Talk:Royal Navy/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

FAA

Im not sure if the FAA is even mentioned in this article. I cannot find it. 194.46.230.25 (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Weapons Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier

Hi anyone know what 30mm guns are being fitted to the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier? I have been tryinng to improve the article to at least B Class, but can not find anything that give a make or model for the guns. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Rum Sodomy & the Lash

But it only made the top 100 gay list in 2012?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2012/01/mil-120113-ukmod02.htm

Do we have a source that explains this discrepancy? Hcobb (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What discrepancy? Is the Pogues link intentional, tongue in cheek, or something else? This is a very mysterious post, and the summary 'Rum Sodomy & the Lash does not appear in this article? Swiming away from the sinking history or what?' only makes it more so... Benea (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I would just ignore it, check the contributions for Hcobb, and the responses on other talk pages.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes to lead

At the start of World War II in 1939, the Royal Navy was still the largest in the world, consisting of 15 battleships and battlecruisers with 5 under construction, 7 aircraft carriers, 66 cruisers with 23 more under construction, 184 destroyers with 52 under construction, 45 escort and patrol vessels with 9 under construction and 1 on order, and 60 submarines with 9 under construction. This is cited in the article. If you want to change the lead can it be discussed first. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Reading the actual source, it makes no mention of the Royal Navy being 'superseded by the U.S. Navy as the world's foremost naval power'. The actual term used is the surrendering of the previously unchallenged superiority over all other naval powers (the Two power standard) for the parity negotiated at the Washington Naval Treaty in 1922, which specifically set the British and American navies on an equal footing. More details on this parity (which was seen by naval figures like Cunningham and Wemyss as a disastrous reduction in the navy's capabilities, hence Cunningham's dismayed quote) can be found in work's like van der Vat's Standard of Power: The Royal Navy in the Twentieth Century and Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery. Benea (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Good catch the editor can discuss the change here or self revert. Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I have made some tweaks to the text. Firstly I have removed the quote, as quotes are not generally regarded as appropriate for article leads (unless, say the article is about a speech). I have also removed the detailed list of fleet strength at the start of the second world war, as in my view this is excessive detail for the lead. All of this is very interesting content which I would support being including elsewhere in the article. I have also added reference to the Soviet Navy, which I do think is relevant as it became a very significant force during the Cold War.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding reference to the soviets unnecessarily adds more complication to an already lengthy section of the lead. The soviets had no role in superseding the RN as the worlds foremost global power, so why mention them? It was more than satisfactory before these recent changes.Talk^Woe90i 20:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It adds a small number of words but a lot of context for readers, the Soviet Navy pushed the RN into third and became a major threat (unlike the US Navy, which has always been an ally). That is very reason why the entire force was reconfigured during the Cold War into an anti-submarine force.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not just whose is bigger. By the start of WW-II the RN was around second or perhaps even third in capability. See for example the ten month career of HMS Prince of Wales (53). Hcobb (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I do see your point, however the emergence of the Soviet navy should be placed in context when mentioning the cold war and not a direct follow-on from the US Navy. This is how I would re-write the lead, improving readability:

"Victory after the First World War saw the Royal Navy significantly reduced in size,[4] although at the onset of the Second World War it was still the largest in the world. By the end of the Second World War the U.S. Navy had emerged as the world's largest. During the course of Cold War and the emergence of the Soviet submarine threat, the Royal Navy transformed into a primarily anti-submarine force, hunting for Soviet submarines, mostly active in the GIUK gap. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, its role for the 21st century has returned to focus on global expeditionary operations."Talk^Woe90i 21:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I can support that as a compromise, with the following tweak to the first sentence, as victory did not necessarily cause reduction: '::::::"Following victory in the First World War, the Royal Navy was significantly reduced in size....' Rangoon11 (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The wording above seems fine, though the link to the Washington Naval Treaty piped as 'reduced in size' seems a bit WP:EASTEREGGY. Given that the process and motivations for naval drawdown in this period are so complex and multifaceted (internal war weariness, the 10 Year Plan, Geddes Axe, etc, etc) I think it would be better just to have the bare factual 'reduced in size' in the lead, and go into details and explanations in the relevant part of the main body. Benea (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Our family lost a lot of young men on Prince of Wales.Talk^Woe90i 22:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

RN Dockyards

Is there a list of dockyards of the Royal Navy anywhere on WP; and how dockyards, in general, functioned on their many levels of operation? I am particularly very interested in the age of sail. An adjunct of this would be the primary ports-of-call where RN had its own military establishments, separate from ports-of-call where an allied country simply provided basic maratime services. Benyoch (talk) 05:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

THere is Royal Navy Dockyard which lists them and also discusses overseas dockyards but it could do with expansion. Dabbler (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dabbler, that's a great help indeed! Benyoch (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed

I am afraid a statement like "It remains a prominent blue-water navy with the ability to project power globally." needs a citation from a contemporary source to remain in the article. --John (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As none has been forthcoming in almost a month, I am removing this. --John (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 April 2012

There is an error on this page suggesting the royal navy was surpassed by the american and japanese navies at outbreak of war in 1939. This is incorrect numerically, tactically and training wise. Also in the quality of the ships. Also I would like to add notes about the British navy having trained japans navy. Its misleading to suggest the navy was inferior at this point when the navy was actaully weakened by attrition throughout the war. 2.25.118.233 (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The exact change you want made is required for an edit request. You will also need to provide reliable sources to back up the changes you want to make. As for wanting to edit the article, it is semi-protected, which means you must be registered and autoconfirmed to edit the article. — Bility (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Black Swan class

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/23/arms-navies-smallships-idUSL5E8GN01420120523 Inspired by the fast sailing frigates of the Napoleonic Wars and the corvettes, destroyers and submarines hunters of the Second World War, the "Black Swan" project is controversial. It remains far from clear whether the concept will be adopted and taken further.

Worth a mention yet? Hcobb (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

'Know your enemy' seems so pertinent. Reuters article is interesting, thanks for the link. Here is a MOD sketch 'The future ‘Black Swan’ class sloop-of-war' with brief MOD discussion here. If Black Swan class is mentioned then MOD's JOINT CONCEPT NOTE 1-12 FUTURE ‘BLACK SWAN’ CLASS SLOOP-OF-WAR: A GROUP SYSTEM will be essential reading and reference, I figure. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The few big ships vs many small ships debate is one that continues year on year, so it's nothing special. You'll generally find it's a topic that's given on most staff college courses either ICSC or ACSC. What's interesting about the proposal is that the core ship suddenly becomes quite high value as it's the C2 node for a number of Uninhabited Maritime Vehicles, which moves away from the low-value highly-dispensable model.

