Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British and United States military ranks compared


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Keep/No consensus for deletion Feel free to discuss in the talk page of the article about a new title as it needs a rename. -- JForget 23:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

British and United States military ranks compared

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I just don't see what this article adds that isn't already covered by Ranks and insignia of NATO and its sub-articles. After all, we don't have Canada and United States military ranks compared or British and Polish military ranks compared nor as far as I can tell articles for any other pair of NATO countries. Besides, the name is problematic, as even if it were kept it would be better off as British and American military ranks compared or United Kingdom and United States military ranks compared. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * delete We cannot have >10,000 articles that compare military ranks pairwise of all nations in the world. There are standards to compare with, see format of the articles listed in Comparative military ranks. `'Míkka 22:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep but move to United Kingdom and United States military ranks compared. There is probably a much larger community of interest for this comparison than to any other (barring, perhaps, US/USSR ranks). bd2412  T 23:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as above. However, much of this info should be moved into the UK rank and insignia articles, which are presently anaemic. Andrew Yong 23:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Ranks and insignia of NATO and expand to cover all NATO members. Having a series of tables comparing equivalent NATO countries' ranks would be extraordinarily useful and avoid the redundancy of requiring separate articles for each NATO country. I'd imagine a series of tables going rank-by-rank, comparing each: Privates for Spain/Portugal/Turkey/Italy, etc ... and so on for each NATO country, enlisted rank, and officer rank. It'd be a substantial page, but it's a substantial subject, and given the importance of the subject matter, merely deleting the article doesn't make sense, particularly when there are so many other articles that refer to various NATO ranks. JKBrooks85 23:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - The information should be (and usually already is) on the individual pages for each rank. Speciate 23:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge into other, more pertinent articles on the subjects. It's just an odd, odd article to have out there by itself with no precident.  --ScreaminEagle 23:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge into other articles. Buckshot06 23:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Expand - As the to largest primarily-English-speaking countries, and two of the most prominent militaries in the world right now, comparson of their respective ranks should be of great interest to English readers, esp in the two countries. THough the US system is derived from that of the British, there are major differences which warrant some specific comparitive coverage. I'd recommend expanding the article beyond its current for to include more background. Article name is negotiable, and can be discussed if the aritlce is not deleted. - BillCJ 23:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (although possibly rename, 'British' and 'United States' in the title is a little inconsistent). If this was about any two countries picked at random, I would be more sceptical; but the USA and UK have a great deal of shared history, particularly in military matters, and the similarities/differences in their ranking systems relate to that. (i.e.: this page is both a notable and relevant comparison.) I would be cautious, however, about seeing many more 'X and Y military ranks compared' articles created in future; if this becomes a problem, it would probably be best to unite them all into one page. However, we're only dealing with the subject in question, and this one at least is worthy of an article in its own right. Terraxos 00:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (or move to British and American military ranks compared . The Nato ranks article doesn't have the detail to make this superfluous.Dejvid 00:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep on the grounds that we're talking about the military rank systems of both the US and the Commonwealth. It does, however, need to be linked to!--Mtnerd 02:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename per the arguments made above about common culture, not an arbitrary one like "Kyrghyzstan-Swaziland military ranks compoared". The title is deficient, and should be United Kingdom and United States military ranks compared, not "British and American...".--victor falk 03:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename as above. Be wary of other comparative rank articles, though if others make sense,  old Soviet and new Russian ranks, for example, deal with them as needed.  Though it may be deemed as Anglo-centric fluff graphics, I would rather have this information handy side by side, than say, List of Minor Characters in . &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 03:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Encyclopedic content and arguments that it shouldn't exist because we don't have a similar article comparing the ranks used by Angola and Fiji or whatever are silly. Nick mallory 06:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment My argument has nothing to do with the info not being encyclopedic, but with it being redundant to other articles. Any British specific info that isn't already in British specific articles should be moved of course, but do not present a reason to keep this article. Caerwine Caer’s whines  19:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename as above. PalawanOz 08:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename for reasons as detailed above. Alphageekpa 10:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete All NATO countries use a standardised rank structure, which is also used by a large number of non-NATO countries, so there's no need for this kind of comparison article as Ranks and insignia of NATO and its sub-articles already covers this ground. They even have the various national job titles so there doesn't seem to be anything to merge. Moreover, just about every national military article has a table showing how the nation's ranks map to the NATO structure, so articles dedicated to direct comparisons between NATO members are redundant and potentially missleading as they imply that there isn't a standardised structure. --Nick Dowling 10:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:BillCJ, though I am ambivalent about the naming issue. The links between the US and UK armed forces are substantial, both within and outwith the structures of NATO.  Given this close relationship a detailed examination of ranks is both useful and, more importantly, encyclopaedic (especially given subsequent development from their shared heritage).  --  X damr  talk 15:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I could perhaps see the point if the article in question actually described the development you ascribe to it, but it doesn't. Even if it did, it would more profitably be located in an article like History of United States military ranks which would detail the development in the United States of military ranks from its origins in the British rank as used during the Revolution, since I am unaware of any cross-fertilization since then. Indeed, there is no historical relationship at all between the ranks used by the respective air forces other than the equivalences established for joint operations (both NATO and pre-NATO). Caerwine Caer’s whines  19:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Lieutenant Commander would be one example of cross-fertilization (USN to RN). I can't remember if there are more, but it's possible. I do see where this article could be expanded and improved as suggested here. However, if it's not done in a relativley short time period, such as a few months, then deletion/merger would be the proper course at that time. - BillCJ 19:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that's more a case of parallel evolution from the Revolutionary War-era rank of Lieutenant and Commander. In any case, there are still some minor differences between the two.  (The RN includes a hyphen and shortens the rank to Lieutenant rather than Commander.) In any case, the parallels are dealt with in the Lieutenant Commander article and aren't even mentioned in this one. Caerwine Caer’s whines  23:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename per Terraxos et al. -- Chris B  •  talk  18:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep & Rename, for reasons that have already been explained better than I could put them. --Commander Zulu 12:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve (rename if a better title) The article is far more than the NATO comparison and can be expanded This page (under a different nbame) was the orginal wikipedia Comparative military ranks, as more countries got added it got messy amd others superseded it.  However, the current page specific to US/UK gives far more explanation and versions of different ranks than on other comparisons e.g. a US First Sergeant being directly Comparible to a UK Compant Sergeant Major (which is a job title and not rank that a WO2 wan fill).  I would also like to see NCOs compared on actual responsibilities which doesn't necessarily reflect their NATO rank codes in different countries. Dainamo 20:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.