1517:"Royal Navy", Royal Navy!, Royal Navy!! im afraid the Royal Navys official name is the Royal Navy. Considering the fact this is the English Knowledge (XXG) it should stay as it is. 2.5 billion people live in the commonwealth of nations and they arguably make up the majority of the worlds English speaking population, therefore Royal Navy refers to the UK. In Canada its the Royal Canadian Navy, and i've rarely heard an American who uses the term "British Navy". Also, as one of the worlds prominent naval forces, the Royal Navy takes natural priority due to its status.
888:. The name is not ambiguous except to the extent that other nations use 'Royal' alongside their national identifier. You are trying to push an invented name on wikipedia on the grounds that you call it the 'British Navy'. This is not a question of ambiguity, nor of British versus American English (and it's hard to see why even if it was, that American English should take precedence here). Against the guidelines
473:
469:
1203:
though you need to be prepared to see it fail. Appeals to non-existent naming conventions and claims of bias because people here also edit
British-related topics will be given short shrift there, as indeed they are being given here. Feel free to raise the issue there though if you seriously feel that you can sustain a charge of bias instead of a mere wild accusation.
39:
21:
1202:
the title should be
British Navy, the user appears to be completely unaware of the history and nomenclature of these organisations, I don't think there is any more in the way of useful dialogue to be had here. No, I have no desire to take you to ANI purpleback pack, you are welcome to propose a move,
205:
Look at the number of different navies on the disambiguation page. Seems highly debateable that most people who type in "Royal Navy" are looking for the
British one; they could be looking for the Dutch one, the Canadian one, or any number of other current or historical ones (traffic stats are skewed
1359:
move. I'm sorry but there is no rational reason for moving it. The other navies of the world that do use the prefix 'Royal' also use additional information, e.g. Canadian, precisely because the Royal Navy is universally understood to be the
British naval force. If one looks at other European navies
393:
use this
Knowledge (XXG) too. And considering that Canada's navy is called the "Royal Canadian Navy", if they hear the phrase "Royal Navy", I think it'd be wrong to assume that all Canadians automatically think of the British one instead of their own. If you're going historical importance, a lot
1254:
Purple, I appreciate your efforts to argue in favor of this move in terms of reasonable arguments based on policy, guidelines and conventions. However, let's be clear about a few things. Most every other country's navy does not have a common and natural name, so we use natural disambiguation for
958:
Benea, I am well within my rights to propose a move eighteen months after the last one. If you feel agreeved or that I am violating policy in any way, take it to AN, where I will probably make the counter argument that the current title is ambiguous, non-globalized, and a violation of naming
1476:
Your book search turns up a handful of minor works on military history, mainly published in
America, hammering home the non-standard, eccentric use. So I'd say it's an affectation all right, but apparently not just limited to this Knowledge (XXG) talk page, since it also seems to have crept
560:
it would be true that "Royal Navy" in daily parlance would mean anything other than the
British one (which I don't believe), the "Royal Navy" should be moved to "Royal Navy (Great Britain)". It has never been called the "British Royal Navy" (or the "Royal British Navy"), like the
1491:
It's also probably the case that few of those reference actually use it as the actual name, but rather in the same form as "German
Luftwaffe," i.e. an indication for those who might not know the Luftwaffe was/is the German air force, or the Royal Navy the British navy, etc.
896:
you have come up with nothing but assertions that anyone who doesn't fall into line with your reasoning is pushing a POV or 'inuendo' (whatever that means). Your extremely weak arguments have been repeatedly demolished. Simply repeating them is a waste of everybody's time.
525:... and now that I've looked at your links again with another browser I see that you weren't searching for the phrase "British Navy", but for the two words separately. If you want to use Google to look for a phrase, you need to enclose the phrase in in quote marks. -
727:
685:
though I think that Royal Navy in
English usually refers to the British one, I think a disambiguation page should be primary in all cases needing disambiguation. "British Royal Navy" is good, since the ships of that navy have been referred to as HBMS
209:
Outside of the commonwealth, what the Brits call the "Royal Navy" is most often referred to as the "British Navy" or the "British Royal Navy". Since most of the world is outside the commonwealth, the current title doesn't take a global
731:
723:
787:
confirms that "royal navy" refers primarily to the
British navy, occasionally to the Australian navy. We should change the name for the benefit of those looking for information about the Dutch navy? That's...an interesting POV.
