Template talk:InfoBoxMilitaryCommand

Possible fields to add

I would add Year, in order to allow the template to terget unit changes of names, or maybe even their parent formations. Changes or names are not that strange and we have 1 page for all the "names" while the other ones are redirects to this one--Pserratv (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2019 (EDT)

The current infoboxs have a "reference year" do you mean carry that over or do you mean impliment it in a different way? (Sorry if I miss the obvious, I have just finished work and I am really tired).--Dmon (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2019 (EDT)

In the new proposed template (below), there is no year:

image
designation
Formed	formed
Disbanded	disbanded
Previous Designation(s)	Previous Designation
Nickname	nickname
Affiliation	affiliation
Parent Command	parent command

Formed and Disbanded are two specific milestones, and I'm refering to the current Reference Year of inbobox, missing in this sample template.--Pserratv (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2019 (EDT)

The idea is that the InfoBox should have no reference year. We want to do away with time-sensitive information in the infobox.

But it may be worth having a section for sub-units, for brigade-sized and larger formations and very large merc units. Frabby (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2019 (EDT)

As Frabby said, we are trying to avoid connecting the infobox to a specific year (or even era in some of the more long lived units), The sub-units one would be really easy to do and would in effect replace the "Units of the xxxx" section of brigade articles, yes?--Dmon (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2019 (EDT)

Kinda-sorta, yes. I imagine it a bit like a file directory structure, where "Parent Command" is the next higher "folder" and sub-units are the next lower tier, to the extent where they're considered worth noting. The lowest tier would be regiments by default, because of BattleTech's organisatorial fixation on regiments; most battalions and companies aren't noteworthy in and of themselves. There are special cases of course, and these would usually have their own articles which would then be noted in the sub-commands section, like Sorenson's Sabres, The Fox's Teeth, and Rolling Thunder. Merc units follow the same scheme, with the caveat that they are mostly smaller than a regiment and wouldn't feature notable sub-units; that's only the case for multi-regiment units.

However, I wouldn't want the infobox section to replace the article section, just to provide a quick overview of the most important info. The article section may provide much more detail, and/or feature less notable sub-units that are known but are not relevant enough for the infobox. Frabby (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2019 (EDT)

I like the idea but on a practical level I have few concerns, Any thoughts on how to handle sub-units that have changed names as there will likley not be room for notes. I also think it might gave a prolem confining it to the Brigades and above. We would likely see the conventional support units getting added in at regimental level.--Dmon (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2019 (EDT)

I've created a test sample to see how it looks: User:Pserratv/test mercenary. Looks ok. As per how to handle sub-units, our risky point are all those commands (RCTs) for which there is a very defined BattleMech main component and less known sub-units like tanks/infantry units. I would suggest we keep names usually at the level given in the Field Manuals--Pserratv (talk) 05:37, 25 March 2019 (EDT)

Indeed, RCTs would very quickly get out of hand.--Dmon (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2019 (EDT)

Would they really? I'm surprised. When treating a RCT like a brigade, all you have to do is list its constituent elements here, at the largest respective level (and only if known and named). Every other detail either doesn't belong here (no discussing companies in a brigade article) or at least should be adressed in the article proper and not in the infobox. Frabby (talk) 04:51, 31 March 2019 (EDT)

Order of precedence

I if we are to include sub-units I will change the order to allow for larger sections of the box.

• image
• Designation
• Nickname
• Previous Designation
• Affiliation
• Formed
• Disbanded
• Parent Command
• Sub-Commands

Is what I am thinking, possibly move affiliation down to between disbanded and parent command. I did the first one with the loose info blocks as "who are they" = designations, "Who do they work for" = affiliation and the parent command, "when" =formed and disbanded.--Dmon (talk) 05:52, 25 March 2019 (EDT)