Jump to content

Talk:Royal National Lifeboat Institution

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

St Davids

[edit]

It has been proposed that St Davids Lifeboat Station (a stub) be merged here. I'm not in favour of that, otherwise the same argument could be made for many other stations; however, I can't find a discussion page on the proposed merger ("Discuss" links here). I will have a go at writing up the article Tony Holkham (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It really comes down to whether there are enough independent sources to support a stand alone article on St. Davids (or any other specific station)... ie does the specific station pass our WP:Notability guideline. I would say that every lifeboat station is noteworthy (ie they merit being mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia)... but I am less sure that every station will have the level of source coverage needed to pass the guideline. Perhaps a List of RNLI lifeboat stations would be a viable option? Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do take your point, Blueboar. Maybe there is a case for an article covering, say, Lifeboat stations in Wales (there is List of RNLI stations, split into the RNLI's divisions), where there aren't enough independent sources to make a decent article for an individual station. However, having worked for the RNLI in the past, I know there is a huge following of the Institution both nationally and locally, and it's likely that many people will look on Wikipedia for information. I have to say, without wishing to be too critical, that the RNLI's main website is a bit of a navigational headache and many stations have their own sites.
I'll see what I can find source-wise on this station and we can keep the question open. Does that sound ok? Tony Holkham (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fly-by tagging at it's best. Could it be improved & expanded, absolutely, however just because it's a stub doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. - Happysailor (Talk) 15:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Absolutely... nothing wrong with stubs as long as they can be expanded. If there is a huge following, then there should be independent sources out there that will allow you to do so... you just have to find them (ie look beyond the RNLI's website). My only point was to say that, if it turns out that we can't find sources to support a stand alone article on a particular station, its not the end of the world. Wikipedia can still include it... we simply have to do so in the context of a related article. Blueboar (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Written what I can from 'the horse's mouth', and tomorrow will be on the hunt for independent sources. Can I delete the merge tag or does it have to be done by a certain process? Cheers, Tony Holkham (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Against merger. Where a station has significant history of its own it should quite clearly have its own page, such as at Tenby Lifeboat Station or Cardigan Lifeboat Station, and most of the others in the Lifeboat Stations in Wales template. Although the merger suggestion is very recent (about 10 days old), given the work you've done to take this out of stub-category, I think the merger request can now be deleted. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganise sections?

[edit]

May I make some suggestions about layout?

  • The lead seems a little heavy on text and has a lot of info not elsewhere in the article
  • History might be better titled Origins or Early history
  • In action contains a great deal of history, so might be better called History, to include subsections Dunkirk and Losses
  • New section perhaps Current operations to include current activities (lifeboats, lifeguards, flood rescue, combined disaster exercises, etc) and, more importantly, some of the information that makes the lead a bit heavy
  • New section or subsection Funding could including bequests (a major source of income), public collections, station-specific fundraising groups, levels of adult and child membership, local and national (SOS) "lifeboat days", corporate funding activities and philanthropic lifeboat-specific fundraising organisations
  • New section or subsection Salvage - often a contentious issue (in the public mind) and one that comes up in the news from time to time, sometimes inaccurately
  • New section or subsection Publications (eg Lifeboat Magazine, Compass and several others, as well as their website)
  • Roll of honour and Famous lifeboat-saviours might be more appropriate as subsections under history?

What do others think? Sorry if I'm treading on anyone's toes. NB I don't have an 'interest' in the RNLI other than as a member and former freelance writer. Tony Holkham (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree You're absolutely right about the over-heavy lead section. Your suggestions sound a considerable improvement; I'd go for it if you have time. By the way, I'm going to remove the citations-needed tag at the top; the tag is 3 years old, and most paragraphs are now adequately referenced. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting the process today of simplifying the lead and reorganising sections into what I hope is a more logical order, so the table of contents should reflect this. I have not removed or significantly altered any content at this stage. There are some new sections which will need filling, and I hope to tackle these in the next few days, but please contribute where you can. Ta - Tony Holkham (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation problems

[edit]

A - Can anyone provide full titles for references 10 to 14 so the citations can be listed properly?

