Talk:Royal Scots Navy

Military history: Maritime / British / European / Medieval B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Medieval Scotland Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medieval Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Medieval Scotland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Medieval ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandMedieval Scotland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text

99% of the text is a cut and paste from an e-book "The Old Scots Navy" ed. by James Grant, 1913/1914. --Billreid 09:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean "The Old Scots Navy from 1689 to 1710 Edited by James Grant (1914)" I am puzzled. Are there other volumes for earlier history? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the earlier history is in the general introduction to this book. --Billreid 13:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it is ! That's plagiarism rather than copyright violation I think. Grant's book was reprinted by the Adamant Media Corporation in 2005. Navy Records Society reprints are by Ashgate and others. Adamant seem to be republishers of public domain works, so I presume, but cannot prove, that The Old Scots Navy has been in the public domain in the US since 2005 anyway. Not that out and out plagiarism is a good thing, the article should be rewritten to avoid that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right! I'll try a rewording and get my hands on some other stuff. --Billreid 16:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Enjoying Kim Traynor's image contribs, but just a point re the model at Ocean Terminal veracity, an anchor hanging from the bowsprit, rather than off the side of the foc'sle?? Brendandh (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

I have tagged the article for OR. The extensive use of state papers looks like it moves outside of secondary research. I am also unconvinved if quite this level of detail is needed for this topic.--SabreBD (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the OR tag, reasons being that those citations are generally out there in the ether, and there is a bibliography of secondary sources presented, if a statement is considered an opinion, by all means tag that statement. As far as the over detail goes, one only has to look at the Austro-Hungarian Navy or the Spanish Republican Navy and the rest.Brendandh (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but that detail is relevant. I remain unconvinced that a lot of the detail here has much to do with the topic.--SabreBD (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea what this ship could be?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/a-scottish-warship-106183

Dates from 1650 or so.©Geni 02:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it really is one of the Darien scheme ships, as the link claims, then it has to be the Saint Andrew, the Caledonia, the Unicorn, the Dolphin, or the Endeavour. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Royal Scots Navy"

The name "Royal Scots Navy" seems to have been decided on mostly by personal choice. Google searches give you more hits even for "Scottish navy"[1] than "Royal Scots Navy".[2] On Google Books, it's almost non-existent[3] and "Scottish navy"[4] is far more common, but "Old Scots Navy"[5] actually dominates.

Question is, why try to give the impression of an "official" name for a navy that appears never to have had one? What's wrong with just "Scottish navy" with a lower case "navy". Either way, "Royal Scots Navy" is clearly not a relevant name.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page was moved from Old Scots Navy in 2005 by @Mais oui!:. I do not know why you only have 3 results on Google books as my search gets 7 published books at [6]. The reason Old Scots Navy turns up so much is because of the same pamphlet, which was for many years the only work on the topic, and is always referenced, but it is very out of date. You also have to exclude all the references to a modern "Scottish navy" which was considered around possible independence. That is not the same thing as the historic royal navy. Also consider that the Royal Scots Navy is different from an article about say Naval warfare in Scotland, it is about a specific (frequently refounded) institution. One more thing, if you are looking for a name change you have used the wrong template. The one you have used is for bias in the article. No doubt other editors will comment.--SabreBD (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for discussion before I suggest a name change, and I do believe it's about selective use of sources. So I'd say that {{undue}} is the least inappropriate tag at least.

I'm hihgly skeptical to "Royal Scots Navy" (especially the "Royal" part since it just seems to be an attempt to ape the Royal Navy). Whether there is a discussion online modern Scottish navy or not, we don't have an article about it. Neither do we have an article for the "Navy Royal" (common name before it was standardized) that is distinct from the Royal Navy. We do have history of the Royal Navy, though. And if this is a purely historical article about an early modern navy, trying to decide a "correct" name for it is extremely misleading since official, standardized designations didn't exist at that time.

What really vexes me is why "Scots" is used at all. Because the neutral adjective relating Scotland in modern English is "Scottish", right?

Peter ^Isotalo 21:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like you do not need a tag at all, let alone this inappropriate one, and we could just have had the discussion. You should also be aware that the term Scots was commonly used interchangeably, and even in preference to, Scottish until the late twentieth century.--SabreBD (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Removed the tag for now.

Either way, the choice of article name seems rather arbitrary. Navies at that time didn't have "official" names, let alone anything standardized. It seems more appropriate that it should be at either history of the Scottish navy or Scottish navy because that's a neutral, descriptive title. I understand that "Scots" and "Scottish" have been used interchangeably, but the latter is by far the most common, neutral, modern adjective about anything related to Scotland.

Or it should be moved to what's actually used most commonly in the available literature. "Royal Scots Navy" doesn't seem to fit either criteria.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have no strong feelings on the name, mainly because there is a lack of clear evidence of a name. It is certainly true that at the time, it would not have a clear name. The questions is probably: "what to reliable sources call it now?". I will contact Mais oui! and see what they based the move on.--SabreBD (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Royal Scots Navy" in capitals is a proper name that clearly implies there was an official body of that name, something that appears to be in doubt. Unless authoritative sources use this title across the whole period covered by the article, I tend to agree with Peter Isotalo that we should use History of the Scottish navy or Scottish navy. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red Ensign

Is there any evidence that Scottish naval vessels actually flew the red ensign depicted? Or is this just romantic fiction? --Bermicourt (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[7]

Brendandh (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Royal Scots 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060510010157/http://www.mallaigheritage.org.uk/exhibit/galleys.htm to http://www.mallaigheritage.org.uk/exhibit/galleys.htm

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) 13:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]