There are a couple of big clues in the DCDC name, concepts and doctrine. DCDC is essentially a think-tank based at the Defence Academy in Shrivenham, they produce a great many papers on a range of subjects, some of which go places and some don't.

In terms of the defence acquisition process DCDC contribute to the analysis that identifies what capability gaps might exist, that's then taken forward into the process where potential methods of filling the gap are identified.

I'd suggest that the Reuters report isn't corroboration, because it's clearly derived from the concept note.

What the JCN will do is perhaps inform some of the routine debate.

In response to the question, I would say no it's not reasonable to mention it, you've got a single source that's not speaking on behalf of the RN. However interesting the concept itself might be.

ALR (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Scottish navy?

The history section discusses the English navy before 1707, and the British navy after 1707, but says nothing about a Scotish navy. Did Scotland had a navy as well? If so, what happened to it after the Union of the Crowns, and the Act of Union? The acticle needs to say somethign about this.Wardog (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Wardog, this point has been addressed before (see Archive 4). User MilborneOne put it like this, "...the Royal Navy has been the British Navy since 1707 and the union with Scotland, before that the Royal Navy was the Navy of England. MilborneOne (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC). So the only issue for this article is that the 'Royal Scots Navy' was subsumed into the Royal Navy in 1707. However, this led to the addition of a grand total of two frigates, less than 2% of the strength at that time, and so this is barely relevant for the main Royal Navy article, which in my view already has far too much history (the main article is supposed to be "History of the Royal Navy" Thom2002 (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Blue water navy

Needs a good modern source which uses these words to describe the RN, else it will have to come out. --John (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Such statements should be sourced. That sentence also contains the factually accurate but almost painfully self-aggrandising part about "an aircraft carrier (though without fixed-wing aircraft)" Thom2002 (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The term "blue water navy" is American and inst used by the navy in the United Kingdom, the British use terms like "global force", expeditionary navy and such. Most likely the reason for this being that the Royal Navy established its self as a global navy from the late 1600/early 1700s. Whereas the Americans during the early 1900s felt the need to display their newly found maritime prowess in the form of the Great White Fleet - thus born the relatively modern term Blue Water Navy. Personally I prefer the British terminology, it is more descriptive and easy to define - Blue Water Navy is becoming rather vague and even the article here on Wikipedia seams unsure about its self! The Asian adoption (and consequent abuse thereafter) of the term blue water navy has caused an even greater dilution to the meaning. Over the years reading different documentation from the Royal Navy and US Navy - a common phrase in RN documentation is "Maritime Expeditionary Capabilities", in the United States "Blue-Water Capabilities".

It is clearly evident that the Royal Navy IS a global expeditionary navy, just as it always has been. Sure its not the Royal Navy of 1780 - 1941, nor is it even the navy of the past decade but it is still aside from the United States and France the only navy in the world with true global reach. Whats more the Royal Navy and the British government still thinks it is a global navy too.

Anyway, I dislike the term blue water navy, and the British don't use it so I think I shall edit the introduction paragraph that uses is.Osama is Obama (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Whether we use "Blue Water Navy" or "Global Force", the assertion certainly requires a decent cite from a reliable secondary source, not a self-published source. I think even the revised statement is 'at risk' unless a modern reliable source that isn't the Royal Navy can be found. Thom2002 (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the Royal Navy does operate around the globe does it not? Is there now policy that states we cannot use a self published source (in this case the Royal Navy) that states the obvious?! Or are all those Royal Navy vessels deployed around the globe actually phantom ships :o

The intro to the US Navy article has absolutely no citation to support these claims, "the United States Navy maintains a sizable global presence... It is a blue-water navy.." However, we all know this to be true, even without a citation. Similarly we know it to be true too that the Royal Navy does indeed maintain a global presence. In-fact The Royal Navy maintains continual deployments in almost every major body of water except the Pacific, what is significant is that no other navy on earth operates as far reaching! with only exceptions being the USA and France.

There is allot of prejudice against the Royal Navy which is sad, but I will back the British on this one.Osama is Obama (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Not everything needs citing, the sky is blue etc. Does anyone really believe the RN is not a global force/blue water navy? The self published source if from HM Government, is there any evidence its unreliable? Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the point is that the RN was certainly considered a 'BWN' before the loss of fixed-wing carrier capability. The other two 'undeniable' blue water navies has this capability. Now, I'm not arguing that the loss of fixed wing carrier avaiation means that the RN is not a BWN, only that the loss of that capability creates some doubt. Therefore, it would be much better if a a source post the loss of that capability defined the RN as still a BWN. I think that HMG is a very reliable source for facts and figures, but perhaps less so in value statements because of the obligation to present government policy 'in the best possible light'. A secondary source would be far preferable. As to the sky being blue, I can find plenty of reliable sources to support that assertion! Thom2002 (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

A secondary source is essential for us to state anything in Wikipedia's voice. --John (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

A secondary source is not essential when stating the obvious. The Royal Navy maintains commitments around the globe, we do not need a secondary source to support this, it is government policy and fact. RN fact sheet. Had this article been trying to state the Royal Navy was a 1st rank blue-water navy with the capability of operating independently in the littoral zones of China, then there would be an issue, but a primary source stating fact is within Wikipedia's guidelines.Osama is Obama (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It isn't obvious to me. Please find a valid third-party source if you would like it to remain in the article. --John (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the Royal Navy considers its self to be a global force - published material from the Royal Navy supporting this is a reliable source. Also I think it is a relevant piece of information regarding how the Royal Navy views itself! Secondly' the Royal Navy is deployed around the globe, this is fact and government policy (regarding defence) - so published material from the Royal Navy supporting this is a reliable source. There is nothing wrong with my edit of ... "The Royal Navy considers itself to be a global force and operates around the globe." Osama is Obama (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think perhaps reaching a consensus is the best way forward from here, there is no policy against the current revision, it is merely a content dispute.Osama is Obama (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't allow or encourage self-promotion, which is what this is. --John (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concern, however I do not feel it qualifies as self-promotion as we have revised the sentence to read that the Royal Navy only "considers" itself to be a global force. The article no-longer suggests that the Royal Navy most definitely is a global force/BWN or that it is internationally recognized as a global force/BWN. How the Royal Navy views itself is in my opinion important and adds a certain depth and understanding to the UKs maritime policies. As far as the Royal Navy actually deploying and operating around the globe, this is undeniable fact. A self published source reporting on current deployments around the world is most definitely a reliable source and not self-promotion.Osama is Obama (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

John, your problem seems to be that the sources provided are British government or Royal Navy sources or that they don't contain the exact phrase 'blue water navy'. Firstly, I don't see what's wrong with British government or Royal Navy sources. Can you prove that they are unreliable sources? There are plenty of United States government sources used on Wikipedia. One example would be the CIA World Fact Book. Do you think that the CIA World Fact Book is an unreliable source? Most others don't seem to. Secondly, sources are provided supporting the claims that the Royal Navy operates globally and it is acknowledged as a blue water navy on the Blue water navy article. Now, some of those sources may not contain the exact phrase 'blue water navy' if they are British sources because it is a United States Navy phrase. The British equivalent is 'expeditionary' or 'global', which the sources contain. I cannot help but feel that you are nitpicking in order to have mention of the Royal Navy either being a blue water navy or a globally operating navy removed. The article has always over the years stated that the Royal Navy is a blue water navy. If you believe however that this has changed and it is no longer a blue water navy then it is you who should be providing the sources supporting this claim. Quite vivid blur (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of a double-standard operating here. The article United States Navy makes the uncited claim that the US Navy is a blue water navy. The definition given in the article Blue-water navy comes from the Defense Security Service, part of the United States Department of Defense. If the US Navy can make the claim based on its own definition, then why should the Royal Navy not be allowed to make its own statements? Dabbler (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

With regards to Quite Vivid Blur, that's a number of quite reasonable arguments. The one I will take issue with is the cross-reference to another Wikipedia article - that definitely doesn't stand up as a valid citation under Wikipedia rules, especially as the cited Wikipedia article does not cite a recent source to say that RN is a BNW. Thom2002 (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Royal Fleet Auxiliary

The article's lead currently references, "19 commissioned ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA)." Are there 19 commissioned ships in the RFA? For example, can the six PFI ships be considered to have been"commissioned"? I can find no evidence of their commissioning date, details of their commissioning ceremony or other supporting evidence, and the RFA article does not reference their commissioning, but I have made only a cursory internet search. Thom2002 (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Every vessel put to sea has a commissioning ceremony, but they were most certainly not commissioned as RFA vessels! They are Merchant Navy.Osama is Obama (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this and the edits. Thom2002 (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

MOS: Discussion regarding the use of "she" to refer to ships

There is a new Manual of Style talk page discussion that questions the practice of referring to commercial and naval vessels as "she" and "her" taking place here. One or more editors have proposed a change to the Manual of Style which would require the use of the gender-neutral pronoun "it" when referring to vessels. Please take the time to express your opinion on this matter. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

I would also suggest an edit, to the comment that the RN was considerably weaker than the USN at the end of the second world-war. According to David Wragg's book - Royal Navy Handbook 1939-1945 - at the end of the war, there were 863,000 men, 61 battleships and cruisers, 59 aircraft carriers and 864 destroyers. When submarines, frigates, corvettes etc. are added in the RN exceeded 1,000 ships and was larger than the combined numbers of every other navy in the world. Ragebe (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This is often stated because of a lack of understanding on what constitutes a ship. Certain other navies counted just about everything that floats, whereas the RN confined its numbers to 'proper' sea-going ships. That's what a ship is - not a boat, or landing craft or similar.

So the relative sizes depends on what is counted as a 'ship'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Quote: 'This is often stated because of a lack of understanding on what constitutes a ship. Certain other navies counted just about everything that floats, whereas the RN confined its numbers to 'proper' sea-going ships. That's what a ship is - not a boat, or landing craft or similar...'

I am quite sure the RN considered its Destroyers to be ships, even if they were less than 2,000 tons displacement. And a 'boat' would be a submarine. However, my question is with regard to the statement in the main article, that the USN was larger than the RN in August 1945; Wraggs book contradicts such a statement. 984 ships that were classed as Aircraft Carriers, Battleships, Battlecruisers, Cruisers, Destroyers. These are not MTBs/MGBs/Corvettes/Sloops/Mine Hunters/Landing Craft or even Submarines and Frigates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragebe (talk • contribs) 08:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

New page

Hi. There is a new page for the Warrant Officer of the Naval Service. If anyone can contribute or help with linking please feel free 07:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Documentaries about the Royal Navy

There is another documentary about the "Royal Navy", it covers not just the "normal stuff" but also the change after WW II and the role the Navy plays in the present time, like "Deasater Aid" etc., in greater detail. It was a seven or eight part series 45 - 60 min running time. The first episode coverd Nelson, the last begun with a frigate taking part in a "desater relief"- drill. ~ 2000s.

--109.91.86.150 (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

which Royal Navy?

The British Royal Navy is not even remotely the only "Royal Navy" still on Earth, (to say nothing of historically), and therefore should not continually be referred to here as "the Royal Navy". While the term is certainly appropriate in Britain, amongst British, (just as an American who says "the Navy" at home is referring to the USN), it is offensively Anglo-centric in a more cosmopolitan context such as this. I have made this observation on this page once a couple years ago, when it was deleted quickly without comment or reply. Is Wikipedia in English a Commonwealth-only club, uninterested in other viewpoints? Ernest Ruger (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the style used by the reliable sources. In the RS "Royal Navy" is used for the British navy. Every other one has the country's name included. It is extremely unlikely anyone will get confused. Rjensen (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

To be specific reliable sources in English only refer the the British Royal Navy as the Royal Navy. In other languages, the translation of "Royal Navy" may (but not always) refer to their indigenous navy. For example, Koninklijke Marine is the Dutch for "Royal Navy" but in English it is always referred to as the Royal Netherlands Navy. Other countries such as Denmark or Norway do include the national adjective in their indigenous names but the UK does not. Dabbler (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Not this again. This "debate" has been done to death over the years. The article is rightly staying put. Argovian (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Royal Fleet Auxiliary

The Royal Navy web page says

The Royal Navy is made up of five arms. The might of ships in the Surface Fleet, the aerial strength that is the Fleet Air Arm, the covert Submarine Service, the elite and amphibious Royal Marines, and the civilian fleet central to our effectiveness, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

It seems that this article covers four of them in separate section under "Royal Navy today": Surface Fleet, Fleet Air Arm, Submarine Service, and Royal Marines, but not the Royal Fleet Auxiliary? Is there a reason that it is not covered? -- PBS (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The senior officer list

is outdated Phd8511 (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

second carrier

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/nato-summit-2014-pm-end-of-summit-press-conference

but if you don't want to educate others by putting this information fine.Phd8511 (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why your reliably sourced addiion was reverted. I re-added it. Rob984 (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Royal Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060718081008/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/arts/main.jhtml?xml=%2Farts%2F2002%2F03%2F12%2Fboknot12.xml to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=%2Farts%2F2002%2F03%2F12%2Fboknot12.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141130003740/https://navynews.co.uk/news/1191-life-is-breathed-back-in-lusty.aspx to http://www.navynews.co.uk/news/1191-life-is-breathed-back-in-lusty.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071009072310/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk:80/server/show/ConWebDoc.9099 to http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.9099
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070624143506/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk:80/server/show/nav.3655 to http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3655
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070609235304/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3689 to http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3689
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140709234643/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/operations/ctf-iraqi-maritime/index.htm to http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/operations/ctf-iraqi-maritime/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071017034600/http://royalnavy.mod.uk:80/server/show/nav.3109 to http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3109
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070702221448/http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3804 to http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3804

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 12:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Dubious

The navy of the United Kingdom is always referred to as the "Royal Navy" both in the United Kingdom and other countries.

Just Not True. Some of the many instances of "British Navy": Google Scholar; FDR's Four Freedoms speech [1]; British websites: dailymail, independent, BL, Guardian. jnestorius^(talk) 14:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. That was changed without comment by an IP user in October 2014. I've reverted to the previous wording of "commonly" instead of "always". - BilCat (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Links to Naval-History.Net

Hi, I added a link to naval-history.net to the Royal Navy page and it was removed, I understand, because it didn't add anything to the topic. I was disappointed as the approach we have always used is that our information should be readily available to all - including Wikipedia users. The site is well known, used by major museums, universities, the Naval History Branch (MOD), crowd sourcing projects etc, and I would have thought be a useful additional resource. To be dismissed as not adding anything was a bit of a blow.

Thinking anyone could add to a site, I did just that, but as finnusertop ( I can't find how to thank him for his advice) pointed out, anyone can also remove it, presumably yourself as the topic lead. It was also pointed out that I should have approached you first, which I was not aware of.

I think I'm even more concerned because a link I made to a recent page on the 1946 Corfu Channel Incident was also removed and that included maps that would have added to the topic.

Perhaps you can tell me how Wikipedia can make use of our work as indeed we do of Wikipedia.

Thank you, Gordon Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by GordonSmith1941 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gordon, a few things I'll point out; you seem to be addressing your comment here to a specific person, but I'm not sure who. I'm also not sure what you meant by "topic lead" but you should know that no single person has anymore say or control over an article anymore than anyone else. Even if you create an article and/or add a huge amount of content, once you add it to Wikipedia, it belongs to Wikipedia, and the world. Anyone can edit any article (unless it's protected due to vandalism) and all edits are guided by the policies and guidelines here. When your edit was removed, you were given a reason and also directed to a policy page; WP:EL. If you read that page, you'll probably find it helpful. When you brought this issue to the help desk, you stated that you "run" the site that you were trying to link here. A section of WP:EL, found at WP:ADV states; "It is obvious that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines." - in this case, another editor has already decided that adding your site to the external links section was unnecessary. User:MilborneOne is both an experienced editor and a site admin, meaning he is quite familiar with this site's policies and guidelines. WP:ADV also applies to your edit at the 1946 Corfu Channel Incident article. I appreciate you're trying to help and I also appreciate that it can be frustrating when things don't seem to make sense around here sometimes. We do hope you'll stick around and contribute. Read through the 'welcome' template I added to your talk page, there are some useful links there to help you get to know this project. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 00:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Links to Naval-History.Net

HI The Wolf Child, Thanks for your feedback. The Wikipedia policy is pretty clear about adding links to one's own site. Our material is there for anyone to use subject to the occasional copyright constraint which is spelt out (not my copyright but others), so what I'll try is going to the talk page of specific subjects and inviting whoever to use any of the material on the NHN page. It'll then be up to them if they use any of the contents. In the first instance I've offered the work on the HMS Amethyst Incident which includes detailed maps, casualty lists and honours awarded. All best, Gordon — Preceding unsigned comment added by GordonSmith1941 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

That would be the best way to go about it. If you come across an article the you feel would benefit from having your site added as an external link, then go to the talk page and post a comment stating as such. Make sure you include your connection to the site to avoid any conflict of interest issues. If (an)other editor(s) feel it should be added, they'll do just that. Cheers. - ^theWOLFchild 00:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

King Alfred

This page asserts that the use of naval forces in UK goes back to King Alfred. On King Alfred's page, it says "King Athelstan of Kent and Ealdorman Ealhhere had defeated a Viking fleet in 851, capturing nine ships", and asserts that the claim that King Alfred was the start is incorrect. Anyone know for sure?69.142.70.108 (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

CHIEF OF FLEET SUPPORT missing

Chief of Fleet Support/Chief of Materiel (Fleet) http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/senior-naval-staff/chief-of-fleet-support is missing from the organisation list.

Should it be added? JessPavarocks (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Royal 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/20101211003029/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/operations/auriga/index.htm to http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/operations/auriga/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070710014719/http://www.uknda.org/docs/uknda_royal_navy_at_the_brink.pdf to http://www.uknda.org/docs/uknda_royal_navy_at_the_brink.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070629230746/http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.17840 to http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.17840

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Structure of the Royal Navy in 1989

There is a new article dealing with the structure of the Royal Navy in 1989: Structure of the Royal Navy in 1989. The information for most units of the Royal Navy in 1989 are complete and correct. However there are some doubts as to the home ports of some of the minor surface units of the Royal Navy, therefore anyone with information about the RN's history, please feel free to expand/improve/correct the article about the RN's structure at the end of the Cold War. noclador (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Royal 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/20101222022127/http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/%40dg/%40en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf to http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120927032808/http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf?CID=PDF&PLA=furl&CRE=sdsr to http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf?CID=PDF&PLA=furl&CRE=sdsr
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100517063856/http://www.bfpo.mod.uk/bfponumbers_ships.htm to http://www.bfpo.mod.uk/bfponumbers_ships.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Supercarrier

@Pam-javelin: - do you have a reliable source that supports your comment that supercarriers are "Normally over 1000ft and nuclear powered"...? Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 17:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier or Supercarrier

It's a Supercarrier hence why I link it to Supercarrier page and not aircraft carrier page, the aircraft carrier page says it's a Supercarrier and the it's listed in the Supercarrier page so it's a Supercarrier.....

