Talk:Chief warrant officer

CWO vs. Warrant Officer articles

Why is Chief Warrant Officer (CWO) a separate article covering information already contained within the Warrant Officer article? Not to mention that the term "Chief Warrant Officer" is not exclusive to the Canadian armed forces. (Born2flie 04:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

I have recommended a merge. (Born2flie 05:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC))

I oppose. Please see my comment under Talk:Warrant Officer. --SigPig 11:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

See my response under same. (Born2flie 05:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

Warrant Officer (Canada)

I am informally suggesting that this page, Chief Petty Officer 1st Class, Regimental Sergeant-Major, and Warrant Officer be combined into a single article named Warrant Officer (Canada). ALthough the CPOs are not "called" WOs, they still have the same priveleges and entitlements, and thus would be better covered together. Comments before a formal porposal? - BillCJ 23:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

picture to insignia section

I somehow doubt that the slip-on insigne for a chief warrant officer would feature the text "CADET". Can somebody check the correctness of this please? 85.178.75.53 (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. The rank that is worn by a Chief Warrant Officer in the forces does not have the word 'CADET' under it. The rank shown in the picture is the equivalent rank in the Royal Canadian Air Cadets, but the rank is actually Warrant Officer First Class. The Royal Canadian Army Cadets use the title of Chief Warrant Officer for this rank. Perwisky (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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 23:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chief warrant officer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/resourcelibrary/cyberpioneer/topics/articles/news/2012/jun/29jun12_news2.htmll
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224131743/http://www.dnd.ca/site/acf-apfc/Insig/index-eng.asp to http://www.dnd.ca/site/acf-apfc/Insig/index-eng.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Forms of Address

In the Forms of Address section, this makes no sense: "In the RCN, CWOs are never addressed as "Chief", this being a form of address reserved for chief petty officers." In the RCN, CWOs ARE chief petty officers. Chief petty officers first class, precisely. This statement would be true for the US Armed Forces. Is that where it should be? Venqax (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I think this refers to the not-usual case where an army-uniformed or air force–uniformed CWO is a member of an RCN unit or visiting an RCN unit. Although CWO is completely equivalent to CPO1, sailors would not address the CWO as "Chief", as they use that only for navy-uniformed CPO1 or CPO2. At least that is how I understand the paragraph – I did not write it, and I don't have first-hand knowledge or references. Indefatigable (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Correct. An Army or RCAF CWO visiting (or, more rarely, on the strength of) an RCN establishment or one of HMC Ships will be addressed as "Sir." That said, there are instances where an RCN CPO1 holding a billet in an Army unit will be addressed as "Sir". Most recent example from personal knowledge was at CFRLS when I was posted in in 2016; the school RSM was CPO1 Bolduc, a Navy MP. During his tenure as CFLRS RSM, he was properly addressed as "Sir" by staff and candidates alike.    ¥    Jacky Tar  08:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)