Talk:U.S. Navy slang

message: The its '0' dark as in zero not 'O' dark as in the 'letter O' From my experience the army and airforce use the Letter O while the navy use zero as in 0030 being Zero dark thirty.  O in the navy is Oscar which is man overboard naval and marine personel never use Oscar or the letter O for the number zero.
I made two cruises on an aircraft carrier and I never heard anyone say "zero dark thirty." It was always said "oh dark thirty." How this is expressed in writing may be a subject of some discussion, however.Cjkporter 20:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  0'Dark ???

message: Recently, this page was tagged by a group of "military historians." They turned out to be two high-school kids. I didn't do seven patrols to see my life story edited by Beavis and Butthead (For the record, I liked the cartoon though).  JamesMadison 11:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Watch Out For Vandals

message: There are some acronyms in there that I don't think fully qualifies as "slang". -- Whane 22:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slang versus Acronyms 

message: I have a question for you Wiki-savvy folks out there.  I added several entries last night.  When I was finished, there was a message waiting for me that told me to stop "vandalizing" the article.  I looked into the meaning of vandalism, and I was doing nothing of the sort.  Several of my entries, from the letter S through Z, were deleted.  These entries included "Sick Bay," "Side Number," and several more legit terms.  Nothing was any more or less offensive or crude than any other entries that appear in the article.  I've added a lot to this article over the past few months and nothing like this has ever happened.  What gives with the self-righteous big brother complex, especially on a topic like U S Navy slang?  I looked at he profile of the self-appointed censor, and there were many complaints from other users about censorship and unwarranted deletions and revisions. What gives?  Is this standard prractice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.181.21.3 (talk • contribs) May 22, 2006
:No, it's not standard practice, and if he gets enough complaints he'll be barred, though there's various steps to be taken first. Also, please sign your name; it's done automatically when you use four tildes (~) Doovinator 19:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: Slang glossaries violate the following policy:
Wikipedia is not a dictionary
 Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not:
# Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a  good definition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual  numbers.
# Lists of such definitions. There are, however,  disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word. Wikipedia also includes  glossary pages for various specialized fields.
# A usage guide or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.
----
Due to the many AfDs which are initiated to enforce this policy and due to the resistance to such deletion by defenders of the glossaries, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Slang glossaries to rewrite the policy in order to solve this problem and to readdress this question: should slang glossaries by allowed on Wikipedia?  --List Expert 23:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention: Slang Glossary policy discussion underway 

message: This list needs some work, there are things that aren't encyclopedic (jokes, "we", etc) and other things, plus it's just long. --Awiseman 07:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I often wished I had written down the argot of my shipmates when I was in the service ages ago, as it was unique and also an important part of the culture. Some conversations were so permeated with these terms they would have been incomprehensible to a non-sailor or civilian.
As these conversations occurred on board, their use was for convenience (a highly efficient, well-understood shorthand) as well as to reinforce group identity, rather than for obfuscation (i.e., this acronym-laden slang was not an underground cant, although some elements of that usage can be seen in the explanations of entries).
I was also fascinated by the differences between the jargons used in the different services, some of which could be quite telling. And I am quite pleased that the few Coastie-isms I have contributed have remained, or even been clarified, by the audience here. (Most of the Navy folk I met had a respectful affection for us knee-deeps, although our diversely-missioned tiny org tended to baffle them.)
So I was delighted to find this article, can see that many others enjoy it, and view it as a worthwhile repository for historical and sociological research, as well as for amusement. (I am intrigued by the new terms and subtle changes in usage over the years.)
Due to the popularity and accessibility of WP, this is a very convenient place to collect these terms, which otherwise only exist on a few personal Web sites in a non-dynamic fashion. 
Perhaps with appropriate linking, the bulk of this entry could be shuffled off to Wiktionary, though I am unfamiliar with that animal and would imagine structuring it there would be difficult.
Jeffreykopp 07:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Might not quite fit here, but still useful 

message: Anyone have any idea how to direct readers to another entry that appears in a definition?  I tried italicizing, but that was universally hated and immediately reverted to the previous version.  I see a few entries now that use boldface to highlight terms that appear elsewhere in the list.  Quote marks or "see _____" are also used.  Is there any uniform method for this?
* I was also "guilty" of some of the italicization, thinking it would help clarify the situation, and felt bad about the entries lost in the high-handed revert, though after considerable mashing around in the history, it appears most have made it back.
* The "Words  as words" rule for italicization doesn't quite cover it (which I hoped would), nor does "Use-mention distinction." Quote marks don't look right as it makes the word appear more as falling outside rather than within the lexicon. I also see bolding used elsewhere (apparently informally/unofficially) for this purpose, which might be less offensive. (Conversely, I wouldn't want to in-page link all of them, i.e., link#marker, as I find those annoying in an entry.) Jeffreykopp 23:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing Other Definitions 

