Talk:People's Liberation Army Navy/Archive 1

Blue Water?
FYI, the PLAN isn't blue-water according to most analysts. It will achieve that status at some point, but not for many years. John Smith&#39;s 16:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please STOP putting in references to a blue water navy in the intro paragraph. The PLAN is a brown water almost a green water navy but will not be blue water navy for many, many years (they can't even support an ivasion of Taiwan.). L0b0t 14:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't need blue-water navy to invade Taiwan island. It's only 200 miles from the mainland coast. Peace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heilme (talk • contribs) 10:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Yes, but even china's green water navy is no match for the US 7th Fleet which has kept the middle kingdom dragon safely in its cage since WWII. L0b0t 15:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * give the PLAN sub appear near the carrier group, i doubt US will risk it in a forward deployment position between china and taiwan at full speed. they would comb the area feet by feet before moving in the fleet inch by inch, PLAN just need to buy enough time for ground crew to bombard taiwan into surrender for the win. basically put a iraq, PLA will crush every bit of resistance with cruise missile and rockets. shock and awe. Akinkhoo (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hard to beleive this drival went unchallenged for almost 3 years. Sure the U.S. would be cautious but its power projection reach would enable it to interdict shipping in the Tawain Straits without ever sailing into them.  Consider the range on the Tomahawks, Carrier Air groups, and nuclear attack submarines before make such an obvious patriotic fan boy statement.  If the PLAN command is as over confident as you, then they're in trouble.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.246.4 (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * By this point it's more the US commentators such as yourself that's far too overconfident about things, rather than the PLAN... Aldis90 (talk) 06:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Green-water, yes, blue water not quite yet... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldis90 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * An army can't walk across 200 miles of ocean. An extensive amphibious capability is needed which, China does not have. Also you can't say it's the 7th Fleet keeping China in check when China has had no imperialist ambitions and has only recently attempted to extend influence beyond the South China seas. It's like saying the mexican army is the only thing keeping the US in check. --Sirkeg 22:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My comments took poetic licence and were meant in the spirit of lighthearted fun. However, without the continuous presence of the US Navy, Taiwan would have been subsumed back into China long ago.  Cheers. L0b0t 22:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * well then, you don't seem to be that funny. What's holding back the mainlanders is their lack of amphibious assault ships (then) and now more importantly is their economic interests. The US 7th fleet only makes it harder but not impossible. Peace. Add: btw, sorry for the wrong info; the distance across is closer to 100 not 200 miles. Heilme 00:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Bluewater - Maybe, maybe not?


 * China's navy does not really practise blue water operations much at the moment, but it is increasingly having the ability to conduct blue water operations. It should be obvious that for now, only a small proportion of China's navy (out of its numerous littoral craft and older destroyers and frigates) can only have blue water capability. Yet this 'small proportion' consists of 13 modern destroyers, and 16 frigates (+4 building), as well as 6 replenishment ships, 5 SSNs, etc...and don't forget the LPD building and the Yuting II/III LSTs that can operate in blue water operations...this force alone is considerably far more potent than the Australian Navy, New Zealand Navy, South Korea and Canadian Navy (the four are 'blue water fleets' because they practise blue water operations much, but that does not necessariliy mean they are 'superior' to the PLAN). I mean by 2012, PLAN could probably smash the Australian Navy if it wanted to, or at least deal a lot of damage to the US 7th Fleet (though not necessarily defeating it)...but its intentions for now lie with Taiwan and disputed island chains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.44.81 (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This article really needs help
Guys, this article really needs work. I'm seeing lots of stuff that looks like it's been cut-and-pasted, stuff that is repeated or otherwise talking about the same thing in different sections. There was even contradictory information (until I removed it) about the blue-water navy. This needs:

1. A lot of deletions of unnecessary content and movement of the more important stuff to new pages. 2. A general-reorganisation by one person or a single group. The weakness of this is that people have been inserting random pieces of information all over the place. John Smith&#39;s 22:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Excise ORBAT
There is no need for a entire ORBAT nor current weapons/platform development. Someone should remove that section as it is the main reason why this article is so long.

The focus of this article should be the history, mission and doctrine of the PLAN as well as strategic challenges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionflyer (talk • contribs) 13:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Been trying to edit out stuff, but RevolverOcelotX keeps reverting the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldis90 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Try signing your posts? Yongke 17:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Positives but Editing needed
Though this article has many flaws, this is a considerable improvement over the previous chinese navy article. It just needs a whole lot of editing.

