Talk:Officer candidate school

Untitled
I deleted the TRADOC template from this page because while I think that template would be applicable to a page such as Officer Candidates School (U.S. Army), I don't think it's applicable here where general terminological dissemination occurs. On a more specific page (such as the previous example), I would highly encourage the template's usage. Maclyn611 03:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I thank you for that edit. &mdash; Linnwood 14:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I think this article is fine as it is, and doesn't have the potential to expand much further. It needs short blurbs describing the individual OCS's for each service and especially highlighting their differences; but it serves fine as essentially a fleshed-out disambiguation page for the four services, since the roles of each service's OCS is rather different.

--Mmx1 20:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Error?
This page says "The Officer Candidate School of the United States Navy is at Naval Station Newport, Rhode Island." When you follow the link it says "The United States Navy's Officer Candidate School (NAVOCS)" is "currently located at Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida" The Navy Great Lakes Webpage says that the latter is correct.

The Navy is consolidating their OCS's. They left Pensacola in August and, to the best of my knowledge, are only doing classes in Great Lakes. Mmx1 (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

About OCS (Philippines)
In this article it is asserted that predecesor of Philippine OCS was a program which began in the colonial period known as SRC, whereas in the article Officer Candidate School - Philippines it is stated that Philippine OCS can trace its origins to a colonial army commissioning program known as ROSS. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.159.125 (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization of the generic term, use of articles
The usage of the term "Officer Candidate/Cadet School" and the abbreviation "OCS"—capitalization of all words, no use of an article with either—as a generic name for this type of institution is inconsistent with normal English usage. First: is there an accepted term for this type of institution, and second, why are we treating the generic term as a specific one? 72.200.151.13 (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Discusses an issue?
Whoever has incorporated this very picture into the article has earned my deepest respect for sense of humour. The fierce look on the Sergeant's face and the "sorry for being alive" expression of the rookie says it all. A pure marvel. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.100.196.218 (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)