Talk:List of active duty United States four-star officers

change position insignia CJCS and VCJCS

I changed the position insignia for the CJCS and VCJCS from the position flag to Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge. This change is more in line with the column header (an insignia is not a flag). secondly the Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge is generally used as the position insignia by members and staff of the JCS on their uniforms similar to the insignia's displayed by most other four-star positions in this article. And last; the use of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge is more in line with the specific article on the joint chiefs of staff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.220.56 (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

All of the other individual positions (CSAF, NGB, etc.) are designated by positional flags though. This removes some of the standardization within this list. Garuda28 (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Outgoing positions of incoming four-stars?

Should outgoing positions of pending appointments also be listed? In a new added row, or will that confuse things?SuperWIKI (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I thought about adding something like that as well, however I ultimately decided not to, under these considerations: (1) how many officers are being newly appointed to four-stars (2) how many four-star officers are being reassigned to different four-star offices, (3) how many four-stars are retiring (4) how often are four-star offices/commands are added or eliminated and (5) how often officers failed to be confirmed by the Senate. Recently, number 5 seems to have occurred a little often due to the past administration. I'm sort of indifferent about it, so I would be open to adding it, if others on Wiki deems it to be of value, and not just cluttered information. Neovu79 (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Goldfein nomination

The section Goldfein's nomination is mentioned in specifically concerns failed/withdrawn Senate nominations, yet a user keeps adding this text despite the irrelevancy, with poorly worded language and grammar.

Consensus needed to remove. SuperWIKI (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment: While I'm not opposed to keeping it in the article, I do believe that it needs to not be so politically motivated, so I recommend removing the names of the president and the name of the secretary of defense. Also there should be a limit to how many examples are needed to support an article statement, as five or six examples are already on the heavy side. Any more would be superfluous. Neovu79 (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Understood. SuperWIKI (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

McKenzie takes command of Resolute Support Mission

I recommend we add "Resolute Support Mission" to McKenzie's roles and I ask for discussion before I act boldly. The second paragraphs in two Pentagon press releases dated 2 July 2021 and 12 July 2021 state Miller transferred Resolute Support to McKenzie. I expect NATO will soon inactivate the mission but, until then, McKenzie does appear to be the commanding general for Resolute Support. Rob Rosenberger (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Neovu79: May need your input on this. SuperWIKI (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I would not add the commands of RS and USFOR-A under McKenzie until we know for sure that he is assuming the titles of commander of both. Doing so prematurely would be an example of WP:SYNTH. Neovu79 (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Done, hid the text for now. SuperWIKI (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Saltzman

@SuperWIKI: Hi! While I understand it's only hours away before Saltzman becomes CSO, he is not CSO yet. IMO preemptively editing before the actual transition goes against WP:NOTNEWS. KingEdinburgh (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@KingEdinburgh: On the topic of Saltzman, this is out of habit. When I began updating officer personnel lists, changes-of-command and responsibility in this niche area of the wiki were not updated until days after the fact or not at all. For three-stars and four-stars, updates by editor outside our usual group are only on the service pages and some scattered pages. The scattered and inconsistent nature of the edits (such as templates not being updated, etc.) makes it painfully time-consuming to check through which pages have or haven't been updated.

Doing a wave of edits to related pages a few hours before the transition, and adding the newly-promoted officer to relevant templates, so long as it is otherwise unintrusive, prevents this and to still be in control of the update process, especially when the US doesn't share a timezone with me, then I can safely sleep on time knowing that the information is accurate, or will be within a few hours of bedtime. There are cases where I've edited more than a day in advance due to misjudgement, and for that I apologise.

I took some time to answer because I'm not very good at explaining things concisely. SuperWIKI (talk) 05:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@SuperWIKI: Yeah, I completely understand. I only reverted your edits on main pages that are likely to get more readers, not on the templates and other pages. KingEdinburgh (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

United States army troops men

14 129.205.96.146 (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Statutory limits out of date

The information about statutory limits on the number of general/admiral officers is clearly out of date. Current numbers exceed them. 74.12.77.238 (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Neovu79 (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Strangely, the 2024 NDAA reflects different numbers in Section 501. Request clarification of this conflict - especially since 10 U.S.C. § 526 (in the LII website) doesn't show the Space Force. OLRC also has the pre-Neovu edit numbers, as added by @X5163x: (pinging them) here. SuperWIKI (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)