Template talk:Infobox military unit - Revision history

GavinRobinson: /* Qualifying branch names with service names */ changes implemented

2017-06-04T20:03:06Z

‎Qualifying branch names with service names: changes implemented

Mia: Thank you!

2017-05-09T22:51:44Z

Thank you!

GavinRobinson: /* Citation parameters */ finished moving footnotes to new parameters

2017-05-08T18:08:01Z

‎Citation parameters: finished moving footnotes to new parameters

GavinRobinson: /* Citation parameters */ implemented changes to live infoboxes

2017-04-23T17:38:38Z

‎Citation parameters: implemented changes to live infoboxes

GavinRobinson: /* Qualifying branch names with service names */ provisional list of new names

2017-04-04T18:26:01Z

‎Qualifying branch names with service names: provisional list of new names

GavinRobinson: /* Citation parameters */ increased font size

2017-04-04T17:34:06Z

‎Citation parameters: increased font size

Mia: /* Citation parameters */ Nice solution for footnotes!

2017-04-03T18:22:29Z

‎Citation parameters: Nice solution for footnotes!

GavinRobinson: /* Citation parameters */

2017-04-02T18:44:14Z

‎Citation parameters

Mia: /* Citation parameters */ Discussing text accessibility

2017-02-25T18:24:49Z

‎Citation parameters: Discussing text accessibility

Mia: /* Qualifying branch names with service names */ I agree with adding parent service to branch names

2017-02-25T18:22:22Z

‎Qualifying branch names with service names: I agree with adding parent service to branch names

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:03, 4 June 2017
Line 90:		Line 90:

	Also not sure what to do with the Royal Navy branches, or whether any Royal Navy units (as opposed to individual personnel) even had branches. --[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson\|talk]]) 11:24, 4 April 2017 (PDT)		Also not sure what to do with the Royal Navy branches, or whether any Royal Navy units (as opposed to individual personnel) even had branches. --[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson\|talk]]) 11:24, 4 April 2017 (PDT)
		+
		+	I've now implemented these changes. There might still be a few odd units that need updating but most have been done.--[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson\|talk]]) 13:02, 4 June 2017 (PDT)

	==Types, levels and unusual units==		==Types, levels and unusual units==

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:51, 9 May 2017
Line 289:		Line 289:

	:::::::: All existing footnotes in infoboxes now moved to new parameters.--[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson\|talk]]) 11:07, 8 May 2017 (PDT)		:::::::: All existing footnotes in infoboxes now moved to new parameters.--[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson\|talk]]) 11:07, 8 May 2017 (PDT)
		+
		+	::::::::: Nice work - thanks Gavin! --[[User:Mia\|Mia]] ([[User talk:Mia\|talk]]) 15:51, 9 May 2017 (PDT)

	== Tracking progress ==		== Tracking progress ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:08, 8 May 2017
Line 287:		Line 287:

	::::::: I've now made the changes to the live infoboxes. The font size for the footnote rows in the table might still need changing but it's controlled by the class .sourcerow in [[MediaWiki:Common.css]] so it doesn't require editing the templates. We'll also need to find and move any existing footnotes in infoboxes but I'll get onto that when I have time.--[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson\|talk]]) 10:38, 23 April 2017 (PDT)		::::::: I've now made the changes to the live infoboxes. The font size for the footnote rows in the table might still need changing but it's controlled by the class .sourcerow in [[MediaWiki:Common.css]] so it doesn't require editing the templates. We'll also need to find and move any existing footnotes in infoboxes but I'll get onto that when I have time.--[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson\|talk]]) 10:38, 23 April 2017 (PDT)
		+
		+	:::::::: All existing footnotes in infoboxes now moved to new parameters.--[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson\|talk]]) 11:07, 8 May 2017 (PDT)

	== Tracking progress ==		== Tracking progress ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:38, 23 April 2017
Line 285:		Line 285:

	:::::: I've changed the font from 60% to 80%. Does that look right or would 90% be better? --[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson\|talk]]) 10:33, 4 April 2017 (PDT)		:::::: I've changed the font from 60% to 80%. Does that look right or would 90% be better? --[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson\|talk]]) 10:33, 4 April 2017 (PDT)
		+
		+	::::::: I've now made the changes to the live infoboxes. The font size for the footnote rows in the table might still need changing but it's controlled by the class .sourcerow in [[MediaWiki:Common.css]] so it doesn't require editing the templates. We'll also need to find and move any existing footnotes in infoboxes but I'll get onto that when I have time.--[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson\|talk]]) 10:38, 23 April 2017 (PDT)

