Talk:List of Royal Navy ship names

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Title

I can sort-of see the rationale for the title, but it still seems misleading; the links are to ship articles, some of which have to be disambiguated because there are multiple ships of the same name, so the list is really about the ships and not, say, the origins of their names. Stan 04:07 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Legion

Wonderful list, very entertaining. Why are there two HMS Legion? Paul, in Saudi

[edit] Resources

If you are writing some of the articles about ship names, this site http://uboat.net/allies/warships/listing.html?navy=HMS has details of pretty much every RN ship during the WW2 period. Follow the ship class down, or search for the name. DJ Clayworth 16:48, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships#Sources for other resources. Gdr 16:02, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Serpent

Anyone: Serpent (disambiguation) has a reference to HMS Serpent, which I don't see on this list. Real ship? Should it be on this list? Thanks. Elf | Talk 19:31, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This list is still incomplete (so I'm lazy; so sue me :-) ). Colledge shows 12 Serpents, first one from 1562, latest one a 1920s destroyer. Stan 20:29, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Another problem with the page is that it is beginning to get the point where it is so big that splitting it into multiple pages is a real possibility. There are still an awful lot of names to add! The same is true of the equivalent USN page. David Newton 14:25, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I continue to waffle about what to do... A single list has the nice property that "related changes" makes a spiffy ship-only watchlist. The next round of major editing ought to result in a complete list, so it ought to be decided. Stan 15:08, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions

Is there an established convention for how to date ships? I've just been fixing some redlinks on List of battleships of the Royal Navy, and there seem to be some dated for year of launching, some for year of completion, some for year of commissioning... and these can be several years apart! It's not a terrible problem - the disambiguation page makes it clear which is which - but it does seem to be a bit of an inconsistency. Shimgray 18:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). Gdr 16:02, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

[edit] List of completed letters in Colledge

This is a list of letters of the alphabet that have been completed in the list from the source book Ships of the Royal Navy by J. J. Colledge. It is an aide memoire to keep track of what needs to be done to the rest of the page. The following letters have been completed:

  • A
  • B
  • C
  • D
  • E
  • F
  • G
  • H
  • I
  • J
  • K
  • L
  • M
  • N
  • O
  • P
  • Q
  • U
  • X
  • Y
  • Z

David Newton 20:23, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Colledge is quite a resource, eh? BTW, one thing I've been doing is adding counts for names with multiple vessels, so that the popular names stand out a bit more. Stan 01:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] new format is horrible

I much preferred the bulleted list; they all seem to merge into one otherwise and it's difficult to pick individual names out. I hate to think what it's like if you have dyslexia. It should be fairly easy to fix back by running it through Word and replacing some characters with others. Any thoughts? Dunc|☺ 00:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • It is shorter this way, but I do agree it's harder to actually find one without doing find-in-page or the like (and if you knew which ship you were looking for, surely you could go direct? - admittedly, this does make this page seem a bit useless). Is it possible to compromise on the wasted-space issue and have two or three columns of names? Shimgray 01:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It is worse from a aesthetic POV to use the alternative format. Speaking personally as someone who is dyslexic, I don't find any difficulty difference in reading the two formats, besides the issues a non-dyslexic would have. However, my dyslexia doesn't badly affect my reading. David Newton 23:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] tidy Destroyers for Bases Agreement

There are a lot of names there. It needs a lot of fiddling with. Some American has put in redirects from e.g. HMS Montgomery to the US destroyer dictioanary page without realising that there might be more than one of them. Dunc|☺ 13:52, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • I've the afternoon free, I'll have a go at it... Shimgray 14:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) edit - ships are now redlinked to "HMS Name (number)" and "HMS Name" is a disambig not a redirect (other ships courtesy of Google and could probably do with someone checking in a reference). Now to transfer the ships themselves over from the "USS Name" pages...
    • Or, now I think about it... hmm. Are they significant enough in themselves to warrant seperate pages for their RN service? This generally only lasted 3-4 years. Shimgray 15:32, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • To Duncharris: I moved the list of ships to the Town class destroyer article which I think is a better place than the article about the agreement. Their names in the Soviet Navy need to be made consistent, but I'm afraid I am wholly ignorant about transliteration from Russian, so someone else will have to do that. To Shimgray: the Town class destroyers' USN service was in peacetime, their RCN or RN service was in wartime. In most cases the RCN/RN service contains all the events of interest, even though it was much shorter. Gdr 20:36, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

[edit] List all ships?

Would it be worth listing all ships, following a format similar to the one at List of ships of the United States Navy? This would result in entries like

Would this be useful? It would provide a nice target for "Related changes". But on the other hand it might be a nightmare to maintain. Comments, please. Gdr 03:14, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

It is a reasonable idea. However, I'm going to try and complete the list as a whole before even attempting to do that! David Newton 13:20, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ships not in Colledge

While adding to the list I noticed some names in this article that are missing in Colledge. Names marked "yes" I left in the list; names marked "no" I removed.

