Talk:History of the Royal Navy (after 1707)

message: At 23K, this is already a lengthy article, and I found that it was simply impossible to mention every notable battle and person; just "name-dropping" of wars, trends, and milestones filled it up the space. 20th century could use some more detail and/or links to other articles with more depth, while the early stuff is a little longer because there is little material elsewhere. There could also be more on changes to sailors' lives. We have plenty of pics to reuse, each section should have one or two. Stan 19:43, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not seem particularly long to me.  After all it has section breaks, etc.--Toddy1 18:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First comments

message: The section of the RN during reign of Elizabeth I is rather abbreviated and lacking of historical context. Please expand on it.--Charles A 13:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elizabethan Era 

message: There should be something here about the three squadrons of the Royal Navy prior to the 1864 reorganization. AndyL 04:47, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue, red and white squadrons 

message: "Both naval construction and naval strategizing became intense, prompted by the development of torpedoes and submarines, which challenged traditional ideas about the power of battleships. At the same time the Dreadnought committed to the "big gun" concept and caused a shift in thinking around the world, giving Britain the undisputed lead. Another innovative (though ultimately unsuccessful) concept was the battlecruiser, fast and light but still hard-hitting."
I would have to disagree with this point. The invention of the dreadnought made most other battleships pretty much useless. Britain had 1 dreadnought, the others zero. BUT, a lead of one ship is not an undisputable lead, as other nations can quickly catch up. It would, in fact, have been harder for the others to catch up if the dreadnought had not been invented, as they'd have to build much more ships to do this (not just ten, twenty, but possibly a hundred). Anyone agree on changing that sentence a bit...? --HJV 01:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battleship section 

message: I have just stumbled across this in old Times articles - no idea where to put it, but it might be worth noting somewhere for future reference. Shimgray | talk | 23:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naval construction 

message: I have added in a lot of information from the main article Royal Navy because of the merger concerns. The article on the main royal naval page should have a summary and not a full-blown history. As such i have prepared a summary in one of my sandboxes found here. Everyone is welcome to edit it if they feel it neccessary. I will move it onto the main page in the next few days. If there is any aspect i have missed please add it in here. Thanks Woodym555 16:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good at first glance. But aware of vandalism such as this being added. THis user has added this about 4 or 5 times already, and will probably continue. - BillCJ 17:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will watch out, have seen it added a few times. I will warn him on his talk page that it is not constructive and against consensus. Thanks for the heads-up. Woodym555 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: Thought I'd drop a fact here at the talkpage since I didn't know where to include it in the article; in 1797 the Victualling Board estimated the cost for supplying 110,000 men during the following year to be £2,758,268,1.10.1/2.
Source: Macdonald, Janet W. (2004) Feeding Nelson's Navy: The True Story of Food at Sea in the Georgian era  (p. 46).
Peter Isotalo 18:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A useful figure 

message: === Pax Britannica, 1815–1895 ===
This section is linked to Cyprian Bridge Aatomic1 08:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking Articles

message: This section is linked to Cyprian Bridge Aatomic1 08:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pax Britannica, 1815&ndash;1895 

message: In the introduction it says that the RN is "the second largest and most powerful in the world".  What is the source of this statement? Unfortunately it is unlikely to be true, more's the pity. How "size" is measured is difficult and measurement of "power" must be impossible. Adresia (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RN Capability

message: I was surprised to see only two uses of the word "Pacific" on the page, both relating to 20th Century events.  the reason I'm surprised is because of the vital role the Royal Navy played out of the Esquimalt naval base near Victoria, British Columbia; I've just been sourcing various actions taken by British ships and officers and it's a long roster (see List of Royal Navy ships in the Pacific Northwest.  I came to this page hoping to find out if the Pacific station was mentioned (i.e. Esquimalt) and maybe somewthing about various cmomanders (e.g. Admiral Joseph Denman, post commander 1864-1868 I think, and commander of the HMS Sutlej during the "punitive expedition" to Clayoquot Sound in the sake of the Kingfisher incident; there's a host of similar events, and some are tied into naval actions elsewhere, esp. during hte Crimean War and teh Siege of Vladivostok (or was it Petropavlovsk?) when Victoria/Esquimalt was used as a redoubt; the infrastructre spending on the Esquimalt shipyard/drydock and also on an important RN hospital there underscores the Pacific Squadron's relevance (that goes to a US Navy page, not an RN one - if there's an RN Pacific Squadron page please advise).  Anyway I note there are iswsues with the current length of this page; might I suggest it be broken up eithr by ocean or time period; History of the Royal Navy in the Pacific seems pretty much a whole article, and could/would include the WWI/WWII stuff.Skookum1 (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Royal Navy in the 19th Century Pacific

message: Very odd that there is no info here about the Anglo-Dutch naval wars of the 17th century...Colin4C (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm seems a whole section was deleted in March by a vandal. I have restored it. Colin4C (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pity about the 17th Century... 

message: I think the article must be increased with this information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Jenkins%27_Ear  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.7.165.94 (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a link to the war, and a brief note about what it entailed, but it was quite limited in a strategic sense, and soon became caught up in the more significant War of the Austrian Succession, so doesn't seem to warrant much more space in this general overview. Benea (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ear Jenkin´s war 

message: I've re-jigged the "Development of the English Navy" sections a bit; I think they might divide up better this way. I've also re-arranged the paragraphs in the "Expansion..." section; they were all out of chronological order. I hope everyone's OK with that? Xyl 54 (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: The division between the Scottish and English Navies was broken up recently:  I’ve put it back, because it’s a fair point; there wasn’t a Royal Navy before the 17th Century, and the two previous navies were separate bodies. 
Also, the article is fairly long, and Scottish Navy already has its own article, so 
I suggest 
Moving the content prior to 1660 to "History of the English Navy" or somesuch, and leaving a summary here; Also, expanding the Scottish Navy section a bit ( 2 sentences is just sad!). Opinions? Xyl 54 (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article? 

message: I've restored logic of subsections, via inferior grading of nested sets thus:
===sub-sub section===
====sub-sub-sub section====
Similar scale sub-sections do not follow wikipedia or any other logic. In a book divided into chapters, chapter two is not a sub-section of chapter one. The same logic applies to the wikipedia. Colin4C (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub-section logic 

message: ====sub-sub-sub section====
Similar scale sub-sections do not follow wikipedia or any other logic. In a book divided into chapters, chapter two is not a sub-section of chapter one. The same logic applies to the wikipedia. Colin4C (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: sub-sub section

message: Similar scale sub-sections do not follow wikipedia or any other logic. In a book divided into chapters, chapter two is not a sub-section of chapter one. The same logic applies to the wikipedia. Colin4C (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: sub-sub-sub section

message: With reference to the recent BBC TV series on the Royal Navy by historian Dan Snow: should this section contain information about RN dockyards development of manufacturing techniques, and their influence on the synergistic acceleration of the industrial revolution that gave Britain a significant economic and military advantage over France in the Napoleonic wars? See Portsmouth Block Mills
Also American system of manufacturing, English system of manufacturing, Americans seem to have rewritten history claiming that all pre-Ford innovation of reproducibility of parts, manufacturing, and even the division of labour were American innovations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.119.112.90 (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technology 

message: I'm aware of the section labelled Dalriada but don't really recognise the name.  
I have a translation of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles  which are the main source for the period and note the article appears to contain errors.  Please advise if you have sources which disagree.
I won't expand it -except perhaps to give a little more weight to events of 851 and to make sure dates and people are correct.  
JRPG (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglo Saxons  

message: I've stumbled across Victorian Royal Navy, which seems to have been an attempt to split out the 19th-century history. However, it almost entirely consists of quotes from secondary sources and there's substantially more content here - is there any benefit to having it seperate, or should it be redirected here? Shimgray | talk | 17:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with redirect. I don't see any necessity trying to merge the content in, as most of it seems pointy, and is unctited in places. - BilCat (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections after a couple of days, so done! Shimgray | talk | 12:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abandoned daughter article? 

