Title[]
In the article itself, should the leading paragraph not state "Private Frank Bryce" as opposed to simply "Frank Bryce"? According to this page, the lowest ranking officer is known as a "Private", and that fits Frank, doesn't it? --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 02:20, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
- I can't recall it ever being specifically said what rank he had when was in the military. Do you have a source on that? ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:29, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
- No, but at the time it seemed reasonable to me that the novel would have mentioned him leading an army if he had done so, and since it didn't mention that, I assumed he was simply an everyday soldier ... so perhaps I should leave it for BTS, or not include it at all? --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 02:31, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
- There is also a real-life Private Frank Bryce who fought in World War I, if that helps anything. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 02:35, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
- The rule in Wikipedia is not to add titles and ranks and suchlike unless needed for disambiguation. (And a private is not an officer, he has no command and is merely a private.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:06, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
- I merely meant in the introductory paragraph, not in the page name, and despite Wikipedia's rules, we have "Lord Stoddard Withers" and "Madam Poppy Pomfrey" here, so why not "Private Frank Bryce"? And since there's no proof that he was any sort of officer (you have a valid point about a private not being an officer) or leader, can it be safely assumed he was a private, and thus the point being added to the introductory paragraph? --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 05:14, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
- While there's no proof that he was an officer, I still don't see it as necessarily true that he wasn't one either, in the absence of definitive proof either way. That being the case, I'd prefer to err on the side of caution here. As for the real-life Private Frank Bryce, that's an interesting coincidence, but nevertheless just a coincidence unless we hear from an official source that the character was somehow based on this individual. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:24, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
- Another thing to think about: according to a supposed retired Major, only Privates fight regularly, with all ranks above only fighting when necessary. This page, if I'm reading it correctly, agrees on that fact. Seeing how Frank was actively fighting, there's more proof towards the "Private" theory. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 22:39, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
- Bumping. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 18:09, August 12, 2013 (UTC)
- You'll agree that a conflict of the scale of World War II made it absolutely necessary for many ranks above Private to fight. Indeed, all that we know about Bryce is that the war gave him a "very stiff leg and a great dislike of crowds and loud noises" — nothing else is said. Even if he was a soldier (as I, too, believe, even though there is no explicit evidence), he could still have been a corporal, a sergeant or a sergeant-major. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 19:04, August 12, 2013 (UTC)