Talk:Lieutenant colonel (United States)

Military history: Culture / North America / United States

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military culture, traditions, and heraldry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

United States: Military history

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.

Requested move

Lieutenant Colonel (United States) → Lieutenant colonel (United States) — To conform with the grammar guidelines set forth by Wiki:MOSCAPS —Neovu79 (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments: Neovu79 (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support Wiki:MOSCAPS states: Military ranks follow the same capitalization guidelines as titles (see above). Thus, one would write "Brigadier General John Smith", or "John Smith was a brigadier general". While general use of ranks is most commonly in front of an officer's name, in article form, and grammar, ranks are not capitalized. The U.S. Code of law also use standardized grammar specifically 10 U.S.C. § 3281 which establishes regular ranks for federal uniformed officers. Neovu79 (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it took me a while to wrap my head around it, but we would say "John Smith was a lieutenant colonel", and as such, the title should be changed. DigitalC (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this and the handful of similar moves. If this long running discussion is to be reopened, there should at least be a centralised discussion. Andrewa (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but using Wiki:MOSCAPS as a rationale but in another direction.

When I think of an article title, like "Lieutenant Colonel", I think of a person with that title, say "Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North". Chop off the name and both words remain capitalized. Because of the technical issue that all WP articles must start with a capital letter (see EBay), that means we either...

1) name the article "Lieutenant colonel" and use the disclaimer, "the correct title of this article is `lieutenant colonel` but due to MediaWiki software's technical restrictions, the first letter is capitalized, even though you would never use this capitalization style at any other time."

or

B) name the article "Lieutenant Colonel" and include the sentence from the MOSCAPS guide about proper caps usage, probably even to include using a template for all similar articles.

— MrDolomite • Talk 05:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, although I would prefer a solution like this one through centralized discussion (but then again, the MOS can be considered a centralized discussion of course). If needde, the disclaimer as given as option 1 by MrDolomite can be used, but I don't see the need for this (we don't say that Carriage return shoudl actually be carriage return, or that Prime minister is prime minister, or that Vicar general is vicar general, ...). Fram (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fram did a good job of showing the ridiculousness of MrDolomite's argument about needing a disclaimer for the title. I myself am a lieutenant commander. The rank is a title, and should follow the normal conventions for titles: They are capitalized when used as a specific person's title, or referring to that person by his or her title; otherwise, they are not capitalized. There should be no argument about this at all. Holy (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome?

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)[reply]

Oak Leaf

It doesn't look like an oak leaf. It looks more like a sycamore leaf. Any explanations on the leaf design?

Compare:

205.174.22.26 (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)jgeiger54[reply]

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)[reply]

It is supposed to be a stylized oak leaf, but the version pictured (without the leaf veins) is the form used by the United States Marine Corps. The Army and Air Force versions are different, with a raised border and leaf veins. (I am a retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel.) Gladfelteri talk 10:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to change the caption on the picture of the (Marine Corps) Lieutenant Colonel's silver leaf but somehow removed the entire picture. That revision must be stored somewhere, but I could not find it to undo. Perhaps someone who knows how to do that may put that picture back. Sorry about that. In the future I will not attempt to edit pictures. Gladfelteri talk 14:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image is restored properly. It is still the Marine Corps leaf even though it was vectored from an Air Force site; but I am going to leave it alone. Gladfelteri talk 1524, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

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)[reply]

what are

the "subtle design differences" between the USA/USAF and USMC versions? --MKnight 9989 15:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The USA/USAF versions have a raised border and leaf veins of 1/2 round beads, while the USMC version is smooth like the Navy (full) Commander's silver leaf (which is easy to polish, unlike the USA/USAF versions.) Gladfelteri talk 15:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MAJOR CITATION REQUIRED

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)[reply]

Under the section, "Modern Usage" the statement is made: "As most officers are eligible to retire after 20 years active service, it is the most common rank at which career officers retire." There is a note, "citation required." While I cannot give you a specific citation, as a retired career U.S. Army officer who retired as a Lieutenant Colonel after 20 years on active duty, and I can offer my observations.

That statement is too broad to be really useful. In my experience, (and this is a generality) in the U.S. Army, West Point graduates generally tended to retire as full Colonels (or above,) as did direct commission Physicians, and until recent years, Dentists. ROTC and Officer Candidate School officers did tend to retire as Lieutenant Colonels, as did some direct commission officers (Chaplains, Medical Specialist Corps Pharmacists, Podiatrists, and such. Officers who had significant service as enlisted men who became officers tended to retire as Majors at best. This said, there are exceptions. One notable exception would be General Colin Powell, who is a product of the ROTC. Therefore, I would probably remove that statement.

Of course, this is only for the U.S. Army. I can make no such generalizations for the U.S. Air Force or Marine Corps, whose officer personnel management differs in some ways from that of the Army. --Gladfelteri (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the section, Modern Usage, the statement is made that most career officers retire as Lieutenant Colonels. This is true. I attempted to put in a reference to a copy of statistics from the January 2007 issue of Soldier's Magazine showing this, but could not get the link to work. The reference is about 1/2 way down the list of figures. The article is Active Army: force strength, and the link to the website is: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OXU/is_1_62/ai_n17166521 . Perhaps someone can get the link to this article to work. Gladfelteri (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It just needed some tweaking. It's fixed now. --AzureCitizen (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contents answered my questions, but the section headings need attention

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)[reply]

Inclusion of Larry Rendall Brock

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)[reply]