Talk:Non-commissioned officer

message: An article that you have been involved in editing, Sub-Officer, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going , and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Korporaal1 (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge discussion for [[Sub-Officer]]

message: Historically in the U.S., all incidences of the word "Marine" are capitalized, even when not preceding a proper name. I was under the impression that this was observed in reference to other nations with Marine units, as well, but I have no information on that at this time. 
I have reverted the word to its capitalized form in this article, based on the Associated Press style, U.S. Government and Department of Defense reporting style and for uniformity across Wikipedia pages.
Note that there does not seem to be a universal concensus on this issue and that very few style manuals address it specifically. In this case, I found the sources for capitalization to outweigh those against.
--Fox1 12 Oct 2004
*It's not the practice in Britain, as far as I know (except when used as a rank before a name, obviously - it's the equivalent to private in the Royal Marines). And this article is about the armed forces of all nations, not just the US. It looks very odd to me to have that capitalised and not the others. For that reason, I vote we revert to lower case. -- Necrothesp 15:43, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "marine" vs. "Marine"

message: I removed this sentence:
:The exercise of authority by an NCO is technically called control or charge, though colloquial use of the term command is widespread.
This could be an American thing (and if so should be specified as such). In the British Army, NCOs frequently have the official title of e.g. Section Commander or Second-in-Command. -- Necrothesp 01:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Command

message: I didn't know what a non-commissioned officer was, but reading this article didn't make me much wiser. I had to read about non-commissioned officers under the commissioned officer link to figure out what it was. I think it would be a good idea to copy some of the info from that page to this one, so that others can get a better grasp of the topic on this page.
* Go for it. Geoff NoNick 14:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear definition? 

message: Under the In Fiction headline it states NCOs "In US military movies, they are often depicted as black".  Perhaps there is something that I am misunderstanding but if this is to mean something other than 'black' in regards to race, I feel this needs to be removed.  I served as an NCO myself in the US Navy and having seen many US military movies, I see this statement as little more than offensive assuming it is only referring to race. Boognish 04:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In fiction confusion 

message: I put the "worldwide perspective" tag on the "function" section because it appears to be describing NCOs in the armed forces of one specific country (I'm guessing the United States) with its discussion of particular training programs and "federal law" and whatnot. I don't know enough about the subject to fix it, but someone who does should take a look, and make the description more generalized. Mycroft7 (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  global tag on "function" section 

message: The Canadian Forces use the term NCM (non-commissioned member) not NCO. Please update the article to reflect that some countries use NCM now.--Sonjaaa (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NCM vs NCO

message: The introductory section and Function  are very weak. They are very US oriented and not objective, (I deleted a final sentence which related to US Federal Law) and make little effort to explain the topic from an internatinal perspective.  Subsequent sections such as on Canada maybe interesting but are rather fruitless until the core definitions are resolved: with false premises all further logic or discussion is meaningless.
I have insufficient knowledge of the military to provide authorative input but I recall that while serving as a civilian instructor with  Australian Military officers thatI was told NCO's are from Sergeant upwards.  Corporals and Lance Corporals are described as 'appointments'.  IF I am correct, this emphasioses the need to write the core information about NCO's from a more generic perspective.
I hope someone can adress this.
Paul T from Sydney.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.175.185 (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not objective, US oriented 

message: How relevant is the divided hierarchy of commissioned and non-commissioned officers in the US as we're seeing a lot of senior enlisted (E-7 and up) with college degrees? Jigen III (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The % of degrees among officers is high in the US military as a whole, and in some services such as USAF, 100%, as a pre-condition for commissioning. Commissioning of mustangs, i.e., "from the ranks" is nearly extinct. % of degrees, even two-year degrees, is still very low on the enlisted side, and nearly all occur after entry into the service. 30 years ago that would have been foundation for commissioning, but commissioned slots are strictly allocated now, and most EMs do so for service perks. As a factor in rationalizing "hierarchy", the divide among degree holders on both sides of the commission barrier is still vast.--Reedmalloy (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commissioned/Noncom Divide 

message: It's mentioned twice, both in Function and National usage. Im not sure how to edit this, but it's looks a bit weird. 86.80.116.169 (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor point: "backbone" of their service 

message: The article states that warrant officers (outside of the US) are NCOs - this isn't correct for commonwealth forces. Although WOs may be promoted from the NCO ranks and act effectively as the top of the NCO tree, they are a seperate group. Maybe words to the effect that they are essentially a continuation of the SNCO ranks?Jellyfish dave (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warrant Officers are NCOs? 

message: I think the recent addition of famous non-coms is problematic. This is an article about the rank in general, and if we start listing names country by country, we will get scads of people. If there is reader interest in such names, categorization should be used.  – S. Rich (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, should be removed. Completely pointless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The listing has been removed. For 3 of the names, their WP articles did not mention military service at all. To add to my rationale, many countries have mandatory military service so typically males will service and reach lower level NCO status in a year or two. That achievement is important to them, but not important enough to warrant a listing of their names here.  – S. Rich (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of famous NCO names 

message: The side box with ranks has a minor typo at "trooperor" which should read "trooper or" - however I cannot see how to edit the box. Thank you if you can fix this. Jeisenberg (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor correction needed 

message: Unteroffizier Stephphie (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Wikipedia