I served on both HMS Ark royal and illustrious carriers..... Gavin99799 (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Supercarrier isn't an official type of any kind in any navy, just a media/political term. That's why it's inappropriate in the Infobox. - BilCat (talk) 11:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Full agreement with BilCatGaruda28 (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Also agree that "supercsrrier" isn't appropriate for an infobox, but in some cases it is may be used in an article as part of a quote or description from a source, so it's best to double check before removing all instances of the word from any articles. "supercarrier" has been merged with aircraft carrier, so it can still be linked for a more detailed description and additional info. FYI - ^theWOLFchild 03:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

(In 1789) Were all British ships a part of the Royal Navy ?

I've recently watched the 1984 film The Bounty (starring Anthony Hopkins and a young Mel Gibson) , not really a remake of the perhaps more famous 1962 film Mutiny on the Bounty with Marlon Brando, as William Bligh's perspectives stands somewhat more to reason. A lesser tyrant if compared, and only between the return from Tahiti and the mutiny. Then he turns out to be a decent leader in the little boat.
But the ship, The Bounty belongs to the Royal Navy. Despite it's a rather small and a merchandise ship, certainly not a Man-of-war. So my question is, were all British ships owned by the Royal Navy (as of 1789) ? Also in this film Bligh isn't a Captain, although he is the commander of the ship. That sounds military to me. Grateful for any replies or comments Boeing720 (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Boeing720: Bounty was originally a privately owned merchant craft, Bethia, purchased by the Royal Navy for Bligh's expedition and commissioned as a naval vessel in August 1787. At 220 tons bm she was small for a naval craft, but not the smallest (for example this navy vessel was 2⁄3 her size). She obviously wasn't a ship of the line fit for genuine warfare, but the eighteenth century navy had plenty of these specialised craft - yachts, scientific ships, bomb vessels, cutters etc). Not all British ships were naval, but this one was. Bligh was a commissioned Navy officer who held the rank of Commander at the time Bounty sailed; by custom the officer in charge of a RN ship is called "Captain" whatever their actual rank, which is why Bligh is referred to by that title in the film. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I humbly thank you for this excellent information. I take it as not all British ships were included in the Royal Navy. (In the film "The Bounty", Bligh has the rank of Lieutenant (Leftenant ?) of some kind,

but is naturally the commander of the Bounty) Boeing720 (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

In the Royal Navy of the time, lieutenants could command small ships often unarmed or with only a few cannon. They were known as Lieutenant in Command. This later became the rank of Lieutenant Commander in the 19th century. Bligh was the Lieutenant in Command of Bounty but would have been addressed as Captain as a courtesy. Later he became a full or post captain in command of a ship of the line.Dabbler (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Change article name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Change to British Royal Navy, as the term "royal" is a generic word, and not a specific name. -Inowen (nlfte) 20:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This has been regularly discussed both here and at Milhist, and is also referred to in the second par of the article. Consensus has always been that "Royal Navy"is the applicable term, reflecting what's used in the vast bulk of reliable sources, including in some naval histories of non-British national fleets. Of course consensus can change, so you're welcome to start an RFC to see if that's occurred. But id argue the sources case is fairly strong for "Royal Navy" over any of the previously suggested alternatives. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

"Royal Navy" is a specifc name, and in English almost always refers to the navy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as verified but myriad reliable published sources. That, per WP:COMMONNAME, is that. An RfC would be a waste of everyone's time. - BilCat (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Probably so; am just outlining the options. I'd be in the oppose column if a change was formally proposed. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2018

Please Change RFA ship count to 11. RFA Tiderace has been commissioned. 37.203.156.241 (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 17:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Sea Cadet Corps

The Sea Cadet Corps description needs changing as it isn't solely aimed at teenagers. As it has a Junior (10-12) division, it should also be expanded to mention the Marine branch as well, as that is relevant to this page. Palynium (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Royal Scots Navy

Hey all. I just noticed the infobox marks the Royal Navy as having been the navy of Scotland before 1707. Isn't this incorrect, as it would have been the Royal Scots Navy? It was folded into the Royal Navy in 1707, but was surely a distinct navy up till that point? --ERAGON (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Split of the History of the Royal Navy article

Hi folks. We are looking at the moment at splitting the History of the Royal Navy article, which at the moment is extraordinarily long. Looking at the Royal Navy article there seems to be a large amount of ground that is covered twice, as this article has a huge history section. While I am splitting the other article, unless there are any concerns I also intend to cut down the "history" bit here to a two paragraph summary, with a link to the main article on the dedicated page. --ERAGON (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I would probably suggest that the size of the topic would require more than a couple of paragraphs (looking at more like 5 or 6) but I completely agree that the history section of this page has grown recently and needs a heavy trim per WP:SUMMARY. Woody (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

5 or 6 sounds good. I'll add a note at the top to remind people to avoid making it too lengthy again; the detail should be on the dedicated page. --ERAGON (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Trim to summary is done. --ERAGON (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it looks really good, trimmed down to a useful size. I am sure that some of the information that was there can be used on the new split history articles. Woody (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, it is good. We should now try and keep the history section in this article at this sort of length with any new material going in History of the Royal Navy. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully these comments will help. I remember splitting out content to the history article in July 07 (hence why I've now added the {{copied}} template) so I know how hard it can be to keep it trimmed down. Woody (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good idea. --ERAGON (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Restructure

Cooee Cobbers, currently the broad structure of the page does not read well, and is standard across many military pages. I propose to change the structure to increase standardisation and increase readability. The restructure would look something like this:

• Role (Stays same)
• History (Stays same)
• Structure
  • Command
  • Organisation
  • Surface Fleet
  • Submarine Surface
  • Fleet Air Arm
  • Royal Marines
  • Royal Fleet Auxiliary
• Personnel
  • Strength
  • Ranks
  • Uniforms
  • Chaplains
• Ships and Equipment
  • Current ships
  • Equipment
• Naval bases
  • Bases in the United Kingdom
  • Bases abroad
  • Locations
• Customs and traditions
  • Traditions
  • Titles and naming
  • "Jackspeak"
• Navy Cadets

