Template talk:First Sea Lord

message: Um, what does this mammoth template add that is not achieved by :Category:Royal Navy First Sea Lords?  The articles (now) have succession boxes (thanks!), and there is a list at First Sea Lord anyway. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It helps make all the first sea lord articles accessible from each individual lords page - the aim of a template - accessibility and navigation from the page your currently on LordHarris 00:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I said, succession boxes get you to the one before and one after in one click, and categories and the list on the main page First Sea Lord page get you there in two clicks.  This huge template saves at most one click, but takes up an awfully large amount of screen real estate.  How likely is it that an editor will want to navigate from  Julian Oswald to Prince William, Duke of Clarence to Sir John Jellicoe? -- ALoan (Talk) 00:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you worried about the space it takes up on the screen, there is I believe the permanent option to "hide" the userbox and "show" if you want to see it again? There are a lot of similar templates, which is where I used the idea to link all the articles together on every page e.g. White House Chief of Staff. LordHarris 00:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I am not convinced how useful that template is either.  However, it is noticeably shorter than this one! -- ALoan (Talk) 00:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its about the same length as Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and that has its own category as well. If you are worried about the length, what about if in the near future I shortened the template and split it into First Sea Lords for specific time zones e.g. 1914 - 1945, 1946 - Present etc? LordHarris 01:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication with cat? 

message: Here is an example of the compressed feature when activated:
I personally think this is more appropriate in terms of space. It is a large navbox and is unseemly at the bottom of a long article such as Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope. What do other people think? Thanks Woodym555 22:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compressed feature

message: What is the rationale for including the Admirals of the Fleet (technically Admirals and Commanders-in-Chief of the Fleet) in this template?  Just curious that this doesn't seem to have been brought up in over five years. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 16:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless anyone objects I'll be bold and remove the Admirals of the Fleet from the template tomorrow.  Their presence just seems wrong.  It doesn't help that the Admiral of the Fleet article itself is pretty poor. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 07:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I inserted them as my understanding is that the Admiral of the Fleet (then a single individual) commanded the Navy at that time (i.e. the post was the equivelent of First Naval Lord / First Sea Lord rather than a rank). That said I am happy to be corrected and certainly don't have strong views on the subject. Dormskirk (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In modern times "Admiral of the Fleet" has been a rank above (full) admiral.  Since this template is about the senior naval officer at the Admiralty, I do not think they belong.  The fleet did not operate as a single entity, so that I do not see that there can have eben a single naval commander in chief, since the days before the office of Lord High Admiral was put into commission, with a number of the Lords of the Admiralty being politicians who had never served at sea.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admirals of the Fleet