Talk:CDF Naval Service
'Naval Service' is a hugely broad term. Many NationStates have naval services. Maybe you should move this to Naval Service (Sober Thought)?Gruen2alk 17:33, 26 October 2005 (GMT)
Sorry, Gruenberg2, I just read this now, after the Ceorana and your other comments on the cleanup page.
So far, this is what Ceo & I have come up with (still working):
- Sober Thought Community Defence Forces (first ref, spelled in full and very precise).
- CDF Air Service (second & subord org ref, not spelled out, fairly precise but some future NS nation may want to use the CDF acronym; I say tough noogies because I got it first -- and I'm happy to give seniority [and even rational rights] to others, e.g., North Island and North Island (Sober Thought).
- CDF Air Service figher (further subord org/aircraft, not spelled out, very precise -- more precise, in fact than "F-1 Fighter" which is what one of my a/c is called, but it is an obvious name for a fighter which would sure be duplicated or want to be duplicated by others)
Do you have any additional suggestions or comments on these? I really to want to hear them and be a cooperating member of the NS and NSWiki community. I apologise if you felt you were being ignored but I simply didn't notice the "Discussion" tab had turned blue from red.
With Ceo's indirect suggestion, I've added Category: Armed forces (only two capitals on that one, I discovered the hard way!) to Community Defence Forces.
Believe it or not, I was trying to be fair and not hog generic names for myself. Most armed forces, in RL and NS, are not integrated. Although "community" is a drop-down NS nation pre-title, it is rarely used. "Defence" C cuts out the Americans, at least 50% of the active NS players I estimate. "Forces" plural cuts out half the rest, so "Community Defence Forces" with that precise spelling and capitalisation is unlikely to be in demand by anybody but me (or some freak like me 8^) ).
Similarly, while "Army" is way to generic (and a term I reject for RL and RP reasons), Land Service is peculuar and fairly distictive with its word choice and proper noun capitalisation. So to with "Air Service", far more commonly "Air Force," "Airforce" or "Air Corps" in its generic sense (still cap'ed tho' as a proprer name). I agree that "Naval Service" is the most generic of these. In RL, the Canadian Naval Service (before it was RCN and then MARCOM) and the Irish Naval Service quickly spring to mind. However, "Navy" is still the most generic, and one I avoided for RL and RP reasons. In my RP planning, I had originally used "Land Force" (which has resonance for Canadian militia geeks, or fellow travellers like me), "Air Force" and "Naval Force" for symmetry with "Community Defence Forces" but I rejected it because "Air Force" would be too generic.
I appreciate these issues as being important and ones that we all have to discuss. As a sometime professional library worker, I have experience in these sorts of arguments and I understand the sincere desire to make something work which underlies them. But even in the library world, these conflicts crop up and are resolved or not. For example, the official cataloguing rules for the US, UK and Canada were painfully hammered out line by line. The organisations chiefly involved were the American Library Association, The Library Association and the Canadian Library Association. You see, in Britain, you don't have to specify; the whole world just knows. 8^)
Consider too the Royal Navy (there are lots, the Netherlands among them, but the UK has dibs and seniority on the generic-proper RN) and RAF. And true to British muddle-through-it form, there actually is no "Royal Army" and even less an official "British Army" -- every year the army is technically disbanded and immediately re-raised. This began after the 17th century Civil War with Cromwell's New Model Army; Parliament said there would be no standing army, but when they saw the need for one, instead of changing their mind they invented a bizarre work around.
So thanks for your time and assistance. I look forward to future fruitful contact. And if you're in a hurry to speak to me, or you think I'm ignoring you, send me a TG and I promise to respond as soon as I log on (2-3x a week) to NS.
Sober Thought 00:29, 23 November 2005 (GMT)
