Talk:Military ranks

However NCR army could be recognized as State Defense Force. Shady Sands Police HQ was decorated with US banner in 2241. --dotz 00:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary Complication
It'd be much more simple, and to the point, I believe, while being easier to read without becoming horrendously confused, as well as preserve the quality of related articles, if the Enclave Armed Forces page's rank section had a list of the defined ranks, rather than a link to this article, which is somewhat misleading, as it includes many different organizations, all under the guise of each and every one of them being descendants of the United States Armed Forces. The title of the page should be changed to something more suitable, and less length-heavy, as well, to accommodate these changes, as currently, such a long title is more burdensome than helpful. I will begin work on converting these articles to standards, though I will make sure to leave room for adjustment. Any and all comments or rebuttals are welcomed. Jwguy 20:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I also think that ranks of each of the organizzations should simply be included in that organization's article. Ausir 21:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

See: Forum:Organization of Enclave articles for the discussion of this and related articles. Ausir 23:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Expanding
Should we expand the article to include all ranks, because additional ranks are listed on the Hoover Dam memorial. I'm talking about adding the PVT PV2 PFC 1LT 2LT...etc. --Xa3 17:36, July 1, 2011 (UTC)

Why no...
Why should there not be a Country heading and Background for the ranks?--Ant2242 (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Listing the country is superfluous. As far as this page about miltary ranks is concerned, we only care about linking to the respective army. Also, the countries are listed on the respective armed forced pages. As for the background section, I was originally just going to put a "For" template at the top linking to Military rank, assuming that people that come here have a standard knowledge of military ranks. However, I 1) got distracted and did not make the For template and 2) wrongly assumed people had adequate knowledge of ranks. I shall remedy both of this now. --Kastera (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

PVT & LT
I've taken A Liberty by naming "Lieutenant"(s) under "First Lieutenant". I've also taken A Liberty with "Private First Class" by adding them to "Private E-1" to better correspond to "Private E-2" as "E-2" is mentioned on some while not on these. As for "Private", does it equal "Private E-1"? If so they should be merged. If I am mistaken please correct me.--Ant2242 (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC):
 * In the regular Army, private fist class is actually Private E-3 and is still a private (the E-#'s simple designates a pay grade; the higher the number, the higher the pay grade) - in the Marine Corps, however, PFC is it's own rank,, separate from private. I would lump all privates into the same column, and designate the E-# in parentheses (e.g. John Doe (E-2), Jack Dole (E-3), etc.) --Kastera (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Links to other pages
Should this be linked to the respective characters via a direct link or a link through the Infobox template? I believe the best course is to just link it through a direct link.

Ex; First Lieutenant

--Ant2242 (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Unknown
Since this is a page for known ranks, I think it's inappropriate to list every character who has an unknown rank. Unless there's a compelling reason to keep them, I will remove them. --Kastera (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason why I added them was both for the sake of completeness, and in case we found a rank later.--Ant2242 (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It just occurred to me to ask <:-(Were the characters that were removed "unknown" because of their rank, OR of their branch in the service? If it's the former the removal is fine, if the later they need to be re-added to the list.--03:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Because of their unknown rank, which I stipulated above. --Kastera (talk) 05:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Switch to table format?
Should this be the new format for this page? What are your thoughts?--Ant2242 (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * IMO that looks great and is much easier to follow than the current column system. Grouping factions into a single table with sections and rows being branches and ranks respectively would work pretty good. Also having an icon if applicable would really help readability and visual appeal. Brantmeierz (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)