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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
United States Navy is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. 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 Wikipedia'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 is rated B-class on Wikipedia'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 articles
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.
United States: Military historyHigh‑importance
United States portal
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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Template Usage
Articles Requested!
Become a Member
Project Talk
Alerts
United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
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"edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments4 people in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
That works for me.--ERAGON (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Continued
edit
@Garuda28: you just decided to remove that now, with no further additions or discussion? - wolf 01:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
United States Navy official colors
edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
Edit request on 13 March 2023
edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
@Charlesaaronthompson, @Thewolfchild
152.36.223.4 (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
What happened to the Don't Tread on Me Navy Emblem and flag?
edit
Latest comment: 7 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The US navy used to have the Don't Tread on Me flag or emblem, so what happened to it? Thank you. 2601:647:4000:12E0:9DCD:7FEA:6916:BF16 (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
That's actually also the current US Navy Jack or emblem, from what I remember 2601:647:4000:12E0:9DCD:7FEA:6916:BF16 (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I've noticed that on desktop view, the image for the first jack is pushed out of the naval jack section into the next section, and I wouldn't have noticed it if I wasn't specifically looking for it. This is a consequence of the Equipment section having so many right-justified images that images in further sections are pushed out even more. I know that the selection of images can be quite contentious and I'm not going to go there, yet this is a good example of the consequences of having so many images stuffed into one section. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
patron
edit
Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Editor Wikiuser17 has added |patron=[[Brendan the Navigator|Saint Brendan]] to the infobox. After the first addition, I reverted as unsupported. There has now been a second addition with a source of dubious quality (a retail establishment that sells Catholic paraphernalia). Again, I have reverted with an edit summary mentioning this talk page.
|patron= has a specific definition in {{Infobox military unit}} (quoted from the template's documentation):
patron – optional – The patron the unit was named after; this is only applicable in armed forces where units are named after individuals.
The US Navy was not named after Brendan. Personally, I doubt that Brendan is officially recognized by the USN simply because the USN, as a US Government entity, cannot be seen to prefer one religion over any or all other religions.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I just noticed the a similar edition to the US Army Rangers page. I don't think it's particularly encyclopaedic, so I was just going to to revert and perhaps trigger a discussion. But if there is to be one, maybe it would be better had at milhist, as opposed to any individual article. Thoughts? - wolf 07:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sure, if it becomes a problem, then WP:MILHIST. Editors who maintain {{infobox military unit}} might also want to consider renaming |patron= to |namesake= or some such.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply