Talk:United States military award devices

Bold text

United States military service devices

The name "award device" is not used in former or current military award manuals.
The one time mention of "award devices" is only in reference to a certain personal award:
DoD Manual, 2010, 1348.33, V3, P. 16 (2), near bottom of page: "Subsequent award devices are not authorized for wear on LOM medals awarded to foreign military personnel".
It is not mentioned that the 5/16 inch star (or 3/16 inch star) "may be awarded" or "Awarded for" in any manual.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs) 19:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You contradict yourself when you say "award device" is not used, and then say "award device" is used once. What do you propose this article be entitled: United States military service devices and appurtenances Department of Defense MANUAL NUMBER 1348.33, Volume 3 or perhaps United States military service ribbon accoutrements Serivce Ribbon Accoutrements? Take a look at WP:Common name. There are other documents other than DoD manuals that talk about these award devices. If you would like to change the name of an article, propose a name and build consensus through discussion. Please don't refactor your above comments after I have responded, thanks. Cheers! EricSerge (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The article name should be United States military service devices (service ribbons, medals, and devices). I found no mention of "service device" or "award device" in the DoD, Army, Navy (USMC), Air Force, and Coast Guard award manuals.

DoD Manual 1348.33 V-3 (most current award manual) mentions "service devices" once on Page 1 (list on Page 7) and "subsequent award devices" on Page 16:

Page 1: SUBJECT: Manual of Military Decorations and Awards...: 1. PURPOSE (2) "Lists authorized service devices and appurtenances for DoD awards and decorations".

Page 16: (2) Foreign Military Personnel. "Subsequent award devices are not authorized for wear on LOM medals awarded to foreign personnel. Authorized foreign personnel who are awarded subsequent LOMs are presented another complete medal set."
The Army award manual isn't the only manual and I didn't find their manual (or the other current manuals) saying anywhere, "a device is awarded for...". The "V" device may be authorized for wear on a decoration to denote valor. 5/16 inch stars and oak leaf clusters are subsequent award devices that may be authorized for wear on a decoration to denote subsequent awards. The Berlin Airlift Device is one of the listed service devices that may be awarded to be worn on the Army of Occupation Medal. The Army of Occupation Medal with "V' device counts as one award not two. Please don't carelessly misquote me (again).— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs)

I can agree that devices are not awarded in and of themselves, but I am not sure where you are getting hung up about "awarded". Devices I guess could be seen as being awarded in lieu of a subsequent medal, as you only get one medal and the device indicates that subsequent award. However, I still stipulate that WP:COMMONNAME compels us to keep the name as it stands. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC):

The DoD Manual (manual of preference) does not say any device (service device) that is worn to denote an additional award or decoration is "awarded" for wear. The device (service device) denotes two decorations were awarded.

From Army Regulation 600–8–22 page three middle of the page, "...he or she may, within 2 years after the date of the determination, award any appropriate military decoration, Numeral, or Oak Leaf Cluster in lieu thereof, to the person concerned" It would appear that the Army awards Oak leaf clusters. I know that you have cast off any Army ref that I have pointed to, but this is in black and white and is more recent than the DoD manuals. Additionally, it would appear that Rear Admiral John Duncan Bulkeley, US Navy was awarded an oak leaf cluster in lieu of a Second Distinguished Service Cross and a Gold Star in lieu of the Second Silver Star Medal. Here is a navy ref for you since you seem to value those over Army. Finally, here is 10 USC CHAPTER 357 - DECORATIONS AND AWARDS it makes reference to award of decoration or device. So it would appear that devices may be awarded. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

DoD awards manaul 1348.33 is 2010 (2011...) (OLC authorized for wear) (OLC is one of the "authorized service devices" by name).
Army awards manual is 2006 (OLC awarded).
Army Chapter 357 is Jan. 3, 2012 ("Prepared by .... on January 3, 2102") (OLC awarded).
Admiral Bulkeley Navy bio is 1974, "Gold Star" (now gold 5/16 Inch Star, authorized for wear) for "Army Silver Star Medal" (now Silver Star) - also has "Army Distinguished Unit Badge" (Distinguished Unit Emblem) (was DUC, WW2 to now PUC).
The DoD manual refers to OLC and 5/16 Inch Star as authorized for wear and not as awarded/awarded for wear.
No mention in any of the above of "award device", "award numeral", or "Award Star".

