Talk:Lieutenant commander (United States)

Military history: Culture / Maritime / 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 not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

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

Dreadfully poor English throughout

Quitree embarassing, really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.124.83 (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Lieutenant Commander (United States) → Lieutenant commander (United States) — To conform with the grammar guidelines set forth by Wiki:MOSCAPS —Neovu79 (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines say to capitalize both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.117.36 (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add redirects

All of the following should redirect to this article. As it stands, it is a pain-in-the can to people. Computers should take care of such things: Lieutenant commander (United States)
Lieutenant Commander (United States)
Lieutenant Commander (U.S.)
Lieutenant Commander (U.S. Navy)
Lt. Commander (U.S.)
Lt. Commander (United States)
Lt. Commander (U.S. Navy)
Once again, make the computers do the work, rather than fretting us with red hyperlinks. 98.67.168.193 (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2010 (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.

Discussion

Any additional comments: Neovu79 (talk) 03:00, 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. § 5501 which establishes naval ranks for Federal uniformed officers. Neovu79 (talk) 03:00, 20 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). Fram (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support-Support Absolutely - we must write "Lieutenant Commander" this way for the title, and "lieutenant colonel" for the rank - just like writing "Vice President Johnson" rather than "Vice president Johnson". The U.S. has had two of these: "Vice President Johnson", so this is a good example. The first Johnson was the vice-president under President Lincoln, and the second Johnson was the vice-president under President Kennedy. Both of these Vice Presidents Johnson became the President upon the assassination the Presidents whom they served under.

As for the actual ranks, I would argue in favor of the terms "Fleet Admiral", "General of the Army", and "General of the Air Force", but not otherwise.

22:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Junior Officer or Midgrade Officer?

As this article was created it stated in accordance with the source linked under point [1] that the Lieutenant Commander would count as the most junior officer of the "midgrade" officers, like his land based counterpart the Major.

That has been reverted to tell today that the lieutenant Commander would be the most senior of the junior officers. But neither is that stated in the source that still is linked nor is any other source given for that implication.

Please source or revert to the original state that has been sourced on a official Navy site. --212.144.126.46 (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That still stands years later and I'm having a hard time finding the answer from official sources. I fired off a question to the Navy through their site but I'm not exactly expecting a response, let alone a definitive one. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]