Talk:Royal Navy/Archive 3

message: Hi.  I'm really new to WP (this would be my third edit), so I am not sure if I should just jump in and edit or bring up the issue on this discussion page first.  I have two points:  The Naval Base located in Plymouth is called HMNB Devonport, not Plymouth as the article suggests.  Faslane Flotilla is under the Command of a Captain, not a Commodore.  Should I just go ahead any make these changes, or is there a reason I am unaware of why the link is Plymouth rather than Devonport?  DistractionActivity 10:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No issue with changing to Devonport, but try to kepe the link in place.  The wording to distinguish CAPFASFLOT from COMDEVFLOT and COMPORTFLOT might get clumsy though, so try to keep the prose flowing.ALR 10:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Devonport not Plymouth 

message: *Iran captured fifteen British Royal Navy personnel during a "routine boarding operation" in Iraqi waters on Friday, Britain's Ministry of Defense said.
*Iran's ambassador in London has been summoned and Britain is demanding the immediate safe release of the sailors.
*"At approximately 1030 Iraqi time this morning, 15 British naval personnel, engaged in routine boarding operations of merchant shipping in Iraqi territorial waters ... were seized by Iranian naval vessels," the ministry said in a statement.
*"We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level and on the instructions of the Foreign Secretary, the Iranian ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office. The British government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment." 
Should we include this breaking news? --Uncle Ed 13:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in HMS Cornwall (F99), which seems the appropriate place for it. Shimgray | talk | 14:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Personnel seized by Iran

message: Is this the correct use of littoral?  KP Botany 02:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but what use? Where? This is a long article, so please be specific. A quote of the sentence or paragraph in queston would also be helpful. Thanks. - BillCJ 02:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under the heading "The Royal Navy today". Littoral is the latest naval buzz-word that seems to have been adopted from the Americans. It means pertaining to coastal fringes, rather than the deep-water of Oceans, so in this use it is probably correct. I don't like the term myself, but that is probably because I am used to it in the biological sense rather than the geographical and it makes me think of snails and limpets! Emoscopes Talk 06:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the reading of the sentence and looking at littoral I get the idea that the author meant littoral warfare which is actually a redirect to amphibious warfare. A rewrite of the sentence in clearer English is probably the answer. GraemeLeggett 09:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can one of you quote me a source on this, its use, official definition or anything, as it appears to be used exclusively in articles translated and in these submarine articles, and I can't find an English language definition other than the biological, in which case it means the submarines are travelling in less than 5ish meters of water and in grave danger when the tide goes out.  Please get me a source so I can fix the redirects and change the littoral article.  Thank you.  KP Botany 04:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Littoral (military) also has a brief summary of the term. I'm redirecting littoral warfare there for the time being. - BillCJ 04:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bill, not a self-reference, whatever Wikipedia is using as a reference for the term.  There are dozens of articles linked to littoral which described the littoral zone, and I started changing them thinking it was poor translation, but realized it might not be.  However, I cannot find a SINGLE non-Wiki source for littoral used in this manner, so I need a reference, military references are fine, but I need at least one in order to make the changes correctly and decide if I blew it with the non-controversial move from littoral to littoral zone, or if I need to add a littoral article or disambig or whatever.  Thanks.  KP Botany 01:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Check [Global Security.org on Littoral warfare]. It a thesis from the US NAvy on Littoral warfare, and may expalins in enough to get a good definition. It's long tho. It does describe littoral warfare as what used to be called brown-water operations, as opposed to blue-water (deep ocean) operation. It is a legitimate naval/military term, tho it it's probaly not all that common outside US military circles. - BillCJ 02:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Bill.  This should be a good starting place--it's apparently going to require some off-line research, too.  If it's not common outside US military circles it shouldn't, however, be used to translate coastal in articles.   Yes, "brown-water operations" is familiar.  KP Botany 02:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of littoral? 

