Talk:Prikaatikenraali

Requested move 8 June 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Per WP:NAMECHANGES and evidence of the new spelling being adopted afterwards, both officially and in independent sources. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Prikaatinkenraali → Prikaatikenraali – For some reason, the article uses an outdated, historical spelling of the rank. The rank was officially renamed in 1995, see fi-wiki for example.&#32;Onsilla (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Spekkios (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisted.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;,  ed.  put'r there 17:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

No consensus. See no agreement below to alter this title at this time. Do see arguments that say in effect that enwiki is not governed by what other-language Wikipedias do, but by independent, secondary, reliable, English-language sources. Curious that a source or two has been cited below and yet not added to the article. Wassup with that? (Oh shucks! they're not in English, are they.) Do see some concern that an overhaul of rank articles is needed, and those improvements to enwiki should be addressed. As is usual with no-consensus outcomes, editors can discover new arguments, strengthen old ones and try again in a few months to garner consensus for this name change. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; good health to all!  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 13:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Reopened and relisted: after discussion on my talk page here, it became obvious that more discussion is needed. To summararize... It was brought out that there are several possible reliable sources for this article's content and title. Advice was also given to consider two options, possibly for future discussion, of either merging or renaming to a title in English. And that at the present time, if this were closed again this moment, it is most likely a WP:NOGOODOPTIONS situation (a viable but hopefully avoidable option). So I thought it just a tad better to refocus the discussion back to this page, which meant reopening this request and relisting it. Thank you for your patience!  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 17:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, the article uses the spelling with the N. And it doesn't cite any sources, so we can't see which spelling the sources use. I think those issues need to be addressed before thinking of moving this article. Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As cited on fi:Prikaatikenraali, p. 24, last column: prikaatikenraaliksi and Prikaatikenraalien (I assume these are inflected or declined forms). "Prikaatikenraalin ja lippueamiraalin arvot kotimaiseenkin käyttöön". An answer by the Helsink City Library uses prikaatinkenraali only when quoting Marko Palokankaan, but otherwise uses prikaatikenraalin etc. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, prikaatin is a genitive (general of the brigade), modern day usage is in the nominative, simply prikaati (brigade general). Here's the Defence Forces' official listing of active duty generals, see e.g. Maavoimat (Army) for reference: . --Onsilla (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining that. What about the concerns highlighted above? Dr. Vogel (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support move. The rank is unambiguously defined as prikaatikenraali without the extra n on page 10 of the 2017 Finnish General Service Regulations (YLPALVO 2017). Ljleppan (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * If we use General (Finland) for kenraali, why do we not use Brigadier general (Finland) in this case? For that matter, why do we have Kenraaliluutnantti and Kenraalimajuri? All of these terms are easily translated into English and actually, it is unclear to me what country-specific information makes them need to have separate articles at all. Dekimasu よ! 13:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If Brigadgeneral is any indication, the Swede articles are like this, too. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The rank articles, in general, are quite a mess. There's usually one article for the generic English language term (Lieutenant colonel), others for the army-specific English terms (Lieutenant colonel (United States), Lieutenant colonel (United Kingdom)), another for the German term which, for some reason, also tends to collect bits of information about other languages (Oberstleutnant) and then a smattering of articles for the various other languages, irrespective of whether those language are also covered by the German language article (Överstelöjtnant) or not (Everstiluutnantti). How to "fix" the current state (or whether there indeed is anything to "fix") is a larger conversation that should presumably involve a larger audience, such as WP:MILHIST. The "fun" bit for any larger-scale standardization is going to be ranks that do not exist in English language armies, e.g. Feldwebel/Vääpeli/Fältväbel/Veebel. Ljleppan (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: If this article is moved, the Wikidata links have to be reorganised, as this article is linked to fi:Prikaatinkenraali, which is a redirect to fi:Prikaatikenraali. That article is then already linked to Brigadier general. J I P  &#124; Talk 16:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)