Talk:Three-star rank

Military history: Culture / South Pacific / British / Canadian / European / North America / United States

This redirect 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
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	British military history task force
	Canadian military history task force
	European military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

star-rank-system

Sorry but the article misses the note, that it is an US-terminology! Many countries listened in the article have no stars in their rank system or the numbers of stars are not the same as in the US-system. That'S why the NATO build it's on tableau, even it was directed to that of the USA.

Images

The following comment was copied from my talk page for completeness:

The length of the picture of the Indian Air Marshal creates white space issues. On-the-other-hand, the extra length includes the medals & ribbons. (i.e. worth having.)

I like the pictures on the right edge rather than in a gallery at the bottom.

What do you think? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could expand the article to avoid the white space. Alternatively, the medals and ribbons are optional in my view and a more closely cropped image would also be fine. Greenshed (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In the short term, cropping the ribbons was the easier alternative! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion

This article appears to contain an error common to many articles, see Talk:Five-star rank#Other affected articles and the discussion that immediately precedes it. Andrewa (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UK vice admiral

I removed the comment "Vice Admiral has been a three-star rank in the Royal Navy since 2001", which referred to UK DCI (Joint Service) 125/2001. The rank of vice admiral has always been a 3-star rank (at least since the "starred rank" system first evolved). What DCI (JS) 125/2001 did was to change the insignia for a UK vice admiral (and indeed the other UK admirals) so that their shoulder boards (worn only with tropical uniforms) came into line with the insignia of British Army generals, thus reducing confusion in the rare cases that an army and navy 3-star stood next to each other in tropical uniform. Not that I was confused before hand, either. Shem (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]