This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Royal Australian Navy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
That's wrong. If memory serves correct, the gray coveralls weren't brought in until 2002-2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.247.70 ( talk) 16:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
needs some info on the tsunami releif effort, plus the ppl who died in Nias The bellman 10:51, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
I've worked on this page- adding in a brief history section, and details of current fleet. It could do with some more work plus images. Astrotrain 21:10, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I would like to see something on the Chief of Navy, Maritime Command and Naval Systems Command 202.6.138.34 13:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
From the table: "Oliver Hazard Perry Class Friagte...Anti-submarine and anti-aircraft frigate with SH-2 Seasprite helicopters "
The Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates do NOT embark SeaSPRITES, they have 2 hangers for SeaHAWK helicopters. Many of the ANZAC frigates also have seahawks and not the smaller Seasprites.
The article says: The RAN's biggest single loss of the war was that of the sister ship to Australia, HMAS Canberra at the Battle of Savo Island, in August 1942.
How is this true? Over 600 lives were lost when Sydney went down, but most of Canberra's crew survived. -- Surgeonsmate 11:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Whilst perhaps a misleading terminology, I believe that the phrase in question pertains to the nature of the ships involved in the comparisions (i.e the loss of a Cruiser versus a Light Cruiser) rather than the numbers of casualties (193 to over 600). It may seem slightly cold-hearted but this sort of phrase may be based on a notion that the loss of a Cruiser was of more significance than the lives of the men of HMAS Sydney (effects on Order of Battle and available forces? - despite manpower shortages?) Battlensign 12:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC).
I have seen the War Memorial names wall panels devoted to the HMAS Sydney crew losses and they do stand to make a compelling case for questioning the yardstick used for describing the 'Worst Loss". Having looked at the revisions made on this point, I am inclined to think the changes are well thought out, especially given the fact that there is such a potential for debate on the issue at hand (effect of losses of ships versus skilled manpower etc) and that this is something ideally uncharacteristic of an aspiring encyclopaedia. Battlensign 12:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Robertson suffered a heart attack 8 miles outside Port Phillip Heads whilst onboard HMAS Yarra and drowned.
Hang about. How did he drown if he was aboard at the time? He was having a tub? He fell over the side? He slumped into his soup bowl? -- Surgeonsmate 13:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I thought we declared war on 3 September the same day as britain, not a few days later as indicated in article. Regards Hossens27 09:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The expression "as a result" was a consequence of Australian Government failure to ratify the Westminster Statute of 1931 which effectively divorced Australia from decisions of the British Government. The suggestion that we declared war some days after Britain probably stems from the later endorsement by Cabinet of Menzies' decision. User : Lorexau 25 May 2006
Following text removed from main article.
___
I do not believe it is appropriate for people to be campaigning in a Wikipedia article on behalf of current, unsubstantiated allegations made by a serving member of the ADF. Nick Thorne 22:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
HMAS Albatross was a seaplane carrier, AE1 and AE2, Oxley and Otway were subs, all served pre-WW2. Post war Terrible, Vengeance and Majestic were carriers transferred from the RN in 1947, 1952 and 1955 respectively. Terrible was renamed Sydney, Vengeance was on loan until Majestic was completed with an angled deck and renamed Melbourne. We gained the new O class subs post war. However, we lost our cruisers in and after the war. -- Jumbo 10:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The history section of this article is a real mess at the moment. It has no unifying theme, is poorly structured and the different sections differ greatly in quality (for example, the coverage of the Navy prior to WW1 is excellent while the coverage of the Navy's role in WW2 is very poor and confusing). One approach to fixing it would be to create a History of the Royal Australian Navy article and strip the information in this article back to a very brief overview. Thoughts? -- Nick Dowling 11:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I am seeking information on the above .I was serving aboard her at this time as a Royal Marine Bandsman and had many friends ashore during our two year attachment at this station ,I would like if possible to find any photographs which may be around as we did, in the short intervals we were in harbour,help with entertainment for the people of Freemantle; one person who was a great supporter of our efforts which included a dance ashore and a childrens party on the ship was a Mrs Robinson, can anyone help please ? ←–bandyjerry
I have re-instated the rank of Acting Sub Lieutenant (ASLT) to the list. This is a substantive rank and is equivalent to Pilot Officer in the RAAF, a 2nd Lieutenant in the Army and an Ensign in the USN, it is not the same as "acting whatever" in common usuage. Nick Thorne 02:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure there are other "Royal" navies, but here in Wikipedia, Royal Navy goes to Royal Navy not a disambig page. Lst time I looked, we were writing an encyclopedia not "Royal Navies for dummies"... Will be interesting to see what other editors will say when (and if) it spreads to WWI and WWII articles. Shot info 09:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Flag Officers are not called General Officers, this has been changed. A Midshipman is NOT a cadet in the Royal Australian Navy, Midshipmen can be ADFA or Direct Entry Officers. I should know, I am one (DEO). A Lieutenant-Commander is a junior officer. The gold oak leaf on the hat brim denotes seniority, which is first awarded at Commander Rank. In addition, the RAN is not a NATO member country and therefore the rank equivalent system (O-, OR- or E-) is not the same or equal. A Midshipman under this would be OF-D, however I have corrected this page to reflect the pay grade of a Midshipman, which is S-1. Zebde 16:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Royal Australian Navy Chaplains.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 17:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:HMAS Armidale at sea.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
In this article, Petty Officers have the rank code E-7, in the article Australian Defence Force ranks and insignia they are E-6. Can somebody correct one or other of the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.255.240 ( talk) 13:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I can't imagine the RAN being dry, but it's not mentioned. Is it significant? 198.70.200.131 ( talk) 14:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Royal Australian Navy ships are indeed not "dry", like the United States Navy ships are, but it is not open slather either iand not particularly of note for an encyclopaedia article). Kangaresearch 10:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
It may be of interest to some, as to just HOW the RAN began. It has come to my understanding through family research, about the move to start the Royal Australian Navy. Commander George Stanley BOSANQUET RN and another Officer, who we think was Captain Lindeman, initiated the process in the late 1800's. This effort eventually came to bear in 1901.
George Stanley came out to Australia in 1877 from England with his wife. Their children were born in Mackay. The eldest boy was my grandfather. My mother who is now 91 still has a colossal memory and was able, through our family papers and books, to give these details.
I hope this may help clarify the early days. I am more than happy to answer any questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizhealth1 ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I've moved this here, as it didn't seem appropriately worded for the article.
I don't know if it's correct, so I haven't edited the article.
( Edit: The Australian Navy was not '...officially established in 1911'. The Australian Navy was established in 1901. The only thing that changed in 1911 was that King George V sanctioned the use of 'Royal' before 'Australian Navy'. This is an important distinction and one few historians understand. The Australian Navy did not suddenly come into being in 1911. The Commonwealth Naval Forces was the Australian Navy, and it is a pity that that term was not the only one used. This would have saved much later confusion.) 58.167.199.248
Maybe it can be re-added to the article, after rewording, as a clarification, or reference ? Begoon ( talk) 02:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Removed info on deployments and RAN's mission because it is already covered in more detail in other sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morzs ( talk • contribs)
Under the "Future" heading, the statement implies the competition is still continuing. Hasn't the Romeo (MH-60R) already been selected as the Seahawk/Seasprite replacement? ( 118.210.27.145 ( talk) 08:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC))
Thought I should just point out that the rank of 'Commander-In-Chief' does not exist, the 'Postion' is held by both the Monarch of Australian and the Governor General of Australia. Nford24 11:13, 10 November 2011 (AEST)
Judging by the name on the coverall this sailor is Hawaiian, and given the image comes from the US Navy, perhaps she is a US sailor on board an Australian warship? Koakhtzvigad ( talk) 01:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted that native Hawaiians are Polynesian, as are a great many other pacific islanders including Samoan, Tongan, Maori (New Zealand) etc. There are something like 150,000 Polynesians in Australia, most from the 3 groups mentioned (USA has around 300,000). Its not unexpected to find them in the Australian Navy or that many have surnames similar to those found among other Polynesian peoples. 101.170.170.152 ( talk)
An image used in this article,
File:Aus-Navy-OF9-shoulder.svg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC) |
It's embarrassing having that silly fact in an article about our navy. I'm guessing a disgruntled sailor has inserted this comment - harden up. Should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.121.146.63 ( talk) 04:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Y'know, I'm not too happy with the way you've reverted my edits without addressing the points I raised.
