Talk:Brigadier general

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Culture / Asian / British / Canadian / European / North America / South Asia / United States 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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military culture, traditions, and heraldry task force Asian military history task force British military history task force Canadian military history task force European military history task force North American military history task force South Asian military history task force United States military history task force

The content of Junjang was merged into Brigadier general on 10 March 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide 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 its talk page.

A brigadier most certainly is of general rank in the British armed forces, despite the erroneous assertion in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.212.149 (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

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)

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)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. -- Necrothesp 19:53, 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?
• 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)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.198.203.136.200 14:50, 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 a general officer rank, so "General" is the key term, and "Brigadier" ("Major", "Lieutenant", etc) are modifiers. --SigPig 19:52, 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 obvious before I read the various opinions!!) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is the plural "Brigadiers General" or "Brigadier Generals"? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

My dictionary gives brigadier generals only as the plural. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply. Which dictionary would that be? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

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)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.? Cww 01:43, 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.

I propose the list be removed. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Again, zero response.

However, if I remove it, I bet I'll get crucified!

I'll give it some more time, and if there is still no response, I'll remove it and see what happens. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Able Seaman (rank) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 23:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms. — kwami (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

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 review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

The image is GDFL & created by me. There is no reason it should be nominated for deletion, speedy or otherwise. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

An image used in this article, File:Brigjen.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia 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 is non-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 no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Brigjen.gif) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

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 their user talk page.

Sock puppet Swamilive is making a nuisance of himself at the moment. How does one get an admin to block him? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

He's been blocked now, after a bit of a delay at WP:AIV. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

 Done Pdfpdf, has been reolved now :). TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Bangladesh-army-OF-6.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply