merged into {{Infobox Person}}. Any move to implement your suggestion, which does have some merit, should be based on making it possible to insert sub-templates into that parent. The smae model could then apply to other sub-templates. Accordingly, I suggest moving discussion there. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that using the Infobox Person template as the base code would be best. I also think at the same time we should look at consolidating and eliminating some of the redunant templates and I think that the point that Kirill brings up about standardizing the infobox templates similar to the wikiproject banners is a good one. He wasn't suggesting that I know, but it might be good idea for the longterm good of the WP project. Just my cents--Kumioko (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Polish Soldiers Blue

Should presumably be redirected here? It is used only in several articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should probably be redirected. We'll need to change the articles using it first, though, since some of the parameter names aren't the same between the two templates. Kirill ^[pf] 21:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've proposed that it be deleted. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Microformat upgrade request- no visual impact to template

{{editprotected}}

• Visual impact: None
• What it does: This change allows wikipedia to emit data in the form of microformat metadata, as do other infoboxes such as these and and these. The change should have no visual impact and introduces non functional classes to elements of the table. These classes are recognized by external microformat parsers to retrieve information in the cells.

• Requested changes:

1. {{WPMILHIST Infobox style|main_box|vcard}} → {{WPMILHIST Infobox style|main_box|vcard vevent}}
2. class="fn" → class="fn summary"

• Background: This allows events of the individuals life to be represented (such as the span of their life, from birth to death date. Further information on what this does and how to see some of the benefits may be found here.

Thanks -J JMesserly (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Martin^msgj 18:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much Martin. -J JMesserly (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

People are not events. The change does not allow events of the individuals life to be represented (such as the span of their life, from birth to death date, but presents those dates as the start and end of a single event. Please reverse this unnecessary and harmful change; as reversed recently on {{Infobox Person}} and elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Addition of Service Number field?

If readers wish to research soldiers outside of Wikipedia, the service number of the soldier is often of great assistance when searching national archives. Obviously each country runs it own systems of identifiction numbers, but this inclusion would still be very handy. For example, British soldiers published in the London Gazette always have their service number listed. This enables readers to perform an archive search which shows each time the soldier has been published. Searching with names is less reliable because names are not unique, and additionally can change through marriage or other means. Mr Pillows (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea for a lot of circumstances, but I'd have privacy concerns, especially with BLP. Also, Americans did away with service numbers a few decades ago, and now identify service members by thier social security number. I'd be very much opposed to listing that particular number on any Wikipedia article, whether the individual was alive or not. bahamut0013^words_deeds 05:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Command Held Edit

Lt. General Caldwell also held the following command:

CSC, 1st Battalion (ABN) 508th PIR, 82nd Airborne Division

It was his first command. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CACFrontier6 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt Text

Per discussions on the FLC and FAC talk pages adding alt text for images will be a requirement for Featured content. I am requesting that a new field for image alt text be added to this infobox so that screen readers can see an alternate text vice an image when applicable. --Kumioko (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, we don't actually need a separate field; since the image is given in full form rather than as a raw filename, the alt text can be provided directly with the image itself:

|image = [[File:Example.png|300px|Alt text]]

Would that not work correctly for some reason? Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 01:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

In your example, "Alt text" is a caption; you have to use the alt parameter: |image = [[File:Example.png|300px|alt=Alt text]]; otherwise you are correct. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that; I'd always assumed that the caption text would be inserted as the alt text as well if no alt text was explicitly specified. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the caption should tie the image to the text, the alt describes the image. See Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems that it works. I've added a note to the documentation. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Might want to consider using a template for the MoH and similar images. This would keep the alt text common, otherwise we will have alt creep as everyone fiddles with it in every article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I brought up that same point gadget and in fact I also suggested that the Alt text, text be added to the image itself. That way the text can be clearly linked back to the image and a bot or script could be written to do mass changes where applicable rather than manual edits on millions of images on millions of articles. It will still take some time AND there could be exceptions where the recommended alt text left on the image may not be 100% appropriate for every article that the image is on. --Kumioko (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Pre-merger discussion

Please note this proposal Infobox Person military fields, which will make all the parameters of {{Infobox Military Person}} available in {{Infobox Person}}, effectively rendering the former redundant, with the intention of a merger by means of a redirect. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've copied this to WT:MILHIST#Military person infobox and person infobox proposal for greater visibility, since most people don't follow the template talk pages. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I raised some concerns about compatability there. In retrospect, I should have raised them here... but I figure more people will read it there and tell me how I'm a technical imbecile and have no business dabbling in template code. :P bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know I've replied there. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I just went and looked at the proposal discussion links above (which has been archived byt the way) and I see where you said thanks but it never really addresses any of the problems. Have you been able to work through the issues mentioned in regards to merging these 2 templates. Also, what is the plan for migrating the data to the new template since the criteria names between the Military person and person infoboxes aren't equal. What is mean here is that for the Military person it might be called placeofbirth but in the other it might be birthplace (thats just an example and may not be accurate) so a simple redirect may not work. --Kumioko (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Militant biographies

