Talk:United States Coast Guard/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

United States Coast Guard uniforms

It has been proposed that the uniform section in the articles United States Coast Guard and United States Coast Guard Reserve be combined into another article titled Uniforms of the United States Coast Guard.

• Strongly Agree There are no differences in the uniforms except for some historic rating badges on the Bravo uniform that were reserve specific. Cuprum17 (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly support it clearly has independent notability. Honestly should have happened a decade ago. Garuda28 (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Agree -McChizzle (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - No need for redundant info in 3 separate articles, plus the USGC article is quite large anyway. BilCat (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Agree as proposer Sorry, I got pulled away before my rationale could be posted.

This is one area where I think we can split to reduce the length of this article (which is quite long). All other US military services have articles dedicated to their uniforms, even the Space Force which has nothing worthy of a separate article, and should just be a section of the main article.

On the other hand, there's significant material here for an article as is, it could easily be expanded with more history. Even though the history is mostly "wore what the Navy wore with distinct insignia until 1972, when the "Bender's Blues" were introduced", there are some unique items that could be discussed. For example, did you know that the US Life-Saving Service, one of the USCG's predecessors, wore single-breasted blue coats for their uniforms instead of double-breasted coats? And that those were the inspiration for the current USCG single-breasted service coats? No? Well, that's because there's no specific USCG uniform article to include that in.

Creating such an article is especially necessary because the Uniforms of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary article exists. It makes zero sense for the civilian auxiliary to have a uniforms article and not the active service. If anything, that article should be renamed as the main article with a small section on the fact that CG Aux uniforms are simply USCG uniforms with silver buttons and insignia (and the couple of more casual uniforms the the Auxiliary uses that aren't permitted to active duty members.) The Auxiliary uniform article already contains illustrations that are just re-colored versions of actual USCG illustrations (and therefore public domain) of the various uniforms. Those could easily be swapped to versions with gold insignia to illustrate the moves article. oknazevad (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

B-class assessment is at risk for this article

I have added several instances of Citation needed tags to places in the article that are lacking citations. While most of the places in the article are cited, a good deal of material added to the article after its assessment of B-class does not have required cites. I will attempt to correct this oversight in the near future; however, I would encourage all watchers of this article to pitch in and help with the appropriate citations. Due to the Coast Guard Historian's Office decision in 2015 to change the reference pages to Department of Defense pages there are also many "404" pages and broken links. While the Historian's Office has been working diligently to add material back into the DOD pages, they only have so much manpower to accomplish this. In the meantime, we are stuck with "404" messages on many of the existing citations. I hesitate to lower the assessment on this article without being given a chance to correct the problem. If any interested party feels that the article needs re-assessment then please feel free to do that. I only labeled those areas that need citations as an indication of where work needs to be done and not a condemnation of the article as a whole. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

If a link is 404'd due to a server migration, a version copied at the Internet Archive is a valid substitute. That might help with the issue for some of the sourcing. oknazevad (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice

There is a discussion currently taking place regarding the lead images images in the infobox of several branch articles, that could also affect this page. Garuda28 (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Colors

United States Coast Guard/Archive 2#Colors correctly states the Pantone colors for CG Red (179C) and CG Blue (307C) and cites the official doc with that info, but the RGB values given here and in our other color articles and those given and shown in sources are widely variable, and could use some clarification. Colors shown for PDF sources are those rendered by Adobe Reader X on Win7 in 32-bit color mode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanM1 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

CG Red – Pantone 179C

Hex RGB	H°	S%	V%	C%	M%	Y%	K%	Source
#DC3832	2	77	86	0	75	77	14	USCG, COMDTINST M5200.14A (April 2011), Ch. 2(A)(5) at p. 14 ("2-2")
#E23D28	7	82	89	0	73	82	11	United States Coast Guard/Archive 2#Colors Alt source 3 of Pantone swatches
#E03C31	7	82	89	0	73	82	11	List of colors: A–F Encycolorpedia
#DE3831	2	78	87	0	75	78	13	Pantone site
#F15C23	17	85	95	0	62	85	5	Alt source 1 of Pantone swatches
#E23828	5	82	89	0	75	82	11	Alt source 2 of Pantone swatches

CG Blue – Pantone 307C

Hex RGB	H°	S%	V%	C%	M%	Y%	K%	Source
#0078AD	198	100	68	100	31	0	32	USCG, COMDTINST M5200.14A (April 2011), Ch. 2(A)(5) at p. 14 ("2-2")
#007AA5	196	100	65	100	26	0	35	United States Coast Guard/Archive 2#Colors List of colors: A–F Encycolorpedia Alt source 3 of Pantone swatches
#0075B0	200	100	69	100	34	0	31	Pantone site
#0078AE	199	100	68	100	31	0	32	Alt source 1 of Pantone swatches
#0070B2	202	100	70	100	37	0	30	Alt source 2 of Pantone swatches

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Semper Paratus, 1990.ogg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Semper Paratus, 1990.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Oldest?

I dispute the idea(in note1) that the CG is older than the US Navy. The material in the article provides all the reasons to reject that idea. The modern CG as we know it was created in 1915 by merging two different services. One service had a very different misison then that of the CG today. You cant really trace the history prior to it. But lets suppose you can and you want to say that the CG traces itself to 1790 with the Revenue Collection then you have to allow the US Navy to trace its history to the Continental Navy. The fact is the CG was created in 1915 not 1790. The Navy is mentioned in the Constitution not the CG or even its predecessor services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2c7:97f:c2d7:4565:a39d:e088:a634 (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Use of language in second paragraph seems to be more in the style of an advertisement than that of an encyclopedia

The second paragraph of this article reads more like promotional material than a useful description of the united states coast guard. It's hard to describe what exactly is wrong with the style of the paragraph directly. While the information appears at a glance to be accurate, it seems that all of the content is paraphrased directly from the united states coast guard. The only citation in the paragraph links to a document made by the Coast Guard. The paragraph appears to use buzzwords (such as cyberspace) in a way that conveys little information. It seems disingenuous to portray information sourced exclusively from the organization itself as the complete truth rather than contextualized as being from the organization. Stumpy3521 (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Phrasing probably should be changed then, but I agree, it is likely because whoever wrote it might have taken it directly from the Coast Guard's website Sunnyediting99 (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It can probably be rewritten, but cyberspace isn't a buzzword.Garuda28 (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I added some edits, if you think this is good (or bad) let me know. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Popular Culture

I can provide a citation for The Menu, I actually initially was planning on using it but because none of the popular culture movies had citations I decided to stick with uniformity rather than make it awkwardly stand out as I have little information on the others. That said, I can provide the source for the Menu. Also, the Menu arguably has more of a popular culture impact than many of the movies listed on here, given that the Menu has a stronger box office ratings and reviews than a sizable number of the films listed here. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@BilCat please let me know your thoughts, though I do appreciate that you think citations should be universally added for popular culture. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Pop culture sections are not a list of every film, TV, book, or game appearance of the subject, but of appearances that have been noted in reliable published sources to have significance to the subject. For military services, films or TV shows with significant support from the services can also be listed. Please read WP:MILPOP and WP:IPC carefully, and make sure your sources comply with those guidelines.

I will say that I don't believe The Menu (2022 film) will meet the guidelines, as the connection to the US Coast Guard is very weak at best. BilCat (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

That's fair, I won't add the Menu then as it was a plot point (for the USCG) albeit not the most important one. I'll take a look at those two then and see if any relevant sources can be added. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)