Talk:Amphibious assault ship/Archive 1

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

Article retooling

The general content that used to be on this article is now at Amphibious warfare ship. This page has been refocused to cover just the larger amphibiuos ships such as LHAs, LHDs, and LPHs which generally carry helicopters and sometimes Harriers. Ships such as LPDs and LSDs are not covered here any longer, so that's why listings for them have been removed. - BillCJ (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead pic

I've noticed that many Wikipedians are quick to accuse AMerican editors of an American bias, especially if the pics in an article are mainly of American products. In this article, it's that way for one simple reason: The USN has made and uses more amphib ships than all other navies combined. Coupled with the US government's laws making all images taken by the US military public domain, this means there are far more pics of USN ships available. Sorry, but this is not the fault of US editors! :) I selected the Lead pic that is in the article because it shows 6 different ships. If a pic of several amhib ships belonging to several different navies can be found, I will happily support it being in the Lead here, provided it's a good-quality image, and leagel to use of course. - BillCJ (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Commando carrier merge

I'm suggesting a merge of Commando carrier into this article, mainly because what the British call a commando carrier, the Americans call an amphibious assault ship. Thoughts? 211.30.232.226 (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. The Commando carrier article is short, with no references. Unless I'm missing something, it appears that "Commando carrier" is just another name for an "Amphibious assault ship." Lou Sander (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Concur with Lou. - BillCJ (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Commando carrier is clearly British English for Amphibiouse Assault Ship. F-451 (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor edit

Corrected the spelling error in the caption of HMS Ocean at the bottom of the page from "Portsmith" to "Portsmouth" Harbour. Kaenei (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Italian amphibious assault ship

Sorry, but the italian amphibious assault ships are the three LPD San Giorgio class. The aircraft carrier Cavour isn't a assault ship, but a aircraft carrier, the amphibious assault is secondary mission of the Cavor Sorry for my english--Cesare87 (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC) amphibious assault ship on the italian navy official web site Cavour class on the italian navy official web site --Cesare87 (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The amphibious role of the Cavour is important, secondary or not, and as such the ship is a hybrid, and ought to be listed here. "Amphibious assault ship" has a specific meaning, and only includes LPHs, LHAs, and LHDs. As amphibious transport docks (LPDs), the San Giorgio class are not part of this classification. They are Amphibious warfare ships, and are listed at List of amphibious warfare ships. There may not be a distinction between the two terms in Italian, but there is difference in English. Please trust me on this one, as English is my first language. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Another editor is adding the San Giorgio class and other types to this list again. I don't know how to explain this any other way than I did 2 years ago. - BilCat (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I've read the sources theat Enok has added using Google Translator. In Italian, [http://www.marina.difesa.it/uominimezzi/navi/Pagine/Assaltoanfibio.aspx this page[:
"Secondo le denominazioni standard della NATO essa è definita una LPD (Landing Platform Dock), cioè una Unità da trasporto anfibio dotata di un bacino allagabile, designata per sbarcare truppe di assalto anfibio in operazioni di proiezione di potenza dal mare."
While the heading on the page is "Assalto anfibio", the ship is clearly called an LPD (Landing Platform Dock). LPDs are not condidered "Amphibious assault ships", which covers only LPHs, LHAs, and LHDs, per the definitions used here from the US Navy. The Italian Navy source mentions that LPD is a NATO classification, so I will try to find a NATO source for the definitions of "Amphibious assault ship" and "Amphibious warfare ships". If the NATO definition of "Amphibious assault ship" includes LPDs, then we can modify the article to note taht, and include the San Giorgio in the list. - BilCat (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the LPDs should not be considered amphibious assault ships, and the primary role of San Giorgio is LPD, but - as you can read in the Fincantieri's site - may be used as LHD. As a matter of fact, they embark the Lagunari assault troops, and their role in the navy is the amphibious assault. The term ("assault") is the same in both Italian and English. --Enok (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The only mention of "LHD" is see on the page you have given as a link is in the heading at the top of the page. I don't see a mention of this in the text anywhere, so apparently Fincantieri is trying to sell the design as an LHD. This is really a semantics issue, but we need to stick with the primary definitions as much as possible. Adding ships that are clealy stated to be LPDs to this page is blurring the definitions too much. - BilCat (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Fincantieri is owned by the Italian state, as well as the Armed forces (obviously). It can not be an "advertising operation", also because the ships are no longer produced from the '90s (and the website is much more recent). Anyway, look here (the page is also in English).--Enok (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The page in English that you listed seems to be merely a regurgitation of the manufactures page, and isn't official in any way. From reading the ENglish version of the Fincantieri site, both of its military naval ship designs are in the category "LPD-LHD", including the new ["20.000 t Multifunctional Ship" ship, as listed here. I still stand by the decision to not include the San Giorgio class here, but I won't revert you unless another erditor supports nme. Please be aware of 3RR, which you have been warned against in the past. - BilCat (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The first link that I have provided is a simple image to help you identify the type of the ship. The official link is the second one (here, again). However I agree that in an article like this we should add only ships of primary role, but if we include the Cavour (which has never been used for amphibious assaults, and both the builder and the user define it as aircraft carrier) then the San Giorgio class has every right to be here. --Enok (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's main primary role is as a VSTOL carrier, but reliable sources have also stated the ito is designed for the "amphibious assault ship" role, something that most other carriers are not designed for, which is why I've always included it here. Aircraft carriers don't generally have facilites for carrying troops and vehicles as does the Cavour. If you have some reliable sources that state that the Cavoutr is not caplable of carrting such equipment, and is solely intended to be used in the carrier role, then removing it from the list would be appropriate. The term "amphibious assault ship" has nothing to do with whether or not a ship has been used for "assualts"; it's just the term the US navy chose to for its large carrier-type vessels. and it is basically the same thing as a "commando carrier". "Amphibious assault ship"/"Commando carrier" carries with it the implication that the ships can operate as traditional carriers at times, which as far as I know the San Giorgios cannot do, except for perhaps emergencies. They are simply too small to operate Harriers effectively, and their smaller size is probably why they are typed as LPDs in most reliable sources, and not as LHDs. - BilCat (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Could you provide a reliable source that says the secondary role of the Cavour? --Enok (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You can start with the Italian Navy website's Cavour page:

