From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ships (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. WikiProject icon
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated Stub-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.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality assessment scale.

origin of term[edit]

The explanation here for the origin of the term "wardroom" is not in accordance with authoritative sources such as the Oxford English Dictionary. It is in fact simply cognate to "guardroom" (the gu/w shift in French/Germanic versions of words being very common, cf. guard vs. warder). I recommend that the article be changed to remove the folk etymology.


'Prior to jet airliners, it was the US Navy that was charged with transporting our Presidents and diplomats to foreign shores as well as providing the entertaining facilities for these dignitaries aboard their ships.

In the very early 20th Century and up until WWII the dining rooms and salons found in the US Navy's Flag Ships were second to none to any European Castle or Palace! '

Err, isn't this rather US-centric? Not to mention not terribly encyclopaedic.

+ The whole article appears rather US-centric: It's almost entirely about the US navy, it refers to 'our' president, and the sentence discussing the luxury of early 20th C ward rooms sounds very unprofessional. I am editing now. 22:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I attacked the last paragraph today, trying to make it more neutral but restoring the discussion of luxury. does this adequatly address these concerns? --john.james (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

How is this article U.S.-centric? For example, I know the U.S. Navy has wardrooms, but last I heard they don't have "sub-lieutenants." They also don't have gunrooms. And Warrant Officers are officers, not enlisted. (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

chain of command in wardroom[edit]

I just wanted to ask how can it be that subordinates are not allowed in the wardroom? As the entire crew, except the captain, is subordinate to the executive officer doesn't that mean that the executive officer would be alone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd imagine that subordinate in this context only extends to the enlisted men on board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think "meeting with subordinates" has to be interpreted in the context of "not performing work" in the wardroom, that is it means more "no meetings with subordinates related to work", than "no meeting subordinates at all". --AJim (talk) 02:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Answer - All officers are allowed in the wardroom but it is mostly for meetings, briefs, and meals. Enlisted are allowed in if they are food service attendants (cranks), Culinary Specialists assigned to the WR, or enlisted brought in to support briefs or as needed. Usually, it is officers only as defined by O-country rules. - Active Duty PO2, USN — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Shockingly Out Of Date[edit]

Warrant Officers in the Royal Navy are not members of the Wardroom, they are the highest of the Senior Rates, and therefore mess there. Further, unless otherwise directed Royal Navy Officers are able to drink alcohol regularly at sea, outside of Defence Watches. (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)