This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
KRI Nanggala (402) 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 |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Material from Cakra-class submarine was split to KRI Nanggala (402) on 21 April 2021 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Cakra-class submarine. |
![]() | On 27 April 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from KRI Nanggala (402). The result of the discussion was withdrawn by requester. |
![]() | KRI Nanggala (402) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on April 21, 2021. | |||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on April 21, 2023, and April 21, 2024. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Could someone do the specifications part? I'm at Indonesia so most of my sources are in Indonesia and poor Indonesia media news that tried its best using English. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 00:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I mentioned this once before, but we have a discrepancy in the top speed. Last sentence of the History section says 25 knots, infobox says 21.5 knots. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 13:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:SHE4SHIPS "articles should not be needlessly changed from one style to another without clear and substantial reason." "She" was first introduced here [1], without clear and substantial reason, and at that time "it" was already in use. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 23:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
There has been a lot of back-and-forth on the "Ship fate" field of the infobox. I call your attention to the template documentation, which says, "Only list the event and the date it occurred (for example: "Sank following collision on 10 February 1964", or "Sold for scrap in 1975". Details such as location, cause, etc. should be discussed in the article." GA-RT-22 ( talk) 17:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Shouldnt the disappearance have article of it's own instead of here? It's notable enough in terms of coverage, to the point the president himself addressed it. Nyanardsan ( talk) 20:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Till now, there is not enough info. If the thing becomes more complex with a lot of activities, it may or may not have an article later. Hope they're rescued. That will be a good article. SReader21 ( talk) 08:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I would created the Page here Sinking of KRI Nanggala 402. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lola Clementine ( talk • contribs) 23:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
An anonymous editor quoted this article: https://nasional.tempo.co/read/1455716/eks-kkm-kri-nanggala-minta-hilangnya-kapal-tak-dikaitkan-peremajaan-alutsista. In that article, it appears to me (using Google translate) that the maintenance routine was changed from an engine overhaul every five years, to an overhaul every 8 years.
Can any Indonesian speakers verify that? Google translated it to this:
Frans said that the postponement of the overhaul period from 5 years to 8 years should be grateful because it coincided with the arrival of the order to monitor the alleged smuggling of weapons from the Philippines to the Ambon and Poso conflict areas.
-- Michael.C.Wright ( talk) 07:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Here's a source (already cited in the article) that says the complement is 50 including a special forces unit. [2] Which might explain why there were 53 on board when the normal crew is 34. It's also likely there would have been observers for a live fire exercise. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 02:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Jane's Fighting Ships (2009) clearly says the complement was "34 (6 officers)": [3]. Why were there 53 people aboard? Martinevans123 ( talk) 09:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Apparently, the commander of Nanggala had been in this position for only three weeks. Furthermore, there was his superior officer on board, who had held command of Nanggala in the past, and was new to his position as the unit commander. Not sure if the article should spell this out. There are historical examples where having someone on board who outranks a vessel's commander has caused difficulties. --
Seelefant (
talk)
18:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Am I alone in thinking that the "loss of all 53 crew members on board" should be mentioned earlier than in the 10th sentence of the introduction? I made this edit yesterday but it has in effect since been undone. Meticulo ( talk) 12:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Do we really need the remarks by Hasanuddin? He obviously has no idea what he's talking about. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 13:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I see no reason in placing her tweet in such prominent position. She is merely criticizing Jokowi for only promoting by one rank per custom, instead of two to four ranks. While her criticism should be on the article, I don't think her particular tweet should be placed there, as it infers her importance and given her tweet undue weight. Thoughts? SunDawn ( talk) 15:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Is this article sufficient enough for a C/B class? Need opinion. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 02:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Any suggestions for the non-updating parts of the article are welcomed. Thank you.--Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I think this article would be great for GA nomination. Can I get opinions on this matter? SunDawn ( talk) 10:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
is it appropriate for us to use wikipedia's voice for the statement regarding dsme under the cause section?
as determining cause for this disaster may be controversial, i had been assuming that we should be particularly careful to present this issue from a neutral point of view.
currently, the rest of the cause section presents a number of theories while attributing them to their speakers. as a result, switching to wikipedia's voice for the last statement regarding dsme to present it as fact feels rather jarring, or at least it does to me.
also, although i am not personally familiar with submarine maintenance, i hesitate to state as fact that submarines "need ... to undergo maintenance at least once every six years", especially since a section above on this talk page mentions that the maintenance schedule may have shifted from five to eight years, implying that there may be some disagreement regarding how often a submarine needs to be maintained.
