Talk:Uniforms of the United States Navy/Archive 1

Gee, I wish I were a man

Someone has already noted that the crow is that of a QM1 (Quartermaster First Class) but it should also be noted that the crow is being worn on the right hand side indicating the status of "Petty Officer of the Line" a distinction that is no longer made between those in rates that deal with the "fighting of the ship" and those that do not. I think this bears mentioning in the caption.

As always I will leave it up to someone else to make this happen so as not to end up in a flame war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoobieEx (talk • contribs) 02:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

Just having more images isn't enough The imagery here should really be ordered. For instance looking over the sections on officer and enlisted uniforms gives the viewer no real sense of the differences between the two. The is a photo of the Service Dress Khaki, Service Dress Blues, & Service Dress Whites next to each other, but it doesn't inform the reader that those are the photos of officer uniforms and not enlisted. Not to mention the situation is further confused by the article's lack of structure (e.g. section breifly touching on on CPOs & officers and enlisted wedged in between sections for Service Dress and Full Dress. 66.65.94.53 (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

it's 'boatcloak'. sheeesh! bootcloak!? it's still authorized, but try finding one.Toyokuni3 (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Yes, we need to break obsolete uniforms away from the modern ones. Putting in information for the new uniforms is good, but not good enough. Having obsolete uniforms mixed in with the current uniforms is just incredibly confusing for readers. 66.65.94.53 (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

Cleanup is still needed. A valiant few have made an effort to keep this up to date, but it hasn't been kept as orderly as it could be. Many sections and subsections are mixed together randomly and the obsolete uniforms are still listed as current. They are still authorized for waring, but they're already being phased out.

This article, as a whole, would like be somewhat confusing to the uninitiated.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 22:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC) (talk • contribs)

Hell, we called them "Crackerjacks" all the time! What are you on about, shipmate? Kortoso (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Material not covered

there's a lot. not surprising since bupers' uniform website is hundreds of pages. just a few: white tie dinner dress, with the white piqué vest and tie; the fact that cpo's wear essentially the same dinner dress, but with a red cummerbund instead of gold; aviation greens, still authorized but as rare as hen's teeth.what about breast insignia? do they have a separate article? i'm not sure if that shouldn't be merged here. what about the salt and pepper uniform? i've never seen it worn, but it's on the website. sdb jacket with white pants and shoes. what about the real tropical white, with the shorts? officers' sharp looking (vedy, vedy british), enlisted hideous. (white shorts with black anklet socks and black shoes. can you say ugly american?)Toyokuni3 (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Physical Training (PT) uniforms should also be covered. Anyone willing to jump-in and contribute a new section? Highspeed (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats true. PT uniforms are required by regulation in certain situations and even carry some slight modifications to conduct. That really should be covered. 66.65.94.53 (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Submarine

I'm not qualified to add this material, but do know those on submarine duty wear their own special uniforms and they changed through the years. My knowledge comes my research into sneakers (plimsolls, trainers, tekkies, tennis shoes, boat shoes, etc), but the research isn't enough to write about submarine uniforms beyond knowing:

1. They wear jumpsuits / coveralls at various points during the tour. When put on? When taken off? What else do they wear and when?
2. A company call Jimmy's provided the US Navy footwear (CVO sneakers for offices and enlisted) during the Cold War under contract that I heard included various requirements, including noise.
3. Since the cold war, shoe usage during a mission is up to the commanding officer and individual. I'm not sure how they control the noise or if it even matters with the cold war being over. IMHO, I'd like to know more but don't know enough more than to want to know.

--Bmoshier (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

White tie

i think you'll find that the white tie variant of dinner dress, mostly for state occasions, has two aspects that haven't been covered:P 1/ it also requires the wearing of a white piqué waistcoat (vest) (just like civilian white tie) and 2/ it is only authorized for o-6 and above, although this is frequently ignored.Toyokuni3 (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

13 buttons? Crackerjacks and "monkey suit" -- storing the uniform

It's been thirty years since I left the Navy, but I would swear the dress blue bellbottoms had fourteen buttons and fifteen button holes, with two buttons in the center holding the two sides together, and the top of these doing double duty as the center of the thirteen buttons holding the fly in place.

I was in just as the new (1975? 1976?) horrible civilian monkey suit uniform came out; that is what we all called it, in comparison to our crackerjacks. My memory is that we called it a monkey suit precisely because it was such a civilian style suit with none of the flair and tradition of the crackerjacks. Even those who were not happy in the navy despised it. I don't remember a single sailor who thought it anything other than an abomination, in appearance, expensive cleaning, and storage requirements incompatible with shipboard life.

