Military history: Maritime / National / British / European C‑class

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force National militaries task force British military history task force European military history task force

This article uses a reference named "Her Majesty’s Naval Service Eligibility and Guidance Notes" from 2014. It would be good to see the following: 1. Documents prior to 2014 which refer to the verbose phrase of "Her Majesty's Naval Service" Keith H99 (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, the editor doesn't know when this occurred either. What a mess [1] Keith H99 (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does it matter 'when' it came into use? According to the RN, it's in use now. But apparently, it goes as far back as 1844. - wolf 00:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access the document, when is "now" in your source? --84.189.84.17 (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They obviously aren't hosting that document anymore, it couldn't be accessed by online archiving either. But "now" wouldv'e been the time that comment was posted; 13 February 2018. But, that said, I quite easily found this document that shows the term still in use as of April 2014. If it no longer is, (though we have no reason to believe that), I'm sure there would be a memorandum somewhere stating as such. Otherwise, I'm sure it's still in use. - wolf 21:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the NS was renamed, it would no longer be in use. Apparently that happened in 2020, that's why a lot of source would no longer apply. --84.189.84.17 (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See below, I'm not carrying on simutaneous discussions on the same page, about the same subject, with the same person at the same time. - wolf 01:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accd. to the lede, the NC does no longer exist. What is convention for a case like this, should this article be changed into "was a part of the armed forces" and somesuch? --84.189.84.17 (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If by "NC" you mean "Navy Command", the lead does not say that, it says that the term "Royal Navy" is now used in place of "Naval Service". No changes needed. - wolf 21:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doh, with NC I meant Naval Service, because apparently I'm clumsy and can't read.

It's the Naval Service that no longer exists. --84.189.84.17 (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The service still exists, it's the just term "Naval Service" is going to be replaced by "Royal Navy". The RN and the RM are branches of Her Majesty's Naval Service, which is still in use, (above hint aside), as of December 2021, as seen in this easily found document. Unless you have any suggested changes to make to this article's content, (which you would need to post in a "change x to y" format along with relible sourcing), we are gonna have to end this here. Article talk pages aren't forums for questions & answers. Have a nice day - wolf 01:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want a question and answer section, I want an accurate and clear article. At the moment at least one of these is missing.

If NS is renamed to RN, but nothing else changed, then we would have two entities called "Royal Navy". Is that the case?

If so, shouldn't this article be renamed?

If the NS remains as it was, but it is never called that, we'd have an interesting linguistics debate topic, but we'd also have a Royal Marines that are and are not part of the RN at the same time.

For technical reason, I can't access the source, but I do think that the article should be understandable without it. --84.189.84.17 (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make the article more "clear and accurate", you can either suggest the article be renamed, (see WP:RM#CM), or suggest changes to the article content, (see reply above). Don't know what else to tell ya. Have a nice day - wolf 02:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know the source, I don't. --84.189.84.17 (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Try this: WP:LMGTFY: "her majesty's naval service" - Good luck - wolf 18:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's keep the article in a broken state then. Much better for everyone. --84.189.84.17 (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]