Talk:United States Navy/Archive 1

message: United States Marine Corps says
: The Marine Corps is part of the Department of the Navy. It is not part of the United States Navy, although the two services work closely together.
and, much later,
: The commandant is a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and reports to the secretary of the Navy, but not to the chief of naval operations.
which must explain why so many people say "The Marines are part of the Navy" even tho they are not.  This needs treatment in this article(and better treatment there).  Would this language help?:
: Thus, while they are two separate military services, with completely separate military chains of command, they do have the same common civilian command structure above their military ones, while no other two among the services have in common exactly the same civilian command structure.
(Or something more comprehensible that means the same thing!) --Jerzy(t) 19:59, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)
*Exactly.  The Navy and Marines report the SecNav, and have the same medical and religous support commands, as well as aviation and sections of officer training.--Mtnerd 21:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship to USMC 

message: Littoral Combat Ship is capitalized; see . Bbpen 15:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything on that page saying "Wikipedia must make an exception to their naming standards for this specific ship type."  We don't capitalize "guided-missile frigate" or "air-cushion landing craft" or "aircraft carrier".... ➥the Epopt 16:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point. On the other hand, nothing on the page says "Wikipedians should look silly by being the only ones not to capitalize LCS." Perhaps a distinction might be drawn between the Littoral Combat Ship program and its products, the littoral combat ships -- though this would still leave Wikipedia standing alone. Bbpen 17:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I must admit that the .mil sites seem to very consistantly capitalize the name, which I think looks silly.  The PEO Ships site capitalizes almost everything, creating a goofy-looking effect — "Learn more about Destroyers, Spruance Class (DD)," "...location and custody responsibilities of Service Craft and Boats" — I really hope we're not going to start capitalizing "Boat".... ➥the Epopt 17:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

text: The Navy loves to capitalize Sailor as well, which is another odd convention. But here's the thing -- it's not just the .mil sites that call it "LCS"; it's everybody.  Or am I missing something? Bbpen 18:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Bbpen here, since "Littoral Combat Ship" in this case is a proper noun officially used to refer to a specific military program. Unless put in a descriptive context (i.e. USS Someship, a littoral combat ship...), it should be capitalized. Furthermore, LCS (referring to the aforementioned program) is an acronym and therefore enjoys the right of being capitalized for clarity if nothing else. FAS.org and GlobalSecurity.org, among others, use this convention with a great degree of consistency.
I'm not sure if I'm just being picky, but why is the CSS Hunley listed as US Navy ship under "Early Ships"? It was built by and for the Confederate Navy, to sink US Navy ships. Doesn't seem to be right, though I guess one could argue that its an American ship. --Moki80 02:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  LCS vs. lcs 

message: Does the 4000 include helicopters? Any sources?
Uncool 1 20:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NUMBER OF AIRCRAFT? 

message: Where should a section on USN Uniforms be placed?  I think under Personel with insignia?--Mtnerd 20:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the current size of this article, I think it'll be better if a new article for that topic should be created instead of having it appended here. Something like " Uniforms of the US Navy" or somesuch, detailing the evolution of the USN uniforms from the Revolution to the present day. Not only its more practical, it'll give more depth to the topic. --Chinfo 06:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I began a section on Uniforms (using the little info I have), because if we don't start one on this page, It won't get started at all. All the other services have sections on uniforms, and I think uniforms are probably more important than some other things which are on this page, and which should probably be moved to their own page. - Matthew238 06:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, I added an article on uniforms several weeks ago.  There's a link at the bottom of this article.  Your section could be removed.--Mtnerd 19:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniforms 

message: In order to avoid the dreaded "unsourced" tag :-), since it's apparently not obvious that the official websites in the external links are also references, I've moved some of them into a references section. While there are lots of USN history books, the primary references for present-day status are going to be websites. Stan 17:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I think with some work, this article can reach featured status. I've started by rewriting the introduction to make it sound more encyclopedic and summarize the navy better while keeping it as close to NPOV as possible. Hope everybody likes it. Arcimpulse 22:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New intro 

message: The captions in this article have been reviewed and meet the criteria for good captions.
--Epolk 16:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Caption reviews 

message: <S>Hey, can somebody out there with knowledge about the subject fix the comissioned officer section of the article? I'm specifically talking about the section talking about line officers, which basically just a list and unworthy of a fac article. </S>Arcimpulse 20:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personnel section 

message: I noticed that you have not mentioned the significance of the color of Enlisted Rank Insignia in the navy. Normally, the insignia's main color is Blue, but they are red in only one instance: When a Enlisted Person has any marks on their record, they must change to Red insignia. Red insignia is the universal stigma of not having a clean record. The Army equivalent is the Good Conduct meadal, which is worn only by Enlisted Persons who have had their record clean for at least three years. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 14:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color of enlisted rank insignia 

message: A paragraph involving Naval shore forces commands has been repeatedly removed from this article over the past six months with little or no explanation by a handful of users.  It reads:
:"The Navy also maintains several "Naval Forces Commands" which operate naval shore facilities and serve as liaison units to local ground forces of the Air Force and Army. Such commands are answerable to a Fleet Commander as the shore protector component of the afloat command. During times of war, all Naval Forces Commands augment to become task forces of a primary fleet. Some of the larger Naval Forces Commands in the Pacific Ocean include Commander Naval Forces Korea (CNFK), Commander Naval Forces Marianas (CNFM), and Commander Naval Forces Japan (CNFJ)"
This paragraph is absolute fact and should be included.  I was a member of CNFK for four years and can attest that Naval Forces Commands make up an important part of the Navy shore establishment.
I agree, Naval Support Facilites should all be mentioned also. - 70.106.43.145 14:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naval Forces Commands 

