Talk:Coastal Forces of the Royal Navy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] copyvio question
a lot of the text here resembles that of an information sheet of the Royal Navy Museum namely this. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article name
Since Coastal Forces lasted into the 50s but at a lesser scale I think rather than have two articles (Coastal Forces and its Second World War history) it would be better to rename this one to Royal Navy Coastal Forces.GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- But was there ever formally such an entity as "Royal Navy Coastal Forces"? Google throws up a miserly 50 entries for this, and another miserly 45 entries for "Royal Naval Coastal Forces". By contrast, for a legitimate entry such as "Royal Naval Patrol Service" Google presents 4680 entries, and for the often misnamed alternative "Royal Navy Patrol Service" it presents 833 entries. Coastal Force rapidly withered on the vine after WW2, as its equivalent did in other countries, and it was entirely defunct by 1956. In other words, it was basically an artifice of WW2. It seems to me that a postscript within the existing article would handle its rapidly vanishing presence after WW2. Or what's wrong with a separate article if you think it warrants it? Personally I prefer the title to remain as it is so it can brought into alignment with other articles such as "British Trawlers during World War II" and "British Minesweepers during World War II" which I am currently building, as well as parallel articles with other countries which already exist (such as New Zealand Coastal Forces of World War II) --Geronimo20 (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- To fit in with naming conventions you should be thinking along the lines of "(History of) World War II trawlers of the United Kingdom" rather than "British Trawlers during World War II". Which would also make for World War II Coastal Forces of New Zealand etc. While the direct phrase Royal Navy Coastal Forces is rare the capitalised Coastal Forces is common enough and the Royal Navy bit serves to disambiguate the other option would be Coastal Forces (Royal Navy) GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I take your point about country-specific naming conventions. "Coastal forces" by itself is a very broad term implying a lot more than the article is really about (there is no suggestion it has anything to do with war, and it could be about erosion or the weather). Can we agree on: "Coastal Forces of the Royal Navy", "Coastal Forces of the Royal New Zealand Navy", "World War II Trawlers of the Royal Navy" and "World War II Trawlers of the Royal New Zealand Navy" --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I thik your suggestions are as valid as any but I would lose the capital on "Trawlers" lest it be flagged up for speedy rename (Wikipedia:Requested moves)
-
-