in addition, because the statement about dsme appears to attempt to absolve dsme of all liability, presenting this last statement as fact may lead readers to question wikipedia's point of view.
furthermore, hankook ilbo attributed to a dsme official the statement that dsme had not been involved with nanggala for nine years, so if hankook ilbo has apparently preferred to not use its own voice with respect to that statement, it seems strange that we would decide to use wikipedia's voice to present that statement as fact. (however, hankook ilbo appears to have used its own voice to present the statement regarding frequency of maintenance as fact.)
admittedly, as i was the one who originally attributed the statement to hankook ilbo and the dsme official, i do not feel that it is appropriate for me to reinsert the attributions unilaterally, so i was hoping to get additional opinions on the matter. dying ( talk) 07:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Fourthords, is there a reason why you prefer to use the cropped image in the infobox? you had replaced the original image with a cropped version about two weeks ago, apparently without explanation, and EvoSwatch reverted your change, explaining in the edit summary that the uncropped image "is sufficient and [has a] better aspect ratio". you've recently replaced the image again with the cropped version, again seemingly with no explanation, so i fail to understand why your cropped version should be preferred. had the positive aspects of your cropped image made themselves obvious to me, i may have been able to understand your decision, but perhaps i simply have not had enough experience in this area.
personally, i prefer the uncropped version for the same reasons that EvoSwatch mentioned. in addition, there appears to be no significant reason to save that extra vertical space in the infobox, and i feel as if the ship is artificially constrained if it is pictured in its environment in an unusual aspect ratio. had the image been a schematic of the submarine, as seen in the article on russian submarine losharik, i think there is no reason to add additional white space to establish a more familiar aspect ratio, but cropping this image when there appears to be no obvious reason to do so makes one wonder why it has been unnaturally cropped in the first place.
i was trying to figure out if you were enforcing an established standard for submarine infobox pictures, but the articles on uss scorpion and uss thresher, both submarines lost with their entire crew, have submarine infobox pictures that could conceivably be cropped but aren't. dying ( talk) 02:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Megaladox and Samudera Hindia, i hate to say this, as you two seem like you are interested in improving the encyclopedia, but these recent edits seem to violate many en wikipedia standards, especially wp:npov, and also do not appear to conform to either the manual of style or the layout already previously established in the article. some of the information provided could be successfully integrated into the article, and indeed, some of it i had been meaning to add myself, but right now, the article has become a mess. this is rather unfortunate considering that it was recently nominated to be listed as a good article, and it would almost certainly fail such a review now.
Meticulo has previously reverted two such edits, noting that they were "non-constructive", so i know i am not alone in thinking this. personally, i would prefer to revert all these recent edits, but i do not want to make such a bold reversion unilaterally, and i wanted to let you know why i felt that this should be done before either i or another editor did so (assuming that others agree that these edits should be reverted). in addition, i would like to suggest that you discuss any serious additions you would like to make on this talk page first. many of us have been discussing possibly controversial edits on this page before performing them, as you can see above.
i see that both of you have accounts on id wikipedia, so i wanted to let you know that en wikipedia and id wikipedia have different standards. therefore, it may be best to avoid making such bold edits until you become more familiar with how en wikipedia works. also, Samudera Hindia, you seem to be blocked indefinitely on id wikipedia for using a prohibited name. is that something that you can resolve?
AryaTargaryen, i thought i might ping you since if these edits were reverted, one of yours would be as well.
to everyone else paying attention to this page, what are your thoughts on the recent edits? dying ( talk) 06:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
AryaTargaryen, i thought i might ping you since if these edits were reverted, one of yours would be as well.
- Fine by me. Article can definitely use some pruning.
