Talk:Ensign (rank)

U.S. Ensigns

Sorry, but a DIVO is never "under" the guidance of a Chief.

I find the tone of the article to be patronizing. DIVOs have real responsibilities and are not just engaged in "training."

I have changed the pun on "Mister Rogers". It was irrelevent to the topic, unnecessary and did not fit the tone of the article. 71.76.235.136 (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Vega

I modified the description of Ensigns as division officers. As noted above, the description seemed to be somewhat condescending and implied that the division officer billets filled by ensigns were lacking in real responsibility and were primarily for training purposes. I have chosen to modify it in such a way as to remove this grossly inaccurate description of an Ensign's responsibilities while still retaining a description of the important training that also occurs with the help of more knowledgeable officers and enlisted service members. The original description also implied that all Ensigns end up as division officers at the same time, which is not true. Pilots will practically never end up on a ship as an Ensign, much less serve as a divisions officer as an Ensign, due to their extensive flight school training while Surface Warfare Ensigns currently receive no training, go straight to ships, and will almost always take charge of a division shortly thereafter. If anyone feels the need to revert my changes, please discuss your reasons here. (Sonlee (talk) 11:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC))

divo training

Surface warfare officers now go directly to their ships as divisions officers, at least from NROTC commisionings. They do not go to surface warfare school first--there is no 1 or 2 year delay from commissioning to division officer (aviators and submariners still go to flight school and power school first, respectivley)

Uh, why do the US Navy Rank Chart and US Military Pay Grade Chart not line up on whether or not LTJG is )-2 or not? 74.69.21.12 19:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

ALL submariners go to submarine school in New London, Connecticut, and what makes you think that they wouldn't? That is where everyone learns the basic submariner's survivor skills, officer or enlisted man!

The U.S. Coast Guard has ensigns, too, and the Coast Guard makes its own rules that do not necessarily align with the U.S. Navy. Why jump to conclusions that they do? Coastguardsmen do not learn about submarines or nuclear power, but some of them do learn about flying, radar, radio communications gunnery, antisubmarine warfare, etc. - all of which takes years to learn.
98.81.14.72 (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Rank in Argentina - Army & Navy

Please note that an equivalent rank ('Subteniente", that is Sub-Lieutentant) does exist in the Argentine Army, and is the lowest one in the commissioned-officers hirearchy. Thus, it should be included in this article.
If nobody reasonably opposes, after gathering some sources to reference, I'll modify this article to include this.
regards, DPdH (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

After researching a bit more, the same is true for the Argentine Navy (rank "Guardiamarina", no direct transaltion into english). This is equivalent to "Subteniente" (army) and "Alférez" (air force), as can be seen in the Aregentine Army's official website ("Grados y sus correspondientes equivalencias" [1] - "Ranks and Equivalences").
So I'll update the article whenever I have a bit of time.
Regards, DPdH (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Have just updated the section related to Argentina, please note that the website referenced (in spanish) list all ranks and corresponding insignia, including NCOs and enlisted ranks. Regards, DPdH (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In the Army

It's also a former B.A. rank... Trekphiler (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

J.O.R.G. - The Boot - BULL - Etc.

After reading the US Ensign section, first instinct suggests that it's a very large joke. Specifically the bits on JORGs being required to carry a cement filled boot around, the Bull-horned hard hats that Bull ensigns have to wear, etc. If a source can be found, then by all means put it back--but I'm calling 'bull' for now--excuse the pun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.95.105 (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

RNZN Section

The section regarding there being no real Royal Navy equivalent to the lowest commisioned officer grades in the British Army and the RAF is now out of date. Once fleet board is completed, the rank of Midshipman is now equivalent as it then becomes a commisioned rank the same as any other. Its hard to find references for this sort of thing, as its a recent change. --Noofworm (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Greek Army-Navy-AirForce

[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.193.100.190 (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

British Army

In the article it says Ensigns were replaced in 1871 by 2nd Lieutenant. In the HAC, promotions to Ensign were still being made up to at least the end of 1875. By 1880 the rank had been replaced by 2nd Lieutenant. Was the 1871 date an absolute for all regiments of the British Army or just the start of a gradual process which took several years? I am not sure of the last date of promotions/commissions to the rank of Ensign in the HAC, but it was in this time period.

Addition: Transition from Ensign rank to 2nd Lieutenant dated 19th June 1878. (Sourced from the London Gazette.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.61.183 (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

ENGVAR

The page is not flagged for engvar. That may be an issue. A recent edit changed "colour" to "color." I'm a Yank so that's fine with me but the cited reference is from the 17th century. I'm not sure of the right usage in this case.Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The article was created using British English. Therefore, I have corrected the Anerican spelling and placed a notice on the talk page. Thank you for pointing out the change Georgia Army Vet.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ensign_(rank)&oldid=3536852 Humphrey Tribble (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)