Talk:List of dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy

Requested move 11 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Both the merger and move proposal have been snow opposed.(non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 09:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

---

List of dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy → List of battleships of the Royal Navy – I am merging both List of dreadnought battleships and List of pre-dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy into one page, List of battleships of the Royal Navy (currently a redirect). Vami_IV✠ 08:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• STRONG OPPOSE (see RM/TR talk) Andy Dingley (talk)
  • Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#More undiscussed "technical requests" – wbm1058 (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose no rationale. There is more than enough material to retain separate lists for pre-dreadnought and dreadnought battleships, and they are distinct types. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support: There is plenty enough material. I cite List of battleships of Germany for its length and inclusion of both pre-dreadnoughts and dreadnoughts. The United Kingdom is the only exception to the (admittedly unspoken or unmade) rule of one list of battleships per nation. Additionally, the battleship lists from France and the United States (quick note: these pages, unlike Germany's, are not featured and list several ships that are not battleships as we would define them) are both long but also contain pre-dreadnoughts and dreadnoughts. I believe that, just as with Germany's list and then France and America's, these pages should be one and can be made featured, as one, as long as they have plenty enough supporting material, referencing and in-line citation, and an expert looking over my / other editor's shoulder. –Vami_IV✠ 22:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

the RN articles are bigger than the German one, the France is a bare list might need splitting if filled out. US two large lists is better than one really big list. And adding more material as required (summaries to add to bare tables etc would only make them longer. As the article says 'In 1907 before ...HMS Dreadnought the Royal Navy had 62 battleships in commission or building, a lead of 26 over France and 50 over Germany'. Being in two parts does not preclude FA for both or either. Ie Oppose GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• It is apparent that there is opposition to a merger. There should be a merger discussion first. Then we can discuss changing titles. For now I have made List of battleships of the Royal Navy into a set index, without prejudice either to this move proposal or to the extent of any merger. Srnec (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose page merger without proper discussion. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose both the rename and the merger. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Question

Is it acceptable if I continue to improve the unmerged version of this article while this discussion is ongoing? I've made a series of small and I feel constructive edits to the page since last revert. –Vami_IV✠ 06:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Dreadnought battleships" is a poor title

I don't know why a list of dreadnought battleships includes anything after the N3-class. The Nelson-, KGV-, and Lion-classes were quite explicitly treaty battleship designs, and Vanguard is considered a fast battleship. Having them lumped in with a list called "dreadnought battleships" is incorrect and confusing.

Rather than split the article again, I propose the article be renamed to remove "dreadnought" from the title. Thus, take over the existing List of battleships of the Royal Navy content-less article, or come up with another proper alternative for the article. ☽Dziban303 »» Talk☾ 01:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of dreadnought battleships 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/20110724042028/http://www.rna-10-area.net/files/VanguardOct07.pdf to http://www.rna-10-area.net/files/VanguardOct07.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Undiscussed move

The ed17, I do not agree with your move of this list and so have reverted it in accordance with WP:RMUM. I am happy to discuss here. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC).

Hi Cavalryman V31, I moved it to maintain consistency with all of the other warship lists, which categorize by country. (Plus, not everyone knows what a "royal navy" is.) Happy to start a requested move, depending on your reasoning for keeping it at the current name. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The ed17, thank you for the response. My reasoning in WP:CONSISTENCY with other Royal Navy ship type lists (please look at the lists included in Template:Royal Navy ship types). Whilst some warship lists categorise by country, this is far from universal and not just confined to the Royal Navy, a few examples include List of ships of the Royal Australian Navy, List of ships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, List of ships of the Republic of Korea Navy, List of ships of the Portuguese Navy, all of the lists within Template:Swedish Navy ship types and all of the lists within Template:United States Navy ship types. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC).

Cavalryman V31, while I'd prefer we be consistent all the way across, surely you'll note that the lists there at least have the country name in them. This is the exception. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear in my earlier post. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The ed17, I disagree, all use the WP:COMMONNAME for that navy. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC).