Talk:Regimental sergeant major

Merge

Why should this be merged with Sergeant Major? It's a British and Commonwealth appointment as opposed to an American rank. -- Necrothesp 12:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The target article is not just about the US rank. Instead of having a very short article here, that's never likely to get very much larger, and an even shorter section of the Sergeant Major article dealing with the British (etc) ranks, combining the two would seem pretty sensible. Alai 21:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

There are many variations on the rank/appointment of Sergeant Major. Probably two dozen or more from Britain alone (see Warrant Officer for a non-exhaustive list). A fair few already have articles on Wikipedia. If they were all added to the Sergeant Major article it would end up being pretty long and complex. It would also be very UK-centric, which we usually try to avoid. -- Necrothesp 22:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

That seems a little dubious; there's not so many as to "unbalance" the article, not that's it's really a matter of balance: if there's more to say about the UK ranks, then more should be said. And furthermore, I'm not even suggesting merger of every mention of S-M ranks: just ones that are essentially "orphaned" in very short articles at present. Alai 04:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

That's the key phrase - "at the moment". No reason they won't be expanded later on. You say the article is "never likely to get very much larger". Why do you say that? I suspect it could get much longer. You can never say that about any article. I'm always perplexed by people who seem to think that because an article is short at the moment it will never get any longer. -- Necrothesp 13:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

If, once merged, it gets (greatly) expanded, then naturally it can be split back out. At present, the separation of the articles is serving no real purpose. Just how much is there to say on RSMs, that rises to the level of notability for a general audience? It's hardly just "short at the moment": it's had nearly three years to grow to this highly moderate length, so there's some evidencial basis for my probabilistic statement. Alai 03:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I continue not to agree with you. I don't see the problem with having separate articles, however short they may be at present. -- Necrothesp 15:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Would you be any happier to merge to Warrant Officer, or are you going to argue (or at least, assert) in favour of long-term stand-alone stubs, regardless? (Not that it was even tagged as a stub until recently.) Alai 18:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it's even less appropriately merged with Warrant Officer. And I see absolutely nothing wrong with stubs. What's the problem with them? What harm do they do? Why do you dislike them so much? I think we should be told! Personally, I think it's far more useful to have a specific article, even if it's a stub, than a long rambling general article. -- Necrothesp 22:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Your previous justification was that it had scads of scope for expansion (and wasn't I silly for assuming that it didn't), and now you're in essence saying, it's fine as it is? Can you at least make up your mind if you're defending this on the basis of being an article of adequate size on such a narrow topic that this is a reasonable treatment of it; or, of being a significant topic, in need of expansion?

Stubs are pretty much by definition unsatisfactory: that's the whole point of tagging them as such. Very narrow topics are similarly not ideal, partly as they create lots of little navigational dead ends for a modest amount of information that might as will have been included in some natural larger context, and would be more meaningful and readable in that context. (If it's any comfort, I've had the opposite argument with people who think that the 32K upper "limit" is far too low, and the reader ought to be subjected to 70K screeds without relief of clicking between sub-articles.) Alai 22:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying it could be expanded, it probably will be expanded in time (I may even do it myself, given the inclination, which I don't currently have), but it's fine as it is for the moment. Unlike you, apparently, I really don't have a problem with stubs. They don't bother me. I'd rather have them than rambling generic articles that would be better off as separate articles (like this one). Simple. It's a difference of opinion. You don't like stubs; I'm perfectly happy with them. -- Necrothesp 00:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not grasping the distinction you're making between arguing "it's fine" and "not having a problem with", then. There seems to be a pretty widespread recognition that very short articles or minor topics are not an optimal organisation of material -- why else the whole concept of tagging things as stubs, and the popularity of "merge and redirect" as an AfD verdict? (And strictly hypothetically, what do you suppose would happen were this to be so-listed, for some reason?) And rather than telling me how "bothered" I seem to be with stubs in general (which seems, to say the least, to be beyond the scope of this discussion page) can we concentrate on what the best way to present this info here is? Alai 02:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

To quote from Wikipedia:Stub, "The community believes that stubs are far from worthless. They are, rather, the first step articles take on their course to becoming complete." That doesn't sound to me as though "There seems to be a pretty widespread recognition that very short articles or minor topics are not an optimal organisation of material" at all. The point of marking articles as stubs is not to see what can be deleted/merged, but to alert people that these are articles that it would be nice to have expanded. I think you're arguing your own point of view, not any sort of consensus. And, as I would have thought is fairly obvious, my opinion on the best way to present this information is the way it's already presented! And, strictly hypothetically, if it were listed on AfD I suspect it would be kept as is, since it's a perfectly valid topic for an article. -- Necrothesp 10:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

If you've actually read that page in order to quote quite so selectively from it, I needn't bother with the numerous quotes backing up "sub-optimal". I'm not arguing for it to be deleted, and I've never represented stub-tagging as being a means of doing that. AfD-tagging would be the means of doing that, methinks. I'm arguing for it to be merged, and, well, that's why I merge-tagged it (and stub-tagged it to hedge my bets, lest there be some confusion as to the sequence of events here). My point is that this is a very short article that's clearly in no hurry to expand, it's a subsidiary topic with a larger article that covers some of the same ground, and which could easily absorb the same material. That's far from arguing that it's "worthless", or that it's incapable of being expanded.

