Talk:Major general (United States)

Information in History subsection
The information in the History subsection was moved from Major General and is not the work of myself. All information is credited to the original auther(s). Neovu79 (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
Major General (United States) → Major general (United States) — To conform with the grammar guidelines set forth by Wiki:MOSCAPS —Neovu79 (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.



Discussion

 * Any additional comments: Neovu79 (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support Wiki:MOSCAPS states: Military ranks follow the same capitalization guidelines as titles (see above). Thus, one would write "Brigadier General John Smith", or "John Smith was a brigadier general". While general use of ranks is most commonly in front of an officer's name, in article form, and grammar, ranks are not capitalized. The U.S. Code of law also use standardized grammar specifically which establishes regular ranks for federal uniformed officers. Neovu79 (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose this and the handful of similar moves. If this long running discussion is to be reopened, there should at least be a centralised discussion. Andrewa (talk) 05:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Opposed. Seems that the move occurred with a very immature discussion, only one pro and one con. The preeminent use of the title of the article is the rank as a title; Therefore, the title should be capitalized. --Born2flie (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Strongly support: It conforms with Wikipedia's Manual of Style, the English language, and U.S. federal law. Illegitimate Barrister 21:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible Factual Error (perhaps a typographical error)?
The second sentence of this article states that " Major general ranks above brigadier general and below lieutenant general." I am not an expert on military matters, but I believe that it is possible that the order is reversed in that sentence. I request that someone more knowledgeable of military matters double-check that sentence for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.145.241 (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * As you didn't sign your post and it isn't dated, I have no idea when this was posted, but I will answer it just in case anyone else is wondering.
 * The ranking of generals in the U.S. Armed Forces (and indeed in most armed forces around the world that uses this name ranking) does in fact go (highest to lowest): General (4-star); Lt. General (3-Star); Maj. General (2-star); Brig. General (1-star).
 * You are not alone in wondering why a Lt. Gen outranks a Maj. Gen, as in the commissioned officer ranks a Maj. is two ranks higher than that of Lt. (Lt.->Capt.->Maj.). The reason why a Lt. General outranks a Maj. General is because, historically, the title of Maj. General began as Sergeant-major general. A Lt. outranks a Sergeant-major, which is typically the highest rank in the enlisted ranks. Over time the "Sergeant" was dropped primarily due to a change in language habits (it's easier to say and write Maj. General than Sergeant-major General), and by about the late 17th/early 18th century it had been shortened to Maj. General. But the ranking remained the same, i.e. under that of Lt. General. Vyselink (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I have inserted a note to explain the situation. Vyselink (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Saw your reversion of the expanded material this evening. After reflecting on it, I agree that here on the United States Major General article it's probably better to keep a hidden note like that simple, straightforward, with none of the extended history, focused solely on why lieutenant general outranks major general despite the confusion over the common understanding of the field and company grade ranks of major and lieutenant. In that regard, I think we can actually improve the text here by rewriting it some more with those goals in mind; I'll make some edits shortly with individual edit summaries and invite you to comment on the result. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Your latest wording is fine with me. It succinctly explains the incongruity. Vyselink (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, I'm going to add the same to the LTG (US) article so that readers puzzling over the same question will have the same explanation there. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Flag of a United States Space Force major general.svg

Confederate States
The Confederate States of America was not a recognized nation, and their armies were not a part of the United States military. The paragraph regarding the use of Major General in this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.45.61 (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Missing Name
Are there policies for missing names? Is one deleted if they have naturalized to China? 71.251.10.7 (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)