Template talk:Infobox order

Needs an overhaul
As far as I can see the template needs to be changed a lot if it is to become acceptable IMO—the information the template asks for reflects a gross misunderstanding on the part of the template's authors of what exactly an order is.

Some of my specific objections:
 * There is a very definite UK-centric organization to the template. The generic organization of an order usually mentions a grand master, the grand crosses, its officers (if any) and perhaps any peculiarities specifically relating to the order. The template is ignorant of "orders" in general as found in the rest of Europe. [See how there are give separate spaces for "Sovereign", "Grand Master", "Chancellor", "Commander" and "Principal Commander". Not everyone needs to be mentioned, just the ones of material significance.]
 * The lines asking for "eligibility", "status", "awarded_by", etc. all too easily admit rather fanciful and practically meaningless (purely formal) statements such as "at the monarch's pleasure" rather than actual facts such as "decisions on awards made by X committee".
 * The intentions of the template's creators seem to be a bit muddled. On one hand there is the desire to be purely formal and fanciful and on the other to alert readers of "practical" things such as reorganizations (Order of the Bath, anyone?) and "...replaces" (what I guess goes into "replaced"). A clear plan should have been in place before doing something like this. "Orders" in the sense of this template do not begin and end with the ones in the United Kingdom.

Ideally the template should be fundamentally rewritten (without concern for existing uses of the template). If editors are unwilling to do that, at least make the descriptions/titles for the data variable (allow users to supply their own headings). 118.90.44.104 (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Version 2
In light of the above criticism, I've taken the liberty of creating new code for the template. The template does not have as many fields as the current version but takes about 10 (or so) bits of info.

All fields are optional. For example:
 * title=Order of Example —The name of the order. Defaults to pagename if none supplied.
 * image= —self-explanatory.
 * caption= —etc.
 * image2= —etc.
 * caption2= —etc.
 * type=National order of merit —Or dynastic, independent etc. Generally here the description should follow that given by the ICOC.
 * date=2009 —date of the order's foundation. Just a date should suffice, since the article exists for a full explanation.
 * country=Fooland —self-explanatory.
 * house=House of Bar —Royal house which controls the order (House orders?).
 * religion=Oriental Orthodox —"Religious affiliation" on the template. Self-explanatory.
 * ribbon=red —a textual description of just the principal colour, again see ICOC
 * head_title=Sovereign —a nod to the fact that not all orders are headed by Grand Masters.
 * head=Foobar I —self-explanatory.
 * head2_title=Grand Master —etc.
 * head2=Barfoo, Duke of Bar —etc.
 * notes= —self explanatory. Could be info on its sovereign status (SMOM), semi independent status etc. Or perhaps that the royal house has been deposed, or other details.

As far as possible I have tried to insert only the minimal information as stated on the website of the International Commission for Orders of Chivalry (http://www.icocregister.org/). Note that this means that other details like structure, quotas etc are not included.

That said, I don't propose breaking existing uses, but I envision some kind of "transition".

118.90.35.155 (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

- Blank: 

Code:  118.90.35.155 (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC) -


 * Seems perfectly reasonable to me. The current template has indeed too many and often unnecessary variables. Be WP:BOLD and go ahead! Constantine  ✍  07:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. I'll wait till the other major contributors have seen this before doing anything.
 * (As for changing the template, I think I will first add additional fields to the current version which match the ones above, then go through the pages, then switch this.) 118.90.35.155 (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Among the small number of en:Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Japan, only the Order of the Precious Crown has been modified with this new template. Two aspects of this transitional infobox cause questions to arise:
 * 1 I note that that "Grade" references "postnomials", which are not used in Japan. It is not immediately apparent how I can go about the process of removing these words.  Rather than modifying the template to remove this anomaly, perhaps it would be easier to hide the words -- using something like "no-wiki", e.g.,
 * "<:nowiki> ... postnomials ... ?
 * 2 I note that the colour band at the top of the infobox is blue. I wonder if it might be possible to change the color.  If so, how could that be achieved?  If it were technically achievable, I would image proposing the colour-choice in the talk venue of WP:WikiProject Japan?


