Talk:United States Navy/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Contents |
Various topics
There is quite a few photos produced my the US military recently in the pacific that may be good candidates to replace some of the ones already here. Since they were produced by the navy specifically for publicity, they are public domain.
http://www.pacom.mil/exercises/vs2006/imagery/060618-N-8591H-383-h.jpg
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/060618-N-8492C-066.jpg
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/060618-N-8492C-212.jpg
Bongle 02:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Moved Ships section to new page U.S. Navy ships to get U.S. Navy page under 35K. Left skeleton summaries and links to classes of carriers, cruisers, subs, destroyers, frigates. Moved weapons section up, culture and personnel down, reasoning that most visitors are going to be more interested in ships and gear than personnel. Bbpen 20:15, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
An event in this article is a March 27 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)
This looks sad indeed by comparison with Royal Navy entry
Yes, indeed, nothing of the history of the navy, growth of US sea power, current strength, role in the current global conflicts. And what is here is poorly organized. lots of good stuff on individual vessels and types, but nothing to tie it all together. I know this is weak, but I really don't know enough to fix it. It's a job for a gob. Ortolan88 May 02.
Looking at it with an eye to the 3/27 featuring, it seems that the submarine warfare is disproportionately detailed and technical, should be replaced with a 2-paragraph summary and the full details go elsewhere (not sure of good article title tho). To some extent, this article is itself a "Main Page" for things watery, so its emphasis should be more on leading readers to in-depth articles of most interest, rather than being the repository of all in-depth material. Stan 07:25, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Um, the picture of the Monitor vs. the Virginia was supposed to illustrate "During the American Civil War, the Navy was an innovator in the use of ironclad warships,...". That seems like a reasonable subject for a picture, though maybe a bigger one, say 300 px, would be better. --wwoods 21:53, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- A bigger sized pic wouldn't help me because I still wouldn't know what the painting was all about. A descriptive caption linking the pic to something in the text would do the trick.
- Adrian Pingstone 06:30, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
- Okay, how about
During the American Civil War, the Navy was an innovator in the use of ironclad warships, but after the war slipped into obsolescence. A modernization program beginning in the 1880s brought the US into the first rank of the world's navies by the beginning of the 20th century.
.
-
- It'd be nice if the length of the text matched the length of the pic. Cropping out the top third would do no great harm either. --wwoods 06:59, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Birthplace of the American Navy is where? I've been told it is Marblehead, Massachusetts. Is this correct? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marblehead%2C_Massachusetts
Relationship to USMC
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)
Reorganise
I think all of the pages - US armed forces, US Department of Defense, and all the services (US Army etc.) need to be reorganised, First so that there is not uneeded overlap, and Second so that Army, Navy etc. are all set out the same way (eg. similar headings and article structure, just with different content.)
- United States armed forces
- United States Department of Defense
- United States Army
- United States Navy
- United States Air Force
- United States Marine Corps
- United States Coast Guard
and maybe Joint Chiefs of Staff etc.
---
This page contains only three red links. Can somebody made pages to red links.
Update
I made a template along the lines of the Royal Navy page. We do need to clean out the main US Navy, perhaps move the ships, aircraft, etc. to other lists. This I think would keep the main one smaller and more concise. More links with pages coming...
Style reference
Looking for a reference on the proper usage and style for referring to naval ships I found this page:
- ships: Identify the ship's type in the first reference in the article and specify if it is nuclear-powered: "The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman returned to her home port yesterday following a six-month deployment to the Persian Gulf." Hull numbers are generally not used in the text of an article. U.S. Navy ships are not identified as "USS" until they are commissioned into active service: "The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan will be commissioned in 2002." Place "the" before the ship's name and delete the ship's type in subsequent references: "The ceremony took place the day after the USS Harry S. Truman returned to port." Italicize the ship's name only (not USS) in text of article: "Members of the Pensacola Council met the USS Harry S. Truman on her arrival." Sea Power Editorial Guidelines for Prospective Authors
I found that information helpful. There is additional information on details of usage in naval matters. Cheers, -Willmcw 02:36, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer. If you're interested participating in the discussion about style, you may want to see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Referring_to_ships and the accompanying Talk page. Jinian 02:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
-
- That's even better. I'd looked for something like that, but hadn't found it. Thanks, -Willmcw 03:06, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
LCS vs. lcs
Littoral Combat Ship is capitalized; see [1]. Bbpen 15:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
-
- 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)
-
-
- 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)
-
-
- 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)
NUMBER OF AIRCRAFT?
Does the 4000 include helicopters? Any sources? Uncool 1 20:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I think I found the source, here milnet though I'm skeptical about that figure. In anycase I expect the exact figure is classified. --Chinfo 12:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
It's just that with less about 200 F-14's in it's inventory and about 1460 F-18's ordered for both the Navy and the Marine Corps, Im thinking that the vast marjority of the 4000 must be helicopters. Uncool 1 17:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Uniforms
Where should a section on USN Uniforms be placed? I think under Personel with insignia?--Mtnerd 20:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
-
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
References
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)
Inclusion of F-15 and F-16
I would like to question the inclusion of the F-15, F-16 and F-22 aircraft in the Naval Aircraft section. Since Alkivar took the time to revert my correction, then it wouldn't be too much of a trouble to explain why or give any reference that points to the US Navy having those planes in their inventory. Even the articles of the said aircraft fail to mention them being operated by the US Navy.--Chinfo 11:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well lets see where to start, there were a few F-15's used as trainer aircraft up until around 1997 by USMC, and USN... although they are not currently in service anymore (I think they were sold to the Air National Guard?). F-16N variation used by USN. At one point there was an F/A-22 variant being built to USN specifications... as such they belong... as for not appearing in the articles you must not be looking hard...
- From F-16:
-
-
- F-16N - 26 Block 30 aircraft delivered to the U.S. Navy for use as aggressor trainers.
- TF-16N - Four two-seaters delivered to the u.s. Navy for use as aggressor trainers.
- Total delivered or on order as of 2005: United States Navy: 40
-
-
- US Navy
-
- While the US Navy chose the competing F/A-18 Hornet for development as a carrier-based fighter, the service still had a need for an aggressor aircraft to supplement the A-4 Skyhawk and F-5 Freedom Fighter posing as enemy fighters to help train Navy pilots in dissimilar air combat training (DACT). The lightweight F-16 was ideal for the job, and the F-16N version was specifically developed for the task. Lacking weapons capability, the F-16N and two-seat TF-16N served for a number of years before retirement. The F-16 was reintroduced to the role for the Navy with the acquisition of some of the Pakistani F-16A/B-15OCU aircraft embargoed before delivery to that country.
- From F-22:
-
- Based on the F/A-22, the swing-wing NATF was proposed for the U.S. Navy to replace the F-14 Tomcat, though the program was subsequently cancelled in 1993.
New intro
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)
CWOs?
The page refers to Junior, Senior & Flag Commissioned Officers; Enlisted Personel; and even mentions LDOs. But no discussion or even a link to the USN Chief Warrant Officers.
Image Caption reviews
The captions in this article have been reviewed and meet the criteria for good captions.
--Epolk 16:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC) - (Writing Captions WikiProject)
Personnel section
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. Arcimpulse 20:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
