Talk:Admiral

Commodore
Can someone who knows something about these things explain the disappearance of Commodore from among US naval ranks and the "Lower half" and "Upper half" designations? RickK 01:16 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's all actually very well explained in the Commodore article. --Ray Trygstad 22:10, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

British Navy
Does anyone else think it's out of place to have a complete table of British officer ranks on the page for every military and Naval rank? Shouldn't it have it's own entry, perhaps? --Ray Trygstad 22:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vis-a-vis the comments in the table: navy.mil clearly shows all-uppercase abbrevations for ranks. Not sure about Midshipman, though; I'm not sure it's an actual rank. I'll edit the table appropriately. --Eric 05:29, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) ...or perhaps not. Anyway, the use of all caps in rank abbreviations is standard throughout the US Armed Forces. --Eric 05:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dutch Navy
This phrase about the Dutch navy is not correct: "The Dutch navy is unique in that there is only one Admiral in the navy and it is the reigning sovereign. As a result, the highest rank one can achieve in the Dutch navy is Lieutenant Admiral. Also, the Dutch have only two ranks with the title of Admiral, excluding the sovereign." The rank of admiral doesn't exist anymore officially since 1956 and it was only given twice in the 19th century: first in 1839 by King William I who made his son, allready Secretary of State for War and Navy and commander-in-chief, admiral; and the second time somewhere in the 1880's of 1890's when prince Henry was appointed admiral 6 days before his dead by his brother, king William III. There is no law or rule that the rank can only be held by the sovereign, in fact the only two time the rank was used, it was not the king.


 * I rewrote the whole Dutch section due to heavy POV and bad grammer. Im not at all sure of the info contianed within, though, and am trusting that to those who put it in the article.  BTW- What is the translation of "Schout bij Nacht"?  That doesnt seem to me to look like any kind of Admiral rank.  Also Nacht means night?  "Night Admiral"?  We need a Dutch Speaker to tell us. -Husnock 02:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Schout bij Nacht originates from the 16th century (or even before). Schout is often translated with "bailiff" or "sheriff". There is a link with the (old) verb "schouwen" wich means "to watch" or "to look after". So, the "Schout-bij-nacht" (Sheriff-at-Night / Watch-at-Night) was the person who supervised the ship by night when the captain was asleep. Later he became the commanding officer of the fleet or a squadron at night when the (vice-) admiral was asleep. And somewhere in the 17th century he was associated with the rear squadron of a battle fleet (comparable to the English rear-admiral). It is an Admiral rank, he uses the same insignia (with 2 stars) as vice-admiral (3 stars) and lieutenant-admiral (4 stars).
 * The rank of admiraal (not 5 stars, but crossed batons) does not exist anymore. It can still be found in navy flag-protocols (tradition ?), but not in goverment decrees since 1956 (but tradition still says that the rank can only be given to a prince of the royal family).
 * Besides two royal princes with the rank in the 19th century there is another royal link: in the 18th century it was ruled that the stadhouder (viceroy or substitute-ruler), a remarkable function in the Dutch Republic, was appointed admiraal-generaal of the navy and kapitein-generaal (captain-general) of the army. But most laws and rules regarding institutions of the Dutch Republic were abolished in the French era (1795-1813) and after the establishment of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (1813).
 * Found some remarks in English here:
 * http://flagspot.net/flags/nl~rank.html


 * See also here, NATO codes for grades of military personnel, there is no Dutch equivalent (anymore) for OF-10 (Fleet-Admiral, Marshal, General-of-the-Army)
 * http://www.mindef.nl:30280/mpbundels/20_serie/dp_20_10/20_10_bijlage_h.htm

Admiral ranks by seniority
I don't see the point of this section. Its authors seem to have gathered as many variations on the rank of admiral from different navies as they can find (plus at least one rank that never actually existed), then tried to put them in the order they would rank in a hypothetical navy that had the lot. Even if one accepts the validity of the exercise (which is undermined by the fact that rank titles have had different meanings in different times and places: e.g., Admiral in the Royal Netherlands Navy corresponds to Fleet Admiral in the USN, while a Kriegsmarine Admiral is  generally considered to have ranked with a USN Vice Admiral), some of the placings are problematic at best.


 * Admiral of the Fleet is the equivalent of the USN Fleet Admiral in the Royal Navy (and other navies), and belongs on the same line.


 * Flag Admiral never existed. It was proposed in 1945 as a rank in the USN above Fleet Admiral; however, it was never adopted. If it is to be included, it should be on the same line as Admiral of the Navy, to which it is considered an equivalent.


 * Lieutenant Admiral is not just a variation on Vice Admiral; it is a separate rank in the Royal Netherlands Navy, between Admiral and Vice Admiral.


 * Counter Admiral is an alternative rendering of Ger. Konteradmiral, Fr. Contre-amiral, etc., which are usually translated as Rear Admiral; Counter Admiral and Rear Admiral should thus be on the same line.


 * Commodore Admiral was a short-lived USN rank immediately below Rear Admiral; it is thus the equivalent of Flotilla Admiral (Ger. Flotillenadmiral), and belongs on the same line.

So, if we have to have the table, it should more like this:

This is still less than satisfactory, for the following reasons:


 * General Admiral was a Kriegsmarine rank, between Grand Admiral and Admiral; there is some dispute over whether this should be treated as ranking between the USN Fleet Admiral and Admiral, or whether it should be treated as the equivalent of a USN Admiral (making a KM Admiral = USN Vice Admiral, KM Vice Admiral = USN Rear Admiral Upper Half, & KM Rear/Counter Admiral = USN Rear Admiral Lower Half).


 * Admiral in the Royal Netherlands Navy equates to a USN Fleet Admiral, & Lieutenant Admiral to a USN Admiral.


 * Rear Admiral in the USN has since 1985 been split into two separate ranks, Rear Admiral Upper Half and Rear Admiral Lower Half; the former corresponds to Rear Admiral in most other navies, the latter to Flotilla Admiral (or Commodore).


 * Port Admirals appear not to have been admirals at all, but senior captains.

This would give us a table like this:

[1] applies if a Kriegsmarine General Admiral is considered to outrank a USN Admiral; [2] applies if they are considered to be of equivalent rank.

Shouldn't we just scrap the whole section, and point people at Comparative military ranks? &mdash; Franey 13:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not at all for scraping the section. I think it is highly informative.  The first table you mentioned though might be a good substitute, though.  The second seemed a bit complicated. -Husnock 13:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is complicated, but the first table can be very misleading. For example, take this section:


 * {| style="border:1px solid #8888aa; background-color:#f7f8ff; padding:5px; font-size:95%; margin: 0px 12px 12px 0px;"


 * align="center"| General Admiral
 * align="center"| Admiral
 * align="center"| Lieutenant Admiral
 * }
 * align="center"| Admiral
 * align="center"| Lieutenant Admiral
 * }
 * align="center"| Lieutenant Admiral
 * }
 * }
 * }


 * This leads us to assume that a General Admiral outranks an Admiral, who outranks a Lieutenant Admiral. But:


 * as far as I know, no single navy has or had all three of these ranks;


 * it is not safe to make this assumption across different navies. For example, a Lieutenant Admiral in the Royal Netherlands Navy ranked with a Kriegsmarine General Admiral (under one accepted scheme of equivalencies, anyway), not two grades below. (And a Dutch Admiral would actually outrank the German General Admiral.)


 * So the only point of the table would seem to be:


 * a quick and dirty guide for remembering the relative order of ranks in any one of the USN, RN, Royal Netherlands Navy, Deutsche Marine, or Kriegsmarine;


 * an answer to the question, &quot;If you wanted to invent a navy with as many grades of admiral as possible, what order should you put them in?&quot; &mdash; Franey 15:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess if the Admirals from the different countries were all in the same room at the same time, it would matter who saluted who. It also comes to play in joint-international military operations with who has tactical control of a group fo ships from more than one country. I've served in task forces with U.S., Japanese, and South Korean ships. That was an issue as to which Admiral would have taccon of the whole group. Also, in World War II, the matter came up during surrender ceremonies where General Admiral von Friedeburg went to British HQ and back then the two sides were saluting enemy officers (try that today with Iraqi POWs!). In any event, the British actually said General Admiral was senior to Admiral. Some U.S. text books list it as "a rank between a full Admiral and Fleet Admiral".

I like the suggestions on these tables and I would say just go for it and make the changes in the article. I think the table should say, without a soubt, since this is an article about all Admiral ranks and a comparative table is something that the article needs. -Husnock 16:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I take your point about the importance of precedence between officers of different navies, whether in determining the chain of command or for matters of ceremony or protocol. But as I pointed out, the table as it stands is not reliable. It implies (correctly, according to the information you've supplied), that a Kriegsmarine General Admiral outranked a USN or RN Admiral; however, it also implies that the same German General Admiral would outrank an RNN Admiral, when the opposite is in fact true. The table could be expanded to take these kinds of things into account, but as you've said, it would make it significantly more complicated. Furthermore, it woud duplicate a number of the articles listed at Comparative military ranks &mdash; in particular Comparative military ranks of World War I and  World War II, British and US military ranks compared, and Ranks and insignia of NATO.


 * I liked your info about the Allies' perception of the relative rank of a General Admiral: this goes against the table at World War II, but you seem to have a better source.


 * I also notice that you started the articles on the U.S. &quot;super-ranks&quot; of Admiral of the Navy and General of the Armies. This page states that at least in 1944–1945, General of the Armies was considered a separate rank above General of the Army; I can't find a reference anywhere, but I can accept that similarly Admiral of the Navy was considered a superior rank to Fleet Admiral at the time of the creation of the latter rank (though this would not have been such a pressing issue, as  Dewey was long dead, unlike the very much alive  Pershing). However, was this accepted by other countries? By the time of his death in 1948, Pershing would have been senior (by time in rank, at least) to any British Field Marshal; but when he was promoted to General of the Armies in 1919, would the British have considered senior to, e.g.  Haig, promoted to Field Marshal two years previously? Similarly, would they consider Dewey superior to an Admiral of the Fleet? &mdash; Franey 11:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Almost certainly not. The King (when there is one) holds the ranks of Field Marshal, Admiral of the Fleet and Marshal of the Royal Air Force in the UK, and it seems to me extremely unlikely that the British Government would be willing to accept that a rank in another country was senior to that held by the Sovereign. They would almost certainly have been treated as equivalent to Field Marshals and Admirals of the Fleet. Proteus (Talk) 16:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Disambig?
What do people think about making this into a disambig page? There are already four countries listed here as well as the listing of ranks by senority. Separate the Admiral articles into ranks by country might be in order at this pont. I just did something similar over at the articles regarding General of the Army and Field Marshal. -Husnock 09:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Since each nation has a slightly different version of the rank structure, I'd be tempted to do the opposite: roll them all into one article, and explain the nuances in a section for each nation, or each grade. Please also see my comments about merging at Talk:Fleet Admiral.  —Michael Z. 2005-08-4 16:09 Z 

This article should explain what an admiral (with a small 'a') is (in the sense that Fleet Admirals, Vice Admirals, etc., are all 'admirals'), whilst the actual ranks (an 'Admiral' with a big 'A') should be dealt with in separate articles by country: Admiral (United States), Admiral (United Kingdom), etc. Fleet Admiral is currently ridiculously Americo-centric in that it says that 'Fleet Admiral' is the general term for a very senior admiral, which is nonsense. It should be a disambiguation page. Proteus (Talk) 17:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What is the problem with Fleet Admiral? Why is it ridiculous and nonesense?  I suggest bringing the issue to the Fleet Admiral Talk Page -Husnock 18:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The list article has been created. I think it looks much better, far less bulky, and allows for considerable expansion in the articles on the admiral ranks of the individual countries. -Husnock 17:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