"Accanto quindi alla capacità di trasporto di aeromobili, di massima 20 in configurazione mista aerei ed elicotteri, si pone anche l’esigenza di un’unità tipo RO-RO, in grado di ricoverare forze e mezzi anfibi, proiettare le stesse e fornire supporto su terra dal mare."
Rough Google trantlation: "Next door so the ability to transport aircraft, in a mixed configuration of up to 20 airplanes and helicopters, there is also the need for an RO-RO type, able to admit and amphibious forces, the same project and provide support on land from the sea."

Do you need more? - BilCat (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously. The text says nothing about a secondary role as LPH.--Enok (talk) 11:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I removed the source that does not clearly states the secondary role of the San Giorgio class. --Enok (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World labels the San Giorgio class LPDs and states that Cavour is a multi-role vessel, whose roles include being an "amphibious warfare asset". It also states that she's designed to carry vehicles in her hanger and has a ramp to allow them to drive on and off from wharves. Nick-D (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Enok. you asked me for a source regarding "the secondary role of the Cavour", which I provided, as has Nick. I'm fine if you want to remove "LPH", as "CVH" is probably the current designator for a carrier with a secondary amphibios command and support role. Also, please don't remove disputed tags added by other editors when you are involved in the dispute, as the matter is still under dispute. - BilCat (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World labels the Cavour as V/STOL Aircraft carrier (CVV). Why include a CVV (or CVH) in this article? There are hundreds of multi-role ships (such as the San Giorgio class, «whose roles include being an "amphibious warfare asset"»). --Enok (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Hundreds of other types of ships, yes; carriers, no. An LPD is an amphibious warfare ship type. But if it will hel remove the argument, we can delete the type list altogher, as all the major types are listed in the LHD/LHA/LPH articles, and in the List of amphibious warfare ships, so it reqally isn't needed here too; the class list should suffice. - BilCat (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Even the CVH Cavour is an amphibious warfare ship (or has the opportunity to become it). Where is written that CVHs fall into the category of amphibious assault ships (in the U.S. sense)? At least the San Giorgio class is defined LPH by the manufacturer (in addition to her first role as LPD). --Enok (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Are you serious? You're putting more stock in a heading on a web page that the actual description in the written text? As to the definition of "amphibious assault ships", the US definiiotn is the only one cited here, and that's the only definition we have. If you want to redefine it, then please provide a reliable source. I will look for a reliable source that states the Cavour is also an "amphibious assault ship" - If I can't find one soon, I'll remove it from this page - and the San Giorgios also. - BilCat (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I have also provided a picture to help you identify the type of the San Giorgio class in Fincantieri's website. Why do you continue to argue that this definition is only present in the header? Here the image (taken from the official site), and here the link. According to the manufacturer, of course reliable source, the class is a LPD/LHD type. I restore the San Giorgio, unless we decide to include only vessels of primary role. --Enok (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
So when the "20.000 t Multifunctional Ship" article is created, I'm sure you'll list it as an PD-LHD also, per this link. Fine. I've added back the Cavour. - BilCat (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't want forcedly remove the Cavour from the list (for now I just removed "LPH" as it is without sources), but if you can not provide a source that says that the CVHs are amphibious assault ships, we have to remove it. --Enok (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not your decision to make. For now, we're deadlocked, and there's no consenus one way to the other. I've also re-added LPH. You can add back the {{cn}} tag if you want, but if ou remove it again, it's edit warring, and it will be dealt with appropriately. - BilCat (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I removed the material that is unsourced. We don't need a citation from a source provided; we need precisely the source. Please, read WP:SOURCE. --Enok (talk) 10:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
My internet searches for the combination of Cavour and LPH didn't return any worthwhile references, so that's probably fair enough. She's definitely an amphibious ship of some sort that involves landing troops via helicopters, but the exact type of ship she falls into here is a bit unclear. It's worth noting that as she was built as a multi-role ship, the amphibious role isn't necessarily a secondary one. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree with this comment, Nick-D. The Cavour is an aircraft carrier with generic roles of amphibious warfare (precisely, an Amphibious warfare ship). But for the specific U.S. classification of Amphibious assault ship, it must qualify as LPH or LHA or LHD. --Enok (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

After 5 days, I removed the Cavour because there are no sources to support its presence among the Amphibious assault ships or its status as an LPH. If there are no other objections, in the coming days I will remove the Template:Disputed from the San Giorgio class. In summary, the manufacturer defines this class as an LPD/Landing Helicopter Dock. In addition, the San Giorgio class has a full-length flight deck for helicopters, which the "classic" LPDs of the US Navy do not have (this is the main reason why are not considered assault ships), and it is the only class of the Italian Navy to embark the Lagunari assault troops. --Enok (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Type of troops embarked and shape of the flight deck have nothing to do with the definition of LHD; size and other factors do. Since you have not provided an actual relaible source that considers the San Giorgio class an LHD, other than a heading or a copy of an image from a non-relaible source, I have removed them, again. It's time to just move on and let the issue be. If not, we will be at this a long time. - BilCat (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Type of troops embarked and shape of the flight deck have nothing to do with the definition of LHD; size and other factors do. This is absolutely not true. The role of a ship first defines its purpose, and the San Giorgio class is designed to accommodate helicopters and assault troops. Secondly, how do you define the official website of the manufacturer as an unreliable source? Please, stop your disruptive edits, or I must report you to the adminstrators. --Enok (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
So go ahead and report me now, and we'll see what happens. - BilCat (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Continue with your disruptive edits and I will report you. --Enok (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Again, go ahead. I've stopped reverting you, but you continue to remove content. You may find yourrself blocked instead! - BilCat (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course a manufacturer's site can be a reliable source, but not is the only claim is in a general heading also used on another type that's obviously not a LPH. It's time for an RFC, as it's obvious we'll never agree on this issue. - BilCat (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree, we need a third opionion. --Enok (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Please do not remove tags place by others. - BilCat (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Please, do not abuse the tags. There is already one that includes the entire section, including the San Giorgio class.--Enok (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Time for a break

If only to give a chance to put previous to-and-fro to one side and start from the top. I've been reading through and I'm trying to get a grasp of the problem. It seems to me that the issue of the Italian ships status revolves around the definitions used for "Amphibious assault ship". So can I ask some questions?

  • Are there official definitions as to what constitutes an "amphibious assault ship" (with or without capitals on the "A"s)?
  • What functions do (as opposed to could) the Italian ships carry out?

Thank you. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Here the definition of Amphibious Assault Ship according to the US Navy (the only one to use the term): Landing Helicopter Assault and Landing Helicopter Dock are Amphibious Assault Ships (other types of amphibious ships fall under the more general term amphibious warfare ship). The Cavour is an aircraft carrier (CVV classification, multi-purpose aircraft carrier), with some devices that allow it to land troops (like the well deck). At this time it is used in Libya and embarks 8 AV-8B Harrier II. Never used for amphibious operations, but it is multi-role. In summary, we can consider the Cavour as an amphibious warfare ship, but not an Amphibious Assault Ship. The San Giorgio class is a Landing Platform Dock and (according to the manufacturer) a Landing Helicopter Dock. It is designed to accommodate helicopters and assault troops (the Lagunari). Its main use is to transport amphibious vehicles, but its full-length flight deck (unusual for a regular LPD; see also U.S. definition) can accommodate three Sea King SH-3D helicopters or five Agusta Bell AB-212 helicopters. They are the primary vessels of the Italian Navy for amphibious assaults. --Enok (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Enok, you've been warned before of your slow edit war on another article page so you should know better than to blindly revert the content here that was backed up by a reliable source. FWIW, you can be blocked right now for disruptive editing behaviour whereby you are deliberately undermining two individual Admin's effort in helping out on this article page, I'm giving you one last chance, do it again and you go straight to 3RR noticeboard. Per WP:BRD, you have been bold but we have reverted you, again. Discuss this properly, or else. You have been warned~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The source is this. The Cavour is classified as V/STOL aircraft carrier (CVV) or as multi-role vessel (which means nothing)? Why do not you read more before you act? --Enok (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I have read it and I disagree. Have you read the book source provided by Nick-D (Wertheim, [edited by] Eric (2007). The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World : Their Ships, Aircraft, and Systems (15th edition). Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. page 339. ISBN 159114955X.)? A similar example is Endurance class landing platform dock ship, classified by the manufacturer as an LST but is in actual fact an LPD, do you know that? The Kiev class aircraft carriers are another good example, the manufacturer classified them as heavy aviation cruisers instead of aircraft carrier so they can circumvent the international treaty and sail through the Turkish Straits of Bosphorus and Dardanelles. You have to accept that there are exceptions, just like black and white co-exist but so does grey. Understand this and you will be a happier person. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • In all fairness, I seriously doubt you ever read it... for if you had, you would have noticed that under page 339 Remarks section: "Will be a multi-role ship employable as an amphibious warefare asset, vehicle ferry, disaster-relief ship, strike carrier, or sea-control ship." I rest my case, out. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • This is the same thing that I've said in my comment (in reply to GraemeLeggett). But we are talking about the classification (see "multi-purpose aircraft carrier"). --Enok (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: Third Opinions are for disputes between two editors. There now being at least six editors involved, a Third Opinion is no longer available for this dispute. Please consult WP:DR for other options if dispute resolution is still needed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Back on track, I ask about the definition of "amphibious assault ship", because "HMS Fearless was the Royal Navy's first purpose-built amphibious assault ship" and there seems to be case that "amphibious assault ship" (a description of purpose or activity) differs from "Amphibious Assault Ship" (a nation's particular definition). GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

According to what I was told, the article is based on the definition of the U.S. Navy (but the English term commando carrier is a redirect). This is why BilCat wanted to cancel the San Giorgio class. --Enok (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force Hyūga (16DDH)

This 'destroyer' has a displacement of 18,000 tons full load, a full-length flight deck, and operates up to 11 helicopters. Therefore, surely, it should be described as a LPH and included in this article! The only reason it's not officially classified as such is due to the stigma of Japan reviving naval aviation. CrackDragon (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I would not. There is alot more to being an LPH or LHA than a large flight deck. While some sources do indicate an offensive role is possible for the Hyuga class, I've seen no indication that is it intended for amphibious assualt, even in the Hyuga article, as much as a mess as that one is! Regular carriers have performed such roles in pinches, even US CVNs, but they generally aren't included in the specified roles. Cavour and Juan Carlos I have both been designed from the start as multipurpose ships, the former being primarily a CVH, and the latter primarily an LHD. No doubt all of the Invincibles can operate assult helicopters if needed, but the HMS Ark Royal still had to be modified to serve effectively as an LPH while the HMS Ocean underwent refit. - BilCat (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you're right! Since there appears to be no facilities at the moment to accommodate or embark troops or vehicles, then it should only be counted as a helicopter carrier. CrackDragon (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! If we do find reliable sources that state it has, or can easily be fitted with, facilities to accommodate or embark troops or vehicles, then by all means it should be added to the list. - BilCat (talk) 04:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, hello, hello

What seems to be the trouble here, then? --John (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello John, here's the discussion you're looking for. It starts from the third paragraph. --Enok (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to protect the article for a week. Can you use that time to come to a compromise? --John (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If someone finds the time to discuss my arguments (I hope GraemeLeggett), a week is more than enough. There are too many people waste time issuing warnings, rather than to honestly contribute to the discussion. --Enok (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Enok, I've just reverted your change which (again) removed Cavour from the list. The reference provided demonstrates that she's an amphibious warfare ship, and I'm not sure why you're getting hung up over her hull designation when the source states that she's as much an amphibious ship as a carrier. I find it tiresome that you keep edit warring over this, and your treatment of the source I've provided which supports the ship's inclusion (eg, that it should be dismissed) seems quite different to the way you're treating the competing sources about the San Giorgio class (eg, that the manufacturer's questionable claim about the San Giorgios means that they have to be included). Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
This page is about Amphibious assault ship; the article you are looking for is Amphibious warfare ship. The difference is clearly written in the lead section of this article. You need a source that says that the multi-purpose aircraft carriers (CVVs, see your source) are considered amphibious assault ships. No one denies that Cavour was able to be used in the context of amphibious warfare. --Enok (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring. It's totally unproductive. Nick-D (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
What is productive? Maybe write something inaccurate in the encyclopedia? This is a good conduct for Wikipedia? I try to start a discussion, but you divert or simply ignore it. I repeat: why include the CVVs among the amphibious assault ships? Where is written this in your source? I read only that the Cavour (V/STOL aircraft carrier, p. 338) can be used in many roles (including amphibious warfare, as vehicle ferry, etc.) and for this it is considered a multi-purpose aircraft carrier (CVV). What all this have to do with this article? --Enok (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I dont know who has redirected CVHG to this page, but it is not correct. As CVHG stand for Aircraft Carrier Helicopter/VSTOL, guided missile, it belongs on the page about aircraft carriers.Jesper238 (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/index.html
    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/juan-carlos/
    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"British Royal" Navy is incorrect

Um, this is very bad form. As every Sea Cadet knows, it's either Royal Navy or informally British navy, not both at the same time! If Wikipedia wants to promote a compound term, R(B)N Royal (British) Navy would be preferable, as the convention is "Royal" comes first, as in RAN Royal Australian Navy, RNZN Royal New Zealand Navy, RCN Royal Canadian Navy, or RSDG Royal Scots Dragoon Guards. Please fix. 124.169.214.120 (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

WP isn't written for Sea Cadets, but readers from all over the world where there are other royal navies. With the link to Royal Navy, it's clear what the formal name is. So at least until the UK gets over its remaining jingoism and officially renames its naval and air forces to include the nationality, "British Royal Navy" is the best solution for WP. - BilCat (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Bill. There are a bunch of "royal navies" worldwide (see Royal Navy (disambiguation)). Nick-D (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
No, sorry, it's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of form. This word order is just plain wrong. It reads like broken English. "Royal" has precedence over the nationality, and the names of royal foreign navies are always qualified, and the "royal" is dropped from their names except in the most formal ceremonial usage. Deliberate error is disrespectful to the service. 124.169.214.120 (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Since the official name is "Royal Navy", we just add the national adjective in front. Calling it either the "Royal British Navy" or even "Royal (British) Navy" would be a deliberate error, as that's not its name. As far as being "disrespectful to the service", this is a neutral encyclopedia, not an RN publication. - BilCat (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
No, the adjective is in the wrong position. It's inconsistent with conventional English usage. Royal [British] Navy in square brackets would be preferable, though just as flippant as your suggestion. A deliberate insult to the service (and to the Queen's precedence) is not adopting a position of neutrality. Quite the opposite. 124.169.214.120 (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, so how do I go about correcting a mistake like this on Wikipedia? Proper usage should be included in a style guide. Is there an adjudication process I can start with some more senior editors better informed on the topic, able to get this sorted? Thanks. 124.169.50.142 (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The English language Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia with readers from around the world, and not some kind of resource for sea cadets which uses only UK English and the British MOD style guide. I suspect that most people outside the UK wouldn't have a clue which country the term "Royal Navy" refers to, so clarifying it when it isn't clear is necessary. As for "senior editors", Wikipedia doesn't actually work that way (please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution), but for what it's worth Bill and I have each been very regular contributors for about 9 years. Nick-D (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
You must be joking. "Royal Navy" is the international standard. It's not just British or Commonwealth usage, though that would be cause enough to require immediate correction once the eyesore has been brought to your attention. "Royal Navy" is even used unqualified in its English form in foreign languages. Nobody in any serious publication knowingly and persistently uses "British Royal Navy" because they're perfectly aware the form is wrong and simply not done. It's an obvious mistake. "Royal" by long established usage takes precedence. The monarch is the head of several national navies. Going up the talk page, this Bill person doesn't even realize that "the HMS" is ungrammatical and equally wrong. He's clearly unqualified. Neither of you know the first thing about proper usage. I'm sorry, but the mistake needs to be fixed by somebody who actually knows what they're talking about. No offence, but you're plainly not qualified to comment. I don't know much about Wikipedia, but I know it isn't the place to make up your own language as an insult to government institutions and the navy and the millions of men and women who served in it all around the world. What a shambles. Wikipedia, correct your error. 124.169.174.234 (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, I've found several recent uses in news sites of "British Royal Navy". In particular, the Huffington Post Canada article, "British Royal Navy Members Charged With Sexual Assault", gives an excellent example of 4 Royal Navy sailors doing a much better job of giving " an insult to government institutions and the navy and the millions of men and women who served in it all around the world" than a supposedly misplaced adjective ever could. A later story in Toronto Globe and Mail, "Four members of Royal Navy charged with sexual assault get bail", has this first line: "Four members of the British Royal Navy charged with sexual assault causing bodily harm have been granted bail following an alleged incident at a Canadian Forces base in Halifax." So that's two recent examples of "British" being used as an adjective in front of "Royal Navy" as a clarification. So clearly no one on WP is making up this usage. - BilCat (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous amateurishness. Hardly works of authority! You'll find the occasional error or typo or spelling mistake in any publication, and especially in some trashy online tabloid. That's no excuse to repeat the same blunder here. Doubling down here would be worse than incompetence. Pull your socks up, Wikipedia, for goodness sake. This is supposed to be a reference work. 124.169.174.234 (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
BTW, in addition to persisting in this nonsense, these disparaging remarks of yours against the unconvicted servicemen only reinforce the clear impression you have an agenda, since you have no other basis other than a general amateurishness. 124.169.174.234 (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Here's two examples from British newspapers "trashy online tabloids":
- BilCat (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, ludicrous. Both these newspapers (especially online) are notorious for their sloppiness in copyediting. Cherrypicking four slips by media incompetents really only exposes your bankruptcy. 124.169.174.234 (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Here's a conviction: "Former British Royal Navy sailor stole waterproof clothing because he got sexual 'gratification' from fabric"! Need I find more? - BilCat (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
This is all just nonsense. You're behaving like a horrible troll. You've got some kind of axe to grind against the Royal Navy. If you won't own up to an obvious error, and help me fix it, we'll have to take it upstairs to find somebody a bit better informed and more responsible. 124.169.174.234 (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The point is you've accused me of making "up your own language as an insult". Obviously. I've made nothing up, but simply reflected common English-language usage. Your opinion of the writers, and me, is irrelevant. - BilCat (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As some more examples: The Guardian [1], [2], [3] (plus lots of others), New York Times [4], [5], Australian ABC [6], Australian War Memorial [7] [8] and Imperial War Museums [9], [10], [11]. I suspect that the IWM doesn't have "some kind of axe to grind against the Royal Navy". Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Why are you two acting like clowns? And you say the pair of you have been editing the site for how many years? It's unbelievable that this is the standard. All you're doing is cherrypicking a few questionable instances, mostly from trashy journalism. As a defence of your own deviation from convention, it's risible, and has only exposed it as resulting from deliberate intent on your part, especially in the case of "Bill" who seems to delight in eagerly googling for criminal prosecutions to try further to shame the Navy. It's clear that you're neither knowledgeable nor impartial. No wonder people say Wikipedia is a joke, if this is in any way typical of the quality of the reasoning and editing! What utter rubbish. 124.169.174.234 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
There is, of course, the possibility that you're mistaken and publications which write for an international audience often add "British" to the front of "Royal Navy" to clarify which RN they're referring to. Nick-D (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
No other navy uses the initials RN like that. The ignorance is unbelievable. No, more like since the end of National Service, the kind of people who write for newspapers aren't usually the kind of people who know much about proper international maritime usage. The Portsmouth News receives constant complaints for its journalists' stupidity, and it's the paper of a navy town. Even the IWM has a large output of popular material of very varying quality; press releases aren't usually written by service men and women or persons otherwise professionally qualified, so occasional errors in usage are going to creep in, and can be misrepresented through selective quotation, if you're only trying to cover up your mistake rather than being fair or objective. These sources you're using are piss-poor quality. Frankly the fact that you're even trying to argue the point is an indictment. Wikipedia has a duty to educate, not misinform. 124.169.174.234 (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

