Template talk:US officer ranks

message: Why are we putting Admiral of the Navy back on this list. We've already established that the rank is honorary and, by law, no longer exist. The Navy no longer has the rank in their regulations. Neovu79 (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We've already established that the Navy went to Congress and could not get the rank elevated to six-stars, when they were trying to create the rank of fleet admiral. A previous amendment for the re-establishment and elevation of Admiral of the Navy failed to be passed into law in early 1944. In this instance, the Navy does not have the authority set what grade the rank is. That power is conferred to Congress. Neovu79 (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: But it doesn't say "six stars"  it just says "special grade". - wolf 21:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a rank that does not exist anymore. It's the same as Commodore (United States). Commodore was replaced by rear admiral (lower half) and admiral of the Navy was replaced by fleet admiral. We should not be adding ranks to this template, that no longer exist. Neovu79 (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we should remove General of the Armies as well. That hasn't existed in decades. The template even says it's not obtainable. Frankly, I would have zero objection to that, since the purpose is to show current ranks, as stated. We could then remove the entire empty column and make the template a little cleaner. oknazevad (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I would not object to that either. This could be said for 5-star ranks as well, but I believe that the biggest difference is that the military still lists the ranks on their official sites to this day. I personally believe that this template should only be used to list current ranks, so the Air Force warrant officer ranks not being on it, would be okay with me as well. Neovu79 (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: How many pages is this going to be discussed on? This is one of the reasons I suggested a single, central location, in reply to the other discussion about this. - wolf 00:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is purely about whether to include any non-current ranks in this template. I say no. oknazevad (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur on removing Admiral of the Navy and General of the Armies - both have clearly been replaced. I would prefer to keep the standard five-star ranks because they're still on the books (and currently published rank charts), since there's no ambiguity about their status. Garuda28 (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

text: General of the Armies is still technically an official rank. Admiral of the Navy, on the other hand, is a rank that was abolished. There is no six-star rank for the navy. Congress never authorized a six-star rank. Public Law 78-482 clearly states that Fleet Admiral is the highest rank of the United States Navy. The navy cannot reestablish the rank without a congressional act. Furthermore, the act that created the rank of Admiral of the Navy clearly states that "whenever such office shall be vacated by death or otherwise the office shall cease to exist." Thus, when Dewey died on January 16, 1917, the rank was abolished. There is no law that abolishes the rank of General of the Armies, so it is still an official rank. General of the Armies belongs in this template, while Admiral of the Navy does not. 12.185.211.194 (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with removal. It looks like past consensus was to remove, but never acted on. Garuda28 (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can address one of these special ranks and not the others. And edit-warring, while attempting to have-the-last-word-by-edit-summary is no way to handle this either. The IP editor using the "Uss Alabama Battleship commission" account needs to stop this disruption and leave the page at QUO in the meantime. - wolf 16:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Admiral of the Navy part 2

message: Any idea why there's two templates on the one page, instead a template for "commissioned officers" and a separate one for "warrant officers"...? Just curious - wolf 05:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to ask something along those lines too. But my issue is more that there is a total of 3 different US rank comparison templates. We have Template:US officer ranks, Template:US enlisted ranks and Template:United States uniformed services comparative ranks. Why? There needs to be some kind of consolidation. Skjoldbro (talk) 08:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this temlplate should be split, giving us the three levels, with insigia, that can be used in separate locations as needed. The comparison can useful as a single one-stop-shopping type of location, as well as having all the ranks spelled out in full, but it should be updated to match the other three. (jmho) - wolf 17:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  see Template:US warrant officer ranks. - wolf 23:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  While we're here....