Following talk on Talk:Joseph_MacManus#Military_infobox and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Terrorism#Use_of_military_infobox_for_paramilitary.2Fterrorist-group_members; I'd like to see this template used for "militants" as well as "soldiers", since WP runs into POV troubles when trying to distinguish between the two. Even militants are involved in a military struggle, so the name of the template is fine as-is, and I can't see any potential problems in the variable-field-names or labels; so does anybody else see anything that should be "cleaned up" before we just tweak the /documentation to include "soldier, militant or leader"? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep this whole template is being merged into Infobox person.--Kumioko (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That may or may not happen in the long term; but certainly, in the short term, we should continue using this infobox as intended. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 01:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the template should be usable as it stands; it was intentionally designed to handle military figures who are not part of a formal military, and modern militants fit into that broad category. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 01:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thus the "allegience" field, rather than "nationality"? While it annoys me on a personal/emotional level, I see no logical reason why not, considering that it makes the most logical sense. I mean, we use {{Infobox Military Conflict}} for fights with/between non-military entities, this is in the same vein. bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any objection to adding a "role" field as proposed and accepted in the above linked discussion? This can be used for "volunteer" or other sourced descriptions of paramilitaries. If not, I will add the field in a few days. Rockpocket 00:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Battle/war field

Can we have the option of using "conflict" here. This arises from an edit war at Joseph MacManus (again), where Irish-republican editors wish to note the Troubles as a war/battle, when it was neither. It was suggested on the talk page that "conflict" would be a more neutral and appropriate description. Mooretwin (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it is NPOV to refer to a conflict involving militants as a "battle" at all. I think the definition at battle is a bit outdated in that regard... after all, there have been many large scale conflicts in the last decade that have been named as battles, such as the First Battle of Fallujah. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well in Northern Ireland the idea that the troubles was a war is a controversial one and the Battle of Fallujah is not even remotely comparable to anything that happened in NI. Fallujah involved regular army forces attempting to capture a city in a war for territory and resulted in 211 casualties, nothing of that nature ever occurred in NI and the deadliest incidents in Omagh and Dublin resulted in less than 30 casualties through car bombs. Is there any good reason not to have the option of conflict and could we have a ruling on this please? Valenciano (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added "conflict" as an option. Rd232 ^talk 11:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no sense in limiting it to just one option, then. I've changed the code to allow a "battles_label=" parameter, which can be set to the most appropriate term for each article ("Wars", "Conflicts", etc.). Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 11:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Size

Can someone explain to me why the picture "must" be 300px in width? This results in grotesquely large images in several cases. That's presuming I read it right, and it's not just "300px" as a default size. Lastly: the entire infobox is too wide! It crams the text in leads with a very unpleasant effect, and there's nothing in any infobox that would call for a long line of text - meaning that's often both wide and empty. Dahn (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The picture doesn't need to be 300 pixels wide (although that's traditionally been the default for landscape-format images); the width is settable for each image, and it's pretty much up to the editors of each article to decide what a good value is. All the instructions are stating is that the image must be given in full link form:

|image = [[Image:Example.jpg|300px]]

rather than filename form:

|image = Example.jpg

which is the other widespread way of passing images into infoboxes. I'm not aware of this being misunderstood before. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well... (and thanks for the quick response) Dahn (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the individual who said that was taking the example too literally. Strict constructionists need not apply. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Service number

I attempted a while ago to add a "service number" line into this box but it has never been incorporated - I think I did this incorrectly. Anyway, this is good info to have and should be adde din if someone can figure out how to do it. -OberRanks (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That can be a very personal piece of information. The US used Social Security numbers for a long time. I just don't think it should be included in articles. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Service numbers are public information per the Freedom of Information Act and are routinely listed in military publications as well as military textbooks. SSNs are not the same thing at all and are not releasable. I am not talking about putting a social security number in the infobox, I am talking about adding a service number line. See Service number (United States armed forces) for an explanation of the difference. -OberRanks (talk) 04:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As noted in the section above on the same subject, there was already discussion about the addition of this field in the infobox, and Kirill added it in August. I also stated then that I was against the inclusion of a SSN out of privacy concerns, and I will remove an SSN from any article if I see it, especially BLPs. A service number that was used before the transition to SSNs is not harmful if listed on WP. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe we should add service numbers to this info box. It will be useful for historic info about military persons. As stated previously, SSNs are not the same as service numbers and should be kept out of all articles. We would have to let the editors use common sense there, since most would know it is inappropriate to put someone's SSN on Wikipedia. But, as we know, sometimes common sense does not prevail here. -OberRanks (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the confusion is; the field is already in this infobox, and has been since August. I even gave you a diff. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Very cool. I did not see that it was working now. I had tried to add it in before but it wasnt appearing in the articles. That is awesome. Thanks! -OberRanks (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Flag and other icons