We should call a world-famous institution by its actual name. There's no point linking to sex attacks, petty crimes and selective press errors. 124.169.63.86 (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

We write for the (international) reader, the word British is an adjective used to give context when introducing not to modify the actual name. *Compare with a language that doesn't capitalize the nationality, eg in German "britische Royal Navy"). And as such it is only used once in the main article text and thereafter "Royal Navy" is used without the adjective. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
No, even in international usage it's an eccentric and malformed misconstruction. The few examples of press errors being scraped up as a sham excuse are as nothing next to the countless millions of instances of "Royal Navy" used unqualified, as is traditional in international English. Even the mischievous link to the list of other "royal" navies partly disproves the claim it was intended to support, by showing no like reversal in the order of adjectives. The American editor who inserted the redundant adjective "British" in the wrong place is "fixing" something which isn't broken. His ensuing arguments reveal a hostile attitude. His rationale that common usage is "jingoistic" is a sly put-down which reeks of phoney politically correctness. It's crackpot, misinformed and unacceptable. It really is a joke that an article on Wikipedia can't even get the Royal Navy's name right. If the one or two individuals involved prove obstinate it will need to go up to dispute resolution, hopefully to find more senior editors who might actually know something about proper usage. It's shocking that this sort of petty gamesmanship is allowed to go on on Wikipedia over the simplest and most obvious things. 124.169.63.86 (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


124 you need to calm down and refrain from comments about other editors, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with using British Royal Navy when the context requires it, as has been explained it is not saying the "British Royal Navy" but it is just a description the British "Royal Navy". In nearly all case on wikipedia the term Royal Navy is used without a problem as it is clear from the context which Navy it is, on a few occassions it is not clear to the general reader (who may not know what the Royal Navy is) then adding the adjective British is fine. It not used that often so I would really not get worried about it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
No, there's something very wrong when the true name can't be used without being prefaced with some spurious nonsense addition. If the true name is so offensive to a vocal minority on Wikipedia, then "British navy" should be used instead of this misbegotten monstrosity, which in the real world every serious writer on the topic knows to avoid. 124.169.63.86 (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
It's disgusting and discreditable to Wikipedia, but as a compromise, I have changed it to "Royal Navy of the United Kingdom" so as not to confuse any hypothetical morons out there whom our resident Anglophobes are pretending to cater to. 124.169.63.86 (talk) 09:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Well done. I imagine that making that - entirely sensible - change was much easier than the ranting you've indulged in above. I hope that you enjoyed yourself. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't enjoy correcting obvious errors, but yours were unlikely to be deliberate, so you have less to be ashamed of. At least this temporary fudge doesn't breach protocol, which the original wording did. And I have no doubt it will be corrected fully in time. 124.169.63.86 (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Protocol has little to do with writing about a subject unless its writing about the subject's protocol. I think you will find there are few Anglophobes among the Anglophones active in WP:Milhist and WP:Ships. See also Wikipedia:Cabals. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I have little patience for people who rant about "Deliberate error is disrespectful to the service" and "but I know it isn't the place to make up your own language as an insult to government institutions and the navy and the millions of men and women who served in it all around the world. What a shambles." I've clearly shown that "British Royal Navy" isn't something Nick and I made up. Pride in one's own nation and its armed forces is one thing, but trying to ram service "protocol" into a situation where it does NOT belong is quite another. His "solution" here is too wordy, and I expect someone to object long after this user has moved on to troll elsewhere, probably in Canada on shore leave. - BilCat (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It's "Royal Navy". Anything else is incorrect. WP:COMMONNAME applies here. There are plenty of articles with ridiculous, stupid and factually wrong names because of that silly policy, but it is that way because we have to abide by it. This is no different. There are plenty of institutions, agencies and entities listed on this project that do not need to have a nationality qualifier attached ("British-this", "American-that", "Canadian-something else"...), and those articles get by just fine. It's just "Royal Navy". - theWOLFchild 05:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amphibious assault ship. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amphibious_assault_ship/Archive_1&oldid=1143537421"