I've done similar things in the past and this would elevate the page in my opinion. IronBattalion (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Future Vessels

I'm going to put together a future vessels section fi there are no objections? Imperialpeace (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Royal Navy diving units

Are there any units of the RN which are primarily or to a significant extent responsible for diving operations (including training)? The words dive and diving do not currently show any results on a page search. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC should Her Majesty's Naval Service be merged into the Royal Navy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Her Majesty's Naval Service be merged into the Royal Navy? Garuda28 (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The two organizations, which have seperate articles on Wikipedia, appear to be the same entitiy according to the first sea lord. As part of this, the Navy Executive Committee has agreed that, when speaking about the Royal Navy as a whole force, we should use the term “Royal Navy” rather than “Naval Service.” There is a strong public understanding of Royal Navy as a powerful, resonant and historic brand, in much the same way as our sister services use Army and RAF to encompass their full range of activities and elements.
This does not remove the separate identities of the individual components that make up the Royal Navy. The Regular Service, Royal Marines, Royal Fleet Auxiliary, Royal Naval and Royal Marines Reserves, Royal Navy Civil Servants, Naval Careers Service and QARNNS all continue to exist as distinct elements, and should be referred to individually as appropriate. However, when talking about all these elements together, they should be referred to as the Royal Navy rather than the Naval Service. (https://royal-naval-association.co.uk/news/the-whole-force-naval-service-to-royal-navy/)
This seems to definitively state that they are the same entity. Garuda28 (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose This article is already quite long at over 120,000 bytes. I am not sure that it is a good idea to be merging more material in here just because the Royal Navy, like many other organisations, is seeking to promote a single strong brand. Dormskirk (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Dormskirk: Just to clarify, you do acknowledge that the Naval Service and Royal Navy are the same organization? With regard to the size, it seems that all the material that's covered at the Naval Service page, specifically on the arms, already exists on this page. I don't think any additional material would actually have to be added here and the Naval Service page could just be turned into a redirect to Royal Navy. Garuda28 (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Garuda28: I am still trying to understand whether they are the same organisation. Historically they have not been identical. I am aware of 1SL's ambition to promote a single brand, but I am unclear what constitutional / legislative changes have been actually been implemented to change the historical position. But I am happy to be educated on that, Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Dormskirk: Can you provide some of the constitutional/legislative documents that indicate they are separate services (outside of the HMNS article here I have been unable to find any indications that they are separate branches). I know that there are usually references to the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, but my understand was that this was in deference to the Royal Marines special historical status rather than them being independent of the Royal Navy like the U.S. Marines are independent of the U.S. Navy. Garuda28 (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Garuda28: I suspect a good starting point would be The Queen's Regulations for the Royal Navy dated April 2014 which refers to "BOOK THREE REGULATIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE NAVAL SERVICE" and "GOVERNMENT AND COMMAND OF THE ROYAL NAVY AND THE ROYAL MARINES." It would be good to know if any of this material has changed and if so what mechanisms have been used to implement the changes. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Garuda28: Here is the April 2017 version (not much change). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Dormskirk: The document appears to treat Naval Service and Royal Navy as interchangeable terms. I think the definition from Chapter 1 of the 2017 version lends credence to this. 0101. Composition of the Naval Service 1. The Royal Navy is comprised of the General Service and Submarine Service, the Fleet Air Arm, the Royal Marines, the Maritime Reserves, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, and the Naval Careers Service. The Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service (QARNNS) officers and ratings also form part of the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy is governed by the Admiralty Board of the Defence Council. Garuda28 (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  For reference section 101 of the Queen's Regulations changed in [version 6 (March 2021) of the current edition. The previous version (v5, April 2020) still used the long-established wording: "The Naval Service comprises the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, the Reserve Naval and Marine forces and the Naval Careers Service." so it looks like a recent change, which 1SL is now reinforcing - Dumelow (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• note: There has been some discussion in the past, on both the HMNS talk page and HMNS talk archive 1 page, that may or may not have some bearing on this discussion. fyi - wolf 04:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Garuda28: I agree that the document is very unclear: it needs a re-write! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Dormskirk: Fully concur on that - maybe with the focus on unifying terminology it will. On the issue of merging, just to clarify, is your stance the same? Garuda28 (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Garuda28: My stance is now moving to very weakly opposed i.e. I could be easily persuaded and would welcome thoughts from other editors, especially editors with detailed knowledge of the Queen's regulations etc. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Speaking of other editors, @Thewolfchild: do you have any thoughts on this, since you’ve commented? Garuda28 (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  I would need to do some more reading first. In the meantime, I'm watching to see what some others may have to say. - wolf 03:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - The RN is an element of HM's Naval Service so putting the whole within the part seems counter-intuitive. My preference would be to make the focus of this article the regular service and put everything else in the Naval Service article.--Ykraps (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• @Ykraps: Can you please provide some sources to support that assertion? The sources stated above seem to contradict that assertion that the Royal Navy is synonymous with the "Regular service" (which excludes the Fleet Air Arm and Submarine Service). Garuda28 (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  The source above does not say the RN is not part of the Naval Service, it says the Naval Executive wants to use the name RN as a synonym for the Naval Service as a whole but that doesn't mean the RN as we understand it now will cease to exist. The services are not being merged. The Royal Fleet Auxillary for example will not be part of the RN and those working within it will not become Royal Navy personnel. The Royal Navy is still using the term Naval Service so it appears the rebranding hasn't yet happened.[[2]] --Ykraps (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I don't have strong views on this. However, I have noticed a tendency in Wikipedia articles about restructured government organisations to present only the current position and lose sight of the historic structure. If a merge is handled well here, it will be possible to present both the historic structure and the current structure. If a merge is handled badly and the intention is to present only the current branding as always having applied, then the merge will be harmful. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  @From Hill To Shore: since the content between the two articles is nearly identical, I think a good solution to this would be adding HMNS as an alternate title used to historically or traditionally refer to the RN in the intro paragraph. Garuda28 (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  I am more concerned about merging the two concepts than about merging the current article contents. I am neither supporting nor opposing here, just pointing out that editors should be careful to keep the historic separation clear if the article's primary topic becomes a presentation of the modern structure. Applying the merge simply as an alternative title without context is exactly the type of damaging merges that have occurred in the past. The context of historic separation of the two entities is lost. If a brief note in the lead section is the only action proposed, I am minded to switch to oppose. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