Another thing I am trying to edit out are any phrases that discusses the obsolesence of the Chinese fleet. Such views are completely eurocentric. For instance, some arguably may class the Royal New Zealand Navy as an obsolete force compared to the Chinese.

Needs editing, but we should keep an open mind while doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.142.94 (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ships and weapon systems on a new page?
Would anyone object to moving the order of battle to it's own article and just linking to it from the PLAN page?L0b0t 20:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Id say go for it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.142.94 (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, let's create subtopic pages for ships and weapons. Adeptitus 06:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I created 2 subtopics to reduce main article size: Ships of the People's Liberation Army Navy, Naval Weaponry of the People's Liberation Army Navy.  -- Adeptitus 22:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Adeptitus, it looks much better. L0b0t 02:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Should we move the PLAN organization section into its own subtopic as well? --Adeptitus 23:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Go for it
Adeptitus,

Yeah, go for the separate Org chart. I have the current list based on the JFS, drop me a note on them. My wiki editing skills leaves much to be desired.

Nice to see u around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionflyer (talk • contribs) 02:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, organization moved to its own page. Now this page looks kinda short and lonely.  LoL.  --Adeptitus 20:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it looks great. Thanks for taking the time to do this.L0b0t 02:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK added more details in the Org pages. Ain so lonely no more! Koxinga CDF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionflyer (talk • contribs) 07:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Helicopters
I've removed the following section.--

Naval Helicopters

 * Z-9C - Similar to the French AS 565 Panther, naval version of the Z-9 (~26)
 * Ka-28 Helix- Purchased from Russia with the Sovremenny-class Destroyer (11)
 * Z-8 utility helicopter - Similar to the French SA 321Ja Super Frelon but a naval version (~15)

This would be better off listed on the page for equipment of the PLAN or ships of the PLAN but not in this overview of the whole navy. L0b0t 11:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft inventory
I've removed the following section as it would be better in a different article, equipment of the PLAN or some such.

PLAN operates a large fleet of aircraft, including many land based combat aircraft.

L0b0t 13:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove aircraft carrier paragraph
I'm sick and tired of people posting up aircraft carrier statements and programs every other week on this page. So far, EVERY SINGLE link or statement has come from speculative foreign media sources or certain individuals from within the PLA. THERE IS NO official proof of any planned or existing aircraft programs or any aircraft carriers for that matter. The only aircraft carrier resource China has is the Varyag, which has been worked on for eight years still without any indication it is to be finished. I'm sure there are scientists in China dedicated to aircraft carriers, but the government apparently is not sure yet how many, if any, aircraft carriers are to be introduced to the PLAN. And that's final. Please edit the inventory/planned list on this page and remove any weird announcements that may come up on this page. User:Maggern 01:38, 10 June 2009 (GMT+7)


 * The reference is to a dead link, and I can't find the announcement anywhere Roadrunner 03:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * On March 10 2006, People's Liberation Army Lt. Gen. Wang Zhiyuan announced that China will research and build an aircraft carrier and develop a CVBG. Observers said the first carrier would be deployed to secure South China Sea energy supply line.


 * The chicoms have been talking about this for a while now but nothing has come of it. They don't need it, they don't have any planes to fly off of it, it's not cost effective, I don't think they ever did anything with the Kiev class boat they bought from the Russians.  I think it's pretty safe to remove that bit.  Cheers. L0b0t 03:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * @L0b0t, that is rather POV. But I do agree that there should be at least some other information about this before it is put up.  Yongke 17:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * http://news.monstersandcritics.com/intelandterror/article_1226292.php/Taiwan_concerned_about_Chinas_building_aircraft_carrier
 * The Taiwanese government seems to think the Chinese are a graver threat than any of you expected. The Aircraft carrier statements remain. Jeremy D. (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ship Codes
I am aware that there is no "international code", as such, for ships of differing nationalities. Nevertheless, does the People's Liberation Army Navy utilise a similar system to those of, for example, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (HMS) or the United States of America (USS), and, if so, what is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.157.154 (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Frigate
There's a discussion on the frigate article which users here might be interested in. 88.106.86.92 (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Intro is wrong
"It is currently the third largest naval service in the world after the United States Navy and the Russian Navy."

The PLAN is actualy the 2nd largest navy in the world in both terms of major combat vessels and personnel after the United States Navy.


