Template talk:Infobox military award

message: Allow me to suggest that people use the "Awarded by the" line to indicate specificly who issues the award. For example the Navy Cross would be awarded by the United States Navy, the Joint Meritorious Service Medal is awarded by the United States Department of Defense, the Medal of Freedom is awarded by the President of the United States, etc.
It is by specifying more than just country of origin on this line, that we can indicate what branch or department issues the award without having to add another line to the info box. Even non-military awards can be specified this way, for example the Sewing Merit Badge (or whatever) from the Boy Scouts of America. 
However, we still need a line to indicate who is eligible for the award. For example, the Purple Heart can only be givin to military personel but other military awards can go to civilians. (Atfyfe 19:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Grafikm fr mentioned that a field for military/civilian eligibility needs to be added.  Hopefully I'll have time to add it (and perhaps the order of precedence) sometime today. Kirill Lokshin 19:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made all the change you suggested.  Any other ideas would be very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 00:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awarding Agency 

message: I put the template in place on the Valorous Unit Award entry to begin testing the template in real use. It stikes me that all the U.S. Army unit awards have streamers in addition to a ribbon, and it might make sense to have a second photo box at the bottom of the info box for the unit award streamers. I don't think the streamers are as important to be included in the main photo box, but I also don't want to relegate the streamers to somewhere else in the article. Take a look at the valorous unit award entry and let me know what you think should be done with unit award streamers. Right now I have it as a thumbnail photo just below the info box. (Atfyfe 19:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can probably add another picture field at the bottom without too much difficulty; I'll see what I can do. Kirill Lokshin 19:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've added "image2" and "caption2" parameters that will place the image at the very bottom of the box.  Does that work? Kirill Lokshin 20:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That works perfectly. Probably will have other uses too! Thanks for the work KL. (Atfyfe 20:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Streamer 

message: Adding a "Established" line to provide when the award was created. This will differ from "First Awarded" date because many awards are retroactive. (Atfyfe 02:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the line optional, since many awards (particularly older ones) won't have this information available. Kirill Lokshin 02:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Award Date 

message: I believe there is some confusion in the description of the 'higher', 'same' and 'lower' fields. The current description states:
* higher – optional – for awards granted by countries or other bodies that maintain an order of precedence for decorations, the next highest award, if any.
* same – optional – for awards granted by countries or other bodies that maintain an order of precedence for decorations, any awards with the same precedence as the one being discussed.
* lower – optional – for awards granted by countries or other bodies that maintain an order of precedence for decorations, the next lowest award, if any.
The problem being "what is the "order of precedence" being referred to. Is it in fact the "Order of Wear" which most countries produce, or is it meant to indicate some way of navigating 'types' of award within a certain category? Eg - should it be the the next highest gallantry award? Should it be the next highest 'current' award, or should it include historical awards no longer issued? I will expand more on this this afternoon after work. PalawanOz (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of the United States, Order Of Wear and Order of Precedence are one and the same. In ALL cases, Awards and Decorations are worn in Precedence order. That is, the order they were originally created, or - in the case of Campaign Streamers - the order of the date(s) of the specific Campaign. The order in which they are awarded to specific units or individuals does not matter. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The infoboxes for Astronaut, EOD, Aviator, Flight Surgeon, Aircrew, and Parachutist badges has been changed to "Awarded by United States Armed Forces" (it used to say "Awarded by United States Army"). This is creating some confusion because the infoboxes were intentionally for US Army info. The order of precedence is from AR670-1 Army Uniform Regulations; THE OTHER SERVICES DO NOT OBSERVE THIS ORDER OF PRECEDENCE. It really bothers me when people edit without verifying; I even had to edit out some state national guard badges that aren't recognized by the US Army. So what is the solution? Are we going to keep a unified infobox and change "Precedence" to "Army Precedence", or should we create separate infoboxes for each service? Jigen III (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if the precedence is listed wrong, then that needs to be fixed at the individual article level; but that's a side issue.  I've added a  field that can be used to override the label on the precedence section if needed. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of Precedence 

message: No consensus Parsecboy (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support - although, is there some potential for confusion with the term 'decoration'? PalawanOz (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Any additional comments:
* Comment. I see no confusion in including civilian awards in what is historically and essentially a military award template, which is why it is named "Infobox Military Award". If you can make it work, use it. If not, there are many other award templates. Renaming the template may not be constructive. 199.125.109.19 (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support - although, is there some potential for confusion with the term 'decoration'? PalawanOz (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
* Comment. I see no confusion in including civilian awards in what is historically and essentially a military award template, which is why it is named "Infobox Military Award". If you can make it work, use it. If not, there are many other award templates. Renaming the template may not be constructive. 199.125.109.19 (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: i added the parameter "motto" to the infobox, believing this would not step on any ones toes or cause any problems, as "motto" will be invisible if not used. i found i needed this parameter to fully describe the "order of the black eagle" medal.--diremarc (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  added "motto" in info box 

message: For medals with names other than english it would be useful to have a language of origin tag/label - what do you guys think? Gbawden (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Language of origin

message: Any thoughts on adding a designer line to the template?  It could be used to list any principal people or organizations involved in creating the actual medal - ie the designer, sculptor, engraver, artist, what-have-you.  I'm not sure the exact wording to use.  ie the National Defense Service Medal was designed and created by the TIOH, The Marine Corps Expeditionary Medal and the Navy Expeditionary Medal were designed, respectively, by sculpter's Walker Hancock & A.A. Weinman, and so on.  Gecko G (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say no. When known, that kind of detail belongs in the body of the article itself. -- André Kritzinger (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should there be an optional "designed by" type of section? 

message: The only guideline I can see about the usage of that is the one line on the template main page saying "for related awards other than those within an order of precedence for decorations".
In line with that (I thought) I added the National Defense Service Medal as a related award to the Vietnam Service Medal since nearly everyone who got the VSM (awarded for 30 consecutive, or 60 non-consecutive, days of US military service, in theater, between Nov. 15, 1961 & Apr. 30, 1975) also got the NDSM for the same period of service (awarded for US Military service anywhere, in various specific timeperiods, one of which being between Jan 1, 1961 & Aug 14, 1974).  So the only people who got the VSM but not the NDSM would be those who only qualified for the VSM in that small window where the two don't overlap (15½ months out of 13½ years), of which it seems there would be very few.  An IP address reverted that edit stating "Not every one who received the NDSM received the VSM thus they are not entirely related".  
Firstly, what does "entirely related" mean and is that a requirement to list something in the related award field?  
Secondly, does that small period (relative to the large overall timeframe) of non-overlap mean they should not be listed as related?  
Thirdly, I never claimed that everyone who got the NDSM got the VSM, but rather the other way around - ie I'm not suggesting the VSM should be added as a 'related award' at the NDSM - but depending on the answers to the above 2 points, maybe it should be? (I would think not).
Thoughts?  Are there any overall guidelines for that entry on the template somewhere that I overlooked?  Thank you, Gecko G (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that they're not related as the NDSM was awarded for the Global War on Terror, various wars in the Gulf, etc., in addition to Vietnam. Anybody who served in the military during the Vietnam war got the NDSM even if they didn't step foot anywhere near Vietnam. And the award of the NDSM preceded that of the VSM as trainees would receive the NDSM upon graduation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So what would be an example of a "related award"? (not Vietnam related, just an clear-cut example of a related award?)  thanks, Gecko G (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding the "related awards" line 

message: In a lot of countries, these types of awards are "Founded" by someone historical prominent, eg a Emperor, Queen, the Tsar, etc (as opposed to some committee...). I see this in the non-English templates. Could we get a field for that? Wikimandia (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's there already,called "| awarded_by       = ". For examples of how to use it, see, for example, Long Service and Good Conduct Medal (South Africa), Union Medal and Permanent Force Good Service Medal. -- André Kritzinger (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we get a "Founder" field? 

