Talk:Tony Radakin

to be First Sea Lord
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-military-chiefs-appointed

Sammartinlai (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Why hasn’t he been knighted
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


 * He was knighted in June 2021. Coldupnorth (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Infobox
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)
 * I agree. The addition here is inconsistent and repetitive. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree also. A sensible, logical change. Coldupnorth (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, seen your work removing the aforementioned information. Not arguing the entire thing, but you're also removing honorific_prefix additions like The Honourable, which aren't usually elsewhere else in the article. Thoughts? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed that such prefixes are not included elsewhere in the article but MOS:PREFIX says we should not be including "the honourable" anyway. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah. Not sure the people who write MP articles got the message, then... Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think they did. Keep up the good work! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is WP:EDITCONSENSUS to not included ranks and awards in the 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)
 * Hi - I am more concerned that we should not clutter the infobox by adding rank and awards. I really don't have a view on The Honourable/The Right Honourable/etc. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree, when it is a retired military officer infobox, that postnominals should not be added unless very few apply, but the gravity and current rarity of the Field Marshal title, couples with the fact that it is more significant than 'The Right Honourable'. I would personally include it on its own as this is common with some other military infoboxes. THoughts? Nightingale104 (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we should be consistent: as 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 (whatever the rank). Dormskirk (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. It makes sense to only include The Rt Hon. as an infobox prefix if it doesn't appear elsewhere (and if they are not Privy Counsellors and don't have PC suffix), so cheers :). Shouldn't many of the other MIB's be adjusted to appear more like Lord Bramall's and include the Rt Hon.? E.g. Lord Radley, Lord Walker etc... Nightingale104 (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As previously indicated, I really don't have a view on The Honourable/The Right Honourable/etc. Dormskirk (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * With regards the honorific of "Sir", "Dame", "Lord", "Lady", etc. such should be included in the 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)
 * I think you should obtain consensus first before changing a whole series of articles such as Michael Boyce, Baron Boyce, Julian Oswald, John Fieldhouse, Baron Fieldhouse, Benjamin Bathurst (Royal Navy officer) and Lord John Hay, as you have done. Most of the editors who have commented above disagree with you. Dormskirk (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, completely disagree. Rank and honours have always been included in infoboxes. No reason to make an exception for military officers. Ironically, there has been advocacy for postnoms to appear in infoboxes but not the lead! And here we have advocacy for them to appear in the lead but not infoboxes! Just leave the status quo and stop trying to change everything. It works perfectly well as is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Very happy to go with the consensus. I am merely trying to achieve consistency. The vast majority of UK military infoboxes do not currently have postnoms at the top of the infobox. Dormskirk (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of infoboxes for other British people do. And it's an ideal place to put them. Postnominals are important to many of us. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * CODS Sir Tony Radakin.jpg

Infobox
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)
 * We have used ranks, military, religious and academic, in many infoboxes. These are things that always appear in front of names, so it would be, in my opinion, mad and unhelpful not to include them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it clogs up the infobox with more text than is necessary, and uses a parameter created for a different purpose. Of the top twenty articles in Category:Royal Navy admirals, only two (including this one) use the parameter in this way. It's difficult to do a truly random sample, but I also took some of the entries from the list of featured military biographies and checked them:
 * William Anderson (RAAF officer)
 * Wilfred Arthur
 * Thomas Baker (aviator)
 * Albert Ball
 * John Balmer
 * Alexandre Banza
 * Cyril Bassett
 * Otto Becher
 * Arthur Blackburn
 * William Brill (RAAF officer)
 * Adrian Cole (RAAF officer)
 * Henry Clifford, 10th Baron Clifford
 * Dudley Clarke
 * Rupert Downes
 * Peter Drummond (RAF officer)
 * Thomas Erpingham
 * John Glenn
 * Peter Heywood
 * Only one of these featured articles includes the rank in the honorific_prefix parameter. A check of List of serving senior officers of the Royal Navy demonstrates that Radakin is the only article on an active service admiral to use it. If you would like to sample in more depth that would of course be helpful, but as of now I do not see evidence that this use is "standard practice" or really that useful. I would argue that it should not be used in this way. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm mystified as to why you should think that a miltary officer's rank is not useful in the infobox when it will almost always be included before their name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The rank is already in the infobox. It doesn't need repeating, nor does it need including in a parameter meant for other things. That is my argument. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My point is that it is usually seen before someone's name, not halfway down an infobox! Tony Radakin is commonly known as Admiral Radakin, not Sir Tony Radakin, Admiral. After all, we put the rank before the name in the first line of the article and that is not considered to be clutter except by people who would remove everything except the name, including titles and postnoms. Given the infobox always includes more than the first line, I fail to see the issue. The infobox parameter is "honorific_prefix". That would include a rank, which is essentially an honorific prefix. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)