Talk:Royal Navy ranks, rates, and uniforms of the 18th and 19th centuries

Image Disputes

Two of the images appear to be under dispute. "1st Uniforms" and the picture of actor Robert Lindsay as Robert Pellew. With regards to the 1st uniform picture, the image page clear indicates where that image came from and I even sent an e-mail to Wikipedia last week with a copy of the e-mail from the UK. I'll send it again tomorrow and post the help desk ticket number.

With regards to the Pellew image, I added a rationale and disputed the speedy delete notice. Will go with the admins on that one, whatever they decide is fine.

A bit of confusion is that the original nominator of the disputed images then attempted to remove them from the article. Not sure what the reason is behind that. I wont edit war if they are removed again, but what is the policy behind removing the images before a decision is actually made to their status? -OberRanks (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Update, situation seems to be resolved. All images in the article now are (to my knowledge) properly sourced. If there is still a problem, open to discussion. -OberRanks (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Article Move

I moved the article due to blanking issues [1]. The current title covers all internal points and topics. If there's further debate, lets discuss it here. -OberRanks (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, let me introduce myself. I'm a PhD student at KCL, in the Department of War Studies, studying the Royal Navy in the 17th and 18th centuries. Why I removed the sections is because, as I said in my comments, they had nothing to do with the article. Now, new article title, new concerns. I believe that this article should be folded into the Royal Navy article that already exists, and does not warrant an article independently. On the one hand, I think that discussion of RN uniforms probably does warrant its own article, given the study that has been done, such as by Jenn Daley, and also in Amy Miller's "Dressed to Kill". However, an article that covers both the ranks and rates (information that already exists in the original article on the Royal Navy) and uniforms doesn't really have a purpose of its own. ~Antooine

The Royal Navy article doesn't contain any of the historical information on this page (at least that I could see). What you are talking about is a merge and redirect; these require consensus in accordance with WP:MERGE. I would be opposed to a merge. You might want to advertise the issue on MILHISTORY to get consensus. -OberRanks (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Missing section

Leading seaman rank missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.147.114 (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Article needs splitting into the time of the Age of Sail and the time of the Age of Steam

It's quite clear that the two time periods have been conflated. There are many ranks that ceased to be when the British Navy started to use steam ships. It's inaccurate to combine the two periods. It's like the article on calvary being combining horses with air cav or mechanised infantry.

Minors in the Royal Navy

This whole section is hugely misleading. For a start, I'm not sure that boys of 8 and 10 actually were minors, in the legal sense of the word, during the 18th and 19th century. Children of 8 and 10 were regularly hanged for crimes they'd committed for example. On land, children started working as soon as they could walk and a large proportion of those 8-10 year olds who were 'employed' by the Royal Navy never set foot on a ship, they were signed on in name only in order to accumulate sea time.--Ykraps (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

This article is in very poor shape; it's not just this one section needing work. A very brief skim through has just seen me add forty citation needed tags. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid I didn't read the rest of the article. Perhaps I'll return later and see what I can do about the missing citations.--Ykraps (talk) 05:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I've added some historical perspective to this but, as I said in the edit summary, child is not a rank so why is this section relevant? I won't argue if others want to remove it.--Ykraps (talk) 09:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC) The article is also about ratings (didn't see that) so perhaps it is relevant.--Ykraps (talk) 09:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ykraps: Have seen your start at renovation today - what part are you looking to focus on? Don't want to step on your toes! That said, have had a look in my own library to see what there might be. The following might be useful:

• Lavery's Anson's Navy
• Fremont-Barnes' The Royal Navy 1793-1815, Nelson's Sailors, and Nelson's Officers and Midshipmen
• Rodger's The Command of the Ocean and The Wooden World
• Pope's Life in Nelson's Navy
• Wilson's A Social History of British Naval Officers 1775-1815

Obviously happy to input what I can myself if you don't mind. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Pickersgill-Cunliffe, I currently have HMS Aigle at FAC so I'm not looking for a project just yet. I was just having a bit of a pick while I'm waiting. I don't have much information pre 1793 so your Anson's Navy will be useful but I do have quite a few of the books you mention. Part of my library is here. You really don't need to worry about stepping on my toes, I am happy to collaborate.--Ykraps (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)