Talk:Captain (disambiguation)

etymology
this greek etymology seem as phony as it probably is.

cf. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, "[Middle English capitain, from Old French, from Late Latin capitneus, chief, from Latin caput, capit-, head; see kaput- in Indo-European roots.]"

and

Collins English Dictionary, "[from Old French capitaine, from Late Latin capitāneus chief, from Latin caput head]"

daniel ávila — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.194.67.100 (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Should this be a disambiguation page?
(This is a carryover from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation) This article has tried, over the years, to describe disparate topics from waiters to Starfleet personnel to a band. If it were to magically be made complete, I'm sure it would top 100K in length. My feeling is that it will never be near complete, good, or even marginally palatable as a summary article.

Looking at it a couple of nights ago, it occurred to me that the only way I could see it doing what it should do is as a disambiguation page. That is to say: it could point readers in a NPOV, clear, and concise way to articles which explain their respective topics.

The previous thread has garnered three responses, all which support this idea. Recapping the responses very briefly:


 * "Makes sense..." -AndrewHowse
 * "The page would be more useful as a dab than in its current state as a series of mini-articles..." -Gwguffey
 * "Ideally suited for dab with spin-off articles." --Rosiestep

Any other thoughts on the matter are appreciated. H aus  Talk  17:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly agree that it should be converted into a DAB page. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What about The Captain - put it under 'See also'? --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is technical policy about dab pages that I'm not familiar with, but my inclination would be to merge it.  H aus  Talk   18:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say leading the page with "Captain or The Captain may refer to:" would cover that aspect pretty well, and then just redirect The Captain. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up The Captain per WP:MOSDAB — Bellhalla (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I took a swing at fleshing out [Captain (disambiguation)] and then merged in The Captain. It's still something of a mishmash, but at least it's in one place.   H aus  Talk   02:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

( ←outdent) ✅  H aus  Talk   17:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Captain[WA], a Mule Used by CompMaster[WA] to complete tasks that he does not want to complete"
Under "Other Uses" -> "In 'Video Games'". This seems out of place. Clarification please? 76.117.195.179 (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Captain (OF-2)
Copied from Talk:Captain (OF-2)

Name change
Captain (land) doesn't make a lot of sense to me: most sports team captains, tower captains, &c, operate on land. To distinguish OR-2 army captains from their OR-5 naval namesakes I believe Captain (military) would make more sense: this would apply to army and marine captains, captains in paramilitary forces and certain police forces, without implying football captains, Salvation Army captains, &c. 78.145.235.241 (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. At the moment, Captain (military) redirects to this article, and Captain (military rank) redirects to Captain. Seems like there's some reorganizing to do. Eric talk 17:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not being funny, but wouldn't this article be better titled "Captain (Army)"? The disambiguation "land" seems odd and implies "terrain". Captain (military) is still too wide as it would imply air force captains and naval captains as well. Naval captains are are equivalent to colonels, so that would be wildly wrong! --Bermicourt (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * a) There are OF-2 Captains that aren't "army" (or "land").
 * b) I'm not sure what "Captain (military)" means. Nor am I sure what it "should" mean.
 * c) I would have thought that all of Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Captains were both "Captain (military)" and "Captain (military rank)".
 * d) I'm not sure what "Captain (rank)" means, or "should" mean. The current situation of it redirecting to a dab page (Captain) seems sensible.
 * e) Similarly, I am quite comfortable that "Captain" is a dab page.
 * f) Where they exist, Commonwealth Marine captains are, in general, OF-2.
 * g) US Army, Marine and Air Force captains are Captain (OF-2) (i.e. Captain (O-3)
 * h) Captain (non-naval) seems rather silly to me ... (I wouldn't support it.)
 * i) There is a "Captain (land and air)" (that currently redirects to "Captain (land)"). That does 2/3 of the job, but doesn't cover "marines".
 * j) Captain (OF-2) is unambiguous and concise. As are Captain (OF-5) and Captain (naval).
 * Pdfpdf (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My Opinions:
 * a) I think the there should be eight pages: Captain (a dab page); Captain (OF-2) (a page); Captain (OF-5) (a dab page); Captain (naval) (a page); Group Captain (a page); Captain (United States) (a page); Captain (British Army and Royal Marines) (a page); Captain (Royal Navy) (a page)
 * b) I don't think either "Captain (military)" or "Captain (military rank)" are at all useful disambiguators.
 * c) I don't think there is much, if any, difference between Captain (land) and Captain (army), and neither are particularly useful disambiguators.
 * d) I much prefer Captain (naval) to Captain (OF-5), but it doesn't cover Group Captain, so I guess we need all three.
 * e) I don't particularly like Captain (OF-2), but it caters for Captain (marines), whereas Captain (land and air) doesn't.
 * Pdfpdf (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Pdfpdf's preferences expanded/clarified (I hope)

Thanks Pdfpdf - an outstanding proposal to bring clarity out of confusion! I would support all of the above with just 2 minor caveats: first, a question mark about why Captain (naval) shouldn't be the main article and Captain (OF-5) the redirect as at present. AFAIK the only OF-5 captains are naval and its the clearer title of the two. Second, it should be Group Captain as at present, not Group captain, which is a combination that is never used in my experience. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Bermicourt, I agree with you - that is indeed what I had originally intended! Thanks. Have I now succeeded in making it clearer? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)