	== Tracking progress ==		== Tracking progress ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:26, 4 April 2017
Line 30:		Line 30:

	: I think it's a good idea - thanks! --[[User:Mia\|Mia]] ([[User talk:Mia\|talk]]) 10:21, 25 February 2017 (PST)		: I think it's a good idea - thanks! --[[User:Mia\|Mia]] ([[User talk:Mia\|talk]]) 10:21, 25 February 2017 (PST)
		+
		+	Here's a provisional list of branch names qualified by service and/or country. I think some are distinctive enough that they don't need qualifying.
		+
		+	* country = Australia
		+	** service = Australian Army
		+	*** branch = Australian Imperial Force
		+	*** branch = Australian Naval and Military Expeditionary Force
		+	*** branch = Citizen Military Force (Australian Army)
		+	*** branch = Permanent Force (Australian Army)
		+	** service = Royal Australian Navy
		+	* country = Canada
		+	** service = Canadian Army
		+	*** branch = Canadian Expeditionary Force
		+	*** branch = Permanent Force (Canadian Army)
		+	*** branch = Non-Permanent Active Militia (Canadian Army)
		+	** service = Royal Canadian Navy
		+	* country = India
		+	** service = Indian Army
		+	** service = Indian Imperial Service Troops
		+	** service = Indian Volunteer Corps
		+	** service = Indian Defence Force
		+	* country = New Zealand
		+	** service = New Zealand Army
		+	*** branch = Permanent Force (New Zealand Army)
		+	*** branch = Territorial Force (New Zealand Army)
		+	*** branch = New Zealand Expeditionary Force
		+	* country = Portugal
		+	** service = Portuguese Army
		+	*** [branches unknown]
		+	** service = Portuguese Navy
		+	* country = South Africa
		+	** service = South African Overseas Expeditionary Force
		+	** service = Union Defence Force (South Africa)
		+	*** branch = Active Citizen Force (South Africa)
		+	*** branch = Coastal Garrison Force (South Africa)
		+	*** branch = Permanent Force (South Africa)
		+	* country = United Kingdom
		+	** service = British Army
		+	*** branch = New Army (British Army)
		+	*** branch = Regular Army (British Army)
		+	*** branch = Special Reserve (British Army)
		+	*** branch = Territorial Force (British Army)
		+	*** branch = Volunteer Force (British Army)
		+	** service = Volunteer Training Corps
		+	** service = Royal Air Force
		+	** service = Royal Marines
		+	** service = Royal Navy
		+	*** branch = Regular Navy
		+	*** branch = Royal Naval Reserve
		+	*** branch = Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve
		+	** service = First Aid Nursing Yeomanry
		+	* country = United States
		+	** service = US Army
		+	*** branch = National Army (US Army)
		+	*** branch = National Guard (US Army)
		+	*** branch = Regular Army (US Army)
		+	** service = US Marine Corps
		+	** service = US Navy
		+
		+	Also not sure what to do with the Royal Navy branches, or whether any Royal Navy units (as opposed to individual personnel) even had branches. --[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson\|talk]]) 11:24, 4 April 2017 (PDT)

	==Types, levels and unusual units==		==Types, levels and unusual units==

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:34, 4 April 2017
Line 223:		Line 223:

	::::: Thanks for that! The font is a little small but otherwise I think it works well. --[[User:Mia\|Mia]] ([[User talk:Mia\|talk]]) 11:22, 3 April 2017 (PDT)		::::: Thanks for that! The font is a little small but otherwise I think it works well. --[[User:Mia\|Mia]] ([[User talk:Mia\|talk]]) 11:22, 3 April 2017 (PDT)
		+
		+	:::::: I've changed the font from 60% to 80%. Does that look right or would 90% be better? --[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson\|talk]]) 10:33, 4 April 2017 (PDT)

	== Tracking progress ==		== Tracking progress ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:22, 3 April 2017
Line 221:		Line 221:

	:::: I've now done this with {{tl\|infobox military unit2}}, [[User:GavinRobinson/Test unit]] and [[1/5th Battalion Lincolnshire Regiment, UK]]. It seems to work well but the text size might need some adjustment. If there are no problems with having the citations in rows underneath I probably won't bother trying the alternative I suggested with another column on the right as I now think it would be harder to implement and understand. --[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson\|talk]]) 11:44, 2 April 2017 (PDT)		:::: I've now done this with {{tl\|infobox military unit2}}, [[User:GavinRobinson/Test unit]] and [[1/5th Battalion Lincolnshire Regiment, UK]]. It seems to work well but the text size might need some adjustment. If there are no problems with having the citations in rows underneath I probably won't bother trying the alternative I suggested with another column on the right as I now think it would be harder to implement and understand. --[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson\|talk]]) 11:44, 2 April 2017 (PDT)
		+
		+	::::: Thanks for that! The font is a little small but otherwise I think it works well. --[[User:Mia\|Mia]] ([[User talk:Mia\|talk]]) 11:22, 3 April 2017 (PDT)

