![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 8, 2010, June 8, 2013, and June 8, 2022. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Many of the reference links on this article are broken - I've fixed one that had an obvious correct version, but several of the rest I couldn't easily repair. Could someone do so?
Also, Wikipedia is not a ' reliable source' in the sense that we can cite it (since anyone can add material to it), so I'm removing the cite to Falklands war. The statement sourced there doesn't seem to be cited in Falklands war or else I'd copy the reference across. Olaf Davis ( talk) 22:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I question whether "Bluff Cove Disaster" is a neutral title for this - it was only a disaster for one side of the conflict, after all. If this is the standard name used to refer to the incident then it might be appropriate, but the lack of working references makes that hard to ascertain. Olaf Davis ( talk) 22:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The title is still wrong because the attacks did not take place at Bluff Cove. Dmgerrard ( talk) 12:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The BBC claims that 48 people were killed, while the article says 49 and cites a documentary. Since the former is readily available to check and the latter isn't I'm inclined to change the number, but does anyone know of other sources which give 49? Olaf Davis ( talk) 22:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Which of the landing ships was lost? And which frigate was damaged? 194.80.106.134 ( talk) 11:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
RFA Sir Galahad was a total loss, RFA Sir Tristram was repaired, there were no other ship losses or damage; there were no other warships present. Justin talk 11:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
This battle took place 28 years ago, yet there is still no result on the infobox? As British losses outweigh those of the Argentinians, I would consider this a tactical victory for Argentina. Whatever the outcome of the attack, that infobox should contain a result. Wolcott ( talk) 07:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Cachon82.jpg, 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:Cachon82.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC) |
Why I was reverted ????? IT IS NOT A DEAD LINK and yes it is a quote reference, look it for yourself. Since when It is wrong to use a telly interview as reference ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.222.43 ( talk) 14:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Robert Bolia opinions are based on what ? Didn't he realize yet that an LCU was blown up during this attack ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.222.43 ( talk) 15:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bluff Cove Air Attacks. 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:
When 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) 08:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Per the above discussion under " Title neutrality," I propose changing the page name to sentence case: Bluff Cove air attacks. This was proposed 9 years ago and no one objected; it seems no one got around to doing it. No one has claimed that "Bluff Cove Air Attacks" is a widely used name for the incident or battle so that it has become a proper name. From the discussion above, it seems clear that the people who originally came up with the page title did not think that it was a proper name; rather, they were just trying to come up with a description since there was no consensus in other sources regarding a formal name of the battle or incident. I'll leave this here for a few days and then boldly make the move. Holy ( talk) 22:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who watched these ships being attacked from Mount Harriet and who had experienced being bombed in San Carlos, I cant ignore that this page does not even mention the advice from Ewen Southby-Tailyour to get off the ships as soon as possible. 220.244.104.97 ( talk) 02:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 8, 2010, June 8, 2013, and June 8, 2022. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Many of the reference links on this article are broken - I've fixed one that had an obvious correct version, but several of the rest I couldn't easily repair. Could someone do so?
Also, Wikipedia is not a ' reliable source' in the sense that we can cite it (since anyone can add material to it), so I'm removing the cite to Falklands war. The statement sourced there doesn't seem to be cited in Falklands war or else I'd copy the reference across. Olaf Davis ( talk) 22:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I question whether "Bluff Cove Disaster" is a neutral title for this - it was only a disaster for one side of the conflict, after all. If this is the standard name used to refer to the incident then it might be appropriate, but the lack of working references makes that hard to ascertain. Olaf Davis ( talk) 22:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The title is still wrong because the attacks did not take place at Bluff Cove. Dmgerrard ( talk) 12:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The BBC claims that 48 people were killed, while the article says 49 and cites a documentary. Since the former is readily available to check and the latter isn't I'm inclined to change the number, but does anyone know of other sources which give 49? Olaf Davis ( talk) 22:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Which of the landing ships was lost? And which frigate was damaged? 194.80.106.134 ( talk) 11:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
RFA Sir Galahad was a total loss, RFA Sir Tristram was repaired, there were no other ship losses or damage; there were no other warships present. Justin talk 11:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
This battle took place 28 years ago, yet there is still no result on the infobox? As British losses outweigh those of the Argentinians, I would consider this a tactical victory for Argentina. Whatever the outcome of the attack, that infobox should contain a result. Wolcott ( talk) 07:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Cachon82.jpg, 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:Cachon82.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC) |
Why I was reverted ????? IT IS NOT A DEAD LINK and yes it is a quote reference, look it for yourself. Since when It is wrong to use a telly interview as reference ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.222.43 ( talk) 14:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Robert Bolia opinions are based on what ? Didn't he realize yet that an LCU was blown up during this attack ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.222.43 ( talk) 15:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bluff Cove Air Attacks. 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:
When 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) 08:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Per the above discussion under " Title neutrality," I propose changing the page name to sentence case: Bluff Cove air attacks. This was proposed 9 years ago and no one objected; it seems no one got around to doing it. No one has claimed that "Bluff Cove Air Attacks" is a widely used name for the incident or battle so that it has become a proper name. From the discussion above, it seems clear that the people who originally came up with the page title did not think that it was a proper name; rather, they were just trying to come up with a description since there was no consensus in other sources regarding a formal name of the battle or incident. I'll leave this here for a few days and then boldly make the move. Holy ( talk) 22:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who watched these ships being attacked from Mount Harriet and who had experienced being bombed in San Carlos, I cant ignore that this page does not even mention the advice from Ewen Southby-Tailyour to get off the ships as soon as possible. 220.244.104.97 ( talk) 02:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)