Talk:United States Military Standard

message: Links in formats section are dead.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.61.1.170 (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

message: I have a slight issue with this re-direction. The UK Ministry of Defense have a huge suite of standards actually called Defense Standards. The famous one like Def Stan 00-970 have been in use for years.
Can we make this page dedicated to those standards, and direct people to the US equivilant Mil Stds or Specs? Apacheeng lead 12:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be simpler and clearer if the distinctions between US and UK defense standards are explained in this article, and if the differences prove to be too great then the article can be split in two later on.--Mazer 18:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article should be retitled:  Defense Standardization Program
This is the official program name.  Its purpose is to comply with law (UNITED STATES CODE).  The law is to insure the purposes (partially) stated in the article.  
Links to US MIL SPEC, SPECIFICATIONS, STANDARD, ETC.  can refer to this page.
This article has a lot of good information, but it needs rewriting to present it in a logical form.  Currently, it is fragmented and incomplete.  The DoD 4120.24M and the Federal Standardization Manual are the centerpieces of this program and should not be buried in the citations. Citations should not be statements composed by the author; if it is the author's own work, it should be presented in the main article and the author's publication info cited.  
This is an EXTREMELY complex topic and should probably be broken into sub-articles or at least some kind of sub sectioning. Good luck! 64.162.229.144 (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article seems to have morphed from a general discussion on defense standards (US, UK, French, etc) to on titled US, but retaining some of the earlier language.  If this is the intent, then renaming it to "Defense Standardization Program" would seem to make sense.  (The history stuff could be moved to Standardization or somewhere. 214.4.238.180 (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be retitled 

message: The N connector article talks about "MIL-C-39012". Googling for that code seems to bring up "MIL-PRF-39012". This article (which is linked just after the mention) Is MIL-C and obsolete notation? If so should we mention that fact? 80.0.68.41 (talk) Plugwash (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The MIL-C is still active to support existing installations, but new design should use one of the MIL-PRF incarnations. Most people who work in the field will be familiar with this and most people who don't will not need to know... 69.1.23.134 (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  MIL-C 

message: "The U.S. is the current custodian of APP-6A, which is equivalent to MIL-STD-2525A."
This article page, not the one it is linking to, clearly says broken link / redirect, and links to APPA-6A not MIL-STD-2525A, and while the NATO version is fundamentally the same thing, in that it has a picture of what a symbol is, the two documents are divergent.
You can see the difference by visiting the website where you print your own army standards, the NATO neither has aerospace (I can understand that), nor civilians, which are purple, (which makes me think, do these armies not see the difference?).
I know there is no timeline for Wikipedia, it is made by your contributions, but, honestly, you would think that some individuals might consider it reflects the USA military as a whole, if it just takes initiative from NATO, and does not bother with purple-coloured standards. I for one, think it would be a positive to have the formal difference explained on Wikipedia. 49.185.181.0 (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: symbology