B - I know many citations rely on the RNLI's own web pages, so if anyone can provide corroborative independent citations, please do (or give the links here and I'll be happy to add them)

C - Does anyone have a link to the latest (2013) stats for callouts, funding, etc? I could probably find it, but someone may already know. Thanks, all...Tony Holkham (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found it and updated article Tony Holkham (talk) 09:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lifeguards

[edit]

This section looks like it could usefully be expanded. History, stations, training, equipment, images etc. SovalValtos (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, but if you have a lot of information that you want to put in, would it be better to create a separate article as has been done with Royal National Lifeboat Institution lifeboats and List of RNLI stations? This article is quite complex already, and I have been trying to trim it. Tony Holkham (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Losses

[edit]

When I have finished transferring all the information in this sub-section to List of Lifeboat Disasters in the British Isles (which needs considerable updating) I propose deleting the list of losses from the RNLI article as the List of Disasters will be a more comprehensive resource. Some of the incidents weren't specific to RNLI lifeboats anyway, so the list is a bit confusing, and the article needs slimming down.

I'll leave it a while in case anyone has any comments. Cheers, Tony Holkham (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery - removal?

[edit]

I propose removing the Gallery of pictures as per the template above them. I've checked, and they are all on Wikimedia Commons, so the Commons link should be enough. Any objections? Tony Holkham (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - 1 June 2014 Tony Holkham (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flood Rescue Teams

[edit]

The only ref seems to come from the RNLI itself.SovalValtos (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's OK - it's a published, non-commercial source, and I haven't found anything better. Not a reason to remove, IMO. Tony Holkham (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkirk evacuation

[edit]

As there is already a reference to the main article Little_ships_of_Dunkirk#RNLI_lifeboats_at_Dunkirk, I propose reducing this section of the RNLI article (first checking all the info is in the linked article/s) by creating a table giving bare details and links. It is an important part of the RNLI's history, but perhaps shouldn't be given such undue weight. Any comments? Tony Holkham (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the boats taken by their own crews should still be written about in the article. Add the Clacton on Sea boat and others if sources confirm. Otherwise a table should do as it was a requisitioning of equipment by the Navy, rather than RNLI operation. SovalValtos (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Wholeheartedly agree Ramsgate & Margate info should be in there. Didn't know about Clacton. Tony Holkham (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw Clacton crewing on the page Little ships of Dunkirk SovalValtos (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Clacton station's own website says the lifeboat was under Admiralty control, and doesn't specifically say whether the crew went with her to Dunkirk. It's an open question until we can find some definite source. The flag flown by the lifeboat at Dunkirk was presented to the station by the son of a 1940 crewman, which itself is ambiguous, unless I'm reading it wrong. Tony Holkham (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This forum makes very interesting reading. Tony Holkham (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... and this website says Clacton was RN-crewed. Tony Holkham (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... and more conflicting info on this website. We we ever know the truth? Tony Holkham (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The KSH forum will need careful use and consideration of its reliability. I have not read it all. SovalValtos (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - it merely states the information is "Taken from the RNLI Records of Service 1939-1946". Tony Holkham (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest archiving

[edit]

I suggest everything on this talk page up to the end of 2013 be archived as the page is heavy with old and mostly resolved discussions. Any comments? Tony Holkham (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objection SovalValtos (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Tony Holkham (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Darling

[edit]

I know it may seem pedantic, but (correct me if I'm wrong) Grace Darling's heroic act was nothing to do with the RNLI, so I propose deleting reference to her in the notable lifeboat-saviours subsection. She has her own article, so I suggest adding her to the See also list as a compromise (sort of!). Any comments? Tony Holkham (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not pedantic at all , rigorous editing is what is needed. No compromises other than consensus. No objection to her being in see also.SovalValtos (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However she and her father war both awarded a silver medal for their lifesaving bravery by (what became) the RNLI.Cloptonson (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications

[edit]

"Bronze medals were awarded from 1917." Does this mean they were awarded for a time and then the practice ceased, or are they still awarded? "Frederick Carter (11) who with Frank Perry (16) was awarded a Silver Medal " one between two or one each? SovalValtos (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y-boats are mentioned only in passing. More needs to be said. SovalValtos (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a citation for Carter and Perry, but I will look for one. Medals are individual, so it's likely they were each awarded one. Bronze medals are still awarded today as far as I know. There is an article Y-class lifeboat and also Royal National Lifeboat Institution lifeboats so I don't think the RNLI article needs to go into much detail. Tony Holkham (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The RNLI's fact sheet says Dorset. I'll look into it. Tony Holkham (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the Bridge simulator at Poole? Is it similar to an aircraft links trainer?SovalValtos (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to the simulator which doesn't tell you much more. Tony Holkham (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does help, as it suggests that it is a vessel's bridge being simulated rather than one over a river! Some of us are a bit dim.SovalValtos (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not dim at all - I can understand the confusion, as one whose techno-grasp is a little advanced from scissors and well short of a deck chair. :-) Tony Holkham (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interactions with allied services

[edit]

Might it be useful to add a little, if only a link? There are independent as well as public air sea rescue operations. See http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/AAIB%20Bulletin%2010-2014.pdf which although off topic might be a useful link in to the subject. SovalValtos (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The AAIB has its own article. So does the MAIB which is more relevant, and worth adding to "See also", maybe. The RNLI also takes part in multi-service simulated disaster exercises, such as one in the Thames estuary in recent years (can't remember exactly when). Tony Holkham (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Current operations could have the independent Air sea rescue operators added. It was their existence which the link gave evidence of; though whether there are any others than the one mentioned I do not know.SovalValtos (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you would add an appropriate subsection and reference it would all become clear as at the moment I'm not sure what is needed. Does participation with other services come under RNLI operations? Forgive me if that's a vague response, but I'm a bit in the dark on this one. Tony Holkham (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the surprise I got from finding there were independent air sea rescue organisations, and the association I made with RNLI and indepentents has lead me off topic. I am quite happy to drop the idea.SovalValtos (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

IMO the lead has become too long and detailed, and material should be moved to the body and the lead re-written. I will try to help but not immediately in case others differ.SovalValtos (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, It needs attention. Why was the "British Isles" term introduced a year ago? It is a long time since it was used by the RNLI. Also, In Ireland, the independents are know as "Community Rescue Boats" - see [1] - Lugnad (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:Lugnad Having only just now read the 'Reorganise Sections' section above, I see that there was agreement by User:Hogyn Lleol with User:Tony Holkham in May 2014 that the lead was text heavy. I expect some work was done at the time but IMO more needs doing now.
As far as the comment about CRBI; as far as I can tell CRBI is a group of some of the Independents in Ireland but the majority are not in that group and not known as CRBs so Independent lifeboats (British Isles) is the best catch all term.SovalValtos (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that the lead is about right (I would say that...), and is a fair summary of the body of the article. I don't think it's too long, given the large amount of info in the article. Of course, improvements can always be made, but if it ain't broke...
When the 2014 annual report comes out (April, I think) changes will need to be made to operational and statistical info.
I don't see why independent lifeboats should be mentioned in the lead at all (unless as a See also), so no need to debate how they should be referred to. Tony Holkham (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is about the RNLI, not lifeboats in general. A change in Independent lifeboats (British Isles) is also needed. Are we sure that "All independent services are funded privately"? I need to check, but I recall mention of grant aid from government and county councils. Lugnad (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have now trimmed the lead, but have not yet removed the refs through fear of damaging them. They only should be in the body of the article.SovalValtos (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To editor SovalValtos: Good editing. Cheers. Tony Holkham (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that User:Tony Holkham I was afraid I had turned your Swan into a bedraggled duckling in need of rescue.SovalValtos (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not so; I hope I can always distinguish between WP:OAS. Sometimes one can get too close for proper perspective and it's useful to be reminded now and then. Tony Holkham (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The lead now reads: "There are numerous other independent rescue services operating in the same area." What about boats of the Coast Guard? They aren't "independent", nor connected with the RNLI. Lugnad (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The line is in there because of the not uncommon misconception that the RNLI is the only lifeboat service. I've replaced the word rescue with lifeboat. Is this sufficient, do you think? Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, that misconception is out there. Should we drop the word "independent"? Lugnad (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ta, very, cheers Lugnad (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charities

[edit]

It is simplistic to say the RNLI is one charity. There are several that are inter-related. See http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/SearchMatchList.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=0&SubsidiaryNumber=0 for four in the UK and in Ireland 2678 R.N.L.I. Lifeboats Ireland (Royal National Lifeboat Institution) Airside Swords Co Dublin www.revenue.ie/en/about/publications/charities . We should always be careful not to allow the somewhat misleading RNLI slogan "The RNLI is the charity that saves lives at sea" to pass without due weight being given to the other charities that do the same. I think the page is OK in that respect at present. SovalValtos (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To editor SovalValtos: You made two points:
  • Charity - there is one main RNLI charity in UK and one in Ireland - in other words, the RNLI is a (one) charity. The others are related, mainly to do with heritage (i.e. not connected with the day-to-day running of the RNLI). I don't think the article needs to explain this in detail, but a note could be added to the heritage section possibly.
  • Slogan - The RNLI does not have one - I asked. They say they do have a "purpose", which is the one in the infobox - to save lives at sea. They express this as "the charity that saves lives at sea", which we know is misleading in the wider search and rescue context, but that's what they say. I have made it clear in Search and rescue that the RNLI is not the only rescue service operating in Britain and Ireland.
Tony Holkham (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funding - Government not mentioned

[edit]

From this article, at this point in time: "The RNLI is principally funded by legacies (65%) and voluntary donations (28%), with the remainder from merchandising and investment."

I'm curious about the source on this. I was curious about government funding specifically, and I found this: "Our lifeboat service receives no UK government funding and less than 2% of the RNLI’s total funding comes from government sources."

The sentence from this article, using the word "remainder" seems to encompass all funding. It doesn't mention government, so it appears to be inconsistent with RNLI's FAQ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orblivion (talk • contribs) 00:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Orblivion: Looking at the RNLI's financial review 2013 (ref 23, page 23), "Lifeguarding and other income" accounts for 2% of the income. I imagine this is what is meant in the ref you quote. Money for lifeguarding (which is mentioned in the article) would come from local government, but what the "other income" is, they don't say. The RNLI is clear that it receives no funding from the UK Government. They may receive money from foreign governments, since they sometimes offer training to foreign rescue services. I guess you could look into this further, but it seems a minor point. Cheers, Tony Holkham (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of CEO salary

[edit]

Heads-up that user User:128.16.14.238‎ wants to include under the Criticism section that the RNLI's CEO has a larger salary than the Prime Minister (difference here). I have reverted twice and left an edit summary and a message on the user's talk page to explain why their edit is not appropriate. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First female crew members

[edit]

It may be of interest to include details about the first ILB and ALB female crew members. The suggested text is below:

"The RNLI accepted it's first female crew member in 1969.

Grace Darling is often misinterpreted as being a member of a lifeboat crew, however she was not. At her father's request, she assisted him to rescue people shipwrecked on one of the Farne Islands where William Darling was a lighthouse keeper.

The introduction of inshore lifeboats into the fleet in the early 1960s was the turning point on a tradition of male only lifeboat crews. Women soon proved there ability to handle these lighter weight inshore craft, and it was just over a decade before women also joined the all-weather lifeboat crews.

Elizabeth Hostvedt was the first female inshore lifeboat crew member to be accepted in 1969.