 * USNavy - 330,000+ personnel - 220 major warships (283 ships in total navy)
 * PLAN - 250,000+ personnel - 130 major warships (600+ ships in total navy)
 * Russian Navy - 140,000+ personnel - 74 major warships (230 ships in total navy)

Infomation is found on the related navy wiki articles.

I have changed the intro to second largest navy. Thanks. Recon.Army (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

PLAN Part of the 2011 liberation of Libya?
I've looked for the information about this but can't find any articles as of yet to support the claim that the PLAN took part in the operations surrounding Libya in 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.30.167 (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously the PLAN was not part of the coalition force. It is listed as involved in the Libyan civil war because a PLAN frigate was sent to evacuate the Chinese nationals from Libya. Aiic486 (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If PLAN was not a part of Libyan Civil War,then I think it need not be mentioned.I feel evacuation wont be counted as participation.Participation means getting engaged in the war on allied or the other side.Regards Srikar Kashyap (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Added Aircraft flown
I've added the aircraft flown by the PLAN, just like the pages of US Navy, Indian Navy, French Navy,etc. I've only kept the names of aircraft and not the manufacturers so as to make the table neat and compact. if you have any objection, please discuss it on the talk rather than reverting the edit.Thanks Srikar Kashyap (talk) 05:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Rename to Chinese Navy?
Have noticed that several media articles no longer refer to the PLAN as the "People's Liberation Army Navy", but simply the "Chinese navy" or "China's navy".

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/world/asia/china-steps-up-pressure-on-japan-in-island-dispute.html?_r=0 http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Naval+arms+race+gains+steam/7686238/story.html http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/chinese-navy-to-actively-maintain-peace-in-indian-ocean_817135.html

Given that the Russian Navy article is not titled the "Military-Maritime Fleet of the Russian Federation", and that the media description seems to be shifting towards a simple "Chinese Navy", I would vote to change the name of the article and put redirects on People's Liberation Army Navy, PLA Navy, and China Navy.

Lostromantic (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's keep the discussion at one place. I commented at Talk:Chinese Navy.--Jiang (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Completely Propagandized
As we've seen in a number of China-related articles, a certain group of individuals have quietly "cleansed" this article to be more pro-China. For example, the sentence that states "The PLAN is designed not to compete with other nations. It is designed to cooperate." Come on. Any Navy is designed for one purpose: defense and war. Of course, our friends over at the 50 cent Party won't have that.

Eventually these articles are going to need to be locked, as clearly the Chinese are incapable of hearing a word of negative writing. If they want to censor their own internet to death, so be it. However, editors must stop them coming here and doing the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.125.183.17 (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting speeches.I should have it screeshotted.Or in brief,奇言共赏. Frost-CHN (talk) 07:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Mandarin name and translation
Is there any chance that someone who speaks the language could throw up these for the article, as is done with the PLAGF and PLAAF? Xt828 (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

2008 anti-piracy operations
Some good information - formatting is quite poor. Any one know relationship of Chinese operations with CTF-151, or Operation Ocean Shield (NATO designation) or Operation Atalanta (European Union) ? Wfoj3 (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

China may be building first indigenous carrier
I wanted to add the image from the source but wikipedia doesn't allow me to upload it.... http://www.janes.com/article/54833/china-may-be-building-first-indigenous-carrier elbarck (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

No Blue-water navy
Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 44, only "Navy" should be listed in the Type field. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Splitting proposal
The anti-piracy operation table is quite large and its content is not cited. The addition of reference will make it even longer. It may be appropriate to split it into a separate article. -Mys_721tx (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Jack?
What is the PLA Navy's naval jack? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 11:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The jack is just the PLA flag. The ensign is the Navy flag (i.e. the PLA flag with blue and white strips) -Mys_721tx (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 7 September 2018

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

PLA Navy is a common name by the which the subject is referred to. The target name has a potential confusion with ROC Navy. I also find a fair amount of sources that refer to it as PLA Navy. However, I didn't find much sources saying "Chinese Navy", they say "China's Navy", when I searched with the former term. I agree that there are sources which use Chinese Navy, but they refer to PLA somewhere in the article. For example, consider this article. Though the title says "Chinese Navy", it is mentioned as PLAN of China. As WP:PRECISION also applies here, to avoid any kind of confusion, my decision lies as "not moved". KCVelaga (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

People's Liberation Army Navy → Chinese Navy – Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Chinese Navy" is used far more than "People's Liberation Army Navy", in both the English media and in every day use by English speaking users. This appears to the same in China, with both the Chinese gov't and media, for 10 years now, as per this section -that was until recently in- the lead for List of active Chinese Navy ships; "As of 2008, English-language official Chinese state media no longer uses the term "People's Liberation Army Navy", instead the term "Chinese Navy" along with the usage of the unofficial prefix "CNS" for "Chinese Navy Ship" is now employed."