586:
the Royal Navy is the common name in English for the Royal Navy of the United Kingdom which is why the others add the country name as already been described above. None of the others are refered to as the Royal Navy in English.
1281:. Frivolous and biased proposal seeking to change the actual official name to a misleading descriptive. Only one other naval force uses the form "Royal Navy," but has the suffix "of Oman," so there is no conflict or confusion.
1255:
the titles of those articles. Now, there are a few countries whose navy is called the Royal Navy, but among those clearly the British one is the primary topic. So the others need to be disambiguated, but not this one.
1169:
Why? Another editor has supported it, and many of the editors involved may be non-neutral. Regardless of the reasons why it doesn't, the fact remains that the title violates the general naming conventions of the topic
1327:
How can calling something by its official name - which no other entity shares, and by which it is known and recognised globally - be "ambiguous"? Your proposal is about as valid as a pedantic request to move
757:
There is only one "Royal Navy". There is no tradition in English (or in Norwegian for that matter) for labelling navies other than the British "the Royal Navy", there's always a qualifier in there. Royal
959:
conventions; as well as that the vote is skewed b/c a disproportionate number of people !voting are heavily involved in British or British Navy-related articles. Your choice if you want an AN fight
1437:
the global usage. I've never heard of "British Royal Navy". It's a made-up composite term, but the word order isn't even consistent with usage in other navies. Political correctness gone mad.
1217:
The British Army doesn't have Royal as a prefix, only individual regiments can gain that honour. It's not comparable to the Royal Navy which always had that name (well except during the
377:
perspective. There are over a quarter billion English speakers not in the Commonwealth, and where most of them come from (i.e. the United States), the Navy is referred to as the
1094:
We already have that problem for articles on anything that have changed names. The article uses the modern name, but the historical name for the subject is frequently different.
358:. Take 100 Wikipedians and ask what they think of when they hear "Royal Navy". Will very many of them mention anything other than he British one? I think not.
1377:
I don't think it should be moved as I fail to see any problem with the way it is and for the above reasons. I think it's safe to say this motion has failed.
1360:
even they tend to use the additional information, which renders the need for a name change even more obsolete. Stop tinkering about with this is my feeling.
1257:
Therefore it is not a violation of conventions, or an inconsistency, to leave this article where it is. To the contrary, the current title is exactly what
65:
1299:
How the heck is it "frivolous and biased"? The current title violates naming conventions and is ambiguous, to say nothing of being far too Brit-centric
1121:
is because the current title violates naming conventions. Every other country's navy is navy; this isn't. Also, the article on Britain's army is the
394:
of other countries had Royal Navies too. Your arguments have no factual evidence to support primary topic; just POV pushing and inuendo. Just because
248:
For people interested in reading naval history IN ENGLISH, there is only one Royal Navy. Let the Dutch version of Knowledge (XXG) handle it their way.
1559:
1155:
No it is not logical the Royal Navy doesnt have a bit as has been explained above a number of times, perhaps it is time to WP:SNOW this request.
61:
46:
26:
106:, would it not be worthwhile having them link back to this page with the standard (or edited version of) the disambig text on all of them?
1455:
1095:
735:
691:
783:, the first page of results is almost entirely about the British navy. The top non-British result is No. 9, the Australian navy site.
844:
English we call that navy the British Navy. In other countries, those countries' navies is the "Royal Navy", it's totally ambiguous
1017:
872:
Do you presume to speak for the entire American nation? Now who is pushing a point of view. In the Netherlands, their navy is the
468:
Jensen, look at this page...there are a lot of other Royal Navies. And Biddulph, if "Royal Navy" is the preferred term, how come
1067:
existed. So British Royal Navy would be a revisionist name for historical articles about topics dealing with the pre-1707 navy.
1416:
1238:
1084:
1045:
948:
1452:
385:. If you take 100 American Wikipedians and as them, "what do you call Great Britian's navy?", the majority (probably the
818:. This is the English Knowledge (XXG) and should reflect the ordinary usage of words and names in the English language.