I'm mystified what you think my "point of view" here is. I've stub-tagged or stub-sorted about I-hate-to-think-how-many articles, and the number that I've argued to be merged (or indeed deleted) is pretty darn small. Doesn't it seem possible I'm arguing from what seems to me to be organisational logic in this case, rather than some sort of crypto-deletionist agenda? Alai 04:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

As Necrothesp says, Sergeant Major should not be merged with Regimental Sergeant Major, as they are two separate things. A Sergeant Major in the USMC is a rank, whilst a Regimental Sergeant Major in the Commonwealth and British Forces is a WO1 who holds the appointment of RSM. Furthermore, RSMs are never called 'Sergeant Major', so I think it would be entirely inappropriate to list them as such on Wikipedia. I think the explanation of the distinctions between the two under the UK heading for Sergeant Major is enough to clarify this fact, and that Regimental Sergeant Major should be left alone amongst. Also, why does it matter if the RSM article is short? Shouldn't an article's length be determined by the amount of information that exists on the topic, as opposed to its relative size? Opiniastrous 09:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, O., you've saved me a trip to WP:3O, if that's the link I'm looking for; we seemed to be going slightly around in circles for some time, there. I'm not for a moment suggesting that a US Army or USMC S-M is the "same thing" as an RSM: simply that the article Sergeant Major has a scope that explicitly includes both these usages (and others). That in the modern British Army it, and the other S-M titles, are appointments, are more senior, and have different associated customs to the US ranks, etc, doesn't in the least alter that they have a common origin, both historically and etymologically; and that someone looking for information on "British Sergeant Majors" is very likely actually looking for either this page, and/or that for CSM, and we're hardly facilitating them finding it in any efficient manner, or optimising the readability of the material as a whole.

The article's length shouldn't be determined by its size? Your point eludes me somewhat. :) My argument is essentially just this: very short articles that show little signs of growth (and three years is "little sign", no?) are in effect hazards to navigation. If one clicks on half a dozen different links from Warrant Officer (not even counting the red ones), one will actually not have learned all that much. There are any number of minor, closely related topics that are being spread out over a large number of stubs. Is there any reorganisation or consolidation of these that's not going to get poo-poo'd in "fine as they are" terms? Alai 23:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Clearly my point needs a bit more explanation. What I'm saying is that some things (such as RSM) can be written about with less words than say, Sergeant Major. However, just because RSM is small in comparison to SM doesn't mean that it is any less complete, or any less deserving of its own article - after all, it is something entirely different. I understand your point - an excessive number of minor and closely related articles can make it difficult to find good information in one central location. However, I believe that a small article shouldn't be merged with another just because it is small (as I thought you were saying). After all, if some topics that have important distinguishing factors are merged, then those factors may become blurred or the combined article may become cluttered. Opiniastrous 16:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean, that it's an "inherently smaller topic". I agree, that's not a reason as such for it not being an article: not all topics have to be "equally sized", nor all pages. I do think there are desirable bounds, though, if somewhat inexact ones. I don't think though that it is something "entirely different" from sergeant major (in the general sense), though. And historically, one could argue that RSM is much closer to the original s-m than are the US versions. There's enough here now that I think it's only increasingly borderline mergeable into either that article or the warrant officer one (and there's partly the difficulty that it in different respects would need to be part-merged into both). I still think it is somewhat 'bitty', though, and consolidation in a broader context of either "British WO1 appointments", or of "British usages of the term 'sergeant major'" would be preferable. Alai 00:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Would anyone like to tell an RSM who reads this that it should not be a seperate article?

Though in the meantime, move?

