Wikipedia

Talk:Coastal Forces of the Royal Navy

Latest comment: 1 year ago by GraemeLeggett in topic related draft article
Learn more about this page


Coastal Forces WW2 -Polish Flotilla - Links and Pictures

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

My Father, Thomas William Lofthouse, served with Coastal Forces during WW2, but almost exclusively on MTB's with the Polish Flotilla: links and some rare pictures of these vessels available at <http://www.polishnavy.pl/PMW/ships/index_45.html> <drlofthouse@tiscali.co.uk> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.43.67 (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

copyvio question

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)Reply

Article name

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)
edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The image File:HMS Kempthorne (K483).jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Missing from the bibliography?

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is a conspicuous absence in the bibliography: that of the short history written in 1945 by the renowned ornithologist, the late Peter Scott (Lt Cdr, RNVR, DSC and Bar). The title is: "The Battle of the Narrow Seas - A History of the Light Coastal Forces in the Channel and North Sea, 1939 - 1945". The ISBN is: 0 85617 788 1 and it was re-published by White Lion in 1974. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghisere Andy (talk • contribs) 11:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks :) --Epipelagic (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Units and craft" section - complete?

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The table in the "Units and craft" section of this article is missing information. This makes me wonder if the ship types listed there are the only ones, or may be more to add. Can anyone help here please? Thanks DPdH (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

BTW, the section only lists craft types, but no mention of the units that employed them. So I'll split the section in two. Regards, DPdH (talk) 03:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I removed the empty section on "units". I have not noticed anything in the literature apart from "flotillas". A Coastal Forces flotilla usually consisted of a small group of boats all of the same type. They can be mentioned in the existing section on craft types. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Well, if literature doesn't list the specific units (e.g.: flotillas) that employed these craft, agree that having an empty section for indefinite time doesn't make sense. Sadly I don't have access to any bibliography on this matter to help. Regards, DPdH (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

"Surviving craft" section - complete?

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm a bit surprised that so few surviving examples exist from what I assume was a numerous force. Is the list in this section "complete"? Possibly not, so if this is the case this should be called out. Can anyone help clarify this please? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

What is a "surviving" craft? I could walk you out to a fair few piles of mouldering plywood in creeks around the south coast. There were a lot more privately owned craft in the '70s, but age and rot really has caught up with these wooden craft and there are very few left in even recognisable shape. More than listed here, but unless a vessel was deliberately looked after (even as a static hulk houseboat) it's now at an age where decay will have caused physical collapse. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Good question! My assumption is that the "survivors" that may be included in this section are those craft in good condition (seaworthy or not) that resemble in some way their original purpose even with modifications. But after going thru a few similar articles, I can't see that a common criteria has always been used. Regards, DPdH (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coastal Forces of the Royal 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Coastal Forces of the Royal 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Capitalisation

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Motor Launch vs. motor launch etc.

See WT:WikiProject Ships#Capitalisation (yet again) Andy Dingley (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

related draft article

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've been working on Draft:List of vessels of Royal Navy Coastal Forces which may be of use. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coastal_Forces_of_the_Royal_Navy&oldid=1213093346"