Talk:Naval air station

port facilities

Naval Air stations do not have port facilities.

I removed the port facilities. I was stationed on a Naval Air Station as well as an aircraft carrier. I a gree that they don't have port facilities for carriers. Example: NAS Norfolk is right next to NAVSTA Norfolk where the carriers are. They aren't the same base. If someone can come up with a source to prove that statement, I agree it should be put back. --JAYMEDINC 22:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

NAS New York (Floyd Bennett Field in Brooklyn, NY) had a pier and ships did tie up there during WW2, I heard, but my strong guess is that it wasn't for deep draft ships, since it was on Jamaica Bay. I wouldn't call it a port by any stretch. I was stationed there, BTW. Becksguy 07:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

cities

The format where we are showing the city and linking to the Naval Air Station should be changed in my opinion. I believe since the air station is autonomous to the city, we should just show the name of the air station and wikilink right to it. --JAYMEDINC 22:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Categories?

I'm trying to sort out how the categories for US NAS's should be set up. Naturally, they're all assigned to Category:United States Navy air stations (so far, so good). However, all of the examples I've looked at are also assigned to Category:United States Navy bases. So I'd sure appreciate it if somebody could supply a clear & unequivocal answer to the following question: Is it (technically) correct to consider an air station to be a particular type of "navy base"? If that is in fact the case, then Category:United States Navy air stations should be made a sub-category of Category:United States Navy bases. Otherwise, the latter category should be removed from all of the NAS articles. Thanks for your help! Cgingold (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think "navy base" includes establishments with naval ships, as well as establishments with naval aviation squadrons or C³, so it makes sense to see Category:United States Navy bases as a super-category as you suggest. - Neparis (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost forgot! Another question: I see that this article is included in Category:Lists of military units and formations. That strikes me as inappropriate, unless it's somehow standard to consider an installation to be a type of unit on a par with a brigade or an air wing. Comments, please? Cgingold (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. - Neparis (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

One thing that I do know is that anything that doesn't fly or float, is an Shore Establishment. So that would be the great granddad for all installation categories.::A US Naval Air Station (NAS) is a unit in the same way a squadron, air wing, or ship are units. It has a command structure with a commanding officer (CO), executive officer (XO), and department heads. A NAS commanding officer has UCMJ Article 15 authority, discipline, inspection, and promotion responsibilities and authority same as any other CO. Military personnel receive travel, transfer, and Temporary Additional Duty orders to/from a NAS, just like any other Naval unit. The only difference is that it's not mobile. And neither is a Naval Base (NAVBASE), Naval Operating Base (NOB), Naval Station (NAVSTA), Naval Weapons Depot, Naval Auxiliary Air Station (NAAS), or Naval Air Facility (NAF). — Becksguy (talk) 07:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a headquarters unit that acts as the staff of a base/station/facility? I know that is hoe the Marines and Air Force operate thier facilities (not sure about the Army), it would make sense that the Navy follows suit. For example, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point is lead and staffed by Headquarters and Headquarters Squadron (with administrative oversight of all the civilliian employees and contractors), and then all of the tenant units fall under a seperate chain of command. H&HS would fall under the Category:Military units and formations of the United States Marine Corps, and the article on the station itself falls under Category:United States Marine Corps air stations.

