Talk:Royal Navy/Archive 2

; Archives
	up to July 2006; August 2006 to November 2006; December 2006 to September 2007;

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Personnel Figures

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This sentence features in the opening paragraphs:

The Royal Navy is currently the second largest in western Europe in terms of personnel, after the French Marine Nationale.

Is this relevant ? There is a bit of a rant by someone on the talk page for the Marine Nationale, but ranting aside, there is some truth in what is said.

I vote for removal of this statement, or at least its relegation to somewhere that talks more about the details of the navy, as opposed to the 'in your face' first couple of paragraphs.

The essential point is that the number of people, whilst being a valid measure of effectiveness (and therefore noteworthy) in relation to armies, is somewhat irrelevant for navies and air forces. It's the equipment that does the job of giving a navy or air force its teeth. And in any event, the French Navy figure does not seem to make a properly noteworth comparison, as it includes, amongst other things that the RN does not, the whole civilian fire fighting force for Marseilles. Now, wouldn't Hampshire and Devon council tax payers rejoice if only the RN budget would pay for Portsmouth and Plymouths fire brigades (the two English towns taken together being approx the same population as the French second city). Thoughts, anyone else ? --Phillip Fung 02:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI to interested parties: debate on this point is ongoing at the talk page for the French Navy--Ordew 13:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

NEO Inclusion

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is the current NEO in the Eastern Med really significant enough to be included in the timeline section? ALR 16:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon evacuation?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

do you think we should make a mention of the RN operation to evacuate people from Lebanon?

Pratj 17:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

New PD Free Image

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hello ALR in particular. I have created a new image and uploaded with undisputable licence. Please feel free to distribute as appropriate, and in particular place onto the Royal Navy if it still fits with your needs. Astrotrain has not raised any objections to a similar concept new image on the Sea Cadet Corps (United Kingdom) and made improvements himself so hopefully you will not be wasting your time. The new image is Image:Rev reh v pd.jpg. Best wishes, Des Kilfeather Desk1 18:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added the image to the article, I hope nobody disagrees with it or where I have located it. Would it be possible to get a slightly larger image Desk1? The other thumbs have a width of 300px, and it would maintain homogeneity of appearance if this image too could be at least that size too. Regards Emoscopes ^Talk 20:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. 400px version now in, shows same width as others. Also similarly upgraded the picture of TS Royalist in Sea Cadet Corps (United Kingdom). Later today will include a picture of Elizabeth II on Endurance, waving back at international ships crews during the review. The Elizabeth II article has rejected the image on the grounds it was not a significant event for the Queen in the grand scheme of things; but you may be interested in using it elswhere. I will point you to the file when finished. Best wishes, Des Desk1 11:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The Fleet Review article might be appropriate for it, in context.ALR 11:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, I would only ask that you review the JPEG compression, as 107kb is an overly large file size for a 400px JPG. Emoscopes ^Talk 12:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

New public domain image of The Queen and Admiral Sir Alan West placed at . Best wishes, Des Desk1 15:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Will look at compression again at a later date when more time available. Desk1 15:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

History

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The History section is pretty big, the article is significantly over the recommended page size already, and bringing it up to scrath on the current service will increase that still further. There is already an extensive, and pretty well written article on the History of the Royal Navy elsewhere. Would it be possible for someone to slim down the history section into a summary and link to the proper article. I'd do it myself but the whole history side of life just turns me off and I don't think I'd do it justice. There is still quite a bit to come into the article so it would be useful to reduce the size of that section. TIA ALR 21:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd second that. Unfortunately the history side also turns me off, I'm in it for the ships mainly. Emoscopes ^Talk 21:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Atrocity is a very POV term. Neither side were free of ruthless, cold blooded actions during the AWI or the War of 1812. Removed the word atrocity and replaced it with 'actions'.--Lepeu1999 16:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam?

Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Various links to the website http://www.royal-navy.org are repeatedly added to this page (and a few others), most recently by User:189.158.160.7. I have been removing them as I consider this linkspamming, and placed a request to desist at User talk:189.158.160.7. The user responded;

We happen to be a non-profit Royal naval history website and do not spam. We also contribute and monitor the accuracy of Wikipedia historical facts and correct.

Looking round the site, it appears to be a badly organised mirror of wikipedia content mixed in with heavy advertising (and bad grammar and spelling!). It seems to belong to http://www.oceanmc.com/ group of websites, which are similar in concept. On their about page, http://www.oceanmc.com/content/section/9/45/, Ocean MC state;

Copyright Declaration and Disclaimer

The source code of the whole Ocean MC-Service is copyright protected by International Copyright and owned by Ocean MC. You may not publish and use any copies of the Ocean MC pages or of part of them without compliance of the authors.

