Jump to content

Talk:Admiral of the Fleet (Royal Navy)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not a title

[edit]

A significant number of the biographical articles of past Admirals of the Fleet have styled the named officer as 'Admiral of the Fleet Sir Joe Bloggs' - this is not appropriate! Admiral of the Fleet is a rank, not a title. Further, to style someone as such is contradictory to the Wikipedia Manual of Style - no other articles fail to conform to such a vast extent! AJMW 18:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true at all. Military ranks do not contravene the MOS, as you will see if you read it - only academic titles and honorifics are mentioned and military ranks are neither. In fact, many military biographical articles use the ranks. -- Necrothesp 21:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question

[edit]

The Article on Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald describes him as 'Great Admiral of the Fleet', a link that refers to this article- yet Cochrane is not mentioned by name or by title. Is the article on him inaccurate or incorrect or perhaps is the 'Great Admiral of the Fleet' a courtesy title? Proberton (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insignia / Cochrane

[edit]

The sleeve rank insignia depicted has inaccurate dimensions, and the shoulder-board rank insignia is extremely inaccurate.

An officer of the rank of Admiral of the Fleet may be described as "great", but there is no such thing as the title "Great Admiral of the Fleet". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.216.163 (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George V?

[edit]

The George V article states he was named Admiral of the Fleet (Royal Navy) in 1910, but he does not appear here. Which is correct? Ecphora (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honoraria

[edit]

Why don't the opening paragraphs of articles begin by describing or defining whatever it is Now or when last sighted? History can follow at the end? I hope I have not given offence by amending this to suit my own idea and I have put this message here in case a discussion should take place.

Why is Navy or Air Force classed by Wikipedia as military when my dictionary says they, military, are soldiers? I refer specifically to "Admiral of the Fleet is also used as a title in some of the world's militaries" but it holds true throughout Wikipedia. I'm beginning to feel militant about this. Hmmm, fleets of Wild Geese?

I can see this particular rank style or title (you choose) can reasonably be regarded as 'honorary' but I bet in this case the honorarium is substantial whereas in most cases an honorary post is described that way to indicate the poor holder of the post is unrewarded and must regard it as an honour to have been picked on. This follows through to succession boxes where "Honorary Titles" (some include holders of this particular Admiral of the Fleet post) include people posted to positions with real responsibility (I mean real liability for any mistakes in their duties under law) and many readers would assume that the rank/title was another bit of curiously antique hot air like 'Mother of the Nation' (joke) or whatever. Eddaido (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a proper noun

[edit]

We've been over this a million times. Job titles are not proper nouns. See WP:JOBTITLES.

I'm going to ask for a non-controversial move request to be performed to put this right.

Shem (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 December 2014

[edit]
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.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No consensus, largely due to disagreement over whether Fleet is a proper noun or not. Number 57 11:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral of the Fleet (Royal Navy) → Admiral of the fleet (Royal Navy) – WP:JOBTITLES - long-standing consensus that military ranks are not capitalised unless used as part of a name (for example, admiral of the fleet. – Shem (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I must challenge this one: Fleet is a proper noun in this context; the collective name of the ships of the Royal Navy. The situation is analogous to United States Secretary of the Navy, wherein, quite rightly, "Navy" is capitalised. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That view is unsupported by evidence, and contrary to Wikipedia guidelines (WP:JOBTITLES - "Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically") and the normal usage of grammar. "Fleet" is part of the rank, not a synonym for "Royal Navy" - and if it were a synonym, not a proper noun in its own right, we still wouldn't capitalise it. cf. Admiral of the fleet, Admiral of the fleet of the Soviet Union, Admiral of the fleet (Russia), Admiral of the fleet (Australia), etc, etc. Shem (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong here. The case is analogous to Secretary of the Navy. That other countries may use it differently - and there is a big question mark over that "may" - does not change facts in the British case. Show usage cases in reliable sources before changing it, because I cannot find very many good sources that do not capitalise. To quote H. W. Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1965) "[A]n admiral of the fleet is not necessarily identical with an Admiral of the Fleet, nor a foreign secretary with a Foreign Secretary."
    The key point here is that, unlike a captain or admiral, only one person can be Admiral of the Fleet at a time. Just like we capitalize First Sea Lord, President of the United States, and Queen of the United Kingdom - the rank itself refers to a single, specific individual given a specific time frame, and is thus always a proper noun... at least for the majority of its history. I'll grant that it might be appropriate to use the lowercase usage for the period after it stopped being a singular rank, but that, historically, is the minority position. And I am still reasonably sure that "Fleet" is a proper noun. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that is your key point, I'm afraid it is in error. A quick glance at the article itself will confirm that several admirals of the fleet served concurrently - it is a rank, not a position. Example: Jellicoe and Beatty were both promoted to admiral of the fleet on 3 April 1919, and served concurrently with Jackson (retired 1924), Burney (retired 1925) and perhaps others. WWII has other examples. Perhaps you are confusing the rank with First Sea Lord? Shem (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is about grammar, not whether "fleet means Royal Navy", or whether you think there is some sort of analogy going on (there isn't). Have a read of proper noun - "admiral of the fleet" is not in any way, shape or form a proper noun, nor is "fleet". By contrast, "Royal Navy" is a proper noun. I have to say, this is fairly kindergarten grammar, and should not present any real challenges to Wikipedia as a community. But perhaps you just don't like it? Let's not introduce grammatical errors into the encyclopaedia. I've made a request for comment at Wikipedia style and naming. Shem (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked to comment here by Shem1805. Reliable sources, like books about the British admirals of the fleet, don't capitalize the title: [1] (the title of the book is capitalized, but that is book title capitalization: the actual text of the book is what counts here). You'll find many examples of it being capitalized, but then it is usually referring to one specific person, not the job in general: but our article is about the general function, not one specific person. A search like this shows that both versions are in use, with at first glance a preference for the non-capitalized version. Fram (talk) 11:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: British official documentation from the period I study (1854-1919) capitalises Admiral of the Fleet - i.e. actual correspondence concerning the rank at the Admiralty. I can't reproduce from them because that would violate Crown Copyright. Two published examples off the top of my head: The Order in Council of 16 July 1914 concerning retirement regulations for the rank, capitalised in the singular and the plural. Many other printed orders in council will capitalise it. See also this announcement from 1940 when Admirals of the Fleet were put on a par with Field Marshals and kept on the Active List for life. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 18:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "The Gazette" link makes it clear that they capitalize everything, also "Lieuts." and the like. This is hardly a good source to use to give "Admiral of the Fleet" an exceptional status: they were qua capitalization put on a par with lieutenants, captains, ... Fram (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably something to be learned from the Gazette then. Note also that Sir Michael Boyce in the foreward to Heathcote's book capitalises the rank repeatedly. What you call "the actual text of the book" reflects either personal preference/prejudices of individual authors and publishers, surely? —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 21:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't it always? It certainly shows that it isn't universally capitalized and that reputable books and authors on the subject accept and use the uncapitalized version (while other's don't use it). As for the Gazette, it is more something to be learned about the Gazette than from it. 07:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Crown Copyright lasts for only fifty years and is usually waived in any case, so no, no violations of Crown Copyright are applicable here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Taken from The National Archives' website (where the material I referred to comes from), "You must obtain permission from the Image Library of The National Archives for the reproduction of copies of any records, whether they are protected by Crown copyright, are non-Crown copyright or are out of copyright, for publication, on the internet, for broadcasting, for exhibition or for any commercial purpose." So not so much Crown Copyright as TNA claiming copyright.
Incidentally I'm not sure I agree with the characterisation of Fleet as not being a proper noun, for it's clearly referring to His/Her Majesty's Fleet, i.e. the Royal Navy. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 08:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly? Perhaps it's referring to a fleet, like the Home Fleet, or perhaps the Grand Fleet? Or perhaps it has existed for hundreds of years and doesn't actually refer to anything; it's just a rank? Shem (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shem, it's not an operational command it's referring to. Here, for example, is Horace Hood's commission as Rear-Admiral from HOOD 3/2 at Churchill Archives Centre, Cambridge:


A cursory glance through the Gazette will see numerous references to promotions made to ranks in "His" or "Her Majesty's Fleet." —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 08:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the Gazette's house style is to capitalise stuff like that; Wikipedia's house style (see WP:CAPS) is not to do so. At best this example is irrelevant. The only convincing argument for capitalising "fleet" would be to explain how it is a proper noun - not how it is standing in for a proper noun, but one in its own right. Let me give you a counter example: "The commanding officer of HMS York is a commander in the Royal Navy. The ship is a destroyer." In this case, "ship" stands in for "HMS York", which is a proper noun; "ship" is a common noun and is not capitalised. Shem (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to which, "HM Fleet" clearly is a proper name! If an individual was the Admiral of the Fleet, then it would be a proper name, just as Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom is a proper name and therefore capitalised. But the modern common usage of admiral of the fleet is just as a rank, not a position. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency. Yes, it's just a rank, not a position, and "Fleet" is not a proper noun. Our house style is not to capitalise ranks; other publications' house styles may be to capitalise them, but that is not binding on us. -- Necrothesp (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To begin with, the Admiral of the Fleet really was the admiral commanding The Fleet, i.e. the entire Royal Navy. Even once this ceased to be the case, there was only one Admiral of the Fleet at a time until the early 19th century, and as late as 1854 Admiral Thomas Gosselin was not promoted to Admiral of the Fleet (as would otherwise been standard as he was the senior admiral) because his poor mental health was considered to render him incapable of even nominal command of his Service (Heathcote's British Admirals of the Fleet p. 3). However, now and for more than a century "admiral of the fleet" has been a rank title only, and standard practice on Wikipedia seems to be not to capitalise these. But if this article is moved then General of the Army (United States) will need moving too. Opera hat (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is not admiral of a fleet, it is admiral of the fleet. "Fleet" is being used here as a proper noun. It's part of the title. Are we going to also be downgrading Columbus from "Admiral of the Ocean Seas" to "Admiral of the ocean seas" (which doesn't make linguistic or geographic sense)? Walrasiad (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Move request of this day (18 February 2016) to Admiral of the fleet (Royal Navy)

[edit]

(transferred from my pesonal page)

I have reverted your attempt to move Admiral of the Fleet (Royal Navy). If you look at Talk:Admiral of the Fleet (Royal Navy) you will see that there was a move request a year ago and that there was no consensus for a move. If you want to move it, try starting a new move request. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, David, not enough time now, but I think, as it is inserted in the rank name, it would not be interpreted aa a proper noun, as it is the case in field marshal, fleet admiral in the US, amiral de la flotte in France, and son on. There would have been another way to attach the rank to the level of the Navy : to call it Admiral of the Navy, as it is the case in the US, or here Admiral of the Royal Navy for disambiguation. --Gkml (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated insignia

[edit]

Insignia should be updated to replace Queen Elisabeth's royal cypher with that of King Charles. 2A01:CB04:7D8:3000:4520:8174:2882:26CE (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Admiral_of_the_Fleet_(Royal_Navy)&oldid=1220734531"