message: If you ever have to visit a ship, please ask to see the dog which will confer honor upon you. The dog is the ice cream stored in the Mess. If the Officer of the Deck smiles at you, you can ask if the dog is hard meaning the ice cream is ready to be served and eaten. If you really want to show them you are in the know on your first question, ask "Is the dog hard and chocolate?" - meaning is the machine serving chocolate.
Seriously, this article had been nom'ed for deletion. I removed the tag and will revisit this page. ronbo76, out! Ronbo76 20:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check out the ''dog'' definition 

message: I thought I might be able to save this article here. I guess it get lost there. Ronbo76 21:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too bad on trans-wiki 

message: I'm having a hard time understanding why people would want this article deleted.  It offers a unique insight to the vocabulary that was used (and more often than not, still in use) by sailors today.  As an active-duty sailor myself, I can appreciate that some people might add terms that only one or two ships/commands may use or have used, but for the most part I've heard just about all of the expressions included in this article at one time or another during my career.  Leave it alone, please.  Nemmers 12:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well the main reason is probably for consistency. Most of the other slang pages, particularly military slang, have all been deleted(except the US ones). And in some cases those pages were far more encyclopedic than this one. 81.152.196.37 11:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep this page! 

message: My number one suggestion for this article is that those who add to it, put it on their watchlist and help patrol it. Secondly, try to link other articles to this one that use military terms like movies (like An Officer and a Gentleman, Top Gun or other articles where words like o dark thirty are in common usage. It would be neat if the word could directly be linked; meaning, if I linked butter bars that definition would have a pointer where the new page opens directly to that definition. I don't know how to do that but perhaps someone else does.  Ronbo76 04:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do List Now That This Article is a Keep 

message: Some of you may not have noticed, but over the past week or so, Jeffreykopp did a nice job of linking credible articles to many definitions. After saluting the flag, the officer of the deck, requesting permission to come aboard and being piped, I salute Jeffreykopp. Thank you, Ronbo76 16:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big hand for [[user:Jeffreykopp]] on improving this article 

message: I'm very new to wikipedia, but the definition of this seems to have a lot of disgruntled opinion in it.  Shouldn't we just keep to the facts, and not opinions on how well the 1MCs from the original writer's experiences are?  Even the part about everyone being expected to know what it means is irrelevant.  It's a ship's communication system used to broadcast information to the crew, or you can go more specific from there in the actual 1MC article, I haven't checked it.
Rocknerd1982 15:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1MC 

message: Back when I was in the Navy, a couple of shipmates were discussing the rake-like TV antenna that typically goes on a rooftop.  There was a certain slang name they used to refer to it, kind of like using "rabbit ears" to refer to the V-shaped antenna that goes on top of the TV.  I can't remember for the life of me what the word is, but terms like "cloud catcher" and "cloud scraper" come to mind.  I have no idea if those are even close, however.  I've asked people associated with the antenna industry if they were aware of a slang term for this type of antenna, but all they can offer are technical terms like "aerial."  It's not a technical term but a casual name based on its appearance, like rabbit ears.  Since so few people seem to know of it, I'm thinking this may be a Naval slang term.  Would anyone happen to know this word? Wikibev 21:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antenna slang 

message: As a Proud Navy Veteran and a Sailor and a lobster, I have absolutely no problems with this page.  If someone does have a problem with it, then they can't be a sailor.  No sailor would never, ever have issues with the information here.  You know, there have been comments that this page needs verified.  Verification can only really be done through actual Navy service.  This slang is not documented anywhere. Carol S. CaseyCarol S. Casey 20:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bravo Zulu 

message: This article has a tremendous amount of references to feces, specifically the term "turd".  I'm wondering if these are all real examples of Navy slang, or if somebody is adding shit-oriented jokes.  Do people in the Navy have a preoccupation with excrement?  Are they more likely than civilians to engage in "turd farming", or is it about the same?  Thanks to anyone who can clarify this.
--63.25.233.34 20:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Being in the Navy is part of the scat lifestyle? 

message: Why the heck has everything from N on been deleted?  What is going on here?? --ScreaminEagle 21:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass deletions