Talk:United States Navy - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fnlayson (talk | contribs) at 17:26, 22 June 2023 (Revert unclear, test like addition by 178.150.238.180 (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:26, 22 June 2023 by Fnlayson (talk | contribs) (Revert unclear, test like addition by 178.150.238.180 (talk))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States Navy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

United States Navy is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 29, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
July 26, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
August 2, 2006	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
September 27, 2006	WikiProject A-class review	Not approved
March 19, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
December 3, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 27, 2004, March 27, 2005, March 27, 2006, March 27, 2007, March 27, 2008, and March 27, 2009.
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Aviation / Maritime / National / North America / United States / Early Modern / American Revolution / American Civil War / World War I / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Maritime warfare task force
	National militaries task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	American Revolutionary War task force
	American Civil War task force
	World War I task force
	World War II task force

Additional information:
/
	This article has failed an A-Class review.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Military history High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.

"Largest Navy in the world"

It light of a recent edit and subsequent revert, that leaves the lead current only as of 2015, it might be worthwhile to update and expand this item in the lead. While the USN was the largest, the China PLAN has taken over that distinction as of 2021. But as pointed out in this article from The Diplomat, it's not that simple and straight-forward. While China has a greater overall number of combat vessels, they are largely on the smaller end of the scale in both size and capability. Those numbers seem to be China's only advantage. The US still has more carriers, large combatants, a sizable Coast Guard and of real note; allies. Along with the UK, Commonwealth Nations and NATO, the US is allies with no less than 6 Pac-Rim nations with navies. China's only allied navy is North Korea. I thought I would I post this here and see what discussion and edits it may lead to. - wolf 18:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

A notation regarding this issue was added to the lead History of the United States Navy today, by user ERAGON. So again, perhaps there should be some discussion on this. (@Fnlayson:... any thoughts?) - wolf 04:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I did use the term "raw number of ships" for that reason, as I'm aware that by other metrics- such as power projection- the USN remains the most powerful. A qualifier could be added to that statement regarding power projection perhaps. I also just tweaked the start date for US naval supremacy to 1943 rather than 1945, as that was the date it overtook the rest of the world combined in terms of ship count.--ERAGON (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be best to simplify the text to something like "largest navy in the world based on tonnage" to avoid most ships debates. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

That works for me.--ERAGON (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

A quick comment. I think it's fair to say that the "larger than the next 13 navies combined" in terms of tonnage is now outdated in light of China's vast naval buildup and can probably now be removed. Skyrover 19:46, 23 June 2021 (GMT)

Yes that statement is a few years old but the date is clearly stated. Without supercariers, China's total tonnage has not changed that much in comparison to the US's total. But the comparison should updated with newer data. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Continued

@Garuda28: you just decided to remove that now, with no further additions or discussion? - wolf 01:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Whoops. Totally missed this conversation. Took from (https://news.usni.org/2021/11/03/china-has-worlds-largest-navy-with-355-ships-and-counting-says-pentagon). Self reverting now. Garuda28 (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey, np & thanks. I agree that the statement as is might be problematic (others have edited it out as well), I just figured that if it is to be changed, then more clarification should be added. But that's just imo. This would need some input from others as well, I would think. Cheers - wolf 13:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Third largest in terms of personnel?

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)

Sure, if sourcing supports it, go for it. - wolf 23:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Debater284938: 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)

@Garuda28: 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)

@Debater284938: Don’t forget National Guard for USAF as well. That adds another 100,000 for USAF. Garuda28 (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Large-Scale Exercise 2021

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)

I am retired from the Navy. What do need? CoachZeeeee (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

United States Navy official colors

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)

This same issue was brought up before (see: Talk:USN/Archive 1#U.S. Navy official colors), 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 WP:If it ain't broke, don't fix it applies. (jmho) - wolf 07:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: 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)

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 WP:primary vs secondary sourcing) - wolf 23:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: 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)

Well, it seems sourcing is your issue, so I would suggest, (in the spirit of cooperation), that if you want to makes changes that leave the colors and layout of that infobox section as is, and leave it with one primary source and one secondary source, but have those sources updated however you see fit (as long as they meet wp:rs), then go for it. - wolf 02:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 March 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

General characteristics

erik prince official page on Instagram, the founder of Blackwater private company 152.36.223.4 (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Charlesaaronthompson, @Thewolfchild

152.36.223.4 (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Not done You need to make your request in a "please change 'X' to 'Y'" format and insure you that you include sourcing to support it. - wolf 17:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Categories: