Jump to content

Talk:Royal Navy (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Whilst not all of the articles listed here are named Royal Navy, would it not be worthwhile having them link back to this page with the standard (or edited version of) the disambig text on all of them? JonEastham 17:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, especially since since the Royal Navy → Royal Navy (UK) battle seams to rear its ugly head every couple of months. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

– Two big reasons for this:

  1. Look at the number of different navies on the disambiguation page. Seems highly debateable that most people who type in "Royal Navy" are looking for the British one; they could be looking for the Dutch one, the Canadian one, or any number of other current or historical ones (traffic stats are skewed because everybody who types in Royal Navy gets the British one, like it or not)
  2. Outside of the commonwealth, what the Brits call the "Royal Navy" is most often referred to as the "British Navy" or the "British Royal Navy". Since most of the world is outside the commonwealth, the current title doesn't take a global perspective
  3. See also below comment about naming conventions

Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, most people who speak English don't live in England...see below Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, reference a move proposal that's a year old, and where the reasons were mostly POV and inuendo...gotcha Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoop, have you any evidence for that? Also, Jensen, we need to have a global perspective. There are over a quarter billion English speakers not in the Commonwealth, and where most of them come from (i.e. the United States), the Navy is referred to as the British Navy. I've seen this in textbooks. If you take 100 American Wikipedians and as them, "what do you call Great Britian's navy?", the majority (probably the vast) majority would say the British Navy. You seem to forget that Americans use this Wikipedia too. And considering that Canada's navy is called the "Royal Canadian Navy", if they hear the phrase "Royal Navy", I think it'd be wrong to assume that all Canadians automatically think of the British one instead of their own. If you're going historical importance, a lot of other countries had Royal Navies too. Your arguments have no factual evidence to support primary topic; just POV pushing and inuendo. Just because you think British Navy when you hear "Royal Navy" doesn't mean everybody does. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
global perspective--ok, there is only one Royal Navy active in global history. Rjensen (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you do a Google search for "Royal Navy", how many of the hits are from other than the RN? Hence Strong oppose. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jensen, look at this page...there are a lot of other Royal Navies. And Biddulph, if "Royal Navy" is the preferred term, how come British Navy gets 13.9M hits and Royal Navy only gets 9.8M? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your links above don't work for me, but a Google search for "Royal Navy" gets 12 000 000 hits, and for "British Navy" gets 1 320 000. Thank you for emphasising the point. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... and now that I've looked at your links again with another browser I see that you weren't searching for the phrase "British Navy", but for the two words separately. If you want to use Google to look for a phrase, you need to enclose the phrase in in quote marks. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See my argument about naming conventions Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply below it. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support though I think that Royal Navy in English usually refers to the British one, I think a disambiguation page should be primary in all cases needing disambiguation. "British Royal Navy" is good, since the ships of that navy have been referred to as HBMS His Britannic Majesty's Ship at times. 70.24.251.158 (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HBMS? Really? Where/when? David (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like this USN document, this chapter on the Sandwich Islands, this book on steamships, ... (period -- 1776 through til around 1930) 70.24.251.158 (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is only one "Royal Navy". There is no tradition in English (or in Norwegian for that matter) for labelling navies other than the British "the Royal Navy", there's always a qualifier in there. Royal Norwegian Navy, not Royal Navy (Norway) or Norwegian Royal Navy. Manxruler (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If you Google "Royal Navy" -wikipedia, the first page of results is almost entirely about the British navy. The top non-British result is No. 9, the Australian navy site. Google Insights confirms that "royal navy" refers primarily to the British navy, occasionally to the Australian navy. We should change the name for the benefit of those looking for information about the Dutch navy? That's...an interesting POV. Kauffner (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And that Australian site doesn't use the term "Royal Navy" to refer to the "Royal Australian Navy"; the site uses the two terms to distinguish one from the other.
  • Oppose. In the English-speaking world, the Royal Navy means the Royal Navy. This is the English Wikipedia and should reflect the ordinary usage of words and names in the English language. David (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, remember that a lot of people don't speak British English; in American English we call that navy the British Navy. In other countries, those countries' navies is the "Royal Navy", it's totally ambiguous Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you presume to speak for the entire American nation? Now who is pushing a point of view. In the Netherlands, their navy is the Royal Netherlands Navy. In Norway, it is the Royal Norwegian Navy. In Sweden it is the Royal Swedish Navy (when it is not just the Swedish Navy). I could go on. In Britain, and the rest of the world, the official name is the Royal Navy. The name is not ambiguous except to the extent that other nations use 'Royal' alongside their national identifier. You are trying to push an invented name on wikipedia on the grounds that you call it the 'British Navy'. This is not a question of ambiguity, nor of British versus American English (and it's hard to see why even if it was, that American English should take precedence here). Against the guidelines WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC you have come up with nothing but assertions that anyone who doesn't fall into line with your reasoning is pushing a POV or 'inuendo' (whatever that means). Your extremely weak arguments have been repeatedly demolished. Simply repeating them is a waste of everybody's time. Benea (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well the Dutch navy is called Koninklijke Marine which exactly translates as Royal Navy but they don't use the name Royal Navy on their official English language website, instead they use the name Royal Netherlands Navy. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 21:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Benea, I am well within my rights to propose a move eighteen months after the last one. If you feel agreeved or that I am violating policy in any way, take it to AN, where I will probably make the counter argument that the current title is ambiguous, non-globalized, and a violation of naming conventions; as well as that the vote is skewed b/c a disproportionate number of people !voting are heavily involved in British or British Navy-related articles. Your choice if you want an AN fight Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also the Royal Navy once was the navy of the Kingdom of England before the United Kingdom existed. So British Royal Navy would be a revisionist name for historical articles about topics dealing with the pre-1707 navy. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 19:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We already have that problem for articles on anything that have changed names. The article uses the modern name, but the historical name for the subject is frequently different. 70.24.251.158 (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Another reason to add for why this should be British Navy is because the current title violates naming conventions. Every other country's navy is [country] navy; this isn't. Also, the article on Britain's army is the British Army; it would logically follow that this should be the British Navy Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not logical the Royal Navy doesnt have a [country] bit as has been explained above a number of times, perhaps it is time to WP:SNOW this request. MilborneOne (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Another editor has supported it, and many of the editors involved may be non-neutral. Regardless of the reasons why it doesn't, the fact remains that the title violates the general naming conventions of the topic Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As by his comment that since there is a British Army the title should be British Navy, the user appears to be completely unaware of the history and nomenclature of these organisations, I don't think there is any more in the way of useful dialogue to be had here. No, I have no desire to take you to ANI purpleback pack, you are welcome to propose a move, though you need to be prepared to see it fail. Appeals to non-existent naming conventions and claims of bias because people here also edit British-related topics will be given short shrift there, as indeed they are being given here. Feel free to raise the issue there though if you seriously feel that you can sustain a charge of bias instead of a mere wild accusation. Benea (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The British Army doesn't have Royal as a prefix, only individual regiments can gain that honour. It's not comparable to the Royal Navy which always had that name (well except during the Commonwealth of England). SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 12:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Purple, I appreciate your efforts to argue in favor of this move in terms of reasonable arguments based on policy, guidelines and conventions. However, let's be clear about a few things. Most every other country's navy does not have a common and natural name, so we use natural disambiguation for the titles of those articles. Now, there are a few countries whose navy is called the Royal Navy, but among those clearly the British one is the primary topic. So the others need to be disambiguated, but not this one.

Therefore it is not a violation of conventions, or an inconsistency, to leave this article where it is. To the contrary, the current title is exactly what WP:AT suggests for this case. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Frivolous and biased proposal seeking to change the actual official name to a misleading descriptive. Only one other naval force uses the form "Royal Navy," but has the suffix "of Oman," so there is no conflict or confusion. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How the heck is it "frivolous and biased"? The current title violates naming conventions and is ambiguous, to say nothing of being far too Brit-centric Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can calling something by its official name - which no other entity shares, and by which it is known and recognised globally - be "ambiguous"? Your proposal is about as valid as a pedantic request to move Central Park to Central Park (New York City) on the grounds that there are other (far less well known) Central Parks. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move. I'm sorry but there is no rational reason for moving it. The other navies of the world that do use the prefix 'Royal' also use additional information, e.g. Canadian, precisely because the Royal Navy is universally understood to be the British naval force. If one looks at other European navies even they tend to use the additional information, which renders the need for a name change even more obsolete. Stop tinkering about with this is my feeling.Lucius Winslow (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think it should be moved as I fail to see any problem with the way it is and for the above reasons. I think it's safe to say this motion has failed. G.R. Allison (talk) 11:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just WP:SNOW it. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 13:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your book search turns up a handful of minor works on military history, mainly published in America, hammering home the non-standard, eccentric use. So I'd say it's an affectation all right, but apparently not just limited to this Wikipedia talk page, since it also seems to have crept undetected into a few other slightly amateurish sources as well. Lachrie (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's also probably the case that few of those reference actually use it as the actual name, but rather in the same form as "German Luftwaffe," i.e. an indication for those who might not know the Luftwaffe was/is the German air force, or the Royal Navy the British navy, etc. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: "Royal Navy", Royal Navy!, Royal Navy!! im afraid the Royal Navys official name is the Royal Navy. Considering the fact this is the English Wikipedia it should stay as it is. 2.5 billion people live in the commonwealth of nations and they arguably make up the majority of the worlds English speaking population, therefore Royal Navy refers to the UK. In Canada its the Royal Canadian Navy, and i've rarely heard an American who uses the term "British Navy". Also, as one of the worlds prominent naval forces, the Royal Navy takes natural priority due to its status. Lawardsday (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_Navy_(disambiguation)&oldid=1252074471"