This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-military-chiefs-appointed
Sammartinlai ( talk) 05:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Why hasn’t Tony Radakin been knighted? When was the last time a First Sea Lord hadn’t been knighted? 82.10.169.168 15:29 26 April 2021
In the interests of both brevity and consistency with numerous other UK military infoboxes, I don't think it is necessary to clutter the infobox by adding rank and awards at the top of the infobox when rank and awards already appear in (i) the lead of the article (ii) further down the infobox and (iii) in the main text of the article. Views welcome. Dormskirk ( talk) 10:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
|honorific_prefix=
/|honorific_suffix=
in military infoboxes: it isn't a written rule anywhere. Likewise, it is EDITCONSENSUS to include
The Honourable/
The Right Honourable/etc in the infobox and only the infobox, not in the lead or elsewhere in the article. The exact quote for
MOS:PREFIX is In general, honorific prefixes and suffixes in Wikipedia's own voice should not be included. The exception to the rule, as accepted through EDITCONSENSUS, is to include them in infoboxes. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 12:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
|honorific_prefix=
as for non-UK users who may confuse such as being their first name. In some countries, many of these are actually first names. So whilst the subject might be known as "Tony Radakin", many users may be misled into thinking his name is actually "Sir" and he goes by the shortened form of his middle name. I'm a strong supporter of infoboxes and beleive they should be as busy as is reasonable. Showing prefixes and suffixes should be the standard. With regards to the point of consistency with numerous other UK military infoboxes, they are largely incomplete and underused. We should be actively fixing this, especially as it is inconsistent with the rest of Wiki!
UaMaol (
talk)
12:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Necrothesp: Hi, I'm really not sure it is such "standard practice" to add ranks to the honorific_prefix. The infobox has a particular section for the rank which is far more appropriate, and infobox military person stipulates "honorific_prefix – titles such as "Sir"." I don't believe that a military rank comes under the same category of a title such as Sir, The Right Honourable, etc. Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 14:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-military-chiefs-appointed
Sammartinlai ( talk) 05:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Why hasn’t Tony Radakin been knighted? When was the last time a First Sea Lord hadn’t been knighted? 82.10.169.168 15:29 26 April 2021
In the interests of both brevity and consistency with numerous other UK military infoboxes, I don't think it is necessary to clutter the infobox by adding rank and awards at the top of the infobox when rank and awards already appear in (i) the lead of the article (ii) further down the infobox and (iii) in the main text of the article. Views welcome. Dormskirk ( talk) 10:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
|honorific_prefix=
/|honorific_suffix=
in military infoboxes: it isn't a written rule anywhere. Likewise, it is EDITCONSENSUS to include
The Honourable/
The Right Honourable/etc in the infobox and only the infobox, not in the lead or elsewhere in the article. The exact quote for
MOS:PREFIX is In general, honorific prefixes and suffixes in Wikipedia's own voice should not be included. The exception to the rule, as accepted through EDITCONSENSUS, is to include them in infoboxes. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 12:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
|honorific_prefix=
as for non-UK users who may confuse such as being their first name. In some countries, many of these are actually first names. So whilst the subject might be known as "Tony Radakin", many users may be misled into thinking his name is actually "Sir" and he goes by the shortened form of his middle name. I'm a strong supporter of infoboxes and beleive they should be as busy as is reasonable. Showing prefixes and suffixes should be the standard. With regards to the point of consistency with numerous other UK military infoboxes, they are largely incomplete and underused. We should be actively fixing this, especially as it is inconsistent with the rest of Wiki!
UaMaol (
talk)
12:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Necrothesp: Hi, I'm really not sure it is such "standard practice" to add ranks to the honorific_prefix. The infobox has a particular section for the rank which is far more appropriate, and infobox military person stipulates "honorific_prefix – titles such as "Sir"." I don't believe that a military rank comes under the same category of a title such as Sir, The Right Honourable, etc. Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 14:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)