Is there a project consensus for using flag icons (or not), specifically for the allegiance and branch parameters? For example, Richard Myers uses {{flag}} and {{air force}} for those infobox fields. (And {{navy}} and {{army}} are often used for people from those service branchs.) Is that the consensus style? And on a related note, what about little icons for awards, such as seen on Chuck Yeager? Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is consensus outside of or contrary to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons); I believe the Biographical use section specifically allows for encyclopedic use in infoboxes. For my opinion, I can see using flags for identification of the nation and branch served in as identification, even more so when you consider that athletes frequently use flags for identification in navboxes and infoboxes. It allows the reader to identify at a glance, and as long as it is used with historical accuracy.

But for the awards, I'm a firm and resounding NO. 99% of military biographies will have a section of the article devoted to listing these awards, in both graphic and prose form. Adding an image in the infobox is not only redundant, but most often unsightly (especially with screwups in line breaks), and has in the past lead to an accusation of hero worship. In fact, for Americans, I usually remove from the infobox awards that aren't significant, which I deem to be Purple Heart or higher. Campaign and service medals firmly belong in the prose. bahamut0013^words_deeds 22:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, nice clear documentation

It is absolutely true about military precision. I am not joking here. This infobox actually tells you, precisely, what you need to put in and how to put it. If all template documentation was this good, my Wikipedian life would be so much easier. So, thank you very much for making the documentation, it is very much appreciated that I don't have to guess whether image= needs to have brackets or not, what I should put as the rank when someone has progressed through the ranks, and so on. In its use I know I am probably imperfect, but at least the documentation says clearly what is supposed to be there.

Thanks and best wishes Si Trew (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this template appropriate for members of the SS?

Do we use this template on the pages of members of the SS other than the Waffen-SS? For example, this template has been used on Irma Grese with her "rank" noted as SS-Helferin and her "unit" being the various KZ to which she was assigned. Many others do not. The SS was primarily a political organization and the senior officials are designated as gov't officials on wikipedia rather than military persons, notwithstanding their military styled titles.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is probably something that's best considered on a case-by-case basis. I would say that the template can be legitimately used on non Waffen-SS personnel if their actual role makes the fields in the template a good fit for presenting the material to the reader (e.g. Walter Schellenberg); but I would hesitate to use it on someone like Irma because the information it presents is not a particularly useful way of summarizing the subject. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Birth name

Can we add a |birth_name= like on {{Infobox person}}? For example, on Alan Brooke, 1st Viscount Alanbrooke, the value would be "Alan Francis Brooke". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Medal of Honor images

I just got slapped on my user talk page for removing the Medal of Honor image from infoboxes in biographical articles where it was placed in the "image" field. As I was told there was a long-standing consensus to display this medal in the infobox, but if that is the case something should be mentioned in the template doc. And where do we draw the line? Is any medal relevant enough to serve as a placeholder in the box? De728631 (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to weigh in that in the past the image for the Medal of Honor or equivelant such as the Victoria Cross was allowed to be placed in the infobox in lieu of an actual individuals image. As I stated to this user I have no preference personally on wether the image is necessary although I do agree that it ads a little aesthetics to the page to have a little something visible and it gives the reader an idea about what the medal looks like. Additionally, there are literally hundreds of pages with a Medal of Honor image currently and this has come up several times before and the concensus in the past was to allow it. Just my two cents. --Kumioko (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that I carry much weight here but I too support the use of the Medal of Honor (and other high ranking military medals such as the VC). Especially for those individuals for whom the award is their only reason for a biography and no other image is available. I am in the process of creating entries foor all MOH receipients from the Second Battle of Fort Fisher and I think the MOH image add beauty and interest to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy Fletcher (talk • contribs) 01:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The previous discussions are scattered here and there, but essentially, yes, we have decided that the top award (and only that top award) can be used in such a manner, especially as a placeholder when we don't have an image of the individual himself. It's not just decoration: it's instant recognition of that highest award for valor. The line was very firmly drawn. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, alright, I'm fine with it. I think this policy should be added to the template documentation, so if noone objects, I'll take care of that. De728631 (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a policy, those are involiable. Just a consensus that there is an exception to a guideline. That said, if you can garner consensus that it wouldn't make sense on a specific page, then we wouldn't need to do it there. But sure, I'll update the doc. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this should be revisited such that use of any non-ribbon medal image in this particular infobox slot is restricted to use as a placeholder. Otherwise it creates a lot of formatting problems and/or significantly reduces the size of the subject's photo (especially photos that are not narrow). As an encyclopedia, we are not serving the purpose of informing by half-sizing the article subject's photo for no apparent reason than to "honor" the subject. We are not here to honor or disgrace anyone or anything in particular. Certainly both the ribbon and full size version of a nation's highest medal should be displayed somewhere in the article of a medal winner, but I would think adjacent to the medal citation would be the appropriate place. Ribbons in the infobox don't necessarily add at all to an infobox's size, unlike full-size medals.Brian Dell (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

