Talk:General order

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

An off-color parody of these guard duty rules:

I will walk my post from flank to flank

And take no shit from any rank

(referring to the concept that unauthorized personnel are not permitted to pass - even if they outrank the guard) Uncle Ed 20:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The correct title of the 11 general orders is General Orders for Sentries. I have removed the redundant information here and posted a link to the article with the rest of the examples listed on this page. I will add Uncle Ed's suggestion to that page as well.

If Order 66 can have its own article, it only makes sense to give real-life ones their own, too. ;) Kafziel 22:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

It is proposed to merge Standing order into this page.

• The standing order page has limited content, consisting of a single definition line ("a standing order" is a general order of indefinite duration) and two examples of standing orders;

• The two topics are extremely closely related, with standing orders simply being a subset of general orders. There seems no logical reason to refer readers to another page on this fine distinction;

• Neither page is of such length as to make a merger unwieldy; and

• A merger would create a more user-friendly article by allowing readers to access both sets of info at a single source.

Views and comments welcome. Euryalus 07:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. a merger is in the best interest of user-friendliness. Jhfireboy Talk 21:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The merger propsoal has now been up for three months, so it is safe to assume that further comments are unlikely. I have gone ahead and merged the articles. Euryalus (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)