This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Argentine Navy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was created or improved during WikiProject Latin America's " Latin American and the Caribbean 10,000 Challenge", which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help out! |
The info was out of date. Beards now authorized from Ensign and upwards. See section 1.10 of the latest Navy Uniform Regs (R.A-1-001). Goatees are authorized as well.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.114.160.225 ( talk • contribs).
<quote>The COAN (Spanish: Comando de Aviación Naval) and not CANA as is commonly wrong shortened by some foreign bibliography, has 4 main airbases:<quote>
The phrasing of this sentencer really bothers me. Does anyone else feel that it looks a little POV? // 3R1C 19:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
See my comment on FLOMAR below... Jor70 is right —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.114.160.225 ( talk • contribs).
Its not true that Argentinians say Malvinas War, they say Guerra de las Malvinas as they speak Spanish. This is an English wikipedia and we are thus duty bound to use the common English term and not reveal a pro Argentine POV re The Falklands War, SqueakBox 00:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Nobody provides any evidence here but just says things like "many people used the term". English langauge google gets 35,300 for "Malvinas War" and 511,000 for "Falkalnds War". Clearly the latter is the most common, and should be used in the English language version of Wikipedia as the default. However, given the context of an article on the Argentine Navy, however, I feel that the "Falkalnds/Malvinas War" title part is acceptable, given that "Falklands" is the default term (given precedence over 'Malvinas') used elsewhere in the article. Logoistic 00:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
here you have some, all british sites found by user Vintagekits
Having inserted Malvinas as a translation into the section my objections are with (a) using the term Falklands/Malvinas as a section title and (b) object to including the term Malvinas in this way, and I would argue that doing so gives the article less credibility in the English speaking world, something I am sure Jor would not wish to see. For instance at
Battle of the Bulge we translate this term into German but we dont vcall it the Unternehmen War (apologies if my German is incorrect),
SqueakBox
01:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a dispute which we have managed to resolve in other places; Sadly there are those with an anti-British agenda who support the Argentine naming of a British territory for their cause. This promotes discord between the British and Argentine contributors, and should be avoided.
I think its fair enough to refer to the war by the Spanish name, because thats what it was called, and they were clearly the other party involved - however the correct name in English is the Falklands war. At the time here we got to see both sides of the dispute, with the BBC covering the British position and TVE wildly enthusiastic about the invasion.
What is not appropriate is the renaming of the territory, or the use of alternative names for Stanley. There are many territories in the world which have changed hands, and one has to respect the views of the inhabitants.
The Argentines fought la Guerra de las Malvinas, and that should be mentioned, but winners of disputes earn the right to name territories. The object of Wikipedia is to inform people correctly rather than to wage further wars.
-- Gibnews 08:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
-- Gibnews 13:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I've read another acronym: FLOta de Mar ARgentina — FLOMAR here -> [1]. Should it replace COFM? Necessary Evil 18:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
FLOMAR was old STANAG, now the current acronyms must be four letters long (FLA¡s). All major commands should start with "CO" as well (COIM, COFM, COAN, COFS, COAL) . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.114.160.225 ( talk • contribs)
Wouldn't it be Navy of the Argentine Republic as the preferred translation into English? I notice it was moved without discussion in July Narson 21:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that the name of the article has been reverted (via redirection) to "Argentine Navy". Even though is not a literal translation from spanish (as the previous attempts seem to be), I believe that it is a quite adequate one and is similar to the english translation for the 2 other major branches of the Argentinian Armed Forces (Army and Air Force). Maybe further research can clarify this issue, but IMHO the translation should be left as is now unless there is docummented evidence that this name is wrong. If still in doubt, maybe a discussion prior to renaming (again!) the article could be helpful. Regards, DPdH ( talk) 14:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC).
86.16.134.133 ( talk) 14:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Agent0060 14:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent0060 ( talk • contribs)
It's polítical SandmanNet ( talk) 22:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Image:LNMAB.jpg 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 17:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi All, can't believe that no one yet mentioned the
Argentine Navy day, which is celebrated on May 17th, anniversary of the victory achieved in
1814 in the
Battle of Montevideo. I've added the corresponding paragraph and supporting reference ("History" page in the ARA official website, in spanish).
