 | United States Template‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Military history: North America / United States Template‑class | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps[edit]
Standardized abbreviations in the Marine Corps are codified by a Marine Corps Order (MCO). An MCO carries the authority of the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC). The CMC is the ultimate authority on policy within the Marine Corps.
The applicable MCO for this info box is MCO P1070-12K, the Individual Records Administration Manual (short title: IRAM). It can be found here[[1]]. It contains the specific listing for the correct abbreviation for Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps on page 6-36.
I trust that this is now a dead issue and that the standardized Marine Corps abbreviation, established by the Commandant of the Marine Corps, published in a Marine Corps Order, for the abbreviation for the title of Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps will be left alone. Windyjarhead (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Command Master Chief Petty Officer abbreviation[edit]
According to many major sources around the web, including USCG.mil, defenselink, airman.af.mil and many many others, the official abbreviation of Command Master Chief Petty Officer is CMC, not CMCPO. It is stated as this here at wikipedia in the command master chief petty officer page, the United States Coast Guard page, and the United States Coast Guard enlisted rate insignia page.--Officer781 (talk) 05:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Here are the important sources for the CMC and SgtMajMC abbreviations:
- CMC:
- SgtMajMC:
I'm thinking that SgtMajMC might be another official abbreviation, or at least one that they use for information given to the public.--Officer781 (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- As I stated above, standardized abbreviations in the Marine Corps are codified by a Marine Corps Order (MCO). Not by gruntsmilitary.com (a commercial website) nor by an Air Force website (which, by the way, displays an outdated insignia for the US Army rank of CW5.) The page at defenselink.mil is clearly outdated, it says that the US Coast Guard "is a part of the Department of Transportation in peacetime and the Navy in times of war." The Coast Guard has operated under the Department of Homeland Security since 2002.
- Unlike these unreliable internet sources, an MCO carries the authority of the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC). The CMC is the ultimate authority on policy within the Marine Corps. I cannot stress enough the absolute and final nature of the authority contained in an MCO. It is quite literally "the letter of the law" within the Marine Corps. There is no room for interpretation here.
- The applicable MCO for this info box is MCO P1070-12K, the Individual Records Administration Manual (short title: IRAM). It can be found here[[2]]. It contains the specific listing for the correct abbreviation for Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps on page 6-36.Windyjarhead (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Insignias[edit]
I've recently added all the insignias to the template. I've also added each division's seal. Thoughts? Soffredo (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Streamlining[edit]
Ok, this is sure to be a controversial idea so I figured I'd throw it out there first. Regardless of branch, First Sergeant is not really a rank but a job title (and indeed in the a air force can be billeted to someone whose only an E-7). The same is true for other similar positions at the E-9 level; command sergeant major is not a separate rank, but the specific position of being the sergeant major attached to the commanding officer and the holder is still a sergeant major; if they transfer to another position, they cease to be a command sergeant major, but are not demoted in rank or pay grade. So, the fundamental question is, do we really need to list them here? After all, it's a template for ranks, not a chart of all possible insignia, despite the over-decoration of it. This is especially true for things like the SEAC for those branches where we don't even have insignia because they've never actually had someone fill that job. Those sorts of things should be see also links at the bottom at most. And even then, being they're not actually ranks, their inclusion seems cluttering. oknazevad (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- In this instance, we as wikipedians are not the ones who should decide how the U.S. military choose to list their enlisted ranks. The ranks listed are based off of the Defense.gov: U.S. Military Rank Insignia. In the U.S. military, a command sergeant major does in fact outrank a sergeant major. A command sergeant major is also not always a title, depending how far up the ladder they climb. In some cases, their titles are usually senior enlisted advisors to a command. Secondly, a for a sergeant major to be selected as a command sergeant major, they must first complete the command sergeants major course before they become eligible. Third, a command sergeant major receives additional supplemental pay on top of their basic E-9 pay, for being a command sergeant major. Fourth, if a command sergeant major were to be relieved of their duty for reassignment, they would not transfer down to a lower unit, as they would laterally be assigned as a command sergeant major of equal or greater importance. And lastly, but not the very least, if a command sergeant major were to be removed from office for something detrimental to the office they hold, they would at the very least be forced to retire, instead of being retained in service, as command sergeant major would have at least 20 years of service to attain that rank. No sergeant major qualifies for supplemental pay for the retirement pension. They would only receive their pension based off of their base pay. These general policies and regulations apply to all the other service as well, with varying degrees between services. Neovu79 (talk) 08:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Also, an Army first sergeant is indeed a rank, as it outrank