We are not liable for the content of any of the linked services, though we check the links frequently to ensure they are directly related to Leisure, Commercial and scientific maritime world.

I find this to be an extemely inappropriate site to link to from WP, as it is basically claiming information copied from WP as copyright; you can get exactly the same information on WP and under better licenscing terms. I would appreciate anyone elses opinions on whether or not this is linkspamming. Emoscopes ^Talk 16:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Eugh. Spam-linking of the worst sort. My personal advice is to keep it out, and test4im the user if he does it again. If he becomes a constant menace, add me to MSN (address is on my talkpage), and I'll watch his contributions for the next few months. HawkerTyphoon 17:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

REPLY from Ocean Waves - www.royal-navy.org:

You have made several statements that some are wholly and some partially inaccurate. We have not placed, "Various links to the website http://www.royal-navy.org are repeatedly added to this page (and a few others)...".

We certainly are not a mirror website and rely on our own members to submit information.

OceanMC sponsors our website because we do not rely on funding or accept any funding of any sort at this time.

The domain names of OceanMC are completely seperate to www.royal-navy.org, therefore www.royal-navy.org does not come under the disclaimers or copyrights of OceanMC.

Anyone but anyone may use the content of our website. Also we get emailed requests and NONE are denied access to whatever we have. It is free and open to all.

We admit there are advertising on the website due to the website being revamped at this time and using 'host' templates. This issue is being resolved as we speak and should be completed gto new templates within weeks.

We might add that your attitude disappoints us. We would have expected a more professional and friendlier approach towards us to resolve any issues you have with us.

If you care to check our positioning with many of the major search engines as regards to the Royal Navy key words, we fair better than yourselves. We are not looking to better our ranking by being linked to you. Our only intention is another source of information to readership.

Lastly, it would have been appropriate to state who you are and on what authority you can make these claims against us and to take actions.

Regards

www.royal-navy.org team

Thankyou for your reply. I have personally removed links to www.royal-navy.org from at least 2 pages in the recent past;

You must forgive me for assuming you are a mirror site, when I browsed your site, the various articles on ships I pulled up (e.g HMS Beagle http://www.royal-navy.org/shiplist/content/view/118/33/. HMS Bounty http://www.royal-navy.org/shiplist/content/view/116/33/ amongst others ) were identical to their WP counterparts, but with some pertinant sections removed (such as external links, references etc.) and were indeed out of date to the WP latest versions. I would therefore assume that your contributors were contributing from WP.

This is not in itself a problem, infact, is the essense of WP. However, I fail to see the merit in linking to out-of-date copies of what already exists on WP, when you say that We are not looking to better our ranking by being linked to you. Our only intention is another source of information to readership, this seems somewhat contradictory.

Every page on your website has the footer © 2006 OceanMC.com all rights reserved. OceanMC, and a multitude of links back to OceanMC. You must therefore forgive me for assuming that this site is covered by Ocean MCs legal policies and is affiliated with the network.

I find your position about search engine rankings completely irrelevant to this issue; links are not added on a basis of search popularity, but on merit of relevance to the article and to supply sources for further reading. Never-the-less I followed your advice and was unable to bring up Royal-navy.org on any first page of results for typical keywords on google (not even for the keyword Royal Navy).

I am User:Emoscopes, and I am acting in good faith purely as a wikipedia contributor, which I believe my history edits and contributions shows. I stand by my position that links to royal-navy.org, in its current form (heavy advertising, lack of clarity regarding copyright, heavy mirroring of WP content) is irrelevant to the article, and that their repeated re-insertion constitutes linkspamming. I act in good faith on WP, and took the time and effort to make a survey of your site before removing any links which I personally deemed to be innappropriate, which was part of the reason for starting this discussion here.Emoscopes ^Talk 22:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply from Ocean Waves:

I have stated we are going through transitional stage and our templates are linked. You may have a basis for your argument on the first page yet 99% of our website carries "one" banner on each page at this time. This is within the header template that is subject to change. I hardly think we are heavily involved with advertising and especially spamming. Your definition of spamming seems a miss. Regarding the size of our databases and website incomparison to one banner that seems to offend you is ridiculous.

Please go check all the other search engines:

e.g. 1. Yahoo (the leading search engine)

Position 6 Royal Naval History - Royal Navy ... years. Today a world leader, the Royal Navy history is par to none. ... Royal Navy Handbook 1914-1918 (Hardcover) ... In 1914 the Royal Navy was the largest in ... www.royal-navy.org - 29k - Cached - More from this site

e.g.2 MSN

Position 5 and 6 Royal Naval History - Royal Navy

Royal Naval History - Ocean MC, The Royal Navy shaped the world for hundreds of years. ... The Oxford Illustrated History of the Royal Navy (Paperback) by HILL . Book Description

   * www.royal-navy.org
   * · Cached page

Many key words brings us first place:

e.g.3 Yahoo again

Position # 1 Royal Naval and Commonwealth Navies Ship List - Ship List Begin Royal Naval Heritage, Royal Navy, Royal Naval and Commonwealth Navies Ship ... LIST OF THE SHIPWRECKS OF THE ROYAL NAVY, ... List of Royal Navy Submarines sunk ... www.royal-navy.org/shiplist/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1 - 70k - Cached - More from this site also Position # 2 Royal Naval and Commonwealth Navies Ship List - HMS Dreadnought ... listings and histories., The sixth HMS Dreadnought of the British Royal Navy was ... LIST OF THE SHIPWRECKS OF THE ROYAL NAVY, ... royal-navy.org/shiplist/index.php?...&task=view&id=10&Itemid=15 - 76k - Cached - More from this site

If you care to try a little harder you will find you have no justification in what you say.

As regards to removing us from links associated with HMS Hood and others, you will find we are officially connected to these organizations and many others, "Officially". We represent their historical context if you care to search through our website properly.

I do believe we do carry many links to Wikipedia too therefore we shall act in kind. Also, we shall make aware to our readers the inaccuracies that are prevailant in Wikipedia with reference to the Royal Navy from now on. We did hope to be of great assistance and benefit in regards to this area as we have just newly formed the Institute of Naval History with many world leading naval historians. Infact this came about because of the mass media machines such as yourselves are diserminating false historical information due to relying on 'some' less than professional sources. However, we believe in the benefits of Wikipedia and we had hoped to support it wholly.

Sorry we have caused you to take offence and we take our leave.

Regards.

P.S. You may wish to remove the Official Royal Naval website due to recruitment advertising. You may wish to remove the Royal Navy News due to be a commercial business with advertising, classifieds, etc. You may wish to remove the National Maritime Museum due to advertising prints, reproductions, subscriptions, etc.

Thankyou for your response. Firstly, as stated before, I act as an idividual contributor, and am affiliated with Wikipedia in no other way apart from this. I too believe that Wikipedia is an excellent tool which benefits all the more from interested and knowledgable contributors, which I count myself amongst. I would therefore invite you and your leading naval historians to get involved in the wikipedia project.

I maintain that I find your position contradictory, because of the mass media machines such as yourselves are diserminating false historical information due to relying on 'some' less than professional sources. However, we believe in the benefits of Wikipedia and we had hoped to support it wholly. Why therefore mirror so much wikipedia content, innacuracies and all? For instance, from http://www.royal-navy.org/shiplist/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1, "HMS Warrior - The first ironclad warship"; this is a factual error, which I daresay was copied straight from WP before it was corrected (I made corrections on this subject myself). Again, I invite you to get involved and correct innacuracies that you find. Otherwise, surely you are just furthering this (alleged) dissemination of falsehoods? I trust you shall be making your readers aware of any innacuracies on your own site?

With regard to advertisments, on your front page there are adverts at the top, adverts to the left, adverts to the right and adverts to the bottom. To me this is heavy advertising as, apart form pop-ups, I fail to see where more adverts could be placed!

Regarding links back to wikipedia? http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.royal-navy.org+wikipedia&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official reveals none, and only 12 mentions of wikipedia as a source. There are plenty of other pages which do not credit wikipedia as a source despite being copies.

Regarding HMS Hood, which organisation are you officially connected to? I would presume you mean the HMS Hood Association. Surely therefore that would be a more appropriate place to link from.

Perhaps if there was an "about" page on your website it may be clearer to browsers what the mission of your site is.

Regarding link spamming, Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided issues guidelines for wikipedia articles about what sort of links to be avoided. Royal-navy.org falls foul of 1,2,4 and - potentially - 11 therefore I can be forgiven for taking repeated re-insertion of links back to it as constituting linkspamming. Regarding removing the three links that you suggest, Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked_to suggests what should be linked to, and these sites all fall under this.