  Strong Oppose The more I look at this, the clearer it becomes that this merge proposal is a poor idea. Quoting the text above, "This does not remove the separate identities of the individual components that make up the Royal Navy. The Regular Service, Royal Marines, Royal Fleet Auxiliary, Royal Naval and Royal Marines Reserves, Royal Navy Civil Servants, Naval Careers Service and QARNNS all continue to exist as distinct elements, and should be referred to individually as appropriate." This is clearly not a merge of entities but a rebranding of the existing separated functions. The argument here is one of renaming Her Majesty's Naval Service as the Royal Navy and Royal Navy as Royal Navy (Regular Service). It would be incorrect to address the separate functions in this article as they are quite clearly separate as indicated in the quote. The Regular Service does not oversee the Royal Marines Reserves or Royal Navy Civil Servants, so it would be incorrect to include them in this article as subordinate organisations. We need to retain a short article, even if it is a stub or a list to point to the subordinate services, including the Regular Service. I can't even see anything in the Her Majesty's Naval Service that is misplaced there; it provides a summary of the various branches, as it should as the body that oversees the various branches of the service. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

  @From Hill To Shore: I would like to point out under that definition of the Regular Service = Royal Navy, then the submarine service and fleet air arm would not be considered part of the Royal Navy per section 101 of the Queen's Regulations, even if the 1SL’s statement seemed to encompass them under the Regular Service. Both definitions cannot both be true at the same time. Garuda28 (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

  This is straying into the area of interpreting primary sources. If you are saying that two primary sources are in disagreement and you are relying on the interpretation of one of those primary sources to justify this merge, then I don't see the purpose of this discussion. Wait until we have a reliable secondary source that gives us the interpretation of the situation. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

  @From Hill To Shore: Hardly. What I’m trying to point out is that neither of the sources state that the Royal Navy is equated to the Regular Service. Rather we have a source (two) directly stating that the Naval Service IS the Royal Navy. Here’s another that supports that the aforementioned organizations are part of the Royal Navy (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation) Garuda28 (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

