Talk:United States Department of the Navy

message: This is a good page, but the flowchart does not list the other three Assistant Secretaries of the Navy, which are mentioned as separate entries on Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.148.104.245 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've replaced the image of the DON structure that was on the page, labeled 2005.  It only had one side of the structure (USN), and didn't include the Marine Corps.  I've replaced it with the CON chart that includes both the CNO and CMC.  It replaces this image: — Preceding unsigned comment added by ERcheck (talk • contribs) 22:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Command structure

message: Neither this page nor the U.S. Navy page tells us how many active, reserve, and civilian employees work for the Navy or the Navy Department.  Obviously the figures change year to year, but couldn't those figures be inserted?  Seems entirely reasonable for an encyclopedia.
BT Feb 09 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BTillman (talk • contribs) 01:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Personnel figures needed

message: - "Performing the duties of" (PTDO) is a specific designation, from the linked Act, used by both primary and secondary sources. Just because you think it's "awkward" or that's it's not used on some other article, is no reason to repeatedly change it. - wolf 23:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @ Did you see my last edit? I added the PTDO designation but made it less clunky. Dash9Z (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  That depends on which edit your referring to. After I started this discussion, you made this edit where you left both "acting" and "ptdo", and for some reason removed the references. Then after you posted the above comment, you made another edit, were you left it the way it was after my edit, but again removed the references. I'm not sure why you keep doing that, the content it not referenced anywhere else in the article, so they need to stay. Otherwise, I would suggest leaving the page as is, and if you think another change to that parameter is needed, then suggest it here first. Otherwise, I have re-added the refs, if you still think they should be removed, I would again suggest you post your reasons here first, because I've never seen anyone who thought removing refs was a legitimate reason to edit-war. - wolf 17:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

text:  ...and you've changed it again. This time removing a link for ptdo. These changes don't make any sense. You're not communicating on the talk page. This is now purely disruptive. - wolf 11:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox (1) 

message: hey, just curious why you added Office of Naval Research there? Cheers - wolf 23:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: ONR is organized directly under the Department of the Navy, outside the Navy or Marine Corps as services. I'm not sure if there is a comparable organization in the other services organized in the same way. (Under the Department, outside the services) Garuda28 (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  no, I get that. I was curious as to why just ONR was listed and not say, (for example) the JAG/JAG Corps, Inspector General or NCIS? And why add anything beyond the service branches at all? After you made similar changes to the infoboxes for the Dept's of the Army and Air Force, you left them with only the service branches listed (which looks better, imho). It just seemed kinda odd, is all. Cheers - wolf 00:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Truthfully, I didn't notice the other ones. As for the other military departments, they don't seem to organize things outside the services in the same way (having OSI as a FOA and CID within the Army proper). I suppose we could remove ONR from the child agency, but this page is due for a clean up anyways to list those kinds of organizations. Garuda28 (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it would be better noted in the body of the article as a particular agency in the DoN, with some details added. Right now, it sticks out as an infobox oddity with no rationale attached, like it's an error or an incomplete sub-list. Amyway, that's just my two cents. Cheers - wolf 02:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Child agencies

message: Re: recent edits, see infobox thread at US Armed Forces page for central discussion. - wolf 07:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox (2)