Talk:Irish Naval Service

message: I 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  MRV (Multi Role Vessel) 

message: LE 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)
thread_title:  LE Setanta 

message: :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.
BetacommandBot 07:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Nscoa.png

message: The 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)
thread_title:  Asgard II 

message: I have fully protected the article for three days because of an ongoing edit war about the inclusion of . 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)
thread_title:  Page protected 

message: Evidently 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)
thread_title:  Ranks 

message: As 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)
thread_title:  Cites and tone of "capabilities" section 

message: In 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Undiscussed move" reverted (6 years later) with another "undiscussed move" 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100414014629/http://www.military.ie/index.htm to http://www.military.ie/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090528085144/http://www.mii.connect.ie/history/mii/mii.html to http://www.mii.connect.ie/history/mii/mii.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101126085948/http://military.ie/naval/history/ships/index.htm to http://www.military.ie/naval/history/ships/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090528085144/http://www.mii.connect.ie/history/mii/mii.html to http://www.mii.connect.ie/history/mii/mii.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) 18:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081228002848/http://www.specialoperations.com/Foreign/Ireland/Rangers/Combat_Diving.htm to http://www.specialoperations.com/Foreign/Ireland/Rangers/Combat_Diving.htm
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) 18:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090909073152/http://www.military.ie/naval/specialists/divers/index.htm to http://www.military.ie/naval/specialists/divers/index.htm
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) 16:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified