Talk:United States Navy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:25, 23 October 2005

Various topics

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

File:Merrimac.jpg

CSS Virginia (left) vs. USS Monitor, March 1862: The Battle of Hampton Roads - the first between ironclad warships.

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)

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)[reply]

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.)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [2] Or am I missing something? Bbpen 18:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

NUMBER OF AIRCRAFT?

Does the 4000 include helicopters? Any sources? Uncool 1 20:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 : 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!) --[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]][[User talk: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.--[[User:Mtnerd|Mtnerd]] 21:23, 23 October 2005 (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.--[[User:Mtnerd|Mtnerd]] 21:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 ==Reorganise==