Template talk:KIA

message: For anyone curious, it's a dagger, which is commonly used to indicate deaths in military texts. Kirill Lokshin 21:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of symbol 

message: Since apparently the cross-like shape was being complained about in certain contexts, I've added an alternate symbol (☠) that can be selected by passing in |alt=yes to the template.  This should be used sparingly, for obvious reasons. Kirill Lokshin 14:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least one user ( see Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#Christian crosses on Muslim combatants) has a problem with this character. Perhaps  is a solution. Another possible symbol is U+26B1 Funeral urn ⚱. --Leo Laursen ( T | C ) 08:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of these different symbols have various rendering problems, depending on the exact font setup the reader has.  I'd be happy to switch one for the other, but I'm not sure it'll really solve the underlying issue all that well. Kirill 15:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One user with the problem reports that  works for him (or ☠). Again see Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#Christian crosses on Muslim combatants. --Leo Laursen ( T | C ) 20:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried my hand at changing the template to use the explicit unicode version; feedback would be welcome. Kirill 13:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still invisible. Narayanese (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still invisible for me as well. I'm changing it-- Y not? 18:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate symbol 

message: Please change this:

 [[{{{1|Killed in action}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{WikiProject Alternative music|}}}|yes|{{unicode|☠}}|†}}]]<noinclude>
This template is used to indicate killed commanders in {{tl|Infobox Military Conflict}}.
[[Category:Military templates|KIA]]{{hprotected}}

To this:

 [[{{{1|Killed in action}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{WikiProject Alternative music|}}}|yes|{{unicode|☠}}|†}}]]<noinclude>
{{pp-template}}
<!-- Add categories and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! -->
{{Documentation}}</noinclude>

So that the meager doc shows... It is important to let people know there is an alternate.--Cerejota (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've modified your request to be a bit more specific. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 06:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:   R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  documentation 

message: Why are there two spaces—the first a non-breaking space and the second a regular space—in front of the dagger instead of just one? –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder the same. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two spaces 

message: In standard worldwide RS usage, is the † (dagger) symbol only used for the deaths of commanders? Or is it used for all KIA deaths (any rank), whereas in Wikipedia we happen to only use (this template and hence symbol) for commanders?
Context: Someone fact-tagged the sentence at the article Dagger (typography), and I'm having some trouble googling a quick reference. Assistance in clarifying both the article Dagger (typography), and this template's docs, would be appreciated :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarify usage in general

message: There is no proven usage of this symbol. Please replace with (K.I.A) Gnevin (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK please object to this if you have an issue Gnevin (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the replacement of this unclear and sometimes contentions (dagger vs cross) symbol with the abbreviation and wikilink. One slight nitpick, do we need the periods in the abbreviation...could we get away with (KIA)? -- saberwyn 20:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I don't think the periods are needed Gnevin (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Well there is no evidence the dagger has any usage Gnevin (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the point I'm making. There is no evidence for the term KIA pre 20th Century so how does replacing the dagger with such a term improve anything?  Replacing one potentially incorrect icon with what is definitely an inappropriate acronym doesn't strike me as the answer. I'll ask Krill if he has any hard references about this.  I've definately seen the symbol used (although sods law I can't find any examples now!). Ranger Steve (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well at least KIA is clear and has a well understood meaning . There are plenty of words and phrases we apply to things that happened before the invention of said words and phrases Gnevin (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think that's debatable.  I know what KIA means from a keen interest in military history, but I know plenty of people who wouldn't have a clue (especially when written as KIA and not spoken like Kay I Ay). There are several KIA acronyms in popular usage and although the context is more easily understood in a milhist article, both the dagger and KIA versions would always require a link to the explaining article. So if it's linked anyway... why change it? But this is a less relevent sub issue.  My main reason is the one above. Ranger Steve (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We should change it as it currently has no proven usage, its confusing and controversial. If KIA wasn't used pre the 20th then what does using the dagger and link to KIA say? Gnevin (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read what I've already said above.  My oppose stands because I don't think your solution is any better than what we have already. Sorry. Ranger Steve (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

