This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theBrigadier general article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the followingcriteria for B-class status:
The content ofJunjang wasmerged intoBrigadier general on 10 March 2011. The former page'shistory now serves toprovide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see itstalk page.
Capital G is correct only when used as part of the title of a particular person. This should beBrigadier 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 onWP: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 ofWikipedia:Naming conventions - "names and titles" is close but not quite.Stan 23:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
BTW, have a look atCategory: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"??
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, thatCapitalization is no longer thrown about withAbandon, 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 himConvicted 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.
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.SigPig09:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Necrothesp19:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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?
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. --Necrothesp22:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I've never seen the abbreviation "BGen" in the media. It's usually Brig. Gen. or just Gen.Cww01:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.198.203.136.20014:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ageneral officer rank, so "General" is the key term, and "Brigadier" ("Major", "Lieutenant", etc) are modifiers. --SigPig19:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed though interestingly "General" itself was originally a modifier as in Captain General (the General Captain at the head of an army)Dainamo (talk)20:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fascinated. I also agree that it depends. However, I came down on the side of Brigadiers General, because there are Brigadiers who are NOT Generals. For that reason, I disagree that it's in the same class as Maj Gen and Lt Gen. Independently, I'm not convinced that in either of those cases they are modifiers. To put my POV more concisely, I don't think it's at all obvious what the answer is. (Though I must admit, I did think it was obviousbefore I read the various opinions!!)Pdfpdf (talk)11:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.?Cww01:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. I didn't look here before I decided the table was pointless and removed it. Sorry. I guess that means I agree with you!!Pdfpdf (talk)13:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of this list? It looks like an excuse for people to add their "Favourite BG". So what? WP is not a popularity contest!!!!! Cheers,Pdfpdf (talk)13:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zero response. OK, there are thousands of notable BGs; this list could go on forever. The page is about the rank.
An image used in this article,File:UK-Army-BrigGen.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason:Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 2 December 2011
What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please reviewdeletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
An image used in this article,File:Brigjen.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion atWikimedia Commons for the following reason:Copyright violations
What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
If the image isnon-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is nofair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new{{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on theiruser talk page.
Done Pdfpdf, has been reolved now :).TheGeneralUser (talk)15:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
