This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all
disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the
discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
This disambiguation page 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 articles
Should this not redirect to the
Royal Albanian Army article, with a {{youmay}} leading the the British Army? I mainly suggest this since the British Army isn't actually called the "Royal Army". (It may be known as that by some, but it doesn't change the fct they're incorrect.) --
Jasca Ducato (
talk)
12:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)reply
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.
Please provide sources that other entities are referred to as "Royal Army" in English, otherwise they will be removed from this page. If all entries are removed, the page will be deleted. It needs to be demonstrated that the term is ambiguous and needs disambiguating.
I redirected "Royal Army" to
Royal Army of Oman because it was the only entry I could find sources of. I'm English and have no connection with Oman.
Find me a "Guide to the Armies of the World" that refers to "Royal Army" and this is universally and unambiguously understood to mean Oman. –
Wbm1058 (
talk)
21:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)reply
It is likely to be confusing for some foreigners when there are books titled:
The Royal Army Chaplains' Department, 1796-1953
History of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, 1920-1945
The history of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps
Standing Orders for the Royal Army Medical Corps,
The first two pages of a Google book search on "Royal Army" have many such titles (and while I know why there are titled that way I think it is confusing). I also think it is also notable that such a Google Book search puts up a hatnote advert to a
British Army: Join the Army page. --
PBS (
talk)
16:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support. The first result returned for a
Google search on "Royal Army" is the British Army website. That's not an accident. And many ancillary groups associated with the British Army are called "Royal Army FOO" or something similar. For non-Brits, the confusion is natural, regardless of whether it is as considered incorrect -- the point of a disambiguation page is not to
correct great wrongs, but to help readers find what they are looking for, even if they may be understandably confused. As for partial title matches, a case could be made for making this into a
broad concept article to introduce the many variant types of royalist armies.
older ≠
wiser16:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support Any English language source about a royal army is likely to use the unqualified version if the context makes it clear for example how about Richard Symonds's Diary of the Marches of the Royal Army(referring to the English Civil War Royal Army); or A Military History of Italy by Ciro Paoletti,
[1] "now the Regio Esercito, the Royal Army". These are just two of many to be found with a Google Book search of "Royal Army". So I think it better that the page is a dab page as I do not see any of the being the primary topic. --
PBS (
talk)
16:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support for two reasons. First, while this certainly looks like a big
WP:PTM violation, numerous of those entries aren't so, because they satisfy the condition that the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context—regardless of the article's title. Secondly, a Google Books search for "Royal Army" doesn't seem to bring up Oman in the first three pages. The assumption of primary topic is practically void. --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
14:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - No clear primary topic in English. - 13:58, 19 January 2015 (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.
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all
disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the
discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
This disambiguation page 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 articles
Should this not redirect to the
Royal Albanian Army article, with a {{youmay}} leading the the British Army? I mainly suggest this since the British Army isn't actually called the "Royal Army". (It may be known as that by some, but it doesn't change the fct they're incorrect.) --
Jasca Ducato (
talk)
12:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)reply
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.
Please provide sources that other entities are referred to as "Royal Army" in English, otherwise they will be removed from this page. If all entries are removed, the page will be deleted. It needs to be demonstrated that the term is ambiguous and needs disambiguating.
I redirected "Royal Army" to
Royal Army of Oman because it was the only entry I could find sources of. I'm English and have no connection with Oman.
Find me a "Guide to the Armies of the World" that refers to "Royal Army" and this is universally and unambiguously understood to mean Oman. –
Wbm1058 (
talk)
21:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)reply
It is likely to be confusing for some foreigners when there are books titled:
The Royal Army Chaplains' Department, 1796-1953
History of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, 1920-1945
The history of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps
Standing Orders for the Royal Army Medical Corps,
The first two pages of a Google book search on "Royal Army" have many such titles (and while I know why there are titled that way I think it is confusing). I also think it is also notable that such a Google Book search puts up a hatnote advert to a
British Army: Join the Army page. --
PBS (
talk)
16:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support. The first result returned for a
Google search on "Royal Army" is the British Army website. That's not an accident. And many ancillary groups associated with the British Army are called "Royal Army FOO" or something similar. For non-Brits, the confusion is natural, regardless of whether it is as considered incorrect -- the point of a disambiguation page is not to
correct great wrongs, but to help readers find what they are looking for, even if they may be understandably confused. As for partial title matches, a case could be made for making this into a
broad concept article to introduce the many variant types of royalist armies.
older ≠
wiser16:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support Any English language source about a royal army is likely to use the unqualified version if the context makes it clear for example how about Richard Symonds's Diary of the Marches of the Royal Army(referring to the English Civil War Royal Army); or A Military History of Italy by Ciro Paoletti,
[1] "now the Regio Esercito, the Royal Army". These are just two of many to be found with a Google Book search of "Royal Army". So I think it better that the page is a dab page as I do not see any of the being the primary topic. --
PBS (
talk)
16:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Support for two reasons. First, while this certainly looks like a big
WP:PTM violation, numerous of those entries aren't so, because they satisfy the condition that the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context—regardless of the article's title. Secondly, a Google Books search for "Royal Army" doesn't seem to bring up Oman in the first three pages. The assumption of primary topic is practically void. --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
14:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - No clear primary topic in English. - 13:58, 19 January 2015 (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.