![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Since it was noted that a higher-ranking general is in this list, it would be a misnomer to rename this page for only "lieutenant generals". The minor rename to lowercase "Generals" → "generals" was made as suggested. ( non-admin closure) Rules of enpagement Paine 17:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
List of serving Generals of the Indian Army → List of serving Lieutenant Generals of the Indian Army – The Article must be renamed as List of serving 3-star officers of the Indian Army or List of serving Lieutenant Generals of the Indian Army because the list only contains information about of Lieutenant Generals only. While the present name List of serving Generals of the Indian Army is somewhat confusing. The word Generals may be used for Major Generals, Brigadier Generals, Colonel Generals (not used in India) as well. So I propose to change the name. Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 07:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC) Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 07:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Sam Sailor Talk! 11:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC))
Concern has been expressed about the contents of this article specifically whether the level of detail is appropriate.
(If you are an OTRS agent you can see more information at ticket:2016062710009016)
The question does not appear whether we have a legal right to include information we can find in publicly available sources, but whether inclusion of this information serves an encyclopedic value.
It may be that some of these generals are notable in their own right, and if so an article about them including the rank and command might well be appropriate. However, the possibility that one or more might be notable on their own does not mean a list of serving generals serves a useful purpose.
Can we have a discussion about whether this entire article serves a purpose, and if the answer is yes what level of detail is consistent with an encyclopedia?
I suspect there are too few people watching this page to have a meaningful discussion but I'll start with this note and if discussion is not forthcoming, I'll try to convert this to an RFC. That said, I'm going to specifically ask for input from @ Collect: who has a lot of experience with issues such as this.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 14:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Lt Gen Praveen Bakshi, presently the GOC-in-C of Eastern Command, is tipped to succeed General Dalbir Singh when he retires on 31 December 2016.
Currently, we do not have a page which is a list of the Air Marshals and Vice Admirals in the Indian Air Force and Indian Navy respectively. In my view, instead of creating a separate page for these, we could expand this article to be more inclusive. Moving the resulting page to something like List of serving commanders in the Indian Armed Forces would be more appropriate. @ MBlaze Lightning, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, Zwerubae, and VP101: Thoughts?
Hello, a couple of questions about the organisation of the article 1. Is the Engineer-in-chief a principal staff officer, or a "Heads of Combat & Combat Support Arms" ? Currently, the post and the occupant occurs under both. I think he belongs to the second category, which should be renamed to "Heads of Combat Arms", as all the persons/post relate to the combat arms of the Indian Army. 2. On a similar note, should the Director General, Military Intelligence be moved to the "Heads of Combat Arms" table? How about the Director General, Military Operations? Should there be a separate table for Support arms? 3. I am looking for official definitions. I am relying on template:Indian Army arms and services, which makes absolute sense, but want "official" confirmation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranban282 ( talk • contribs) 07:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't see the need for having these two columns. So many names aren't even properly referenced, and adding these two columns just create empty cells. — Sarvatra ( talk, contribs) 04:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
This page is only for the army right... not tri-service positions. Shouldn't then "Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee" be on the navy and air force list too if it is here? I think the section should just be removed from this page. DiplomatTesterMan ( talk) 06:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
The page is a mix of keeping the rank column merged or not for the same rank. The table for Army Commanders has it merged but the very next does not. I vote to unmerge all of them. ShazamH ( talk) 20:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I'd vote to merge all those tables which "definitely" include Lt. Generals. This would be Army Commanders,Principal Staff officers, and Corps Commanders. I believe they have always been so since independence, or even before. Maybe Tri-service positions could be kept merged as well. Other positions like Chiefs of Staff, Commandants of Military academies, and even DGs, which are occasionally held by 2 star officers could be kept unmerged. Ranban282 ( talk) 08:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Im sorry but you have understood me incorrectly. I meant only the rank column. For example, in the Army Commanders table, Lt General is present only once but the the PSOs table, each row has the rank mentioned. Regarding your proposal, I do not agree. ShazamH ( talk) 08:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
How can you disagree with my proposal if I did not understand you correctly? I understood exactly what you said, hence my proposal. This issue occurred in the Navy admirals page: Chiefs of staffs of commands initially had just one "Vice Admiral". When Southern Naval Command got a Rear Admiral as CoS, Eastern and Western commands had a merged "Vice Admiral", and southern had a Rear Adm. Now, Western's Cos is also a R. Adm, so each row has its own entry. In that page, positions held by R. Adms have been segregated into seperate tables, and further segregation has been done between "regular" and "surgeon" rear & vice adms. What I proposed was to make it consistent with the Navy (and the Air Marshal page), i.e. keep merged entries for posts which are "definitely" 3 star posts, and segregate where different ranks are possible (e.g tri-service positions(Navy) or commandants of institutions in those pages). Additionally I'd recommend that we create a seperate table for "independent" major generals, like the Navy. I wouldn't mind a "sub-merging" either ,like now in the DG Table, (between Lt and Major gens), but it results in more work while editing, if, say, a commandant of a training institute/DG/Area Commander becomes a Maj. Gen, and then later again is a Lt. Gen.
Tbh, I feel a little silly writing all this, as it's a really minor issue. Keep up the good work reg keeping the pages up to date. Ranban282 ( talk) 10:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I misunderstood you this time. I got confused and thought you wanted to seperate tables. Do agree in bringing consistency between the 3 services pages. ShazamH ( talk) 10:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
This page appears to include all 4 star generals, all 3 star generals, and major generals who're heading services/departments, hence it seems to be okay to inclde generals who are heading nursing, postal, military police, human rights etc, who hold the rank of Major General. But why do we include Additional Director General Staff Duties and Additional Director General Administration and Coordination, when they do not appear to head their departments? Rashtriya rifles is also questionable as it has been downgraded from Lt Gen, but could be considered "independent" enough to have an entry.1 Ranban282 ( talk) 08:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you, will affect this change if still needed when I'm able to edit. ShazamH ( talk) 08:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
There is somebody who insists on putting Gen CP Cariappa as a princiapl staff officer. Can someone confirm if Master General Sustenance is a PSO and provice a reference? I read somewhere that the MGS is supposed to report to Deputy Chief (Capability development & sustenance), and it is indeed written in this page.
More confusion: The army website [ [1]] says that MGS is a PSO. However, it also says that it is one of the 8 PSOs. Saying this contradicts itself. Making MGS a PSO would result in 9 PSOs, as it is clear that a VCOAS is a PSO - says so in the article. Ranban282 ( talk) 07:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Since it was noted that a higher-ranking general is in this list, it would be a misnomer to rename this page for only "lieutenant generals". The minor rename to lowercase "Generals" → "generals" was made as suggested. ( non-admin closure) Rules of enpagement Paine 17:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
List of serving Generals of the Indian Army → List of serving Lieutenant Generals of the Indian Army – The Article must be renamed as List of serving 3-star officers of the Indian Army or List of serving Lieutenant Generals of the Indian Army because the list only contains information about of Lieutenant Generals only. While the present name List of serving Generals of the Indian Army is somewhat confusing. The word Generals may be used for Major Generals, Brigadier Generals, Colonel Generals (not used in India) as well. So I propose to change the name. Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 07:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC) Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 07:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Sam Sailor Talk! 11:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC))
Concern has been expressed about the contents of this article specifically whether the level of detail is appropriate.
(If you are an OTRS agent you can see more information at ticket:2016062710009016)
The question does not appear whether we have a legal right to include information we can find in publicly available sources, but whether inclusion of this information serves an encyclopedic value.
It may be that some of these generals are notable in their own right, and if so an article about them including the rank and command might well be appropriate. However, the possibility that one or more might be notable on their own does not mean a list of serving generals serves a useful purpose.
Can we have a discussion about whether this entire article serves a purpose, and if the answer is yes what level of detail is consistent with an encyclopedia?
I suspect there are too few people watching this page to have a meaningful discussion but I'll start with this note and if discussion is not forthcoming, I'll try to convert this to an RFC. That said, I'm going to specifically ask for input from @ Collect: who has a lot of experience with issues such as this.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 14:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Lt Gen Praveen Bakshi, presently the GOC-in-C of Eastern Command, is tipped to succeed General Dalbir Singh when he retires on 31 December 2016.
Currently, we do not have a page which is a list of the Air Marshals and Vice Admirals in the Indian Air Force and Indian Navy respectively. In my view, instead of creating a separate page for these, we could expand this article to be more inclusive. Moving the resulting page to something like List of serving commanders in the Indian Armed Forces would be more appropriate. @ MBlaze Lightning, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, Zwerubae, and VP101: Thoughts?