  We have a primary source stating that the body that oversees the various bodies is adopting a new name of "Royal Navy." The primary source also says that some of the existing distinct bodies/functions will remain separate bodies/functions after the change of name. You are applying your own interpretation to the primary source to say that the oversight body is merging with the body previously called Royal Navy. Per WP:PRIMARY, 2. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. and 4. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Please provide a reliable secondary source that interprets this situation for us. Providing additional primary sources is insufficient. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support. This article already substantially covers the history of the organization, and there are also two complete articles on its history before and after 1707. Given this, two articles on the same organization are redundant to one another. This one being the current name should be considered the main article, and the prior name converted to a redirect here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Royal Navy is long enough, and this article covers the amalgamation of the royal navy with smaller components and would be undue at this length in the royal navy.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC) strike sock
• Comment - I think that, in reality, the terms 'Navy', 'The Navy', 'The Royal Navy', 'The Naval Service', 'Naval Services', etc, tend to have fairly fluid meanings.
• Sometimes 'Navy'/'Naval' is an umbrella term, which includes the Royal Marines, RN Reserve, etc. For example, in the names Navy Command (1 of the 7 Top Level Budgets), Navy Board and Chief of the Naval Staff. The letters patent from the Queen to the Defence Council says 'Our Naval Military and Air Forces'. CDS Carter recently said "We will think much more about a force structure that is not just through the navy, the army and the air force, as we used to describe it."
• Sometimes 'Royal Navy' is the umbrella term. The Royal Marine's own webpage calls the RM 'An elite amphibious force of the Royal Navy'. The RN homepage says 'In times of conflict or peace, the Royal Navy is key to the prosperity of Britain and the stability of the high seas. Explore our role on the global stage... Want to return to the service? We're welcoming applications to re-join. Depending on when you left the Naval Service, you could be back among your crewmates in just four weeks.', clearly using RN as an umbrella term, and conflating it with Naval Service. The Royal Naval Association also does this: 'we are a family of current and former Naval Service personnel, relatives and supporters of our country's Royal Navy'. Encyclopaedia Brittanica says 'Royal Navy organization includes the Surface Fleet, the Submarine Service, the Fleet Air Arm, the Royal Marines, and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.'
• Sometimes RN is not an umbrella term, but a distinction is made between RN and RM, and in this case sometimes 'Naval Service' is used as the umbrella term. For example, those Queen's Regs from 2014 which say 'GOVERNMENT AND COMMAND OF THE ROYAL NAVY AND THE ROYAL MARINES.' See also RNRMC. And the Army and Navy Club, while using 'Navy' as the umbrella (as per bullet 1), in 1879 Dickens wrote 'Is instituted for the association of commissioned officers of all ranks in Her Majesty’s Regular Army, Royal Navy, and Royal Marines.' The most recent Official MOD statistics on personnel numbers say 'Naval Service Personnel comprises the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Royal Naval Reserve (RNR), Royal Marine Reserve (RMR), Serving Royal Fleet Reserve (RFR) and the Royal Naval Reserve Sponsored Reserve.'
• While civil servants are obviously not part of the armed forces, therefore not part of The Royal Navy, this doesn't stop 1SL referring to 'Royal Navy Civil Servants'. And he uses the term 'The Regular Service' in a way which is contrary to the fact that Royal Marines are part of the Regular Forces. I don't think it's clear what 1SL is proposing for the term 'Regular Service' (I thought he meant Surface Fleet + Submarine Service), but anyway Wikipedia should certainly not be (yet) titling a page 'Royal Navy (Regular Service)', when 1SL's comment appears to be the only reference to this term.
• Sorry for this long post, but wanted to evidence what a complete mess it is, and it seems like it has been for a long time. 1SL may be trying to improve things with his decision to use 'Royal Navy' as the overarching brand, however, I don't think much has yet changed in everyday uses of these terms, so I don't think anything should change simply as a result of his comments (he's not a secondary source). What is Wikipedia's policy for what to do when terms are commonly used in different ways? Mmitchell10 (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support because this is common usage. WP is maintaining a separate page on a very obscure and greatly confusing, arcane, part of the Royal Navy's organisation. The Her Majesty's Naval Service should be merged into a long, detailed explanation, with references, in Structure of the Royal Navy, and linked with a pipelink in the Royal Navy article somewhere. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Addend: 'Structure of the Royal Navy' does not exist as a separate page, unlike Structure of the United States Navy or Structure of the British Army. I will establish that article, using much of the detailed legal language cited above, and winding in the Her Majesty's Naval Service material. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Addend2: The material at HMNS is a great start for a 'Structure of the Royal Navy' article. There are large numbers of semi-independent maritime services the RN has maintained before and after the World Wars, down to the Royal Naval Patrol Service and the Admiralty Ferry Crew Association, all of which need to be drawn into a historical outline. I can easily make a start on this using all the articles in the RN and Category:Naval units and formations of the United Kingdom category. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Very qualified support: I acknowledge the rebranding that is the premise of the OP. This then is potentially a matter of WP:COMMONNAME. I also understand the formal distinction being made in respect to the two articles. The problem is, that the two articles do not follow the distinctions and there is a lot of duplication. I also acknowledge the size of the Royal Navy article. A lot of the load being carried by this article could better be devolved to sub-articles. I think that the solution is to put it all back in the pot and restructure the whole suite of articles so that they are more streamline. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse Cinderella157. Do we need a Personnel of the Royal Navy sub-article? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  I wouldn't say that every heading in the two articles would become a sub-article. However, much of the Royal Navy article is devoted to the history and the current force structure, which details ships and their roles. These are certainly two sub-articles. The history could then be reduced to a fraction of its present size. The force structure/roles could be reduced to largely just bare headings. It is here that there is significant duplication in the Her Majesty's Naval Service article. Bases and establishments is another candidate. I could see Personnel of the Royal Navy ultimately becoming a sub-article (not necessarily under that title) but only if it were expanded and (possibly) incorporated some other material. We don't need the ranks (images) here so long as we can quickly navigate to sub-articles where the current ranks and insignia are first cab off the rank. Just some thoughts. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Looking a bit more closely, a revised version of Her Majesty's Naval Service might be retained if it were done in a way to support the Royal Navy as a sub-article. This would (IMO) need to remove a lot of the redundant/duplicated material in the Her Majesty's Naval Service article per this example. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157: if we were to retain it as a standalone article, how would we deal with elements such as the Royal Marines and Royal Fleet Auxiliary, which are stated to be part of the Royal Navy? My concern is that it makes them seam separate when most sources (in particularl those directly from the UK government) say it’s part of the Navy directly. (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation) Garuda28 (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  It is a conundrum that in formal terms, The RN is part of the Naval Service but in common terms, the RN is the Naval service. The present article appears to embrace those elements of the Naval Service as if they were part of the RN IAW the common usage. However, the lead also states: The Royal Navy is part of Her Majesty's Naval Service, which also includes the Royal Marines. We need to reconcile the ambiguity. I could see Her Majesty's Naval Service being a sub-article, which is technically a stand-alone article but with conditions, that it exists to support and compliment the main RN article - ie it would serve to explain the differences between the formal distinction and common usage while such differences exist. (Presumably, Queens Regs will be probably be amended to remove the ambiguity.) The most useful part of the present Her Majesty's Naval Service article, is that it reports the former structure of the Naval Service, which wouldn't merge easily with the RN article; however, that part of of the article could be retitled as "Her Majesty's Naval Service (pre ????)". Hence, I can see a couple of alternatives but none retain Her Majesty's Naval Service in its present form. Garuda28, did you look at this example? It is just a rough guide to one possibility. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  This is why I have proposed creating 'Structure of the Royal Navy' which would *not* just be 2021, but would start with a historical overview. The structure of the Naval Service, which has constantly changed as things like the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service have come and gone, would form the skeleton of that historical overview, which would deal with Royal Fleet Reserve, RNR/RNVR of the Second World War period, etc. Military Wikipedia is obsessed with bullet point charts and templates etc [as per current bullet point list at HMNS], but we are supposed to be aiming for Featured Articles of *prose*, and a historical discussion of the RN's structure would meet that need. HMNS would be merged into the Structure of the Royal Navy, thus fitting form to function -- it is an arcane distinction of the RN's current structure. Then the article would deal with the current structure. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Buckshot06, this fits with what I think things should/could look like. I would also suggest that this is a case where the current structure should be uppermost. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  OK. At Category:Military organizational structures editors will see there is a (WP:SMALLCAT) with three structures of contemporary navies in it. I will begin, at some point, to create 'Structure of the Royal Navy' with no redirecting the redirect of HMNS, without any prejudice to this discussion. Completely separate from this discussion, it would be a valuable resource; HMNS can be changed in accordance with this discussion to it, if that is what consensus finally comes down to. Regards to all; all inputs and thoughts warmly appreciated. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment/question - isn't this like merging the US Department of the Navy into the US Navy? - wolf 13:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  It looks a bit that way. Certainly this seems to be a tricky issue and not something to be rushed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Thewolfchild: that would be more akin to merging the now-defunct Navy Department (Ministry of Defence) into Royal Navy. Garuda28 (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Merge. Two names for same topic, so this is a WP:CONTENTFORK.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, it seems to me to be merging the overall branch of the UK's naval services with its seafaring component on the basis of brand renaming. I would support some of the above suggestions, such as turning this page into the Royal Navy (Regular) while the HMNS turns into the Royal Navy if the proposed renaming goes ahead. This will most likely mean that the royal marines section will have to be transferred (alongside the Royal Fleet Auxiliary) as that page will become the main directory for all of the UK's naval services. In all, I would strongly advise against this course of action on the basis of a renaming. IronBattalion (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. There is very little evidence of the term "Her Majesty's Naval Service" in official sources. It is clear as far as the Navy is concerned that "Royal Navy" is the umbrella term under which all the various arms fall under, so there is no need for the separate article in my opinion. Also anecdotally, if you were to ask a non-expert person what makes up the British Armed Forces they would probably say the British Army, Royal Navy and RAF, not the "Naval Service". Elshad (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Aren't the articles of two different things? Moondragon21 (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Moondragon21: The sources presented here seem to indicate they are two names for the exact same organization. Garuda28 (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

They are technically two different things but in common usage they are the same - even to the extent that the service brands them as the same. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose As I am not British, feel free to correct me, but the Royal Navy is a branch of Her Majesty's Naval Service (according to Wikipedia), so they shouldn't be merged. Heythereimaguy (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.