Talk:Army ranks of the Japanese Empire during World War II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated List-Class)
MILHIST 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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Japan / Military history (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 17:39, October 14, 2017 (JST, Heisei 29) (Refresh)
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the joint Japanese military history task force.
 

Untitled[edit]

The officer rank tabs should have two thin red bars. One above the stars and one below the stars. The Gen-sui rank (field marshal) has the same collar tab as a Tai-sho (full general) but also has a stylized patch.

Source for all my changes The Japanese Army 1913-45 by Philip Jowett pg 34

WP:Japan Assessment[edit]

The names of ranks and pictures of insignias are excellent resources; I'm glad we have an article covering this. But can we not find something worth saying in prose paragraph form about this? Maybe the evolution and origin of the ranking system? I dunno. LordAmeth 12:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons[edit]

I've fixed the spelling of the Japanese names for the terms... I wonder if portraying the US/UK equivalents is really useful or worthwhile. LordAmeth 11:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As the one who added the Commonwealth ranks I am, of course, biased. Having said that, I do think that it is useful to compare Japanese ranks with the US and the UK/Commonwealth. These countries were the main opponents of Japan in the Pacific and I think that it offers a useful base of comparison. All a matter of opinion, I suppose. What objections do you have?
Xdamrtalk 20:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
No particular objections other than that it's Eurocentric, assuming that the reader won't understand the Japanese ranks unless given a comparison to US/UK ones. But, that aside, if you think they're valuable to keep, by all means do. My original comment was really more an offhand "gee, I wonder" than a serious complaint or whatever. Thanks for responding so quickly. LordAmeth 22:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is the English-language Wikipedia. Admittedly, given the reach of English, it is the de facto 'world' Wikipedia, but I don't think that we ought to totally disregard the audience, most of whom will probably not be terribly familiar with Japan etc. However this is taking us onto shaky ground—arguments as to what 'most people' know or don't know are generally something I try to avoid.
Xdamrtalk 23:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
My layman's opinion here is that some comparison would be good, but right now the US and Commonwealth epaulettes are taking a whole lot of attention on page about Imperial Japanese ranks. Same 'problem' distracts on the Naval insignia side as well. Coparison chart would be okay, but I'm finding it difficult to see the added value of UK/US rank insignias that are portrayed larger than the Imperial Japanese insignias. If you guys feel that the US/UK insignias give vlaue, maybe they should be resized a little smaller, though, as not to jump into focus? --TLein (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)