spacing of dashes

Per WP:YEAR the en-dash between {{{born}}} and {{{died}}} should be unspaced if the input does not contain months and days. Whether these parameters are given as year-only is trivial to determine using parser-functions. Let me know if I should provide an example. ―cobaltcigs 20:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox meta conversion and subclassing

This is a counter-proposal that stems from this discussion.

This issue has been raised before, and I see there has also been some discussion in the past with regard to merging this template into {{Infobox person}}. Assuming you guys would rather stick to your own template, I think the best solution would be to convert this template so it uses the {{Infobox}} meta. The advantages to this are twofold: first, it simplifies the code here which makes the template easier to maintain; second, it facilitates infobox "subclassing", which would allow this template to be transcluded inside {{Infobox person}} (and, indeed, others). I've knocked up some code for this in the sandbox, and there are some side-by-side comparisons at Template:Infobox military person/testcases, which include several actual mainspace examples. As you can see I've tried to keep the styling as close to the current template as possible. The example at the bottom of the page demonstrates how the subclassing works. Thoughts? PC78 (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont see a problem with that. In fact I would suggest we merge the Infobox astronaut into Military person as well since 99% of astronauts are or were military. --Kumioko (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That looks very good; I'm happy with converting the box to the new format. The only question I have is whether it would be possible to use {{WPMILHIST Infobox style|header_color}} in the abovestyle/subheaderstyle fields rather than specifying a background color explicitly, to keep the styling tied to the rest of the military infoboxes in the future. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 11:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Never mind; I've just tested it, and it seems to work as expected. Assuming you see no problems with using meta-styles there, I think I have no further concerns. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 11:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no disagreements based on the test cases, and assuming this all works properly, I will support it. Being able to integrate this infobox into others (such as {{Infobox officeholder}}) is something I've advocated for in the past, but it didn't seem feasable at the time. For an example of necessity, look to Charles F. Bolden, Jr.. bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Kirill, you can certainly use {{WPMILHIST Infobox style}} in the new version, but unless there are other infoboxes that you need to keep this in sync with I don't see the advantage. It's entirely up to you, though. PC78 (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The main practical point would be to keep the infobox style in sync with the trailing navbox (as in the first test case); both are controlled by the common style meta-template. Beyond that, it's really just a general desire to have all the military-related infoboxes identically styled (which may be more a theoretical point than anything else, as the current style has been essentially unchanged for years). Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been over the code again and everything looks good. You can of course transfer the rest of the stylings over to {{WPMILHIST Infobox style}}, but I'll leave that to you as you know the template better than I. Otherwise I think we're good to proceed with this change. PC78 (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me for my ignorance here but how are we making the change. Are we going to go through each article changing the Infobox, are we running a bot to do something or are we just redirecting the Infobox Military Person template to the new one. The reason I ask is because AWB has some logic for certain things and I want to make sure its addressed at the AWB page. --Kumioko (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It merely requires replacing the code here with the code in the sandbox. PC78 (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok thanks I will let them know. Probably no big deal but just to make sure. --Kumioko (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the only other significant formatting to use the meta style template, so I think we're good to go. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I'll leave it to you since you're an admin. :) PC78 (talk) 06:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved the sandbox code across; please let me know if anything isn't working as it should be. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 13:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Irish Republican

{{Infobox Irish Republican}}, which is merely a fork of this template, is currently listed at TfD. It's only used in two articles, but has a couple of fields not present here. Just letting you folks know in case there is any use in merging the template here. PC78 (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all the functionality can be replicated using the existing fields in the template (although, since the other template is lacking in documentation, I'm not entirely sure of what the real intent behind some of the added fields might have been). Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 07:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It may be worth adding in two or three open fields (whose labels can be up to the editor) to stem the creation of yet another redundant infobox with one or two unique parameters. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)