Template talk:US Navy navbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject United States (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template 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  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated Template-Class)
MILHIST This template 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.
Temp Templates and modules do not require a rating on the quality assessment scale.

Template:US Navy navbox[edit]

Naval Forces Korea, Naval Forces Japan and Naval Forces, Marianas are not considered major commands even though they are shore commands for the 7th Fleet area of responsibility. All three shore commands and the 7th Fleet fall under as subcomponents of the United States Pacific Fleet which is a major naval command do they not?. They should probably be integreated into the United States Pacific Fleet. Neovu79 (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What is your source for stating "they are not considered major commands"? The naval shore forces have very unique powers that make them different from, say, a naval base or a regular naval unit like a construction battalion or an inshore boat unit. The most imporrtant of which is automatically granted SOPA status to any ship docked in thier area...no other unit in the United States Navy is granted that power. My background on this is 13 years in the Navy, 6 of which was sent as a flag aide and staff officer in CNFK. -OberRanks (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The original edit had these commands in their own section of the navbox; they were later folded back into "major commands". I do agree that this should not be how its listed. They should fall under thier own section to the unique nature of naval shore commands. -OberRanks (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
What makes these more deserving of mention than any other sub-fleet command? The scope of the navbox is not to include every single unit and command in the United States Navy. Being unique in nature does not make them more notable. As I mentioned in my edit summary, I felt like they shouldn't have even been in the box at all, but I moved them as a compromise. A shore command is not so unique that it needs such a special mention... There isn't even an article for the concept! bahamut0013 15:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
See below as I updated PACFLT and will leave it at that. I do feel the NAVBOX could use a separate section on specific shore units, most notable the Navy Hospitals, IBUs, MIUWUs, and Construction Battalions. This is since those are getting deployed (just like ships) in the current war. Would have to work on how to put that in if anyone is even interested. -OberRanks (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The best approach would probably be a seperate navbox, assuming that there are more than a handful of articles to link to. The navbox is supposed to be a navigation aide, not an aide to understanding the structure of the Navy (that is for the articles themselves). bahamut0013 16:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
As I am not a regular editor of this NavBox and have limited knowledge on editing NavBoxs in general, I will leave that in the hands of others for now. Great input in any case. Thanks. -OberRanks (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed revision[edit]

Here is the revision with the shore force commands added in:

I added it here rather than have an edit war since we have disagreement about that status of the shore force commands. -OberRanks (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

As a compromise, I added in links for these connected in the United States Pacific Fleet article. It seems that might be some merit to keeping these out of box since this is a "Pacific only" thing. My knowledge of the Europe naval operations is limited, but they dont appear to have an equivalent. If that meets with everyone's approval, we can just let this one go. -OberRanks (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Preceeding navbox[edit]

This is the origional navigational template, taken from Template:US Navy navbox

United States Navy
Seal of the United States Department of the Navy (alternate).svg
Secretary of the Navy
Chief of Naval Operations
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Major Commands
U.S. Pacific Fleet
U.S. Fleet Forces Command
U.S. Naval Forces Europe
U.S. Naval Forces Central Command
Military Sealift Command
Naval Special Warfare Command
U.S. Navy Reserve
Aircraft squadrons
Active units
Full U.S. Navy ship list
Current Fleet
Reserve Fleet
Naval aircraft
Weapons systems
Officer insignia
Enlisted insignia
Awards, Decorations and Badges
History and traditions
History of the United States Navy
Continental Navy
USS Constitution
Navy Hymn
Navy Band
Fleet Week

The slippery slope of adding individual vessels to this template[edit]

I'm concerned that once this pandora's box is opened, the already cluttered navbox would be further overtaxed. Less is more. IMHO, no vessels should be included, but I'm not going to fight over Constitution. BusterD (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I included USS Constitution to begin with is because the preceding navbox had it, and I assumed there was a rationale for it (Integral to Navy history for being the one of the first ships of the Navy or the like). I wouldn't be sad if it were removed, though I'd be fine with it staying since it's in the Navy seal and the insignia on the Navy Working Uniform (it seems to have been adapted as a logo much like the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor). bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)