Device name changes

Some names of devices listed in the article need to be corrected and updated.
(Ref: DoD Awards Manual 1348.33, V3, P. 7 (List of authorized devices), Nov. 23, 2010)
Correct name of device :

• Fleet Marine Force (FMF) Combat Operations Insignia (FMF Combat Operations Insignia)
• Arabic Numerals
• "M" (Mobilization) Device ("M" Device)
• Berlin Airlift Device — Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs) 20:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to propose a name change to an article you need to do it on the article's talk page. Two of the changes you want to make, "M" Device and Fleet Marine Force Combat Operation Insignia, use section headings out of a DoD manual, which in my mind hardly constitutes the "proper name" since that text is not used in whole in the section they headline. On Arabic Numberals you are out of luck there as the more common usage is for, as you may have guessed, an article about the writing system with Arabic numerals. That being said, I can only support changing the name of the Airlift Device to the Berlin Airlift Device. When naming articles on Wikipedia we tend to go with the Common name. A search of commercial sellers of military awards shows that most of them call the devices by their current Wikipedia article name. We want to name things in a manner that they can be found. Including the official name, with source citation, is appropriate in the article, but the common name prevails. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"Airlift Device" isn't authorized or used in the award manuals (Berlin Airlift Device).
"Award Numerals" isn't authorized or used in the award manuals (Numeral device is used in Army manual).
"FMF Combat Operations Insignia" is used in DoD & Navy-Marine award manuals and should be on article list (Combat Operations Insignia to Fleet Marine Force Combat Operations Insignia).

Article name change proposal

"United States military service devices".
DoD Manual 1348.33 V3 (most current manual, "lists authorized service devices" (P. 1 (1.) (2)
Award devices, award stars, and award numerals are not authorized names in the DoD and the services award manuals.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs) 21:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You are taking service device out of context. It is used only once on page one of DoD 1348.33 V3 the quote is "(2) Lists authorized service devices and appurtenances for DoD awards and decorations." The rest of the manual just uses the term device. By my reading the placement of service before device is in reference to the fact that each service does not use the same devices, but it is by no means the "correct" name for these award appurtenances. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Ref: List of authorized service devices and appurtenances:
DoD 1348.33, V3, P. 51, Table 1: Authorized Devices:
1. "V" Device
2. Oak Leaf Cluster
3. Service Star (3/16 inch)
4. Campaign Star (3/16 inch)
5. Battle Star (3/16 inch)
6. Antartica Service Medal Winter-Over Clasp
7. Antartica Service Ribbon Winter-Over Disk
8. Arrowhead Device
9. Hourglass Device
10. FMF Combat Operations Insignia
11. Arabic Numerals
12. "M" (Mobilization) Device
13. 5/16 inch Stars

DoD 1348.33, V3 - Pages 56, 57, and 60:
15. Appurtenances
a. Gold Star lapel Button
b. Service Flag and Lapel Button
c. Cold War Certificate of Recpgnition
Is there any mention of "award appurtenances" or List of "award devices" and/or "award appurtenances" in the current US manuals of military awards? I couldn't find any.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs)

Recent edits

This article has become a bit of a mess lately. I cannot really tell what the direction and purpose of all of the redundant wikilinks and oddly formatted references is all about. Unless there is a major overhaul going on, with a logical end result coming soon, I am likely make major changes to this article from its current state. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Devices vs award devices vs service devices

What would be the basis for the position that the official name of devices in the US Armed Forces is "service device"? It appears just once in DOD manual, in which "award device" also appears just once. Everywhere else, it appears to just be "device". AzureCitizen (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I said the devices are referred to as service devices officially (DoD), not award devices (unofficial):

The one-time use (Vol. 3, up front cover page) "service devices" says a lot, [Lists "service devices"], and later gives the list of awards and its devices.

