Talk:Ranger tab

WP:MilHist Assessment

Though not nearly as long or detailed as most B-class articles, I imagine there isn't much more to be said on this subject. You've even included a picture. Looks good to me. LordAmeth 11:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

About the only thing left that I can think of is a brief history of the tab; when was it introduced, possibly the first recipient(s), if known, and the reason for the selection of the colors - the original WWII Ranger unit patch was a blue and gold. I've heard that the decision for black and gold was made by an officer who wanted to incorporate West Point's colors, but I don't know if this is an army urban legend.--Nobunaga24 07:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"Ranger" as a title

The title "Ranger" is the ONLY officially authorized title in the U.S. Army other than rank. That means flatly that a private can address a Ranger qualified General as "Ranger" instead of by rank and NOT be in violation of any regulations. No other title is recognized in the Army but one's rank or merely "Ranger."

Rgrc175 (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Rick Conerly, Beaumont, Texas

This is fundamentally untrue FWIW.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Order of Precedence

The Ranger Tab is below the Driver and Mechanic Badge in order of precedence? Not in this world. The Ranger Tab belongs in Combat and Special Skills Group 4. The Driver and Mechanic Badge is in Group 5. (See para 29-17, pg 288 and following, AR 670-1.)

I initially assumed the edit that inserted this order of precedence was some form of vandalism as it is so clearly out of line, but it appears to be a well-intenioned edit by a regular contributor. It is nevertheless clearly wrong. Unless anyone can explain otherwise, I will remove this order of precedence in a couple of days. 98.255.89.22 (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Navy/Sailors

So, basically, Marines who complete Ranger School aren't authorized to wear it and it has recently been decided that Airmen can. Okay, so where does that leave Navy personnel who complete Ranger School? My cousin completed Ranger School when he was in the Army, and he told me that there were personnel from all branches there; ALL branches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.232.181 (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Why was this page deleted?

Doesn't really make sense, if the Special Forces Tab has a page, then why not the Ranger tab? The Ranger Tab has much more notability. Whoever deleted it should be banned from ever making edits to military history pages again. I welcome all present and past Ranger qualified users to add to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karhunkynsi244 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not your place to determine who gets to edit this page; Ranger qualification is absolutely not required to edit literally any page on Wikipedia. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you're taking my comment too literal, and you might take Wikipedia too seriously. I was simply welcoming Ranger qualified Wikipedia to contribute, not alienating others who have not had the distinction. Karhunkynsi244 (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 10 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Ranger tab → Ranger Tab – Official name of the tab. Most (if not the entirety) of this article uses capitalized 'T'. 83.168.137.1 (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. Schierbecker (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. At WP:NCCAPS: Outside Wikipedia, and within certain specific fields (such as medicine), the usage of all-capital terms may be a common way to feature new or important items. However these cases are typically examples of buzzwords, which by capitalization are (improperly) given special emphasis. The government and the military in particular is such a field. Tabs are just a descriptive term for a particular type of badge. See also MOS:SIGNIFCAPS. we do not capitalise for significance or importance. Tab is not consistently capitalised in sources per this ngram for ranger tab. Context is confirmed by this search of google books, which also shows that the term is not consistently capitalised. Consequently, we do not cap per MOS:CAPS general advice. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cinderella above. Also note that in n-grams, a quick look suggests a lot more capping than there is. Compare this simple view with this more complete picture, which shows that the big hump in caps had a large part due to "Ranger Tab" at the start of a sentence or line. Since a sentence probably can't start that way, these are clearly headings or titles or table entries, in typical title case. We need to be looking at use in sentences. These n-grams also confirm that Ranger is pretty consistently capitalized, as it's the name of the unit. Dicklyon (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.