Template talk:Highest Military Ranks

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Highest Military Ranks template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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 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:
/
	Military culture, traditions, and heraldry task force

Organizing

The template is really confusing right now. I'm going to organize it by continent and according to country.*Treker (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rank or not.

Ok. So it's very complicated to decide exactly what counts as a rank and what doesn't so I will try to make as good as can be under the circumstances.*Treker (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Introduced mistakes

Caudillo is not a military rank
Generalissimo is or was not solely used in Italy, as the template now suggests
Führer is not a military rank but denotes a "leader". In cases of Hitler, the most well known Führer, he was had of state AND "Oberbefehlshaber" as separate entities, according to the German constitution.
Marshal of Yugoslavia is an exclusive Yugoslav entity, not something "South Slavic" (what is that anyway?).
Field marshal (Serbia and Yugoslavia), Serbia and Yugoslav, not something "South Slavic"
Admiralissimo is or was not solely used in Italy, as the template now suggests

I fear that there are many more mistakes in the template and I suggest a radical revert to this version. The Banner talk 15:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I realize that there are some mistakes but you essentially want to remove all the work because you see some mistakes?

No, *Treker, not because of "some mistakes". I see a load of mistakes and an editor who is confusing job titles with military ranks. The template is by now unreliable in my opinion. The Banner talk 09:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The template was unreliable before too. Really what a rank is and isn't is hard to define especially in the historical perspective when militaries didn't work exactly as they do today.*Treker (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Mixes civilians who are C-in-C merely by virtue of their elected position and military officers who have actually reached their ranks properly. Omits many ranks (why list Admiral of the Fleet for Britain, but not Field Marshal or Marshal of the RAF, which are entirely equivalent?). No problem with doing it by country, but it should stick to actual military ranks. I agree it shouldn't just be reverted, but it needs a major rewrite. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposal to revert and start anew. The mistakes are rather numerous ("Ottomanian"?, "Autokrator" as a Byzantine military rank? the literary Arthurian "dux bellorum" as an actual Roman rank? "Hetman", "Marshal of Yugoslavia", "Voivoda/Battle Warlord", as French ranks?), not to mention all the essentially political offices that are emphatically not military ranks. Perhaps it would make more sense to structure the ranks differently, by distinguish ranks that essentially mean "commander in chief", e.g. generalissimo, polemarch, constable of france, etc, from merely "highest ranks", which could be held by multiple people at the same time, like "marshal" and its equivalents. Certainly right now it is a jumble of different concepts and terms. Constantine ✍ 15:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the template serves any purpose, it is a navigation aid between similar concepts but I cant see the reader understanding or even using this for navigation, perhaps deletion may be better. MilborneOne (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]