Talk:Uniforms of the United States Navy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Uniforms of the United States Navy article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: 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: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

I was told there was one way a navy member could wear three warfare pins on there uniform. Which way is that?

There isn't, according to US Navy Uniform Regulations.

Contents 1 Images 2 Bootcloak 3 Obsolete 4 Cleanup Needed

[edit] Images

Whilst a glance over the text seems to reveal a good descriptive bulk - where are the pictures? For an article such as this they are most certainly warranted. - Hayter 12:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely, and have added a template requesting same. ONUnicorn 18:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a few pictures to graphic illustrate some key points, but now the formatting needs work to make the article flow better. It might help to beak the sections Dress Uniforms, Service Uniforms, and Special Uniform Situations into sub-articles. Stoic atarian 12:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a picture of the Constitution uniforms? --Mukk 21:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bootcloak

When I served in the Navy until about five years ago, the bootcloak was always the most exotic entry in the uniform catalogue, since none of us had ever actually seen it worn around. Perhaps a knowledgeable authority could write something about it here? CRCulver 04:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obsolete

I think a seperate obsolete section should be created once the transition to the new uniforms is complete. That way you know which is currently in use, and which are already out-dated. 205.174.22.26 01:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

i made a new article on the NWUs. someone put the picture in there because i don't know how

[edit] Cleanup Needed

This article needs some serious cleanup. There's few references for items that sailors take for granted; yeah we call winter blues "Johnny Cashes" but where's the reference? I call Service dress blues "crackerjacks", my old LPO called 'em "crackerjacks", never heard them called "Monkey Suits." It's all original research without references, though. Ballcaps aren't authorized for wear with service khakis; need a reference for it though.

Oh, and the sections on the new working/service uniforms needs serious updates. Plus, those sections seem to contradict themselves in regards to what new uniform is replacing what old uniform.

So, I've placed tags on these issues, plus other ones that caught my eye; if anyone disagrees with my tags, let's discuss it before the tags are pulled. I do believe that this article can become featured article status with a little elbow grease, and these tags are there to help achieve this.

Supersquid (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

With regard to "crackerjacks", back in August, Ljvo edited the article to remove the term in the main body and include a note There is NO SUCH THING as a Navy CRACKERJACK uniform and also put a note with the term "crackerjack" in the caption of the recruiting poster image that said NOTE: From a U.S. Navy Veteran: The term "CRACKERJACK" WAS NEVER ASSOCIATED TO THIS UNIFORM BY THE U.S. NAVY THIS TERM HAS BEEN COINED BY CIVILIANS. THE NAVY UNIFORM PREDATES THE CRACKERJACK SNACK BY A COUPLE HUNDRED YEARS. Many of us Navy vets HATE the term used for our Distinguished uniform. - his edit summary was "Corrected use of term "Crackerjack" in reference to the navy enlisted man's uniform. The term is not proper to use for our distinguished uniform." I removed both notes, restored the article text & changed the caption of the recruiting poster to say "service dress blue" (since it makes more sense to use the correct name of the uniform in the caption) and provided a link to the Naval History Center that refers to the uniforms as "crackerjacks" http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/uniform_button.htm - given that I've used the term myself & heard plenty of other sailors use it, I'm going to rely on the Naval History Center's use of the term to prove what I know from personal experience. In October, Ljvo added the "by some civilians. U.S. Navy Personnel who currently wear it and veterans who did are not known for calling it as such. Sailors often called it a "Monkey Suit among themselves during the Vietnam War" text and marked the edit as Minor. I've just changed the article back to the original text, fixed some awkward passages and removed the fact tag (since everything in the paragraph except "crackerjacks" is included in the uniform regulations, which are already cited). I don't think the use of the term "crackerjacks" requires a reference, but if you feel strongly that it does, the Naval History Center page I mentioned would make a good cite. I still don't think it's pretty enough to remove the cleanup tag, so I left it. As far as the ballcaps with service khaki, if it's in the uniform regulations, it's already referenced - I don't think it makes sense to footnote anything that's in the uniform regs, since they're already listed in the references section & if we did, every fact in the article would have to be footnoted. CruiserBob (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if it's in the uniform regs, then it does not need in-text references. No issue with that. If it's outside the uniform regs (ie "crackerjacks" for the SDBs, "Johnny Cash" for the winter blues) then it really should have an in-test reference. I agree, we use the terms and lingo with impunity (where else in the world can someone say "Get out of my head!" and not be sent up for psychiatric eval lol!) but where does it come from? It's one of those stumbling blocks towards Featured Article status.

Now, there are a couple-or-three things we should address:

• Do we really need info regarding POD/POW referencing Uniform of the Day?
• Should all the future uniform changes (stuff not yet authorized/available for wear) remain in their respective sections, or moved to a separate section? I favor moving it to a separate section as well as cleaning it up.
• Would it make more sense to break up the sections into "Summer Uniforms", "Winter Uniforms", "Working Uniforms", "Special Uniform Situations" or keep it like it is (Dress Uniforms, Service Uniforms, Working Uniforms, etc)?

The article needs quite a bit of general housekeeping... maybe trim out some stuff... make it more readable.

I don't want to make any sweeping changes without getting a consensus of those that keep up with the article regularly, though.

Supersquid (talk) 08:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)