Template talk:Navalranks
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This template was considered fordeletion on2019 December 25. The result ofthe discussion was "no consensus". |
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theNavalranks template. |
|
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Where shouldAdmiralissimo go?*Treker (talk)00:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two gripes I have about the Naval Ranks template inset to 'Counter Admiral'[1]. [Note: I have not checked the other hypertext inserts for other ranks wikipedia pages , but if the same, then the same should apply.]
1. I would argue that the rank titles in this template should read as header titles, that is to say, that each word of the rank should start with a capital letter as befitting the the ranking status.Example: Flag officers [title]Admiral of the fleet (extant) should read -
FlagOfficers [title]AdmiralOfTheFleet and so on...
Senior officers [title]Post captain (extant) should read -
SeniorOfficers [title]PostCaptain etc...
Junior officers [title]Captain lieutenant (extant) should read -
JuniorOfficers [title]CaptainLieutenant etc...
2. ALieutenant Commander and equivalent ranks in non allied navies (western alliance WW2/NATO) isnot a senior officer rank. It is in fact the senior most rank of theJunior Officers rank list and should be in that category. This is indicated by the fact that all senior officer ranks have one row of gold braid on the peaks of their caps. [colloquially termed - 'Egg Flip']. Flag officer ranks have two rows of gold braid on their peaks. Whereas, junior officers have no gold braid on the peaks of their caps. A Lieutenant Commander has no gold braid on the peak of the cap.
Citation. My sources are the fact that I am an ex serving Royal Navy rating and amateur naval historian, besides which, plenty of images are available online depicting naval ranking to corroborate my suggested correction. Deebz270Deebz270 (talk)19:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