Kind regards,
DPdH (
talk)
09:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, this article now includes several pictures and visually looks "wrong" to me (leaving lots of "empty" spaces in the text). I propose to leave a few pics embedded in the text where appropriate, and move the rest to a new "Gallery" section (as seen in other wikiarticles). If there is no reasonable opposition will do this "ASAIC" (ie: "as soon as I can" 8D).
Kind regards,
DPdH (
talk)
00:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed that the fleet is currelntly shown in a more complex and less clear way (IMHO) than what used to be (up to Revision as of 2010-05-07T14:09:45). Can anyone please justify why the former layout was discarded? Otherwise I'll reformat the section following the previous layout and structure (but maybe keeping some features of the new layout).
Thanks & regards,
DPdH (
talk)
15:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The edit of 11:49, 10 August 2011 has in the edit summary: "use of the term destroyer is akin to the french use of the word frigate....should be noted these are infact NOT destroyers".
Please can we discuss this. Why do you think that the Almirante Brown class are not destroyers?-- Toddy1 ( talk) 12:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Discussion has deviated too much and surprisingly so soon. So, in an effort to dive back-into a more constructive discussion; I have a question/s;
We both agree (I presume) that the Almirante Brown class are in-fact designated Destroyers by the Argentine officials - and I think that the MEKO 360 should continue to be referred to as the Almirante Brown class destroyer - but, in terms of armaments, systems, role and tons are they really destroyers? Shouldn't this be made clear to the reader in the relevant articles? This course of action has been taken on the relatively well written European navies, so shouldn't we do the same here? Recon.Army ( talk) 09:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Faa.gif, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Faa.gif) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Argentine 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.saorbats.com.ar/ORBAT%20-%20Argentina%20-%20ARA.htmWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Not accurate trial sentence, just a amarillist's post's SandmanNet ( talk) 22:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Argentine Navy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was created or improved during WikiProject Latin America's " Latin American and the Caribbean 10,000 Challenge", which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help out! |
The info was out of date. Beards now authorized from Ensign and upwards. See section 1.10 of the latest Navy Uniform Regs (R.A-1-001). Goatees are authorized as well.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.114.160.225 ( talk • contribs).
<quote>The COAN (Spanish: Comando de Aviación Naval) and not CANA as is commonly wrong shortened by some foreign bibliography, has 4 main airbases:<quote>
The phrasing of this sentencer really bothers me. Does anyone else feel that it looks a little POV? // 3R1C 19:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
See my comment on FLOMAR below... Jor70 is right —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.114.160.225 ( talk • contribs).
Its not true that Argentinians say Malvinas War, they say Guerra de las Malvinas as they speak Spanish. This is an English wikipedia and we are thus duty bound to use the common English term and not reveal a pro Argentine POV re The Falklands War, SqueakBox 00:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Nobody provides any evidence here but just says things like "many people used the term". English langauge google gets 35,300 for "Malvinas War" and 511,000 for "Falkalnds War". Clearly the latter is the most common, and should be used in the English language version of Wikipedia as the default. However, given the context of an article on the Argentine Navy, however, I feel that the "Falkalnds/Malvinas War" title part is acceptable, given that "Falklands" is the default term (given precedence over 'Malvinas') used elsewhere in the article. Logoistic 00:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
here you have some, all british sites found by user Vintagekits
Having inserted Malvinas as a translation into the section my objections are with (a) using the term Falklands/Malvinas as a section title and (b) object to including the term Malvinas in this way, and I would argue that doing so gives the article less credibility in the English speaking world, something I am sure Jor would not wish to see. For instance at
Battle of the Bulge we translate this term into German but we dont vcall it the Unternehmen War (apologies if my German is incorrect),
SqueakBox
01:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a dispute which we have managed to resolve in other places; Sadly there are those with an anti-British agenda who support the Argentine naming of a British territory for their cause. This promotes discord between the British and Argentine contributors, and should be avoided.