Far as [subsequent "award devices"] used later in Vol. 3 (used in reference only to LOM), that means only "subsequent award", devices. Not "award devices". Otherwise it would have said Lists award devices, or Lists award and service devises or Lists service and award devices. None of the manuals say "award device", much less military award devices (award stars, award numerals...)— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs)

I did a CTRL-F search in Adobe just now on DoDM 1348.33 Vol 1, once for "service device", once for "award device", and once for "device". Service device and award device appear just once in the entire document. "Device" comes up 100 times. "Authorized Device" comes up 41 times. Hence, it doesn't appear that "service device" is some kind of official name conferred by the Department of Defense. If it was, I'd expect to see it on page 49 under paragraph 14, "AUTHORIZED DEVICES FOR WEAR ON DEFENSE/JOINT DECORATIONS AND AWARDS, AND ON DoD-WIDE AWARDS". If you look there, you'll see it starts out "Introduction. Devices are affixed to service or suspension ribbons to denote additional awards or participation in a specific event...". In that instance where devices are being defined, it says "Devices", not "Service Devices". I also see you just changed the type field on the "V" Device article to say "Military device". Military device appears zero times in DODM 1348.33. Why did you change it to "military device"? AzureCitizen (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the V device a military device? Why does this article name say United States military award devices then? The LOM is a subsequent award decoration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs)

There are lots of ways one might add an adjective to describe something in connection with the noun "device". For example, you could say that the "V" device is a military device, an award device, a metal device, a shiny device, a small device, a service device, a brass device, a lettered device, and so on. So if we changed the article to read "award device" or "brass device" or "metal device", that would be just as valid as having it say "military device", right? I think the better solution is to just have it say this... Type: device. It's the most accurate description, since over and over again in military regulations, instructions, and DOD manuals they are simply referred to as "devices". Back to the article at hand, I think the reason why it was named "United States military award devices" is not because you'll find that term anywhere in a manual. It's just a generic descriptive way to name the article such that people coming here will get a sense of what we're talking about here. They are devices, issued by the United States government, that are used by the military, which on worn on awards. Hence, "United States military award devices". If you can think of a better name, by all means propose it, but we shouldn't be getting hung up on it that way. It's never going to be a technical term that matches up well with a regulation and is easily disambiguated from other subjects. For example, if you came across an article called "Brazilian police award devices", even though they may not be what such devices are technically called, you have a pretty good chance of quickly understanding just exactly what is the article is talking about. Make sense? AzureCitizen (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I already proposed United States military service devices based on the DoD's current use of that. Why the military doesn't use "award device(s)" is their doing not mine. I assume they took it into consideration. Why they used and continue to use pagan goddesses for the MOH is another thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs)

As "service devices" is not an official name any more so than "award devices", the criteria we should go by in judging what the best name is for the article is under the WP:TITLE policy in the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA section. The guidance is recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency. Which title do you think meets those criteria best, "United States military award devices" or "United States military service devices"? AzureCitizen (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

How about, United States military service award devices? (US military service awards) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs)

I can appreciate it that you're trying to think outside the box and come up with a third option. However, the article title is already rather lengthy at five words. Are you sure it would really help the reader understand what's being discussed here to add "service" and make it six? If you look at the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA for precision and conciseness, precision says we should be precise but not overly precise, and conciseness says that titles should not be overly long. Let me put it this way then: can you describe what it is that readers would gain, in facilitating their understanding, by adding the word service to change the article title to "United States military service award devices"? AzureCitizen (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

"Awards and decorations of the United States Military" (8 word article title) Why isn't it "United States military awards and decorations" (6 words)? Decorations are awards too. United States military awards / United States military award devices. United States military awards and decorations / United States military award and decoration devices. There should be consistancy?— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs)