 * Note: this has since been removed. The source has been challenged (and I don't read Chinese, so...)
 * Note: here is the English translation of the attached source. The Chinese gov't indeed does use "Chinese Navy" instead of "PLAN". Read for yourself...

Additionally, as per Google search results;
 * "Chinese Navy": 499,000,000 hits
 * "Peolple's Liberation Army Navy": 4,090,000 hits.
 * That is literally a half billion vs four million. - wolf  19:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support move as proposer. - wolf  19:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – I always thought "Army Navy" was kind of awkward anyway. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * But it is the actual name of the force, and reflects both the organisation of the Chinese military and its traditions. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, we get it, you are opposed to to the name change and adamantly so, as are others. But no one has proved that this navy is more commonly referred to as "The People's Liberation Army Navy" more than the "Chinese Navy", by the media and in other sources. They have given reasons why they don't like the change, and challenged the methodology used to determine common use. But no counter-policy had been offered. The fact remains that today, there is one article about one navy, and that navy is commonly known as the "Chinese Navy". When something happens in the South China Sea, involving PLAN naval ships, they are commonly mentioned as "Chinese Navy" ships in the news media and other sources. There is no ambiguity, no confusion about what country the ships are from, (or what era they're from). It's clearly understood to mean they're from China (PR of). The common name for this Navy is "Chinese Navy", and as per the policy, that should also be the name of this article. - wolf  07:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose PLA Navy still commonly used (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/17/pentagon-says-china-military-likely-training-for-strikes-on-us-targets.html; https://www.newsweek.com/how-does-chinas-navy-compare-us-897209; https://thediplomat.com/2018/08/5-pla-navy-projects-to-watch-in-the-next-5-years/).. Other concerns are that the other Chinese services use the prefix PLA, which could cause internal discrepancies. Reccomend centralizing talk for all services at People’s Liberation Army. Also per WP:MILTERMS the name should be “Chinese navy”, as that is not the official name. Also have concerns about similarly named Republic of China Navy.  Garuda28 (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That is one source vs a half billion. What part of the MILTERM guideline over-rules the COMMONNAME policy? Taiwan is a perfect example in support of this move. - wolf  02:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and COMMONNAME. "Chinese Navy" is obviously and by far the most widely employed English language term of reference for the subject. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The ship prefix does not exist in Chinese and its usage in English publication has never been standardized; neither PLANS nor CNS is official. Both the 2008 and 2010 China's National Defense white paper, the 2012 Diversified Employment of China's Armed Forces white paper, and the 2014 China's Military Strategy white paper refers to the naval arm of PLA as the PLA Navy. The assertion that the term "PLAN" has fallen off the official use is far fetched. Finally, the statement on the English-language official Chinese state media does not exist in the MoD report it cited and should be removed as original research. -Mys_721tx (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I struck that one item. But the fact remains the COMMONNAME rules and the massive discrepancy in the Google results supports that. - wolf  02:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per long-term significance. - BilCat (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per rationales provided by Garuda28, Mys 721tx and Bilcat. Also, plesae take note that the ship prefix of ROCN is ROCS, the older term is CNS or Chinese Navy Ship. Best to avoid creating confusion whenever/wherever possible. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 21:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Garuda28, Mys 721tx and Bilcat. Llammakey (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I have struck the section copied from the List of Chinese Ships. However, this move could easily be done on COMMONNAME alone. (It doesn't matter what the official name is, and those of you that have opposed should know that). Beyond that, there is no denying the absolute conclusiveness of the Google results. Faaarrrr more sources use "Chinese Navy" than 'PLAN', there is no comparison. We need to abide commonname above any POV concerns, as it is a policy. Is there any policies that would prevent this move? - wolf  02:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not conviced that a google search is evidence enough for a WP:COMMONNAME argument, as there are a number of different organizations that Chinese Navy could bring up results for, to include the PLA Navy, ROC Navy, and any number of historical Chinese navies - Not just the current PLA Navy. And with respect to POV or neutrality concerns: “Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.”, “Neutrality is also considered”, and “When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.” there is no question that Chinese navy is another used name for the PLA Navy, but I do not believe, due to what else the google search could be sweeping up, and the other uses for Chinese