I think its fair enough to refer to the war by the Spanish name, because thats what it was called, and they were clearly the other party involved - however the correct name in English is the Falklands war. At the time here we got to see both sides of the dispute, with the BBC covering the British position and TVE wildly enthusiastic about the invasion.
What is not appropriate is the renaming of the territory, or the use of alternative names for Stanley. There are many territories in the world which have changed hands, and one has to respect the views of the inhabitants.
The Argentines fought la Guerra de las Malvinas, and that should be mentioned, but winners of disputes earn the right to name territories. The object of Wikipedia is to inform people correctly rather than to wage further wars.
-- Gibnews 08:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
-- Gibnews 13:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I've read another acronym: FLOta de Mar ARgentina — FLOMAR here -> [1]. Should it replace COFM? Necessary Evil 18:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
FLOMAR was old STANAG, now the current acronyms must be four letters long (FLA¡s). All major commands should start with "CO" as well (COIM, COFM, COAN, COFS, COAL) . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.114.160.225 ( talk • contribs)
Wouldn't it be Navy of the Argentine Republic as the preferred translation into English? I notice it was moved without discussion in July Narson 21:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that the name of the article has been reverted (via redirection) to "Argentine Navy". Even though is not a literal translation from spanish (as the previous attempts seem to be), I believe that it is a quite adequate one and is similar to the english translation for the 2 other major branches of the Argentinian Armed Forces (Army and Air Force). Maybe further research can clarify this issue, but IMHO the translation should be left as is now unless there is docummented evidence that this name is wrong. If still in doubt, maybe a discussion prior to renaming (again!) the article could be helpful. Regards, DPdH ( talk) 14:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC).
86.16.134.133 ( talk) 14:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Agent0060 14:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent0060 ( talk • contribs)
It's polítical SandmanNet ( talk) 22:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Image:LNMAB.jpg 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 17:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi All, can't believe that no one yet mentioned the
Argentine Navy day, which is celebrated on May 17th, anniversary of the victory achieved in
1814 in the
Battle of Montevideo. I've added the corresponding paragraph and supporting reference ("History" page in the ARA official website, in spanish).
Kind regards,
DPdH (
talk)
09:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, this article now includes several pictures and visually looks "wrong" to me (leaving lots of "empty" spaces in the text). I propose to leave a few pics embedded in the text where appropriate, and move the rest to a new "Gallery" section (as seen in other wikiarticles). If there is no reasonable opposition will do this "ASAIC" (ie: "as soon as I can" 8D).
Kind regards,
DPdH (
talk)
00:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed that the fleet is currelntly shown in a more complex and less clear way (IMHO) than what used to be (up to Revision as of 2010-05-07T14:09:45). Can anyone please justify why the former layout was discarded? Otherwise I'll reformat the section following the previous layout and structure (but maybe keeping some features of the new layout).
Thanks & regards,
DPdH (
talk)
15:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The edit of 11:49, 10 August 2011 has in the edit summary: "use of the term destroyer is akin to the french use of the word frigate....should be noted these are infact NOT destroyers".
Please can we discuss this. Why do you think that the Almirante Brown class are not destroyers?-- Toddy1 ( talk) 12:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Discussion has deviated too much and surprisingly so soon. So, in an effort to dive back-into a more constructive discussion; I have a question/s;
We both agree (I presume) that the Almirante Brown class are in-fact designated Destroyers by the Argentine officials - and I think that the MEKO 360 should continue to be referred to as the Almirante Brown class destroyer - but, in terms of armaments, systems, role and tons are they really destroyers? Shouldn't this be made clear to the reader in the relevant articles? This course of action has been taken on the relatively well written European navies, so shouldn't we do the same here? Recon.Army ( talk) 09:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Faa.gif, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Faa.gif) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Argentine 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.saorbats.com.ar/ORBAT%20-%20Argentina%20-%20ARA.htmWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Not accurate trial sentence, just a amarillist's post's SandmanNet ( talk) 22:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)