Come to that, why's this at Rsm, rather than RSM? There seem to be more links to the redirect, and surely capitalised is more correct, it being a title of an appointment, rather than a description. As there only seems to be the two of us "here", and the redirect is history-free, then if by any wild mischance we agree on this, we can do this non-admin-assisted. Alai 03:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It used to be capitalised. Somebody renamed it because they didn't like capitalisation. It's never been moved back. Fine by me if it is. -- Necrothesp 09:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. Alai 04:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

RSM-A

This rank is exclusively Australian, right? Or it's a new one on me if the UK and other C/w countries have it, not that that would be a major shock... The addition could be clearer on this point, at any rate. Alai 23:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's only Australian. It's certainly not used in Britain. -- Necrothesp 22:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, was pretty sure that was the case. To digress shamelessly, it's a very strange-sounding title. Regimental S-M, of the Army? I might even go so far as to say the US Army's equivalent is more logical... I suppose they've ended up with it as "Sergeant Major of the Army" might be thought to not be clearly step up from RSM, whereas "Army Sergeant Major" doesn't sound quite right, either. (Aren't they all?) But then, redesigning the .au army's rank structure's a little above my pay grade. Alai 03:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you must be right. Having looked around a bit more, it seems RSM-A is only in the Australian Army, and it's a new as well - the first RSM-A was appointed in Jan 1983. I've made a separate section for RSM-A in Regimental Sergeant Major to reflect this unique appointment. I think it also gives the article some more substance Opiniastrous 13:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The rank is 'Warrant Officer' (WO). The appointment is RSM-A - see the article 'The Three Warrants' at http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1087/topstories/story16.htm [User: LONDON 11.11.05]

My bad on "rank", I'd have guessed on the existing pattern it was technically an appointment had I stopped and thought about it. Alai 05:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Many Commonwealth Armies have followed the US example in appointing senior enlisted advisers e.g.New Zealand, Canada and Singapore all now have equivalents to the RSM-A. The British Army appears to be the exception LONDON 13:10, 24 December 2005

Commonwealth-US Splits

There are differences such as these that crop up on almost every rank page. Regimental Sergeant Major is a billet in the United States Marine Corps as well, but it would never be held by a Warrant Officer. It is an enlisted billet. I think that a good idea for the Wiki Military Project would be to come up with a standard way of organizing these articles. If this article were titled "Commonwealth Regimental Sergeant Major" the dispute would be ended. Another article on US Marine Corp Regemental Sergeants Major could be created if it is felt that there is enough information there or a redirect to Sergeant Major could be placed. The subtle differences that we are trying to make between the organization of the different militaries will be missed by non-military personnel using Wikipedia for research and that is for whom these article should be written.--Counsel 18:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There's the confusion that comes from the US way of doing things. Speaking as a Canadian (I can't speak to the rest of the Commonwealth), Warrant Officers, Master Warrant Officers, and Chief Warrant Officers are not classified as a seperate category of soldier. They are senior NCOs. As, well, I must stress that the various sergeant major positions are assignments, not a rank.

Sorry to be pedantic, but WOs, MWOs, and CWOs are not senior NCOs, or NCOs at all. Only Sergeants and Petty Officers 2nd Class are Senior NCOs. WOs, MWOs, and CWOs (along with Petty Officers 1st Class and all Chief Petty Officers) are classed collectively as Warrant Officers. True, they are not separated into a separate group between E-grade enlisteds and O-grade officers, but they ain't NCOs. Perhaps you mean the term "NCM" (non-commissioned member) which is what the CF calls "enlisted" (US) or "other ranks" (UK).

And as a friendly reminder, don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 06:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How to address an RSM

The RSM is never addressed as "Sergeant Major" (except in the Coldstream Guards[1]). Hmmm. This is what the link actually says: The Regimental Sergeant Major is always referred to as Sergeant Major and never as RSM [strong emphasis added]. "Referred to" is not the same as "addressed". This is an example of the innate conservatism of Guards regiments: before WWI, no infantry regiment had Company Sergeant Majors, so the battalion's senior NCO was simply the Sergeant Major; the Coldstream (and other Guards regiments?) maintain that tradition. I suspect any Guardsman foolish enough to address his RSM as "Sergeant Major" rather than "Mr ..., sir" would live to regret it. — Franey 21:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Actualy, I believe he might not live so long. :)

The edit was mine: I misread what the link said. Not being familiar with Coldstream Guards, it did not immediately ring a bell that I was misreading it; after all, the Household Cavalry call their sergeants "corporal" -- try that with a three-stripey in any other outfit! I stopped trying to understand military traditions when I saw sailors pulling an officer around on a trailer-mounted rowboat in a drill hall. So, g'head, change it back, if you get to it before I do. SigPig 21:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they call them "Corporal of Horse" - only Lance-Corporals of Horse (who are actually equivalent to Corporals in other regiments) and Lance-Corporals are addressed as "Corporal". Staff Corporals (Staff Sergeants) are addressed as "Corporal-Major". The British Army aims to confuse ;) -- Necrothesp 16:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a familiar pattern in many armed forces (and indeed, otherwise): customs are contradictory and confusing; people failing to adhere to the customs will be firmly disapprobriated; have a nice day. :) Alai 18:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