A page on the Royal Australian Navy should not miss the fact that HRH the Duke of Edinburgh is an Admiral of the Fleet of the RAN. It is an honourary appointment, but is still of massive significance considering that not many navies have an Admiral of the Fleet. Also, recognition of allegiance to the crown of Australia should be noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.157.28.118 ( talk) 13:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
[2] 220.238.43.188 ( talk) 12:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Can I ask a question - I am not authoritative. The article says the Warrant Officer of the Navy is the most senior "sailor" - to my civilian interpretation this includes the officer ranks? The word "sailor" that is. Should it be "the most senior non commissioned officer"?
The Warrant Officer of the Navy (WO-N) is not a rank but a position (for that i do agree), but it does have its own rank insignia which is similar to that of the Regimental Sergeant Major of the Army and Warrant Officer of the Air Force. The RSM-A and WOFF-AF have been listed and have their SRI displayed in their respective rank's. army air force Nford24 ( Want to have a chat?) 12:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I have the latest copy of ABR81, would it be worth writing an article based on it in regards to RAN/RANR/ANC uniforms? regards Nford24 ( Want to have a chat?) 12:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I noticed a recent (now reverted) edit from a contributor that there are fifty five (55) commissioned ships in the RAN with a ref. I check the ref. and it seems to be correct, although the ship ADC Ocean Shield does not have the 'HMAS' prefix, it does have a listed commissioning date '30 June 2012'. So by my reckoning there are 55 commissioned ships in the RAN. Nford24 ( Want to have a chat?) 10:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Which article talks about the pivot? Hcobb ( talk) 06:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The acronym for Admiral is ADM, not ADML (WRoss) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendy Ross ( talk • contribs) 05:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I notice that mention is made of the current honoury apointment of the rank of Admiral of the Fleet, the fact that the chief of navy is a Vice-Admiral rank, but no mention of when the rank of full Admiral is used in the modern ADF. Chief of the ADF is a 4 star equivalent rank & is rotated through the 3 branches. The last chief of ADF was RAAF, current is Army, so next one will be Navy & will have the rank of Admiral. Perhaps this fact should be mentioned. The current article gives the impression that Admiral is a rank no longer normally obtainable. 101.170.170.152 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The rank of Admiral of the Fleet is not an honorary rank, it is a 'reserved' rank or 'wartime' rank. The current Admiral of the Fleet is the Duke of Edinburgh and holds it as a full (non-honorary) rank. The position of Chief of the Defence Force is held by a 4-star equiv but it does not rotate evenly. The Prime Minister chooses the best person to do the job at the time a new one is needed to be appointed. For example, since 1958 there have only been three (3) Air Force CDF's and five (5) Navy CDF's but there have been nine (9) Army CDF's. Admiral Chris Barrie was the last Navy CDF serving from 1998 until 2002. Determining who will be the next Chief of the Defence Force is as inpredictable as who will be the next Governor General. Nford24 ( Want to have a chat?) 13:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
A few days ago, 24.172.16.91 ( talk · contribs) added three images to the article ( File:Anzac Iraq.jpg, File:FA-18 Super Hornet VFA-14.jpg, and File:LHD Canberra fitting out.JPG) in a block under the infobox. I reverted, then the images were re-added by UnbiasedVictory ( talk · contribs). I'm not convinced of the usefulness of these images for the following reasons (the below is an expanded version of the edit summary I left when reverting).
Does anyone have any thoughts on the issue? -- saberwyn 08:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
According to Pennant number, Australia changed from using the RN-originated pennant number system to "a system based on the U.S. hull classification symbols", but there is nothing in this article about it. I am confused about the correct designation of some RAN vessels, particularly auxiliaries. For example, the replenishment tanker HMAS Success is in WP as OR 304, and that is also used by RAN, see [5]. Yet under US practice I think she would be AOR 304, though only OR 304 or even just 304 would be painted on the bows. Is that a genuine difference to the US system? Davidships ( talk) 19:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, There has to be some way to show what the rank insignia looks like. But the images are always deleted. Toothpickst ( talk) 11:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Another contributor reverted an addition I made to this article. I added MV Sycamore (ship, 2017). The other contributor's edit summary was "not a RAN vessel - its owned and will be operated by DMS Marine for the RAN under contract".
Agreed, the vessel is owned by a private firm, and leased to the RAN.
But, its design is a military one. Its design is based on Damen Group's OPV 2400 design -- ie "Offshore Patrol Vessel". All the references say it primary purpose is to train military pilots, secondary purposes include training military divers, and responding to disasters, like other naval vessels. Other navies use leased support vessels, not dissimilar to the support vessels they own outright. I'd argue for them to be covered in the article for those navies as well. Geo Swan ( talk) 06:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Royal Australian Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Royal Australian Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Information to be added or removed: Please update the RAN badge on the page to the current RAN badge. Explanation of issue: The RAN badge image currently used on the page has not been in official use for many years. References supporting change: Details of the current approved Royal Australian Navy badge is available on the Navy website at http://www.navy.gov.au/protecting-royal-australian-navy-badge. Permission to download and use this image on the Royal Australian Navy Wikipedia page is granted. Ash Holland, Navy Group Web Manager - Internet, Navy Headquarters, Canberra.
Awh71 ( talk) 03:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
{{
request edit}}
template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes
to |ans=no
.Regards, Spintendo 07:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Royal Australian Navy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Royal Australian Navy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 22:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I propose that the Structure be modified to increase readability. The proposal would look something like this
This would increase readability in my opinion IronBattalion ( talk) 00:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, currently I'm working on updates to rank tables across the ADF branches and in my opinion have primarily finished this one
NATO Code | OR-9 | OR-8 | OR-7 | OR-6 | OR-5 | OR-4 | OR-3 | OR-2 | OR-1 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Australia Other Ranks Insignia | No insignia | ||||||||||
Rank Title: | Warrant Officer of the Navy | Warrant Officer | Chief Petty Officer | Petty Officer | Leading Seaman | Able Seaman | Seaman | Recruit | |||
Abbreviation: | WO | CPO | PO | LS | AB | SMN | RCT |
Is there any objections to this? IronBattalion ( talk) 10:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
NATO Code | OF-10 | OF-9 | OF-8 | OF-7 | OF-6 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Australia Flag Officer rank insignia | ||||||||||
Rank title: | Admiral of the Fleet | Admiral | Vice Admiral | Rear Admiral | Commodore | |||||
Abbreviation: | AF | ADML | RADM | VADM | CDRE |
NATO Code | OF-5 | OF-4 | OF-3 | OF-2 | OF-1 | OF(D) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Officer rank: | |||||||||||
Rank title | Captain | Commander | Lieutenant Commander | Lieutenant | Sub Lieutenant | Acting Sub Lieutenant | Midshipman | ||||
Abbreviation | CAPT | CMDR | LCMDR | LEUT | SBLT | ASLT | MIDN |
The Second phase. I NEED Feedback cause it is the worst one I'm working on. I did it this to conserve space and to not allow the page to move horizontally (Like 'Ranks of the ADF' page) IronBattalion ( talk) 20:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
in the first sentence "The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) is the Senior Service of the Australian Defence Force (ADF)" Senior service just link to the concept of a "navy", not even a redirect but a direct link so and the navy page do not contain a single mention to what a "senior service" is.
If it is just some odd synonym for navy I suggest that a reference is added that point that out and the link might as well be dropped given that the navy part in that "The royal Australian navy" should clue anyone in that this is a navy not a airforce.
If it means that it was the branch first established than I senior service is changed to "first established branch of" and the link is dropped.
. Agge.se ( talk) 21:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
The following was posted on my talk page:
you claim to have an interest in the Australian navy but keep adding numbers that aren't current. read recent ABC articles about the recent ship decommissioning's before making future changes please.
Aussie information editor (
talk) 08:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Aussie information editor: The references used to support the changes made by you do not in fact support the change in numbers. The reference needs to explicitly state numbers used in a Wikipedia article per WP:V and not be based on calculation per WP:SYNTH as it appears to have been done here. - Nick Thorne talk 12:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Royal Australian Navy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
That's wrong. If memory serves correct, the gray coveralls weren't brought in until 2002-2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.247.70 ( talk) 16:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
needs some info on the tsunami releif effort, plus the ppl who died in Nias The bellman 10:51, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
I've worked on this page- adding in a brief history section, and details of current fleet. It could do with some more work plus images. Astrotrain 21:10, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I would like to see something on the Chief of Navy, Maritime Command and Naval Systems Command 202.6.138.34 13:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
From the table: "Oliver Hazard Perry Class Friagte...Anti-submarine and anti-aircraft frigate with SH-2 Seasprite helicopters "
The Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates do NOT embark SeaSPRITES, they have 2 hangers for SeaHAWK helicopters. Many of the ANZAC frigates also have seahawks and not the smaller Seasprites.
The article says: The RAN's biggest single loss of the war was that of the sister ship to Australia, HMAS Canberra at the Battle of Savo Island, in August 1942.
How is this true? Over 600 lives were lost when Sydney went down, but most of Canberra's crew survived. -- Surgeonsmate 11:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Whilst perhaps a misleading terminology, I believe that the phrase in question pertains to the nature of the ships involved in the comparisions (i.e the loss of a Cruiser versus a Light Cruiser) rather than the numbers of casualties (193 to over 600). It may seem slightly cold-hearted but this sort of phrase may be based on a notion that the loss of a Cruiser was of more significance than the lives of the men of HMAS Sydney (effects on Order of Battle and available forces? - despite manpower shortages?) Battlensign 12:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC).
I have seen the War Memorial names wall panels devoted to the HMAS Sydney crew losses and they do stand to make a compelling case for questioning the yardstick used for describing the 'Worst Loss". Having looked at the revisions made on this point, I am inclined to think the changes are well thought out, especially given the fact that there is such a potential for debate on the issue at hand (effect of losses of ships versus skilled manpower etc) and that this is something ideally uncharacteristic of an aspiring encyclopaedia. Battlensign 12:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Robertson suffered a heart attack 8 miles outside Port Phillip Heads whilst onboard HMAS Yarra and drowned.
Hang about. How did he drown if he was aboard at the time? He was having a tub? He fell over the side? He slumped into his soup bowl? -- Surgeonsmate 13:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I thought we declared war on 3 September the same day as britain, not a few days later as indicated in article. Regards Hossens27 09:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The expression "as a result" was a consequence of Australian Government failure to ratify the Westminster Statute of 1931 which effectively divorced Australia from decisions of the British Government. The suggestion that we declared war some days after Britain probably stems from the later endorsement by Cabinet of Menzies' decision. User : Lorexau 25 May 2006
Following text removed from main article.
___
I do not believe it is appropriate for people to be campaigning in a Wikipedia article on behalf of current, unsubstantiated allegations made by a serving member of the ADF. Nick Thorne 22:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
HMAS Albatross was a seaplane carrier, AE1 and AE2, Oxley and Otway were subs, all served pre-WW2. Post war Terrible, Vengeance and Majestic were carriers transferred from the RN in 1947, 1952 and 1955 respectively. Terrible was renamed Sydney, Vengeance was on loan until Majestic was completed with an angled deck and renamed Melbourne. We gained the new O class subs post war. However, we lost our cruisers in and after the war. -- Jumbo 10:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The history section of this article is a real mess at the moment. It has no unifying theme, is poorly structured and the different sections differ greatly in quality (for example, the coverage of the Navy prior to WW1 is excellent while the coverage of the Navy's role in WW2 is very poor and confusing). One approach to fixing it would be to create a History of the Royal Australian Navy article and strip the information in this article back to a very brief overview. Thoughts? -- Nick Dowling 11:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I am seeking information on the above .I was serving aboard her at this time as a Royal Marine Bandsman and had many friends ashore during our two year attachment at this station ,I would like if possible to find any photographs which may be around as we did, in the short intervals we were in harbour,help with entertainment for the people of Freemantle; one person who was a great supporter of our efforts which included a dance ashore and a childrens party on the ship was a Mrs Robinson, can anyone help please ? ←–bandyjerry
I have re-instated the rank of Acting Sub Lieutenant (ASLT) to the list. This is a substantive rank and is equivalent to Pilot Officer in the RAAF, a 2nd Lieutenant in the Army and an Ensign in the USN, it is not the same as "acting whatever" in common usuage. Nick Thorne 02:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure there are other "Royal" navies, but here in Wikipedia, Royal Navy goes to Royal Navy not a disambig page. Lst time I looked, we were writing an encyclopedia not "Royal Navies for dummies"... Will be interesting to see what other editors will say when (and if) it spreads to WWI and WWII articles. Shot info 09:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Flag Officers are not called General Officers, this has been changed. A Midshipman is NOT a cadet in the Royal Australian Navy, Midshipmen can be ADFA or Direct Entry Officers. I should know, I am one (DEO). A Lieutenant-Commander is a junior officer. The gold oak leaf on the hat brim denotes seniority, which is first awarded at Commander Rank. In addition, the RAN is not a NATO member country and therefore the rank equivalent system (O-, OR- or E-) is not the same or equal. A Midshipman under this would be OF-D, however I have corrected this page to reflect the pay grade of a Midshipman, which is S-1. Zebde 16:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Royal Australian Navy Chaplains.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 17:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:HMAS Armidale at sea.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
In this article, Petty Officers have the rank code E-7, in the article Australian Defence Force ranks and insignia they are E-6. Can somebody correct one or other of the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.255.240 ( talk) 13:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I can't imagine the RAN being dry, but it's not mentioned. Is it significant? 198.70.200.131 ( talk) 14:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Royal Australian Navy ships are indeed not "dry", like the United States Navy ships are, but it is not open slather either iand not particularly of note for an encyclopaedia article). Kangaresearch 10:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
It may be of interest to some, as to just HOW the RAN began. It has come to my understanding through family research, about the move to start the Royal Australian Navy. Commander George Stanley BOSANQUET RN and another Officer, who we think was Captain Lindeman, initiated the process in the late 1800's. This effort eventually came to bear in 1901.
George Stanley came out to Australia in 1877 from England with his wife. Their children were born in Mackay. The eldest boy was my grandfather. My mother who is now 91 still has a colossal memory and was able, through our family papers and books, to give these details.
I hope this may help clarify the early days. I am more than happy to answer any questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizhealth1 ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I've moved this here, as it didn't seem appropriately worded for the article.
I don't know if it's correct, so I haven't edited the article.
( Edit: The Australian Navy was not '...officially established in 1911'. The Australian Navy was established in 1901. The only thing that changed in 1911 was that King George V sanctioned the use of 'Royal' before 'Australian Navy'. This is an important distinction and one few historians understand. The Australian Navy did not suddenly come into being in 1911. The Commonwealth Naval Forces was the Australian Navy, and it is a pity that that term was not the only one used. This would have saved much later confusion.) 58.167.199.248
Maybe it can be re-added to the article, after rewording, as a clarification, or reference ? Begoon ( talk) 02:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Removed info on deployments and RAN's mission because it is already covered in more detail in other sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morzs ( talk • contribs)
Under the "Future" heading, the statement implies the competition is still continuing. Hasn't the Romeo (MH-60R) already been selected as the Seahawk/Seasprite replacement? ( 118.210.27.145 ( talk) 08:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC))
Thought I should just point out that the rank of 'Commander-In-Chief' does not exist, the 'Postion' is held by both the Monarch of Australian and the Governor General of Australia. Nford24 11:13, 10 November 2011 (AEST)
Judging by the name on the coverall this sailor is Hawaiian, and given the image comes from the US Navy, perhaps she is a US sailor on board an Australian warship? Koakhtzvigad ( talk) 01:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted that native Hawaiians are Polynesian, as are a great many other pacific islanders including Samoan, Tongan, Maori (New Zealand) etc. There are something like 150,000 Polynesians in Australia, most from the 3 groups mentioned (USA has around 300,000). Its not unexpected to find them in the Australian Navy or that many have surnames similar to those found among other Polynesian peoples. 101.170.170.152 ( talk)
An image used in this article,
File:Aus-Navy-OF9-shoulder.svg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC) |
It's embarrassing having that silly fact in an article about our navy. I'm guessing a disgruntled sailor has inserted this comment - harden up. Should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.121.146.63 ( talk) 04:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Y'know, I'm not too happy with the way you've reverted my edits without addressing the points I raised.
A page on the Royal Australian Navy should not miss the fact that HRH the Duke of Edinburgh is an Admiral of the Fleet of the RAN. It is an honourary appointment, but is still of massive significance considering that not many navies have an Admiral of the Fleet. Also, recognition of allegiance to the crown of Australia should be noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.157.28.118 ( talk) 13:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
[2] 220.238.43.188 ( talk) 12:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Can I ask a question - I am not authoritative. The article says the Warrant Officer of the Navy is the most senior "sailor" - to my civilian interpretation this includes the officer ranks? The word "sailor" that is. Should it be "the most senior non commissioned officer"?
The Warrant Officer of the Navy (WO-N) is not a rank but a position (for that i do agree), but it does have its own rank insignia which is similar to that of the Regimental Sergeant Major of the Army and Warrant Officer of the Air Force. The RSM-A and WOFF-AF have been listed and have their SRI displayed in their respective rank's. army air force Nford24 ( Want to have a chat?) 12:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I have the latest copy of ABR81, would it be worth writing an article based on it in regards to RAN/RANR/ANC uniforms? regards Nford24 ( Want to have a chat?) 12:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I noticed a recent (now reverted) edit from a contributor that there are fifty five (55) commissioned ships in the RAN with a ref. I check the ref. and it seems to be correct, although the ship ADC Ocean Shield does not have the 'HMAS' prefix, it does have a listed commissioning date '30 June 2012'. So by my reckoning there are 55 commissioned ships in the RAN. Nford24 ( Want to have a chat?) 10:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Which article talks about the pivot? Hcobb ( talk) 06:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The acronym for Admiral is ADM, not ADML (WRoss) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendy Ross ( talk • contribs) 05:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I notice that mention is made of the current honoury apointment of the rank of Admiral of the Fleet, the fact that the chief of navy is a Vice-Admiral rank, but no mention of when the rank of full Admiral is used in the modern ADF. Chief of the ADF is a 4 star equivalent rank & is rotated through the 3 branches. The last chief of ADF was RAAF, current is Army, so next one will be Navy & will have the rank of Admiral. Perhaps this fact should be mentioned. The current article gives the impression that Admiral is a rank no longer normally obtainable. 101.170.170.152 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The rank of Admiral of the Fleet is not an honorary rank, it is a 'reserved' rank or 'wartime' rank. The current Admiral of the Fleet is the Duke of Edinburgh and holds it as a full (non-honorary) rank. The position of Chief of the Defence Force is held by a 4-star equiv but it does not rotate evenly. The Prime Minister chooses the best person to do the job at the time a new one is needed to be appointed. For example, since 1958 there have only been three (3) Air Force CDF's and five (5) Navy CDF's but there have been nine (9) Army CDF's. Admiral Chris Barrie was the last Navy CDF serving from 1998 until 2002. Determining who will be the next Chief of the Defence Force is as inpredictable as who will be the next Governor General. Nford24 ( Want to have a chat?) 13:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
A few days ago, 24.172.16.91 ( talk · contribs) added three images to the article ( File:Anzac Iraq.jpg, File:FA-18 Super Hornet VFA-14.jpg, and File:LHD Canberra fitting out.JPG) in a block under the infobox. I reverted, then the images were re-added by UnbiasedVictory ( talk · contribs). I'm not convinced of the usefulness of these images for the following reasons (the below is an expanded version of the edit summary I left when reverting).
Does anyone have any thoughts on the issue? -- saberwyn 08:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
According to Pennant number, Australia changed from using the RN-originated pennant number system to "a system based on the U.S. hull classification symbols", but there is nothing in this article about it. I am confused about the correct designation of some RAN vessels, particularly auxiliaries. For example, the replenishment tanker HMAS Success is in WP as OR 304, and that is also used by RAN, see [5]. Yet under US practice I think she would be AOR 304, though only OR 304 or even just 304 would be painted on the bows. Is that a genuine difference to the US system? Davidships ( talk) 19:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, There has to be some way to show what the rank insignia looks like. But the images are always deleted. Toothpickst ( talk) 11:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Another contributor reverted an addition I made to this article. I added MV Sycamore (ship, 2017). The other contributor's edit summary was "not a RAN vessel - its owned and will be operated by DMS Marine for the RAN under contract".
