Talk:Future of the Royal New Zealand Navy

Image copyright problem with Image:NZ MRV (NZDF).jpg
The image Image:NZ MRV (NZDF).jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --00:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Article title
Two things: As there have been no objections to my proposals over the past four and a half months, I will make the changes. Ground Zero | t 14:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Aren't all plans for the future? This sounds redundant. How would the meaning be changed if the article were called "Royal New Zealand Navy plans"?
 * 2) Why is "plans" capitalised in the title? Are these plans a proper noun? Shouldn't this article follow Wikipedia style per WP:LOWERCASE? Ground Zero | t 23:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Anzac replacement
What does "replacement of the Anzac frigates that will 'take account of the wider range of naval combat options expected to be available then'" mean? 'take account of the wider range of naval combat options available' is not good English, and I have no idea what it even means.Royalcourtier (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Out of Date
This entire article now needs to come inline with the Defence Capability Plan 2019 (DCP19). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.38.207 (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Southern Ocean Patrol Vessel
Where it says; " Procure a new offshore patrol vessel from 2027 to patrol the southern ocean, built to commercial standards, and costing approximately $300-600 million. Intended to replace the last two Lake-class inshore patrol vessels." This is false. The two IPV's already decommissioned were so the RNZN can get the SOPV. It is currently undecided what they are going to do with remaining two HMNZS Hawea & Taupo.

The DCP2019 states Pg33 - Section 196; Two inshore patrol vessels will be withdrawn from service and disposed of immediately, leaving two vessels to meet the demands of domestic patrols within the exclusive economic zone. Prior to the Southern Ocean Patrol Vessel coming into service, which will give greater capacity to the offshore patrol fleet, the future of the remaining two inshore patrol vessels will be reassessed.

Clearly meaning they have not made up their minds yet.

https://www.defence.govt.nz/publications/publication/defence-capability-plan-2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:5A00:4807:5600:611E:CBC4:5DE1:3347 (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 18 January 2023

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: WITHDRAWN. JohnmgKing (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Future of the Royal New Zealand Navy → Planned future of the Royal New Zealand Navy – The current title, whilst in line with similar pages on Wikipedia, is not really accurate. It isn't overly precise to clarify that we are talking about the planned future, and we do not have special insight into the actual future. JohnmgKing (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. While I appreciate and agree that "planned future" may be more technically accurate, Wikipedia doesn't prioritise technical accuracy in titles, as discussed at WP:COMMONNAME. I think the current title is precise because it unambiguously identifies the article's topic and distinguishes it from other subjects. It's also recognisable, natural, concise, and consistent with the pattern of other similar articles' titles, per the other WP:TITLE criteria. And the average reader will understand that an article titled "future of X" is going to be about the predicted or expected future of X, rather than expecting Wikipedia to have knowledge of the actual future. Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.