While I wouldn't consider a station or facility to be a unit, I would say that the category for NAS should be the child of a category for naval installations, which would also encompass NAVBASEs, NOBs, NAVSTAs, NWDs. NAFs and NAASs could be either in the same category as NAS or child... I would vote the former. bahamut0013♠♣ 15:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In the ten years I spent in Naval Aviation, I never heard the term headquarters unit, or headquarters squadron, or anything like it, related to the Navy. If one was transfered to a NAS for duty, the orders would read to report to the commanding officer (CO) of that NAS, for example, CO, NAS Glenview. In other words, there wasn't any administrative separation between the facility and the command of that facility for Naval Air Stations. If one was ordered to a shore based squadron, the order would be to report to, for example, CO, VA-32, NAS New York. Yes, there obviously were tenant squadrons based on a NAS, each with their own CO and chain of command. In the US Navy, all shore based facilities are part of what is called the Shore Establishment, which is separate from the operating forces, such as one of the Unified Combatant Commands or the Pacific Fleet. So a NAS is a unit or command, but it is also an installation. If one asked a sailor what his unit was, he would respond: USS Intrepid, or Attack Squadron VA-32, or NAS New York, or whatever unit he was attached to. Does that make sense? — Becksguy (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Becksguy, I think you've given a very clear and solid answer to that question. Now what about my first question: is an NAS considered to be a type of "Navy base" under the US Navy's strict definition of what constitutes a Navy base? Cgingold (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I held off answering the question about the relationship between naval base and naval air station, because I wanted time to research the Navy's organization structure and think about my answer. I'm not a Naval historian or organizational specialist, but I do have a strong interest in the subject. Many of these terms are used within the Naval community in strict structural senses, and as part of the official names for installations (example: Naval Station Subic Bay), but also in more informal or common usage senses. And I think that both have validity. Naval base is both a generic term, especially to the general public, and an official name (ie - specific) for some facilities. Categories don't do well with fuzzy logic, that is, when in some cases a term means this, and in other cases a term means that. My guess, subject to further research is that NAVSTA, NAS, etc, are all equal categories since they are functional distinctions in shore establishment missions. I have found facilities that are named Naval Base, for example Naval Base Ventura County [1], as well as facilities that are named Naval Station, for example, Naval Station Norfolk. It's not clear what the difference between them is. I even found that Guantanamo Bay is referred to both as a Naval Station and a Naval Base on the same US Navy military domain page, so some of these distinctions may take a bit of time to research. Unfortunately, not all writers are clear on nomenclature and definitional distinctions, and I have found errors, even in the names of installations. For example, NAS New York is the official name of a now decommissioned NAS, but it has been wrongly referred to as NAS Brooklyn, since it was located in Brooklyn, NY. The current parent category that seems to work for all these facilities, whatever their nomenclature, type, and name may be, is Category:United States Navy facilities, and it seems to be generic enough. So my answer is that naval air stations should NOT be a subcat of navy bases. Does that help? — Becksguy (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

This article has been renamed from Naval Air Station to Naval air station as the result of a move request.

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was - Move as per WP:MOSCAPS. Keith D (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the move was per WP:NAME. WP:MOSCAPS does not cover article titles, but rather the contents of articles. - Neparis (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Naval Air Station → Naval air station — caps not needed for generic term —Cgingold (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Moved from RM - 199.125.109.105 (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• The more common usage is as a proper noun, not as a description, although that form is also used. 199.125.109.59 (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but it's only a proper noun when it's the name of a specific naval air station, such as Naval Air Station Lemoore. Otherwise, it's merely a generic term, which by definition is NOT a proper noun. This is just basic English grammar. Cgingold (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Cgingold. This particular use is not a proper noun, and should be written in lower-case per WP:NAME. - Neparis (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose US Naval Air Stations are always capitolized like that. --JAYMEDINC (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Cgingold's reasoning - this phrase can be used generically outside proper nouns. Knepflerle (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support rename per nom. Countries/navies other than the United States have naval air stations, and it's standard grammar that in the generic sense it's not a proper noun. It should only be capitalized when it's part of the name of a specific naval air station. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom; it's only a proper noun when referring to a specific air station. Parsecboy (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NAME; this particular use is not a proper noun. - Neparis (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose In almost all uses, the location is implied or included, but in both cases it is used as a proper noun. When referring to "the base", "the station", the "air base", the "naval base" it is a description and not used as a proper noun. In only extremely rare cases is "naval air station" used as a description. 199.125.109.105 (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

One example is here: "as the world's finest naval air station"[2]. The most common usage is "at the Naval Air Station", where it is used as a proper noun with the location being implied. 199.125.109.105 (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• However, we are not referring to a specific NAS here, we're talking about the term generally. Your example to justify keeping the capitalized name actually hurts your position. Parsecboy (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• I find it strange that you discount the source you've provided to support lower case (a .mil site). Does the Navy not know proper grammatical formatting for it's own installations? Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I think there may perhaps be some confusion that needs to be cleared up. I'm not arguing that it's never appropriate to use the capitalized form. Indeed, I would no doubt use that form myself in certain circumstances, i.e. when referring implicitly to a specific, already-referenced NAS. In this case, however, we are referring generically to multiple air stations, so there is simply no grammatical basis that I can see for using caps. Hope that helps. Cgingold (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

All of which are capitalized? I'm not sure I see your point. If you do a google search for "naval air station" you find 195 that are "Naval Air Station", one that is "the busiest naval air station" (note: used as a description), one that is "the first permanent naval air station" (also a description), 2 that are incorrectly not capitalized (names of specific air stations), and only 1 that uses "naval air station" ("at the naval air station command headquarters here"). This article is not a description of a naval air station, it is an article about Naval Air Stations. There is no law that says that NAS has to be capitalized, but it certainly is in almost every case. Note that the first editor to reply stated earlier that they were "stationed on a Naval Air Station as well as an aircraft carrier". Why do you think they capitalized it (back in 2006)? 199.125.109.105 (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• That question answers itself: they thought it was right... (duh) which, I'm afraid, doesn't prove anything. Btw, I'm puzzled about the figure of 195 -- that's awfully low, where did you get that? My google search turned up this: Results 1 - 30 of about 2,310,000 English pages for "naval air station". Cgingold (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