Agreed, the vessel is owned by a private firm, and leased to the RAN.
But, its design is a military one. Its design is based on Damen Group's OPV 2400 design -- ie "Offshore Patrol Vessel". All the references say it primary purpose is to train military pilots, secondary purposes include training military divers, and responding to disasters, like other naval vessels. Other navies use leased support vessels, not dissimilar to the support vessels they own outright. I'd argue for them to be covered in the article for those navies as well. Geo Swan ( talk) 06:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Royal Australian Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Royal Australian Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Information to be added or removed: Please update the RAN badge on the page to the current RAN badge. Explanation of issue: The RAN badge image currently used on the page has not been in official use for many years. References supporting change: Details of the current approved Royal Australian Navy badge is available on the Navy website at http://www.navy.gov.au/protecting-royal-australian-navy-badge. Permission to download and use this image on the Royal Australian Navy Wikipedia page is granted. Ash Holland, Navy Group Web Manager - Internet, Navy Headquarters, Canberra.
Awh71 ( talk) 03:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
{{
request edit}}
template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes
to |ans=no
.Regards, Spintendo 07:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Royal Australian Navy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Royal Australian Navy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 22:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I propose that the Structure be modified to increase readability. The proposal would look something like this
This would increase readability in my opinion IronBattalion ( talk) 00:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, currently I'm working on updates to rank tables across the ADF branches and in my opinion have primarily finished this one
NATO Code | OR-9 | OR-8 | OR-7 | OR-6 | OR-5 | OR-4 | OR-3 | OR-2 | OR-1 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Australia Other Ranks Insignia | No insignia | ||||||||||
Rank Title: | Warrant Officer of the Navy | Warrant Officer | Chief Petty Officer | Petty Officer | Leading Seaman | Able Seaman | Seaman | Recruit | |||
Abbreviation: | WO | CPO | PO | LS | AB | SMN | RCT |
Is there any objections to this? IronBattalion ( talk) 10:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
NATO Code | OF-10 | OF-9 | OF-8 | OF-7 | OF-6 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Australia Flag Officer rank insignia | ||||||||||
Rank title: | Admiral of the Fleet | Admiral | Vice Admiral | Rear Admiral | Commodore | |||||
Abbreviation: | AF | ADML | RADM | VADM | CDRE |
NATO Code | OF-5 | OF-4 | OF-3 | OF-2 | OF-1 | OF(D) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Officer rank: | |||||||||||
Rank title | Captain | Commander | Lieutenant Commander | Lieutenant | Sub Lieutenant | Acting Sub Lieutenant | Midshipman | ||||
Abbreviation | CAPT | CMDR | LCMDR | LEUT | SBLT | ASLT | MIDN |
The Second phase. I NEED Feedback cause it is the worst one I'm working on. I did it this to conserve space and to not allow the page to move horizontally (Like 'Ranks of the ADF' page) IronBattalion ( talk) 20:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
in the first sentence "The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) is the Senior Service of the Australian Defence Force (ADF)" Senior service just link to the concept of a "navy", not even a redirect but a direct link so and the navy page do not contain a single mention to what a "senior service" is.
If it is just some odd synonym for navy I suggest that a reference is added that point that out and the link might as well be dropped given that the navy part in that "The royal Australian navy" should clue anyone in that this is a navy not a airforce.
If it means that it was the branch first established than I senior service is changed to "first established branch of" and the link is dropped.
. Agge.se ( talk) 21:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
The following was posted on my talk page:
you claim to have an interest in the Australian navy but keep adding numbers that aren't current. read recent ABC articles about the recent ship decommissioning's before making future changes please.
Aussie information editor (
talk) 08:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Aussie information editor: The references used to support the changes made by you do not in fact support the change in numbers. The reference needs to explicitly state numbers used in a Wikipedia article per WP:V and not be based on calculation per WP:SYNTH as it appears to have been done here. - Nick Thorne talk 12:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)