1544:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
877:
157:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
182:
51:
1302:
1173:
1128:
962:
847:
637:
478:
401:
328:
269:
219:
1333:
1005:
302:
1024:
could also apply for the monicker United States Navy given that reasoning. Germany is presently a federation of
893:
613:
1365:
530:
516:
457:
359:
508:
1459:
1099:
739:
695:
1312:
1218:
1183:
1138:
972:
857:
647:
574:
504:
488:
445:
411:
338:
325:
OK, reference a move proposal that's a year old, and where the reasons were mostly POV and inuendo...gotcha
279:
229:
997:
889:
928:
1497:
1341:
1307:
1286:
1178:
1160:
1133:
967:
852:
642:
592:
566:
483:
406:
333:
274:
224:
881:
1522:
1266:
802:
And that Australian site doesn't use the term "Royal Navy" to refer to the "Royal Australian Navy";
667:
621:
784:
1361:
823:
767:
713:
605:
562:
526:
512:
453:
301:
move. For the reasons argued out the last time this was proposed (and overwhelmingly rejected!) at
129:
1060:
1001:
793:
570:
306:
195:
171:
1482:
1442:
780:
433:
253:
1396:
1493:
1337:
1282:
1156:
1021:
588:
1518:
1382:
1262:
1208:
902:
663:
617:
314:
121:
107:
1535:
1258:
148:
1526:
1501:
1486:
1463:
1446:
1421:
1386:
1369:
1345:
1322:
1290:
1270:
1243:
1212:
1193:
1164:
1148:
1103:
1089:
1050:
982:
953:
906:
867:
827:
797:
771:
743:
717:
699:
671:
657:
625:
596:
578:
534:
520:
498:
461:
437:
421:
362:
348:
318:
289:
257:
239:
175:
133:
110:
1400:
1222:
1068:
1064:
1029:
1009:
932:
819:
763:
709:
305:. I will also add simply that for the majority of its history, the Royal Navy has been
125:
1553:
789:
167:
1478:
1451:
It's not an affectation of Knowledge (XXG), you can find it in the world at large:
1438:
1329:
1199:
1122:
429:
249:
884:. I could go on. In Britain, and the rest of the world, the official name is the
803:
428:
global perspective--ok, there is only one Royal Navy active in global history.
206:
because everybody who types in Royal Navy gets the British one, like it or not)
1378:
1204:
898:
815:
609:
310:
191:
186:
117:
398:
think British Navy when you hear "Royal Navy" doesn't mean everybody does.
1336:
on the grounds that there are other (far less well known) Central Parks.
373:
Whoop, have you any evidence for that? Also, Jensen, we need to have a
924:
873:
266:
Erm, most people who speak English don't live in England...see below
38:
20:
1477:
undetected into a few other slightly amateurish sources as well.
1125:; it would logically follow that this should be the British Navy
389:) majority would say the British Navy. You seem to forget that
885:
124:
battle seams to rear its ugly head every couple of months. --
814:. In the English-speaking world, the Royal Navy means the
448:, how many of the hits are from other than the RN? Hence
882:
Royal Swedish Navy (when it is not just the Swedish Navy)
511:
gets 1 320 000. Thank you for emphasising the point. -
147:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
762:
Navy, not Royal Navy (Norway) or Norwegian Royal Navy.
612:
to refer to the topic of this article. Epitome. Of.
56:
54:
pages on Knowledge (XXG). If you wish to help, you can
64:, where you can join the project or contribute to the
1534:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
806:
uses the two terms to distinguish one from the other.
102:
Whilst not all of the articles listed here are named
309:(also incorporating the Welsh), and not British.