In 1981, Frances Glody became the first all-weather lifeboat crew member. She was accepted onto the Dunmore East crew on the Waveney class lifeboat St Patrick. Frances had already caused a stir when she was appointed as Pilot Station Master at Dunmore East, taking over from her father upon his retirement. She was following three generations of Glody men who had held the post."

<Hennessy, Sue (2010). Hidden Depths: Women of the RNLI. The History Press. ISBN 9780752454436. Retrieved 30 March 2016>

Rainbowll22 (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Rainbowll22: I think it would be a good idea to mention this in the article, though not perhaps in this much detail. There are some other examples, too. Would you like to add something, or would you like me to? Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony Holkham: Thanks for the quick reply. Happy for you to add something. Rainbowll22 (talk) 12:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to add a Women in the RNLI section - how would you all feel about this? Becky Steeden (talk) - 30.03.2016 12.40pm —Preceding undated comment added 11:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Becky Steeden: To editor Rainbowll22: I see you are both after the same addition. I will add something and we can develop from there. Perhaps we need a new article along the lines of "Lifeboatwomen"... Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Rainbowll22: I have been beaten by User talk:Tony Holkham to supporting your idea. I think it may be easier to add it as a section in the article straightaway where it could then be edited by others, rather than trying to edit it here. Some assertions may need individual citing with page numbers from the book if that is the source being used. Edit conflicts as well. SovalValtos (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We could include in this the first female station manager (got a feeling this was last year in Wales, but can't for the life of me remember which station), and the first all-female crew (in Wales, it was Cardigan Lifeboat Station). What was the station where Elizabeth Hostvedt served? Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Tony Holkham: Brilliant - thanks so much, Tony. I'll go ahead and create a 'Women in the RNLI' section on the main RNLI page and we'll go from there!

Becky Steeden (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've already done that, but feel free to edit as necessary. Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a contradiction in Atlantic College Lifeboat Station regarding the first female crew member. Can anyone at RNLI resolve this? Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Tony Holkham: Thanks Tony. Penelope M Sutton was recorded as the first woman to be involved in an emergency response. Elizabeth Hostvedt was the first woman to be accepted onto a lifeboat crew. More details here <http://historypoints.org/index.php?page=atlantic-college-lifeboat-station> Rainbowll22 (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
historypoints does not look like being a reliable source, being user generated.SovalValtos (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination

[edit]

I nominated this article for GA status last month and it is turning out to be quite a process. For the rationale behind recent changes (some minor, some structural), see Talk:Royal National Lifeboat Institution/GA1. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Royal National Lifeboat Institution. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 17:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Royal National Lifeboat Institution. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 17:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Royal National Lifeboat Institution. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 06:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I have checked all these and found them available on the archive system, they all need updating to live sources when time. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Royal National Lifeboat Institution. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 07:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Royal National Lifeboat Institution. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 14:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism edits (29 Nov 2019)

[edit]

Facebook, Twitter, and probably not even the Daily Mirror are, for Wikipedia, reliable sources. Fair criticism is justified, but needs to be rational and not knee-jerk. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Describe operations before history?

[edit]

It would be nice to have the Operations section before History to give a clear sense upfront of how it actually works (how do volunteer crews of this magnitude receive/respond to calls). Same would go for the lede. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 04:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not against your proposal User:Czar but I think you need to give a fuller explanation of the reasons for your preference. Could you give the text you would prefer in the lead/lede?SovalValtos (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Czar & SV - The lead could be left as it is (it's a reasonable and readable summary of the institution), but sections moved around without causing confusion, as the contents list will always point the reader to whatever interests them most. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, mainly suggesting that those two named sections are swapped and to alter any text accordingly (any sequentially referential language, the lede, etc.) (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 04:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World Wars

[edit]

