Template talk:Infobox military unit and Template:Irish republicanism tasks: Difference between pages

Revision as of 03:40, 2 February 2006

Revision as of 10:20, 20 May 2007

Line 1:

{| align=center width=100% style="border: 1px solid black" cellpadding=5

{{WikiProject Military history template}}

|colspan=2 align=center|Here are some open '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republicanism|WikiProject Irish Republicanism]]''' tasks:

|-

|align=right|'''Pre-1969 IRAs:'''

|[[Michael Collins (Irish leader)|Michael Collins]] (sourcing), [[Chronology of the Irish War of Independence]] (cleanup), [[Joseph McGarrity]] (expand, cleanup, sourcing), [[Seán Cronin]] (expand, sourcing)

|-

|align=right|'''Official IRA:'''

|[[Cathal Goulding]] (sourcing), [[Seán Garland]] (sourcing))

|

|-

|align=right|'''Provisional IRA:'''

|[[Freddie Scappaticci]] (cleanup), [[Kieran Nugent]] (expand, sourcing, cleanup), [[Provisional IRA Belfast Brigade]] (expand), [[Bobby Sands]] ([[Talk:Bobby Sands#GA Review|details here]]), [[Raymond McCreesh]] (neutral sourcing), [[Thomas McElwee]] (neutral sourcing)

|

|-

|align=right|'''Continuity IRA:'''

|[[Dáithí Ó Conaill]] (sourcing)

|

|-

|align=right|'''Real IRA/32CSM:'''

|[[Bernadette Sands McKevitt]] (expand), [[Seamus Daly]] (expand), [[Liam Campbell]] (expand)

|

|-

|align=right|'''INLA:'''

|[[Seamus Costello]] (sourcing), [[Gino Gallagher]] (expand), [[Ronnie Bunting]] (sourcing)

|

|-

|align=right|'''Sinn Féin:'''

|[[Jennifer McCann]] (sourcing), [[Gerry Adams]] (sourcing), [[Sue Ramsey]] (expand), [[Danny Morrison (Irish republican)|Danny Morrison]] (expand)

|-

|colspan=2 align=right|<small>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template:Irish_Republicanism_tasks&action=edit Edit] or [[Template talk:Irish Republicanism tasks|discuss]] this list.</small>

|}

= Usage =

<noinclude>[[Category:WikiProject Irish Republicanism]]</noinclude>

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military unit infobox}}

__TOC__

= Discussion =

{{WPMILHIST}}

== 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

* 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?

--[[User:Leifern|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". --[[User:Kevin Myers|Kevin Myers]] | [[User talk:Kevin Myers|(complaint dept.)]] 15:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

::Hmm. I'm all for including notable defeats. --[[User:Leifern|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.--[[User:Leifern|Leifern]] 16:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

:::*Not always (see [[John Hawkwood|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. &mdash;[[User:Kirill Lokshin|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. --[[User:Leifern|Leifern]] 16:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

:Other than that, this looks quite nice. &mdash;[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 15:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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. &mdash;[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 03:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

:I'll say. Give the word when it's ready. [[User:Albrecht|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 ''[[Afrika Korps|Deutsches Afrikakorps]]'' must have a spot for [[Erwin Rommel|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. [[User:Albrecht|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! [[User:Albrecht|Albrecht]] 02:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

** On another note, any ideas about the order of the rows would be very welcome. &mdash;[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 00:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

***Nationality has to be higher, perhaps the second or third row. [[User:Oberiko|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). [[User:SigPig|SigPig]] 08:03, 27 December 2005 (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. [[User:SigPig|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. &mdash;[[User:Kirill Lokshin|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. --[[User:Leifern|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&mdash;"type", "branch", and "specialization", for instance&mdash;whose order we need to figure out. A guideline for what actually goes into each of them would also be great. &mdash;[[User:Kirill Lokshin|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). [[User:Albrecht|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. --[[User:Leifern|Leifern]] 21:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

:It's fine, I think&mdash;''somebody'' will insist on having one, and we're not inconveniencing anyone else (they'll just ignore that field). &mdash;[[User:Kirill Lokshin|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. [[User:Halibutt|Halibu]][[User talk:Halibutt|tt]] 13:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Looks good to me. —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]][[User:Kirill Lokshin|hin]] 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. --[[User:Leifern|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? &mdash;[[User:Kirill Lokshin|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. --[[User:Leifern|Leifern]] 23:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

:::I was thinking of having both values in a single field, like:

:::<pre>|colors= ''Uniform'': Red and green <br/> ''Standard'': Purple and black</pre>

:::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. &mdash;[[User:Kirill Lokshin|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.

[[User:CORNELIUSSEON|SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired)]] 02:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

: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? —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]][[User:Kirill Lokshin|hin]] 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 ;-) [[User:SoLando|SoLando]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:SigPig|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". —[[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]][[User:Kirill Lokshin|hin]] 11:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)