Talk:Senior officer

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Field officer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041230015239/http://www.defenselink.mil:80/prhome/poprep2000/html/chapter4/chapter4_2.htm to http://www.defenselink.mil/prhome/poprep2000/html/chapter4/chapter4_2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 16 October 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: Field officer moved over Senior officer, and history merged. Asking to complete the merging process.  Arbitrarily0  ( talk ) 00:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

– Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. "Senior officer" is a more accurate title for middle military officers, as this also includes naval/air force officers. Field officer is an inherently army description. Additionally, the current senior officer page is already a disambiguation page, with no other notable instances. The page move would also be consistent with the lower Junior officer page. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Field officer → Senior officer
 * Senior officer → Senior officer (disambiguation)
 * Weak oppose The proposed title has ambiguity over whether it is referring to a particular clearly defined class of military officers or just any officer (military, corporate or otherwise) that is relatively senior in status. I sense less of that problem with the term "Junior officer". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per BarrelProof. I can see the point of making the article more inclusive, but the title is too vague. I think it would be better to keep the current title and expand it to other services, explaining that they don't use the term "field officer". -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. I believe this topic is fitting within that description. Additionally, I don't see how:
 * people will think that the page is about just any officer.
 * How "Junior officer" is any different from senior officer.
 * In any case, this can be solved with the . I.e. "For similar terms, see Senior officer (disambiguation)." Skjoldbro (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody said that.
 * Because any officer of the rank of major, lieutenant-commander or squadron leader or above is a senior officer, including general, flag and air officers. There is a difference between the generic term "senior officer" (any senior officer) and the specific military term "senior officer" (an officer of field rank or equivalent). I would also pont out that the term "senior officer" is also used in many other uniformed services, not just the armed forces, as well as in a civilian context. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * General officers aren't senior officers, they are general officers. The fact that seniority exists, doesn't negate that the senior officer group is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it only means that the Seniority page should be expanded. Skjoldbro (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am fully aware of the specific military term, thank you, but in generic terms they are indeed senior officers. It makes no sense in the English language to say that officers who are more senior than those specifically graded "senior officers" are not senior officers! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support 1st, delete 2nd. Having reconsidered, I am now supporting this proposal as long as it is turned into a general page for the title of senior officer, not just for the military grade known as field officers in the army. For instance, in the British police a senior officer is any officer above the rank of sergeant. Senior officer was actually a specific rank in the British prison services. Effectively, the information currently at Senior officer should be merged into this page. I think a general page like this makes more sense than only covering the term in its narrow military sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Skjoldbro (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as proposed Instead use Senior officer (military), keeping the disambiguation page where it is, since "senior officer" is not rare outside of the military, for the merchant marine, and corporate officers. Additionally, senior officer (rank) leads to the prisons article -- 65.92.244.114 (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: For further consideration of the two later proposals by Necro and 65. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:43, 26 October 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.
 * Support 1st, delete 2nd, per Necro. I think this is the only encyclopedic topic on a "senior officer", and it seems to be a more appropriate name than "field officer". The other entries on the dab page look like a stretch, e.g. "a member of senior management in any organisation". There's nothing useful for a reader on that dab page in terms of locating suitable topics. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)