When we say "United States Military award devices", we just mean "awards" in the general descriptive sense, not the exacting and precise way the term "award" is used when we talk about specific decorations and awards. In this context, the generic use of "award" encompasses everything - awards, decorations, citations, service ribbons, skill badges, anything you can think of that fits within the concept of an award in the broadest way a dictionary would generically define an award. AzureCitizen (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Could be the DoD used "service devices" meaning military service devices. Looking at their manual it seems they didn't want to use "award devices" because some devices are not awarded (some devices considered awarded before are not considered awarded now like the "V" device and the service stars). The medal with or w/o a device still counts as one award (BSM/BSMV). Some medals don't come with any device. "Military award devices" kinda implies all the medals or all awards have devices. "Military device" seems better to me than just "Device" in the box.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs)

They probably do mean "military service - devices" as opposed to "military - service devices" (the hyphen indicating the break in the concepts). This is one of the trickier things about using the English language, the ambiguity often causes confusion. With regard to awards, I certainly agree that most are not "awarded", which again causes confusion in the language. However, just because a device itself isn't an award (with "award" being used as a noun), it's still appropriate to say that devices are "award devices" (with "award" being used as an adjective), when attempting to describe them and convey meaning. With regard to the implication that "military award devices" implies that all awards have devices, I guess it could be construed that way but it's not necessarily so. If we had an article that said "American automobile hood ornaments", and it had a long list of ornaments, would you interpret that to mean that every automobile must have a hood ornament, etc.? With regard to the infobox saying "device" or "military device", we can still discuss and debate the merits of it. I prefer "device", but if we want to expand the description, I think "award device" or even "ribbon device" would be better for uninformed readers than "military device". When someone hears the phrase "military device", they might think the person is talking about detonator fuses for M18A1 claymore mines or some other device with a purely military purpose as opposed to an award/recognition function. Lastly, a quick word about "it" and "they". If you check the dictionary, you'll find that "they" is both plural form for "he", "she", and "it", and applies to both people and things. For example, if you said to me "where are those detonators?" and I replied "they are in a box on the bottom shelf", it would be the proper way to pluralize "it". That being said, I'm going to leave your latest change standing and just leave it at that. The reason for using an occasional "They" or "it" in this regard is simply to break up the monotony going from sentence to sentence and alternate from time to time for readability. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I would have to agree with you Azure. "Award devices" is probably the most precise and appropriate description to be clear and accurate to all readers. Your claymore detonator example is well put. Not all of the devices denote awards, but they are all worn on ribbons which are attached to or represent awards. EricSerge (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The new medal and ribbon devices, 2016

"Combat "C" device" [2] (16.) and "R" device [2] (19-20.): It appears to me the "C" will possibly be listed as the Combat "C" or the "C" Device and the "R" will be listed as the "R" Device. This is complicated, the combat distinguishing device, or Combat "V", is involved.

The words Combat "C" device and "R" device are used for the DoD Review Results [2], and the words, combat distinguishing device, or "V" device, combat device, "remote impacts" device, the results of the reviews are due to the secretary of defense by September 17, 2017 ("reviews" appears to mean all of the 36 points mentioned in the DoD Results Review [2] which includes the "C" and "R" devises), are used for the DoD Announcement [3]. YahwehSaves (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

thank you. "X" device is fine, or Combat "X" device is as well, but I'm not aware of any precedent for Combat "X". What are you refering to with the Combat "V" (without the word "device")? Are you refering to the wikipedia redirect?

the "reviews" (plural) seem to be refering to:

"...Carter has directed the military departments to review Distinguished Service Cross, Navy Cross, Air Force Cross, and Silver Star Medal recommendations since Sept. 11, 2001, for actions in Iraq and Afghanistan."

not a review of the 36 points of the earlier review results, and therefor has nothing to do with award devices.