So, just thinking aloud here... How does the LtCol of the Coldstream Guards address his (R)SM, then? Alai 15:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sarn't Major!--LONDON 08:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that only the CO of a regiment could address the RSM as "RSM", it is Mr/Mrs/Miss X for other officers and Sir/Ma'am for subordinates.Jellyfish dave (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge tag

Why don't we move this article to RSM(UK) and remove the merge tag? If someone is really concerned that people would get lost looking for the articles, a disambiguation page on Sergeants Major could be created.--Counsel 04:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to move it to RSM (UK), since the UK/Commonwealth (more than just UK) meaning is the common meaning. Which is why I've moved it back. There is now a Sergeant Major (disambiguation) page. -- Necrothesp 13:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

looks good.--Counsel 15:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Necrothesp, you said, "As for adding "UK" after the RSM and CSM pages, the same applies - the UK/Commonwealth terms are by far the most common definitions of these terms and should be the default." I think that the link at the top of the article to the disambig is fine and should work, but I do not agree that the commonwealth def of RSM is by far the most common. The US Marine Corps uses the term as well. The US Marine Corps is 174,000 strong while the entire British Army is around 100,000. This leaves out the various US Army Regiments. Perhaps total numbers are not the best measure for use of the word, and perhaps when the numbers of commonwealth countries are factored in there would be a different result. What the actual numbers are is not the point. I do think that the military pages seem to face a regular problem with editors assuming that their personal military experience reflects the wider world. I am sure that the meaning of RSM as reflected on the page is by far the most common meaning in the UK, but I am unconvinced that it is by far the most common meaninig that Wikipedia readers will be looking for. That said, I think we have spent far too much time on this when all the merge tags and moves are considered. The disambig as Necorthesp has established should work just fine. Lets all just try to keep an open mind to the possibility that our experience is not universal and no one group has ownership of any wikipedia article.--Counsel 16:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware that individual experiences do not necessarily reflect the wider world and I would agree with you that many military pages do have a problem with this (usually with too great an emphasis on American, British and/or Canadian usage), but as you say, in this case most Commonwealth countries also use the term. That brings the total of troops in armies that use RSMs to well over the 174,000 in the USMC. This surely does reflect the wider world. Also remember that historically the British Army was much, much larger and Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of history as well as the present day. I really do believe that most people in the English-speaking world who associate anything with the term Regimental Sergeant Major would associate it with the British model; this is not just because I'm British myself - I've read things written by Americans which suggest that even many of them associate the term with the British Army. I honestly don't think many people unconnected with the USMC would associate the term with the USMC at all.

The point is also that there is only one article entitled Regimental Sergeant Major (this one), which includes a single line on the USMC RSM, so it hardly seems necessary to designate this article with an inaccurate (since it's not just used in the UK) geographical term unless there are going to be many individual articles about RSMs in different countries springing up, which does seem rather unlikely. -- Necrothesp 17:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank goodness US forces do not have Company Sergeants Major!! :)--Counsel 17:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Plurals

Note that in the British Armed Forces the plural is "sergeant majors" and not "sergeants major". That would assume that a sergeant major is a sergeant and "major" is simply a modifier. However, in Britain this is not the case. The sergeant major is a warrant officer, not a senior sergeant, and the rank or appointment is entirely separate from that of sergeant. For an illustration of official British usage see the very bottom of this page of the London Gazette. And it isn't a new usage either: see this page from 1881. The earliest usage of "sergeant majors" in The Times is in 1822. The last of the (very occasional) usages of "sergeants major", except when referring to American NCOs, is in 1938. I'm not sure of the practice in the rest of the Commonwealth, although it was certainly identical to the British practice up to and during World War II. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not correct, and I've removed the inaccurate footnote from the article. The footnote cites two London Gazette examples: 16 April 1981 and 2 December 1881. Those can establish that sergeant majors occurs. They cannot establish that it is the only British plural, that sergeants major is not British usage, or that the last non-American use in The Times occurred in 1938. More fundamentally, even if the claim about The Times were accurate, it would establish only that the editor did not find later examples in that particular newspaper search. It could not justify a categorical claim about usage throughout the United Kingdom. It's also demonstrably inaccurate in modern, post-1938 British military usage, *including by a sitting Regimental Sergeant Major in a speech to the Army Staff College*.

