Talk:Divisional general

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Divisional general article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Culture Start‑class

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 articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

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 not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military culture, traditions, and heraldry task force

Division General[edit]

The rank, currently rendered in the article as "divisional general", is better rendered in English as "division general". The word "division" serves in this context as an adjective modifying "general", as does "divisional", but the "-al" is unnecessary and clumsy. Nihil novi (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, but correcting capitalization. -- tariqabjotu 01:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Divisional General → Division General – The words "divisional" and "division" both serve as an adjective modifying "general", but the "-al" is superfluous and clumsy, creating a clang between "divisional" and "general. Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Nihil novi (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google and Google Books searches show an order of magnitude more citations for "Division General" than for "Divisional General". In each case, however, most of the citations appear to involve business, physics, engineering, law courts, universities, medicine, etc., rather than the military rank. Nihil novi (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Division general per nom and WP:MILTERMS. Although frankly I think it should be simply merged and redirected to major general. It's the same rank, after all, and as the article says, it's almost always rendered as major general in military history works. I've never actually seen it rendered as "division general" any more than I've seen contre-amiral and the like rendered as counter admiral. I think it would be best if we just got rid of all these directly translated article titles, which are never in practice actually used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose "Divisional general" makes more sense than "division general", since it should be using an adjective, and not use the noun in an attributive sense, when one has an adjective available. Are you going to rename regimental sergeant major to be regiment sergeant major to be consistent with this lack of "-al" ? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which would you be more likely to say: "divisional headquarters" – or "division headquarters"? 67.188.63.22 (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd say divisional headquarters, or more likely just division for short (Take this message to Division), never division headquarters but I'd understand it too and it wouldn't even sound wrong, it's just something I wouldn't say myself. Not that I ever reported to one, and Brigade Headquarters was just known as Brigade, and our Unit Headquarters was just called Headquarters. I think this is a classic case of no right answer and who cares anyway? But see vote below. Andrewa (talk) 06:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that regimental sergeant major is actually a term used in English and divisional general (or division general) isn't. It's a made-up translation of a foreign-language term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. Prefer Divisional General, see rationale above, and noting the difficulty (noted by others above) in obtaining evidence of usage owing to other meanings of the phrases. Andrewa (talk) 06:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I don't mind whether you use "division general" or "divisional general", since both are translations of foreign terms (we are in danger of splitting hairs). It should however follow the well-established guidelines at WP:MILTERMS and use lower case - Division general or Divisional general. Either way, it will need to be moved over an existing redirect by an admin. Shem (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support fixing the capitalization. Agree with both of these excellent points. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Military terms (also known as WP:MILTERMS and which is already referenced in the discussion above) is explicit on the capitalization, I missed that, and there seems no reason to think that this should be an exception. So far as which translation is preferred, there seems no possible scenario in which our readership will be adversely affected by the choice, either way, so this RM as it stands is a complete non-event. But if nobody objects to the point made about capitalization, I'd be quite comfortable for the closing admin to boldly fix it (unfortunately that can't now be me). Andrewa (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed merge of Division General (Bosnia)[edit]

I'd like to propose merge of Division General (Bosnia) - single sentence stub at present which appears to be about the same topic as this article - well, into this article. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]