Talk:Staff sergeant major

Plural form

An editor is insisting (five times now) the plural form should be "staff sergeants major" rather than "staff sergeant majors". After the initial round of changes the spelling "staff sergeant majors" was footnoted with sources and an explanation, but the editor continues. Here's the latest edit changing the spelling back and removing t he footnote. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary confirms that the Canadian usage is "staff sergeant majors". Can anyone show that it should be "staff sergeants major"? Meters (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The Canadian usage is something that has puzzled me. The British usage is clearly "sergeant majors" (as I have proved over and over again). The American usage is definitely "sergeants major". The Canadian usage clearly was "sergeant majors", but I don't know if that might have changed in recent years, as many Canadian usages seem to have come more in line with American English and less with British English. The editor who keeps making these changes (and leaving the insulting edit summaries implying that I don't know what I'm talking about and I'm not acquainted with proper English; to quote: "It takes special sort of ignorance to persist after your error has been pointed out. I can never understand why some people are proud of their lack of education.") seems to be British and to have some knowledge of the British Army. Given "sergeants major" hasn't been used in Britain for nearly 200 years (and probably never commonly was), I have no idea why he thinks he's right. The main problem is that he (incorrectly) seems to believe that "major" is an adjective, and that it must therefore be incorrect to pluralise it. I have explained on his talkpage that it is not an adjective; he has, however, chosen to ignore me and the references I have provided and blank his talkpage. He would apparently prefer to just change articles without any discussion at all and leave his little insults. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The edit summary insult was probably intended for me since I was the last one to undo the edit. This is more of a formality in case this has to go to the edit warring forum. The editor blanked the discussion of this and the edit warring notice on his talk page, and restored the edit. So, I've reminded him of WP:BRD and started the discussion. The edit should not go back in without discussion and consensus. My WP:AGF is used up. Meters (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

He's insulted me before, so I suspect it was aimed at me. But whoever it was aimed at, he's clearly not editing in the spirit of Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Three ways to go now, all positive. Leave it alone, discuss it and try for consensus, edit warring board. His choice. Meters (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)