Examples:

• RSM JC Lord speech to Army Staff College, 1963: In the opening sentence: "There seems to be a great deal of confusion, doubt and uncertainty in the minds of many soldiers, whether they be officers, sergeants major or sergeants, about some of the age old and important topics such as discipline and leadership."; and again later "There you see why we stern sergeants major, the purveyors of the orders of the commanding officers, are so insistent that the orders, once issued, are intelligently obeyed to the letter." and again "In all this training, of course, we have the sergeants major and the sergeants." and again "In all these ranks, whether they are regimental sergeants major, company sergeants major, colour sergeants or sergeants, we have this one word which is common to all: sergeant, which is derived from the word “to serve”." (also reprinted in this book).
• The Royal British Legion, Hampshire (the Hampshire Link) 2022: from a currently operating British veterans organization's own guide to ranks, "Warrant Officers are also known as Sergeants Major (not Sergeant Majors)." (and noting that this is a Commonwealth tradition)
• In testimony to Parliament, 1978: "But every captain that I have ever met has always been the first to pay tribute to the fact that he runs his unit on the competence of his NCOs, his sergeants and sergeants-major."
• Accounts from the Falklands, not sure the exact date: "By the time we actually sailed, on 26 April, we didn't really need the twice daily seasick pills to sedate the battalion whilst the ship settled into its routine, but the sergeants-major ensured compliance anyway."
• The Annual Convention of Regimental Sergeants Major of the Parachute Regiment, 1982, 1983, and 1984.
• Commons "It is extraordinary how many formerly terrifying sergeants major or generals seem to be somewhat more friendly shortly before kick-off—I am sure it has absolutely nothing to do with extremely generous sponsorship of Pimm’s, Greene King or any of the other suppliers who ensure those events go with the passion and drive hon. Members would anticipate. (note: from Tom Tugendhat, himself a former military officer).

Here are examples of additional official usage dating between 1938 all the way back to the mid 1800's:

• Hansard, “Army Promotion”, 1 March 1855: uses “sergeants major”.
• Hansard, “Papers Moved For” (Colonel Crawley case), 15 March 1864: uses “Sergeants Major” numerous times, including in documentation of official orders.
• Hansard, “Army Auxiliary Forces—Sergeants Major of Volunteers”, 18 March 1886.
• Hansard, “Militia”, 3 August 1888: "asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether there are several Militia Battalions in England and Ireland without Sergeants Major; and, whether he intends to take any steps regarding the appointment of Sergeants Major, Paymaster Sergeants, and Orderly Room Clerks, or whether he intends to abolish any of these offices? (with the Secretary of State responding using the same terminology).
• Hansard, “Volunteer Sergeants Major”, 17 February 1902.
• sitting of 1 June 1908: “Territorial Sergeants-Major and Sergeant-Instructors”.
• Hansard, “Regimental Sergeants-Major”, 9 March 1911 both the official heading and the question use “regimental sergeants-major”.
• Hansard, “Royal Marines (Gunnery Sergeants-Major)”, 19 February 1912.

I think it's pretty conclusive that the term has always been an accepted alternative usage in the U.K. I'm not suggesting it's primary or even on parity, but it's unquestionably in use (including official usage). The statement that was footnoted to like a dozen different articles said categorically that it has never been used since 1938 outside of references to Americans is just flat wrong, and the statement that "the plural is "sergeant majors" and not "sergeants major"" is both demonstrably false, AND could never have been supported by the sources used anyway. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:59, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

With the greatest respect to MPs and RSMs, we can find better sources than their speeches. Queen's Regulations uses 'sergeant majors' four times and does not use 'sergeants major' once. Army Dress Regulations has 'sergeant majors' twice and no reference to 'sergeants major'. The historian Major Nicolas Dawnay, an authority of these sort of tedious details, also has 'sergeant majors'. Dgp4004 (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

That may be -- as I noted, I'm not claiming the usages are in parity, simply that the statement that the "sergeants major" variant is not used is untrue. Moreover, I'm not particularly sure that these sources are any "better" as the term matters for purposes such as WP:BESTSOURCES. They're not necessarily more authoritative (certainly not more authoritative than a sitting individual holding the rank itself), nor are they independent. So I'd put all of these sources as being equivalent in quality. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:18, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I could not disagree with you more. All of the sources I provided are official plus a British military historian. And Queen's Regulations are as authoritative as you can get. Here are some more, for what it is worth:

• https://www.army.mod.uk/news/regimental-sergeant-majors-convention-building-international-partnerships/
• https://www.army.mod.uk/learn-and-explore/ranks/

You cannot seriously compare The Royal British Legion's Hampshire branch webpage with Queen's Regulations or a couple of random Hansard entries with the British Army's own website.