I'd love to discuss some of the other points you've raised, but I'm out of time for today so it will have to wait (feel free to begin if you get time to do so before I do)

cheers, Gecko G (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The Navy and Marines Corps being able to call the "C" device the Combat "C", like they call or called the "V" device the Combat "V", remains to be commented and seen by them (and whether they still call the "V" device the Combat "V"). They haven't commented on the review results except they oppose the Navy Crosses and Silver Star Medals review that's to be completed by September 30, 2017. The other recommended changes that are part of the Review Results including the two new medal devices, have a year to be implemented, which could possibly turn out to be by September 30, 2016 too. The DoD ... [1-3] references, are not calling the devices, "award devices". The Navy and Marine Corps do not award the medal and ribbon devices (attachments), those are approved and authorized for wear. The Distinguished Warfare Medal was proposed by a high official and that was discontinued. A "C", a "C" to denote meritorious service in combat, and a "C" to not denote combat, doesn't seem necessary to me. YahwehSaves (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we will just have to wait and see what the services end up calling these "things". It sounds like the DoD is eager to get everyone on board doing the same thing with all of the devices listed in the review. Time and development of new policies will be the true tell in this situation. EricSerge (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Where have you seen the Navy & Marine Corps refering to the "V" without establishing that they are refering to a "device"? You've made this assertion a few times now and I've asked before. For example, The Navy and Marine Corps award manual refer to them collectively as Letter devices (or in a few cases "appurtenances") (see SECNAVINST 1650.1H, sec 123.2). I've never seen it refered to as such except as a shorthand in subsequent mentions in a document/news story/etc. where it had always first been established earlier in the same document/news story/etc. that it is refering to the device.

I was looking for a timeframe for these new devices, where did you see "a year to be implemented"? (The way you had it earlier made it sound like you were confusing it with the Crosses and Silver star reviews deadline.) That would be good to add to the article if there's a RS for it.

I'm sorry but I don't understand your last sentence, a "C" both for and not for combat?

As EricSerge says, we don't know what the services will call these yet, In the mean time we can only presume they will follow the current precedents, and if "time and development of new policies" prove differently we can of course correct it then, but there's no reason to pre-emptively apply a non-standard, confusing, (and I suspect extremely unlikely) format. Since a red-link proposes a future article title, "device" should be part of the red link so that it will be part of the future article's title. If a reader comes across something called a "Combat X", without context, the assumption would undoutably be that it is refering to some sort of combat formation, tactic, or maneuver/manoeuvre called X, or perhaps that X is the name or site of a specific engagement. 'A small metallic symbol used as an appurtenance or augmentation affixed to an award ribbon' does not stand out as a likely meaning without the clarification that it is a "device". As yet another alternative, we could simply not link it until the relevant article(s) get created? But I see from your most recent edit summary that this is now a moot point.

Where do you get the "effective January 13, 2016" bit from? That date is not in the Washington Post source you specifically cited for that sentence. This makes it sound like they are currently being awarded right now.

Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The DoD announcement on January 7, left out the one year implementation for the "C" and "R" devises and Carter signing on January 7, 2016.

January 7 (not January 13): The last Wednesday (January 6) Washington Post ref. says "The recommendations are expected to be signed by Defense Secretary Aston Carter on Wednesday" (meaning according to this source's information, Wed-January 7, not the Wednesday after that, January 14). I assume the recommendations of the review (all the changes) are effective beginning January 7.

1 year implementation for the two devises (and other recommendations on the January 7 list except the one due by 9/30/2017): Stars and Stripes, January 6 - "The Services will have one year to implement the changes" http://www.stripes.com/news/us/dod-to-review-1-100-iraq-afghanistan-medals-to-determine-if-they-were-awarded-appropriately-1.387407 YahwehSaves (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

That stars and stripes article is a good source, but unfortunately ambigious:

...Carter made 37 recommendations and created two new awards. Under the changes, servicemembers who ... will be eligible for an "R" device... The Pentagon is also introducing a "C" device.... As part of the review, DOD established a uniform definition for combat that all services will be required to use: "The definition will... The services will have one year to implement the changes

It is either saying the definition ("established") and the devices ("and created") are "now" and everything else will be within a year, OR it is saying all of it will be within a year (the individual services have a year to implement the DOD policy changes, which would make sense). I suspect the latter (thus meaning by Jan 2017, though possibly earlier), but I suppose it could be read either way. The definition's not relevant to this article, but the devices are. Is there anyone else following this discussion who could provide a third opinion? How do you read that?

