Talk:Royal Army

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

Redirect[edit]

Should this not redirect to the Royal Albanian Army article, with a {{youmay}} leading the the British Army? I mainly suggest this since the British Army isn't actually called the "Royal Army". (It may be known as that by some, but it doesn't change the fct they're incorrect.) --Jasca Ducato (talk) 12:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This should be redirected to Royal Netherlands Army in my opinion. It is the only contemporary 'Royal Army' in existence. Rob (talk | contribs) 11:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there's tones. Best to keep disambigtated. Rob (talk | contribs) 11:28, 21 September 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: Moved to Royal Army. No such user (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Royal Army (disambiguation) → Royal Army – Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and {{Globalize}}, there is no WP:primary topic. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. AFAIK, the Royal Army of Oman is the only army referred to in English as "Royal Army". For example:
Please provide sources that other entities are referred to as "Royal Army" in English, otherwise they will be removed from this page. If all entries are removed, the page will be deleted. It needs to be demonstrated that the term is ambiguous and needs disambiguating.
I redirected "Royal Army" to Royal Army of Oman because it was the only entry I could find sources of. I'm English and have no connection with Oman.
Rob984 (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, by your argument, should Royal Army of Oman be moved to Royal Army, per WP:CONCISE? Wbm1058 (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another observation, we have: Royal Navy, Royal Marines and Royal Air Force all being primary topic for the UK, but because their army is called British Army, that "frees up" this name.
How do you justify giving primary topic status to Royal Army of Oman, outside of Oman itself, given:
Find me a "Guide to the Armies of the World" that refers to "Royal Army" and this is universally and unambiguously understood to mean Oman. – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Royal Moroccan Army, officially the Royal Army (Arabic: الجيش الملكي... Wbm1058 (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Royal Danish Army ≠ Royal Army. That is a partial title match. Partial title matches should not be included on disambiguation pages per WP:DAB.
Do not use articles from Wikipedia as sources. See WP:CIRCULAR.
Rob984 (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And no, Royal Army of Oman is more appropriate per WP:CRITERIA. See WP:PRECISE. Although the primary topic, "Royal Army" does not "unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects". Rob984 (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, and the most common usage of "Royal Army" in English is as a misnomer for the British Army. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please demonstrate that with reliable sources. Rob984 (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is likely to be confusing for some foreigners when there are books titled:
  • The Royal Army Chaplains' Department, 1796-1953
  • History of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, 1920-1945
  • The history of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps
  • Standing Orders for the Royal Army Medical Corps,
The first two pages of a Google book search on "Royal Army" have many such titles (and while I know why there are titled that way I think it is confusing). I also think it is also notable that such a Google Book search puts up a hatnote advert to a British Army: Join the Army page. -- PBS (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The first result returned for a Google search on "Royal Army" is the British Army website. That's not an accident. And many ancillary groups associated with the British Army are called "Royal Army FOO" or something similar. For non-Brits, the confusion is natural, regardless of whether it is as considered incorrect -- the point of a disambiguation page is not to correct great wrongs, but to help readers find what they are looking for, even if they may be understandably confused. As for partial title matches, a case could be made for making this into a broad concept article to introduce the many variant types of royalist armies. older ≠ wiser 16:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Any English language source about a royal army is likely to use the unqualified version if the context makes it clear for example how about Richard Symonds's Diary of the Marches of the Royal Army(referring to the English Civil War Royal Army); or A Military History of Italy by Ciro Paoletti, [1] "now the Regio Esercito, the Royal Army". These are just two of many to be found with a Google Book search of "Royal Army". So I think it better that the page is a dab page as I do not see any of the being the primary topic. -- PBS (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. There are several Royal Armies and the Royal Army of Oman is usually referred to as such. -- Necrothesp (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral WP:PTM and WP:DIFFCAPS seem to suggest an oppose Red Slash 03:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for two reasons. First, while this certainly looks like a big WP:PTM violation, numerous of those entries aren't so, because they satisfy the condition that the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context—regardless of the article's title. Secondly, a Google Books search for "Royal Army" doesn't seem to bring up Oman in the first three pages. The assumption of primary topic is practically void. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - No clear primary topic in English. - 13:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
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.

P.S. I've just disambiguated ~40 incoming links; of those, ~35 were intended for the British Army and the rest for the Spanish (or maybe Spanish Royal Navy?). No such user (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Partial title matches[edit]

AFAIK, these entries are partial title matches and should be removed per WP:PTM:

Any objections?
Rob984 (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- PBS (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would certainly expect to see those listed per PTM Red Slash 07:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_Army&oldid=1205120650"