text: On consideration, I think that the entire practice of displaying special symbols or acronym codes in infoboxes to convey information that would be more clearly conveyed in article text (with the added benefit of detail about the what, where, when, how, why, and by whom) is wrong. The layman is not going to know what these acronyms or symbols mean, let alone how it relates to the subject of the article, until they are told at the relevant point. While I would support a change from the symbol to the text in order to remove the dagger/cross confusion and bring this template in line with its sisters ((tl|DOW}} and ), I am uncomfortable with these templates overall, and do not plan to use them in the future. -- saberwyn 11:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Time for a TFD ? Gnevin (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest waiting for Kirill's input, or getting more feedback at the wikiproject page, before tfding. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Correction Well-established unciteable signGnevin (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Like me, Krill doesn't have any direct sources.  Despite that though, I think this template stands up given that the dagger/cross has a well established usage in genealogy, so I don't really see the need to prove a military use given that it has a common use to signify a deceased individual anyway. Ranger Steve (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Prove some sort of usage and we will work our way from there to a military context Gnevin (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if this is an RS or not, but its a start.  Seriously though, this is a more than well known symbol for deceased - think of a family tree. Ranger Steve (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to be difficult but in 2006 krill made the claim this was well known , 4 years later we've still no reference . This could a case of things we think we know Gnevin (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, I don't think you're being difficult : )  I agree there's no source for the military use, but I don't see many problems sourcing its genealogical use and personally I think that's sufficient for us to use it.  Happy to go with a majoraty opinion though. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For the use of marking death in genealogy and "other life sciences", see this article. De728631 (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: here also but no sign of a military usage ,if people are happy with this however I'll go along with it Gnevin (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I've WP:BOLDly tagged the alt-text "(K.I.A.)" as  so it's more obvious that it's not part of the person's name or such. Not sure small is best or that this text is best, just want to make it clear what "whatever it is" is. DMacks (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Please see discussion below. Ranger Steve Talk 14:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Change to KIA

message: Does anyone object to changing † to † to better reflect Dagger (typography)? With certain fonts it renders better.
See Template:KIA/testcases.
Cheers, Pædia 23:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've unprotected the template. However, to be quite honest I don't see the improvement. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be a browser / tech issue. I don't see any improvement on windows at all, but I do on a mac. Ranger Steve (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Paedia, 12 September 2010 

message: The use of the Christian cross for Killed in action is very exclusive and not used by non-Christians. The current layout of a Christian cross is completely unacceptable for people who died in war who were non-Christians. A non-religious symbol should be used, for example a small "(KIA)" would work. Another option could be an image of a skull or a skull and crossbones to signify the death. I prefer "(KIA)", it is clear and directly to the point.--R-41 (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right about the cross but if your read the comments above you will find it is a Dagger and not a cross. MilborneOne (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It currently appears to be a Christian cross on the template. If the symbol should be a dagger an image that clearly appears to be a dagger and not a cross, should be used.--R-41 (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

text: To resolve this I have created an SVG image of a dagger symbol as shown here, to be used:
--R-41 (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately that's too big to be useful, the issue is more down to the font used which gives a dagger made of constant width strokes :File:Daggers.svg shows how there are designs which use a more tapered stroke. Something like Times New Roman is more distinctively not a cross. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It can easily be resized, like this, see image below the larger one.--R-41 (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

text: The 7 px is fine for it. It is not than much larger. For comparison, the "Executed" template uses a larger image of 14px of a skull and crossbones. At that size it also looks like a dagger unlike the cross-like image that only looks like a Christian Crucifix.--R-41 (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I am going to change it now to the 7px dagger image I uploaded. The cross symbol appears to be a Crucifix rather than a dagger, and thus appears unacceptable to be put beside the name of someone who is a non-Christian killed in action.--R-41 (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The symbol is a dagger; that's what it's called. It does look like a cross though, which is why I think it is commonly used to indicate death. Using an actual dagger (the weapon) is just silly, unless they were all stabbed. McLerristarr | Mclay1 12:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall reading somewhere that the use of the dagger predates the cross. There's nothing silly about it; I think most readers will be competent enough to understand its slightly abstract usage. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Using an actual dagger just seems over the top. It's not common usage – we'd be inventing our own system. The use of the dagger symbol dates from Ancient Greece I believe but it's usually used to mark footnotes. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Better an "over the top" dagger than having something looking like a cross next to the name of a Muslim or other non-Christian commander. We are allowed to have our own system here, so long as it is within reason. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