AryaTargaryen
18:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Dying, SunDawn, and GA-RT-22: I think we need to fix the article and remove the yellow tag before the GAN gets an instant fail. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I need comments for this section. Basically, the article claims that the commander of the sub had complained about the quality of the submarine way before the incident to a Kompas reporter. Is that still considered as WP:RS? Kompas itself is surely WP:RS, but the way this article is written - just some informal discussion between the sub commander and the reporter - which didn't make news when the discussion takes place - can it still be considered as reliable source? SunDawn ( talk) 16:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I received a message on my talk page concerning the nomination of this article being on hold, that there are minor issues that have to be fixed. I will be unable to access my laptop and won’t be able to do proper pings, but can I know what issues should be fixed? Thank you. SunDawn talk 14:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks very much Sammi. Is it possible to delay the 7-day rule? I am in quarantine for few weeks and I won’t be able to make the changes. Thank you. SunDawn talk 01:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
KRI Nanggala (402) 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 |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Material from Cakra-class submarine was split to KRI Nanggala (402) on 21 April 2021 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Cakra-class submarine. |
![]() | On 27 April 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from KRI Nanggala (402). The result of the discussion was withdrawn by requester. |
![]() | KRI Nanggala (402) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on April 21, 2021. | |||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on April 21, 2023, and April 21, 2024. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Could someone do the specifications part? I'm at Indonesia so most of my sources are in Indonesia and poor Indonesia media news that tried its best using English. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 00:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I mentioned this once before, but we have a discrepancy in the top speed. Last sentence of the History section says 25 knots, infobox says 21.5 knots. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 13:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:SHE4SHIPS "articles should not be needlessly changed from one style to another without clear and substantial reason." "She" was first introduced here [1], without clear and substantial reason, and at that time "it" was already in use. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 23:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
There has been a lot of back-and-forth on the "Ship fate" field of the infobox. I call your attention to the template documentation, which says, "Only list the event and the date it occurred (for example: "Sank following collision on 10 February 1964", or "Sold for scrap in 1975". Details such as location, cause, etc. should be discussed in the article." GA-RT-22 ( talk) 17:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Shouldnt the disappearance have article of it's own instead of here? It's notable enough in terms of coverage, to the point the president himself addressed it. Nyanardsan ( talk) 20:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Till now, there is not enough info. If the thing becomes more complex with a lot of activities, it may or may not have an article later. Hope they're rescued. That will be a good article. SReader21 ( talk) 08:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I would created the Page here Sinking of KRI Nanggala 402. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lola Clementine ( talk • contribs) 23:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
An anonymous editor quoted this article: https://nasional.tempo.co/read/1455716/eks-kkm-kri-nanggala-minta-hilangnya-kapal-tak-dikaitkan-peremajaan-alutsista. In that article, it appears to me (using Google translate) that the maintenance routine was changed from an engine overhaul every five years, to an overhaul every 8 years.
Can any Indonesian speakers verify that? Google translated it to this:
Frans said that the postponement of the overhaul period from 5 years to 8 years should be grateful because it coincided with the arrival of the order to monitor the alleged smuggling of weapons from the Philippines to the Ambon and Poso conflict areas.
-- Michael.C.Wright ( talk) 07:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Here's a source (already cited in the article) that says the complement is 50 including a special forces unit. [2] Which might explain why there were 53 on board when the normal crew is 34. It's also likely there would have been observers for a live fire exercise. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 02:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Jane's Fighting Ships (2009) clearly says the complement was "34 (6 officers)": [3]. Why were there 53 people aboard? Martinevans123 ( talk) 09:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Apparently, the commander of Nanggala had been in this position for only three weeks. Furthermore, there was his superior officer on board, who had held command of Nanggala in the past, and was new to his position as the unit commander. Not sure if the article should spell this out. There are historical examples where having someone on board who outranks a vessel's commander has caused difficulties. --
Seelefant (
talk)
18:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Am I alone in thinking that the "loss of all 53 crew members on board" should be mentioned earlier than in the 10th sentence of the introduction? I made this edit yesterday but it has in effect since been undone. Meticulo ( talk) 12:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Do we really need the remarks by Hasanuddin? He obviously has no idea what he's talking about. GA-RT-22 ( talk) 13:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I see no reason in placing her tweet in such prominent position. She is merely criticizing Jokowi for only promoting by one rank per custom, instead of two to four ranks. While her criticism should be on the article, I don't think her particular tweet should be placed there, as it infers her importance and given her tweet undue weight. Thoughts? SunDawn ( talk) 15:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Is this article sufficient enough for a C/B class? Need opinion. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 02:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Any suggestions for the non-updating parts of the article are welcomed. Thank you.--Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I think this article would be great for GA nomination. Can I get opinions on this matter? SunDawn ( talk) 10:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
is it appropriate for us to use wikipedia's voice for the statement regarding dsme under the cause section?
as determining cause for this disaster may be controversial, i had been assuming that we should be particularly careful to present this issue from a neutral point of view.
currently, the rest of the cause section presents a number of theories while attributing them to their speakers. as a result, switching to wikipedia's voice for the last statement regarding dsme to present it as fact feels rather jarring, or at least it does to me.
also, although i am not personally familiar with submarine maintenance, i hesitate to state as fact that submarines "need ... to undergo maintenance at least once every six years", especially since a section above on this talk page mentions that the maintenance schedule may have shifted from five to eight years, implying that there may be some disagreement regarding how often a submarine needs to be maintained.
