Talk:Vice admiral (United States)

Requested move
Vice Admiral (United States) → Vice admiral (United States) — To conform with the grammar guidelines set forth by Wiki:MOSCAPS —Neovu79 (talk) 02:57, 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) 02:57, 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.


 * 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 naval ranks for federal uniformed officers. Neovu79 (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It doesn't appear to my reading that WP:MOSCAPS has anything to do with article titles: it applies only to the cases of of "General John Smith" and "John Smith is a general". JRP (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ture, however it is officially listed this way in the United States Code of law i.e. . Neovu79 (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: For an article title, both "Vice Admiral" or "Vice admiral" could be correct, depending on which usage is intended in the article's title. Consider this properly capitalized example: "Vice Admiral John Smith was a famous vice admiral." To avoid a redirect, one of those links would have to be piped. Ideally, the article title should be capitalized to whichever usage is linked most often, for the sake of convenience. —Kevin Myers 04:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE vehemently: This topic has been discussed at great length several times previously, and ALL issues have been dealt with several times. There is a GENERAL PRINCIPLE here that involves hundreds of articles; the general principle should be addresed and resolved rather than white-anting the issue one page at a time. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC) - See:
 * On talk:rear admiral:
 * talk:rear admiral,
 * talk:rear admiral,
 * talk:rear admiral and
 * talk:rear admiral
 * On talk:general officer:
 * talk:general officer and
 * talk:general officer
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 68


 * Support, although I would prefer a solution like this one through centralized discussion (but then again, the MOS can be considered a centralized discussion of course). Fram (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)