Talk:Irish Naval Service
 | On 30 September 2020, it was proposed that this article be moved from Irish Naval Service to Naval Service (Ireland). The result of the discussion was not moved (no consensus). |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
MRV (Multi Role Vessel)
editI see that someone has added in a section on The Future of the Irish navy, mentioning that the Emer and some other vessels will be replaced by some new proposed ship called a MRV (Multi Role Vessel). This sounds interesting, but is it true? Can anybody confirm this? (Especially the stats given for it). --Hibernian 18:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- This is an ambition rather than a fact and perhaps whereas there may have been the potential there before, now the economic situation in Ireland will prevent such expenditure. Furthermore, the design and designations of any proposed new ships is anticipatory rather than fact. Dubhtail (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
LE Setanta
editLE Setanta is mentioned as one of the seven ships funded by the EEC. Surely Setanta was a sail training vessel, not an "operational vessel" as such. 140.203.12.241 16:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Nscoa.png
edit
Image:Nscoa.png 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 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.
Asgard II
editThe Asgard II is not, and never was an Irish Navy STV. It had nothing to do with the Navy. It was owned and operated by Coiste an Asgard on behalf of the Minister for Defence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:A8:FF01:0:A43C:6E03:8CF6:9CCE (talk • contribs) 16:57, 18 July 2012
- Thanks for clarifying. RashersTierney (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Page protected
editI have fully protected the article for three days because of an ongoing edit war about the inclusion of Muirchú. Please discuss this issue instead of reverting each other. As a starter, you might want to debate whether the article should should only list vessels of the Irish Naval service proper or also of its successor predecessor, ie the Coastal and Marine Service. De728631 (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 14:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Ranks
editEvidently it's also possible to become a Rear Admiral: witness this chap. Presumably if someone from the NS were to be promoted to chief of staff (of the whole IDF shooting match) they'd be made a Vice Admiral. 84.203.38.129 (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Cites and tone of "capabilities" section
editAs it isn't supported by references, much of the "capabilities" section reads like an essay/opinion-piece. The association/comparison with a coast-guard, the commentary on sealift capabilities, and other section elements are unsupported with cites. They therefore read a little like someone's opinion (Which might be OK if there were cites and a reword to explain whose opinion/analysis is being represented). Unless there are other thoughts on how to handle, and unless some cites can be added, I think this needs to be looked-at. (And I would include the pre-existing sub-section about "territorial waters" in the review. Although it doesn't have the same "opinion/commentary" tone issues, it is equally uncited and seems to be speculative on future(?) continental shelf laws...) Guliolopez (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
"Undiscussed move" reverted (6 years later) with another "undiscussed move"
editIn 2004 this article was created as "Irish Naval Service". In 2010 it was moved to "Naval Service (Ireland)" - seemingly with the rational that the prefix "Irish" isn't used in the official name. Which it isn't. Then in 2016 it was moved to "Irish Naval Service" - seemingly with the rationale that this might be the common name, and therefore preferable to the official name.
While I personally don't have strong opinions either way, I find it interesting that this page pretty much spent as long (approaching 6 years) at the "new" name. Almost as long as it spent at the "old" name (also about 6 years). Frankly, given the length of time involved between "reverts" (and as part of the implied rationale for the more recent "revert" was that the 2010 move was "undiscussed"), I personally think it might have been appropriate to open a discussion on this. If the initial move (seemingly unchallenged and perhaps therefore implicitly meeting CON for 6 years) should have been discussed, wouldn't it perhaps be appropriate to discuss it? If moves are supposed to be discussed first, then wouldn't it seem appropriate to (well) discuss it first!? Guliolopez (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Common name is preferred to official name on Wikipedia. No discussion needed, as it shouldn't have been moved to the official name is the first place. - BilCat (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- "I'm right so discussion isn't required" - is the same position the original move was based upon. It is not however one of the pillars the project is based upon. It just seemed slightly ironic to me to see a change decried as "undiscussed" - in the edit-sum of a change which did the same thing. Anyway, I'm not pushed on the title either way. Commonname is a toss-up for either candidate at best. I just found the nature of the two moves (both undiscussed, both 6 years apart) kind of interesting. Guliolopez (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Why is it now that we have Irish Naval Service and Irish Air Corps as undiscussed article titles, yet the overarching organisation's name remains Defence Forces (Ireland) rather than Irish Defence Forces, not to mention Army Reserve (Ireland) and Naval Service Reserve. For the sake of uniformity, shouldn't these then be changed to Irish Army Reserve and Irish Naval Service Reserve, or above be reverted to reflect past uniformity? IrishSpook (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editExtended content
|
|---|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 4 external links on Irish Naval Service. 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:
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
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC) External links modifiededitHello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Irish Naval Service. 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:
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
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC) External links modifiededitHello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Irish Naval Service. 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:
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
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC) |
Requested move 28 August 2020
edit- 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: No consensus for move. (It's been a month. With several relistings. No discussion contributor (other than nom) has supported the move proposal. Non-admin closure.) (non-admin closure) Guliolopez (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
For the reasons stated sbove. – Fayenatic London 09:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Jerm (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Jerm (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. This is rather an awkward one, as many armed services of the world are officially just called the Army, Navy, Air Force, Land Forces or whatever, but on Wikipedia we invariably title them Fooian Army etc. Our naming conventions would support the proposal, but our common practice would not. I'm not necessarily against renaming, but I think it needs to apply to all or none. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Comment. I'm somewhat in the same place as Necrothesp. It is true that "the Air Corps" is likely a more common name (certainly within Ireland) than "the Irish Air Corps". However, certainly outside Ireland, some form of DAB is required. While the parenthetical DAB suffix achieves this, the WP:NATURALNESS concept suggests that we use common titles that are natural. And "Irish Air Corps" is a much more natural (real world/common speech) disambiguation than the artificial (Wikipedia/computer only) parenthetical model ("Air Corps (Ireland)"). In this sense, Irish Air Corps provides for a natural and common name. If is perhaps not the definitive common name. But it is more common than the parenthetical (Wikipedia only) one. Anyway, while I wouldn't lose my mind if the article was moved (the umpteenth time), I see no major issue with the status quo either. And, absent a strong(er) argument, would lean towards opposing yet another move of this type. (Not least as it will probably be reversed in another few years. When the wind shifts again. Or another editor boldly decides they have a black and white answer to what is at best a grey area...) Guliolopez (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)- Oppose. The current names adequately meet the 5 naming criteria (recognizability, naturalness, precision, consiseness, and consistency), are more natural than the parenthetical proposal, and to international users, are a more common name. -M.Nelson (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per M.nelson and my own note above, I do not see how the proposed title represents an improvement. The current title is a natural common name for the subject. The proposed title might be a variant of a common name, but the parenthetical suffix doesn't form part of that name, and also doesn't sit well with the WP:NATURALNESS principle. In short, the current title is already a natural and recognisable commonname. The proposed title is less so. (I think it's time to close this. It's been a month.) Guliolopez (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.