Talk:Royal Australian Navy

message: That's wrong. If memory serves correct, the gray coveralls weren't brought in until 2002-2003.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.247.70 (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rig in the so called '98' photo

message: I've worked on this page- adding in a brief history section, and details of current fleet. It could do with some more work plus images. Astrotrain 21:10, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I would like to see something on the Chief of Navy, Maritime Command and Naval Systems Command
202.6.138.34 13:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: The article says: The RAN's biggest single loss of the war was that of the sister ship to Australia, HMAS Canberra at the Battle of Savo Island, in August 1942.
How is this true? Over 600 lives were lost when Sydney went down, but most of Canberra's crew survived. --Surgeonsmate 11:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the point, and yes, the loss of a cruiser as opposed to a light cruiser hurts the war effort more, though one might also say that saving most of the crew reduced the impact. I've added a few words of clarification. What really brings the Sydney loss home is seeing all those names on the wall at the Australian War Memorial. Most ships have a few names, but those from the Sydney stretch over panel ater panel. --Surgeonsmate 03:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biggest loss

message: Robertson suffered a heart attack 8 miles outside Port Phillip Heads whilst onboard HMAS Yarra and drowned.
Hang about. How did he drown if he was aboard at the time? He was having a tub? He fell over the side? He slumped into his soup bowl? --Surgeonsmate 13:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drowning aboard 

message: Following text removed from main article.
:In 1989 Robyn Fahy became the first female graduate from the Royal Australian Naval College and to join the Royal Australian Navy and go on to become a lieutenant commander at the West Australian naval base HMAS Stirling.
:But in which time she says she was punched, spat on, and more. She says the abuse resumed six years ago at HMAS Stirling, when Lieutenant Commander Fahy stood up for a younger female colleague who had allegedly suffered sexual harassment.
:The Lieutenant Commander was then wrongly by a navy reservist doctor diagnosed with a psychiatric illness, and narrowly avoided being sent to a mental hospital. The doctor was found guilty of misconduct by the Western Australian Medical Board.
:Lieutenant Commander Fahy and her family have been fighting for an apology and a settlement with the Defence Force ever since.She has now been ordered to return to service.
:The Lieutenant Commander has claimed that vilification has been poured on her by the media. She says she has been called a liar, grossly incompetent, a slut, a lesbian, a radical feminist and mentally unstable.
:A naval officers has told her that if she tried to return to the HMAS Stirling, she would be "crucified".
___
I do not believe it is appropriate for people to be campaigning in a Wikipedia article on behalf of current, unsubstantiated allegations made by a serving member of the ADF.Nick Thorne 22:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LCDR Fahy

message: HMAS Albatross was a seaplane carrier, AE1 and AE2, Oxley and Otway were subs, all served pre-WW2. Post war Terrible, Vengeance and Majestic were carriers transferred from the RN in 1947, 1952 and 1955 respectively. Terrible was renamed Sydney, Vengeance was on loan until Majestic was completed with an angled deck and renamed Melbourne. We gained the new O class subs post war. However, we lost our cruisers in and after the war. --Jumbo 10:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carriers and subs 

message: I am seeking information on the above .I was serving aboard her at this time as a  Royal Marine Bandsman and had many friends ashore during our two year attachment at this station ,I would like if possible to find any photographs which may be around as we did, in the short intervals we were in harbour,help with entertainment for the people of Freemantle; one person who was a great supporter of our efforts which included a dance ashore and a childrens party on the ship was a Mrs Robinson, can anyone help please ?
←–bandyjerry
: There are a few images at the Australian War Memorial Collection Database  type HMS Sussex into search field, dont know if this is of any help. I dont have any info myself on the ship or its actions ashore during the war. Hossen27 11:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HMS Sussex Fremantle Austealia 1942 

message: I have re-instated the rank of Acting Sub Lieutenant (ASLT) to the list.  This is a substantive rank and is equivalent to Pilot Officer in the RAAF, a 2nd Lieutenant in the Army and an Ensign in the USN, it is not the same as "acting whatever" in common usuage.Nick Thorne 02:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ranks

