Category talk:Lieutenant generals of the Reichswehr

This category 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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	German military history task force

Use of the term "Lieutenant generals" in this category

The generic rank "Lieutenant general" and the rank of Generalleutnant were not equivalent until the German rank structure was harmonised with NATO. It seems to me that this category, being from a period prior to the NATO change, should use the German rank for clarity. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ÄDA - DÄP just thought I'd ping you to get your take on it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67:I thought about that put decided against it. We don't add clarity by using foreign language terms, especially not when the translation is obvious. The relative position in the command hierarchy is best expressed by the Category:2 star officers. General ranks are not intuitive with LTG being superior to GM etc.

Apart from that: Enwiki uses the plural form, which even native speakers have troubles to form. This will get more difficult when we get to the colonel generals.

Using German seems to be an easy way out, but usually creates more problems than it solves, especially when used by people who don't speak the language. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very odd way of looking at it, IMO. No doubt someone will come along quite soon and move them because "a Lieutenant general is a three-star" or similar rationale. And be completely wrong, of course. Nevertheless, good luck with it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]