navy, that this page should be renamed.Garuda28 (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that "Chinese Navy" is overwhelmingly the most commonly used name. "Chinese Navy" is used 99.9992% vs 0.0008% for PLAN on internet sites. That's where we get the vast majority of our sources and as you know, WP runs on sources. But that aside, do you have a policy to cite in support of keeping the current name? - wolf  05:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * COMMONNAME is a guideline, not a policy, it's only one part of our naming guidelines, and raw google searches are only one component of proving a common name, the rest of which you haven't even attempted. Another component is recognizability, and the PLA name and its offshoots are quite well-known in the English-speaking world. I'd be interested in seeing book search results by expert sources before even considering supporting a name change. Also, considering that China does not have a free press, what do the Google search results look like when excluding Chinese sources? - BilCat (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, COMMONNAME is a part of Article titles, a Wikipedia policy. - wolf  05:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Touché, but still only a part. - BilCat (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME and because "Army Navy" is very awkward in English. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The People's Liberation Army is a proper name and the PLAN is a branch of service under the PLA. Moving PLAN to Chinese Navy on the ground of of awkwardness makes the title imprecise and also breaks the consistency between it and all other branches of service under the PLA. -Mys_721tx (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That raises an interesting question; what is more common? The "(Chinese) People's Liberation Army" or "Chinese Army"...? But that's a discussion for a different place. Do you have a policy to cite that would negate this move? - wolf  05:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * An even better question: Is People's Liberation Army or People's Liberation Army Ground Force the "Chinese Army"? "Army" in PLA is more the equivalent of "armed forces" in non-Chinese English. - BilCat (talk) 05:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should move People's Liberation Army to Chinese Armed Forces, then indicate here that Chinese Navy is branch of said armed forces. Just a thought. - wolf  06:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That smacks of cultural arrogance. The PLA is the name of this vast armed force, and shouldn't be given some other name because westerners are unfamiliar with Chinese military and political history and terminology. Nick-D (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Relax, no need to get upset, it was just harmless comment. This is simply about what name this "vast armed force's navy" is more commonly known by, and it's plainly obvious that it is "Chinese Navy". I suggest you take any issues up with commonname on the policy talk page. - wolf  09:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Google's nGram result (click on the "Search lots of books" blue button) -  wolf  06:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The n-gram result for "Chinese Navy" includes all other Chinese navies. Therefore having more hits than "People's Liberation Army Navy" is expected. In fact, some of the results after PLAN's formation (1949) still use "Chinese Navy" to refer the Qing Navy and the ROCN. -Mys_721tx (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the n-gram frequencies are no more than $$4 \times 10^{-8}$$, which means both "Chinese Navy" and "People's Liberation Navy" are rare in the corpus. It is about a order of magnitude lower than other navies in the corpus. I am not very familiar with natural language processing, but I don't think the frequency comparison of rare words is trivial. -Mys_721tx (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Meh... I just figured I'd throw the nGram in for the heck of it. This moves passes on the strength of COMMONNAME alone, supported by the Google results. There doesn't seem to be any reason supported by a policy to not move. - wolf  08:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as per WP:COMMONNAME and its consistent with how we use French Navy, Dutch Navy, Italian Navy etc rather than the titles they use themselves. Don't agree with the use of the prefix CNS as its not part of the ship name and is likely to be a prefix created for administrative convenience by the US. Lyndaship (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose People's Liberation Army Navy is the name of this vast institution, and it and the abbreviation PLAN are commonly used in works on the topic - and especially those written by specialists, rather than journalists. See, for instance, United States Naval Institute and Janes (the two leading international sources on naval matters) as well as other professional sources such as The Diplomat and the Lowy Institute. "Chinese Navy" is an inaccurate and unprofessional term, and establishing the common names of things via a Google count is a dud methodology - especially in instances such as this where there are actually two Chinese Navies! Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So four sources... vs a half billion?