I reiterrate I have acted in good faith, based on official guidelines. I stand by any actions and what I have said, and do not believe I have acted innappropriately. Emoscopes ^Talk 01:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply from Ocean Waves:

Although we disagree on some of your points, however we do take them seriously. At the moment we see you picking up on the most negative aspect of our site and not looking at the main content. E.g. you choose the main page and your point is valid yet for all the many other pages your point is not valid. We also stated we are using templates whilst we are re-developing at this time.

One of the problems that is seen in Royal Naval History are "Standards". It is a vast subject and rather confusing at times. Much has been written. With the newly formed Institute of Naval History, we hope that many issues will be resolved. It is also hoped that guidelines can be layed to create better presentation and historical fact.

As with all things it takes time. It requires support. However, we would invite you to return to our website in the coming weeks and see the changes taking place.

This looks like an interesting development. Who has formed the Institute, and how recently? Countersubject 16:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite, the essence of my argument has always been in it's current form, the link is not appropriate under WP guidelines. Perhaps when the site has original content discrete from what is available here at WP, and is in a format with less templates leading to less intense advertising it could be reviewed. My main interest here is the Royal Navy, and not WP. I use WP as a vehicle for my interest as I enjoy it's "anyone can contribute" factor, and that articles are peer reviewed by a small army of like minded individuals with the facts at their fingertips. Naturally I shall be taking a keen interest in your site as it develops and wish you success with your project. Emoscopes ^Talk 16:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime though, it should be noted that the link should not be added to Wikipedia without first coming here and stating your case again. HawkerTyphoon 16:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"In the meantime though, it should be noted that the link should not be added to Wikipedia without first coming here and stating your case again. "

I do not believe you may set yourself up to be judge and jury over Wikipedia or www.royal-navy.org. You may have your 'interests' but they should not interfer with the works and good judgement of others. It seems you have no authority to set yourself up as a judge and jury. If the Authority of Wikipedia makes a case then we shall hear and respect their decision. In the mean time I would suggest you leave our links and works alone. If you care to see our website today, it has changed dramatically compared to what you had considered previously because you are not aware of the developments or good works in progress. We have spent much time and finances for a good cause and it is dis-heartening when someone "jumps the gun", makes judgement and publicly denounce. If you had considered taking up matters with us first then we may have discussed your concerns.

I have consistently set out reasonable grounds for your link not being on this page. I am only an amatuer Royal Navy historian, but, speaking as an individual, royal-navy.org, in it's current form, has no educational value. It is un-navigatable it has no original content, it is full of adverts and quite frankly, it is a shambles. Please refrain from abusing wikipedia and wikipedia users, it is not a vehicle for discussing the merit of individual websites, if you truly care about educating the public about the Royal Navy you should contribute to our project. Emoscopes ^Talk 23:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply:

Your statements are wholly untrue. Obviously, you have nothing better to do with your time. Good Day to you Sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.158.160.7 (talk • contribs)

I've reported the user due to consitent ading and ignoring policy. I suggest you all do the same whenever he spams. HawkerTyphoon 20:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the site and agree that it is worthless as a resource. --Guinnog 20:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

One administrator's review

After reading the website and the discussion here, it is my opinion that this link cannot currently be allowed to stand, as per points 2 and 3 here. The site's content is partially copied from Wikipedia, which cannot use itself (or mirrors) as a reliable source, and partially user-driven which, also per WP:RS, makes it no more reliable than IMDb or social networking sites specifically prohibited under WP:EL. For an external site to qualify for a link, it must be verifiable; ""[t]his is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking." RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

RNXS

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As per Talk:Royal Navy Auxiliary Service, can anyone clarify if it was the Royal Naval Auxiliary Service or the Royal Navy Auxiliary Service. My feeling is the former, if for no ofther reason than it is the Royal Naval Reserve, University Royal Naval Units etc. Emoscopes ^Talk 17:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This Blue Water Navy carry on

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Blue water is anything outside of the littoral, anything inside the litorral is brown water. The current use of Blue Water is profoundly inaccurate. The RN has always been a blue water navy given the capability to power project globally, as an example OP CORPORATE was Blue Water. ASW operations in the North Atlantic were blue water.

