Talk:Green-water navy

message: Is there any point in having a list of green water navies? By the articles definition, the list should be a list of all the navies in the world, sans the blue water ones (which is 3 navies).
The list instead contains only navies that have at least some form of aircraft carrier. All this does is confuse the reader as to what the definition of green water navy is.
On that note, I've decided to remove it, feel free to add it back in if you feel the article needs it.
Beaver225 (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with AshLin. The power projection of People's Liberation Army, Russian Navy, Indian Navy are simply compared to that of Chilean Navy.or some Brazilian navy.Having Amphibious Assault Ship is not enough for a navy to be called as a Green water navy or lack of overseas deployments wont make the Russian,Chinese and Indian navies green water navies.The power projection of these navies is far more better than all the rest.These three navies are far more superior than any of the other navies due to the presence of Guided Missile Destroyers, More number of frigates, Naval Aircraft, Nuclear Submarine(s).So either remove the three navies from the page or completely delete the article.And does the term "green water navy" really exist or was just created to satisfy some users?. Thanks Srikar Kashyap (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The term is in use, as in  and other places easily found by Google search, so that's not a reason for deletion. On the other hand, it's a very poor article for reasons explained above and ought to be made much smaller. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble is that it gets used in three main contexts, two that are fairly specific and one that is very badly defined. One is the US Navy talking about elements of its own fleet, of which the Zumwalt is the poster-child. The second is the US Navy talking about a phase of development of the Chinese Navy as a whole, the first-island-chain stage. Obviously that use has only emerged over the last 15-20 years. And then just recently you've had random commentators taking that usage and applying to any second-division navy - like the example you quote. And FWIW, I wouldn't regard gcreport.com as a particularly reliable source - for something that's prone to diverse interpretations like this, I'd be looking for gold-plated sources like the Proceedings of the USNI or the Naval War College Review. We seem to be in a situation a bit like "impulse" or "momentum" - they have specific meaning when used by physicists, but a random Google will turn up lots of usage in a looser meaning by members of the general public. As with blue-water navyI really don't think that a listing of lots of different orders of battle is a particularly clever or useful idea - it just duplicates stuff that's already in the navy articles and there's very few WP:RS that will say that a particular navy is a GWN as such, so it's WP:OR to say that "this navy has an amphibious ship and some tankers, therefore it is a GWN". Certainly in high-quality sources - I suspect that China would be the only one you'd find US military sources calling a GWN on much more than a one-off basis. Personally I think blue-water navy probably has enough pedigree to remain as a distinct article, but I wouldn't cry too much if this article and brown-water navy were redirected to Maritime geography or something - I've already added a chunk of the stuff from my recent big edit here. Le Deluge (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of navies 

message: Surely Singapore's RSN with it's stealth frigates and corvettes is green water.Phd8511 (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As this is a wikipedia article, surely you dont get to choose, you find reliable references stating it is or it isn't, otherwise its OR. 108.161.117.228 (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Phd8511 you first need to find some reliable sources which refer to it as a green-water navy. I removed it as there were none provided.Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singapore 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dodko-class/
*:Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Qualifying for this list seems to be dependent on a fleet having a few AORs and a few LHD/LPD, backed up by some form of sea denial submarine force and air warfare DDG capability. This gives a country some ability to force project, but not sustain indefinitely.
The article then goes on to discuss how there are several navies that can almost be considered green water navies under those criteria, specifically citing Germany in comparison to Canada. Germany with its modern oilers, commercial ro/ro ships, functioning submarines and Sachen Frigates is more green water than Canada, a nation that lacks all of those capabilities considered necessary in the article to be green water.
I propose that this article includes a "potential green water" section; a list of large navies that are brown water but can potentially be considered green water. This would bring this article into line with a similar section of aspirational navies in the Wikipedia "blue water navy" article. This list would initially include Canada (removed from the main list) and Germany.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.178.87.150 (talk) 04:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be original research, which Wikipedia does not do. Unless there are sources stating that Germany and Canada intend to develop green-water capability, then we cannot include it in the article. Llammakey (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. As a Canadian, Canada no longer has this capability year round. I would propose to remove Canada too, however Canada just complicated things as they`ve just rented two replenishment vessels to maintain their green water ability. I would need to spend some time looking at sources to see if Canada would still be considered green water capable now that it has those two vessels. Sorry to throw another hammer in the works.Llammakey (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential Green water navies

message: To the IP editor, what do you not understand about the need for reliable sources? Your WP:OR definition of a green-water navy is irrelevant. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, reliable sources are necessary for such changes. If you know what your talking about, then surely you can provide some reliable sources? Thanks. Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't add navies without reliable sources

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Green-water navy. 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  tag to http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/Naval%20Operations%20Concept%202010.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130108094155/http://www.mod.go.jp/e/about/answers/anti/index.html to http://www.mod.go.jp/e/about/answers/anti/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Egypt and Iran Jw10u36engeve25be768ko27siw37ppql639sns918nvzfgzb (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New additions 

message: It's difficult to understand why the Finnish Navy has been added to this article, with its fast attack craft and mine warfare vessels. I think they should be removed. -- Nidator T / C 10:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Finnish Navy currently operates two blue water -capable minelayers which are to be replaced by a class of four 'corvettes' (in reality frigates), construction of which is scheduled to begin next year, one of the requirements for the new ships is ocean-going capability in order to be available for international operations & one of them is almost certainly going to serve as the next school ship meaning annual overseas training cruises. Ape89 (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Norway has destroyer-sized frigates, submarines, an AOR, several large ocean-going patrol vessels (coast guard) in addition to MSMVs, corvettes, intelligence vessels and smaller patrol vessels and is NOT on the list. Compare the Finnish Navy to the other navies on the list and it sticks out like a sore thumb. -- Nidator T / C 11:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a citation needed tag to Finland, as I do not believe it belongs here. If no reliable source describing the Finnish Navy as a green-water navy is added then the Finland paragraph should be removed. -- Nidator T / C 12:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Finnish Navy most definitely isn't a brown-water Navy, so what other options are there if not green-water Navy? Finnish Navy may not meet United States' definition of a green-water navy, but then again the name of the article isn't "Green-Water Navy as defined by United States", is it? As for Norway not being on the list, something not being on a list isn't a reason to remove things from said list. Ape89 (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, if you bothered to read the first paragraph of the article, you'd see that the Finnish Navy is a green-water Navy, as a reminder, the paragraph is: "A green-water navy is a maritime force that is capable of operating in its nation's littoral zone and has the competency to operate in the open oceans of its surrounding region. It is a relatively new term, and has been created to better distinguish, and add nuance, between two long-standing descriptors: blue-water navy (deep ocean waters) and brown-water navy (shallow littoral waters)." Ape89 (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What I think obviously doesn't matter, as it is citations that matter, but to me the Finnish navy is an obvious littoral one with small missile boats, MCMV, landing craft, etc. whose primary task is the protection of territorial waters. Even the description of the navy in this article says so, in somewhat poetic terms; "having been given the daunting task of protecting the often shallow territorial waters of Finland riddled with skerries". What "competency" it has to operate on the open ocean is not clear to me and looks very limited. Even when the Pohjanmaa-class corvettes, which really should be called frigates, arrive the Finnish navy will not have something like a replenishment oiler to sustain operations on the open ocean. The map in this article doesn't include Finland, and when you look at the other entries it begins to look a little ridiculous. -- Nidator T / C 08:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finland? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion