Talk:Navy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Navy was the collaboration of the week for the week starting on June 19, 2005.

For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] List of naval vessels

Is a list of naval vessels really needed here? It's redundant with the list on the ship page as well as Category:Ship types. — RJH 14:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • It might find place if more order was put to it and more use was made of it. For example, splitting it up into several sections seperated by text? Also, I question the idea of dividing by 'steam' and 'pre-steam'. A lot's changed since the Merrimack. 'Steam', 'pre-steam', and 'carrier age' at least? Or something along those lines? --KharBevNor 18:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Structure and Category problem

Guys, don't we need a general "Navy" category? And a separate (and large) "naval history" article? What's wrong with all of you? I thought such military stuff would be in a top-priority list of young Wikipedians. AlexPU

Try clicking on naval history. A "Navy" category is plausible, right now things are somewhat scattered among Category:Naval warfare, Category:Navies, Category:Ships, etc. It's not unusual for a top-level article such as this one to not be a good representative of all of our content; people tend to work at the leaves, so to speak, rather than at the trunk (partly because no one feels qualified to do the overviews, I think). Stan 23:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thomas is a LESBIAN Victor is a FUCKER Joonwoo is a GAY Ankur is just a little bit better than Thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.80.65.3 (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structure

Proposed structure (to cut and paste):

[edit] History

I didn't know where to ask about this, but: "Naval warfare first developed whenever humankind conducted fighting from water-borne vessels." Anyone else find that a little redundant?

  • I agree, it is stating the obvious.

THIS WEBSTIE IS VARY IN ACCURATEEEET> THIS WEBSTIE SAYS IT HAS THE MOST ACCURATTEEEET SPEELIN" NA THIS IS A STORY ABOUT HOW THIS GOT ON HERE AND HERE IT IS I DONT KNOW!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.80.65.3 (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary naval forces

[edit] Naval technology

[edit] Naval divisions

How about the Navy in fiction?

From Hornblower to Jack Ryan

lots of issues | leave me a message 08:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Those could be useful additions, but what do you think should be in the Contempoary Naval Forces? The major navies, Australia, China, France,Japan,Russia,UK,US etc or what do you think?--Falphin 01:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Do the major Navies but cover the tactics and dispositions of minor navies/coastguards like Iceland somewhere, if only in brief. --KharBevNor 17:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ranks

  • Shouldn't we move those US navy ranks to their own seperate page and maybe add pages for ranks from other contemporary navies, if they don't already exist? --KharBevNor 15:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. I've removed the list of US naval ranks. I don't think there is a matching separate page already in existence. If there isn't we should create one. Here is the list I've removed:
      • I added in a link to a page that I think covers the topic for multiple nations fairly well. RJH

[edit] U.S. Navy rates (enlisted) and ranks (officers)

  1. Seaman Recruit
  2. Seaman Apprentice
  3. Seaman
  4. Petty Officer Third Class
  5. Petty Officer Second Class
  6. Petty Officer First Class
  7. Chief Petty Officer
  8. Senior Chief Petty Officer
  9. Master Chief Petty Officer
  10. Fleet/Command Master Chief Petty Officer (a title, not a rank, though the sailor is the ranking enlisted man of the command/fleet)
  11. Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy (a title, not a rank, though the sailor is the ranking enlisted man of the Navy)
  12. Chief Warrent Officer 1 (no longer in use)
  13. Chief Warrent Officer 2
  14. Chief Warrent Officer 3
  15. Chief Warrant Officer 4
  16. Chief Warrant Officer 5
  17. Ensign
  18. Lieutenant Junior Grade
  19. Lieutenant
  20. Lieutenant Commander
  21. Commander
  22. Captain
  23. Rear Admiral Lower Half
  24. Rear Admiral Upper Half
  25. Vice Admiral
  26. Admiral
  27. Fleet Admiral (only for wartime)

lots of issues | leave me a message 23:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's the British ranks whilst we're about this. Someone needs to check this as my source may be out of date, they like to change the precise titles of the ratings especially with alarming regulartity. Admiral of the Fleet is archaic as the british armed forces don't have any five star ranks anymore:

  • Non-Commissioned:
  1. Ordinary Seaman
  2. Able Seaman
  3. Leading Hand
  4. Petty Officer
  5. Chief Petty Officer
  6. Warrant Officer
  • Commissioned:
  1. Midshipman
  2. Sub Lieutenant
  3. Lieutenant
  4. Lieutenant Commander
  5. Commander
  6. Captain
  7. Commodore
  8. Rear Admiral
  9. Vice Admiral
  10. Admiral
  11. Admiral of the Fleet (Archaic)

--KharBevNor 17:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of naval vessels

I propose moving the list of navy vessels to its own page so this general article won't be cluttered.

Agreement?

lots of issues | leave me a message 23:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • didn't see this. I agree, unless it's integrated better. Refer to my comments at the top of the page about ordering of the list, as well. --KharBevNor 18:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naval Campains

Any idea how we should/what we should do with this section? --ZeWrestler 12:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • -Well, we can't list them all...maybe change the title to 'Roles of the Navy' and cover things like shore bombardment, air superiority, troop transportation, etc. --KharBevNor 15:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I've tried to write that section at least 20times but I can't every get anything good. I was going to suggest on writing how campaigns are run. Falphin 13:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Additional material

Just some random ideas for possible additional material:

  • Navy seals
  • Guided missiles
  • Submarine warfare and sonar
  • Ship/crew deployment cycles
  • Army/Navy rivalry
  • Press gang and crew recruitment
  • "Zulu" and time keeping on board navy ships
  • Navy slang and terminology (e.g. keelhauling, scuttlebutt, dog watch, &c.) [1]

RJH 14:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

good list, but remember this is 'Navy' in general and not just the US Navy. Not sure something on the seals would be appropriate. --KharBevNor 15:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I added in a section on marine troops in general, that included the Navy Seals. Thanks. :) — RJH 16:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Nelson

I'm not sure what the following sentence is trying to say: "This is know up until 1805 when Lord Nelson was brought back preserved in a spirits barrel."

Seems like the sentence ought to read something like, "This was done up until 1805 when Lord Nelson was brought back preserved in a barrel of spirits." But there are two basic problems with that: 1) burials at sea are still performed; they didn't end in 1805; and 2)It doesn't really have much to do with burial at sea itself, except maybe to note that there have been exceptions.

Anyway, unsure of exactly the intended grammatical structure of the sentence and it's meaning, I've simply taken it out. If anyone can come up with a way to clarify its relevance, please feel free to put it back in where appropriate. Kafziel 19:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images - Battle of Lepanto (1571)

The intro has four images of ships, maybe a painting depicting the Battle of Lepanto (1571), which marked the end of the Ottoman Empire as the dominant naval power — which redirects here — would give a bit of a change? Lapaz 20:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lepanto.jpg
The Battle of Lepanto (1571), marking the end of the Ottoman Empire as the dominant naval power in the Mediterranean


i'd like to know is why that picture of the Smok is there? it's not suitably informative or specially relevant enough to make up for how terrible quality it is. i would think someone could come up with a better image than that. it should be kept in mind that navies have been around since man discovered the idea of buoyancy, and as such there are thousands if not millions of pictures of ships in existence so quality should not be compromised. Aaronjbryant 21:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

 EDIT: i went ahead and deleted it myself. there are 10 other images there already. Aaronjbryant 21:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)