Expeditionary means the ability to power project as part of a joint force delivering Land Effect at range, which is what is currently going on in the Persian Gulf. That is what was lacking for the latter part of the Cold War when Intrepid was laid up at R14, and Fearless was the only real token to Amphibiosity. ALR 21:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The current force in the gulf is a type 23, an RFA tanker and an RFA repair ship that is NOT an "Land Effect" force giving power projection on land. The RN did lose its main blue water capabilities in the 60's with the loss of 4 of its 5 fixed wing aircraft carriers, that were then replaced by 3 tiny helicopter carriers which were designated cruisers and intended for ASW. Though Ocean, Albion and Bulwark aswell as the new RFA bay classes are transforming the RN into a power projection force, until the new CVF's and type 45's are in service i dont think the RN can be called an effective deep water force. yerkschmerk

I think you're presupposing that Blue Water means you have to have an aircraft carrier. Given the range of capabilities available to naval assets that's a limited point of view which doesn't actually fit. Discussing current ops in any depth is inappropriate, but as part of the Joint Force package the current patrol contributes to Land Effect, there is no need for power projection ashore, which isn't what I said anyway, given the existing presence.

What do you mean by Blue Water anyway? Once we're both discussing the same subject, which I'm not convinced we are right now, we might make some progress.

Some might consider it intellectually dishonest not to be open about the reasons for designating the CVS as a Cruiser, the politicians wouldn't wear a fixed wing aircraft carrier, so it got called something else. They're also not helicopter carriers, they have always had the fixed wing capability to deliver both RN and RAF harrier capabilities. Purely rotary wing is one of the modes that they can deploy in though, whether that is for ASW purposes, amphibiosity or supporting Apache. They've also had the capability to host the Joint Task Force HQ afloat, reducing the dependence on host nation support.

I also note that you've not mentioned the SM capability for a range of missions, including the delivery of Block III Tomahawk.ALR 13:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%, it's just that the blue water navy link emphasises to naval enthusiasts breast-fed on US terminology what this modern RN is all about. I do not think that the RN ever lost blue-water capability over the last 60 years, just that it lost governmental support as such and has it once again, what with the fleet subs having cruise and whatnot ;) Emoscopes ^Talk 03:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The Blue Water Navy article itself leaves a lot to be desired, I'll dig out the doctrine publications, when I get a chance.ALR 08:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Royal Navy / RN

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Early on in the article (1st paragraph, section 1), the abbreviation of Royal Navy to RN is explained. However, further use of either RN or Royal Navy in the article is completely random, should we tidy this up? I would suggest that the first mention of Royal Navy in a section be in the longhand and any subsequent mention in that section be shorthand. Any thoughts? Emoscopes ^Talk 14:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The article is rather long-winded just now and if it is going to improve, perhaps to class-A one day, it needs to go on a diet to make it clearer and more concise. I would suggest the following sub-articles to cut down on a lot of listing;

~~I also suggest that the "see also" section be culled, it's full of a lot of duplicated and tenuous links that might be best served by being in Category:Royal Navy~~. Emoscopes ^Talk 14:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have redesigned the template:Royal Navy ships so that it is now collapsible. This not only makes the template smaller, and to my mind more visually appealing, but also means we don't need the totty text size anymore. It is probably more suitable to go on the pages of commissioned ships too. Emoscopes ^Talk 12:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Heads up

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Belongs more on the RFA page, but I'm sure more people watch this one. I've proposed an article move for the Fort class replenishment ship to Fort Victoria class replenishment oiler, here. your input would be appreciated. Emoscopes ^Talk 19:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What on earth!

Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

User:Cerejota] has made a speedy move of Royal Navy to Royal Navy (UK) with no consultation whatsoever! How do we go about reversing this situation (which, despite being in order to adhere to WP policy, breaks any number of other policies in doing so). I have asked the user concerned to join the debate here. Please voice your opinions and support! (also, see the previous discussion on the subject here Emoscopes ^Talk 21:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it back. A move of this magnitude shouldn't be made without an attempt to gain consensus first - and I'm certainly not sold on it being required by naming policy. Shimgray | talk | 21:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Royal Navy should probably stay where it is, although I see no reason not to add a link to a disambig page at the top of the article - something like "This article refers to the navy of the United Kingdom. For other, similarly named forces, see this page." Carom 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In the previous discussion you've linked to, someone has suggested creating Royal Navy (disambiguation) and putting a link at the top of this page. Royal Navy would still take you directly here, but there would be an easy link to other navies with similar names. See V8, which links directly to the engine but has a link at the top to V8 (disambiguation). What do we think about that? (sorry, I started typing this before Carom posted but finished afterward and decided to just post as-is) TomTheHand 21:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea, if we need it. The fact that we haven't got one yet makes me a bit surprised we would, though... aren't all others formally Royal --- Navy? Shimgray | talk | 21:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear on the correct name for the other forces in question - it seems that they translate directly to "Royal Navy," but are referred to as "Royal --- Navy" in English (probably as a form of real-life disambiguation). Common English usage is for the disambiguated forms (which is why I support leaving the pages at their current locations), but I think that the link to a disambiguation page would be a fairly good compromise with users with ethnocentric concerns (as a disambiguation page doesn't take up a whole lot of space). Carom 21:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm... I'd argue that their "formal English name" is de facto Royal --- Navy - they seem to call themselves by that, almost invariably, when in an English-speaking context, and names in different languages don't have to be direct translations of each other. It'll have been originally done to reduce ambiguity, I guess, but it's pretty well established by now... Shimgray | talk | 00:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be the case - I did some digging around and the convention seems to be "Royal --- Navy," (according to the governments of at least some of the countries in question)which means we can probably leave all the articles where they are. I still think it might not be a bad idea to create a disambig page - not only does it make it easy to locate other "Royal Navy" pages, but it also makes it readily apparent that the British navy is not the only force to use the "Royal" moniker. I'm not really going to push it if no-one else feels that it's a good idea, but I don't think its an especially unreasonable proposal. Carom 00:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No objection to a disambig page - I just want to make sure that when we have one, we don't make it look like their "real name" is something they don't use! Shimgray | talk | 02:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely correct! I don't suppose anyone has a list of all the "Royal --- Navy" forces lying around that we could use for the disambig page? Anyone know exactly (or approximately) how many articles we are talking about? Carom 02:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Two points, I don't actually see a need for the change, there is only one RN, anything else transliterated becomes the Royal $ Navy. Secondly what really f****d me off was the romp through a number of articles I have watchlisted changing the name but not actually changing any of the associated references from other pages, leading to double-redirects and hoping someone else would then go round and do it.ALR 21:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The Anglicised form (e.g Royal Netherlands Navy) is not a direct translation of the native (e.g Koninklijke Marine), the latter is usually literally "Royal Navy". However, in the English language, - and this is the English language Wikipedia - there is only one Royal Navy, this one. Any other Royal Navies are literal translations of their native name. Very rarely do we literally translate a foreign language, as it ends up making gobbledegook in English, rather, we Anglicise it to something understandable and non-confusing e.g., from the previous discussion;

Radio Nederland Wereldomroep is in english always known as "Radio Netherlands" versus the literal translation "Radio Netherlands World".

I also agree that a dab page would be good.

As for the move itself, well, the lest said about that the better, it was absolutely the WORST POSSIBLE way to go about this. Emoscopes ^Talk 22:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Chalk up another vote for keeping Royal Navy at its current location. Moving the article due to ethnocentrism concerns would set a precedent which would require a total re-write of our existing policy on naming conventions (and an ensuing groundswell of infighting and chaos). Renaming the article to Royal Navy (UK) would be akin to moving Pennsylvania to Pennsylvania (USA) or London to London (UK). --Kralizec! (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Other Royal Navies

Off the top of my head;

Literal
- Regia Marina - Italian Navy 1861-1946
- Koninklijke Marine - Royal Netherlands Navy
- Marine Royale - Belgian Navy
- Βασιλικό Ναυτικό - Hellenic Royal Navy, 1833-1924 and 1936-1973
Anglicised Royal Navies
- Marinen - lit:Navy - Royal Norwegian Navy
- Marinen - Royal Swedish Navy
- Kongelige Danske Marine - lit:Royal Danish Navy Royal Danish Navy
- กองทัพเรือ - lit:? - Royal Thai Navy
- ? - lit:? - Royal Saudi Navy
- ? - lit:? - Royal Moroccan Navy
Other Royal Navies
- Royal Canadian Navy - 1910-1968
- Royal Australian Navy - Australian Navy -present
- Royal New Zealand Navy - New Zealand Navy 1941-present
- Royal Indian Navy - Indian Navy -1949
- Royal Victorian Navy - navy of Australian province of Victoria dates?

Anyone got any more to add? Emoscopes ^Talk 08:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Per TomTheHand and Emoscopes above, Royal Navy (disambiguation) has been created with this info. Feel free to add additional navies to either the dab. page or the list above. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Royal Navy/Archive 2

Contents

Personnel Figures

Categories

NEO Inclusion

Lebanon evacuation?

New PD Free Image

History

Linkspam?

One administrator's review

RNXS

This Blue Water Navy carry on

Royal Navy / RN

Suggestions

Heads up

What on earth!

Other Royal Navies