More important to this article, I just realised the bigger reason that sentence has been bothering me, the tense of it is inconsistent:

Two new devices... will be added... effective January 7, 2016 Saying it "will be" (future tense) on a past date.

However I'm drawing a blank on how to fix it without first susing out the above point.

In the meantime I'll swap the source out for that one you found. Good find.

Gecko G (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I like the wording of it now after your edits of the 16th. Thank you. I'm still not sure about that second to last sentence though (...are now or will be...), but I think that will have to wait to see how others read the sources, as per above.

Next, some clean-up. Other than the one in the lead, we have 5 sources. Are they in the right places? and do we need that many? That seems excessive given that it's not contriversial or likely to be disputed. Especially since each group of sources basically just repeat the same info. Should we trim a few? I think we could do with only 2 or 3.

Even if we don't trim, the one's that end up in the same place should be bundled - unless of course you have plans to utilize them elsewhere in the article.

cheers, Gecko G (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

YahwehSaves- I saw your recent attempt to address the above, and I thank you for trying, but you can see the problem I brought up with such an arrangement. Further, we are begining to have too much info on these 2 new devices- that stuff should be saved for the relevant future articles on the two, I don't think this article needs to mention the composition and size of one or two of the particular devices, does it? Gecko G (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

DoD Review Results #16.: The "C" device (combat distinguishing device) is "established" (not created).
DoD: #19: The "R" devise is "created" (remote impacts device). YahwehSaves (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

um... look again. Actually #16 says "...the Department will establish..." and #19 says "...the Department will create...". Future tense in both cases. Gecko G (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

oh, and as a minor aside for clarity: the "created" bit was from the Stars & Stripes source I was discussing. Gecko G (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem or difficulty is, the least needed or required sourced information about the two devices is found only through several different sources. The sources that help in this matter to improve the article for the reader and not mislead the reader, are placed hopefully where its needed or belongs now, which takes some doing, patience, and time from at least two persons it seems. One new device added as a new service branch device or new military service device in general for medals and ribbons is the norm it seems, but this case involves two new devices which each device being controversial more or less if and when you can find out what the facts and details are about each one. YahwehSaves (talk) 09:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

my apologies for dropping out the conversation for a bit there, January has been unexpectedly very busy for me - and looks to continue to be so.

What does the Australian itnews source add that can not be found in the other sources? The AP source could also be dropped as that whole sentence seems out of place and could be dropped - this article doesn't describe the composition/color or size of the other devices (perhaps it can in the future, see below).

marking old/obsolete/non-current/whatever in an inline format is much better than seperating out two lists, but I'm still not sure what criteria you are using. Maybe instead of marking old/obsolete/non-current/whatever would it be better to mark current/modern/whatever? though still a criteria needs to be explained. I see 2 possible route's for the next step on this article:

A) adding a short entry to each, which can include a timeframe as you have done on a few, but it would need to be short (a sentence or two, maybe 3 if the timeframe is counted) and non-technical; OR

B) full-blown expansion of this article coupled with changing it away from a list.

"B" would be a lot more work, and something I don't have time for at the moment, but the end results would be much better. If you want to go that route we should probably work on it on a subpage somewhere- just bare in mind that I don't have much time at the moment so my contributions might be spotty. Or we could do "A" fairly quickly. Which do you think?

Gecko G (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

MILPERS 17-095

The Army has just released an official MILPERS on the devices: MILPERS 17-095. As I suspected, no mention of differing colors or wreaths to indicate multiples. I'm too busy rigth now to update the article myself, maybe some-one else can, Cheers Gecko G (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

DoDM 1348.33 2016 update

They also snuck in many mentions of the new devices in the 21 Dec 2016 update to the various volume's of the DoD Manual 1348.33. Gecko G (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)