 * ""Chinese Navy" is ... inaccurate ... especially ... as ... there are actually two Chinese Navies!" - Hmm... so you're saying you think we should rename the "Republic of China Navy" to the "Taiwanese Navy"? Sounds like an interesting idea. - wolf  09:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , please don't make disingenuous comments like four sources... vs a half billion. The number of Google search results is not a reflection on the number of sources available. Search engine test is quite explicit about how these results alone does not prove anything; rather, you need to actually interpret the sources and reflect how it fits the context of our naming convention. Alex Shih (talk) 10:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Referring to a "how-to" page as being "explicit" about anything, as if it were a policy, is "disingenuous". The simple fact is, there are a half-billion websites that contain the term "Chinese Navy" and only four million that contain "People's Liberation Army Navy". That is a simple fact, there is nothing "disingenuous" about it. That clearly, and unambiguously speaks to the fact the former is far, far, far more used by, well... just about everyone using the internet, than the latter. That is important, because COMMONNAME, a WP policy, explicitly states; "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used". I think it's clear which is more commonly used. (and on a side note, it would be nice if some people here, (especially those that know better) would stop personalizing this. Thanks -  wolf  19:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Basically per Nick-D. The comparison with some of the Western counterparts is not appropriate as there are no ambiguities involved. A better comparison would be our naming convention when it comes to the military of Vietnam and South Korea. This is partially related to MOS:NC-CN, please take a look at that as well. Alex Shih (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Official name of force, and yes, there are at least two Chinese Navies. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - a reminder to those opposing due to "official name", that doesn't matter. We have articles on numerous organizations and entities that are not titled with their official name, but their COMMONNAME. We have also changed the country names for Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea. Russia's Navy is "Military-Maritime Fleet of the Russian Federation", but we just call it the "Russian Navy". As for "two Chinese Navies"... no, that would not be the case. And finally, please remember that even the article for this Navy's own country has been moved from "People's Republic of China" to just "China". It only makes sense, and cuts down on confusion, to apply the policy of COMMONNAME to their Navy as well. - wolf  19:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME also states that "[Wikipedia] generally prefers the name that is most commonly used as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above". Therefore WP:CRITERIA should take precedence over COMMONNAME. Furthermore, COMMONNAME states that "[w]hen there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." The recognizability of "People's Liberation Army Navy" has been addressed by the redirect from "Chinese Navy". The precision and the consistency of the term "Chinese Navy" have been challenged in the discussion above. Addressing one problem at the cost of creating two others does not seem to be the best solution. -Mys_721tx (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If anything, CRITERIA clearly supports the name "Chinese Navy". Redirects work both ways. The "challenge" noted above was brief, lacking in substance and dismissed by policy. I get it... you oppose. I support. But we're starting to go in circles here. - wolf  21:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The half-a-billion claim does not use precise match. By how Google works, results contain the word "Chinese" or "navy" will be returned. Once precise match is applied, the result is 690,000. On the other hand, The result for People's Liberation Army Navy is 215,000. The disparity between the usage of both terms has been greatly exaggerated. Furthermore, there is no way to exclude "Chinese navy" from the result, which is a generic way to refer any Chinese navies in history and makes up for non-negligible portion of the results (including Qing Navy, Zheng He's fleet, or ROCN). The impreciseness of the term "Chinese Navy" is hardly lacking in substance nor brief. -Mys_721tx (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Everything you written here still ultimately supports the fact that "Chinese Navy" is more commonly used than "PLAN". - wolf  01:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Four different people have already pointed out the ambiguity/impreciseness of the term "Chinese Navy". As demonstrated above, your methodology fails to distinguish whether the 690,000 results mean the PLAN or any other Chinese navies. When the query term "Chinese Navy" has different semantic meaning than the "Chinese Navy" in this discussion, the conclusion that "Chinese Navy" is more commonly used than "PLAN" is flawed. -Mys_721tx (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You haven't established that "Chinese Navy" is in fact the common name of this force. As has been pointed out by multiple editors, counting Google hits is not a suitable methodology. Searching for "Chinese Navy" will return material on everything from the Chinese navies of antiquity through to the modern day: these are not the same navies (the pre-1949 Chinese navy is not even the current PLAN). This methodology also does not tell you anything about how the term is being used, and who is using it. I have demonstrated that gold standard sources on naval matters (Janes and the USNI) use PLAN. Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