What Royal Navy?
I noticed that the British Royal Navy is referred to as 'Royal Navy', whereas the Dutch Royal Navy is referred to as the Dutch Navy. Am i the only one who thinks this is weird? I was about to edit it, then i saw there were already some Dutchspeakers on the talk page, so i'll leave it to you guys. Yeahyeahillmakeanicksoon 2:34 CET 9 aug 2005
 * A longstanding tradition in the English-speaking world, which is why it's at Royal Navy with no modifiers. However, it's often a good idea to add "British" in text where there might be some confusion. Stan 03:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Breaking one's flag
Curiously, there's no explanation/wikipage for the naval term "breaking (his) flag", despite it appearing in numerous articles (USS Ranger (CV-4), for a start). I had to go searching over half the Pacific to discover what it meant, since everyone writing the articles assumed it was a known term. I don't know the Wikipedia convention for defining terms, however...Nae'blis 21:18:14, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

Etymology not an indication of antiquity
A paragraph has been added to the end of the etymology to explain that the etymology of a word does not suggest the antiquity of the word as it may have appeared in other languages with entirely different pronunciations. The Greek ναύαρχος, for instance, which is pronounced "naúarkhēs," existed from very ancient times in Greece. While ναύαρχος may be defined as "admiral" as used by Plutarch in his Parallel Lives, the very pronunciation of ναύαρχος demonstrates that it is not a part of the etymology for the English word "admiral." AdmPope (talk) 07:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Origins of the word 'admiral'

 * Admiral is a word from the Arabic term Amir-al-bahr (commander of the sea). Crusaders learned the term during their encounters with the Arabs, perhaps as early as the 11th century. The Sicilians and later Genoese took the first two parts of the term and used them as one word, amiral.

In Germany the term was already traditional before the 11th century. With the emperor Otto III.'s accession to the throne in 983 a. D. an "Oberst Admiral" could be found on the guest list of high dignitaries. (Source John B. Hattendorf, Deutschland und die See: Historische Wurzeln deutscher Seestreitkräfte bis 1815; in: Werner Rahn (Publ.), Deutsche Marinen im Wandel - Vom Symbol nationaler Einheit zum Instrument internationaler Sicherheit, from page 17. [20]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.166.70.162 (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Changed 'lord of the bay' to 'commander of the sea', which is the correct translation of the Arabic. (Amir was originally a generic word for a commander in the armies of the very early Islamic period, although today it has more of the import of a minor sort of royalty, as the Amir of Kuwait, etc.; 'bahr' can only mean 'sea' or 'ocean').


 * The rest of the passage is not quite right - the title was first adopted by the Norman kingdom of Sicily in the last few decades of the 11th century, based on the useage of the dispossesed Arab rulers of the island. (I.e., it's incorrect to cite the Crusaders).


 * Changed the etymology to correct the meaning and expand upon it using historic information obtained from Arabic-English texts, and other texts and sources, one of which dates back 422 years. I'm assuming that Arabic people, those that have published Arabic-English lexicons, and people living hundreds of years ago would be more familiar with the ancient meanings of the words.


 * One important thing to note, when it comes to the meaning of the word, is that prior to and during the Ottoman Empire, ranks and titles of many positions were held as "princely" titles, such as princely governors, princely commanders, etc. This is demonstrated, more than once, in The Encyclopedia of Islam, New Edition, Vol. 1, and in Encyclopedia of The Ottoman Empire.


 * As stated in the etymology that I provided, during the Ottoman Empire there were only four princely positions that Phanariots were allowed to hold, one of which was dragoman of the fleet. Those who held this position were placed under the command of the Ottoman admiral. This fact demonstrates that the rank of admiral was senior to that of a dragoman of the fleet - a princely title. And, of course, those who held the title of dragoman of the fleet established their own princely lines, such as Nicholas Mavrogenes (Prince of Wallachia), Constantine Mourouzis (Prince of Moldavia), and others.


 * Note also that, in French heraldry, Admirals are listed among the ranks that are entitled to use the same helmet on their coats of arms as used by princes and dukes who are not sovereigns. This is shown in Eugene Zieber's 1895 edition of Heraldry in America (p.332). And in Britain and The Netherlands, admirals were entitled to navally charged coronets of rank (crowns).AdmPope (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Cheezus
The first paragraph of the current "etymology" section covers the bases—English from French, French from Med. Latin mangling of Arabic emir—and then there are 7 loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong paragraphs of random nonsense trying to discuss historical folk etymologies as if they were all equally accurate (instead of all already known to be inaccurate) and some attestation history that should just be in a history section before circling back to additional early English forms that belong at the top of the section instead of its tail. I guess some of that silliness is owing to the discussion above, but it seems bizarre whoever wrote it thought Sicilian, Italian, Aragonese, French, Portuguese, and Spanish didn't count as "Latin-based languages" while imagining English does and then went on to write a "Further History" section without an actual "History" section before it.

In any case, the OED actually handles this very well (as usual) but if we need a specific expert on the specific topic specifically calls out the derivation from amir al-anything as nonsense already well known to be nonsense since the 1860s. — Llywelyn II   14:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The etymology which you submitted removes quite a bit of information pertinent to the development and use of the term in its early history. You claim that the paragraphs are "of random nonsense," but that would only be the case for someone who is not versed in the science of etymology. You also stated that the information which you replaced is "already known to be inaccurate," but even the oldest of lexicons were cited to substantiate what was written.
 * In addition, your edit also changed the heading of the etymology section to "Name," which makes no sense.
 * I personally hold the rank of admiral, and have researched this topic extensively, as well as other topics relating to naval matters, over the course of more than a decade. I hold a PhD, as well as 12 honorary doctorates. I'm fairly certain that I know how to conduct research. AdmPope (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My response regarding Latham's remarks on the etymology of the term "admiral":
 * To begin, the statement made by Llywelyn that Latham "specifically calls out the derivation from amir al-anything as nonsense" is unfounded. Latham's definition and remarks regarding the term "Admiral" contains absolutely nothing that "calls out the derivation from amir al-anything as nonsense." Yes... I actually read the entire publication by Latham.
 * Latham's argument against the Arabic etymology of the word "admiral" was that "There can be no doubt that the terminations -alius, etc., are Lat. and have no connexion with Ar."
 * The text which preceded Latham's conclusion was dismissive of the fact that "All Latin nouns have gender - they are either masculine, feminine or neuter." According to de Melo, "Those of the second declension end in -us or -um and are masculine and neuter, respectfully." In regards to loanwords - words adopted into the Latin from another language such as Arabic - De Melo gives the following example: "People sometimes stick to these rules in formal writing and on other occasions when they feel observed; but the normal situation is that Virus becomes masculine because all the other Latin loans in -us are, and Email becomes feminine because Post is."
 * Based on the observations of the National Archives and De Melo, and the fact that English, Arabic, and other dictionaries define the term "admiral" as being masculine   , it is understandable how the word "Admirall" could become a loadword in the Latin with the masculie prefix -us, thereby resulting in "Admirallus." AdmPope (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC) AdmPope (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Seniority table
This is an inaccurate, confusing mess.


 * Admiral of the Navy was held by exactly one person, long since dead. Although U.S. Navy tradition may hold that it is senior to the rank of Fleet Admiral, it was created as an equivalent to the British Admiral of the Fleet, the German Grand Admiral, the Russian General Admiral, etc.; I doubt if any British Admiral of the Fleet considered Dewey his senior.


 * Flag Admiral never existed.


 * Grand Admiral may have outranked General Admiral in the German Navy: however, the German Grand Admiral and the Russian General Admiral were equivalent ranks. In any case, both are defunct.


 * Lieutenant Admiral is unique (as far as I know) to the Dutch Navy, and is the equivalent of plain Admiral in other navies; it is not an intermediate rank between (four-star) admiral and (three-star) vice-admiral.


 * Counter Admiral is an alternative translation of ranks usually rendered as Rear Admiral (e.g. the French Contre-Amiral), rather than a distinct rank.


 * Commodore Admiral existed for less than a year in exactly one navy (albeit the world's biggest): only a handful of people ever held it.


 * Port Admiral is a position, not a rank: historically it may have been held by a senior captain, but these days is likely to be an actual admiral of some grade.

What is this table meant to achieve? If it's a clear depiction of the relative ranking of the most common grades of admiral, it fails for the reasons, and should be replaced with a simple list of the near-universal admiral/vice admiral/rear admiral.