a master sergeant, even though they have the same paygrade. Neovu79 (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, given that, I still ask do we need the CSMA and SEAC included being they're not actual ranks but specific jobs, and that, in the latter case, they don't actually have insignia for a couple of the services. The essential point here is that this is a navigational chart of ranks, not a gallery of insignia. And trying to make it the latter has made it too bulky and awkward. oknazevad (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- In the military establishment the SMA and the SEAC, due to their unique position and protocol equivalency as three-stars, they are in fact considered ranks. No SMA in it's history have every been removed from office and then retained in the Army. We have no precedence to justify saying that they would be reverted back to a sergeant major. Also, when a SMA and a SEAC retires, they retain that rank in retirement. Neovu79 (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Then we should be using the insignia from the marine green service uniforms as well. I actually agree with this comment, but wiki does not have a good version of the ranks in those colors; the current ones available are not as good of quality as the golds. I would support that change, if someone were to help create them, but currently to gold's picture quality is of higher standard. Neovu79 (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- I’d like to second @Neovu79:’s arguments. First sergeants, SEAs, etc. all appear as separate ranks on U.S. military rank charts, which it makes sense to go by.Garuda28 (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- I do want to point out that the link that I provided does states the following at the top. Do not confuse rank with paygrades, such as E-1, W-2 and O-5. Paygrades are administrative classifications used primarily to standardize compensation across the military services. The "E" in E-1 stands for "enlisted" while the "1" indicates the paygrade for that position. The other pay categories are "W" for warrant officers and "O" for commissioned officers. Some enlisted paygrades have two ranks. The Army, for example, has the ranks of corporal and specialist at the paygrade of E-4. A corporal is expected to fill a leadership role and has a higher rank than a specialist, even though both receive E-4 pay. In the Marine Corps, a master gunnery sergeant and a sergeant major are both E-9s, but the sergeant major has the higher rank. I will admit, some of the information on the page is a little out of date or slightly inaccurate. The U.S. Navy no longer gives gold chevrons for 12 years of good conduct. They now give gold chevrons for 12 years of total service. Also the fleet/force master chiefs are always gold stars, not silver. And the 0-7 and O-8 rank for the Navy is slightly wrong. They are officially called rear admiral (lower half) and rear admiral, not rear admiral lower half and rear admiral upper half, respectively. Neovu79 (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- I’d like to second @Neovu79:’s arguments. First sergeants, SEAs, etc. all appear as separate ranks on U.S. military rank charts, which it makes sense to go by.Garuda28 (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Then we should be using the insignia from the marine green service uniforms as well. I actually agree with this comment, but wiki does not have a good version of the ranks in those colors; the current ones available are not as good of quality as the golds. I would support that change, if someone were to help create them, but currently to gold's picture quality is of higher standard. Neovu79 (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- In the military establishment the SMA and the SEAC, due to their unique position and protocol equivalency as three-stars, they are in fact considered ranks. No SMA in it's history have every been removed from office and then retained in the Army. We have no precedence to justify saying that they would be reverted back to a sergeant major. Also, when a SMA and a SEAC retires, they retain that rank in retirement. Neovu79 (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, given that, I still ask do we need the CSMA and SEAC included being they're not actual ranks but specific jobs, and that, in the latter case, they don't actually have insignia for a couple of the services. The essential point here is that this is a navigational chart of ranks, not a gallery of insignia. And trying to make it the latter has made it too bulky and awkward. oknazevad (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- Also, an Army first sergeant is indeed a rank, as it outrank a master sergeant, even though they have the same paygrade. Neovu79 (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
We both need to stop revert each other's edits
@Oknazevad: Please read more carefully from my edit's comment. It never stated that the blues have been discontinued. It never stated that the blues were "ordered" to be discontinued, which it has, by the way, in 2019. As of July 2020, the Army greens are the new standard. The blues have been ordered for formal wear only. They blues will be complete phase out by 2028, because such a transition takes time. I am not going to change your recent revert because it currently serves no purpose. I suggest we open this up to consensus before we get into a editing war, because clearly I'm not going to convince you otherwise, and vice versa. Neovu79 (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- No, the blue uniform will not be completely phased out. It will remain fully authorized for use as a more formal dress uniform for ceremonial occasions, as they were before the previous green Class As were phased out, much as the Marines' blue dress uniforms are more formal uniform than their green service uniforms, or the Navy's blues are not formal than their khakis. 2028 is simply the date by when those who have not yet acquired the new Army green uniforms must get them, not the date which the blues will be completely phased out, because, again, that is not happening. You are incorrect in your understanding of the facts.
- As for the template, since the chart includes the version of rank insignia from the most formal uniforms, as evidenced by the gold-on-red insignia worn one the dress blues for the Marines (as opposed to the green-on-red from the green service uniform), and the Navy insignia also being the version from their blue uniforms, then the Army uniform insignia should also come from their more formal dress blues (which, again, are not being done away with). oknazevad (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- You maybe misinterpreting me. I never said that they will "completely phase out", I was referring, that the Army will "complete" their phase out of everyday business wear of the blues by 2028. While the blues are returning to ceremonial wear, the every day business wear starting from July 2020 is the new Army greens. Everyday business wear always takes priority over formal wear. The Navy blues are the every day business wear of the U.S. Navy. I repeat, formal wear does not take priority over everyday business wear. There is no point in continuing this back-and forth, so I will end this now to avoid WP:STICK. While I myself am very prone to grammar mistakes, please be careful on how you word your statements. While I am not intentionally trying to attack what you may or may not know, I would expect the same courtesy from you. Neovu79 (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Then the Marine insignia should be switched to the green-on-red version. But if you look through the edit history, there was a clear consensus to remove all redundant insignia in favor of the most formal one only. That's why the Navy and Coast Guard only have the insignia from blues, not the whites or the collar pins from the service uniforms. And why the Marines have the insignia from their blues. It's about consistency. oknazevad (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Splitting hairs here, I doubt any reader is gonna throw up a fuss over any over this - FOX 52 (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Like I said before, I actually agree with you on this, however, I have searched through wikicommons for a good quality version of the Marine green-on-red chevrons, be they do not currently exist. The only ones there are of poor pixel quality and do not look good at all, which is the only reason I haven't changed them myself. Neovu79 (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Splitting hairs here, I doubt any reader is gonna throw up a fuss over any over this - FOX 52 (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- Then the Marine insignia should be switched to the green-on-red version. But if you look through the edit history, there was a clear consensus to remove all redundant insignia in favor of the most formal one only. That's why the Navy and Coast Guard only have the insignia from blues, not the whites or the collar pins from the service uniforms. And why the Marines have the insignia from their blues. It's about consistency. oknazevad (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- You maybe misinterpreting me. I never said that they will "completely phase out", I was referring, that the Army will "complete" their phase out of everyday business wear of the blues by 2028. While the blues are returning to ceremonial wear, the every day business wear starting from July 2020 is the new Army greens. Everyday business wear always takes priority over formal wear. The Navy blues are the every day business wear of the U.S. Navy. I repeat, formal wear does not take priority over everyday business wear. There is no point in continuing this back-and forth, so I will end this now to avoid WP:STICK. While I myself am very prone to grammar mistakes, please be careful on how you word your statements. While I am not intentionally trying to attack what you may or may not know, I would expect the same courtesy from you. Neovu79 (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Now that the switch has been made by Skjoldbro (for which I thank him), I have to wonder if it was a wise decision. The USMC's service uniform insignia is green-on-red. I can only think color blind people may have issue with that. oknazevad (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- At the risk of creating more work for someone, perhaps someone could create USMC class b rank (green on khaki)? It should be much more visible and still satisfy the initial consensus. Garuda28 (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:Garuda28- Question
Hey, can you point me to the consensus you mentioned in this edit? Thanks - wolf 04:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Thewolfchild: On this talk page Template talk:US enlisted ranks. Garuda28 (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I see there was some discussion on that page, mostly between Neovu79 and oknazevad, about... stuff, and I see there was also a brief comment or two by you, but I'm looking for the specific discussion about red-on-gold vs drab-on-drabier USMC enlisted rank insignia and the clear-cut consensus that somehow chose the later. Seriously, they look awful. They're difficult to see, especially on smaller devices, and this could be an issue where those who are visually impaired needs to be taken into consideration. Where are you on this? - wolf 20:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think it was that discussion thread plus the edits that established the consensus (someone later made the change from the dress blues to the service rank on the Marines pages). I really don’t care which way it goes, so long as there is standardization. @Neovu79: you’ve paid attention to this topic a whole lot more than me, do you know if there were any other discussion threads on the topic that established consensus? Garuda28 (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- The general conclusion that we came to was to list all enlisted ranks, for each branch, with the rank insignia of their everyday business uniforms, which is their service uniforms respectively. While the Marine Corps gold-on-red insignias do look more appealing, the insignias are used on their dress uniforms and not their service uniforms. Neovu79 (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Neovu79: and Garuda28, thanks for the replies, but I have to reiterate that I didn't ask about the gold on red becuase of "appeal". I asked because the current ones are quite drab and more difficult to distinguish, especially on smaller screens such as smartphones. As such, we should also take those with visual impairment into account. I'm not just talking about people that are say... legally or partially blind, but those with color blindness and those that just need glasses. I could be wrong, but didn't we have the red and gold for some time? Why the change? This is why I enquired about the consensus. When/where was this discussion had? How solid is this consensus? Are there a lot of guys dead-set on the drab version? Or could we just switch back to the previous version? (Without any kind of dispute) Again, any info you guys can provide would be appreciated. Thanks again. - wolf 19:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Anything on this yet? Not urgent, just checking in. Thanks - wolf 19:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- I have no problem distinguishing the ranks on a smartphone and I would be opposed to changing it back. The colors are what they are and the Marine Corps probably have, or should have, taken visual impairment into account before they chose that color scheme for their service uniform. The ranks were changed to conform with the enlisted uniform ranks on the other U.S. Armed Forces articles as well as the templates. The service uniforms are the primary professional uniforms for each service. Neovu79 (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Anything on this yet? Not urgent, just checking in. Thanks - wolf 19:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Neovu79: and Garuda28, thanks for the replies, but I have to reiterate that I didn't ask about the gold on red becuase of "appeal". I asked because the current ones are quite drab and more difficult to distinguish, especially on smaller screens such as smartphones. As such, we should also take those with visual impairment into account. I'm not just talking about people that are say... legally or partially blind, but those with color blindness and those that just need glasses. I could be wrong, but didn't we have the red and gold for some time? Why the change? This is why I enquired about the consensus. When/where was this discussion had? How solid is this consensus? Are there a lot of guys dead-set on the drab version? Or could we just switch back to the previous version? (Without any kind of dispute) Again, any info you guys can provide would be appreciated. Thanks again. - wolf 19:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- The general conclusion that we came to was to list all enlisted ranks, for each branch, with the rank insignia of their everyday business uniforms, which is their service uniforms respectively. While the Marine Corps gold-on-red insignias do look more appealing, the insignias are used on their dress uniforms and not their service uniforms. Neovu79 (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think it was that discussion thread plus the edits that established the consensus (someone later made the change from the dress blues to the service rank on the Marines pages). I really don’t care which way it goes, so long as there is standardization. @Neovu79: you’ve paid attention to this topic a whole lot more than me, do you know if there were any other discussion threads on the topic that established consensus? Garuda28 (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I see there was some discussion on that page, mostly between Neovu79 and oknazevad, about... stuff, and I see there was also a brief comment or two by you, but I'm looking for the specific discussion about red-on-gold vs drab-on-drabier USMC enlisted rank insignia and the clear-cut consensus that somehow chose the later. Seriously, they look awful. They're difficult to see, especially on smaller devices, and this could be an issue where those who are visually impaired needs to be taken into consideration. Where are you on this? - wolf 20:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Neovu79: "I have no problem distinguishing the ranks on a smartphone...
" - No offense, but this isn't about how well you can see them. We should be taking others into account as well, no?
"...and I would be opposed to changing it back
" - why so adamant about it?
"The colors are what they are and the Marine Corps probably have, or should have, taken visual impairment into account before they chose that color scheme for their service uniform.
" - but this isn't the Marines, it's WP. And there is a difference between a full size patch on an actual uniform and an image that's only a couple millimeters in size on phone.
"The ranks were changed to conform with the enlisted uniform ranks on the other U.S. Armed Forces articles as well as the templates
" - the operative word being "changed". If they can be changed one way, they be changed another, no?
