Template talk:Military ranks

message: I add Chief Petty Officer as most Naval force have Chief in place of Warrent officers and the fact that there is a great deal of difference between the role of a CPO and a Petty officer
: Yes, it should be added, by all means.  Just about every commonwealth Navy (as well as the USN and USCG, obviously) have Chiefs.  This needs to be added. --ip.address.conflict (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Chief Petty Officer

message: Here's may take on this question.
*Air force rank titles which are clearly derived from only one navy or army rank should be ommited.  E.g. Air commodore is clearly derived from commodore and no other rank.  Likewise for wing commander.  Therefore they should stay out.
*Air force rank titles which might (to the uninformed eye) be derived from two or more different ranks should stay in.  E.g. Group captain as it is not obvious from the rank title that it is equivalent to a navy captain and not an army captain. 
*Air force rank titles which are do not occur in army or navy usage should be listed.  E.g. squadron leader. Greenshed 17:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion and exclusion of air force ranks

message: Surely the box doesn't claim to make any direct correspondence between any two countries' systems. I move that that message be removed since the box clearly describes general terminology. Whether or not a country chooses to use only army-style ranks or has its own mumbo-jumbo really belongs on that particular country's page, not here. 
It probably is only really applicable if it made clear that the box was describing, say, "military forces patterned after the USA" (if such a distinction existed). 118.90.104.151 (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Over a month has elapsed and no one has made a statement. I will be WP:BOLD and remove the footnote. Feel free to revert, but please explain any objection, since none has been forthcoming so far! 118.90.47.88 (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 'In the Commonwealth'

message: The rank of generalissimo was removed from the template on the grounds that it is very rarely awarded.  If generalissimos were junior or middle-ranking officers then I would not favour it inclusion.  However the reason why it is so rare is because it is also so senior, being the most senior of all the general officer ranks and having unparallelled authority.  On that basis I argue for its inclusion. Greenshed (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I am guessing that the intended use is to be a quick and rough guide. Anyone who needs to know about a generalissimo is never going to have to use that information with relation to any other (lower) rank. Becuase generalissimos don't appear very often I'd say it is unnecessary. On that basis I think it should be removed. 118.90.67.21 (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I really think it should be removed, because the table of ranks is English language focused, while generalissimo has not been awarded by any English speaking countries.  Commander-in-chief (or Head of Armed Forces) is appropriate instead. Kirk (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Generalissimo

message: Ensign is curiously missing from this template, so I replaced Midshipman with Ensign, and added another row for the common cadet ranks (midshipman, officer cadet, officer candidate).  Kirk (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. Greenshed (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ensign

message: The the British Armed Forces and many Commonwealth militaries, the title of commander-in-chief may be held officers holding such ranks as lieutenant general, air marshal or vice-admiral.  It is not generally used as a supreme military rank in the English-speaking world. Greenshed (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the Queen is the commander-in-chief but "commander-in-chief" is still not a rank. Greenshed (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Commander-in-chief

message: After a bit of reverting, I wanted to set down my reasons for opposing the inclusion of US Navy ranks when we already have a navy ranks column.  Looking at the edit summaries, it has been argued that "us navy nomenclature is commonly used world wide and should be available as a reference. more information, not less".  I strongly oppose this move as if we are to have USN ranks then I am sure that we also should have Chinese, Russian, Indonesian, Thai, Brazilian, Japanese etc etc ranks and of course we will need the whole spread for each nation's army and air force as well.  It is also worth noting that all the USN ranks are covered generically by the naval ranks column.  If you want to discuss whether we should have Admiral of the Fleet or Fleet Admiral or bring up whether we should have Sub Lieutenant or LTJG then by all means discuss it on this page (under a different heading.
As I dislike edit wars I am not going to remove the USN ranks column at present.  However, I strongly encourage any other editors to remove the column.  Greenshed (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Exclusion of US Navy ranks column

message: i have requested edit protection. the commonwealth military rank template is inappapropriate as the main template for comparative military ranks. us servicemen outnumber commonwealth five to one, and, in actual combat today, worldwide, the commonwealth is barely represented.
diremarc (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is not protected, and even if it were, please read what it says before adding it in the future: You need to give a complete and specific description of the request so that any admin unfamiliar with the page can make the edit, and for controversial edits you also most seek consensus first. Thank you, Amalthea 00:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: diremac, please check how this template is used. It is not appropriate to make it a full width template regardless of what is in it. ninety:one 00:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Perhaps this is an issue for WP:CSB. 118.90.15.97 (talk) 13:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Editprotected

message: As was mentioned in prior discussions regarding this article being written in English and from the perspective, from what I can tell, pertains to United States Servicemen, it just seems obvious to me that this article was written by a Canadian, who may not understand the Military Ranking System of the United States Government. 
I am not saying that it is inappropriate to use Links that represent Canadian views, more to the effect that References should be more balanced, especially with as much information available to the public about the United States Military and Military Rank classifications. Mark Halsey 14:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External References seem to Link to all things Canadian 

message: Would the Space Force ranks be the ones of the navy (e.g. because of spaceships) or the ones of the air force (e.g. because of flying) or something else (army ranks or a completely new set of ranks)? 193.198.162.14 (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Space Force as a concept is still too young of a thing to be added. But if enough information could be gathered soon, I would support its inclusion GucciNuzayer (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space Force 

message: I have reverted the changes which were made to this template on the 25th of May. My reasons were as follows.
# The changes messed with the width of the template, making it a lot wider.
# The stuff that was added was highly USA-centric - no other military has a "Sergeant Major of the Army", for example.
# There were too many synonyms for each rank - "seaman", "seaman recruit", and "seaman apprentice" all compete for space at the cost of legibility. This also related to the point about being highly America-centric that I made above, since most of the synonyms added were for American ranks in particular.
If anyone disagrees with me, I recommend we consider opening an RfC. Gimubrc (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with your points above.Greenshed (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had to make another reversion for the same reasons. Again; this template should not include ranks that are exclusive to the US Military - or, for that matter, to any other country's military. Gimubrc (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of recent additions 

message: Flight Sergeant is ranked incorrectly, the RAF has for years had the ranks Sergeant and Flight Sergeant. These are two very different ranks, a normal sergeant is the correct comparison rank for Petty Officer and Sergeant. Not Sergeant, showing that as equal is effectively a demotion of one grade.
This can be checked via the RAF website and archived versions of the page. Palynium (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flight Sergeant