If, however, it's supposed to be a kitchen-sink collection of every variation of admiral ever, levered into some strained notional order of precedence, we need to add a few:


 * Lord High Admiral;
 * Vice Admiral of the Fleet;
 * Rear Admiral of the Fleet;
 * Admiral/Vice Admiral/Rear Admiral of the Red/White/Blue;
 * Rear Admiral without distinction of squadron;
 * Squadron Vice Admiral (Vice-amiral d'escadre);
 * Admiral of the Medway;
 * Schout bij Nacht;
 * probably a dozen more used somewhere and sometime....

&mdash; Franey 13:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I've done what I can with the information available. GraemeLeggett 14:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a little bit concerned with the above user calling the article a "innaccurate, confusing, mess" and then stating in the edit summary that the edits are "absurd". Where is all this hostility coming from?  On another point, Admiral of the Navy can be argued to be a generic term for a senior Admiral of a naval service.  Its common to see in literature and military history about "Admiral of the Navy so-and-so" even if they don't actually have a rank that is Admiral of the Navy.  I think it should stay in the table to indicate a senior most Admiral position as well as a rank. -Husnock 17:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Taking your points in order:
 * It's not the article as a whole I'm talking about, it's the seniority table. Hence the comment's heading.
 * The table is inaccurate: see the list above. "Misleading" may be a better word than confusing, though inaccurate information can and does confuse. "Mess" is, I agree, subjective (though I feel its use here is justifiable).
 * If it wasn't clear from my edit summary, it is specifically the inclusion of the non-rank of Flag Admiral that I regard as absurd. The rank never existed, even on paper. Including it in a list of actual grades of admiral is a nonsense.
 * That is incorrect. Flag Admiral did exist on paper.  It was written up as a proposal and the proposal was forwarded to the War Department at the end of 1944.  A copy of the proposal was then placed on file in the Naval Service Record of Chester Nimitz (which I have seen). -Husnock 13:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not hostility, it's the forthright statement of a position. Just to make this unambiguously clear: my comments are not a personal attack on anyone, including you and GraemeLeggett, who's made a reasonable stab at a compromise. Do not confuse disagreement and criticism with animosity.
 * I'm confused by your comment about Admiral of the Navy.
 * Are you saying that Admiral of the Navy is a conventional English translation of a rank or ranks found in some non-English-speaking navies?
 * If so, which navies? What equivalence does it have to U.S.N. or R.N. ranks &mdash; is it a four-star, five-star, or "six-star" rank?
 * I know of at least five texts which use the term "Admiral of the Navy" to describe the top Admiral of a service (I dont have time to list them all right now). KArl Donitz is frequently referred to as an Admiral of the Navy in U.S. Naval military texts.  It is an attempt to translate for layman the term Oberbefehlshaber des Kriegsmarine
 * If, however, it is the title of the professional head of the navy, then it doesn't belong here, any more than Chief of Naval Operations or First Sea Lord. Ditto if it is merely a descriptive term for a senior naval officer of unspecified rank.
 * &mdash; Franey 09:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, how about this:

The following are the various grades of Admiral, listed by seniority.

Capitalisation
Surely admiral is not a proper noun and should not be capitalised throughout. Only when part of a specific name. -- Beardo 11:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Mongomery Ward appliances?
I will mark this one as fact required....

ADMIRAL Appliances were sold in the US by Admiral Radio, and in Canada by Canadian Admiral Corp. Wards radios used "AIRLINE" as a brand. see for example http://www.scripophily.net/adcode1.html and  http://www.geocities.com/rxtxtubes/pa01077.htm  cmacd 19:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Admiralty Officers & Single-Ship Command
Does anybody know if 1- or 2-star admirals -- from any navy -- are ever assigned to single-ship commands? I'm not talking here about commanding squadrons from a flagship; I'm referring to commanding a single vessel on a day-to-day basis, or commanding a mission from a single ship. Sacxpert 07:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate pasted paragraphs
The last 2 paragraphs in the "Etymology" and "Further History" sections are word-for-word identical. The third-from-last paragraphs are also *almost* identical. 69.118.248.228 (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Removal of blank insignia images
In the section titled Admiral insignia by country, the following were showing empty transparent images where rank insignia were once shown: Almirante, Angolan Navy; Amiral, Benin Navy; and Amiral, Congolese Navy. I have remove these three placeholder images.AdmPope (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)