"The service uniforms are the primary professional uniforms for each service
" - well, the dress uniforms are just as professional, if not arguably more so. They're certainly more representational, consider what the service uniforms are used for and what the dress uniforms are used for. But that's not even the main crux of this, as I said, I'm just asking for the whereabouts of the consensus that led to the change. You have both mentioned (or alluded) to it. Perhaps it'll help me understand why you're so entrenched on this. Thanks again - wolf 02:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Neovu79:, Garuda28... anything yet? - wolf 02:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Thewolfchild: I really don’t have a strong opinion one way or another. If you and @Neovu79: come to an consensus on something, I will gladly support it. Garuda28 (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
(break)
➡️Note: thread moved here from Garuda28's tp.
The specific issue I'm was enquiring about was the change of rank insignia images, made to the USMC ranks table by Skjoldbro on 26 October 2020. I was pointed towards this page when enquiring about any consensus that there may have been to support the change. In the discussion up above, there was some dialog between Neovu79 and oknazevad, but no particular consensus. I note that oknazevad raised the issue of visual impairment, specifically the same color blindness concerns that I raised.
In taking a cursory read through of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, I found it interesting that there is actually section on "Legal obligations", and also looking through the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility, there is a section on color blindness. This section includes tools to aid editors with color selections in regards to color blindness, but there is also a tool at Toptal which demonstrates a simulated effect of color blindess, with any webpage. I used a USMC red/gold E-9 insignia and a red/green E-9 insignia. I think the tool shows the remarkable difference. Anyway, hoping for more discussion on this. Cheers - wolf 05:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- I have no feelings either way, I just read the discussion and saw it as a good opportunity to make some insignia. It is unfortunate that oknazevad didn't ping me, I would have gladly made the class b ranks, had I known about the issue of visual impairment. I can get around to doing it today, if everyone believes it to be a better option. Skjoldbro (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply Skjoldbro. There's no urgency here. I'd like to see some kind of solution, but can certainly wait for input from others. Cheers - wolf 12:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think either switching back to the gold-on-red dress blue versions or going with the olive-on-khaki class B service version is the best course of action. The olive-on-red version has too many possible colorblindness issues (which was something the USMC probably wasn't thinking about at all when they adopted the scheme in the early 20th century). The other services use the same color schemes for both class A and class B anyway, so using the class B for the USMC would be consistent with that. And it's not like the Navy's insignia here are actually from daily service uniforms; the blue sailor suit is not a daily wear item, and the daily service khaki shirts use collar pins, so there's already no consistent type used. oknazevad (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Class b ranks have been created, should people wish to use those instead. Skjoldbro (talk) 08:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Skjoldbro and Oknazevad: - yes, the red on gold are definitely a better choice, and especially for people with color blindness. I think we should switch back to those. - wolf 20:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Thewolfchild and Oknazevad: - All insignias listed are based off of criteria of uniformity: specifically each service's daily professional business wear. I don't really care what we use, I'm just tired of reading the back of worth with people what they prefer, which in my opinion, looks to be more based on user(s) preference than it really is about helping people who are color blind. If you choose a color set, let's keep it that way. It's not fair in making Skjoldbro create two new sets of insignias, which may not be used in other articles. Neovu79 (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Skjoldbro and Oknazevad: - yes, the red on gold are definitely a better choice, and especially for people with color blindness. I think we should switch back to those. - wolf 20:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Class b ranks have been created, should people wish to use those instead. Skjoldbro (talk) 08:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think either switching back to the gold-on-red dress blue versions or going with the olive-on-khaki class B service version is the best course of action. The olive-on-red version has too many possible colorblindness issues (which was something the USMC probably wasn't thinking about at all when they adopted the scheme in the early 20th century). The other services use the same color schemes for both class A and class B anyway, so using the class B for the USMC would be consistent with that. And it's not like the Navy's insignia here are actually from daily service uniforms; the blue sailor suit is not a daily wear item, and the daily service khaki shirts use collar pins, so there's already no consistent type used. oknazevad (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply Skjoldbro. There's no urgency here. I'd like to see some kind of solution, but can certainly wait for input from others. Cheers - wolf 12:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Neovu79: "I don't really care what we use, I'm just tired of reading the back of worth with people what they prefer, which in my opinion, looks to be more based on user(s) preference than it really is about helping people who are color blind.
