Difference between revisions of "Talk:Hauptmann General"
Sarna News
(Hyphen?) |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Hyphen== | ==Hyphen== | ||
What is the correct grammar for the rank? Hauptmann General or Hauptmann-General, the wiki is littered with examples of both. TRO3039 has it with the hyphen--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 11:37, 10 December 2017 (EST) | What is the correct grammar for the rank? Hauptmann General or Hauptmann-General, the wiki is littered with examples of both. TRO3039 has it with the hyphen--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 11:37, 10 December 2017 (EST) | ||
| + | :I took a look in ''[[Field Manual: 3145]]'', and that consistently uses the hyphenated form Hauptmann-General. If in doubt, I think that should be the standard as that's the most recent Field Manual. but if there was a definite shift within the sourcebooks at a certain point (I'm thinking between the House books and the Field Manuals) then it could be annotated somewhere in the description of the rank, perhaps? [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic|talk]]) 03:38, 11 December 2017 (EST) | ||
Latest revision as of 04:38, 11 December 2017
Hyphen[edit]
What is the correct grammar for the rank? Hauptmann General or Hauptmann-General, the wiki is littered with examples of both. TRO3039 has it with the hyphen--Dmon (talk) 11:37, 10 December 2017 (EST)
- I took a look in Field Manual: 3145, and that consistently uses the hyphenated form Hauptmann-General. If in doubt, I think that should be the standard as that's the most recent Field Manual. but if there was a definite shift within the sourcebooks at a certain point (I'm thinking between the House books and the Field Manuals) then it could be annotated somewhere in the description of the rank, perhaps? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2017 (EST)