Talk:Italian Navy

message: I am not sure the new Horizon class are destroyers: as pointed out in the relative article, the Horizon class ships are frigates. --Panairjdde 17:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, checked on Marina Militare site, it says that the new vessels are frigates that will replace destroyers. --Panairjdde 12:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Horizon

message: I do believe that in the modern Marina Militare, the hulls below the waterline are constructed from transparent materials so as to facilitate visual perception of the earlier Marina Militare.
72.82.170.253 13:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Specialized Construction

message: It's difficuly to make a ranking of navies, i have linked the Italian Navy 6th on the world looking the plane. A real aircraft carrier under costruction (another in service), 10 modern frigates (FREMM) and 2 AAW destroyer, 3 LPD and a new 20000 ton LPD in the near future.
Italian navy isnt 6th buddy. Get more than 1 source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.247.252 (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranking 

message: 1) US (* 12+3 )
2) UK (* 3+2 )
3) France (* 1+1 )
4) Japan
5) Italy (* 2+1 ) Garibaldi and Cavour ( Cavour in service in early 2009 ) and Mazzini planned
6) Russia (* 1 )
7) China
8) Germany
9) Spain (* 1 )
Italian Navy IS the 5th of the world for technology and experience. 
*= Navies with aircraft carriers and number of them in service and planned
The Italian and French navies are the only naval forces able to keep safe the Mediterranean Sea by every threat. Their aircraft carriers and submarines grant a conventional ( Italy ) and nuclear ( France ) strategic deterrence in the entire region.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.32.194.146 (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marina Militare, the 5th 

message: Hi, I know you're all busy trying to figure out the best way to assess the Marina's ranking. I just wanted to point out that the ranking published on this article and that one published on the Italy page contradict one another (i.e. here it's 6th, in the Italy article it is 4th). Just a reminder to fix both articles when the issue has been solved.
Cheers!
Radarino (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ranking contradiction 

message: "The important combat contributions of the Italian naval forces after the signing of the armistice with the Allies on 8 September 1943 and the subsequent cooperation agreement on 23 September 1943 left the Regia Marina in a poor condition, with much of its infrastructure and bases unusable and its ports mined and blocked by sunken ships." This sounds rather odd, surely what left the italian navy devastated was it's destruction by Britain pre 1943? Intend to change this if it can't be referenced 84.172.195.170 (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Post WW2

message: USA
UK
France
Russia
Japan
China
Italy
Germany
India
Spain
Brazil
therfore the italian navy is the 7th most powerful navy in the world  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bro5990 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: worlds most powerful navys

message: :Marina Militare → Italian Navy —  Per WP:MILMOS#Units, formations, and bases: "Root pages for the armed forces of a state are named, if the official name is known, by the official name's English translation (for example, "Australian Defence Force"). If the native language name is most commonly used, this should be kept (for example, "Bundeswehr")." I do not believe Marina Militare meets the standard of being "commonly used", and is piped to show the English name in most articles. Note that Italian Navy already redirects to Marina Militare, and that the army article is at Italian Army. - BilCat (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move proposal

message: I've started the edit of this section, like the pages United States Navy#Personnel, United States Coast Guard#Personnel, German Navy#Ranks and many other world navy pages. Work in progress template is present, every rollback will be considered as vandalism and/or an edit war. --Nicola Romani (talk) 06:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Who here is saying that the Royal Navy page should be took as a model? The US Navy page is too long, what about the oters navy pages? I've already ask an admin intervention, once again: WIP template is present, read it and stop your rollback! --Nicola Romani (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The ranks table is already present in the article specifically designed for contain it (Italian Navy ranks). Why create a useless duplicate in this page? See Royal Navy page for example, and not the US Navy#Personnel section that has been suggested for splitting or the German Navy page that (unfortunately) contains almost only tables and lists. --Enok (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

text: In addition, the back-and-forth reversions come close to being an improper edit war.  I would advise against continued repeated reversions, per WP:3RR. Cogitatione (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I am inclined to agree with this Nicola. It does appear to be fairly common practice to have a separate page for ranks/structure/insignia, either for the military forces of a country in general, or the specific branches (Italian Army ranks). As the articles mature, this is often hived off to its own dedicated article, and linked from there. A work in progress template does not necessarily forbid other edits, and edits made with the template in place should still be discussed if they prove controversial, just like any other edits. It may be that a trimmed down version can be used to give some information/context on the navy page itself, let's see if consensus develops that way. Benea (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranks section 

message: I saw your discussion listed on WP:3O.  I want to thank Nicola for their hard work to improve this article.  However, I agree with Enok that the Royal Navy article is well-developed.  In addition, the existance of a specific ranks page negates the need for actual insertion into the article.  Therefore, I recommend the removal of the rank information, in line with the version recommended by Enok.  I may make some edits to the article myself, as there are interesting points.  Cogitatione (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, the back-and-forth reversions come close to being an improper edit war.  I would advise against continued repeated reversions, per WP:3RR. Cogitatione (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I am inclined to agree with this Nicola. It does appear to be fairly common practice to have a separate page for ranks/structure/insignia, either for the military forces of a country in general, or the specific branches (Italian Army ranks). As the articles mature, this is often hived off to its own dedicated article, and linked from there. A work in progress template does not necessarily forbid other edits, and edits made with the template in place should still be discussed if they prove controversial, just like any other edits. It may be that a trimmed down version can be used to give some information/context on the navy page itself, let's see if consensus develops that way. Benea (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Opinion 

message: Hi guys. The comparison to an RN midshipman is incorrect. As I have stated on the RN Midshipman page, the RN Midshipman is an OF1 officer, and has been the first commissioned rank since around 2006. It is likely that the rank of RN 'Officer Cadet' more directly compares. Will change soon if no one has any objections? 87.224.106.227 (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  footnote 3 - comparison to RN Midshipman

message: Adding all the retired vessels of the Italian Navy since 1949 is making the article too long and also diverts from the main topic of the article: namely a current overview of the Italian Navy. That said I suggest that the entire section be split off into its own article. Before undertaking such a step I would like to hear other editors opinions first. Thank you, noclador (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retired vessels after 1949 

message: I have reverted this edit. You simply pasted large chunks of info without any consideration to how it fits in. There is already a structure section and there is a page for Commander in Chief Naval Fleet. Instead of simply pasting why not create pages for the missing items eg Commander in Chief Logistics Command or MARICOMLOG Gbawden (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed order of battle