Template talk:POW

Reason for question mark?

Can the person who created this template kindly explain why a "?" is used? Template:KIA reason is provided. But I'm wondering why a "?" A white flag sounds better, IMO. Idleguy 06:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It's (supposed to be) a character: ☐. Are you seeing it as a question mark? If so, I'd guess that there are font issues with it; I'll try to hunt around for some other characters that might be usable.

(As for the white flag: the point of having these templates was so that the symbols could be linked to appropriate pages, rather than having readers wonder what they stood for. Unfortunately, there's no way to cleanly have a linked image inline with text.) Kirill Lokshin 06:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, do any of these characters → □▭▱ ← look like anything other than a question mark?

(Alternately, I suppose we could go with something simple like an asterisk or a double dagger here, if nothing else works.) Kirill Lokshin 07:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I still see the question mark. I think a double dagger would be fine. just wondering if it wouldn't confuse with a KIA symbol. Idleguy 07:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

File:250px-White flag icon.svg.png What about a white flag symbol for everybody who surrendered and thus became a POW. Wandalstouring 13:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The font problem can be helped a bit by using the {{unicode|☐}} trick (which gives ☐). On the other hand, the white flag will probabaly be more easily understood. The right-hand flag looks clearer to me. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 13:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the flag is that it's an image, not a character; it's impossible to actually link it to the article. (In other words, clicking on it will take the reader to the image description page, whereas clicking on the current character goes to Surrender (military).) To what extent that's an issue, I'm not sure; but the original call for these templates was mostly because there was a sense that just having the images wasn't going to be self-explanatory. Kirill Lokshin 19:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It's an empry square here, too. I'd concur with the suggestion for a doubledagger - it's similar enough to the dagger to be clearly a related concept, whilst visibly not the same thing. Shimgray | talk | 03:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A doubledagger is no clear symbol, it is too close to the death symbol. We could use $\infty$ or # for example that has some similarity to handcuffs or iron bars. Wandalstouring 13:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In case the white flag isn't used, I'd agree with Wandalstouring idea of --> # <--- Idleguy 14:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed it to use # for the time being; let's see if anyone comes up with a better idea. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 05:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC

In the long run I propose to change it to ⚐ (⚐) [1]. But since I don't see this or the previously posted unicode characters, I agree with # for the time being. --danh 16:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any of the characters listed above, other than # -- they all display as boxes on my screen. However, for whatever reason this Anglo-Saxon character displays well for me: Þ. Sort of looks like a white flag here on my end; your mileage may vary. —Kevin 15:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I see someone showing his tongue here :Þ

but if it is smaller it looks like a good candidate. Wandalstouring 15:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That was a tongue in cheek comment. :P Idleguy 16:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys I was thinking that we should use an image but name it something along the lines of Surrender.jpg, that way we don't have to worry about the problems encountered with characters and it would be reasonably obvious what the symbol meant to anyone who clicked on it. When I first saw the # symbol at Battle of Manzikert, I would never have associated it with iron bars.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Constructive criticism: DO create something that can be used instead and present it here. Wandalstouring 09:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the tone of the comment has simply been lost in translation here; I'm sure Wandalstouring didn't mean it in any negative sense.

On a more practical line of thought, I'm not convinced that an image would be suitable, in any case; the idea here is to actually link to the relevant article, which isn't really the same thing as hoping that readers will figure out the context from the image. (The imagemap extension would allow us to link the image to an article; but, unfortunately, anything using it won't align correctly with text on the same line.) Kirill Lokshin 21:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What about

Image:White flag icon.svg + Template:Click? 68.39.174.238 22:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, {{click}} doesn't align properly when used inline with text. Kirill 01:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

BLAST it! I liked that little thing... I guess # it is... 68.39.174.238 02:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Linking to surrender?

Why does POW link to Surrender (military)? I see that as something different from being captured -- surrender is more of a choice, while captured means you just got captured. Though I guess you have to surrender in order to be captured. Thoughts? --AW (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree the link is wrong for prisoner of war also why a #? Gnevin (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)