44:This disambiguation page is within the scope of
734:, ... (period -- 1776 through til around 1930)
213:See also below comment about naming conventions
836:Um, remember that a lot of people don't speak
1117:Another reason to add for why this should be
1059:Also the Royal Navy once was the navy of the
8:
50:, an attempt to structure and organize all
503:Your links above don't work for me, but a
74:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Disambiguation
15:
634:See my argument about naming conventions
60:attached to this talk page, or visit the
1198:As by his comment that since there is a
1000:applies strongly. What's next, renaming
303:Talk:Royal Navy/Archive 4#Requested move
17:
116:Good idea, especially since since the
1016:(the Dutch parliament is still named
7:
162:The result of the move request was:
77:Template:WikiProject Disambiguation
14:
1560:WikiProject Disambiguation pages
1014:United States of the Netherlands
37:
19:
728:chapter on the Sandwich Islands
911:Well the Dutch navy is called
507:gets 12 000 000 hits, and for
505:Google search for "Royal Navy"
446:Google search for "Royal Navy"
1:
1527:16:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
1502:22:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
1487:17:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
1464:11:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
1447:10:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
1422:13:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
1387:11:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
1370:23:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
1346:17:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
1334:Central Park (New York City)
1323:16:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
1291:12:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
1271:21:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
1261:suggests for this case. --
1244:12:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
1213:22:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
1194:22:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
1165:22:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
1149:22:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
1104:12:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
1090:19:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
1051:19:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
983:22:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
954:21:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
927:, instead they use the name
919:but they don't use the name
915:which exactly translates as
907:20:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
868:18:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
828:22:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
798:10:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
772:09:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
744:11:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
718:22:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
700:04:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
688:His Britannic Majesty's Ship
672:21:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
658:22:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
626:21:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
597:21:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
579:21:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
535:15:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
521:15:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
499:15:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
470:British Navy gets 13.9M hits
462:20:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
438:21:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
422:20:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
363:20:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
349:20:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
319:19:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
290:20:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
258:20:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
240:18:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
201:– Two big reasons for this:
176:18:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
134:03:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
111:17:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
1006:American United States Navy
604:Even the article about the
183:Royal Navy (disambiguation)
1576:
708:HBMS? Really? Where/when?
662:See my reply below it. --
474:Royal Navy only gets 9.8M?
47:WikiProject Disambiguation
32:
1541:Please do not modify it.
925:English language website
154:Please do not modify it.
1219:Commonwealth of England
876:. In Norway, it is the
781:"Royal Navy" -wikipedia
80:Disambiguation articles
929:Royal Netherlands Navy
880:. In Sweden it is the
874:Royal Netherlands Navy
1012:was technically the
567:Royal Australian Navy
381:. I've seen this in
1453:(Google Book search)
878:Royal Norwegian Navy
606:Royal Canadian Navy
563:Royal Canadian Navy
360:Whoop whoop pull up
1061:Kingdom of England
1002:United States Navy
923:on their official
913:Koninklijke Marine
196:British Royal Navy
92:
91:
88:
87:
1567:
1543:
1319:
1315:
1310:
1305:
1190:
1186:
1181:
1176:
1145:
1141:
1136:
1131:
1028:, Belgium also.
979:
975:
970:
965:
864:
860:
855:
850:
779:. If you Google
654:
650:
645:
640:
495:
491:
486:
481:
418:
414:
409:
404:
345:
341:
336:
331:
286:
282:
277:
272:
236:
232:
227:
222:
156:
82:
81:
78:
75:
72:
59:
41:
34:
33:
23:
16:
1575:
