In regards to a small edit-war going on between an anon. user and user Gvsualan:

Claiming that this craft was constructed by the Royal Navy is idle speculation. Furthermore, using exclusively the "HMS" prefix as the evidence for that fact betrays ignorance, as that prefix is presently in use by multiple naval powers (other than the British, these include the Royal Swedish Navy and the Saudi Navy).


  • Well at present, you are wrong about why I made the reversion, which leads me to my next point, you may wish to work on your etiquette, and approach this in a civil manner, rather than approaching me by starting confrontation and insulting me on my talk page. Secondly, I read what you removed and saw no reason for it to be removed, according to our policies, you should have been defending what you removed before you started this little edit war. All I did was revert the page to retain the integrity of the content that was removed without explaination. Finally, the information in question was in the background section not the main content of the article, therefore not compromising the accuracy of the actual article. We know that the Royal Navy remained in existance until a time very near this era. We know they still used the HMS prefix during a time very near this era. Somehow the Saudi and Swedish defense as a possibility of its origin is weak compared to the obvious ties the UK has with New Zealand, as well as the obvious name lineage shared with the two Royal Navy ships that have already bear the name HMS New Zealand. --Alan del Beccio 11:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

First, I will approach the etiquette issue. You claim that I insulted you. In fact, I warned you that that was the impression that you were giving users, and gave you the opportunity to defend yourself. I wrote "At present, I am under the belief...". That is not an insult. It is a fact. Had I, instead, written "You are a flagrant elitist, and have no place here." that would have been an insult. Also, in my opinion, it would have been more insulting to simply change the information back without getting in touch with you, the person who had a problem with it in the first place (which is, incidentally, why I went to your talk page).

In regards to the edit itself, let us look at it. The wording that you want is:

The New Zealand was probably built by the British Navy, judging from the "HMS" prefix.

The wording that I prefer is:

The New Zealand was probably built by the United Kingdom, judging from the "HMS" prefix and the name (a former British colony).

Firstly, about the prefix. The first quote states that, because the vessel has an HMS prefix, that it was probably built by the British. That is not a reasonable assumption, as that is not the only organisation to utilise the HMS prefix. However, as you yourself note, Britain has ties to New Zealand. Which is what I added in, and what you removed.

Now, regarding it belonging to the Royal Navy. We know for a fact that the British navy currently controls Britain's marine military force. We know for a fact that it existed in the 22nd century: Malcolm Reed considered joining, but decided against it because of his fear for the water. Ergo, it exists in the 22nd century, still as a marine organisation. A person with fear of the water probably wouldn't have much of a problem joining an organisation if it operated spacecraft, not marine craft. That he didn't join for the aforementioned reason, it is almost safe to presume that the Royal Navy does, in fact, not operate spacecraft.

However, I will not be pursuing this matter. Do what you want, this wiki has left a bad taste in my mouth.

  • All I can say is: Blimey! If all we're talking about is whether or not its HMS, then its really not something to get worked-up over, is it? Zsingaya Talk 19:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)