Talk:Royal Arsenal

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / British / European C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

My knowledge of the railways in this area is not good; is London, Chatham and Dover Railway the correct name at this time? Pyrotec 11:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the line at Plumstead was the North Kent Line originally built by South Eastern Railway, which in 1899 later merged to form the South Eastern and Chatham Railway. If you want to ignore the corporate activity and stick to the name of the route, it might be easier just to call it the North Kent Line. Paul W 12:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've now added most of what I wanted to add.Pyrotec 23:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added Internal Links and Deleted Websites[edit]

I have added Internal Links and deleted websites because of Server not found or page not found notices. Kathleen.wright5 08:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Woolwich Arsenal"[edit]

Woolwich Arsenal redirects to this page, though many if not most the links to Woolwich Arsenal are actually referring to Woolwich Arsenal railway station. Perhaps a disambiguation page needs creating? Have added a line at the start of the article as a temporary solution. Grunners (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Done. Its worse than that, an Arsenal, a football club, and a railway station(s).Pyrotec (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! Grunners (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brick hut picture[edit]

Image does not reflect how the Royal Arsenal sit currently looks - 11:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.228.102 (talk)

Lead section[edit]

I moved a lot of material from the lead section into "Early history". As it stood, the lead section was just material that belongs at the beginning of the article. However the article should be complete without the lead section, and conversely the lead section should be a summary of the whole article, not just the initial bit. See WP:LEAD for the guidelines.

Now I've moved the text to the right place the lead section is woefully inadequate (actually it was before but now it's obvious). However I don't know enough about this article to write one myself, and I'm not prepared to pick through the rest of the article finding out about it. If an expert could write a paragraph or two, including the most important parts of its history (so should certainly talk about WWII usage), then that would be a great addition to the article Quietbritishjim (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article really needs to be doubled in size and properly referenced. The lead is a comparatively minor problem. Pyrotec (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've aimed to address above two points a bit in my recent editsBarabbas1312 (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Royal Arsenal is on my watch list so I have seen that you have been very busy adding new material for most of this month (and a little before). Thanks very much for your valuable contributions. I must admit, that expanding the "Arsenal" came quite early in my wikipedia editing career, so I did not really reference anything, so I set a bad example for those that follow. I do have one of the sources (Masters, Roy, (1995)), and others that I've not yet quoted, "to hand" so I can come back and add references, but is more likely to be tomorrow before I start this. The problem now, at present, with the lack of in-line references, the article is not really C-class, its more like "Start-class". Pyrotec (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Explosions[edit]

A number of serious incidents happened at the Arsenal, both in the 19th and 20th centurys. I wonder whether the article should have a section on these? they are well referenced: the 1936 event led to questions being raise in parliament, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.135.8 (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they can be added. It would improve the article. Do you have the references? Pyrotec (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Arsenal[edit]

Should it not be titled "The Royal Arsenal". "Royal Arsenal" sounds like an adjective, like "Royal Arsenal Blue" or something

Google for '"royal arsenal" -"the royal arsenal"' brings up only adjectives for first two pages

Maybe there's a wikipaedia rule against including articles? 91.123.236.5 (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Greg[reply]

Explosives as Fog Horn[edit]

I would like to know more about the use of ordnance by the Royal Artillery stationed in the colony of Newfoundland, specifically at Fort Amherst. This fort, and other posts nearby, were established for military defense of the harbor. A gunner with the Royal Artillery was responsible for discharging the foghorn every 30 minutes when Cape Spear was shrouded in fog. Are there any records to show what type of gun/cannon would have been used, and the unit/personnel during 1836-1837? I am also trying to track down whether a specific gunner, Joseph Sandiford, was stationed there. Thanks! Klossoke (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)klossoke[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Royal Arsenal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160826080744/http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/devonport_conservation_appraisal.pdf to http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/devonport_conservation_appraisal.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]