×*Support. Chinese navy since 1949 would be better. The primary purpose of a title is to tell the reader what the article is about. By that standard, the current title is obscure. You can be quite familiar with navy matters and still not recognize the current title. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Considering the valid argument that some of the google search results for Chinese Navy will be for Chinese navies other than PLAN I just checked the results for Google News as they are more likely to be solely for the current Chinese Navy. Chinese Navy returns 29500 results, People's Liberation Army Navy just under 8000. Lyndaship (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , you need to actually read the valid sources from the results, instead of just looking at the number, otherwise you will miss the context. For instance, this is one of the "Chinese Navy" result from The Diplomat (one of the few sources that actually focuses on the subject), which actually introduces the subject as "PLA Navy". The CNN source isn't even talking about the subject, but a casual mention of "Chinese navy" (notice that it isn't capitalised, unlike US Navy, a very important point). For the sake of comparison, ABC News source here uses capitalisation, but note the "Chinese Navy" is a quote that comes from an interview with a captain from the Thai Navy. Another source for comparison is from the BBC News, in which terms are used interchangeably; PLA initials are used for official reports, while the term "Chinese Navy" was used when describing the Chinese naval force in a prose. This is only one aspect to the complicated background behind article titles involving many of the East Asian military topic areas. The main point is that there are reasons why we have naming conventions and manual of style for each topic areas, which is that there are specific circumstances that needs to be considered in different situations. It is correct to describe Chinese naval force as "Chinese Navy" casually in a prose, but in our context it is inappropriate because the term itself is far too ambiguous as it encompasses different institutions both past and present, an aspect that is not commonly shared by many of the Western counterparts. Alex Shih (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * you should not assume that another editor has not actually read the results. I suspect your google results page is different to mine in top stories featured, mine shows a multitude of major UK and US newspapers all referring to Chinese Navy or Chinese navy with no mention of PLAN. That to me supports the idea that Chinese Navy is the common name in use and is therefore appropriate for the title of our article, ambiguity should be resolved by the re-titling of any other articles which are ambiguous to this common name. I normally stay out of subsequent discussions on a page move or delete etc preferring to read others opinions and change my view if I am swayed but your assumption about my competence and then using three from 29000 results to cast doubt has made me reply. I do not intend to make a habit of it Lyndaship (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case, I have to ask, what are those multitude of major UK and US newspapers?
 * Here is a selection of Google News results for People's Liberation Army Navy:
 * Newspapers
 * The Times
 * New York Times
 * Websites
 * USNI News
 * Business Insider
 * DoD
 * TV News
 * ABC News
 * CNN
 * CNBC
 * Magazine
 * Jane's 360
 * Defense News
 * Popular Mechanics
 * Popular Science
 * Sputnik, RT, and the Diplomat are excluded as they are not western based.
 * USNI News, Business Insider, Jane's 360, and Defense News have more than one reporting, only the first item showed up in the search are listed.
 * -Mys_721tx (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * From my first page of results for Chinese Navy there are (main ones only) telegraph.co.uk, cnn international, The Independent, Reuters, New York Times, Express.co.uk, Washington Examiner, Business Insider Lyndaship (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The Independent: "Chinese navy"
 * Reuters: "Chinese navy"
 * New York Times: a letter to the editor for an earlier report. The report states "[t]he Chinese Navy — officially the People’s Liberation Army Navy — has built more than 100 warships and submarines in the last decade alone, more than the entire naval fleets of all but a handful of nations."
 * express.co.uk: "Chinese navy"
 * Washington Examiner: "Chinese navy"
 * Bussiness Insider: "Chinese navy"
 * I could not find the CNN report. From what I can find, five out of the seven results do not use "Chinese Navy". -Mys_721tx (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * PLAN did not exist before 1950. Using "Chinese navy since 1949" as the title defeats the very purpose of telling reader what the article is about. That title also ignores the concurrently existing Republic of China Navy. -Mys_721tx (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How can a name as confusing as Republic of China Navy be justified? Surely it should be given as Taiwanese navy. An astonishing number of Wikipedians pride themselves on knowing the difference between the PRC and the ROC, but published sources rarely assume this knowledge. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - per WP:PRECISION. The Yuan dynasty fleets that invaded Java and Champa, Zheng He's famous treasure fleet, the Qing dynasty Beiyang Fleet, and the Republic of China Navy can all be called Chinese Navy, in addition to the PLA Navy (see Naval history of China). PLA Navy is the official name as well as the only precise one. -Zanhe (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think arguing about possible ambiguity with historical entities is moot because the common use of the term "Chinese Navy" is understood to refer to the current navy, not its predecessors. For instance, Russian Navy is used and accepted to refer for the navy of the current Russian Federation, and there is little risk of confusing it with historical entities like the Imperial Russian Navy or Soviet Navy. Likewise, nobody nowadays will confuse the term "China" as it is currently used with Imperial China or Nationalist China/Republic of China. —Madrenergictalk 17:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's quite a flawed comparison, which would only be remotely relevant if either the Soviet Navy is still existing today/or if the Republic of China (Taiwan) Navy ceased to exist. While the political entity of China and Taiwan has evolved, the military institutions maintains the ambiguous overlap due to the concurrent existence, which is why precision is required. Alex Shih (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That contrary argument is itself flawed because Wikipedia follows the principle of WP:COMMONNAME, not their official names. I specifically addressed that in my argument as well. There is no way anybody in this day and age would think that mentioning the Chinese navy would refer to that of Taiwan. There is no ambiguity involved. While their formal and official names may be similar, nobody regards the Taiwanese institution as "Chinese navy" in the commonly-understood sense. —Madrenergictalk 01:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * According to WP:AT, precision, one of the core naming criteria, trumps common name. Besides, the most common name is actually PLA Navy (see ngram below), an abbreviation of the current title. -Zanhe (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have addressed that. If we were to read WP:AT carefully, we would realise that WP: PRECISION requires that "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". On that basis, I have already made clear that the general public will not confuse the term "Chinese Navy" with anything other than the current navy of the People's Republic of China, following which there is no need to be more precise than that in specifying the full formal name of the institution. That aside, a discussion on an alternate common name should be in its separate subthread, since this one is focusing on whether confusing with historical or Taiwanese navies is a good counterargument to bring up at all. —Madrenergictalk 07:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The proposer's common name argument is severely flawed for omitting the abbreviation PLA Navy, the most commonly used name in modern English publications, see NGRAM (also note how common the term "Chinese Navy" had been long before the establishment of the PLA Navy in 1950). -Zanhe (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is not titled "PLA Navy", and the need to use an abbreviation to support your argumemt only reinforces the fact that the current title is not the most common one used. So, if anything, the serious flaw is in the logic of your argument. Furthermore, this article is about the current Navy of China, not any of the historical ones, each of which have their own unique name/article title. The most commonly used name for this, the current organization, is "Chinese Navy", therefore so should the article be titled as well. - wolf  20:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "PLA Navy" is the obvious abbreviation of the current title. I wouldn't object to moving the article to PLA Navy, but we normally use the full title even when the abbreviation is more common (United Kingdom and United States rather than UK and US). And as the Ngram shows, the term "Chinese Navy" has been widely used since long before the establishment of the PLA Navy, demonstrating that "Chinese Navy" does not necessarily refer to the PLA Navy. -Zanhe (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Trying to blur results by mentioning historical navies, has been mentioned several times here, all missing an important point; even though those historical navies have their own specific names, "Chinese Navy" was commonly used then, just as it is now for the current navy. So, yes... I agree with you that "Chinese Navy" is the most common name of all, as supported by Google search and nGram results, but whereas those other navies/articles have appropriate titles, the most appropriate title here would be the most common one (that we now seem to agree on), "Chinese Navy". - wolf  02:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Stop distorting my words and misinterpreting the evidence. Ngram clearly shows that "PLA Navy" is the most common term for the current topic. "Chinese Navy" was common (referring to the Qing Navy and ROC Navy, etc.) long before the PLA Navy was established. -Zanhe (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per comments above. A couple of other points are that "People's Liberation Army Navy" is awkward, but is the most common English name that is sufficiently precise.  A better translation of 人民解放 軍 海軍 would be "People's Liberation Military Navy", but Wikipedia should follow sources.  Another reason that "Chinese Navy" is inaccurate is that the PLA and its navy are the armed forces of the Communist Party of China and not the PRC per se. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AjaxSmack (talk • contribs) 20:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to lack of precision and potential to create confusion with the ROC Navy. Very few news articles currently refer to the "Chinese Navy" without mentioning the name PLAN somewhere in the article, thus limiting the utility of the raw numbers presented by the initiator of this discussion. Kges1901 (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I see again that "potential confusion" with the "ROC Navy" has been mentioned. But just as the "People's Republic of China" page is simply titled per its common name; "China", and as such, its navy page should be titled by its common name; "Chinese Navy", perhaps the "ROC Navy" page should be titled per its common name; "Taiwanese Navy" (or "Taiwan Navy"), just as "Republic of China" is titled per it's common name; "Taiwan". Potential confusion problem solved. - wolf  02:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose The PLA Navy is more commonly used, and helps disambiguate it from the ROC's naval forces. 67.80.188.124 (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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) 14:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Chinese frigate Dongguan aground on Half Moon Shoal.jpg