1574:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1539:
1420:
1412:
1406:
1317:
1313:
1308:
1303:
1242:
1234:
1228:
1188:
1184:
1179:
1174:
1143:
1139:
1134:
1129:
1088:
1080:
1074:
1049:
1041:
1035:
977:
973:
968:
963:
952:
944:
938:
894:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
862:
858:
853:
848:
785:Google Insights
730:, this book on
652:
648:
643:
638:
614:Primary. Topic
493:
489:
484:
479:
416:
412:
407:
402:
343:
339:
334:
329:
284:
280:
275:
270:
234:
230:
225:
220:
152:
142:
122:Royal Navy (UK)
100:
79:
76:
73:
70:
69:
55:
12:
11:
5:
1573:
1571:
1563:
1562:
1552:
1551:
1547:
1546:
1536:requested move
1530:
1529:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1414:
1410:
1404:
1390:
1389:
1372:
1362:Lucius Winslow
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1294:
1293:
1275:
1274:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1236:
1232:
1226:
1152:
1151:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1082:
1078:
1072:
1065:United Kingdom
1054:
1053:
1043:
1039:
1033:
1020:) so then the
1018:States-General
1010:Dutch Republic
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
956:
946:
942:
936:
909:
831:
830:
809:
808:
807:
774:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
703:
702:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
629:
628:
599:
581:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
527:David Biddulph
523:
513:David Biddulph
509:"British Navy"
454:David Biddulph
444:When you do a
442:
441:
440:
366:
365:
352:
351:
322:
321:
295:
294:
293:
292:
261:
260:
215:
214:
211:
207:
199:
198:
189:
179:
160:
159:
149:requested move
143:
141:
140:Requested move
138:
137:
136:
99:
96:
94:
90:
89:
86:
85:
83:
71:Disambiguation
52:disambiguation
42:
30:
29:
27:Disambiguation
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1572:
1561:
1558:
1557:
1555:
1545:
1542:
1537:
1532:
1531:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1513:
1512:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1456:70.24.251.158
1454:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1433:"Royal Navy"
1432:
1429:
1428:
1423:
1418:
1413:
1409:
1403:
1398:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1373:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1358:
1355:
1354:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1321:
1320:
1316:
1311:
1306:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1277:
1276:
1273:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1253:
1245:
1240:
1235:
1231:
1225:
1220:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1201:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1192:
1191:
1187:
1182:
1177:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1153:
1150:
1147:
1146:
1142:
1137:
1132:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1113:
1112:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1096:70.24.251.158
1093:
1092:
1091:
1086:
1081:
1077:
1071:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1052:
1047:
1042:
1038:
1032:
1027:
1026:United States
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
998:WP:COMMONNAME
995:
992:
991:
984:
981:
980:
976:
971:
966:
957:
955:
950:
945:
941:
935:
930:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
908:
904:
900:
895:
891:
890:WP:COMMONNAME
887:
883:
879:
875:
871:
870:
869:
866:
865:
861:
856:
851:
843:
839:
835:
834:
833:
832:
829:
825:
821:
817:
813:
810:
805:
801:
800:
799:
795:
791:
786:
782:
778:
775:
773:
769:
765:
761:
756:
753:
752:
745:
741:
737:
736:70.24.251.158
733:
729:
725:
721:
720:
719:
715:
711:
707:
706:
705:
704:
701:
697:
693:
692:70.24.251.158
689:
684:
681:
680:
673:
669:
665:
661:
660:
659:
656:
655:
651:
646:
641:
633:
632:
631:
630:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
600:
598:
594:
590:
585:
582:
580:
576:
572:
571:HandsomeFella
568:
564:
559:
555:
552:
551:
536:
532:
528:
524:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
501:
500:
497:
496:
492:
487:
482:
475:
471:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
459:
455:
451:
450:Strong oppose
447:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
420:
419:
415:
410:
405:
397:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
364:
361:
357:
354:
353:
350:
347:
346:
342:
337:
332:
324:
323:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
297:
296:
291:
288:
287:
283:
278:
273:
265:
264:
263:
262:
259:
255:
251:
247:
244:
243:
242:
241:
238:
237:
233:
228:
223:
212:
208:
204:
203:
202:
197:
193:
190:
188:
184:
181:
180:
178:
177:
173:
169:
165:
158:
155:
150:
145:
144:
139:
135:
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
114:
113:
112:
109:
105:
97:
95:
84:
67:
63:
58:
57:edit the page
53:
49:
48:
43:
40:
36:
35:
31:
28:
25:
22:
18:
1540:
1533:
1514:
1434:
1430:
1407:
1401:
1379:G.R. Allison
1374:
1356:
1330:Central Park
1301:
1300:
1278:
1256:
1229:
1223:
1200:British Army
1172:
1171:
1127:
1126:
1123:British Army
1119:British Navy
1118:
1114:
1075:
1069:
1036:
1030:
1025:
1013:
993:
961:
960:
939:
933:
920:
916:
912:
846:
845:
841:
840:English; in
837:
811:
776:
759:
754:
724:USN document
687:
682:
636:
635:
601:
583:
557:
553:
477:
476:
449:
400:
399:
395:
390:
386:
382:
379:British Navy
378:
374:
355:
327:
326:
298:
268:
267:
245:
218:
217:
216:
200:
163:
161:
153:
146:
103:
101:
98:Links to all
93:
62:project page
45:
1494:Nick Cooper
1338:Nick Cooper
1283:Nick Cooper
1157:MilborneOne
1063:before the
589:MilborneOne
210:perspective
1519:Lawardsday
1304:Purpleback
1263:Born2cycle
1175:Purpleback
1130:Purpleback
1022:Dutch navy
964:Purpleback
921:Royal Navy
917:Royal Navy
886:Royal Navy
849:Purpleback
816:Royal Navy
732:steamships
722:Like this
690:at times.
664:Born2cycle
639:Purpleback
618:Born2cycle
610:Royal Navy
480:Purpleback
403:Purpleback
330:Purpleback
271:Purpleback
221:Purpleback
192:Royal Navy
187:Royal Navy
118:Royal Navy
108:JonEastham
104:Royal Navy
66:discussion
764:Manxruler
760:Norwegian
391:Americans
383:textbooks
164:not moved
126:Kralizec!
1554:Category
1417:contribs
1239:contribs
1115:Comment:
1085:contribs
1046:contribs
949:contribs
842:American
804:the site
790:Kauffner
168:Favonian
1515:Oppose:
1479:Lachrie
1439:Lachrie
1397:WP:SNOW
838:British
726:, this
683:Support
565:or the
430:Rjensen
307:English
250:Rjensen
1431:Oppose
1375:Oppose
1357:Oppose
1279:Oppose
1008:? The
994:Oppose
812:Oppose
777:Oppose
755:Oppose
602:Oppose
584:Oppose
554:Oppose
375:global
356:Oppose
299:Oppose
246:Oppose
1395:Just
1259:WP:AT
1205:Benea
899:Benea
820:David
710:David
616:. --
608:uses
311:Benea
1523:talk
1498:talk
1483:talk
1460:talk
1443:talk
1405:peak
1399:it.
1383:talk
1366:talk
1342:talk
1318:≈≈≈≈
1309:pack
1287:talk
1267:talk
1227:peak
1209:talk
1189:≈≈≈≈
1180:pack
1161:talk
1144:≈≈≈≈
1135:pack
1100:talk
1073:peak
1034:peak
978:≈≈≈≈
969:pack
937:peak
903:talk
892:and
863:≈≈≈≈
854:pack
824:talk
794:talk
768:talk
740:talk
714:talk
696:talk
668:talk
653:≈≈≈≈
644:pack
622:talk
593:talk
575:talk
531:talk
517:talk
494:≈≈≈≈
485:pack
472:and
458:talk
452:. -
434:talk
417:≈≈≈≈
408:pack
387:vast
344:≈≈≈≈
335:pack
315:talk
285:≈≈≈≈
276:pack
254:talk
235:≈≈≈≈
226:pack
172:talk
130:talk
1538:.
1411:ree
1332:to
1233:ree
1221:).
1079:ree
1040:ree
1004:to
943:ree
396:you
1556::
1525:)
1500:)
1485:)
1462:)
1445:)
1435:is
1385:)
1368:)
1344:)
1314:89
1289:)
1269:)
1211:)
1185:89
1163:)
1140:89
1102:)
996:.
974:89
931:.
905:)
859:89
826:)
796:)
770:)
742:)
716:)
698:)
670:)
649:89
624:)
595:)
577:)
569:.
558:If
556:.
533:)
519:)
490:89
460:)
436:)
413:89
340:89
317:)
281:89
256:)
231:89
194:→
185:→
174:)
166:.
151:.
132:)
120:→
1521:(
1496:(
1481:(
1458:(
1441:(
1419:)
1415:(
1408:F
1402:S
1381:(
1364:(
1340:(
1285:(
1265:(
1241:)
1237:(
1230:F
1224:S
1207:(
1159:(
1098:(
1087:)
1083:(
1076:F
1070:S
1048:)
1044:(
1037:F
1031:S
951:)
947:(
940:F
934:S
901:(
822:(
792:(
766:(
738:(
712:(
694:(
666:(
620:(
591:(
573:(
529:(
515:(
456:(
432:(
313:(
252:(
170:(
128:(
68:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
