Talk:United States Navy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateUnited 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.
On this day... Article milestones
May 29, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 26, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
August 2, 2006WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
September 27, 2006WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
March 19, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
December 3, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day... 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

"Largest Navy in the world"[edit]

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]


@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 ( 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]

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:, & 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 that's archived and already in the infobox. However, I would like to replace the reference from 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 reference because the 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 & 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]

General characteristics
erik prince official page on Instagram, the founder of Blackwater private company (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesaaronthompson, @Thewolfchild (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]

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]

See First Navy Jack. BilCat (talk) 02:25, 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]


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):

  • patronoptional – 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]