text: The current "dagger" symbol appears exactly like a Christian cross. The Executed template uses a user designed image of a skull, I don't see why an image that clearly appears like a dagger rather than a Christian cross would not work. I agree with the user Lothar von Richthofen, a dagger image is better than something that appears exactly like a Christian cross beside a non-Christian commander, especially on religiously sensitive articles involving wars, such as the Crusades. If people believe the dagger is "over the top", I can redesign it. I simply designed it that way so it could be clearly identified as a dagger. But right now, I like the user Lothar von Richthofen oppose the use of the current symbol that appears exactly like a Christian cross.--R-41 (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Ranger Steve that inventing a new symbol when a perfectly good typographical symbol is available is not really needed. I was interested to see what other language wikipedias use and I noticed that this template is used on the arabic wikipedia, although I appreciate that one should not assume that all arabic speakers are non-christian but the template does not appear to be an issue using the same dagger symbol (although to be fair I dont read arabic). MilborneOne (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The executed template was very nearly deleted last year (I don't know why it wasn't to be honest). I'm not a very big fan of it, so I'm not likely to support the change of the KIA template based on the executed template's existence. At present we have a recognised typographic symbol that has history and usage of its own. I don't support us changing it to something fancier - if the real world gets by using something that looks a bit like a cross, so can we. Ranger Steve Talk 07:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside, I wouldn't oppose changing the font to something like the fifth along here to help avoid confusion, but for the reasons stated above, I'm not convinced of the need. Cheers, Ranger Steve Talk 12:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For those who are familiar with the use of the dagger, the current symbol is likely acceptable. However, I'd warrant that many readers will look at the current symbol and see a cross. It'd save the chore of explaining this issue every time it appears on a talkpage to make the minor change of using a symbol that doesn't look identical to a Christian cross. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Lothar von Richthofen, a symbol image can be created that looks very similar to the typographical symbol with the rectangle vertical and horizontal bars while having a very long and narrow stretched "V" shaped dagger blade. It would avoid confusion with a Christian cross and closely represent the typographical symbol at the same time.--R-41 (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A non-religious symbol should replace the Christian cross currently used for the KIA. 

message: Just saw this over at the Dagger (typography) article:
:In military history, a dagger is often placed next to the name of a commander who is killed in action.[citation needed]
If what the citation needed sign suggests is true, that dagger does not in fact specifically mean KIA,
To think that this is about Atheists unreasonably reacting to a Christian symbol is understanding it completely the other way around.
It's actually some Christians acting unreasonably defensive about a symbol simply because it looks like a cross, and unreasonably attacking the more reasonable option.
" (KIA)" is better because it is better recognized to mean "Killed In Action" as well as the assumed fact that the dagger does not actually mean "killed in action."
So not only is one option correct and the other one not, the correct one is a very good option as well, only to be blocked by cross lovers acting unreasonably.--JBrown23 (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure you are making much sense but the citation needed does not mean the statement is not true it just means somebody has asked for a reliable reference to the fact. MilborneOne (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Similarly I'm not sure I fully understand your point, but if you think that people who favour this symbol are pro-Christian, you're wrong. However, your comment makes me think of a reason that KIA might not be appropriate at all. If you consider events such as those at the Battle of the River Plate, Langsdorff was not killed in action, but did die as a result of the battle. In this instance, the dagger seems more appropriate as it doesn't suggest a cause of death. Ranger Steve Talk 12:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using the dagger symbol to mean "KIA" is completely unfounded 

message: Just realised that I'd totally forgotten to post here. There's a discussion about the best use of this symbol in conflict infoboxes at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#.22Death_daggers.22, in case anyone is interested in contributing. Ranger Steve Talk 13:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: My, my, my... So, I finally found the right place to voice out my discontent regarding the use of the dagger symbol which looks EXACTLY like a CHRISTIAN CROSS.
I notice this page  and it written there this: 
: (or  for short) displays the abbreviation in small letters:  (KIA)
From my understanding as a non-IT person, that means there is a choice, either to use the dagger symbol (really looks like a cross) beside someone's name who killed in action, or instead to use the small "KIA" letters beside their names.
So, as a MUSLIM meself, I humbly request that all of you who run and control this thing, I mean this part of Wikipedia operation, NOT TO USE this dagger symbol beside the names of Muslims. Especially! when they are considered as MARTYRS in Islam.
Take a look at these pages:
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Siffin
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Camel
It is extremely insensitive to put symbol that really looks like a Christian cross besides the names of these people. To be honest, I became really emotional when I saw this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.166.169 (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2013‎ 
:I'm going to make a summary section below, and ask for input from various related groups of editors, as it seems this is a long-standing problem, with a few threads above, and some elsewhere. Ready in an hour or so. –Quiddity (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: , I also find this surprising when I was editing 2020 China–India skirmishes, where, when I put "Wounded in Action" template it simply shows  and ambigously describing what WIA is. But when I had put the "Killed in Acton" template it was showing something horrible, , a dagger !!! Representing to christian symbol cross (). In Christian majority countries the death is much related to cross, but it does not happen in Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist majority country. I wonder how it would look by adding the symbol of  dharmachakra instead cross. Quite creepy, right, simply KIA and describing word would have been enough. I don't know whoever did this in the first what exactly they were thinking. But my suggestion will be if a symbol would be feasible enough than this symbol, ₭ will be far more acceptable and a similar thing can be done for WIA with this symbol, ₩. You can ping me for further discussion. Drat8sub (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  RELIGIOUS INSENSITIVITY? 

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Dagger symbol, confused with cross symbol, alternate symbols, and default settings for template:KIA for a summary of everything that I could find.
Use that thread/page for further discussion, to keep things centralized in a high-activity area. Thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Template updated, per feedback in thread linked above. Thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a link to the archived discussion so no one has to search for it, link — -dainomite   00:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dagger symbol, summary of issues and discussion link 

message: Hello. Please consider the following image of different font renderings of the dagger and double dagger glyph:
The fonts are: DejaVu Serif, Times New Roman, LTC Remington Typewriter, Garamond, and Old English Text MT
More fonts are here: the Sans serif fonts have straight horizontal bars on the dagger glyphs, without rounded corners:
In fonts with serifs, there are clearly accentuated circular bars, showing the dagger and double dagger as those glyps, even at low resolution. 
Sans serif fonts represent the glyph with straight bars, which could be confused with a crucifix unicode code point at low font resolution (on some mobile platforms).
Given the possible mis-interpretations that can exist with sans-serif fonts (especially at low resolution) - I believe replacing the dagger with the double dagger removes these possible misrepresentations - moving only one unicode code point (+2020 to +2021) without changing the layout, or sacrificing readability.
Given that the article Dagger (typography) says "While daggers are freely used in English-language texts,[citation needed] they are often avoided in other languages because of their similarity to the Christian cross." - I believe there is a simple and compelling reason that the double dagger would be preferable to the single dagger.
Is there any compelling reason to use a single dagger over a double dagger, other than because English language books have done so in the past? -- Aronzak (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because this is English wikipedia and the single dagger is used. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose replacing dagger with double dagger 

message: Should this template be used for individuals like Mullah Omar who died of natural causes in the course of a military conflict? Or is there a better way of showing that in infoboxes? --Axiom292 (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-battle casualties? 

message: Please wrap the text "KIA" with . This is the advised way of presenting abbreviations on the web. To do this, simple replace (KIA) with (). --Z 16:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: it's only the alt=yes variant which produces the (KIA). The other options create a dagger symbol. Please make requested changes in Template:KIA/sandbox ensuring that other uses remain unchanged — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This has no effect on the main output (the dagger one), I've just changed the sandbox according to the requested change the output of which can be checked at Template:KIA/testcases. Plus, I propose to remove the  template for the sake of consistency; none of the other related templates such as  and  make the text small, and these templates are sometimes used together at the same page. --Z 12:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 17 March 2019 

message: I don't how there hasn't been an RfC on this before, perhaps the talk page was difficult to find for some. I think using the dagger icon (which resembles the Christian cross) for KIA is a bit confusing when representing KIA (Killed in action) for non-western editors, such as Chinese,  Hindu's and Muslims who comprise about 3/4 of worlds population. I propose changing the dagger icon to skull, which is the universal symbol of death. The skull icon is currently used on Template:Executed so if this passes I think that should be changed with abbreviation (EXE) for executed. JohnJohnson707 (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Village pump/August 2003 archive 2#NPOV for death years in date pages; Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 68# † vs. (KIA); and Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 December 20#Killed in action. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Should the dagger icon (†) for KIA be changed to skull icon {{Executed}} ?

message: The article on the Medellín Cartel uses this template for Pablo Escobar in the Template:Infobox criminal organization. Does usage for criminals make sense? Perhaps Pablo was "killed in action" because he was shot by military police? But on the other hand it was hardly a "military conflict" in any ordinary sense. –St.nerol (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage for criminals 

message: How many fools think that the dagger symbol is a cross? Gunkot (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foolish misinterpretation 

message: When will you pagans stop using the torture symbol 67.6.241.113 (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic encyclopedia