Talk:Royal Marines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST 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.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject United Kingdom (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team  
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is Uncategorized.

Ranks and insignia[edit]

I think the rank of Officer Cadet needs to be removed under 'Ranks and insignia'. Royal Marine Officers are commissioned on day one (unlike Army Officers) as Second Lieutenants and I don't think any Royal Marines would hold this rank. (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Follow the sources: RM are part of the RN[edit]

Previous discussion see Talk:Royal Marines/Archive 1#"service branch of the British Armed Forces"

@user:Garuda28 with regards to this revert and your comment "Not saying that you are wrong, but before such a massive (and wide reaching) change is made can we discus in talk first?", see Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"#Especially

Never revert a change that you personally believe is a net improvement to the page. If you believe that the change is an improvement, then you should not revert it, even if you are convinced that someone else will object to it. Let those the editors who object to it do their own reverting. ...

and then explain why I should not revert your revert? -- PBS (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems that there is consensus against such a change at Talk:British Armed Forces/Archive 2#The Royal Marines are an arm of the Royal Navy. I could have phrased that better, but my main point is that it appears there is a current consensus against, which requires a new discussion. I didn’t mean to break guidance either, done completely in good faith. If you feel reverting me is appropriate, I can self-revert myself.Garuda28 (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@user:Garuda28. Please see who started the old section to which you link. It is now 3½ years later and "consensus can change" (although I think that the the majority who contributed to the conversation before were of the opinion that the RM is part of the RN). I would prefer it you self-revert. -- PBS (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@user:PBS Already done when I realized that I was incorrect. And I agree with you, it seems that the Royal Marines are an integral part of the Royal Navy. Looking through it I was confused by the Naval Service, and its relationship between the Royal Navy and Royal Marines. Could you explain that difference so I can use it to help reflect that change across RN/RM pages? Garuda28 (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Although there in much repetition in it, I would suggest that you read the very long discussion in the old section to which you linked, then if it is not clear, I will discuss it further. Basically the page on the British Armed Forces used to mimic the US Armed Forces page and list the [British] Royal Marines as a fourth corps like that of the US Marines. The kludge that was introduced to get around that was to introduce the regather legalistic "Naval Service" so that the RM remained in the info-box. However that begs the question why just the RM and not for example the Fleet Air Arm, or using an alternative source the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service? That is a rhetorical question and I am not asking you to reply to it. -- PBS (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@PBS: - You made a bold edit, which, for the most part, you are allowed to do, but Garuda28 can revert you if he feels the edit warrants a discussion. The reason you don't "revert his revert" is because that is called edit-warring and it's not allowed. See WP:BRD. FYI. - theWOLFchild 19:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

  • PBS wrote:

    On Talk:Royal Marines you wrote "you are allowed to do, but Garuda28 can revert you if he feels the edit warrants a discussion" (diff). 1.If one reverts a bold edit one has to have a verified reason for doing so. Did you read what I posted to explain why reverting a bold edit because you think someone else may object to it is considered to be detrimental to the project (Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"#Especially) and see also the wording of WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE "Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus")". 2.I did not revert, I started a section on the talk page pointing out to sections in guidance and I asked was there any reason for not reverting (IE I was following BRD). Reverting a revert under such circumstances in not edit warring. On the other-hand you posting to the article talk page was off topic. If you wished to make such an observation the place to do it was my talk page. "Comment on content, not on the contributor" (WP:TPYES) -- PBS 21:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

PBS - I, like most users, like to keep discussions in one place, so let's keep it here. It's not necessarily "off topic" because depending on your reply, or any additional responses from others, or myself, this may very well relate to the content of this article, so again, best to have this discussion here, instead of having it spread across multiple user talk pages.
From what I saw, Garuda28 didn't just revert you because he "didn't like your edit". He initially believed that it went against an already established consensus. You then pointed out that that from several years ago, and while I didn't realize consensuses had expiry dates, G28 seemed to accept that. Now, how did you guys come to that agreement? By discussion. You also pointed out that "consensus can change". How do a group of editors form a new consensus? By discussion. So that's why I pointed out the validity of G28's revert, because it lead to a discussion. If you had chosen to refuse discussing and instead just reverted again, what would that accomplish? If G28 still felt your edit was incorrect and reverted you again, then What? Do you start discussing then? Or do revert yet again? If you do, the you're well on your way to an edit war. This is why WP:BRD can be useful, even valuable, to resolving disputes and building & maintaining content. That was the point of my first post; to discuss edits, not editors. I'm glad you guys were able to discuss it and work it out. Have a nice day. - theWOLFchild 00:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


What about hazing scandal in 2005? (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


One of the current photographs could be moved within the article. In 3 Formation and structure the section 3.3 Structure of a commando has a photograph of Commando and flag badges on a shoulder of a Multi-Terrain Pattern uniform. This could be moved to 7 Customs and traditions, replacing the image of a green beret and badge. That beret is also visible in the article Uniforms of the Royal Marines. Does it need to be in both? --Dreddmoto (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the photographs with section 7.1 Uniforms. The current image of marine officers with green berets is also used in the Cap badge and Military beret articles. It could be replaced with a photograph showing both beret colours worn by the RM, green as well as navy blue and scarlet. These colours are already mentioned in the text of section 7.1. --Dreddmoto (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't see an image in 3.3 (unless I'm making a mistake, but I agree that variety in visual representation as it pertains to the subject is important. A different image for 7.1 could definitely be warranted if its repeated on another section/article.--Bettydaisies (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Bettydaisies, please disregard the suggestion of 12 October 2020. It has since been done.

Regarding an image for 7.1, there are some possibilities. That part mentions the green Lovat uniform with the two beret colours, as well as the dark blue ceremonial uniform. There are some photographs that show both berets together , as well as both cuts of dark blue uniform, here,_London_2006_(295199765).jpg and What do you think of using one of those three images? --Dreddmoto (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Formation and structure[edit]

in the Formation and structure section the attached picture ( doesn't match the structure listed in the article. Is one or the other out-of-date, or does some additional clarification need to be added? (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)