  • Cambridgeshire — yes, a WW2 anti-submarine trawler, pennant FY142
  • Carnarvon Castle — yes, a WW2 armed merchant cruiser, pennant F25
  • Chakdina — no, this is probably SS Chakdina, a freighter sunk off Tobruk in 1942 carrying wounded and POWs
  • Chantala — no, a merchant vessel
  • Cherwell — yes, a WW1 minesweeping trawler, pennant T03. Some sources give Cherwell as the name of the 1903 River class destroyer that Colledge names Charwell.
  • Cheshire — yes, a WW2 armed merchant cruiser, pennant F18
  • Crested Eagle — no, this is probably the paddle steamer Crested Eagle of the General Steam Navigation Company.
  • Erinpura — no, an uncommissioned troop transport [1]
  • Fiona — yes, a WW2 armed boarding ship
  • Fitzgerald — no; perhaps SS Edmund Fitzgerald is meant?
  • Glenearn, Glenroy, Glengyle — yes, WW2 troop landing or fast supply ships (but were they commissioned?)
  • Grebe — no, a shore station at Dekheila, Egypt
  • Gypsy — yes, Colledge gives only Gipsy but many sources give this spelling
  • Largs — yes, WW2 Ocean Boarding Vessel, later Landing Ship Headquarters
  • Li Wo — yes, WW2 auxiliary patrol vessel
  • Lord Nuffield — yes, WW2 ASW trawler, pennant FY221
  • Palomares — yes, WW2 AA auxiliary vessel
  • Paramatta — no evidence of a ship of this name
  • Pentstemon — no, mispelling of Penstemon
  • Petrel — yes, WW2 tug
  • Pozarica — yes, WW2 AA auxiliary vessel
  • Prince Charles — yes, WW2 landing ship
  • Prince Leopold — yes, WW2 landing ship
  • Prinses Astrid — yes, WW2 landing ship
  • Prinses Beatrix — yes, WW2 troopship

I note that Colledge doesn't list trawlers and merchant cruisers. Should we? Gdr 20:57, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

There were actually two volumes of Colledge when it was originally published. The book that was reissued and updated recently just covers the ships of the first volume. Things like trawlers are covered in the second volume. My point of view is that if the vessel was a commissioned warship in the Royal Navy then we should include the name. If not, then we should include it where appropriate, like in the RFA list (which should in itself be complete BTW), or even in potential future lists of Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service and/or Merchant Fleet Auxiliary ships. David Newton 00:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HMS George III?

USS Enterprise (1775) notes that it was previously HMS George III; I can't offhand find anything else on that ship as such, though. Is it worth including as a redirect? Shimgray 03:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Colledge lists no ship named George III or King George III so perhaps USS Enterprise (1775) is mistaken about the supply ship being in commission. Gdr 13:28, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

See Talk:USS Enterprise (1775) for further research. Gdr 12:44, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

[edit] Possible new format

From wikien-l today, a rather clever little hack that's useful for lists:

This code has worked quite well so far, so I'd like to
promote its further use on any page with excessive
verticality.
 {| width="100%"
  |- valign=top
  |width="50%"|

  COLUMN 1

  |width="50%"|

  COLUMN 2

  |}

Thoughts on putting it into practice here? I can't see a major downside, since the names we have here are pretty short compared to pagewidths and (as yet) we haven't added anything after them. Shimgray | talk | 13:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

This kind of thing adds work for editors. When you add entries you have to rebalance the columns. Gdr 22:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

This page is 145k - can it be broken up into smaller lists? HollyAm 17:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem you're trying to solve? It's quite useful to have the list in one page so that you can search it, or use Special:Recentchangeslinked/List of Royal Navy ship names. Gdr 17:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List too long

This list is much longer than the article limit of 32k, which shows on load and edit. Also, the usual wisdom is to DRY, so why are these list copied? Pick one set and delete the other. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.235.239.109 (talk) 17 September 2006

[edit] List of Royal Navy ships in the Pacific Northwest

I would have placed this overleaf, but it's not titled/classed in the same way, so am posting it here for someone else to put in the appropriate place; it's all vessels during the RN presence (or almost all) in the Pacific Northwest/North Pacific in the years before the RN's Esquimalt base on Vancouver Island was handed over to what is now the Canadian Forces (was Royal Canadian Navy before forces merger). As far as installations, there were also an RN drydock and RN Hospital at Esquimalt, and I think Nanoose Bay had been an RN base, and Nanaimo and Fort Rupert had been coaling stations (they'll have articles, I'm just wondering if they should be on the "installations" list). There may have been RN stations on the BC mainland, too, but as yet I'm unaware of them except as legal obscurities; mostly military reserves under the governance of the RN, but no "installation" of the order of the drydock and hospital at Esquimalt.Skookum1 00:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_Royal_Navy_ship_names_88b9.html"