Template talk:Military ranks

Chief Petty Officer
I add Chief Petty Officer as most Naval force have Chief in place of Warrent officers and the fact that there is a great deal of difference between the role of a CPO and a Petty officer
 * Yes, it should be added, by all means. Just about every commonwealth Navy (as well as the USN and USCG, obviously) have Chiefs.  This needs to be added. --ip.address.conflict (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

- What about the Commonwealth Air Ranks? The UK, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, etc. all use the Royal Air Force system of ranks for their air force. This should definitely be included in this.

I second the above about Commonwealth Air Ranks. Also, at present the template has General = Commodore. In many militaries this is never true, and even in those with Brigadier Generals, most general ranks do not equate to Commodores. It would be far better to put General = Admiral. Greenshed 19:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

that good thinking However I think if we do that Chief Petty Officer should be in as it most Navaies there are Equal to a Warret officer or go for CPO/WO because both are fairly common

What about the version alongside? I know it could use a little format work. Greenshed 20:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole point of this easy-comparison table is to be simple. Also, it probably is meant to be a comparison within each column, not across each row. If we're going to clutter it we might as well include all the ranks and the peculiarities of these ranks which every country has as well? The RAF style is very similar to the naval style and I think it can be omitted. --Rifleman 82 20:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What about the General =! Commodore problem? Greenshed 21:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

How about leaving out Commodore and Marshal? --Rifleman 82 21:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Private Lance Corporal Sergeant Staff Sergeant Sargeant Major Warrant Officer 2 ° Warrant Officer 1° Chief Warrant Officer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.60.75.104 (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion and exclusion of air force ranks
Here's may take on this question.
 * Air force rank titles which are clearly derived from only one navy or army rank should be ommited. E.g. Air commodore is clearly derived from commodore and no other rank.  Likewise for wing commander.  Therefore they should stay out.
 * Air force rank titles which might (to the uninformed eye) be derived from two or more different ranks should stay in. E.g. Group captain as it is not obvious from the rank title that it is equivalent to a navy captain and not an army captain.
 * Air force rank titles which are do not occur in army or navy usage should be listed. E.g. squadron leader. Greenshed 17:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is probably much better and clearer to use slightly more air force ranks than you suggest. Mesoso 23:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

On reflection, you're right. Greenshed 23:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

'Commonweath' ranks
The air force ranking system which originated in the RAF should not be described as the Commonwealth air force ranking system. First, the Commonwealth is not a military alliance and so saying that it is a Commonwealth rank system is somewhat misleading. More importantly, not all Commonwealth countries use the system (notably Canada) and some countries which are not part of the Commonwealth (notably Zimbabwe) do use the system. Additionally, several non-English speaking countries (eg Greece) conventionally have their air force ranks translated according to the system. Greenshed (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Most commonwealth countries use these ranks.
 * The Commonwealth is not a military alliance but the existence of air force ranks used only in the current and former Commonwealth, and by most of the commonwealth, is a fact. Therefore the existence of a comomnwealth rank system is a fact. i do not think this is misleading, i see no implication of military alliance.
 * The Greeks may chose to translate their ranks any way they like, in greek they do not use these ranks.
 * Zimbabwe was in the commonwealth, that is why it uses these ranks. Mesoso2 (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You say the Greeks don't use air marshal ranks. Whilst it is true that the words "air marshal" do not exisit in Greek their is common history between the two air forces (Air operations during the Greek Civil War) and their rank insignia are rather similar. Not coincidence I would say. Greenshed (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Air Marshal, Admiral and General
The note on equivalence between the admiral, general and air marshal ranks was removed with the edit summary "equivalence depends on countries". I am not aware of any countries which use air chief marshal as a rank and don't list it as equivalent to a full admiral or full general. Perhaps an example could be provided? Oops, forgot to sign Greenshed (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Air Marshal in one country may be equivalent to General in another. Since this is about common military ranks, the assumption seems to be that it should take into account different countries, rather than being simply a list of commonwealth ranks.


 * Nonetheless, Lieutenant Generals (=Air Marshals) in the Commonwealth are addressed as General, and Vice-Admirals (=Air Marshals) as Admiral, etc. The terms General, Admiral, and Air Marshal are commonly to refer generically to equivalent groups of ranks. Especially general. That is why you above had to use the terms "full general" and "full admiral", because "general" or "admiral" are vaguer terms.


 * In any case, I think this list should be kept simple if possible. Mesoso2 (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

'In the Commonwealth'
Surely the box doesn't claim to make any direct correspondence between any two countries' systems. I move that that message be removed since the box clearly describes general terminology. Whether or not a country chooses to use only army-style ranks or has its own mumbo-jumbo really belongs on that particular country's page, not here.

It probably is only really applicable if it made clear that the box was describing, say, "military forces patterned after the USA" (if such a distinction existed). 118.90.104.151 (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Over a month has elapsed and no one has made a statement. I will be WP:BOLD and remove the footnote. Feel free to revert, but please explain any objection, since none has been forthcoming so far! 118.90.47.88 (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Generalissimo
The rank of generalissimo was removed from the template on the grounds that it is very rarely awarded. If generalissimos were junior or middle-ranking officers then I would not favour it inclusion. However the reason why it is so rare is because it is also so senior, being the most senior of all the general officer ranks and having unparallelled authority. On that basis I argue for its inclusion. Greenshed (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I am guessing that the intended use is to be a quick and rough guide. Anyone who needs to know about a generalissimo is never going to have to use that information with relation to any other (lower) rank. Becuase generalissimos don't appear very often I'd say it is unnecessary. On that basis I think it should be removed. 118.90.67.21 (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I really think it should be removed, because the table of ranks is English language focused, while generalissimo has not been awarded by any English speaking countries. Commander-in-chief (or Head of Armed Forces) is appropriate instead. Kirk (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ensign
Ensign is curiously missing from this template, so I replaced Midshipman with Ensign, and added another row for the common cadet ranks (midshipman, officer cadet, officer candidate). Kirk (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Good work. Greenshed (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Commander-in-chief
The the British Armed Forces and many Commonwealth militaries, the title of commander-in-chief may be held officers holding such ranks as lieutenant general, air marshal or vice-admiral. It is not generally used as a supreme military rank in the English-speaking world. Greenshed (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know, it seems generally used everywhere except the UK. For example, the constitutional documents state explicitly that the governor general in Canada, Australia and New Zealand is the 'commander-in-chief' of their armed forces, so along with the US that's pretty general.  The equivalent title in the UK for the Queen is 'Head of the Armed Forces'.  What do you think of Head of the Armed Forces/Commander-in-chief, linked to Commander-in-chief?  Kirk (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the Queen is the commander-in-chief but "commander-in-chief" is still not a rank. Greenshed (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Exclusion of US Navy ranks column
After a bit of reverting, I wanted to set down my reasons for opposing the inclusion of US Navy ranks when we already have a navy ranks column. Looking at the edit summaries, it has been argued that "us navy nomenclature is commonly used world wide and should be available as a reference. more information, not less". I strongly oppose this move as if we are to have USN ranks then I am sure that we also should have Chinese, Russian, Indonesian, Thai, Brazilian, Japanese etc etc ranks and of course we will need the whole spread for each nation's army and air force as well. It is also worth noting that all the USN ranks are covered generically by the naval ranks column. If you want to discuss whether we should have Admiral of the Fleet or Fleet Admiral or bring up whether we should have Sub Lieutenant or LTJG then by all means discuss it on this page (under a different heading.

As I dislike edit wars I am not going to remove the USN ranks column at present. However, I strongly encourage any other editors to remove the column. Greenshed (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As regards the "more information, not less" point, there is such a thing a too much information and the template:US officer ranks provides the detail that has been argued for. Greenshed (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Editprotected
editprotected

i have requested edit protection. the commonwealth military rank template is inappapropriate as the main template for comparative military ranks. us servicemen outnumber commonwealth five to one, and, in actual combat today, worldwide, the commonwealth is barely represented. diremarc (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This page is not protected, and even if it were, please read what it says before adding it in the future: You need to give a complete and specific description of the request so that any admin unfamiliar with the page can make the edit, and for controversial edits you also most seek consensus first. Thank you, Amalthea  00:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * diremac, please check how this template is used. It is not appropriate to make it a full width template regardless of what is in it. ninety:one 00:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

And anyway, the stubborn anglocentrism reflects ignorance of the fact that most (if not all) British ranks are derived from their continental European counterparts. Ironically it probably makes you more knowledgeable about European military history if you study the development of the US armed forces, since they have always been more enthusiastic than the British about adopting French and German trends. 118.90.59.47 (talk) 09:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

