Talk:Culinary specialist (United States Navy)

MS

(MS), has been removed. I verified the link provided and couldn't find the abrev. --CyclePat (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi JHunter, and to whom it may concern, I recently reverted the most recent edit which added a reference for the abrev. MS. (This is the revert). The reason for this is because this reference does not specifically address the fact on whether the term MS is an abreviation which is commonly used for this terminology. I put it to you that MS is simply an abrev. that the this author chose to use within this text and therefore believe the information is being used outside context for inclusion with this article in this fashion. --CyclePat (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

CyclePa, please note there are 8 characters in my username. You disdain for the citation is no reason to remove the cited material, unless of course you have a cite that supports your opinion that MS is simply an abrev. [sic] here. Try googling

site:mil "Mess Management Specialist"

and feel free to update the citation with another source if you prefer, but do not remove cited material -- that can be considered vandalism. I chose the citation I used because it covered both the abbreviation and the time of its change to Culinary Specialist. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow! JHunterJ, I will apologize but, I've had people call me an asshole and I didn't rip there heads off like you just did to me for forgeting a letter in your name! :) So sorry! And I'll forget about most of the above comments while politely linking you towards Wikipedia:Civility. On top of that, with my WP:AGF, I am still willing to try and continue this conversation. Would you care trying to answer the question again because I fail to understand you explanation. I still do not specifically see a reference that addresses the fact that MS is an abbrev. for this term. You can add any reference you want. Feel free to keep your reference for whatever other information you have found but, do not contend or continue to claim that the ones you provided explain the meaning of the "abbrev. MS."

Again, please see my first reply from 23:01 which says something along the line as; I put it to you that MS is simply an abbrev. that this author has chosen to use within his text'. Per WP:V and my total stupid, inability to find a proper reference to the term MS being an abbrev., this information does not belong in the encyclopaedia. I therefore am not reverting your change, but I am removing the unreferenced information. You will see that I have removed the term MS.

Furthermore, let's assume that this author's instance of using the alleged abbrev. is reasonable to prove that MS is an abbrev. for Master Shef? (or whatever the term is). I believe, this point of view would be fairly small and fall under the virtues of WP:NPOV policy. In particular, I point you to WP:DUE which states: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." With this hypothetical scenario, you may be able to use it within this article but, you sure as heck shouldn't be using it in DAB MS.

Again, I put it to you that you need to have a proper reference clearly stating MS is an abbrev., (not simply an abbrev. being used within some joe blow's news article to help the reader). Again, this makes me believe that the abbreviation is of such a minority view that it doesn't warrant inclusion. Feel free to put it back in the article if you really think it belongs here. I have voiced my opinion on the matter and disagree with it's inclusion as is. --CyclePat (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If you like, you can call me Hunter. "please note there are 8 characters in my username" is ripping your head off? Again, I put it to you that there is a proper reference already applied, and it is sufficient to merit Abtract's inclusion of it on MS. If you don't want to use the Google search supplied, try http://buperscd.technology.navy.mil/bup_updt/508/OccStandards/CHAPTER%2054.htm. If you like, you could add it as well to the article, but I think it would be overkill. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hunter, Thank you. I'm taking a closer look into this and reviewing our comments prior to doing anything drastic. Right now, I've looked at reference #2. That reference seems prety good. I even believe it should be used as a reference (of primary information) for the MS abrev.. Preferably with a small note indicating that MS is an abrev. used within this document. (That way it doesn't trow people off like me looking for the obvious) (Plus, if we had something which says how the military has this nasty tendancy of making accronyms of everthing I think that would be an interest fact to add). I'll be back later to help out. Right now I'm working on adding Master Seaman to MS. Thank you again and Merry Christmas. --CyclePat (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Hunter. If you could take a look at the article Master Seaman I just added a reference for the term. If you look at the footnote you will see the title of that chapter clearly states.. "abreviations"... Anyways, if we could find a reference like that for this I think that would be great. I found this by going to DND's website and search for the term "Master Seaman abbreviation" (here are my results). Cheers. --CyclePat (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

But an abbreviation does not have to be government-officialized to be included on a Wikipedia disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good comment and I agree. The following statement will explain why... however it will also caution and explain why we should be carefull. I think we should always use authoritative sources when possible.(see dictionary definition of authoritative). Yes! With the example I give there is the added benefit that this is "a government document" which officialises the term (I believe it is hence an authoritative source). 2 things to note: 1) The sources states it's an abbrev. 2) Its an authoritative source.

First we should look into why this is important. In both cases, that is in our case here and in the case at Master Seaman, we are dealing with the titles of a military positions. (or government position). What I'm trying to say is that for Master Seaman I have simply looked into the best source, excuse the term, "right from horse's mouth." If we where dealing with some fictional position, I'll make up right now... such as Mega Sissy... well, I would expect that our reference would be right from Microsoft's webpage of acronyms referring to Bill Gates. (oops! Just kidding) But you get the point right. Example: MS is Multi-Season in Foo Foo Land.(reference from Foo Foo land). Here is another better example: When dealing with an abbrev. such as LOL we know this term comes from the general population/web/blogs/chats etc.... So it makes sense to go to some urban source. ie.: "lol" is found in the urban dictionary, and thousands of other, what would perhaps be considered for most other terms as non-authoritative sources. If you look at the Wikipedia article there are 3 footnotes for the term lol. The best one appears to be the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, however, this source neglects to take into consideration the origins of the term.

In short, we should always try to go to the main source, otherwise I think we're leaving the reader wondering if this is an abbreviation that we created or that some odd writer created just for his article. (If that's the case, then see above comment on WP:V and WP:DUE... and I would add perhaps WP:OR) In the case of "MS" for the U.S. Military position, I think we should try to do something in the same nature as Master Seaman. Surely there is a better, authoritative source. b.t.w.: To answer what I think you are asking... I think it should remain on the MS disambiguation page. :( . Sorry for any confusion. --CyclePat (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Culinary specialist (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/20080410170735/http://buperscd.technology.navy.mil/bup_updt/508/OccStandards/OccStd_Menu.htm to http://buperscd.technology.navy.mil/bup_updt/508/OccStandards/OccStd_Menu.htm

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

FSA

No mention of mess cooks/FSAs? These are non-MS/CS personnel temporarily assigned to duty in the galley to assist with cleaning, food prep, trash, &c -- similar to the Army's KP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.171.122 (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)