Talk:Canadian Armed Forces ranks and insignia

message: Just noticed on the NORAD page that it states; "" (Lieutenant-general). I know that Canadian rank insignia use maple leafs (leaves?) instead of stars, like the US and other countries, but the UK doesn't use stars either, and you often hear UK general and flag officers referred to as "n-star" generals and admirals, even though UK rank 
insignia use combinations of crowns, pips, and crossed swords & batons. Are Canadian general and flag officers always referred to as "n-maple-leaf" generals or admirals? Is the word "star" ever used in place of "maple leaf"? Thanks - wolf  01:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: 100px
In 2017 the Bath Star (above) was replaced by the Vimy Star.
Under Reinstatement of Canadian Army ranks and insignia, in the "Timeline of changes table (see below), is it really necessary to have the 3rd tow of epaulettes? The only difference between that and the 4th row is the change in the pips for Colonel and below, which is not visually distinguishable. There is a graphic which shows the two pips, both the old one and new one, shouldn't that, along with a clear explanation in the prose preceding the table be sufficient? As it is, the 3rd and 4th rows appear identical, perhaps even in error, and not just at a glance either. One has to click on and expand an epaulette from each row to discern the difference, which is already demonstrated with said graphic. I noticed  cleaning up this page today, I'm pining him to see if he has noticed this issue, and if so, I tends to address it already. Otherwise, I'm posting to see if there is any issues with removing the 3rd row and changing notations within the table and the prose accordingly. - wolf 17:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, a couple of weeks ago, I almost removed it myself, thinking they were identical until I clicked and zoomed on the images. As it stands it really is too difficult to distinguish the reason for the two separate rows at the resolution visible within the article. I really wouldn't have much objection, but considering that they are technically different, and this is a page about insignia, I could see why someone might object. Looking at the edit history, the row was added by  in April 2017, so I'd be interested in what he has to say as the one who made the change in the first place. oknazevad (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline of changes  

message: There is nothing (that I can see) that distinguishes between the branches in any of the tables. Those familiar may recognize some of the differences, or know that black is navy, green is army and blue is air force, but how would anyone else know? Under Commissioned Member rank insignia, I just edited the three templates (,
& )   to add (not suppress ,actually) the branch names on the far left of each row, but is that the solution? Edit all the templates (Gov Gen, Warr Off & NCO/Enl)...? Or should this be addressed another way? (Pinging  again). - wolf 17:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's a bad idea. The templates these charts use are also used for the lists comparing the ranks of NATO militaries, Commonwealth militaries, and militaries of the Americas. Those articles are broken down by branch and commission, that is the ranks and insignia commissioned officers of the various armies are on one page, while the non-commissioned ranks are on another, and there's also two articles each for the navies and air forces. With the need to appear on so many pages, it's easy to see why templates make sense, but sometimes some template labels didn't make sense on all articles, like here. Using just the country name makes sense for the comparative articles, but labeling them as Navy, Army, and Air Force are needed here. oknazevad (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinguishing between branches in rank tables  

message: In the table , the row about black backing cloth for the Voltigeurs – should that actually be for all rifle regiments, rather than specifically the Voltigeurs? Otherwise the other rifle regiments are absent from the chart, since they are excluded by the row "Royal Canadian Infantry Corps (RCIC) (except Rifle Regiments)". I don't have access to the sources cited. Indefatigable (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backing colours on officer pips