On the English Wikipedia we should be English-language-centric. The generic form of almost all military ranks used in English speaking countries (including the United States) are now covered by the table. As for non-English speaking countries, their ranks are usually translated into English when used in an English language context. Greenshed (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this is an issue for WP:CSB. 118.90.15.97 (talk) 13:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Template styling
This template is a pretty standard vertical navigation template in the military domain. WP:MILHIST has a very well-established style for this kind of template, which I rolled out here. In this edit, changes were made to make the template sort of a halfway house between the MILHIST style and the generic infobox style. I don't think this is appropriate: the template simply ends up looking like neither and thus being alien. I think that edit should be reverted and the standard MILHIST style restored. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think they both look horrible, so we might as well go for your horrible version, which you prefer, than my horrible version, which no-one likes, (not even me.)
 * As for I don't think this is appropriate, I don't think it's either appropriate or in-appropriate.
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Great, cheers. I'm not really sold on the current table layout, to be honest, but while it exists in its present form it's better if it doesn't draw excessive attention to itself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur that the Style Boxes could use some work, as the format is rather confusing, but also does not appear to be in order of Military Rank. For instance, if one were to use a specific Template, which I have seen before here on Wikipedia, such as Military Rank by Pay Scale, this would order things much better, that is assuming there is an Order to the Ranks (Ascending vs. Descending), unless I happen to be looking at the Order incorrectly, which comes back to the original concern, already mentioned, pertaining to the Formatting concerns.

In addition, there appears to be a hyperlink for “Commissioned Officers,” and although it appears as though there is also a hyperlink for “Enlisted Grades,” I believe the hyperlink is missing, unless I am having trouble opening the link. If there is no information on this in Wikipedia, then the caption should be in red, or otherwise not in blue, nor underlined, as the hyperlinks are usually denoted by these characteristics.

I would offer to fix this issue, although I am unsure as to the validity of this. Mark Halsey 15:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Mark Halsey 15:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Mark Halsey Mark Halsey 15:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markhalsey (talk • contribs)

External References seem to Link to all things Canadian
As was mentioned in prior discussions regarding this article being written in English and from the perspective, from what I can tell, pertains to United States Servicemen, it just seems obvious to me that this article was written by a Canadian, who may not understand the Military Ranking System of the United States Government.

I am not saying that it is inappropriate to use Links that represent Canadian views, more to the effect that References should be more balanced, especially with as much information available to the public about the United States Military and Military Rank classifications. Mark Halsey 14:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Mark Halsey Mark Halsey 14:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markhalsey (talk • contribs)

Space Force
Would the Space Force ranks be the ones of the navy (e.g. because of spaceships) or the ones of the air force (e.g. because of flying) or something else (army ranks or a completely new set of ranks)? 193.198.162.14 (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the Space Force as a concept is still too young of a thing to be added. But if enough information could be gathered soon, I would support its inclusion GucciNuzayer (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Revert of recent additions
I have reverted the changes which were made to this template on the 25th of May. My reasons were as follows.


 * 1) The changes messed with the width of the template, making it a lot wider.
 * 2) The stuff that was added was highly USA-centric - no other military has a "Sergeant Major of the Army", for example.
 * 3) There were too many synonyms for each rank - "seaman", "seaman recruit", and "seaman apprentice" all compete for space at the cost of legibility. This also related to the point about being highly America-centric that I made above, since most of the synonyms added were for American ranks in particular.

If anyone disagrees with me, I recommend we consider opening an RfC. Gimubrc (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with your points above.Greenshed (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I've had to make another reversion for the same reasons. Again; this template should not include ranks that are exclusive to the US Military - or, for that matter, to any other country's military. Gimubrc (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Flight Sergeant
Flight Sergeant is ranked incorrectly, the RAF has for years had the ranks Sergeant and Flight Sergeant. These are two very different ranks, a normal sergeant is the correct comparison rank for Petty Officer and Sergeant. Not Sergeant, showing that as equal is effectively a demotion of one grade.

This can be checked via the RAF website and archived versions of the page. Palynium (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Although to further this, it is further the same in most countries. With their being a normal Sergeant rank on equal footing with the others, especially so due to the common use of British ranks due to Commonwealth/former Colonial adoption of the ranks. Palynium (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)