Talk:Three-star rank

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)

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)

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

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)

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)