Talk:Master-at-arms

message: I would like to expand on this article some more. This U.S. Navy rate has seen some significant changes in recent times since 9/11 and thisarticle does not fully explain our role in the military. Our efforts supporting the military services abroad and overseas is very complex and difficult. Any others who can provide more information will be greatly appreciated. I guess my format to use would be the Hospital Corpsman (HM) page.
Taotaomona77 13:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go ahead and add whatever detail you can provide. Format it as per an existing page like Hospital Corpsman if you can, but don't worry too much about the formatting - other editors can add that afterwards. If you've got the expertise, please feel very welcome to add it. --AlexChurchill (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update the Master-at-Arms Page 

message: Given that the rank's capitalisation throughout the article is "Master-at-Arms", shouldn't the article be moved to "Master-at-Arms" rather than "Master-at-arms"? --AlexChurchill (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes: "Master-at-Arms" is a formal title & is also correct editorially. Lower case use would occur when the term is not a formal title but a general, likely plural, title, as in "The room was full of masters-at-arms." 138.162.128.54 (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Master-at-arms" -> "Master-at-Arms"? 

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: I just added a picture with this caption: "Two Master-at-Arms conducting a security patrol near the USNS Comfort". I am not sure what the plural of Master-at-Arms is so feel free to correct this. --BurtAlert (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural of Master-at-arms 

message: Didn't civilian ships used to have a crew position called the master-at-arms as well? 141.152.254.26 (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civilian ships 

message: Seriously, "our infant nation's [whatever]"? "[D]irect response to the terrorist acts of the Barbary State's pirates"?
If I touch this as an IP, I'm in a world of hurt, so somebody else has to clean up this mess.  --91.10.39.157 (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Adjusted so the point-of-view doesn't seem quite read like an American history book. I can't see any non-neutral wording in other sections, so I'm removing the template. Jpanzerj (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Template 2012-07 

message: I would still like to separate this page, making this a general overview of the Master-at-Arms, and separating the U.S. Navy rating as its own article.  I have tried three different times with no success.  If anyone would like to help me to get this approved or do it on their own, that would be much appreciated.  I believe the U.S. Navy rating deserves an article based on its own merits.
Taotaomona1977 (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's separate this article

message: I am not a Wikipedia expert, nor a grammar major, so please look at the changes for information value and content. Would like some "expert" advise to improve this page and rate. Taotaomona1977 (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Updates to this page 

message: I propose that we consider splitting off Master-at-arms (United States Navy) (created as a redirect to here). A significant portion of this page focuses on that and it's better to separate it so it can be in its own categories and the like. Any objections? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Taotaomona77 and Ricky81682 have forgotten to show reasoning why the British and US versions of MAAs need separate explanations of the concept. I agree though, that the copious minutae and lists of names under the US section should be separated from this article. I think that data would have notability issues to overcome before rating its own, however. Sadsaque (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting [[Master-at-arms (United States Navy)]] 

message: When I was swabbish, any military police were called Jimmy Legs. Melville refers to the Master-at-Arms as this in Billy Budd.http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/bb/bb_naut.html#masteratarms So, Melville's 1888 reference in the Royal Navy, and these back at least to 1875 in the US Navy https://www.google.com/search?q=%22jimmy%20legs%22&tbm=bks&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1800,cd_max:1901&lr=lang_en, and finally this 1898 memoir of an American admiral describing the nearly identical natures & habits of the 2 navies: https://books.google.com/books?id=2xfpxat8OGUC&pg=PA33&dq=jimmy+legs , I think show that the concept ever has been the same, and I'm surprised, at least, it's not found in this article yet. Sadsaque (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimmy Legs 

message: My understanding is that the title is used in some gang cultures to denote a member responsible for internal discipline. Should this be at least mentioned? Chrismorey (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informal use