message: Why is there a pretty large section on the early modern Scottish navy in this article? Before 1707, the Royal Navy was the fleet of England, not Scotland. Scotland and England were very much independent states at this time. So what on earth does Scottish naval activity have to do with the history of the Royal Navy? It seems about as relevant as describing medieval Irish naval ventures.
Peter Isotalo 21:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish section? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on History of the Royal Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070930160648/http://www.naval-history.net/xDKWW2-3908-01RNships.htm: to http://www.naval-history.net/xDKWW2-3908-01RNships.htm:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of the 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/20101212223941/http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.1244 to http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.1244
*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
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) 10:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is 136kb of readable prose currently. Wikipedia:Splitting indicates articles over 100 "Almost certainly should be divided". I would propose that the article is split to History of the Royal Navy (before 1703) and (after 1703)- the act of union, and the merger of the English and Scots navies. This division would be roughly halfway. --ERAGON (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - I understand you point about the length of the article but have several concerns. This would be a significant piece of work which would need extensive work on the incoming links to disambiguate them to the right section of the article. Also some work would need to be done on other features such as referencing and tables (e.g. English navy/Royal Navy timeline and battles). But I would not oppose if this idea gains support. Dormskirk (talk) 11:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy to do this, though the 413 linking articles will be a pain. I just realised the date is 1707, not 1703 for the act of union. I was probably getting muddled with the 1603 union of the crowns.--ERAGON (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a further observation: the article on the COVID-19 pandemic is 334kb and the article on Donald Trump is 477kb. They are both slow to load and there are ongoing discussions about splitting but there is no consensus on either. It looks as if problems tend to emerge at about 200kb. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this article should hopefully be easier to split than a vast sprawling issue like the pandemic. While this is going on, I also note that the Royal Navy page has an elaborate history section which could probably be boiled down to a couple of key paragraphs and a link to the dedicated history articles post-split; it would be good for us to go through there and check for any content which doesn't exist here. I've already picked up on the Henrican founding of the "Navy Royal" from that article, which is now in the lead section here.--ERAGON (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would be good to ensure that anything in the Royal Navy article also appears here. In recent years other editors have tended to focus on the expanding the Royal Navy article and have ignored this one. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The main article looks good with a trimmed down history section. I agree that a split is needed and the Act of Union would be a good place to do it. That should avoid arguments about the Royal Scots Navy as well. Woody (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. I'll start by tweaking this article so that we have a natural division between sections, and get round to the split later. --ERAGON (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The split is complete; the new article is History of the Royal Navy (before 1707), while this article has been renamed to History of the Royal Navy (after 1707). A quick glance down the list of incoming links revealed that the majority are modern subjects that referred to post 1707 events, so not too much trouble. I've edited a few of those that were clearly pre 1707 articles such as London (1656 English ship). I've tweaked a few templates as well to account for the changes.--ERAGON (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. Well done! Dormskirk (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!--ERAGON (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed split

message: The voluminous history section of the Royal Navy page was thoroughly cut down a few weeks ago, and I've just finished merging all of that material into the two proper History of the Royal Navy articles. In many cases, the old history section was more detailed than the dedicated history page which was somewhat crazy! It's all in now in any case, and I've also added some bits here and there. It's a good thing we split the page; right now the "before 1707" page is 83kb of text, and the "after 1707" page is 115kb. The latter is a little long, but I think it's fine for now. --ERAGON (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job! Dormskirk (talk) 09:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, looks much better now across all three articles. The length looks fine to me. Woody (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Old [[Royal Navy]] history section