If I can find a couple of random American military men online using 'sergeant majors', I wouldn't use it as evidence that either spelling goes. Dgp4004 (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

So a quick Google search has thrown up quite a few examples of 'sergeant majors' in US usage. This US Government publication called The Sergeants Major of the Army uses 'sergeant majors' a couple of times in the text:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-D114-PURL-gpo42001/pdf/GOVPUB-D114-PURL-gpo42001.pdf

And this guide to American military ranks uses it too:

https://www.military.com/army/ranks&ved=2ahUKEwiChMm3z9-VAxWiVUEAHT2NIncQFnoECEoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1iFeQ7cy9R4M9BQXyB1ECN

Do you think these are mistakes? Dgp4004 (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I absolutely can, yes. I've given you multiple usages in Parliament, including recordings of usage in official orders, usage by a sitting RSM, to an audience of senior military officers, usage by the Secretary of State for War, and usage by multiple active veterans associations. So no, I do not agree that your sources are any more authoritative -- but as I distinctly mentioned, for the *specific purpose* of WP:BESTSOURCES as our project's defines them, these are all roughly equivalent (remember -- independent sources are "better" under this regard, which is why the Regulations are not technically a "best source" here). These are not "random military men online" and it's disingenuous to compare it as such. Nor is it helpful to compare with obvious typos as you have, when the examples I've provided include repeated usage within the same document, and in one case (the Warrant Officers one) definitively and explicitly stating that the method currently used in the article is incorrect. So yes. And again, I'm not purporting that these are in parity in terms of usage -- just that it is undeniable that there is in fact systemic and formal usage of the term widely throughout all levels of the military, veterans associations, and the government, dating back 150 years, and that the footnotes that were placed in these articles have been wildly incorrect (as well as failing WP:V) for in some cases over a decade. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:10, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I will leave it to other editors to weigh your frankly absurd claim that the RBL Hampshire website is a *better source* than Queen's Regulations because it is independent. Gave me a good chuckle, I'm sure the boys at RBL Hampshire will enjoy it too.

Had you simply removed the notes or, better yet, sought a better source for the use of 'sergeant majors' then I would not have gone to such lengths to challenge you and I have not reinserted the notes. You were quite right that its sources did not back up all of its claims. But you then decided to change Canadian usage to 'sergeants major' with no basis whatever and have left all plurals references as 'sergeants major'. Yet call me disingenuous... Dgp4004 (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Please assume good faith -- that was a simple mistake (I was confused about which section I was in) which you corrected, and there is nothing to discuss about it, it wasn't supposed to be there in the first place. And since you admit my substantive edits removing the notes were correct, I'm not sure what you're so spun up about. Doesn't sound like we have anything further to discuss. Bless your heart. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:03, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your blessing.

How do you feel about a simpler statement where pertinent? I do not think it necessary on every article where the previous note was removed as the plural term is not even used in most of them. But the plural is used extensively on the Sergeant major article so it may be relevant there.

Something like:

In the plural, modern practice by the British Ministry of Defence is to use the term 'sergeant majors' rather than 'sergeants major'.

I am also minded to change the 'sergeants major' term in the Commonwealth section to the more commonly used and officially sanctioned 'sergeant majors', if you have no objection to that?

At some point, I may also add a sentence on the historic British 'serjeant-major' spelling with a j and a hyphen. But we can save that up as a treat for another day. Dgp4004 (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

In relation to the above, this may be of interest also from the Australian Army's publication, The Cove:

So, Sergeant Majors or Sergeants Major? Despite being a postpositive pair (noun-adjective), The Cove has found that the approved pluralisation in British tradition is Sergeant Majors.

Dgp4004 (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Seems like the determining factor would be less "where pertinent" and more "where sourceable", and then as a secondary question "how many" (insofar as that leads to "would it be more appropriate to have individual ones for each country or a single note with multiple countries merged into it"). NPOV does of course require us to acknowledge alternative views, so the wording would need to acknowledge that an alternative is used (though we can qualify that if appropriate). I agree that it would make more sense on the main Sergeant major article, where it could be explored in greater depth. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:19, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I will widen this out to other editors as I suspect we are going to have irreconcilable differences on this if we cannot even agree on that very restricted statement, and there's no point in us going round and round. Dgp4004 (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

What is it that you believe we don't agree on? I just agreed with you on the appropriate location and that additional noting could be important. I simply asked that you do so in compliance with our WP:NPOV and WP:V policy. Why does that seem like an "irreconcilable difference" for you to be asked to follow our basic content pillars? They are not optional. If you want to make a claim, it needs to be directly verifiable to a reliable source without requiring synthesis to get there (hence why I state that sourcability is the more determinant factor -- if the sources don't exist, it doesn't matter how pertinent the information is.) ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I made a reasonable proposal backed by two sources and you appeared to suggest that the sourcing is not satisfactory. Perhaps I misunderstood you. Our fundamental difference is about sources, as we have established above. I have merely sought to bring in more editors to help establish a firmer consensus.