Hello, a couple of questions about the organisation of the article 1. Is the Engineer-in-chief a principal staff officer, or a "Heads of Combat & Combat Support Arms" ? Currently, the post and the occupant occurs under both. I think he belongs to the second category, which should be renamed to "Heads of Combat Arms", as all the persons/post relate to the combat arms of the Indian Army. 2. On a similar note, should the Director General, Military Intelligence be moved to the "Heads of Combat Arms" table? How about the Director General, Military Operations? Should there be a separate table for Support arms? 3. I am looking for official definitions. I am relying on template:Indian Army arms and services, which makes absolute sense, but want "official" confirmation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranban282 ( talk • contribs) 07:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't see the need for having these two columns. So many names aren't even properly referenced, and adding these two columns just create empty cells. — Sarvatra ( talk, contribs) 04:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
This page is only for the army right... not tri-service positions. Shouldn't then "Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee" be on the navy and air force list too if it is here? I think the section should just be removed from this page. DiplomatTesterMan ( talk) 06:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
The page is a mix of keeping the rank column merged or not for the same rank. The table for Army Commanders has it merged but the very next does not. I vote to unmerge all of them. ShazamH ( talk) 20:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I'd vote to merge all those tables which "definitely" include Lt. Generals. This would be Army Commanders,Principal Staff officers, and Corps Commanders. I believe they have always been so since independence, or even before. Maybe Tri-service positions could be kept merged as well. Other positions like Chiefs of Staff, Commandants of Military academies, and even DGs, which are occasionally held by 2 star officers could be kept unmerged. Ranban282 ( talk) 08:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Im sorry but you have understood me incorrectly. I meant only the rank column. For example, in the Army Commanders table, Lt General is present only once but the the PSOs table, each row has the rank mentioned. Regarding your proposal, I do not agree. ShazamH ( talk) 08:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
How can you disagree with my proposal if I did not understand you correctly? I understood exactly what you said, hence my proposal. This issue occurred in the Navy admirals page: Chiefs of staffs of commands initially had just one "Vice Admiral". When Southern Naval Command got a Rear Admiral as CoS, Eastern and Western commands had a merged "Vice Admiral", and southern had a Rear Adm. Now, Western's Cos is also a R. Adm, so each row has its own entry. In that page, positions held by R. Adms have been segregated into seperate tables, and further segregation has been done between "regular" and "surgeon" rear & vice adms. What I proposed was to make it consistent with the Navy (and the Air Marshal page), i.e. keep merged entries for posts which are "definitely" 3 star posts, and segregate where different ranks are possible (e.g tri-service positions(Navy) or commandants of institutions in those pages). Additionally I'd recommend that we create a seperate table for "independent" major generals, like the Navy. I wouldn't mind a "sub-merging" either ,like now in the DG Table, (between Lt and Major gens), but it results in more work while editing, if, say, a commandant of a training institute/DG/Area Commander becomes a Maj. Gen, and then later again is a Lt. Gen.
Tbh, I feel a little silly writing all this, as it's a really minor issue. Keep up the good work reg keeping the pages up to date. Ranban282 ( talk) 10:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I misunderstood you this time. I got confused and thought you wanted to seperate tables. Do agree in bringing consistency between the 3 services pages. ShazamH ( talk) 10:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
This page appears to include all 4 star generals, all 3 star generals, and major generals who're heading services/departments, hence it seems to be okay to inclde generals who are heading nursing, postal, military police, human rights etc, who hold the rank of Major General. But why do we include Additional Director General Staff Duties and Additional Director General Administration and Coordination, when they do not appear to head their departments? Rashtriya rifles is also questionable as it has been downgraded from Lt Gen, but could be considered "independent" enough to have an entry.1 Ranban282 ( talk) 08:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you, will affect this change if still needed when I'm able to edit. ShazamH ( talk) 08:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
There is somebody who insists on putting Gen CP Cariappa as a princiapl staff officer. Can someone confirm if Master General Sustenance is a PSO and provice a reference? I read somewhere that the MGS is supposed to report to Deputy Chief (Capability development & sustenance), and it is indeed written in this page.
More confusion: The army website [ [1]] says that MGS is a PSO. However, it also says that it is one of the 8 PSOs. Saying this contradicts itself. Making MGS a PSO would result in 9 PSOs, as it is clear that a VCOAS is a PSO - says so in the article. Ranban282 ( talk) 07:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)