Talk:HMS Prince of Wales (R09)/Archive 1

October 2006
So will the ship still be referred to in the traditional feminine context? i.e. The Prince of Wales left port on 1 December 2015, her destination is..... How stupid does that sound. Mark83 10:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes it will and it does not sound stupid has there was a battleships called HMS Prince of Wales (53) have a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.231.38 (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2006 CVF STOVL.jpg
Image:2006 CVF STOVL.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Issue has been dealt with now, the rationales have been added. Thanks. Woodym555 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

motive power
It might be a good idea to include the type of fuel and what kind of powerplants these ships will have...

--Ken

69.209.59.94 (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * More details about the ships design can be found at the main article on this aircraft carrier class at Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier, not all the info from that is needed here especially as certain elements can change over the coming years as the ship is built. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Pennant numbers
Looking through the very latest photos and video - which is well worth a watch! - the pennant numbers for these two vessels are now known. HMS Queen Elizabeth will be R08 and have deck code Q, while HMS Prince of Wales will be R09 and have deck code P.

Would there be any objections to mentioning this in the QE-class articles? I would also change the name of the two ships' articles to include their pennant numbers rather than "CVF" as present. It would also be great if anyone can find documentary evidence of the pennant numbers/deck codes, so that the information can be more properly referenced.

Exciting times. :) David (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Battle Honours
Do we have a source that this carrier is going to carry on the battle honours awarded to revious units?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Latest news
In case editors have missed it:


 * Defence Management


 * Portsmouth News

Not only is the government now looking to have both carriers in service (see quotes from a MoD minister of state), but the news articles also confirm (and go against what is erroneously written in this Wikipedia article) that at the moment the Prince of Wales will be fitted for cats n traps, not the Queen Elizabeth.

Please can this Wikipedia article be updated/corrected, with the two news articles above given as references? I will leave it to someone else as I am not a contributor to this article (though I have contributed to other RN articles). Thanks.
 * We should have this conversation in only one place, not three. See:
 * Talk:Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier.
 * Makyen (talk) 09:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Also: further confusion; see Talk:HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08). - David Biddulph (talk) 12:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the latest news is that "HMS Prince of Wales will not enter service - it will be built but not kitted out, and then kept as a reserve vessel - while HMS Queen Elizabeth is expected to go into service around 2020" Mztourist (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Which contradicts what the First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope said on 25 November, "that the second ship HMS Prince of Wales will be fitted to a CATOBAR configuration, while the eventually fate of HMS Queen Elizabeth is less certain." I would suggest he would be more accurate than the Public Accounts Committee. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you not have anything better to do with your time than track my every edit Jim? The comments of Admiral Stanhope were contradicted within the story you cited by the MOD spokesman who said the RN will operate one carrier not two. So which is more reliable? An Admiral who wants his new capital ships or the Public Accounts Committee who actually have responsibility for overseeing government expenditure? Mztourist (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks as if the BBC have changed the page you quoted, as it no longer includes the text you quote above. It does say "HMS Prince of Wales will be mothballed and kept as a reserve vessel - while HMS Queen Elizabeth is expected to go into service around 2020, ..." but as far as I can see there is no such statement in the PAC report.  That may be something left over from the SDSR or the BBC's interpretation thereof.  I guess that the BBC are as confused as the rest of us are. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I was responding to your edit (I am not aware of tracking your every edit) Stanhope states they will only be operating the POW as the CATOBAR carrier and the future of HMS QE is uncertain. I would expect the head of the navy to know more about the future plans of his own service than some unknown civil servant.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Mysterious how you seem to comment on almost every edit I make these days. What the head of the RN wants as opposed to what the UK Government is able to pay for are two different and diverging things. In case you hadn't noticed the UK is facing years of austerity budgets and so on that basis the Public Accounts Committee is a far more reliable source on this. I suggest you also google Jet commitment keeps carrier strategy alive for the recent FT story on this issue. Mztourist (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You need to read the link provided. They are planning for one CATOBAR carrier HMS PoW and HMS QE will be used to train the crew for HMS PoW then her (HMS QE) future is uncertain. That aside after your comment above I had to look up who you were, so no I am not tracking or even commenting on your every edit. I have better things to do.Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Prime Minister on the PoW being in service
The Prime Minister has just announced that HMS Prince of Wales will be brought into service so that the RN has a carrier at any time. Argovian (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * HMS Prince Of Wales arrives to Portsmouth.jpg

Commons link
There are two options:
 * 1) link to commons category by IMO number - which is for all incarnations of the hull (no matter which navy it ends up with or however named or rebuilt into any other type of ship) and which doesn't contain any images
 * 2) link to the, a sub cat of the above IMO number cat - which contains all the images of this ship as the Prince of Wales'' - which is what the article is about at this time (and for the foreseeable future).

Going by the general wikipedia principle when linking of Principle of least astonishment ("A link should not take readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would go"), at this time it makes more sense to direct readers so the place they end up at has images of the ship under a title which matches the article they left to get there.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Boats Carried
In the sidebar, it is stated a total of four boats are carried (2x PTB, 2x RIB); in the body of the page, it states only four PTBs are carried.

The page for HMS Queen Elizabeth (this sister ship) also mentions 2x PTB and 2x RIB in its sidebar and four PTBs in the body.

On a superficial search, I didn't find anything on the Royal Navy website about the boats carried.

Mikepyne (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)