Talk:Hibernia Networks

Design capacity and new name

The design capacity of 10 Tbps can’t be right for a submarine cable from the early 2000s. The reference 19 (which is a dead link, BTW) mentions and upgrade to this speed in 2009. So the original design capacity is unknown. Unless someone has a good reason not to, I’ll remove that design capacity at some point in the future.

Also, the Hibernia Atlantic cable system seems to be named "GTT Atlantic" now in for instance FCC filings. I’m too new to Wikipedia editing to know how to make any searches for "GTT Atlantic" land here...

Untitled

How many Nibbles are there in a Terabite? --122.106.251.190 (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Trans Atlantic Cable WWII

Aparently there was a trans atlantic cable during WWII from Southport to America. is this the same cable or if not what was it called? any info would be great thanks JMRH6 (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

UK Geography

Slough is a town. London is a city. They aren't even that close to each other.

And neither one is Southport...

I would edit, but I don't know enough to know whether the landing point is supposed to be Southport (West Coast, opposite Dubline), Slough (not on the coast at all) or London (on a big river). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

IMOS

I don't know how IMOS is being interpreted here but to argue for the unpiping of Republic of Ireland in the infobox whilst the article is full of mentions if simply "Ireland" and has other piped instances, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I reverted the article back to the version prior to Dubs boy's contested edit, however have had to make quite a few edits since, mostly tidying up and manual of style consistency yadda yadda ya.

I do find it odd however that Dubs boy makes a point for Murry1975 to take any problems to talk but fail to raise this issue here despite the fact Dubs boy is the one falling foul of the WP:BRD guideline. Dubs boy made an edit that was reverted, so they should have taken it to talk, but failed to do so. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Also seeing as we are stating Southport, United Kingdom, then why do we need to state Coleraine, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom? It is much simpler to state "Coleraine and Southport in the United Kingdom" seeing as they both belong to the same country, so I made that change and amended the Dublin, Republic of Ireland instance as it is stupid to state Republic of Ireland unpiped in the lede and then refer to it simply as Ireland throughout the rest of the article - implies we are talking about the island.

Whilst we are at it, I must shake my head at some of the poor editing in this article... some editor thinks Castleblayney and Monaghan are in the UK and that Ballymena is spelt Ballmena. Article needs a bit of a going over. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Whilst mention of the island of Ireland is non-existent in this article, and Northern Ireland is only mentioned a couple of times, there may not be a case to unpipe Republic of Ireland, though if there is a case then instead of arguing over one instance of it in the infobox, we will need to do it to every instance in the article, of which there are quite a few. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mabuska, though surely in the infobox having both Northern Ireland and Ireland(state) in the same box goes against IMOS. It seems the IMOS goal posts have moved again.Dubs boy (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The second point of the IMOS provides a grey area that isn't specific enough and may apply here allowing Republic of Ireland to be pipe-linked with Northern Ireland also mentioned. Whether it does or not needs raised at the Ireland WikiProject. So for now I don't know what way to interpret it here. If being unpiped does need to apply here, then a the "Operators" section will need all instances chanced to ROI, with a legend maybe added just in case. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll agree that the article is in a bad way, but with IMOS, I always think that when NI and ROI are used in the same context as here, then use Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland. Leaves no confusion and is per IMOS. If you were not sure of IMOS, why then make an edit suggesting it is per IMOS?Dubs boy (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Initial confusion, however I am unsure now. Despite that however as such the original way should stand until the issue, which you have raised or made known, is discussed and some form of agreement gotten in regards as to how to interpret it. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

As it is we are the only 2 taking to the discussion. I think for the infobox we should use Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland. Also I don't think it is necessary to use UK, Seems like over linking and a tad pedantic. Do you agree with this suggestion?Dubs boy (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The obvious thing to do is seek the view of the relevant WikiProject, I.e. at IMOS itself. Two editors is not a right to veto the established guideline. I also don't see how there is any pedantism at all here, other than the IMOS issue. UK in the infobox does not need to be wikilinked as England and Northern Ireland are, however as we state USA and the Republic (even as Ireland), and they are sovereign states, they we should do the same by mentioning UK. In many infobox instances, UK is stated but not always linked, and if it is not linked it can't be overlinking. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

How would it be vetoing IMOS, surely it would be applying IMOS? The suggestions i have made leaves no air of confusion. Surely that is what you would wish for an encyclopedia? no? NO need for more bureaucracy.Dubs boy (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Standard form is not to use UK for the countries, but to use the constituent countries. So just NI and England in this case. Also since the article discusses Northern Ireland, ROI should be used due to the potential confusion with use of the word Ireland. IMOS seems relatively clear on that one. Canterbury Tail talk 14:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

That settles that then. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

That's my view. It's not like it carries more weight than anyone elses. Canterbury Tail talk 15:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe not, but I have to agree now that RoI is the called for solution in line with IMOS. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to note that User:Murry1975 appears to be habouring an issue with regards to this article and the implementation of IMOS going by their recent bad faith comment at my talk page. In fact they want to bypass this discussion and raise it straight at IMOS despite the fact they have clearly failed to even look and participate in this discussion. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Note to Mabuska, no one has to this a guideline on the article talkpage. Murry1975 (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you please clarify what you typed as I don't understand it? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hibernia Networks. 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/20131005010038/http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/hibernia-networks-acquires-atrato-ip-160700988.html to http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/hibernia-networks-acquires-atrato-ip-160700988.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AHA_GlobalFinancialNetwork_0909.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)