1,370,000 for me. If you click Next forever you will find that Google never gives you more than 1,000 results. In this case I figured the first 200 were representative. Google does not allow case sensitive searches. If you continue you will find some odd spellings, like NAVAL Air Station, Naval air station, and Naval Airstation. There are also an awful lot of all caps hits. Here is another example where it is not capitalized because it is used as a description: "North Island was commissioned a naval air station in 1917. The station, which was originally called the Naval Air Station, San Diego until 1955..." 199.125.109.105 (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that Google hits are very misleading. But that wasn't the point -- you still didn't explain what the figure 195 was referring to. Cgingold (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Out of the first 200 Google hits, 195 use either all caps or caps (Naval Air Station or NAVAL AIR STATION). 199.125.109.102 (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the first version of this article.[3] Since no one has questioned the capitalization in almost three years, it has to have been correct. 199.125.109.105 (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• lol... Sorry, guy, but I think that flunks Logic 101. (The Earth was long believed to be flat, if I recall correctly.) Cgingold (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a good example. They were correct then and it is still correct to use Naval Air Station when referring to a specific location and not referring to a description. 199.125.109.105 (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - You know, when all is said and done, it appears that we're pursuing two entirely different lines of argument here -- one based on a perception of common usage, the other based on basic English grammar -- which is why we're essentially arguing past each other. So in the end, the question is, which one trumps the other? Cgingold (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that the article is about an object, an object that takes a proper noun, and is not an article about a description of that object. 199.125.109.105 (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble making sense of the distinction you're trying to articulate. Isn't every article about an "object" actually a "description of that object"? More importantly, you haven't addressed my central point, which is (to repeat) that we're essentially arguing past each other. Cgingold (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I could make it more clear if I said an article which discussed only the attributes of a naval air station and did not make any mention of any specific Naval Air Stations should be called "naval air station" while an article which only listed "Naval Air Stations" and described them should be called "Naval Air Station". Does that help you to see the distinction? 199.125.109.102 (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to set that criteria for capitalization. It's a bit of a logical leap to argue that because we are mentioning specific naval air stations the title should be capitalized. For an example, see Forward operating base, which is obviously in lower case, despite the fact that specific FOBs are mentioned. It's directly analogous to this article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad example. That one is wrong too. FOB is also always capitalized. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 05:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC) It was correctly created with all caps on 6 January 2005 [4] and incorrectly changed to lower case on 23 June 2006 [5] and incorrectly moved from FOB to Fob on 29 June 2007 [6] by User:Dhaluza. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not incorrect, that's just your opinion. Yes, when one is talking specifically about FOB Marez, it's capitalized, because it's a proper noun. However, when one is talking about a forward operating base in general, it's a common noun. Words should not always be capitalized just because they also make an acronym. If that were the case, we would have HAMAS, not Hamas. Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the FOB article you will see that it like this one is not a discussion of the concept of a forward operating base, it is a description of the actual real world Forward Operating Bases, and even more than this article is just a list of FOBs. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way we go by common usage. If common usage was Hamas we would use that, if it was HAMAS we would use that. Or HaMaS. A quick Google search reveals that while HAMAS is occasionally used the overwhelming common usage is Hamas. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That's because there isn't much more to say about what a FOB is than what's already in the intro and first section. As for common usage, you have thus far failed to demonstrate it. The only source you've provided is the one from the .navy.mil domain that supports lowercase. Vague assertions that capitalization is the norm don't cut it. Parsecboy (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't provide a source that supports moving the article. I don't support moving it. I gave four examples of how those three words could be used as a description and properly not capitalized. One or all of them may have been from dot-mil. The article is 92.1% (or more) a list of Naval Air Stations. Someone has suggested splitting the US list to a separate article, which would be counterproductive, because you would be left with a 4,000 byte stub. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I really don't see what the fuss is about. The phrase remains the same, with or without the caps. Grammar would call for lower case as a generic term. However, since it's mostly a list of NASs, there is also a good argument that it should remain in caps. Ultimately people are going to find the article either way, and I'm not invested in either version. I do think Cgingold's observation about arguing past each other is correct. In any case, hasn't enough time been spent on this? If this were an AfD, it would be closing/have been closed by now. Either change it, or not, and move on. — Becksguy (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

It sure would be nice to have some input on my previous unrelated questions (above). Thanks. Cgingold (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I did, in that section. — Becksguy (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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