Template talk:Infobox Military Person

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This non-article page 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.
NA	This page is not an article and does not require a rating.

Military history WikiProject

General information Main project page talk  → Discussion archives Announcements and open tasks talk  → Articles needing attention talk  → Requests talk  → New articles talk Article showcase Portals Guidelines Naming conventions Notability Article structure Content and style Infobox templates  → Military conflict infobox talk  → Campaignboxes talk  → Military person infobox talk  → Military unit infobox talk  → Weapon infobox talk  → Military structure infobox talk  → Military test site infobox talk  → Military cemetery infobox talk  → Military memorial infobox talk  → Military award infobox talk Categories Featured article advice Project organization Coordinators talk Members talk Departments  → Assessment talk  → Automation talk  → Collaboration talk  → Outreach talk  → Peer review talk Project banner talk Project category talk  → Archives talk  → Articles talk Meetup planning talk Task forces African military history talk American Civil War talk Ancient Near Eastern warfare talk Australian military history talk Balkan military history talk British military history talk Canadian military history talk Chinese military history talk Classical warfare talk Dutch military history talk Early Modern warfare talk French military history talk German military history talk Indian military history talk Italian military history talk Japanese military history talk Korean military history talk Maritime warfare talk Medieval warfare talk Military aviation talk Military historiography talk Military memorials and cemeteries talk Military science talk Military technology and engineering talk Napoleonic Era talk New Zealand military history talk Polish military history talk Russian and Soviet military history talk United States military history talk Weaponry talk World War I talk World War II talk edit · changes

Contents 1 Organization 2 Fields to add 3 Entered Service? 4 Percival 5 Slim 6 Trimming some fields 7 Finished? 8 Alt text for images 9 Portrayed by? 10 Problems? 11 Nicknames

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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
{{{lived}}}
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Percival

Per Kirill's suggestion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Arthur Ernest Percival 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)