message: The issue of the article's large size (74 kb) has been brought up repeatedly in peer review. In terms of content, the article looks fine, so I'm going to nip and tuck various areas to try to bring it down. Also, I'm considering making more daughter articles.Arcimpulse 23:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I've begun with the Military Sealift section, and will probably look at the ship or organization section next. Arcimpulse 02:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've managed to trim the article from 80 to 73. Hope everybody is happy with it. If not, there's always the revert link. Arcimpulse 04:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article size 

message: No mention of John Adams? 205.174.22.28 06:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Adams 

message: Is the See Also section necessary?  The links that are in there now (plus the ones that I recently deleted) are all contained in the main body of the article.  If we are to keep a See Also section, I think there needs to be some links added that aren't found elsewhere on the page.  SquidSK (1MC•log) 06:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also section 

message: *Navy Personnel Command Scriberius 17:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing 

message: unless one happens to be the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
This phrase was deleted because the Commandant doesnt report to CJCS-no one does.  CJSC is an advisor to POTUS, not a member of the chain of command. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.185.55.78 (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chain of command 

message: What concerns me about a weak first sentence is the mention of aliases. Introduction: "My name is George Brown, my friends call me 'Sammy,' the police know me as "Joe Jones." I find this startling as an initial introduction, I don't care how many Strunk and White comments can be quoted to say otherwise! It distracts from the rest of the article.
:How about the following, then? The United States Navy is the branch of the United States armed forces responsible for conducting naval operations. Also referred to as the USN or the U.S. Navy, its stated mission is "to maintain, train and equip combat-ready Naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas."
On that topic, how is it that the United States Navy in its 225 years or so of existence has never ever done anything wrong or controversial? In Wikipedia, that must have taken some huge amount of revising!
:If you can find some credible sources for criticisms, by all means, put it in as a dedicated section. I feel that the article is lacking in that as well, but I do not have the expertise in that matter. Therefore, I defer it to anyone who does. Just make sure it's NPOV, and it'll be a welcome addition. Arcimpulse 23:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome.  --ElKevbo 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distraction in first Sentence 

message: What does that mean, and what's up with the snake???
-G
:Check out the Gadsden flag page, it explains the background in good detail. - BillCJ 05:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dont tread on me... what does it mean? 

message: Any particular reason why the USS Enterprise (CV 6), isn't on the list of historically significant ships?  She was the most decorated ship in U.S. History.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.117.249 (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enterprise 

message: The Enterprise is NOT a modified Kitty Hawk class ship. The JFK IS. If you have a verifiable source to the contrary regarding Enterprise, please provide it BEFORE removing the Enterprise class line from the text. - BillCJ 17:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enterprise 

message: thumb|right|white vs. blue: what do they mean?
What's the difference between the blue and white sailor uniforms. Such as here or my illustraion to the right. Is it a rank thing? Adamv88 01:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blue is the winter uniform, white is summer. CruiserBob 04:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  blue and white 

message: Given that the naval insignia have their own pages, do we really need to repeat them all here? The article is long enough as it is, and the page can take awhile to load on older systems. This is supposed to be an overview page, not a one-stop for all info. - BillCJ (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insignia 

message: I commented out the part regarding the Sailor's Creed.  I modified it, but then commented it out because it seems to be too jarring. Maybe we should merge in the Sailor's creed and the Core values of the United States Navy articles (those articles are stubs and will probably never outgrow stub status ) to that section.
Supersquid (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naval Culture 

message: Why do the other links in the personnel section of the box to the right link to individual pages about that specific topic, but the admirals link takes the user to a category page that lists admirals? Shouldn't it link to a page about, oh I dunno, um...admirals?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.129 (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personnel Section - Admirals 

message: I removed the following which was added anonymously in an inappropriate place, making the article somewhat unreadable, and arguably unbalancing the coverage.  Could those involved in this article please evaluate it, and put it in the right place if it is deemed appropriate?
A U.S. Marine was arrested on Monday on suspicion of raping a 14-year-old girl in Okinawa Prefecture, drawing immediate outrage from the governor that is spreading across the prefecture.  Similar incidents have been happening frequently since U.S. occupied Japan in 1945. In 1995, three U.S. servicemen, U.S. Navy Seaman Marcus Gill and U.S. Marines Rodrico Harp and Kendrick Ledet, all from Camp Hansen on Okinawa, raped a 12-years-old schoolgirl by turns.
References: New York Times and CNN
Thanks.  --RobertG ♬ talk 09:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think it should not be added to the article.  While tragic and horrid, it was committed by individuals... we can't stereotype.  The spin that the editor put on their edit makes it sound like we still occupy Japan, for chrissakes!!!  Last time I checked, Japan was one of our closer allies.  Maybe an entry into WikiNews, maybe something relating to the military presence in Okinawa (controversies or similar), but not in general articles regarding the military.
Supersquid (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently added claim 

message: It might be worth including that the US Navy is roughly comparable in size to the rest of the world's Navies combinded. Tirronan (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of the US Navy 

message: There is an error in the article.  Navy colors are blue and gold, not blue and silver147.248.1.159 (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BB (yes, I know this comment is currently 11 months old and the article has since been corrected).  LobStoR (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navy colors 

message: I wasn't aware that the Navy is flying the P-8 yet.
LorenzoB (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First flight in the fourth quarter of 2009.  http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?c=AIR&s=TOP&i=3630118. E2a2j (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft Flown 

message: I have created a new page Navy Oilers. You seem to have a good handle on using the network. Do you have any comments about mine? My passion is to creat an Oiler Museum. Navyoiler (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, that's a pretty good article.  I've cleaned it up a little and converted the external links to references, but other than that it was fine.  Feel free to keep adding more info.  --CapitalR (talk) 07:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navy Oilers 

message: Does the listed total of USN personnel include the Marine Corps?  Either way, I suggest a line should be added clarifying (along with a link to the USMC page.) 24.3.142.198 18:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the USN page not the DoN page.  Marine personnel should be counted on the United States Department of the Navy page, because they are part of the Department of the Navy.  They are not in the Navy.   Anonymous  Talk   —Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personnel count -- incl. USMC? 

message: Is there a good reason that the beginning active date listed here is 1775-10-13, rather than the more accurate and objective 1794-03-27? While the USN's origins trace back to the Continental Navy, which was established on 1775-10-13, saying that this earlier date was the beginning of the USN is like saying my father's birthday is now "officially" mine. This "official" date is biased by its official authority, but it is inaccurate and inappropriate for an encyclopedia with a fundamental principle policy of having a neutral point of view. —Danorton (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a member of the U.S. Navy I can tell you that we celebrate the "birthday" of the Navy on October 13th and recognize 10/13/1775 as the official beginning of the Navy.  You make a good point, however, seeing as the Navy and the U.S. government recognize that day as the "birthday" of the Navy, I feel that date should not be changed.   Anonymous  Talk   —Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong birth date 

message: Shouldn't the infobox also list the current Secretary of the Navy, being that he is the civilian head of the U.S. Navy? ask123 (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: More fitting to put that in United States Department of the Navy. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the SECNAV is the head of the Department of the Navy, which includes the Navy and the Marine Corps.  The Marine Corps has their own head with the head of the Navy being the CNO.   Anonymous  Talk   —Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add SecNav? 

message: according to Naval Historical Center there is no official motto for the US Navy, "but  "Non sibi sed patriae" is sometimes cited". the template here lists "semper fortis". can that motto be removed from the template, changed, or documented please? J. Van Meter (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated :Template:US Navy navbox to remove the motto. Adam McMaster (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

text: No one in the Navy or any branch of the military writes dates/times like that.  Especially with "HRS".  If your going to pretend to be in the military than you should learn a little bit about it first.  Start with DTGs (Date-Time Groups) and then maybe learn about some rates, because no one even wants to pretend to be a CS.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.180.194.3 (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motto 

message: The paygrade of a Fleet Admiral is O-11, not O-10, which is a very common misconception. You can see it here on the Navy's official website. http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy_hr.asp?id=266. Supergoalie1617 (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  To clafiry about Fleet Admirals 

message: There needs to be either a section in this article or a link to a seperate article/list of pop culture items that make reference to the United States Navy (movies, books, tv shows, etc.).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.180.194.3 (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States Navy in Popular Culture 

message: This battle was NOT a part of the American Revolution as the caption indicated REGARDLESS if it was during the same time period- frankly who cares?  This is a weak and invalid argument to make.  What's next?  A picture of Mars in the articles relating to the moon landing?  I edited to remove any evidence of this which might cause confusion.  Do not revert back.65.215.94.13 (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image for Battle of St Vincent 

message: We know that all the military services utilize Civilian pesonnel to get their different missions done.  The USN, the US ARMY, USMC, USAF, wiki page should include the information about the number of civilians that work for the military.  And the jobs they do in support of the warfighter mission.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.43 (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea how many total, but whole commands like Military Sealift Command are predominantly civilian. ~PescoSo say•we all 08:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the USN Navy run without the help of Civilian personnel? 

message: Where does Air-Sea Battle Doctrine go, or is it ready for its own page?  Hcobb (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air-Sea Battle Doctrine 

message: Per WP:SPLIT should this article not get split as it is a whopping 108 Kb in size and almost certainly should be divided, anyone ideas on how this could  be achieved? Mo ainm~Talk 21:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that the page is too large– I think that all the information presented is pertinent and gives a comprehensive idea of such a large organization and should not be omitted altogether. The best approach to take I see is to move the majority of prose into the secondary articles and paraphrase more effectively here. For the most part the secondary articles exist (e.g. History of the United States Navy, Equipment of the United States Navy, etc.). A glaring exception is the personnel section (Personnel of the United States Navy), which as is seems too lengthy for the main page but not comprehensive enough for the topic. I will put the split notice up. Minnecologies (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article size 

message: Was the entire Navy actually granted the three ribbons shown on the Article - PUC, NUC, MUC? kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 01:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: Please be aware that under the "Uniforms" section someone stated that "Navy Working Uniform (NWU) to replace the wash khakis, coveralls, dungarees, and aviation working greens currently in use". The dungarees were faded out of Naval service in 1998 and were replaced by utilities. It now states "Navy Working Uniform (NWU) to replace the wash khakis, coveralls, utilities, and aviation working greens currently in use".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.120.39.217 (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniforms 

message: http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=c5e1d6af-997c-4f1f-add2-fb3115edffcb
After that, as older ships were retired faster than new ones were brought into service, the fleet would fall to a low of 288 ships in 2032 before increasing to 301 ships by 2040. Thus, the current plan would never achieve its implied goal of 322 or 323 ships.
: Worth a mention here?  Or perhaps over at 600-ship Navy?  Hcobb (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Goes at History of the United States Navy Buckshot06 (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers game 

message: A map showing navy bases outside the 50 states would be helpful, especially if it also shows the command or fleet jurisdictions. -- Beland (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overseas bases 

message: Sometimes have heard, that in american popular opinion USN holds the first position (traditionally ?) - regarding the prestige and image - of all U.S. armed services (Like that: 1. USN 2. USAF 3. USMC 4. USArmy) Is that confirmable by polls or sth. like that ? Thanks, --188.174.116.133 (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, they're last. http://www.gallup.com/poll/148127/americans-army-marines-important-defense.aspx Hcobb (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, that's what I've sought. Thank you very much. --Widlotic (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most prestigious service ? 

message: If one wants to know the name of the first nuclear-powered vessel, that information is not readily available on Wikipedia.
I've gone 'round with Wikipedia edits before and grew far too fatigued for further attempts but on Veterans Day I was surprised in this article ("United States Navy") and in every related article I could think to try, Wikipedia consistently fails to state outright the world's first nuclear-powered vessel -- of any type -- was USS Nautilus.
Here are the Wikipedia articles I have looked at and what they have to say on the matter:
USS Nautilus (SSN-571) - "USS Nautilus (SSN-571) is the world's first operational nuclear-powered submarine."
Nuclear navy - "...the world's first nuclear-powered submarine, USS Nautilus (SSN 571)"
Naval Reactors - "...the nation's first power reactor (the Nautilus prototype)"
List of United States Naval reactors - [does not mention historic sequence]
S1W reactor - "The plant was the prototype for the USS Nautilus (SSN-571), the world's first nuclear-powered submarine."
S2W reactor  - [does not mention historic sequence]
Nuclear propulsion - [does not mention Nautilus]
Nuclear marine propulsion - "The first prototype naval reactor was constructed and tested at the Naval Reactor Facility [...] in 1953. The first nuclear-powered submarine, USS Nautilus, put to sea in 1955."
Nuclear power - "One of the first organizations to develop nuclear power was the U.S. Navy, for the purpose of propelling submarines and aircraft carriers. The first nuclear-powered submarine, USS Nautilus (SSN-571), was put to sea in December 1954."
...so it's apparent the first nuclear submarine was Nautilus but we still see no mention of it's status as the first nuclear vessel.  The next article cites historic reactor plants and in it the first vessel mentioned is Nautilus but the question is still not directly answered:
Nuclear reactor - "After World War II, the U.S. military sought other uses for nuclear reactor technology. [...] ...the U.S. Navy succeeded when they steamed the USS Nautilus (SSN-571) on nuclear power January 17, 1955."
The closest we come to Nautilus' full historic status is in the article "Hyman G. Rickover", where we get an oblique reference:
  
"...John L. Sullivan, whose endorsement to build the world's first nuclear-powered vessel, USS Nautilus (SSN-571), later caused Rickover to state that Sullivan was 'the true father of the Nuclear Navy.'"
So far, what Wikipedia offers is more truthful than factual, by which I mean the information is true but little better than if it were inaccurate.  True or not, the information is deficient in utility.  The preceding may be merely academic quibbling but when I get to the present article and read, "The U.S. Navy was one of the first to install nuclear reactors aboard naval vessels;[42] [...]", I have to lodge a broader complaint about the way Wikipedia presents information.  With Nautilus, the U.S. Navy became THE first to install a nuclear reactor aboard ANY vessel, the first use of nuclear power to propel ANY mode of transport.  If Wikipedia cannot provide this information in eleven articles on the subject, something is terribly wrong with Wikipedia.  Does reference 42 even mention some first-to-install record of the U.S. Naval Nuclear Propulsion programme?  No, it does not.
This is, indeed, a page for talk but I do not wish to enter into protracted discussion or to become part of the Wikipedia community.  That community and I conduct our affairs distinctly differently and I have given up altering how I write on subjects I know well to suit Wikipedia.  (I could accurately classify myself has "alienated" by Wikipedia's editing processes.)  Wikipedia accepts edits where wholesale re-writes are needed and the faults I encounter in Wikipedia are more than I could (or would be permitted to) repair.  I here simply want to bring to Wikipedia's attention the need to address its failings.  Yes, I am outside the Wikipedia community and, yes, I wish to remain there but Wikipedia can and will be judged by those outside by how well it presents information, a core mission to which it aspires not simply for itself but for the world at-large.  It would prove fatal to Wikipedia to disregard these judgements.
I am open to suggestions as to how to better make my case to Wikipedia.
Robert Segal
Brooklyn, NY,
veteran of U.S. Naval nuclear propulsion
69.122.247.196 (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: United States naval reactors says the the Nautilus was the first nuclear-powered vessel, although it is not referenced. You have to remember that wikipedia is a work in progress and is never complete but we do rely on reliable sources to back-up any facts that we use. It may be that contributors have not been able to find a source for the "first nuclear-powered vessel" although many sources say it was the first operational nuclear submarine many fail to mention being the first vessel. MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia repeatedly fails to identify the world's first nuclear-powered vessel 

message: :This section has been removed. It is irrelevant for an enyclopedic article on the USN to point out three or four famous people who served in the USN. 
:WP:BOLD
:If you have any problems, discuss them here. Retrolord (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable sailors 

message: There's been a few recent edits adding smaller battles to the infobox. I've reverted them. Seems that in 200+ years of USN history that quite a few individual battles have taken place. IMO, keeping the infobox battles limited to the big ones e.g., the wars, is the best editing course of action.  – S. Rich (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battles in the infobox 

message: I want to delete this statement:
The U.S. Navy is no longer assuming that no other naval force will challenge them and is refocusing their missions for other than purely defensive roles.
It is sourced to this article: http://breakingdefense.com/2014/01/navy-seeks-rail-guns-lasers-cruise-missiles-to-improve-pacific-firepower/ which states,
 we can no longer assume that no other navy will challenge us with its ships.
... which is a claim made by the author, and not anyone he's interviewing.   That statement is a link to this article: http://breakingdefense.com/2013/12/china-can-win-big-in-the-pacific-by-backing-down-edward-luttwak/ which talks about Chinese expansionism in the pacific, particularly the Senkaku Islands dispute.  I believe the author is saying that "China is expanding and unjustly claiming the Senkaku Islands and might threaten our Navy in order to take them."  I have a number of problems with what we have written in the article.
Less convincingly:
* My own understanding of the conflict regarding those islands is China is testing the US military alliance with Japan.  If the US promises to back Japan, China will have no choice but to back down, because...
* The Chinese Navy is dwarfed by the US Navy.  They have only one aircraft carrier, a recommissioned soviet ship, which is currently being used for training purposes.
More convincingly:
* I couldn't verify the reliability of breakingdefense.com, or the reliability of the author Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.  But I'm not an expert on verification, so they may or may not be reliable.
* The claim in our article is made on behalf of the navy, when the claim in the source is made by the author.  This is misleading, at least.
I don't think this statement is true at all, and would like to delete it entirely.  Are there any complaints? PraetorianFury (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  China will challenge the US Navy?  Gfaw. 

message: There is a new Manual of Style talk page discussion that questions the practice of referring to commercial and naval vessels as "she" and "her" taking place here.  One or more editors have proposed a change to the Manual of Style which would require the use of the gender-neutral pronoun "it" when referring to vessels.  Please take the time to express your opinion on this matter.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOS: Discussion regarding the use of "she" to refer to ships 

message: First, I am newish to editing Wikipedia, i.e., I have not had an account before this. In the past I have attempted to correct factual errors on a few pages, but found that these disappeared within a day or two, presumably because no one wants to listen to an anonymous contributor, or take the time to confirm that he's right if you can just roll it back to incorrect information.
I note that the article currently says "The U.S. Navy was one of the first to install nuclear reactors aboard naval vessels" which strikes me as unnecessarily mealy-mouthed, when the correct statement is, "was the first". Is this due to some controversy over what is a good enough footnote to add to it? The 2007 footnote currently on that statement rather misses the point, as USS Nautilus is the correct target. Am I missing something? Feel free to show me the ropes, or flog me with them. Davelizard (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Among the first to put a nuclear reactor aboard a ship" 

message: The first point is that in this section it notes that the Navy Jack was the 13 alternating red and white stripes with the uncoiled rattlesnake laid across the center. While this may be regarded as the traditional first Jack, it is not the historical first Jack, which was simply a field of the 13 alternating red and white stripes used by Commodore Esek Hopkins. The "First Navy Jack" noted in this section was not known until 1777 or 1778.
The second point is that the section claims that the "The First Naval Jack, however, has always been flown on the oldest ship in the active American fleet, currently USS Denver (LPD-9)." This claim may be true, but the claim that USS Denver is the oldest active ship is erroneous. There are three ships that the US Navy carries on its register of active vessels that are much older than USS Denver's 1965. USS Constitution (Heavy Frigate); Maiden voyage: 22 July 1798; Status: Active, In Commission, In Active Service. USS Arizona (BB-39); Commissioned: 17 October 1916; Status: Active, Memorial. (Although the Arizona was Decommissioned: 29 December 1941 and Struck: 1 December 1942, it is still authorized to carry the active designation of "USS", the designation of an active United States Ship of the Line, a Warship.) and USS Pueblo (AGER-2); Commissioned: 13 May 1967; Status: Active, In Commission, Currently Held By North Korea.MR2David (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navy Jack 

message: A quick bit of adding shows this to be clearly untrue.
There is even a wikipedia article comparing naval tonnage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_warships#The_table
If you add the Russia, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, British and French navies together you get a figure of 3,353,425 tons which is comparable to the US navies 3,374,559 tons. So you can say the US navy is larger than the next 6 navies combined.
If you added up the 13 navies claimed, you would get 4,514,080 which is over a million tons larger than the US navy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyrover (talk • contribs) 12:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was just looking at that myself. This comment made by SecDef Robert Gates, (or his speechwriter) is clearly off the mark. I'm gonna boldly change that. -  theWOLFchild 11:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Other wiki pages are not reliable sources.   Specific claims need to be cited with reliable sources. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not disputing your edit (it's fine with me), but I did wanted to clarify that a wiki page was not used as a reliable source. As far as where exactly the US ranks in tonnage against other navies of the world, does anyone know of any other sources (eg: access to Jane's), besides the somewhat dubious Gates comment? (since it seems we can trust our own wiki pages either...) -  theWOLFchild 06:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battlefleet displacement larger than next 13 navies combined 

message: The statement that "the USN  was larger than all combatant navies combined by 1943" is a ridiculous claim and an attempt to distort history the Royal Navy already had or built between 1939 and 1945 approx 9000 + ships of 40+ different classes/types during that period. 17 different navies took part in WW2 the German Kriegesmarine built over 1200+ could have been 1500 u boats alone not including its surface fleet when you look at the the total amount of ships that the USN had at its disposal in 1943 it was not larger than 17 navies combined yes today its larger than all navies combined by TONNAGE not combined vessels. That source is a page number with no link to verify the book's claim and does not provide any statistical evidence such as total amount of ships and ship classes for cross reference both here or else where when you look at articles on Wikipedia alone at all the major combatants and do simple sums up to 1943 those numbers do no add up, I will refrain from reverting for now until this is sorted out.--Navops47 (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Where in the article is that comment? -  theWOLFchild 06:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim that the USN in 1943 was larger than all combatant navies combined  

message: Seriously? - (btw, I already reverted, so you should leave my edit in place while it's discussed - wp:brd) On this page, it was just "Navy", then "Blue-water navy" for quite some time (pretty much the life of the article), until someone changed it to this "multi-" term just this past xmas. Either "Navy" (which I believe was intended for that infobox value) or "Blue-water navy" (which is the highest level of naval capability, and basically encompasses blue and green and even brown water access) are both more appropriate and simply better. Is "multi-water" even a real term? Do you have a reliable source to support it? It appears to be a made-up word, which as we know is not permitted by wp:or. 
I just checked the wp articles for the top 20 navies of the world (by tonnage), and a majority of them have the "type" simply as "navy", while a few others have either "blue water" or "green water", depending on size and/or capability. (note: it does appear that in the last 2 days, an ip editor has changed 2 of them to "multi-", with no edit summary, cite or talk page support.) That seems to be the case here, as well. -  theWOLFchild 15:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not add the multi-water term in the first place.  Before your post here, nobody has tried to explain the changes to "Blue-water navy".  It'd be better to just change is back to "navy" since it is not just a blue-water navy. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to change this page to just "Navy", that's fine with me. (I would be happy to see all these pages use simply "Navy".) I've brought this issue to the Wiki-Project Ships talk page. Cheers. -  theWOLFchild 16:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

text: * Ah, it's all fine with me.  I didn't realize Blue-water essentially covers most everything. Thanks for explaining. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to comment on this; some literature refer to the USN as a global blue-water navy, that is to say, a blue-water navy able to project considerable power on several large bodies of water simultaneously. It is used to distinguish the USN from lesser blue-water navies (think Royal Navy or the Marine Nationale) that are limited to projecting power to a single theater. With the decades long decline of the Royal Navy and the collapse of the Soviet Union, only the USN remains capable of projecting significant maritime power to multiple theaters. So I believe the inclusion of the "multi-" term back in March was somebody's rather overly simplistic interpretation of a global blue-water navy (i.e one that spans the globe, "multi-water" etc). Cheers. Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "multi-water navy"... ? 

message: On the article List of current ships of the United States Navy (which keeps a fairly accurate count), the Navy has 236 commissioned ships, with another 17 ex-commissioned in reserve (for a total of 253), with another 180 non-commissioned. The Navy uses the term "Deployable Battle Force"http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=146, and at one time, that referred to said commissioned ships. They have since changed their definition for this to include some non-commissioned ships (even unarmed ones!), and over-night, that total jumped by several dozen (they even count hospital ships in this 'new math'??). This was recently discussed in this article from; Defense News.
I realize we need to follow reliable sources, (especially the US Navy, when we're writing about... the US Navy). That said, I like to have this change in accounting doctrine clarified, especially in the lead, which presently states the Navy has a "Deployable Battle Force of 275 ships". I'd like to suggest we simply add to that sentence; "...of which, 236 [or 253] are commissioned...". Anyone object to this? -  theWOLFchild 07:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, why not? They commission buildings for Pete's sake... -  theWOLFchild 16:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable math... 

message: The allegiance of the USN is to the USA, not to the constitution of the USA.Royalcourtier (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegiance 

message: Since the only thing under equipment is ships, can we remove the heading for equipment and promote everything under it up a level so under "surface vessels" cruisers, destroyers, frigates and littoral combat ships become sub-sub headings that are viable in the Contents box for people to quickly find?  Name Omitted (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible someone changed this in response to your comment, but the equipment heading also includes aircraft and submarines (which are vessels, but not surface vessels). Also, a few of the items under "weapons" are sometimes deployed on land. I'm not sure whether navy personnel operate terrestrial navy weapons, but it seems like navy equipment would include a wider range of items than just ships, especially considering that that navy has, at times, maintained coastal fortresses.Pwoodfor (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure who changed it or when (I didn't hunt around to look), but it's one thing to list the types, as this editor has requested, they're even listed on TOC for ease of use, but I have no idea why someone thought we needed a breakdown of every specific type and class, as well as exact numbers for each class that are active, under construction and planned. This type of detail is not only unnecessary for the main service page, it needlessly bloats it and fills it up with info that will be out of date more often than not. It seems many people are not already aware we have multiple pages already with very detailed tables and lists, giving out these very numbers (repeatedly) along with plenty of other details such as hull code/number, home port, etc., etc. In fact, it's already been brought up several times that we may have too many of these lists. They are repetitive and redundant and often out-of-date, as such the totals rarely match. That is, until one of only a handful of editors comes along and updates them all. And of course, they all have to be ref'd, which means the more lists we have, the more times these cites have to be copied, brought over and maintained as well. We really are getting carried away with all these lists. People seem to love making them, but not taking care of them -  theWOLFchild 13:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

text: I made some changes/additions/fixes. As it stands now, I only basically removed the "lists" of individual classes with the current numbers (along with under const'n and planned). But in place, each "type" now has a hatnote link to a list, so instead of creating more lists (and problems) readers are directed to a current list, only a click away. I can't stress this enough we have enough lists already (too many). There are 4+1 lists, listed at the top, plus another 9 lists, one for each type... I really think 14 is enough. (too many). I added some missing surface type vessels. Rounded out frigates to include LCSs, updated the naming conventions, and added, fixed-up and updated all the pics. There wasn't very many refs. Everything is basically brief notes of other sections and pages. I'd like to add some refs, and that's one of the things I'll try to work on when I'm back online. (gotta go out for awhile). Feel free to add some if you like. This is all I can think of right now. (By the way... everything I done here is specifically to the "Equipment" section, "Ships" subsection", not anywhere else.) Cheers -  theWOLFchild 18:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, this is a much better way of organizing things. Name Omitted (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equipment 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on United States Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150518160349/http://militarybases.com/navy/ to http://militarybases.com/navy/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on United States Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061206095348/http://buperscd.technology.navy.mil:80/bup_updt/508/unireg/chapter4/chapter_4sec2pt2.htm to http://buperscd.technology.navy.mil/bup_updt/508/unireg/chapter4/chapter_4sec2pt2.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061206095333/http://buperscd.technology.navy.mil:80/bup_updt/508/unireg/chapter4/chapter_4sec2pt1.htm to http://buperscd.technology.navy.mil/bup_updt/508/unireg/chapter4/chapter_4sec2pt1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on United States Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://directory.usnavyseals.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Proposed change to role to "Naval Warfare" to make it more inline with the other services (who preform these functions as well). If you disagree please comment. Garuda28 (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role: Propose change 

message: Per the U.S. Navy's official website at the Naval History and Heritage Command, the date of founding of the U.S. Navy is per the resolution passed by the Second Continental Congress on 13 October 1775, viz., directing the acquisition, fitting out, and manning of two armed vessels for the Continental Navy. Some people continue to ignore this and want to post the date of the U.S. Congress', post American War of Independence, re-authorization for a naval force on 27 March 1794, viz., "Act to provide a Naval Armament", as the founding date.
Both the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps also officially claim the dates of their founding by the dates authorized by the Second Continental Congress (i.e., Continental Army on 14 June 1775 and the Continental Marines on 10 November 1775). Both dates are supported, and published, by Wikipedia in their respective articles.
While it is true that the Continental naval forces effectively ceased to exist after the war (with the last ship sold on 3 June 1785), the resolution authorizing a navy was never rescinded. Therefore, as a legal entity the Navy still existed, albeit only on paper, under the auspices of the War Department. On 27 March 1794, Congress passed the "Navy Act of 1794", authorizing the acquisition of six frigates, along with the required officers, enlisted men, armaments, and stores, etc. to man and equip them. On 30 April 1798, Congress established the Department of the Navy, separate from the War Department, to handle affairs of the Navy. Therefore, the Navy per se never officially/legally ceased to exist, it simply went into a state of abeyance until receiving authorization for new ships, and their crews, etc.
The U.S Navy has existed as a legal entity, albeit under different names (i.e., Continental Navy and United States Navy) and under different command relationships (i.e., under the War Department until 1794, then in a cabinet-level Department of the Navy, and, since 1947, in a sub-cabinet level department, under the Department of Defense).CobraDragoon (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Date of Founding of the U.S. Navy 

message: Talk:United States Armed Forces#Infobox: President vs. Commander-in-Chief Garuda28 (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  President vs. Commander-in-Chief 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071223134622/http://www.news.navy.mil/swf/index.asp to http://www.news.navy.mil/swf/index.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United States Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121215042844/http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552708 to http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552708
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070817104224/http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/intro.html to http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/intro.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am proposing changes to the official HTML color codes listed in the infobox. My proposed edit diff is here. My sources for the proposed HTML color code changes are found at the Navy's website: Graphics and the Navy's official Seal & Navy Brand Guide. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to recall going through this a year or so ago. The Navy's official colors are blue and gold. The ref that was being used is the colors for the Navy's official seal, which includes brown, red, white, black & grey. Wait for some others to comment, perhaps those from the original discussion and consensus. I would suggest holding off on the army, uscg, usmc and usaf infoboxes and official colors as well, and check on those talk pages first. Actually, it might be better to centralize the discussion on the MILHIST project talk page, to coverall all military branch pages and infoboxes - theWOLFchild 06:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  So your only problem with this edit is the use of the reference from the Navy regarding the official seal colors? My question is, why can't we use the Navy Brand Guide reference right away? It's official and it spells out what the exact specifications are for the blue and gold colors. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: My question is, what is your problem with the infoboxes and official colors, the way they were? Why the need to change? Just curious... - theWOLFchild 06:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am proposing these changes because I would like the main United States Navy article to include official URL references and HTML color codes found straight from the U.S. Navy itself (relative to this specific discussion). That's what I was trying to do. Maybe we should get more editors familiar with this topic involved, in the goal of reaching consensus. Or, maybe, we should take this to the main WP:MILHIST page, where we can unify the official HTML color codes/URL references for all articles about each branch of the United States Armed Forces, straight from each branch's official URL itself. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

text:  Look, I'm sorry. I don't want to engage in an edit-war with you over this topic, and I'm sorry if I came across as hostile. It wasn't my intention. At this point, I think we should get other editors involved, preferably at the talk page for WP:MILHIST, and preferably those editors who are knowledgeable and familiar with this discussion. All I want now is consensus for the official HTML color codes/URL references for each article related to the United States Armed Forces that you and I can both live with. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Everything's cool. We're doing what we're supposed to, there's no edit-warring or incivility going on. So, no worries. We'll wait for some others to comment. It might take a day or so, but it'll get worked out. Cheers - theWOLFchild 07:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The U.S. Navy's official colors are blue and gold. The reference that includes white, red and brown is just describing the official colors of the seal, not the service. I will change the reference so other editors do not get confused. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would this edit diff be considered acceptable? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: TBH, I really don't see a need to change this, or any of the other branch infoboxes. These have been examined, re-examined, debated and haggled over and finally, these infoboxes have become stable, correct, sourced and consistent. These pages have a lot of watchers and activity and it's hard enough keeping them on track as it is. This is a case of "If it ain't broke, WP:DONTFIXIT", (imho). But, see if others weigh in and support your proposed changes and if you can get consensus, and go from there. - theWOLFchild 03:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

text: As long as the color box says Blue and Gold and includes no other colors, I am fine with any revision to the color field including the one proposed. --Frmorrison (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

text: *Reply to comment - IMO, I'm glad we have a sourcing policy, so that changes like this aren't made based on "IMO". - theWOLFchild 03:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Navy official colors 

message: At present ComCortDiv redirects to this page - or, more accurately, to United States Navy#Historical organization, which no longer exists. But there is no mention or explanation of ComCortDiv on this page, nor can I find one on any sub-pages. Davidships (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ComCortDiv]] 

message: Please be advised there is currently a debate on WP:MOS at Talk:United States Space Force#MOS that could affect the article pages of other U.S. Armed Forces branch pages.Garuda28 (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification of MOS debate at United States Space Force 

message: The Italian article names St. Brendan Patron Saint of the US Navy: True? Terminallyuncool and Terminallyuncool2 - in both cases lost password...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8070:249B:4F00:E053:395A:7269:DBD3 (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: He is the patron saint of, among others; "...boatmen, divers, mariners, sailors, travelers...", so he could be considered the patron saint of the US Navy, and every other navy for that matter. I don't know what the Italian WP says, but I do know that to have St. Brendan noted specifically as the patron saint of the US Navy here on the English WP, you would need some solid sourcing to support that. - wolf 06:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  St. Brendan 

message: In the lead, the article says "With 336,978 personnel on active duty and 101,583 in the Ready Reserve, the U.S. Navy is the third largest of the U.S. military service branches in terms of personnel." I can't find where the article indicates the USN is the third largest in terms of personnel; according to the data here (Strength Summary) it seems to be the second largest. Should I go ahead and update this sentence along with the new number of 347,162 active duty? Debater284938 (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, if sourcing supports it, go for it. - wolf 23:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  only second largest if ignoring reserves. With reserve AF is second largest with ~450,000. The sources on the armed forces page also indicates that Navy reserves are ~50,000 so we need to figure out where that disparity is coming from. Garuda28 (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, including reserves Navy is indeed 3rd largest. 347,162+57,618 for Navy is just 418 people less than 335,140+70,058 for USAF (kinda crazy it's that close). I think the fact that Space Force personnel are lumped in with the USAF numbers mean Navy might really be 2nd, but until they make it clear I'll leave it 3rd. I'll just update the figures for now. —Debater284938 (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don’t forget National Guard for USAF as well. That adds another 100,000 for USAF. Garuda28 (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third largest in terms of personnel? 

message: Hello, I just created an article for Large-Scale Exercise 2021, the largest US Navy exercise in 40 years. Any help improving the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I am retired from the Navy. What do need? CoachZeeeee (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large-Scale Exercise 2021 

message: So I tried to change the official U.S. Navy colors in the infobox, per this edit diff. It was reverted. The point of this topic is to try to engage with other editors interested to reach a consensus. My proposed changes use these URL references:
History.Navy.mil, History.Navy.mil & Media.Defense.gov. Please feel free to reply to this topic so that we may reach a consensus. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This same issue was brought up before (), and overall, this has been a recurring issue with this editor, involving the colors of numerous organizations in their article infoboxes. That said, this here seems to be an answer in search of problem, and as before, it appears that  applies. (jmho) - wolf 07:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, yes, this issue has bern brought up before (by me, I might add). What I'm still saying is this: the URL reference in the infobox from."Carlos Cabo" does not spell out what the colors for the U.S. Navy actually are. Why should it still be included? Why can't we replace it with a document that spells out what the colors actually are straight from the source? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we all know you brought it up before. The colors are spelled out, "blue and gold". There is a navy ref, which is a primary source, and secondary source (that converts pms to html). Why do you need to remove the secondary source and instead have three primary sources? (see ) - wolf 23:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reason why the secondary source should be removed is because it doesn't actually list what the HTML or Websafe color codes are. I'm open to keep using the URL reference from Navy.mil that's archived and already in the infobox. However, I would like to replace the reference from RGB.to with the U.S. Navy's brand guide (which is made available to the public and is found here). Would you be willing and amenable to my proposed changes? The U.S. Navy's brand guide is a much better reference than the RGB.to reference because the RGB.to reference doesn't say what the HTML or Websafe color codes are, but the U.S. Navy's brand guide does spells them out by contrast. So, with that said, we should only need two (2) URL references from Navy.mil & the Navy brand guide in the infobox. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States Navy official colors