message: There is a section titled 1695-1815, starting with "A permanent Naval Service did not exist until the mid 17th century", and, a few sections later, a section titled 1615-1865 starting with the same text. Gakrivas 11:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That section has been the subject of vandalism of late, mostly being deleted. Either the vandal has resorted to copying the text, or there was a mix-up between two editors trying to restore the text. I'll see what I can do. - BillCJ 15:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow! I think it's more messed up than I thought. There are several year conflicts in the headings, and duplicated text in several sections. Beginning to look like either sneaky vandalism or very sloppy editing. Someone familar with the text and history needs to take a look. It would take me a few hours to sort it all out, and I don't have the time right now. I'll try to check back later to see if it's been worked on if I have time. THanks. - BillCJ 15:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This entire section really needs a good spring-clean and moved in with the History of the Royal Navy article, in order that the main RN article can be a concise rundown of the service and link into the intricacies of its history. Unfortunately, my interest and expertise lies in more modern ships, and I don't really have the necessary knowledge or resources to tackle this myself. Emoscopes Talk 17:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text that appears twice in the article 

message: Gross Tonnage is a measure used to describe the carrying capacity of the enclosed spaces of a specific type of cargo ship; it is a volumetric measure.  Indeed, the linked source does not even mention the phrase "gross tonnage", it mentions "naval tonnage". That too is not really correct, tonnage is a measure of volume, displacement is a measure of "weight". Emoscopes Talk 23:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone could put their hands on a tonnage for a single RN ship. Emoscopes Talk 13:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone's at it again. If you don't understand what tonnage is, don't use it as a measure. It may "sound" right, but it's got nothing whatsover to do with the point that is trying to be made. Emoscopes Talk 19:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tonnage

message: I really don't want this to sound glib or sarcastic in any way, but why is this article not listed in some very basic categories it played a major role in? If there is a reason besides a general unwillingness to do it, I'll stop. Otherwise the RN deserves mention in much older categories of naval history as well. Anynobody 09:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories in which this article should be listed

message: The Royal Navy is established under the Royal Prerogative, hence members of the Navy (unlike the British Army and Royal Air Force) have never been required to take the oath of allegiance to the Sovereign.
Why does the one imply the other? Why should a Royal Prerogative establishment remove the need for an oath to be taken? 86.143.55.162 15:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a lawyer or constitutional expert but the individual regiments of the British Army were originally bands of men loyal to their commander who then served the Crown. In order to bind their loyalty closer to the Crown the men were also requiredto take an oath of loyalty to the sovereign. The Navy on the other hand was raised as a direct force employed by the Crown so their loyalty was to the Crown not to individual leaders. I don't know why the RAF chose the oath route as I doubt they were originally raised as separate squadrons. Dabbler 17:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probaby because the RAF started of as part of the Army. MilborneOne 20:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oath of allegiance 

message: Is this section necessary - at least within this article? There must scores, hundreds of such entries and I doubt whether listing them here adds to the value of this article. A separate article could be informative and appropriately categorised. And include "the Navy Lark"! Folks at 137 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you, Folks at 137, I am of the opinion that this article is well in need of a spring-cleaning. However, I think the fiction section, as it stands, is the least of our worries (look at fiction / trivia sections in other articles!), although I don't really think that Sharpe should be in there when Hornblower, Bolitho and Aubrey are what instantly spring to mind when one thinks of fictional Royal Navy sailors from the era of the swashbuckle. Emoscopes Talk 12:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Royal Navy in fiction

message: perhaps some reference should be made about the fact that the Royal Navy is "included" in the video game TimeSplitters Future Perfect. -144.132.49.114 09:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps not! Folks at 137 11:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TimeSplitters Future Perfect 

message: The whole concept of a quote, is that it is a quotation, using EXACTLY the same words as the original.  I have reverted the quotation from the 1870s that refers to the cost of the Navy.  The quotation refers to the Russian war.  Please do not 'wrongify' it to make it Crimean war.  (You cannot call it a correction if you change it from being right to being wrong.)--Toddy1 19:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really not sure that entire section should be in there - wouldn't it be better placed in History of the Royal Navy? It's excessively detailed for a single point in time, and we could easily include dozens of these... Shimgray | talk | 20:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, they are important, but we need editorial perspective. They're really not appropriate as a massive section in the article on the Navy as a whole - it's simply too detailed, too specific, and we're not an indiscriminate collection of data... a wholesale contemporary study like this would be far better at Wikisource, and then we can easily cite any bits of it as needed. I've taken it out for the time being, but it's in the history. Shimgray | talk | 22:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please respect quotations

message: I have migrated all of the text on this page and merged it with the History of the Royal Navy page. The text on this page should be a summary of the text on the subpage and as such i have prepared one in my sandbox here. It is open to editing and discussion and if no major problems are brought up with it then i will move it across onto the main page in the next few days. Thanks Woodym555 14:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now done this and have also requested a  peer review with the MILHIST project. Hopefully we can get it up to A-Class soon. Woodym555 17:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section 

message: After seeking advice from the Milhist project, and as this debate was effectively debating two separate issues i think we should separate the debates. On the Battle talk page is a discussion on how to improve that article. However, if you have any constructive suggestions regarding the incorporation of a sentence in this article about the battle, then i think you should discuss it here. I think that the Arbitrary section heading title is a convenenient starting point and i have moved it below. Woodym555 20:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fork

message: Following on from the discussion on the peer review page, i think that the whole section runing from Postwar period and 21sr century needs revamping. The essay type stuff about VMF should be removed or referenced and the compostion of the fleet needs to merge into the the royal Navy today. I don't think the graphs have any real purpose. They interrupt the page at the moment and they need interpretated. I think we can just interpret the numbers instead. If anyone has any suggestions on how to improve the graphs or how to integrate them, then please do say.
I then think that the current ships of the Navy should be discussed. Section headers such as Amphibious/escort units/submarines/other should be used with a short description linking into the other articles. I will start work tomorrow unless anyone has any objections? Thanks Woodym555 18:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems slightly confusing to me to start off talking about the RN in the 1990s, and then talk about the Falklands proving the need to re-orient the fleet towards more expeditionary activities, when that conflit took place in the early 80s,  David Underdown 19:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The conflict did take place in the early 80s and it influenced the Strategic reviews and decisions of the 90s. I am going to try and reword that intro to make this clear. Could probably be cut back as well. I have also noticed it needs an other section -Patrol/MCMVs! Woodym555 19:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Royal Navy today - needs revamping 

message: comment moved from talk archive Woodym555 (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this article could cope with anymore images. This is not an image gallery. There are enough images on commons if you want them. link. This page is not the place to advertise the Navy, it is the place to have an encyclopedia article on the Royal Navy. If you want to research the Royal Navy, then its website would be the best place to start. If you are offering to help update all the articles, then by all means be bold and fix them! ;) Remember to follow the WP:MOS though... Woodym555 (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revamp

message: hi there i was wondering if there was any room on this article for mentioning the types and numbers of landing craft that are currently in service with the royal navy similar to the french navy article. I have the information with me at present taken from the royal navy hand book (2003) which is the most up to date source of information i have found.
the types of landing craft Utility (LCU)in service are:
LCU MK 10 - number of vessels 10 (Pennent numbers 1001-1010) entered service 1999.
LCU Mk 9 - Number of vessels 3 (Pennent numbers 701, 705, 709) entered service 1960-1970 (most have left service with hms fearless and intrepid).
The types of Landing Craft Vehicles and personnel (LCVP)in service are:
Griffon 2000 TDX(m)hovercraft- Number of vessels 4 (Pennent numbers 21-24) entered service 1993.
LCVP MK4 -Number of vessels 19 (Pennent numbers 8031,8401,8403-8,8410-20,8621,8622)entered service 1986 (others of the same type are operated by the british army and serve in the falkland islands.)
LCVP MK5 - Number of vessels 23 (Pennent numbers 9473, 9673-9676, 9707,9708,plus 16) first 7 entered service 1999 a further 16 ordered in 2001 and entered service 2002-2003. 
i would edit the article myself but i firstly do not have the skill currently and also do not wish to tread on anyones toes. 
regards kieran Locke.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.165.225.23 (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Landing Craft of the royal Navy