	== Tracking progress ==		== Tracking progress ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:44, 2 April 2017
Line 219:		Line 219:

	::: That's a good question! It shouldn't affect screenreaders (assuming they're better at tables than they used to be), and others may have their text size increased so smaller text should still be legible, which may be a reason to use a smaller size rather than a slightly lighter colour? --[[User:Mia\|Mia]] ([[User talk:Mia\|talk]]) 10:24, 25 February 2017 (PST)		::: That's a good question! It shouldn't affect screenreaders (assuming they're better at tables than they used to be), and others may have their text size increased so smaller text should still be legible, which may be a reason to use a smaller size rather than a slightly lighter colour? --[[User:Mia\|Mia]] ([[User talk:Mia\|talk]]) 10:24, 25 February 2017 (PST)
		+
		+	:::: I've now done this with {{tl\|infobox military unit2}}, [[User:GavinRobinson/Test unit]] and [[1/5th Battalion Lincolnshire Regiment, UK]]. It seems to work well but the text size might need some adjustment. If there are no problems with having the citations in rows underneath I probably won't bother trying the alternative I suggested with another column on the right as I now think it would be harder to implement and understand. --[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson\|talk]]) 11:44, 2 April 2017 (PDT)

	== Tracking progress ==		== Tracking progress ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:24, 25 February 2017
Line 217:		Line 217:

	:: Wikitables can use CSS properties for rowspan and colspan - there's an example in the current version of the infobox where it says "For more information on what infobox fields mean". Next time I have enough spare time I'll try to demo two versions: one with footnotes in rows underneath and one with them in a column on the right, then we can compare them directly. Do you have any suggestions for how to make the type less prominent without causing problems for visually impaired readers? --[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson\|talk]]) 09:06, 25 February 2017 (PST)		:: Wikitables can use CSS properties for rowspan and colspan - there's an example in the current version of the infobox where it says "For more information on what infobox fields mean". Next time I have enough spare time I'll try to demo two versions: one with footnotes in rows underneath and one with them in a column on the right, then we can compare them directly. Do you have any suggestions for how to make the type less prominent without causing problems for visually impaired readers? --[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson\|talk]]) 09:06, 25 February 2017 (PST)
		+
		+	::: That's a good question! It shouldn't affect screenreaders (assuming they're better at tables than they used to be), and others may have their text size increased so smaller text should still be legible, which may be a reason to use a smaller size rather than a slightly lighter colour? --[[User:Mia\|Mia]] ([[User talk:Mia\|talk]]) 10:24, 25 February 2017 (PST)

	== Tracking progress ==		== Tracking progress ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:22, 25 February 2017
Line 28:		Line 28:

	The branch names currently in use (see template documentation for up to date list) are potentially ambiguous because they depend on the value of the country and/or service parameters, eg "Regular Army" could be British or American, "Territorial Force" could be British or New Zealand. I'm thinking about changing the branch names so that they're explicitly qualified with the names of their parent service, eg "Regular Army (British Army)". I think this would make the structured data cleaner, especially when there are multiple values, and would allow wikilinking the value to a page that explains what it is. Not an urgent thing but I'm noting it here so I don't forget. --[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson\|talk]]) 09:11, 25 February 2017 (PST)		The branch names currently in use (see template documentation for up to date list) are potentially ambiguous because they depend on the value of the country and/or service parameters, eg "Regular Army" could be British or American, "Territorial Force" could be British or New Zealand. I'm thinking about changing the branch names so that they're explicitly qualified with the names of their parent service, eg "Regular Army (British Army)". I think this would make the structured data cleaner, especially when there are multiple values, and would allow wikilinking the value to a page that explains what it is. Not an urgent thing but I'm noting it here so I don't forget. --[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson\|talk]]) 09:11, 25 February 2017 (PST)
		+
		+	: I think it's a good idea - thanks! --[[User:Mia\|Mia]] ([[User talk:Mia\|talk]]) 10:21, 25 February 2017 (PST)

	==Types, levels and unusual units==		==Types, levels and unusual units==