message: Sure there are other "Royal" navies, but here in Wikipedia, Royal Navy goes to Royal Navy not a disambig page.  Lst time I looked, we were writing an encyclopedia not "Royal Navies for dummies"...  Will be interesting to see what other editors will say when (and if) it spreads to WWI and WWII articles.  Shot info 09:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Royal Navy]]

message: Flag Officers are not called General Officers, this has been changed. A Midshipman is NOT a cadet in the Royal Australian Navy, Midshipmen can be ADFA or Direct Entry Officers. I should know, I am one (DEO). A Lieutenant-Commander is a junior officer. The gold oak leaf on the hat brim denotes seniority, which is first awarded at Commander Rank. In addition, the RAN is not a NATO member country and therefore the rank equivalent system (O-, OR- or E-) is not the same or equal. A Midshipman under this would be OF-D, however I have corrected this page to reflect the pay grade of a Midshipman, which is S-1. Zebde 16:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ranks Fixed

message: :Image:Royal Australian Navy Chaplains.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 17:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Royal Australian Navy Chaplains.gif

message: :Image:HMAS Armidale at sea.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:HMAS Armidale at sea.jpg

message: In this article, Petty Officers have the rank code E-7, in the article Australian Defence Force ranks and insignia they are E-6. Can somebody correct one or other of the articles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.255.240 (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petty Officers 

message: I can't imagine the RAN being dry, but it's not mentioned.  Is it significant?
198.70.200.131 (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm aware, the RAN is not "dry" (in the context of the United States Navy, where there is no alcohol aboard ships). However, I'm not sure how important that fact is in the "Grand Scheme of ThingsTM" (I personally think very little), or where this fact could be presented in the article if it was decided that it should be included. -- saberwyn 21:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dry? 

message: It may be of interest to some, as to just HOW the RAN began.  It has come to my understanding through  family research, about the move to start the Royal Australian Navy. Commander George Stanley BOSANQUET RN and another Officer, who we think was Captain Lindeman, initiated the process in the late 1800's. This effort eventually came to bear in 1901.   
George Stanley came out to Australia in 1877 from England with his wife.  Their children were born in Mackay.  The eldest boy was my grandfather.  My mother who is now 91 still has a colossal memory and was able, through our family papers and books, to give these details.
I hope this may help clarify the early days.  I am more than happy to answer any questions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizhealth1 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginnings 

message: I've moved this here, as it didn't seem appropriately worded for the article.
I don't know if it's correct, so I haven't edited the article.''
( Edit: The Australian Navy was not '...officially established in 1911'.  The Australian Navy was established in 1901. The only thing that changed in 1911 was that King George V sanctioned the use of 'Royal' before 'Australian Navy'.  This is an important distinction and one few historians understand.  The Australian Navy did not suddenly come into being in 1911.  The Commonwealth Naval Forces was the Australian Navy, and it is a pity that that term was not the only one used.  This would have saved much later confusion.) 58.167.199.248
Maybe it can be re-added to the article, after rewording, as a clarification, or reference ? Begoon (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Its broadly correct, although I don't think the term "Australian Navy" was ever used as an official title. However, the wording is bad in articlespace...I've reintroduced it with some tweaks, and will find the cites to back it up over the next couple of days. -- saberwyn 03:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Begoon (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion from article page 

message: Under the "Future" heading, the statement implies the competition is still continuing. Hasn't the Romeo (MH-60R) already been selected as the Seahawk/Seasprite replacement? (118.210.27.145 (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project AIR 9000 Phase 8 

