This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
A discussion on SS ranks took place at my Talk page a short while ago and could be relevant here: SS ranks. I don't believe I'm alone in finding the obscure paramilitary ranks of Nazi Germany to not be helpful to the general reader, especially when placed in the lead with no context. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 08:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
I don't watchlist your talkpage, chief. Saying "high ranking" also means nothing without context, but it doesn't have a wikilink. Someone might think a Hauptsturmführer was high-ranking because that was an officer rank, others might think it was a shit-kicker that had no say at all in pretty much 9/10ths of bugger all. What does "high ranking" tell you in this context? Nothing. The link to the rank helps people to navigate to information that might help them understand how he fitted into a system. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
That's why I linked to the discussion above :-). Since there's no infobox (where the rank would normally be placed), how about this option diff? K.e.coffman (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
As stated in the article now is sufficient; it needed to be stated somewhere and context was needed. As for the linked discussion, I only agreed at the time, to letting lede sections of certain bio articles be stream-lined for concision reasons as that was the consensus for them (and their rank was listed and linked in the info box) and do not believe that should be the same for major articles of historical importance or for high ranking members. And certainly is should be properly noted for the reader somewhere as the RS sources do. Kierzek (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
