Talk:Emanuel Schäfer

Rank
A discussion on SS ranks took place at my Talk page a short while ago and could be relevant here: SS ranks. I don't believe I'm alone in finding the obscure paramilitary ranks of Nazi Germany to not be helpful to the general reader, especially when placed in the lead with no context. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 08:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't watchlist your talkpage, chief. Saying "high ranking" also means nothing without context, but it doesn't have a wikilink. Someone might think a Hauptsturmführer was high-ranking because that was an officer rank, others might think it was a shit-kicker that had no say at all in pretty much 9/10ths of bugger all. What does "high ranking" tell you in this context? Nothing. The link to the rank helps people to navigate to information that might help them understand how he fitted into a system. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That's why I linked to the discussion above :-). Since there's no infobox (where the rank would normally be placed), how about this option diff? K.e.coffman (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Works for me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As stated in the article now is sufficient; it needed to be stated somewhere and context was needed. As for the linked discussion, I only agreed at the time, to letting lede sections of certain bio articles be stream-lined for concision reasons as that was the consensus for them (and their rank was listed and linked in the info box) and do not believe that should be the same for major articles of historical importance or for high ranking members. And certainly is should be properly noted for the reader somewhere as the RS sources do. Kierzek (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)