Talk:Brigadier General

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

Portal	Brigadier General is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 Capital G 2 Randy Strong 3 Question on the history of the rank 4 Brigadiers General or Brigadier Generals? 5 fake name in list of notables? 6 Pakistan table

[edit] Capital G

Capital G is correct only when used as part of the title of a particular person. This should be Brigadier general since brigadier generals are its subject matter. (This will require a deletion, and i'm not sure it's a speedy tho IMO it should be, so it should probably be put on WP:RfD as part of batch of similarly mistitled ranks.) --Jerzy(t) 20:03, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

This was much fought over years ago, and the final agreement then was to capitalize names of ranks <flamebait>probably a British thing</flamebait> :-). If you want to reopen the battle, I suggest a new subpage of Wikipedia:Naming conventions - "names and titles" is close but not quite. Stan 23:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BTW, have a look at Category:Military ranks to get an idea of the size of task you're setting for yourself... Stan 23:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Been there, didn't stay for the T-shirt. BTW, did i somehow suggest "for myself"??

  Tnx, Stan.

  --Jerzy(t) 03:39, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

Well, you sounded pretty definite that it was something to be fixed. After reading the Chicago manual's section on capitalization closely (in connection with other disputes), I've come to the view that a few types of capitalization have consensus (personal names, place names), and everything else is more of a house style issue. Stan 12:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• IMO you've just confessed to both reading too much and taking it too seriously [wink]. But i thought our house style was in conformance with what i consider common sense, that Capitalization is no longer thrown about with Abandon, but needs a clear reason, like the distinction between Gen. Sherman (a specific person) and an unspecified person who is a general and a convicted felon, even if making him Convicted Felon Jones is just as official and definitive as making him General Jones.

As to me, i've regretfully decided that knowing you're right about something that matters and having a buck or so will get you a cup of coffee; it doesn't keep me from saying so, and it may earn me someone's contempt as what might be called an intellectual butterfly, but it does help keep my commitments more practical.

Thanks again, but i'm satisfied.

--Jerzy(t) 17:44, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

[edit] Randy Strong

Just in case anyone was wondering, US BGen (abbrev?) Randy Strong is the new "Chief of Signal", which I guess means the head honcho of the Signal Corps. And no, despite my username, I didn't add his name. SigPig 09:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't make him particularly notable, I don't think. The list will get out of hand if everyone's favourite Brigadier General is added! It should only be for people who are notable in more ways than just holding the rank. -- Necrothesp 19:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That goes without saying. We have too many brigadier-generals in Canada to comfortably list, and in comparison those of the US must be as common as cowpats in Montana.

Would it be a sufficient measure of notability for a particular BGen if s/he had their own separate article?

Also, how does one exactly define a "notable BGen"?

• An officer of another rank (higher or lower) who did something notable as a BGen (acting or substantive)? e.g. Charles de Gaulle
• An officer who is currently a BGen but did something notable at a lower rank?
• An officer who retired at the rank of BGen but did something notable at a lower rank? e.g. Jimmy Stewart? SigPig 21:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't actually think we should list anyone who reached a higher rank, since they'll be listed on the appropriate page, but the second two definitely. -- Necrothesp 22:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've never seen the abbreviation "BGen" in the media. It's usually Brig. Gen. or just Gen. Cww 01:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question on the history of the rank

I disagree with the statement "Since the Mexican-American War, however, the lower rank of Colonel has been the normal rank appointed to command a brigade." Wasn't the practice of appointing a brigadier general to command a brigade the norm during the Civil War as well? Colonels commanded brigades only if the BG was incapacitated, dead, or otherwise indisposed, and many were subsequently promoted to the rank.198.203.136.200 14:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brigadiers General or Brigadier Generals?

The article has a "list of notable Brigadiers General", but I think "Brigadier Generals" is far more common. "Brigadiers General" is probably etymologically correct (given that I believe the name came about the same way as, say, Surgeon General, and we use "Surgeons General"), but seems hopelessly pedantic in the face of the more common usage. - furrykef (Talk at me) 05:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Depends on whether "General" modifies "Brigadier" (à la "Surgeon General" hence "Surgeons General") or instead "Brigadier" is the modifier (à la "Major General" hence "Major Generals"). I tend to thing the latter, since it is a general officer rank, so "General" is the key term, and "Brigadier" ("Major", "Lieutenant", etc) are modifiers. --SigPig 19:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fake name in list of notables?

The entry on Brigadier General United States National Guard is a fake, yes? according to United_States_National_Guard#List_of_chiefs_of_the_National_Guard_Bureau no one with that name existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.119.76.91 (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistan table

There is a table of equivalence in the Pakistan section of the page, and that table only has one element. Is there any particular reason for this, does anyone really want it to stay, would anyone oppose removing it, etc.? Cww 01:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)