Talk:Vice admiral (United States)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move[edit]

Vice Admiral (United States)Vice admiral (United States) — To conform with the grammar guidelines set forth by Wiki:MOSCAPSNeovu79 (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments: Neovu79 (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support Wiki:MOSCAPS states: Military ranks follow the same capitalization guidelines as titles (see above). Thus, one would write "Brigadier General John Smith", or "John Smith was a brigadier general". While general use of ranks is most commonly in front of an officer's name, in article form, and grammar, ranks are not capitalized. The U.S. Code of law also use standardized grammar specifically 10 U.S.C. § 5501 which establishes naval ranks for federal uniformed officers. Neovu79 (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It doesn't appear to my reading that WP:MOSCAPS has anything to do with article titles: it applies only to the cases of of "General John Smith" and "John Smith is a general". JRP (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ture, however it is officially listed this way in the United States Code of law i.e. 10 U.S.C. § 5501. Neovu79 (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although I would prefer a solution like this one through centralized discussion (but then again, the MOS can be considered a centralized discussion of course). Fram (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]