Talk:43 Commando Fleet Protection Group Royal Marines

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 43 Commando Fleet Protection Group Royal Marines article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: British / European

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

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

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

It is requested that an image or photograph of Fleet Protection Group Royal Marines be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Untitled

Is this unit be considerd Special Forces?

FPGRM are not Special Forces according to UK doctrine, they are a 'normal' part of the Royal Marines. UKSF is composed of SAS, SBS and a number of other units (can't remember their names off the top of my head, they aren't as well known as the famous two). I've had a look around the web, but I can't find anything specific to back up what I say. If anyone thinks they are though and wants something concrete, I'd be happy to do more research (er, when I have some time that is...). DistractionActivity 22:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this article text is taken verbatim from: http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.5368 That's under crown copyright, so I don't think it's OK that it's on WP under the GFDL. RupertMillard (Talk) 22:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot, should be possible to paraphrase it, some it possibly strays outside NPOV anyway. David Underdown 09:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:FleetProtectionBadge.jpg

Image:FleetProtectionBadge.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 Wikipedia: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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Name

http://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/4251

Phd8511 (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 43 Commando Fleet Protection Group Royal Marines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110611043549/http://www.navynews.co.uk/news/838-p-is-for-a-piece-of-history.aspx to http://www.navynews.co.uk/news/838-p-is-for-a-piece-of-history.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The photograph of HMNB Clyde is also available at the relevant article. In this article it could be replaced with another photograph that actually shows something of 43 Cdo. Suggestions would be welcome. --Dreddmoto (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Needs expanding.

Needs expanding on the gap between 1987, transfer of responsibilities to SBS, and 2001, fleet protection duties. That is a big gap to have no information on what was going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.31.251 (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]