message: Please share you opinion about the adding the "Conferred by" or "Awarded by" parameter to the template. Adding this gives the information about the official who awards the award. For example, the King, the Monarch, the President, the Chancellor, the Prime Minister etc. I would like to ping  for a primary opinion. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The template already includes an  field.  Is that not what you had in mind? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur; the description of  in the /doc leaves enough ambiguity to allow for its use as suggested. Primefac (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:   Ruled out . Actually  is for the country which awards the award. For example, Medal of Honor is awarded by the United States, Victoria Cross by the United Kingdom, Param Vir Chakra by India etc. The parameter I suggest is for the official of the country who confers the award to the recipient. For example, in US it is the President, in UK it is the King or the Queen, in countries like China it is the Prime Minister, in Gulf countries it is the Monarch. So I suggest a field for this. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I still feel there's enough ambiguity in the wording. However, now I'm starting to question if what you want is even relevant. Who specifically gives out an award seems like a rather trivial bit of information. Someone should probably ping WP:WARS and get some of their members to join in this conversation (as it will affect a large number of articles). Primefac (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I ping the project coordinators to participate in the discussion. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately you can't ping projects using templates (or any "pinging" method, really). You need to make a post on their talk page, such as this one I just made. Primefac (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true in general, but note that  does, in fact, ping the project coordinators. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I was pinged here by Kirill, after reading through the posts it seems a little bureaucratic to note who specifically awarded what to whom. I'd be of the opinion that the field should be wide enough to cover the generals and the specifics can be mentioned in the relevant articles. It does seem to me that information of this nature would be better covered in the body of the relevant article(s). TomStar81 (Talk) 01:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Tom. Infoboxes and templates are succinct summaries, such detail that can't be fitted in the fields belongs in the article itself IMO. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 01:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

text: , you are correct. Never seen something like that used (and once subst'd you can't see which template was used anyway). Thanks for the heads up; I've stricken that particular comment. Primefac (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a parameter September 2016 

message: Why in some articles are flags such as presidential flags or coats of arms included in this field? Looking at MOS:FLAG, what are your opinions on their inclusion? Thanks. --Re5x (talk) 05:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:INFOBOXFLAG is pretty clear on that. I think some people feel nationalism is important, but the guidelines discourage flags in IBs. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you and with MOS:INFOBOXFLAG that flag icons should not be used in most infoboxes, especially in the "Awarded by" field. I find that those flag icons are unnecessarily distracting. Therefore, I definitely support editors who wish to remove flag icons from infoboxes. -- Blairall (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presence of flags in the "Awarded by" field? 

message: I´m proposing another field, "Discontinued" or "Decommissioned" or something of that effect. Means a place to put in a date when the award was officially (or de facto) discontinued. Yes, we have "Status" which on occasions gives the end dates as well but I think that this field was intended for either Active or Inactive or someting similar. We have the "Established" field for a starting date but we have no field for an end date. Which should be changed by adding this optional parameter to the Statistics group. I´m not sure which formulation would be best though. ...GELongstreet (talk)
:Genuinely out of curiosity, could you give an award or two (with refs) that show it is definitely, 100%, discontinued? I think a de facto "discontinued" can be handled by the  param, but I have no idea if awards can (or are) formally ended. Primefac (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross for example? Even the awarding authority is discontinued. Or the Marine Corps Brevet Medal? ...GELongstreet (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: True, neither of those awards are given out, but the former was discontinued because the entire government was ended and the latter was discontinued because it was a one-time award. I guess it seems trivial to give a specific date for that. In other words, I'm not necessarily opposed to your proposal, just not sure it's necessary. Happy to wait and see what other folks think (maybe a ping to MILHIST?). Primefac (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discontinued optional parameter 

message: There is a discussion regarding the removal of the 'description' param of this template, during its merge to Template:Infobox award. See discussion here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion regarding removal of 'description' param