Talk:Uniforms of the Canadian Armed Forces

message: It's an eagle, according to the CF; even the only Air Force site I could find that mentions the device on the CADPAT. SigPig 06:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eagle or albatross?

message: Canadian policy requires Government approval before an order, decoration or medal can be awarded to one of its citizens. Otherwise, Canada will not recognize the honour, and it cannot be worn with national honours or on a Canadian Forces (CF) uniform;
The policy has been described to all missions accredited to Canada (Foreign Affairs Circular Note No. XDC-0675, 4 February 1988), and is reprinted in A-AD-200-000/AG-000, Chap 2, with further military instructions;
Although the policy requires approval before an award, requests after the fact which explain the presentation circumstances may be considered;
The Sovereign is the fount of all Canadian honours.Therefore, foreign honours must emanate from a similar level, a head of state or government, to be recognized.Awards originated by some other or lower authority are regarded as private honours.These can be accepted as private mementos only. Except for courtesy reasons at the moment of presentation, they cannot be worn with national honours or on a CF uniform;
Canada will only approve honours which recognize meritorious activity. Canada does not engage in exchanges of honours, nor give or receive honours based solely on an individual's status;
Canadian protocol differentiates between orders and decorations (which recognize individual meritorious activity), and campaign and service medals (which recognize honourable participation in some group activity);
Canada does not approve foreign orders and decorations for the normal performance of paid government duty.Thus, requests to award foreign honours to public employees, military or civilian, must explain why the activity to be recognized was outside the paid duties or beyond the norm expected of the individual's rank and experience.Each such request is assessed individually;
For campaign and service medals, a request is assessed on a group basis for all who qualify for the honour. If the request is approved, the decision will guide future requests for the medal;
Nothing in this policy applies to foreign honours properly presented to a country's own citizens.However, after immigration, a Canadian citizen can only wear foreign honours in accordance with Canadian protocol, ie, the honours must emanate from a head of state or government.Michael Dorosh 06:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the VC was a bad example; I thought the Govt revamped it because they didn't like using a "British" medal and wanted a "Canadian" one instead. But the essence of what you said was what I was trying to say (and obviously not succeeding). A subsidiary point I made in an earlier post was that of the Prince of Wales was wearing a British medal for collecting toilet seats on a CF uniform that he wore as Hon Col, I doubt there'd be anyone in the CF who'd tell him to take it off. OTOH, any medals worn by him would probably have been given to him by HM the Queen anyway, so maybe that's a bad example too. Meh, I only ever got the Chocolate Dollar anyway, so it's not like I'll ever be fighting the Govt to wear my Blue Max next to my Nijmegan Vierdaagse on my DEU... SigPig 06:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Chocolate dollar" - yup, looks like a loonie but doesn't spend as well.   ¥    Jacky Tar  06:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FOREIGN HONOURS TO CANADIANS

message: Should the Scarlet and #4 Dress Uniforms of RMC be mentioned in this article?  As regimental standards that have existed since 1876, wouldn't they have a right to be included?  (Psyklek 07:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RMC Dress Uniform 

message: I've read that when the Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Navy (RCN), and Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) were unified to form the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), the traditional uniforms were replaced by a single CAF uniform which was the same for all branches, and that a few years later that was changed and now the different branches of the CAF have distinctive uniforms similar to their pre-unification equivalents. Shouldn't this be explained somewhere in the article? Tom129.93.29.149 03:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unification and Distinctive Uniforms for the services

message: "It is authorised for wear on patrol duties only, by members up to and including the rank of Warrant Officer / Petty Officer 1st Class." - I don't think that's correct; I saw the Naval Provost Marshal in Esquimalt wearing this September past, and she's a Lieutenant-Commander. Methinks I must borrow the Base Chief's copy of the dress manual one weekend, as well as dig out the CANFORGENs...    ¥    Jacky Tar  05:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MP patrol uniform 

message: Can officers get their own uniforms? 118.90.6.70 (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There was never any rule preventing it and prior to the 1970s and unification this was often done, but today the cost versus wearing just issued uniforms would be prohibitive. Even in the 1980s clothing stores did sell bolts of cloth to make up uniforms, too. - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniform manufacturers 

message: I put a request for a citation on the line stating that the current DEU's do not look much like pre-1968 Army/RCAF/RCN uniforms.  The Air Force DEU still looks like an RAF-styled uniform (but with gold accoutrements), especially with the wedge cap, and the Navy DEU shows its descent from the RN. To a member of the CF, the differences are no doubt more apparent, but among the US military, when we work with our Canadian allies and see the crowns, cut, etc. we think "Commonwealth."  I would agree with the description of the Army DEU/CF Green; it looks nothing like the pre-'68 Army khaki.--Locutus1966 (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are correct, the current uniforms are generally quite similar to the pre-unification ones, although the immediately-post 1968 rifle green uniforms for all services were not, which means that you won't find an up-to-date ref to support that statement. Instead I believe the solution is to remove that statement from the article. - Ahunt (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually in looking at it, the whole lead para is off-topic and needs a rewrite!! Lead paragraphs are supposed to introduce the article, not say what it is not! - Ahunt (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See what you think of it now. - Ahunt (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks better!--Locutus1966 (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I thought it was more accurate! - Ahunt (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearance of pre/post DEU 

message: Pictures of current combat and non-combat uniforms would be a good addition to the article. NorthernThunder (talk) 04:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Canadian Military Police Photo 2.png Nominated for Deletion

message: Looking back over this article after making a few edits, it strikes me that it can't seem to decide if it's about the current uniforms of the CAF or a history of CF greens and DEU. It seems to me that it needs to be rearranged for easier reading, but I don't want to do that without some input from other readers.
The current structure of the article is:  
*History of CF Greens and DEU, centered on the army and Garrison Dress  
*Overview of current uniforms, beginning with a very brief description of the orders of DEU and ending with long descriptions of various occupational dress uniforms  
*The RMC and Commander-in-Chief uniforms, which don't fit in easily anywhere else  
*The short history of beret colours which I expanded to include other CF headdress  
*The tables of regimental differences for Full Dress and Patrol Dress  
My observations/questions:  
*Should the history of CAF uniforms have it's own article, or should the history section be broken up into the other sections (Headdress, DEU, CADPAT, etc.)?  
*Do we need the Commander-in-Chief section here? The uniform of the Governor General is already described in Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces and Canadian Armed Forces ranks and insignia.  
*Since the RMC Uniform is No.1B/C/D, shouldn't it be grouped with the Regimental No. 1B/C/D descriptions?  
*Do we need a separate article for Uniforms of the Royal Canadian Navy? Enough of the description is common to all three environments that we probably don't.  
I think the a workable structure for the article would be:  
*List of numbered orders of dress (short descriptions only)  
*Description and history of DEU uniform, including environmental differences  
*Description and history of Full Dress, Undress, and Mess Dress uniforms with their branch/regimental differences (I would group these together because they are all traditionally styled uniforms with environmental/branch/regimental differences and are all procured from non-public funds)
*Description and history of operational dress (NCD/CADPAT/flying) uniforms and occupational dress (maternity,MPOPD,firefighter,etc.) uniforms  
*Headdress could either be covered under DEU and operational dress or given its own section, since it's the only item shared between DEU and operational dress (in some cases, the same headdress is also worn with undress uniforms)  
Anyone else have any ideas?
Cadet Pilot (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your re-org proposal, it does make sense. I would add that this really should be a history of the uniforms from 1968 to present, so should include the original CF Greens, which actually makes it easy to describe how the DEU came in and how that has morphed into the present (throwback) dress uniforms. - Ahunt (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization of Article 

message: Regarding the beret colours the navy has the black beret while artillery has a dark navy blue beret, they are admittedly hard to differentiate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aran Eldar (talk • contribs) 04:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is adequately explained in the section table in Uniforms of the Canadian Armed Forces#Berets. - Ahunt (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Beret colour

message: The redirect Unforms of the canadian forces has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  —Alalch E. 03:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Unforms of the canadian forces]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]