 * As a general rule, I'm more focused on words than graphics; but over the course of time, questions have developed with no clear way to evaluate the options. --Tenmei (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The intention is to remove the "grades" and "postnominals" and so on. They are specific to only to some orders, and is one of the criticisms of the old version. The colour bar is also intended to go and be replaced with the standard Wikipedia Infobox format. I too am focussed on the content more than appearance.
 * The idea with the transition is to rename the current variables to ones which will be used in the new version (which is mostly done). The new template will simply not display the rest of the data input. The "code" section above will be the entire template (paste it into a sandbox and see...).
 * The main idea is that most of the current uses of the old box concern decorations, which obviously differ in form from country to country. The idea of an order is much wider than that. As for the particular page you gave, the infobox will be mostly shrunk to date/name/ribbon. 118.90.35.155 (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been WP:BOLD and gone ahead with the change. The others have read the message but not replied! 118.90.35.155 (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't consider this proposed concept for the "new"info-box enterily a successful improvement (for example it misses the precedence of the orders). I would suggest to you that you start the proper voting procedure to investigate whether the other Wikipedians agree with this new lay-out, before you want to implement the change procedure to replace the ""old" and now current infobox. Demophon (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The notions of "precedence" etc are exactly some of the reasons why there is a new template. The "criticisms" that I've pointed out are that they seem to characterize all orders as national orders of merit/decorations. "Precedence", "Post Nominals" and so on are proper to each order, rather than being attributes of orders in general. That kind of info probably belongs in a military award section or similar (or at least a template which isn't called "Order"). 118.90.35.155 (talk) 03:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the recent changes; they reduced the infobox to nearly nothing. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  13:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Miesianiacal, I won't do anything until I hear from you about this: what could be done better/differently/etc? This can only sound like a personal WP:ATTACK but please don't take it that way, but as the above shows, I asked for feedback, and specifically you on your talk... 118.90.106.6 (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You did indeed. However, when I had a glance at this, I didn't immediately notice any problem with your proposal; I suppose I mistakenly thought you were going to add fields to the infobox rather than delete most of them. I thus didn't comment; perhaps I should have; my apologies. That said, I now don't understand why you want to delete fields; though I'm not familiar with many articles outside of the Canadian honours system, the issues you point to seem to be unique to the pages you were looking at, rather than a problem with the infobox itself. From my experience, the infobox functions just fine on articles about Canadian orders. So I better understand where you're coming from, could you tell me what's wrong with the infobox at Order of Canada, for instance? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(back to margin) I think its because the Canada pages deal only with orders as state decorations, that is, just a badge and a fancy certificate, like most of the world in the 21st century—nothing wrong with that. Most of the info could go on a separate box for military decorations or civil decorations etc, containing info on a particular country's customs on wearing decorations etc.

As for the Order of Canada, most of the info concerns its use as a decoration or honour rather than an "Order" on its own (this is the "what's wrong"). Nonetheless the data is correct and factual, which I can see concerns people when it's removed. What I'm suggesting is, if you want to have that kind of info, put it where it belongs: Infobox military award or some other one for civil awards.

At the end of the template doc page is an example of a fully filled out (for its type) box.

A silly analogy is that a box of chips contains some snack which may be flavoured, be of a certain mass, made of certain ingredients and so on. But all that info concerns the snack, not the box. Considering boxes of chips on their own, all that distinguishes them are what's printed on them, the kind of paper etc. This is why "dormant" orders are still considered orders even though noone has anything to do with them. That idea may sound silly, like a lot of things, but in the end if we were to account for every little detail about the snacks inside we'd soon be in a situation where comparisons are impossible. The Order of Canada is a state order of merit/decoration from the POV of just orders. I am sure some other person could give a better explanation.

Again I don't want to create any ill feeling by going into depth. I sincerely believe that there's been a misunderstanding rather than any real opposition. 118.90.106.6 (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure of what you're getting at; perhaps I'm not knowledgeable enough about this subject. Are you stating that this infobox is currently useful only for certain types of order? If so, why is the answer to make it useful to only other types of order? In other words, if fields are presently missing that would otherwise make this box useful to more orders, then simply add the fields. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Are you stating that this infobox is currently useful only for certain types of order?": Short answer is yes. Adding fields only goes so far: if I could have done that, I would have. The way the template it set up is that it has so many fields where you have to follow a cetain pattern: "Awarded by Queen of Canada" (which is a great example of being applicable only to a small number of pages) etc., and I've made no secret of trying to get rid of that. Cutting the knot seemed to me the only way of resolving that issue. The Canadian orders are not excluded by the new template: they are classified as state merit orders with  . As for the other info, I still maintain it should go in another box.
 * (Actually someone could go to the military award page and spin off some of its content to make a state decoration thing with spaces for all sorts of data, but that is outside the scope of this talk.) 118.90.106.6 (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Examples to illustrate: (118.90.106.6 (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC))


 * Filling out every field for every article is not a requirement. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  03:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but when they are filled out they must follow a pattern. E.g. the Japan example above about "grades"/"postnominals". Just not stating them sidesteps a great number of issues. Couldn't the lower half of the military awards box be filled out, e.g. (see box). Even with empty fields (the title can be skipped the second time), some fields appear: the awarded by and type. If those two can be made optional (I think I will do that right now) then the stats can live alongside this. 118.90.106.6 (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What I will do soon is create a box which will take all the leftover variables and display them in a box of the same width. I will either create an account done and create a state award template or add a bunch of duplicate variables to the military award box with a switch to match the width of this template. (I think using MediaWiki trickery it is possible to automatically match width or even append it!) Dealtunit (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Award Of?
While trying to make a new wikipedia article for a state order, I noticed that in the gray box where we put "awarded by." there is now a line of text at the bottom of the box that says "Award of." How can we remove it? I don't seen any parameters that would allow us to edit that part of the infobox, and it's really throwing off the infobox's aesthetic. Jionunez (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello an editor had made a revision to "Template:Infobox order" on December 19  here. That revision changed the way that two of the fields displayed by effectively making those two fields mandatory, whereas they used to be optional before. Specifically, the "awarded_by" and "country" fields only used to display themselves in the infobox if data was entered into those fields. However, after the revision, those two fields displayed in the infobox even if no data was entered into either field. The good news is that a revision to this template today by another editor seems to have solved this problem, which is great! -- Blairall (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Variables
"Established" and "replaced" shouldn't really be under the section/heading "Statistics". "Headquarters" could be added. "First head" could probably be changed to "founder". "Ribbon" should be changed to ribbon-bar". However, it is a bit confusing that typically, an image bar is the represented in variable "image2", which even more confusingly typically is indicated below in the infobox, after "Precedence" section/heading. Also "awardeb_by" and "royal house" seems to be used rather confusingly in the case of dynastic orders, which could use an improvement somehow. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * With the "awarded by" thing, I think it's best we just remove it. There is the "country" and "royal house" for that so it's a bit redundant... --Re5x (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've also moved the "established" to after "type", similar to an earlier proposal above. --Re5x (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Infoboxes, of royal orders, decorations & medals
Why do we (if we do) need to repeat information in the infobox? Example: Order of Military Merit (Canada) - Do we need to mention "Monarch of Canada" twice, in its infobox? GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Is your question not why are there fields for both the sovereign and the awarder? Who else would go in those fields if not the monarch? -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  16:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If one of the fields is causing the repetition? It should either be eliminated or left empty. My guess is, the latter solution would be best. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The same person occupying two roles is not a reason to delete one of the roles as if it didn't exist. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  17:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We're going in circles here. Best to wait for input from others. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You may think we're going in circles, but we are not. You have been presented with a point. Either you can contest it and defend your position (whatever that presently is) or you cannot. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  17:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for the input/views of others, on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)