Also, please stop saying that I 'admitted' this, that and the other. I 'agreed' with you. Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative; consensus is good, and it is not about winning arguments. I am not on trial and I have not 'admitted' anything. As an administrator, you should know better. Dgp4004 (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually I think I misunderstood you -- I took your wording to be asking about whether I thought there was a general need for something along the lines of what you wrote (using some to-be-supplied-in-the-future source), not a specific proposal to implement that exact language with those exact sources. The problem is that both the sources you have, while fine, establish usage in those specific instances -- but neither explicitly states *standard practice*. A source like The Cove one you had for Australia, which directly speaks to tradition (but, for Britain instead), is what we'd need to support the note as you wrote it (Actually no, The Cove link is no good either, it is a WP:CITOGENESIS circular link back to Wikipedia, as it links to the now-removed footnote as its source for "British tradition". But it would have been, if it were sourced independently.) For instance, the Collins Dictionary entry for "Sergeant major" in general notes "Sergeant Majors" as the plural but doesn't distinguish which form of English; their entry for American English explicitly notes "Sergeants major" as the plural there; however the same entry for British English does not indicate any plural form at all -- if it had, that would have worked. I searched for almost an hour and found nothing directly on point. The closest thing I was able to find was to a direct statement was the Rank Structure link you gave for the first citation. So, to me, that strongly suggests that the claim is not verifiable as written, but needs to be wordsmithed to match what the Rank Structure page supports. So as a compromise would "In the plural, modern practice by the British Ministry of Defence uses the term 'sergeant majors'" be acceptable?" That is an accurate statement that is verified by the Rank Structure link that can be independently true *without* needing to extend the claim to say that other examples are incorrect or out of practice without sourcing that state they are. And I would recommend adding this as an additional source: Weiner, E. S. C.; Delahunty, Andrew (1993). "1.39, Plural formation". The Oxford Guide to English Usage (2nd, revised ed.). Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-863137-8. But brigadier-generals, lieutenant-colonels, sergeant-majors.. Since it *can* as a source speak to standard practice (and explicitly does so, noting departures and Americanisms as exceptions to standard form), the usage here as a standard plural formation in British English could support the compromise text I suggested in addition to the Rank Structure source already given.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:09, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

That second source is a great find. Well done and thank you for taking the time. Archive link below for verification:

https://archive.org/details/oxfordguidetoeng0000escw_v7v7/page/41/mode/1up

@Necrothesp, how do you feel about the below more restricted statement:

"In the plural, modern practice by the British Ministry of Defence uses the term 'sergeant majors'"

The Oxford Guide source might perhaps allow a broader statement on 'modern British practice' as opposed to just the Ministry of Defence, but it would also likely need a caveat that some do depart from that, rightly or wrongly. I looked up the Parliament TV clip for Tom Tugendhat's speech in Hansard just in case they edited his words. He did indeed say 'sergeants major'.

https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/53f4def8-62a7-476e-b721-1ea61739e01a?in=13:13:40 Dgp4004 (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

That's fine by me. As I said, my only object was to stem the tide of American editors insisting that the British pluralisation was a typo. Incidentally, according to the OED the term "sergeant-majors" was used in King's Regulations as far back as 1837 and there are also quotes using this pluralisation from 1642 and 1683. No examples of the other pluralisation are given. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, you mean the MoD claim or the wider claim? Just to be clear.

That's great news, the system works :D The discussion has probably been too heated at times and I apologise for my part in that. Who would have thought grammar could be so stimulating and tedious at the same time? Thanks both. Dgp4004 (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

The MOD claim is fine for the time being. Let's see how it goes and how often we have to revert! For the record, I don't think you have anything to apologise for. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Glad we all got to a place we're happy with. My apologies for my role in heating things up as well. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:23, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

FYI both, I have added the agreed sentence and refs to the sergeant major article. I have also added a hidden note to only those articles which use the plural term where well-meaning editors might attempt to correct it, including:

• Corps Regimental Sergeant Major#List of Royal Marines Corps Regimental Sergeant Majors
• Troop sergeant major#Troop sergeant majors in the cavalry
• Academy sergeant major#List of academy sergeant majors

But if you have any objections, please do let me know. Dgp4004 (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

No objections, but you might consider swapping the invisible note for an efn? In my experience, invisible comments aren't super useful for dealing with editors not paying attention/not taking due care since they're the exact audience who won't read them anyway, and they tend to work better when they can be in the format of a direct-to-user-imperative ("Hey you, don't write this.") ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

