Talk:List of active duty United States four-star officers

message: I changed the position insignia for the CJCS and VCJCS from the position flag to Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge. This change is more in line with the column header (an insignia is not a flag). secondly the Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge is generally used as the position insignia by members and staff of the JCS on their uniforms similar to the insignia's displayed by most other four-star positions in this article. And last; the use of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge is more in line with the specific article on the joint chiefs of staff  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.220.56 (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the other individual positions (CSAF, NGB, etc.) are designated by positional flags though. This removes some of the standardization within this list. Garuda28 (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  change position insignia CJCS and VCJCS 

message: Should outgoing positions of pending appointments also be listed? In a new added row, or will that confuse things?SuperWIKI (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about adding something like that as well, however I ultimately decided not to, under these considerations: (1) how many officers are being newly appointed to four-stars (2) how many four-star officers are being reassigned to different four-star offices, (3) how many four-stars are retiring (4) how often are four-star offices/commands are added or eliminated and (5) how often officers failed to be confirmed by the Senate. Recently, number 5 seems to have occurred a little often due to the past administration. I'm sort of indifferent about it, so I would be open to adding it, if others on Wiki deems it to be of value, and not just cluttered information. Neovu79 (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outgoing positions of incoming four-stars? 

message: The section Goldfein's nomination is mentioned in specifically concerns failed/withdrawn Senate nominations, yet a user keeps adding this text despite the irrelevancy, with poorly worded language and grammar.
Consensus needed to remove. SuperWIKI (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: While I'm not opposed to keeping it in the article, I do believe that it needs to not be so politically motivated, so I recommend removing the names of the president and the name of the secretary of defense. Also there should be a limit to how many examples are needed to support an article statement, as five or six examples are already on the heavy side. Any more would be superfluous. Neovu79 (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Understood. SuperWIKI (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misplaced Goldfein nomination 

message: I recommend we add "Resolute Support Mission" to McKenzie's roles and I ask for discussion before I act boldly. The second paragraphs in two Pentagon press releases dated 2 July 2021 and 12 July 2021 state Miller transferred Resolute Support to McKenzie. I expect NATO will soon inactivate the mission but, until then, McKenzie does appear to be the commanding general for Resolute Support. Rob Rosenberger (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: May need your input on this. SuperWIKI (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not add the commands of RS and USFOR-A under McKenzie until we know for sure that he is assuming the titles of commander of both. Doing so prematurely would be an example of WP:SYNTH. Neovu79 (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, hid the text for now. SuperWIKI (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  McKenzie takes command of Resolute Support Mission 

message: 14 129.205.96.146 (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States army troops men 

message: The information about statutory limits on the number of general/admiral officers is clearly out of date.  Current numbers exceed them. 74.12.77.238 (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Neovu79 (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Strangely, the 2024 NDAA reflects different numbers in Section 501. Request clarification of this conflict - especially since  (in the LII website) doesn't show the Space Force. OLRC also has the pre-Neovu edit numbers, as added by  (pinging them) here. SuperWIKI (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statutory limits out of date