"
- It's unfortunate that you feel that way. I don't recall ever having an issue with you collaborating, and I believe we have all been reasonable and patient here, focusing on content and not editor's motivations. I can assure you that color blindness is a legitimate concern for me, and I also believe it was for Oknazevad when he mentioned it as well. We also know this to be an important issue for WP, with MOS:ACCESS & WP:WCAG. I believe Garuda28 said he would support the change, along with Skjoldbro, if the rest of do. I'm also under the impression that doing the images isn't a problem for Skjoldbro, so with that, I would suggest we make the change and move on. Cheers - wolf 05:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- To make it clear, I am not color blind personally (actually, I have excellent ability to distinguish shades). But I do see the green-on-red USMC insignia as problematic for meeting the WP:ACCESS requirements, and think that trying to force a consistency that conflicts with the accessibility policy is unacceptable when a valid alternative is available. The idea of "daily professional business wear" is already not adhered to anyway, as the junior enlisted sailors do not wear service dress blues on a daily basis, and the khaki-shirted service uniform uses collar pins. So I see no reason not to switch as we're already inconsistent. oknazevad (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the consideration Neovu79, but it was no problem. I am actually thinking of improving the red-on-yellow version too, as it looks a bit too bright and the crossed rifles could be improved. Oknazevad As for the use of the enlisted sailors images; it is mostly because if we were to use the "daily professional business wear", half of the senior enlisted would not be represented. Skjoldbro (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- This is true. The use of the blues is fine, I'm not suggesting we change it. The thrust of my point is that we already vary from the idea anyway, so might as well vary in another spot to ensure accessibility. oknazevad (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Good points guys. I would think the most important things is to be consistent within each branch/article. Otherwise, would the average reader even know the difference between the classes of rank insignia? As it stands right now, it appears none of the articles even state which class they are right now. (just my 0.02¢) - wolf 16:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- This is true. The use of the blues is fine, I'm not suggesting we change it. The thrust of my point is that we already vary from the idea anyway, so might as well vary in another spot to ensure accessibility. oknazevad (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the consideration Neovu79, but it was no problem. I am actually thinking of improving the red-on-yellow version too, as it looks a bit too bright and the crossed rifles could be improved. Oknazevad As for the use of the enlisted sailors images; it is mostly because if we were to use the "daily professional business wear", half of the senior enlisted would not be represented. Skjoldbro (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
First Sergeant footnote[edit]
"The Air Force and Space Force do not have separate first sergeant ranks. These special duty ranks are instead positional billets denoted by a diamond within the upper field, and are senior to their non-diamond counterparts. The Army and Marine Corps first sergeants, by comparison, are actual permanent ranks."
This footnote is not correct. For the Army at the very least, First Sergeant is a lateral promotion indicating that a Master Sergeant is serving as the top NCO of a company or equivalent sized organization. Once that role is left, the NCO becomes a Master Sergeant again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonewall072 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Stonewall072: Assuming that a first sergeant is not promoted from one pay grade to the next, do you have a WP:Verifiable source that states that the Army adopts this temporary assignment because the DoD website indicates differently.
- Do not confuse rank with paygrades, such as E-1, W-2 and O-5. Paygrades are administrative classifications used primarily to standardize compensation across the military services. The "E" in E-1 stands for "enlisted" while the "1" indicates the paygrade for that position. The other pay categories are "W" for warrant officers and "O" for commissioned officers. Some enlisted paygrades have two ranks. The Army, for example, has the ranks of corporal and specialist at the paygrade of E-4. A corporal is expected to fill a leadership role and has a higher rank than a specialist, even though both receive E-4 pay. In the Marine Corps, a master gunnery sergeant and a sergeant major are both E-9s, but the sergeant major has the higher rank. Neovu79 (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- While a first sergeant is a positional rank, it's still a rank, and outranks a master sergeant, but I do see what you mean about the use of "permanent ranks" which it is not. It's actually considered a temporary rank, which would make it very similar to Air Force and Space Force first sergeants so I will make the correction. While being reverted back to a master sergeant does happen, if a master sergeant retires and has served a duty as a first sergeant, they are allowed to retire as a first sergeant on their DD 214, unless they opt not to, which is also highly irregular. Neovu79 (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)