I always thought it quite distinctive that the bellbottoms, whether dress blues, dress white, or dungarees, were turned inside out and rolled up for storage, thus keeping the dirty sides together, creating that distinctive reverse crease, and making for easy compact shipboard storage.

I don't edit enough wikipedia articles to know if this belongs in the article or where, but I ant to bring it up in case someone with more wikipedia experience thinks it deserves mention.

Scarecrow Repair (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

are they wearing the 13 button trousers again? they were being phased out in favour of a zipper fly when i enlisted in 1964.Toyokuni3 (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I was in from 1982 to 2003, and yes, the trousers had the 13-button fly. RM1(SS) (ret) 208.47.164.226 (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

BDUs

Has the Navy got an official replacement for the BDU? 72.209.40.27 (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a picture of the ngcu for anyone who knows how to upload it to the article http://www.marines.mil/unit/2ndmardiv/PublishingImages/100803-M-9915H-004.JPG -cernel joson 12 aug 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.182.118 (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Summer Whites / Service Dress White

It seems to me that the article as written incorrectly identifies service dress white (i.e. chokers) as the warm weather equivalent of SDBs. While this may be true in theory, in practice the dress uniform for warm weather for chiefs and officers is summer whites. Service dress white for E7 and above is usually reserved for formal ceremonies (e.g. changes of command), and I've never heard of it being worn as a warm weather equivalent to SDBs. This seems especially confusing because it seems like there's a disconnect between the prescribed wear of the E1 through E6 summer whites, which I think are the legitimate warm weather counterpart to their service dress blues, and the E7 and above version. I say this purely based on my commissioned experience; any salty old CPOs out there who have a better understanding of the uniform regs?

The chokers are the equivalent of the dress blues in summertime. The reason they usually aren't worn is that they are uncomfortable, thus the choker nickname.

Im confused. Is the new khaki service dress also replacing crackerjacks? Or are those still there?

Arpadkorossy (talk)

Three warfare pins

technically there is "no way" but you can have the two and wear the third on a belt buckle. Thus this is the way u would wear "three" warfare pins.-HM3 Jones —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.1.24.249 (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

They are NOT Navy Blue

Navy dress uniforms are NOT blue in any way shape or form. They are black. I've seen old WWII era uniforms on display that are navy in color, but the current ones are not.

Tropical Dinner Dress Gone

Tropical uniforms, including tropical dinner dress, are no longer authorized for wear. I'd hate to just remove the discussion of it, however; someone needs to make a section for obsolete uniforms. 75.142.83.176 (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

and good riddance! go to navy uniform regs and look at tropical dinner dress. what a goofy looking get-up! almost (but not quite) as bad as the enlisted tropical short uniform.you know, white shorts with black anklet socks and black shoes. ugh!Toyokuni3 (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Saber vs. sword

the unregistered user who changed sword to saber was probably looking at one of various commercial websites, who also get it wrong. if you go to http:://www-nmcp.med.navy.mil/EduRes/AcademicAffairs/Contacts/chapter3.pdf, pages 3-24 & 3-25, Full Dress White, under Prescribable Items you find 'Sword (LCDR and above) 3501.84". as i said, various commercial websites, including marlow and white, call it a saber. they probably think this looks better for marketing, but they are wrong. a saber is by definition a curved 'backsword,' used primarily by cavalry. very few horses aboard ship and the naval officer's dress sword is straight.Toyokuni3 (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Warfare pins

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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

This is true. You cannot wear three warfare pins; you only get to wear two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FloydianHate (talk • contribs) 08:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

New dress whites

Recruits coming out of boot camp in February are receiving the "fancy crackerjack" dress white uniforms that were proposed in 2007 along with the throwback khakis. How should this be handled? It's not really a new uniform, just an update on an existing uniform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady Arwyn (talk • contribs) 18:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Service Khaki Headgear

In the Service Khaki section, it mentions 3 types of authorized headgear, but mentions only two. The regs only state 2, which is about as credible of source as you can get: http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/support/uniforms/uniformregulations/chapter3/MaleChief/MC_Service/Pages/ServiceKhaki.aspx

[[File:Navy_WCU_Insignia.jpg|right|thumb|120px|Close-up of the ACE.]

[[File:Navy_WCU_Insignia.jpg|right|thumb|120px|Close-up of the ACE.]

It is in the incorrect location in the article, seems like a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ax1om77 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Foul Weather Gear

Shipmates, I was in the Navy, and I was wondering about the foul weather gear section of this article, specifically:

"Also, the Navy issues foul-weather or cold-weather jackets as appropriate for the environment, which are generally olive or Navy blue in color. These jackets are considered "Organizational Clothing". They do not belong to the sailor, and are not allowed for wear off of the ship unless working in the near vicinity of the ship."

So, I was on submarines, and as I recall, they usually called these things "boat jackets" or "foul weather jackets", but recently I have learned that in the Surface Navy they are usually called "deck jackets" and that apparently they first came out in WW II with the "n1 deck jacket". So I guess my question is, where the jackets we had on the submarine the descendents of the n1 deck jacket? Would that be their technical designation? I'm asking because I'm looking for something like to wear now that I'm a civilian/vet, the only difference is I would want one with a hood. :-) Alpha Industries has a Navy Deck Jacket but it's not one of their Made in USA models... :-( anyway what is input from you guys. btw on my second boat I remember the deck jackets were made by Mustang Survival (probably made in Canada...) so I might look into them too but I don't remember who made them on my first boat.24.23.199.225 (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Burning Synthetic uniforms not a new problem. 1980s era uniforms with "certified navy twill" synthetic burned as well and should merit a mention.

I am not familiar with the history of navy uniforms, or even the various different types of uniforms and their function but I did remember that one of the lessons the british navy learned in the Falklands was that synthetic (nylon iirc) uniforms burned, and then I read that around '06 this became a problem in Iraq or Afghanistan with military uniforms burning/melting, and then again in late '12 people rediscovered that synthetic uniforms burn. It also turns out that a 50/50 cotton polyester blend navy uniform "certified navy twill" used mostly (exclusively?) in dress uniforms was discovered to be more flammable than cotton, and it's melting quality created worse wounds. Polyester uniforms were apparently introduced in the 1970s. Apparently in 1996 the navy changed policy to no longer requir uniforms to be "flame resistant".

"According to other depositions in the case the Navy certified the used of polyester uniforms in 1972 but never tested them for flammability. Despite the testimony, there is no indication that the Navy took action against the wear of 100% polyester uniforms aboard ship following the death of LT Johnson.""At 4 a.m. on October 5, 2010 a fire broke out in the deck department office aboard USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41). The fire burned for over 90 minutes, cutting off access to repair locker 2 and requiring assistance from neighboring ships and the base fire department before being put out. The fire was ultimately traced to the improper use and storage of linseed oil. As part of the investigation, the Naval Safety Center recommended that the new Navy Working Uniform, a 50/50 cotton/nylon blend, not be used by fire fighters or first responders. This recommendation was later modified to allow first responders to be in the NWU.""Despite the fire onboard Manley, the Navy continued to allow the wear of CNT uniforms aboard ship until after the attack on USS Stark (FFG 37) in 1987. Corfam shoes and polyester uniforms were banned aboard ship following the attack and subsequent fires." TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Description of headgear

I find the description of the proscribed headger somewhat lacking. The combination cap links to a general article about peaked caps around the world, three levels of models are described but no pictures. The female versions are completely omitted.

Please expand this article or create a sub-article if the main article gets too large; this kind of article benefits from a wealth of images. --Full steam (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Headings

@Oknazevad: I strongly disagree with this reversion. Per MOS:ACCESS:

Do not make pseudo-headings using bold or semicolon markup. Screen readers and other machines can only use correctly formatted headings. If you want to reduce the size of the table of contents (TOC), use {{TOC limit}} instead.

It would be better to use proper section headings and then add a {{TOC limit}} tag with a depth of 2 or 3. Nick Number (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, go for it. And thanks for pointing that out (though I do wonder why the semicolon markup remains of it's not meant to be used.) oknazevad (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. I set the TOC limit to 2, which does make it pretty compact. I wouldn't object if someone wanted to up it to 3. Nick Number (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Wearing a uniform after retirement

I have a friend who just passed away. He was retired Marine and I wondered if I could WEAR MY UNIFORM IN RESPECT FOR HIM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.139.70 (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

- Sorry for your loss brother. This may be a bit late but, yes, you may: ref http://www.med.navy.mil/sites/nmcp/EduTrain/GMDE/Documents/chapter6.pdf See also people.opposingviews.com/funeral-etiquette-wearing-military-uniform-1566.html - Active Duty PO2, USN

1970s "Zumwalt" uniform

There's no information here about the men's "Zumwalt" uniform of the 1970s. Should it be included? Briefer here: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-07-05/news/8602170756_1_zumwalt-chief-of-naval-operations-navy-officials. – Illegitimate Barrister, 14:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

That would be a good addition, along with some information about the "salt & pepper" service uniforms of the time. From my understanding, the changes essentially that E1-E6 wore, instead of the "crackerjack" jumper-style Service Dress Blues a uniform that was essentially the same coat-and-tie style as Chiefs and officers SDB, but with silver buttons and appropriate rank insignia for more formal occasions, while the daily wear service uniform was the short sleeve white shirt from the summer service whites (which were only dropped for junior enlisted a couple of years ago) with dark trousers, worn by all ranks. They served as a winter counterpart to the summer whites, instead of the all-black winter "Johnny Cash" service blues (the latter of which were also dropped entirely recently). The combo was actually still used by the US Public Health Service and NOAA Commissioned Corp until they changed to match current navy practice around the same time (though they're all commission officers, so have never had the crackerjack type uniform). It's actually near-identical to the Royal Canadian Navy's uniforms. Mind you, this is just info absorbed over time, and I have no good references handy. oknazevad (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

(Don't forget that during this time period, the issued working uniform also changed while the old uniform remained optional.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.146.197.78 (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Uniforms of the United States Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/support/uniforms/Documents/NEWSGRAMs/UniformGram_Spring14%20(2).pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/support/uniforms/Documents/NEWSGRAMs/NEWSGRAM%20December%202012.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.history.navy.mil/ussconstitution/capn_crew.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

NWU: Separate article?

Should the NWU section be broken off made into a separate new article? The U.S. Army's ACU has its own article, the USMC's MCCUU has one, and so does the USAF's ABU. As it is, I'm currently working on a draft here. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 14:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

While that does look fairly good, frankly I think here's too many individual articles about US military uniforms as is. It just reinforces a US-centric image of Wikipedia, and falls infobox multiple pitfalls regarding coverage; it is a magnet for too many trivial details, and allows too much guidebook for wear regulations and care instructions material to come in. As it is, I just trimmed the section here to eliminate some trivia and redundancies, and did similar work on the ACU article over the weekend.

The existence of that ACU article isn't really a reason to have an NWU article, either. There was a lot of coverage of the ACU in mainstream sources, especially regarding the deficiency of the original UCP camo pattern. While the flamability of the NWU also recieved some coverage, it is sufficiently covered with the paragraph here, I think. So, I don't think we really need a separate article. oknazevad (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Female covers, retired or not?

@Oknazevad: I noticed the NAVADMIN from back in January said that the female covers were retired in October 2016 for the crackerjacks, but I see photographs from this month showing them being worn. I know the deadline for the female CPO and officer covers was extended to 2018, but I wasn't aware of an extension for the crackerjacks. What's going on? Is there a new NAVADMIN I missed? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 11:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't know. I'm not in the navy, so I don't see all NAVADMINs. Most of what I've studied up on has had to do with improving these articles. (though it is strange that the female sailor in the foreground is wearing the bucket cover, while the other female two to her left is in a Dixie cup hat.) oknazevad (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Uniforms of the United States Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/support/uniforms/Documents/NEWSGRAMs/UniformGram_Spring14%20%282%29.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090423001339/http://buperscd.technology.navy.mil/bup_updt/508/unireg/chapter3/Officers/om_11_SD_BlueYankee.htm to http://buperscd.technology.navy.mil/bup_updt/508/unireg/Chapter3/Officers/om_11_SD_BlueYankee.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://buperscd.technology.navy.mil/bup_updt/508/unireg/chapter3/enlisted/em_12_Srv_WinterBlue.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://buperscd.technology.navy.mil/bup_updt/508/unireg/chapter3/enlisted/ef_12_Srv_WinterBlue.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.njrotc.navy.mil/manuals/NJROTC%20Cadet%20Field%20Manual%202010%20Edition.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Uniforms of the United States Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100510085342/http://www.new-navy-uniform.com/faq-nwu.html to http://www.new-navy-uniform.com/faq-nwu.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.navytimes.com/legacy/new/0-NAVYPAPER-725429.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)