message: Judging by the name on the coverall this sailor is Hawaiian, and given the image comes from the US Navy, perhaps she is a US sailor on board an Australian warship?Koakhtzvigad (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope - according to the US Navy photographer's caption for the image at :File:US Navy 040712-N-4304S-152 Aboard the Australian replenishment vessel HMAS Success (AOR 304), Able Seaman Communications Specialist Natalie Haumu, left, from Brisbane, Australia, retrieves a signal flag as the ship begins a Ref.jpg she's from Brisbane. That was the RAN working uniform of the time, and if you zoom in the rank badge on her shoulder is that of an Australian sailor. Nick-D (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women serve in the RAN in combat roles and at sea image 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Aus-Navy-OF9-shoulder.svg Nominated for Deletion

message: I have the latest copy of ABR81, would it be worth writing an article based on it in regards to RAN/RANR/ANC uniforms?
regards Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 12:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniforms 

message: I noticed a recent (now reverted) edit from a contributor that there are fifty five (55) commissioned ships in the RAN with a ref. I check the ref. and it seems to be correct, although the ship ADC Ocean Shield does not have the 'HMAS' prefix, it does have a listed commissioning date '30 June 2012'. So by my reckoning there are 55 commissioned ships in the RAN. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 10:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fairly certain that Ocean Shield, while a vessel of the RAN, is not a commissioned ship. Had she been commissioned, she would be operating with the HMAS prefix (which is reserved for commissioned ships), with a naval (instead of civilian crew), and flying the White Ensign (of the few photos I've seen, none of them show the ship using the White). The lack of fanfare in the media (Navy News and general civilian) compared to the commissioning of  also leads me towards the 'operated but not commissioned' path. As for the entry-into-service date being listed on the RAN website under the "Commissioned" heading, I believe inflexible parameters are to blame. I'll do some digging for something more concrete, though. -- saberwyn 10:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that's correct; I've never seen a reference to this ship being 'commissioned' (which the RAN normally makes a big deal out of). It would be interesting to know why she hasn't been formally commissioned given that she was purchased rather than leased and is crewed by the RAN. Nick-D (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, actually it appears that she's civilian-crewed, which I guess explains why she wasn't formally commissioned. Nick-D (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and the RAN appears to have recently updated its website, and has pointedly not given her a commissioning date here. Nick-D (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: RAN Commissioned ships

message: * http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/27/kevin-rudd-navy-out-sydney
* http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/08/27/14/07/brisbane-not-viable-as-navy-base-says-ada
Which article talks about the pivot? Hcobb (talk) 06:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point Australian federal election, 2013 given that it's only an election commitment. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pivot out of Sydney 

message: :Moved to bottom of page. -- saberwyn 07:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not according to the RAN Officers Career Management Manual (ABR 6289, relevant page here), the RAN webpage for uniform ranks, or an article in the recent ADFA Academy magazine (see the second article on page 7). All of these use ADML as the official acronym for a full admiral. -- saberwyn 07:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admiral acronym 

message: A few days ago,  added three images to the article (:File:Anzac Iraq.jpg, :File:FA-18 Super Hornet VFA-14.jpg, and :File:LHD Canberra fitting out.JPG) in a block under the infobox. I reverted, then the images were re-added by . I'm not convinced of the usefulness of these images for the following reasons (the below is an expanded version of the edit summary I left when reverting).
*:File:Anzac Iraq.jpg is a WP:Non-free image, which only has a usage rationale for Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq (an article in which the image is very relevant). There is no usage rationale for the image for Royal Australian Navy, and such usage would be tenuous at best (as the article does not even mention the event depicted).
*The primary subject of :File:FA-18 Super Hornet VFA-14.jpg is not the Australian warship in the back of the frame, but the United States F/A-18 aircraft locked, cocked, and ready to rock on the catapults of a USN aircraft carrier in the foreground. The prominence of the F/A-18s could confuse the uninitiated by allowing them to assume, in this context, that these are RAN birds on a RAN birdfarm (although if that were the case, inclusion could be more easily argued).
*As the photographer of :File:LHD Canberra fitting out.JPG, I'm quite happy to say that its not that great an image. While a definite improvement on what was available before for the HMAS Canberra (LHD 02) article, and probably still useful there as the article develops, I don't think its a good enough image to say "This is what we are doing in the future" (which I assume is the intent of adding such a photo here) in the article on the entire navy.
*The placement of the three right-aligned images in a block under the infobox means that (on my monitor at least), I have to scroll through a screen of mostly-whitespace with some thumbnails on one side between the textual content of the article and the table of ships.
Does anyone have any thoughts on the issue? -- saberwyn 08:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The one of Canberra belongs in the article somewhere given how big a deal these ships are for the RAN, but the one of the US carrier isn't very useful. I've just removed the one of Anzac as it's a non-free image without a rationale for using it in the article (which could potentially lead to the image being deleted). Some interesting photos of Adelaide under construction have been recently uploaded to Flickr under creative commons licenses BTW. Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent addition of images 

message: Seriously, There has to be some way to show what the rank insignia looks like.  But the images are always deleted.  Toothpickst (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranks, Again 

message: Another contributor reverted an addition I made to this article.  I added  MV Sycamore (ship, 2017).  The other contributor's edit summary was "not a RAN vessel - its owned and will be operated by DMS Marine for the RAN under contract".  
Agreed, the vessel is owned by a private firm, and leased to the RAN.  
But, its design is a military one.  Its design is based on Damen Group's OPV 2400 design -- ie "Offshore Patrol Vessel".  All the references say it primary purpose is to train military pilots, secondary purposes include training military divers, and responding to disasters, like other naval vessels.  Other navies use leased support vessels, not dissimilar to the support vessels they own outright.  I'd argue for them to be covered in the article for those navies as well.  Geo Swan (talk) 06:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The table you added it to was a list of the RAN's current ships, of which this is not one. It is also not a patrol boat, either in design or purpose. It is an auxiliary contracted to support military training. There is a list of DMS Marine's ships at List of Defence Maritime Services vessels to which I have added it. I've also added a link from this to that article, which I'm surprised wasn't here already. A broader discussion of whether to include civilian-owned and operated auxiliary ships in articles on Navies should take place elsewhere, but I suspect that the answer will be 'no'. Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

text: * I saw your link to the list of contracted auxiliaries.  Okay, you convinced me.  I drop my concern.  Geo Swan (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  call for discussion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Royal Australian 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/20130815105739/http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/tap/index.cfm to http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/tap/index.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Royal Australian 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/20160303185328/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bob.cumberbatch/C%20L%20Cumberlege.htm to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bob.cumberbatch/C%20L%20Cumberlege.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310222452/http://www.defence.gov.au/news/navynews/editions/5001/topstories/briefs.htm to http://www.defence.gov.au/news/NAVYNEWS/editions/5001/topstories/briefs.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130918160629/http://www.defence.gov.au/whitepaper2009/docs/defence_white_paper_2009.pdf to http://www.defence.gov.au/whitepaper2009/docs/defence_white_paper_2009.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151102212348/http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2012/06/03/minister-for-defence-stephen-smith-and-minister-for-defence-materiel-jason-clare-joint-media-release-ocean-shield-the-navys-newest-humanitarian-and-disaster-relief-vessel/ to http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2012/06/03/minister-for-defence-stephen-smith-and-minister-for-defence-materiel-jason-clare-joint-media-release-ocean-shield-the-navys-newest-humanitarian-and-disaster-relief-vessel/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110908115637/http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/11-12/pbs/2011-2012_Defence_PBS_Complete.pdf to http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/11-12/pbs/2011-2012_Defence_PBS_Complete.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Information to be added or removed: Please update the RAN badge on the page to the current RAN badge.
Explanation of issue: The RAN badge image currently used on the page has not been in official use for many years.
References supporting change: Details of the current approved Royal Australian Navy badge is available on the Navy website at http://www.navy.gov.au/protecting-royal-australian-navy-badge. Permission to download and use this image on the Royal Australian Navy Wikipedia page is granted. Ash Holland, Navy Group Web Manager - Internet, Navy Headquarters, Canberra.
Awh71 (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request update to page to display current RAN badge 

message: * The image of the navy badge must be uploaded to Wikipedia before it can be added to the article. You may accomplish this with the File Upload Wizard.
* Once the file has been uploaded along with the appropriate usage license, please reopen this request by altering the  template's answer parameter to read from  to .
Regards,  Spintendo  07:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 18-JAN-2019

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether :Portal:Royal Australian Navy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Royal Australian Navy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 22:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Portal:Royal Australian Navy]] for deletion 

message: I propose that the Structure be modified to increase readability. The proposal would look something like this
* History
* Structure
** Command
** Fleet
** Aviation
* Personnel
* Ranks and Uniform
* Ships and Equipment (takes Current ships out of structure) 
* Current operations
* Future
This would increase readability in my opinion IronBattalion (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structural Changes 

message: Hello, currently I'm working on updates to rank tables across the ADF branches and in my opinion have primarily finished this one
NATO Code                     	OR-9                       	OR-9           	OR-8               	OR-7         	OR-6         	OR-5          	OR-4          	OR-3       	OR-2  	OR-1       	
Australia Other Ranks Insignia	                           	               	                   	             	             	              	              	           	      	No insignia	No insignia
Rank Title:                   	Warrant Officer of the Navy	Warrant Officer	Chief Petty Officer	Petty Officer	Petty Officer	Leading Seaman	Leading Seaman	Able Seaman	Seaman	Recruit    	
Abbreviation:                 	WO                         	WO             	CPO                	PO           	PO           	LS            	LS            	AB         	SMN   	RCT        	
Is there any objections to this? IronBattalion (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection, however, regarding rank abbreviations, all abbreviations are in capitals (RCT, SMN, AB etc). Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Some feedback. Australia uses both its own rank code system and NATO's, of which both are slightly different. NATO regards Acting Sub Lieutenants and Sub Lieutenants as the same rank, in the RAN they are separate ranks with their own codes, ASLT (O1) and SBLT(O2) which results in 11 O grades total. Also, all officer rank abbreviations are capitalised as well (MIDN, ASLT, SBLT, LEUT, LCDR, CMDR, CDRE, RADM, VADM, ADML, AF). Last note, Midshipman are not officer cadets, they're fully commissioned and from the outset but lack a rank designation code in Australia. This may prove helpful, https://www.navy.gov.au/about/organisation/ranks Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I'll fix up the abbreviation. Howeve I'm unsure about the changes with the code as I'm trying to achieve parity across the branches of the ADF and they mostly use NATO designations. That being said I am not implementing your final piece of advice since goes along with the idea of parity, and for all intents and purposes midshipman are Officer cadets; a note could be added to explain the special situation though. I appreciate your advice. IronBattalion (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank Table Updates 

message: in the first sentence "The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) is the Senior Service of the Australian Defence Force (ADF)"
Senior service just link to the concept of a "navy", not even a redirect but a direct link so and the navy page do not contain a single mention to what a "senior service" is.
If it is just some odd synonym for navy I suggest that a reference is added that point that out and the link might as well be dropped given that the navy part in that "The royal Australian navy" should clue anyone in that this is a navy not a airforce.
If it means that it was the branch first established than I senior service is changed to "first established branch of" and the link is dropped.
. Agge.se (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See The Senior Service – Why is the Navy so often called? - Nick Thorne talk 11:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the term as an easter egg, as "Senior Service" isn't a synonym for "navy" in general, and won't be understood by many readers. If the concept is relevant, it can be mentioned elsewhere in the article. BilCat (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

text: The term "Senior Service" was only added in this edit by an IP on December 1, as part of "grammar changes". I've corrected a few more of their changes to the lead, but someone else may want to go through the rest of their edits to make sure they are accurate, especially the links and overcapitalization. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do "senior service" link to "navy"?