Talk:Six-star rank

Proposed Rank Insignia
The proposed rank insignia gallery has a bunch of photos without sources for any of them. I know some of the images were uploaded by User:OberRanks who has been banned for fabricating sources. Either RSs need to be added or the photos need to come down. Master Editor 10 (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed them. On File:GenArmies60s80s.jpg for example, you can actually see that the file consists of different images that have been cut out, pasted together and re-scanned. DrKay (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The three that look like hand-made sketches were added by OberRanks, but the other three color images of epaulettes were added by, and they should at least be a given a chance to respond before any changes are made. - w o lf  13:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * They are copied from OberRanks' files. The OberRanks' files are listed as the source on all three of those file pages. DrKay (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the harm in giving Skjoldbro a chance to respond, but if you believe they need to be removed right away, then go ahead. - w o lf  15:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The color images uploaded by Skjoldbro should be removed because their only source is the images uploaded by OberRanks which we have taken down. Master Editor 10 (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I support the removal of these files from the page for the reasons outlined by . I also think we need to have a discussion over if there is enough independent sourcing for a six-star rank page to exist. Garuda28 (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Especially because there is already a General of the Armies page that covers most of the stuff on this page. Master Editor 10 (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Wolf: thanks for the heads up. But yes, they were solely copied from the image, prior to OberRanks' ban. I have since added the Fictional tag. I have no problem with the images being removed. Skjoldbro (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, might as well tag them for deletion then. As for these articles, I had suggested a merge awhile back as I didn't think we needed three sepatate articles for Six-star rank, GAS and AN, but it didn't happen for... reasons. Anyway, we may need to ping some others editors here. - w o lf  17:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Nominate this article for deletion
The six-star rank was never seriously considered or proposed by any agency of the U.S. Government, nor was it ever considered by congress. The fact that someone designed it based on pure speculation does not warrant including it in this article. This is a hobbyist topic and does not meet the criteria of a Wikipedia article. 70.19.45.61 (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Will need to go through the formal process, but I support this motion. Garuda28 (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * have to wonder why? The page has been here since 2008 with 6 full tp archives, it's informative, has plenty of sourcing... it obviously it has it's uses, and sustained interest over the years as well. (Just sayin') - w o lf  01:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Opppse - worthwhile and informative article. Six star ranks were considered (the "seriousness", or lack thereof, is the OP's opinion), but it didn't happen, and we have this article to tell us all about it. - w o lf  00:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Support
SUPPORT. This article is replete with original research and lacks reliable sources Billsmith60 (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)