As I added the note to the articles, I clearly agree that "sergeant majors" is the very clear normal term in British English. Not only is it the clearly favoured term in official sources, which have been cited, but in all my years as a military historian I have never seen or heard anyone in the British armed forces use the term "sergeants major". It's just not done. And for the reasons I have stated – a sergeant major is not a senior sergeant with a modified title (like a staff sergeant), but a warrant officer holding an appointment separate from that of sergeant. "Major" is not a modifier of "sergeant", so the whole title is pluralised. This is, incidentally, the same reason that we in Britain have Lord Chief Justices and not Lords Chief Justice – it's the whole title that's plural, not just the first word. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I would also add that the reason I added the note in the first place was to try to prevent American editors from changing "sergeant majors" to "sergeants major" by explaining that this was the usual British pluralisation and not an error as they appeared to believe. It doesn't always work, but the rationale is there for it to be changed back. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Come on -- you've been doing this long enough to know that "I never heard it" isn't the bar we use when it comes to sourcing and verifiability here -- the notes in question were partially unsourced and as I told you the first time I tried to remove it, the sources did not nor could not verify the claims that they made. Even Dgp4004 agrees and admitted that they didn't. There are ways to express that "this is not a typo" vs. making a categorically incorrect statement of "nobody has ever said this in nearly a century because I've never heard it used". Well, now you have -- I've given over a dozen examples ranging from a sitting RSM to the Secretary of State for War. Please stop re-adding an incorrect note. I've reverted it *again*. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

So, you think a few old references are a justification for you to unilaterally remove this note from all the relevant articles without any wider discussion? And then have the gall to accuse me on my talkpage of acting incorrectly? And then remove the notes again, still without wider discussion. What exactly is your problem with the note, which was sourced and entirely accurate? I can assure you that we do not say "sergeants major" in the UK. It looks bizarre in British English. Therefore articles written in British English should not use it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

For reference, this was the note you removed: In the British Armed Forces the plural is "regimental sergeant majors" and not "regimental sergeants major" – the earliest usage of "sergeant majors" in The Times was in 1822, and the last of the (very occasional) usages of "sergeants major", except when referring to American NCOs, was in 1938. Where's the "partial unsourcing" there? I have stated my sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Any content that fails verification may be removed at any time. That does not require pre-discussion. That's a core content policy. Your note was sourced to something that did not verify the statement being made. (The two London Gazette links) That is the same as being unsourced, because all sources must directly support the claims being made. I don't know how to explain it to you any simpler than that. This is a foundational core content policy pillar that you're seemingly astonishingly unfamiliar with. And your note was not accurate. To wit, your note claims "The last of the (very occasional) usages of "sergeants major", except when referring to American NCOs, is in 1938" -- demonstrably that is not true, I've given a half-dozen post-1938 uses on this talk page in this very discussion. Have you even bothered to review those sources, or are you still just operating from what you *think* you know? Further, the part about the earliest and last usage has no citation at all. And neither of your sources could possibly substantiate any claim of lack of usage after 1981. What part about this is difficult? Show me where in those London Gazette sources it states that today, in 2026, the terminology is not used. I'll wait. Additionally, is the footnote purporting to speak for the usage in ALL contexts? Or just in The Times? Because the latter is wholly UNDUE and irrelevant to the term's usage at large, which is what the article is discussing (not the usage in The Times specifically) -- and the former certainly cannot be substantiated by the source at all. If we're going by Gazette as a source, here's a 1955 Edinburgh Gazette] usage of "Sergeants major", not in the context of American NCOs. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:01, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know how to explain it to you any simpler than that. This is a foundational core content policy pillar that you're seemingly astonishingly unfamiliar with. I have pointed out to you before how patronising you sound, and yet here you go again. To wit, your note claims "The last of the (very occasional) usages of "sergeants major", except when referring to American NCOs, is in 1938" -- demonstrably that is not true, I've given a half-dozen post-1938 uses on this talk page in this very discussion. I think you probably need to re-read what I actually wrote before going off on one! Were any of your citations from The Times? No? Then what I wrote is entirely accurate. I have stated that the note was added in an attempt to end the unnecessary "correcting" of the term, which was getting irritating. No other reason. What part about this is difficult? Yet for some bizarre reason you seem to have taken offence at it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Regimental Sergeant Majors' Convention: building international partnerships, British Army, 20 May 2026. I don't the British Army will be using therm wrong. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 22:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  It's not at question whether "Sergeant Majors" is the primary usage, and nobody's suggesting the British Army is using the term wrong. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:32, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Then what is it a question of? British usage is "sergeant majors" and the term should not be corrected in British English articles to "sergeants major". That is all anyone here is saying. Yet all you have done is insulted, patronised and insisted you're right and that anyone who says anything different is wrong. Except for getting other editors' backs up, what exactly are you hoping to achieve? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2026 (UTC)