Emeraude - have you not heard of WP:BRD? "Correct and official UK name"? What does that mean? You should have discussed it here. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that in the UK and the former Empire, the official name of those wars is the First World War and the Second World War. The same is true in most of the European countries that particpated, in their respective languages. World War I and World War II are lazy American usages. Emeraude (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I do not think there is any such thing as 'the official name of those wars' the choice does seem to be a particular touchy point between US and English language adherents and as this is an English article the useages 'First World War and the Second World War' seem reasonable.SovalValtos (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no case made for either, and there is no "official" name as far as I am aware. The BBC, the RNLI and indeed the Imperial War Museum have used either name, and I have never been aware of any "touchiness" across the pond. However, it's not a major issue, so I will be happy to leave it, though I think it is nit-picking. Tony Holkham (Talk) 18:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic 21 Picture

[edit]

Hi, please could someone remove the Atlantic 21 picture, as it is no longer an active lifeboat. Or, at least tell me how you delete it.

Thanks SHANNON13ALB (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you SHANNON13ALB think it should be deleted because 'it is no longer an active lifeboat'? See WP:RECENTISM.SovalValtos (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification wanted - RNLI and Ireland

[edit]

It would be worth someone clarifying whether the present day RNLI operates out of stations around all Ireland or just from Northern Ireland (the remaining British territory on the isle). (I am not Ireland-resident.)Cloptonson (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question answered - the list of RNLI stations shows there are stations on the coast of the Republic. I will make it clear in this page that Ireland in RNLI context does include it.Cloptonson (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Migrant crisis section

[edit]

On the basis that Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNEWS, I wonder if the new section will stand the test of time. Personally I'd like to remove it right now as I think the whole thing is a storm in a teacup, i.e. as today's newspaper it will be tomorrow's fish & chips wrapper. However, in the interests of building consensus, I'd love to hear what others think though. In the whole of the RNLI's history, does this one little incident merit any mention? 10mmsocket (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, 10mmsocket; in the grand scheme of things RNLI, I don't think it is significant, unless it should become more so, for some unknown reason, when it could be reconsidered. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I should say that it very much is a significant event in the charity's history. The RNLI has managed to remain apolitical to the extent - for example - that it is one of the few "British" organisations that survived Irish independence, and still operates in the Republic to this day. Farage attempted to politicise the RNLI's role, and the public response represents a clear rejection of his complaints. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RNLI Medals

[edit]

Maybe some folk think I put down any old rubbish, but I do try to add my contributions with some thought. So with regard to William Henry Tregidgo - when I corrected his name, which had been mis-spelled - I specifically added his location of service as Bude, etc, and not Bude, as he was not RNLI crew, and did not serve at the lifeboat station. More importantly, maybe there should be some explanation that many people who were not RNLI crew have been awarded medals, and I'm also wondering why his occupation has been deleted? MartinOjsyork (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tregidgo is an example of how the lifeboat service has changed over the years. Many of the early boats were provided to a town but there was no regular crew. Reading the records of many early rescues shows that the local coastguard often used the institution's lifeboats to effect rescues.
  • 9 October 1853 - Tregidgo was coxswain of the Bude lifeboat with 3 coastguard and 8 others in the crew
  • 13 March 1858 - Coastguard rescue involving Tregidgo, no lifeboat involved
  • 26 October 1859 - Tregidgo took two boats out but not clear if either was an RNLI lifeboat
  • 18 November 1864 - Tregidgo received the thanks of the RNLI for a service in the Newquay lifeboat
The list on this page is headed Some other lifeboat crew who have received multiple medals include so shouldn't include non-lifeboat crews.
Perhaps we need a note to the effect that medals can be awarded to non-lifeboat crew too. Whatever we do, remember that this section is flagged as having a main article elsewhere, so this is just a taster and the main information should be in that article. Geof Sheppard (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found another ref for Tregidgo, and it does look like Bude lifeboat is correct, but not Newquay. :o)
NB: His name is still wrong on separate Bude page.
I'm sure you will sort something!
best wishes MartinOjsyork (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_National_Lifeboat_Institution&oldid=1222545812"