in addition, because the statement about dsme appears to attempt to absolve dsme of all liability, presenting this last statement as fact may lead readers to question wikipedia's point of view.
furthermore, hankook ilbo attributed to a dsme official the statement that dsme had not been involved with nanggala for nine years, so if hankook ilbo has apparently preferred to not use its own voice with respect to that statement, it seems strange that we would decide to use wikipedia's voice to present that statement as fact. (however, hankook ilbo appears to have used its own voice to present the statement regarding frequency of maintenance as fact.)
admittedly, as i was the one who originally attributed the statement to hankook ilbo and the dsme official, i do not feel that it is appropriate for me to reinsert the attributions unilaterally, so i was hoping to get additional opinions on the matter. dying ( talk) 07:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Fourthords, is there a reason why you prefer to use the cropped image in the infobox? you had replaced the original image with a cropped version about two weeks ago, apparently without explanation, and EvoSwatch reverted your change, explaining in the edit summary that the uncropped image "is sufficient and [has a] better aspect ratio". you've recently replaced the image again with the cropped version, again seemingly with no explanation, so i fail to understand why your cropped version should be preferred. had the positive aspects of your cropped image made themselves obvious to me, i may have been able to understand your decision, but perhaps i simply have not had enough experience in this area.
personally, i prefer the uncropped version for the same reasons that EvoSwatch mentioned. in addition, there appears to be no significant reason to save that extra vertical space in the infobox, and i feel as if the ship is artificially constrained if it is pictured in its environment in an unusual aspect ratio. had the image been a schematic of the submarine, as seen in the article on russian submarine losharik, i think there is no reason to add additional white space to establish a more familiar aspect ratio, but cropping this image when there appears to be no obvious reason to do so makes one wonder why it has been unnaturally cropped in the first place.
i was trying to figure out if you were enforcing an established standard for submarine infobox pictures, but the articles on uss scorpion and uss thresher, both submarines lost with their entire crew, have submarine infobox pictures that could conceivably be cropped but aren't. dying ( talk) 02:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Megaladox and Samudera Hindia, i hate to say this, as you two seem like you are interested in improving the encyclopedia, but these recent edits seem to violate many en wikipedia standards, especially wp:npov, and also do not appear to conform to either the manual of style or the layout already previously established in the article. some of the information provided could be successfully integrated into the article, and indeed, some of it i had been meaning to add myself, but right now, the article has become a mess. this is rather unfortunate considering that it was recently nominated to be listed as a good article, and it would almost certainly fail such a review now.
Meticulo has previously reverted two such edits, noting that they were "non-constructive", so i know i am not alone in thinking this. personally, i would prefer to revert all these recent edits, but i do not want to make such a bold reversion unilaterally, and i wanted to let you know why i felt that this should be done before either i or another editor did so (assuming that others agree that these edits should be reverted). in addition, i would like to suggest that you discuss any serious additions you would like to make on this talk page first. many of us have been discussing possibly controversial edits on this page before performing them, as you can see above.
i see that both of you have accounts on id wikipedia, so i wanted to let you know that en wikipedia and id wikipedia have different standards. therefore, it may be best to avoid making such bold edits until you become more familiar with how en wikipedia works. also, Samudera Hindia, you seem to be blocked indefinitely on id wikipedia for using a prohibited name. is that something that you can resolve?
AryaTargaryen, i thought i might ping you since if these edits were reverted, one of yours would be as well.
to everyone else paying attention to this page, what are your thoughts on the recent edits? dying ( talk) 06:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
AryaTargaryen, i thought i might ping you since if these edits were reverted, one of yours would be as well.
- Fine by me. Article can definitely use some pruning.
AryaTargaryen
18:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Dying, SunDawn, and GA-RT-22: I think we need to fix the article and remove the yellow tag before the GAN gets an instant fail. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I need comments for this section. Basically, the article claims that the commander of the sub had complained about the quality of the submarine way before the incident to a Kompas reporter. Is that still considered as WP:RS? Kompas itself is surely WP:RS, but the way this article is written - just some informal discussion between the sub commander and the reporter - which didn't make news when the discussion takes place - can it still be considered as reliable source? SunDawn ( talk) 16:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I received a message on my talk page concerning the nomination of this article being on hold, that there are minor issues that have to be fixed. I will be unable to access my laptop and won’t be able to do proper pings, but can I know what issues should be fixed? Thank you. SunDawn talk 14:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks very much Sammi. Is it possible to delay the 7-day rule? I am in quarantine for few weeks and I won’t be able to make the changes. Thank you. SunDawn talk 01:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)