Talk:Royal Navy/Archive 2

message: This sentence features in the opening paragraphs:
The Royal Navy is currently the second largest in western Europe in terms of personnel, after the French Marine Nationale.
Is this relevant ?   There is a bit of a rant by someone on the talk page for the Marine Nationale, but ranting aside, there is some truth in what is said.
I vote for removal of this statement, or at least its relegation to somewhere that talks more about the details of the navy, as opposed to the 'in your face' first couple of paragraphs.
The essential point is that the number of people, whilst being a valid measure of effectiveness (and therefore noteworthy) in relation to armies, is somewhat irrelevant for navies and air forces.  It's the equipment that does the job of giving a navy or air force its teeth.  And in any event, the French Navy figure does not seem to make a properly noteworth comparison, as it includes, amongst other things that the RN does not, the whole civilian fire fighting force for Marseilles.  Now, wouldn't Hampshire and Devon council tax payers rejoice if only the RN budget would pay for Portsmouth and Plymouths fire brigades (the two English towns taken together being approx the same population as the French second city).   Thoughts, anyone else ? --Phillip Fung 02:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI to interested parties: debate on this point is ongoing at the talk page for the French Navy--Ordew 13:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personnel Figures 

message: There seems to be some kind of re-classification going on with regard to some of the categories for Royal Navy ships - see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion. It would seem to me somewhat unnecessary and counter-productive to do this, it would presumably be extended to other classes of ships in history. Royal Navy naturally covers ships before and after the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United Kingdom, I can see no point in adherring to a new classification sheme that would end up being historically anchronistic for the sake of someone's desire idea of homogenised consistency. Jooler 14:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't agree with the renames since RN is synonymous with UK and have voted accordingly. If others have an opinion and want to express it they should vote accordingly Destroyers here and battlecruisers here. You can see the discussion from Wikiproject Ships at these links
#Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Ships_by_Country
#Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Problems_with_Ships_by_Country
#Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Category_merges.2Frenames.2Fdeletions
GraemeLeggett 16:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: Is the current NEO in the Eastern Med really significant enough to be included in the timeline section? ALR 16:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NEO Inclusion 

message: do you think we should make a mention of the RN operation to evacuate people from Lebanon?
Pratj 17:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lebanon evacuation? 

message: Hello ALR in particular. I have created a new image and uploaded with undisputable licence. Please feel free to distribute as appropriate, and in particular place onto the Royal Navy if it still fits with your needs. Astrotrain has not raised any objections to a similar concept new image on the Sea Cadet Corps (United Kingdom) and made improvements himself so hopefully you will not be wasting your time.  The new image is :Image:Rev reh v pd.jpg.  Best wishes, Des Kilfeather Desk1 18:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the image to the article, I hope nobody disagrees with it or where I have located it. Would it be possible to get a slightly larger image Desk1? The other thumbs have a width of 300px, and it would maintain homogeneity of appearance if this image too could be at least that size too. Regards Emoscopes Talk 20:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The Fleet Review article might be appropriate for it, in context.ALR 11:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent, I would only ask that you review the JPEG compression, as 107kb is an overly large file size for a 400px JPG. Emoscopes Talk 12:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New PD Free Image 

message: The History section is pretty big, the article is significantly over the recommended page size already, and bringing it up to scrath on the current service will increase that still further.  There is already an extensive, and pretty well written article on the History of the Royal Navy elsewhere.  Would it be possible for someone to slim down the history section into a summary and link to the proper article.  I'd do it myself but the whole history side of life just turns me off and I don't think I'd do it justice.  There is still quite a bit to come into the article so it would be useful to reduce the size of that section.  TIA ALR 21:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd second that. Unfortunately the history side also turns me off, I'm in it for the ships mainly. Emoscopes Talk 21:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: After reading the website and the discussion here, it is my opinion that this link cannot currently be allowed to stand, as per points 2 and 3 here. The site's content is partially copied from Wikipedia, which cannot use itself (or mirrors) as a reliable source, and partially user-driven which, also per WP:RS, makes it no more reliable than IMDb or social networking sites specifically prohibited under WP:EL. For an external site to qualify for a link, it must be verifiable; ""[t]his is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking." RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One administrator's review

message: As per Talk:Royal Navy Auxiliary Service, can anyone clarify if it was the Royal Naval Auxiliary Service or the Royal Navy Auxiliary Service. My feeling is the former, if for no ofther reason than it is the Royal Naval Reserve, University Royal Naval Units etc. Emoscopes Talk 17:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RNXS 

message: Early on in the article (1st paragraph, section 1), the abbreviation of Royal Navy to RN is explained. However, further use of either RN or Royal Navy in the article is completely random, should we tidy this up? I would suggest that the first mention of Royal Navy in a section be in the longhand and any subsequent mention in that section be shorthand. Any thoughts? Emoscopes Talk 14:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Royal Navy / RN

message: The article is rather long-winded just now and if it is going to improve, perhaps to class-A one day, it needs to go on a diet to make it clearer and more concise. I would suggest the following sub-articles to cut down on a lot of listing;
* Custom and tradition in the Royal Navy
* Timeline of the Royal Navy
* List of famous sailors of the Royal Navy
I also suggest that the "see also" section be culled, it's full of a lot of duplicated and tenuous links that might be best served by being in :Category:Royal Navy. Emoscopes Talk 14:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have redesigned the :template:Royal Navy ships so that it is now collapsible. This not only makes the template smaller, and to my mind more visually appealing, but also means we don't need the totty text size anymore. It is probably more suitable to go on the pages of commissioned ships too. Emoscopes Talk 12:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: Belongs more on the RFA page, but I'm sure more people watch this one. I've proposed an article move for the Fort class replenishment ship to Fort Victoria class replenishment oiler, here. your input would be appreciated. Emoscopes Talk 19:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Heads up

message: Off the top of my head;
* Literal
** Regia Marina - Italian Navy 1861-1946
** Koninklijke Marine - Royal Netherlands Navy
** Marine Royale - Belgian Navy
** Βασιλικό Ναυτικό - Hellenic Royal Navy, 1833-1924 and 1936-1973
* Anglicised Royal Navies
** Marinen - lit:Navy - Royal Norwegian Navy
** Marinen - Royal Swedish Navy
** Kongelige Danske Marine - lit:Royal Danish Navy Royal Danish Navy
** กองทัพเรือ - lit:? - Royal Thai Navy
** ? - lit:? - Royal Saudi Navy
** ? - lit:? - Royal Moroccan Navy
* Other Royal Navies
** Royal Canadian Navy - 1910-1968
** Royal Australian Navy - Australian Navy -present
** Royal New Zealand Navy - New Zealand Navy 1941-present
** Royal Indian Navy - Indian Navy -1949
** Royal Victorian Navy - navy of Australian province of Victoria dates?
Anyone got any more to add? Emoscopes Talk 08:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per TomTheHand and Emoscopes above, Royal Navy (disambiguation) has been created with this info.  Feel free to add additional navies to either the dab. page or the list above.  --Kralizec! (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Royal Navies