Talk:Lieutenant colonel (United States)

message: :Any additional comments: Neovu79 (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: So, after all of this discussion on this page, and the long ago discussion over at  WP_talk:WPMILHIST/Archive_68, as well as the only tangentially related WP:MOS (that one deals with caps of ranks when used in an article text, not as an article's name), what was the consensus?  Or should this be more formally listed to a larger audience, be it the WP:MILHIST talk page or somewhere at WP:MOS? — MrDolomite • Talk 19:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Outcome?

message: It doesn't look like an oak leaf. It looks more like a sycamore leaf. Any explanations on the leaf design?
Compare:
* Oak Leaf
* Sycamore Leaf
205.174.22.26 (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not supposed to be a single leaf. It is a cluster of seven oak leaves arranged in a fanned circle.  An oak leaf is somewhat diamond or kite-shaped, and that is what the insignia represents.  Whomever altered the description to maple leaf should be shot...that's seriously insulting to the US Military. 68.159.177.77 (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a single leaf, not a "cluster of seven" leaves.  Look at the illustration here on the Army's Institute of Heraldry site and you can see the detail of the veins in the leaf, along to it being referenced in 1835 regulations as a "leaf."  In answer to the question on why it only distantly resembles a real oak leaf, the design became highly stylized over time.  The oak leaf worn on civil war era officers looked more like a real oak leaf than the design currently worn today on the uniform. --AzureCitizen (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Hi Gladfelteri.  The image is actually somewhat of a cross between the Army/Air Force version and Navy/USMC version.  It doesn't match either exactly.  The shape is closer to Army/AF, while the texture is shiny like Navy/USMC (yet it still lacks the vein structure of Navy/USMC's version). --AzureCitizen (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Oak Leaf

message: the "subtle design differences" between the USA/USAF and USMC versions? --MKnight9989 15:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  what are 

message: This page needs major citation (especially in the second section) and I think we should be concentrating on that. Cheers!--Martin (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It just needed some tweaking.  It's fixed now. --AzureCitizen (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  MAJOR CITATION REQUIRED 

message: I went to this article for the specific question as to when the word "colonel" (without also saying "lieutenant") is properly used in situations when the officer involved is a Lt. Col. The article answered my question -- hurray for Wikipedia! But it's in "Etymology." The actual etymology is covered in the "History" section. 
Perhaps my question could be moved to the "modern usage" section of the article. 
About the slang terms: I'm glad to see this paragraph in the article, but it also isn't part of the etymology. Oaklandguy (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contents answered my questions, but the section headings need attention  

message: Individual does not have a Wikipedia page, which has been the community consensus in the past for inclusion on lists of notable individuals for ranks and awards articles. There is no reason to change this consensus now. If the individual is considered to be notable in the long run (bearing in mind WP:NOTNEWS) they should have an article created and then be added to this page. If they are not notable enough to have their own article, they should not be included on this page. Garuda28 (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Larry Rendall Brock