Talk:General of the Armed Forces
Why this page[edit]
This appears to be a substantive rank, but perhaps awarded only once.
This of course raises fascinating questions as to whether, for a time at least, Grant outranked Washington. But that's for others to speculate, Wikipedia's job is just to report what reliable sources say. Andrewa (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Proposed deletion[edit]
What is this about? If it already exists, then surely it should redirect there? The sources clearly indicate that it's a likely search term.
Not to mention breaking incoming external links. If the PROD guidelines really support this nomination, then they are severely inadequate. Andrewa (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- What does it look what its about? Seems to me the rank as given to Grant in 1866 was General of the Army. I´ve never seen "General of the Armed Forces" used anywhere, and looking at the two external links given as references I assume they to simply be using it in error, probably stemming from the more formal "General of the Army of the United States". Of course making this here a redirect would be an option as well ...GELongstreet (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Even if the references are in error as you assume (taking your word for it rather than theirs, in effect) it's still a likely search term in view of them.
- If you have sources that indicate that Grant's rank was really General of the Army as you believe, then they should be cited here, or this page redirected to General of the Army (United States). I certainly would not object to that. But proposed deletion was ridiculous. See Wikipedia:Alternatives to deletion. Andrewa (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- How about the respective act of congress for a source? And I wouldn´t throw around the word ridiculous around in that case, considering that nothing links to this page and google and google books (suboptimal as those might be) don´t have a single direct hit for it either. As I said before a redirect is possible. ...GELongstreet (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- I apologise for not being as gentle as I should have been, and right from the start not just with that word ridiculous. But I say again, add this source and any others you have in the appropriate places. And I also say again, redirect (merging the information already in the stub of course) is fine if you wish to go to the trouble. I don't see the point but we're a collaboration, if you do then go for it.
- But PRODing sourced information, with apparently no intention of preserving the content, is not good IMO. And I also say again, in view of that it's likely that whatever guidelines and policies led you to do it need some tweaking. Andrewa (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- How about the respective act of congress for a source? And I wouldn´t throw around the word ridiculous around in that case, considering that nothing links to this page and google and google books (suboptimal as those might be) don´t have a single direct hit for it either. As I said before a redirect is possible. ...GELongstreet (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
