Template talk:US officer ranks

Military history WikiProject
	This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
TMP	Templates do not require a rating on the quality scale.

The Commandant of the Marine Corps is not an equivalent to Fleet Admiral, General of the Army, or General of the Air Force. These positions are war-time only "ranks" that could be described as O-11. Commandant of the Marine Corps is a continuously-filled position and is analogous to the Air Force and Army's Chiefs of Staff, and whatever it's called in the Navy. The Commandant is a position, not a rank, and thus should not be in the US officer ranks template.

[edit] MGEN - MG

The US Army rank of Major General is abbreviated by MG, or it has been at every instance I've seen it. This should be changed, but seeing that it is a template, I would like to see some kind of consensus or information on why it is MGEN and not MG. If there has been a recent change in the rank abbreviation or UCMJ or something I might not know it.--Tim Thomason 02:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not MGEN, it's MG. I'm changing it. 172.168.165.254 18:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Warrant officers?

As far as I know, warrant officers are commisioned officers. Should they not be included here? --- Safemariner 00:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Warrant Officers past a certain paygrade are commissioned in the same manner as "Commissioned Officers". However, a distinction is usually made between Warrant Officers and Commissioned Officers. Lima Golf 16:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

In the United States, all warrant officers WO2 and above are commissioned officers and are called CWOs. Only WO1 are not commissioned but in practice WO1 has been phased out and as far are I know, there are no more WO1 left. CWO2 to CWO5 should be included in the list here. --- Safemariner 01:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CAPS, Capts, CPTs, and CAPTS

I went in and changes some of the capitalization. There's an important distinction, for example, between CPT (Army O3), Capt (Marine Corps or Air Foce O3), and CAPT (Navy, Coast Guard, PHS, and NOAA O6). I could not find a good source for the proper abbreviation for an O11 in the Air Force, as there has only been one of them. DukeEGR93 03:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Periods

Obviously for the USN and USMC, the abbreviations found in SECNAVINST 5216.5D should be considered authoritative until proven otherwise, but I'm less sanguine about using it as a source for the USAF, given the contradictions it has with AR 600-20 for the Army enlisted grade abbreviations. A search of the Air Force website http://www.af.mil definitely shows that the space is used (no hits for "LtGen" or "MajGen", thousands for the spaced versions. Less clear about the period since the site's search function doesn't consider periods even with quotes used, but every single page I came across there used periods with the rank abbreviations. My source for the non-Army abbreviations was http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/insignias/officers.html , so I'm willing to assume that page was edited by an airman who made some assumptions about marine usage. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order of services

I don't entirely agree with the way this is set up. While I can see how it can be practical, it doesn't match, the setup of the enlisted ranks setup, which are different. Neovu79 (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:US-O12 insignia.svg

The 6-star insignia that was proposed in WWII for General of the Armies / Admiral of the Navy was never authorized, in part because the rank was never authorized. It is unclear how many stars Pershing and Dewey should be considered as being equivalent to, and they used different insignia. (Pershing used 4 gold stars while Dewey used 4 silver stars and 2 gold anchors) The 6 star insignia should not be used in this template. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with you on the "official-ness" of the insignia, I think that the template is more aesthetically pleasing with the image. After all, it was created by the United States Army Institute of Heraldry, while never used, I feel that lends sufficient weight behind it that it would be used should another 6-star general ever be promoted. I don't normally vouch for form over function, but in this case, I think it would impart to the casual reader the weight of the rank. bahamut0013♠♣ 15:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering that barring a war on the scale of World War II, I doubt we'll ever have even a 5-star general or admiral again, if aesthetics is to be the determiner, it might be better to just remove the column for General of the Armies/Admiral of the Navy entirely, especially as one can argue whether they actually are 6-star ranks. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Convert template from hardcode

On articles where this template stacks with others its lack of automatic collapseability becomes obvious, as seen on Midshipman. Should be converted to use {{Military navigation}} and {{Navbox}}. — MrDolomite • Talk 17:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at this a while back, but I couldn't find a way to make template:military navigation show columns in a manner that looked acceptable. All of my attempts had uneven or non-uniform columns and rows. bahamut0013♠♣ 15:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Items outside of the navbox

Any notes or other information should be put in a subheading at the bottom of the navbox, not outside of it. Having any template information outside of the navbox is disruptive to the articles it is transcluded into, especially when stacked with other navboxes. Additionally, having notes for the navbox outside of the box can be confusing to some readers, as they (like I initially did) may assume that the notes are for the article rather than the navbox. bahamut0013♠♣ 11:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)