Talk:Disappearance of ARA San Juan
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Michel1961 in topic Article expansion
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Disappearance of ARA San Juan 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 B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
Duplication?
editTo the creator of this spin-off article: this now duplicates text in the original article; in which there should be only a summary of what is explained more at length in this article. Thanks, DPdH (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I know. SerialNumber54129...speculates 23:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I had reverted that edit because the new article hadn't been created, it left the formatting messed up and there was still an ongoing discussion on the talk page where it seemed that there wasn't consensus yet on creating a new article. I probably would have waited until the submarine itself had been found, but I guess since the article is already up, the information on the other article may as well be deleted.SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- @SegataSanshiro1: Thanks for that- just to say I respected your revert of me on the main sub. page, as I hadn't noticed (AKA, hadn't actually looked!) that there was a move discussion; it seemed a quiet enough page, and I assumed that it was an uncontroversial split. This was mainly because most of our sub articles- e.g. things like HMS Vengeance- are also quite short (I suppose because they don’t actually do anything- the silent service and all that- and frankly, when they suddenly become notable, it means we've only got four minutes to find a shelter or expand the article and take it to DYK, whichever seems more important at the time... anyway, the point I was making was that for a traditionally short article about a sub, there was a massive amount about a single event, and that seemed to me to be crying out for a separate article (á la Kursk, although less is known at this stage, clearly). Thanks too to User:DPdH for raising this. Hope all is well? SerialNumber54129...speculates 23:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- No worries, I was the one who initially suggested a separate page anyway. Given the amount of content (far more about this than the submarine itself) something had to be done. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- @SegataSanshiro1: Thanks for that- just to say I respected your revert of me on the main sub. page, as I hadn't noticed (AKA, hadn't actually looked!) that there was a move discussion; it seemed a quiet enough page, and I assumed that it was an uncontroversial split. This was mainly because most of our sub articles- e.g. things like HMS Vengeance- are also quite short (I suppose because they don’t actually do anything- the silent service and all that- and frankly, when they suddenly become notable, it means we've only got four minutes to find a shelter or expand the article and take it to DYK, whichever seems more important at the time... anyway, the point I was making was that for a traditionally short article about a sub, there was a massive amount about a single event, and that seemed to me to be crying out for a separate article (á la Kursk, although less is known at this stage, clearly). Thanks too to User:DPdH for raising this. Hope all is well? SerialNumber54129...speculates 23:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- I had reverted that edit because the new article hadn't been created, it left the formatting messed up and there was still an ongoing discussion on the talk page where it seemed that there wasn't consensus yet on creating a new article. I probably would have waited until the submarine itself had been found, but I guess since the article is already up, the information on the other article may as well be deleted.SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Wikipedians, I'm cleaning up the relevant section in the San Juan article now. Regards, DPdH (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
What location?
edithttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-42100620
this is a more recent map of the incident location, updated when the search was more or less given up. untill that time by the way media used another map route and location, question, how, why, where, and whatfor? with the last map the search effort would have needed to be very different and had probably been smaller(more hopeless by far), also , who then shot the flares, and made the phonecalls?95.96.236.43 (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Article expansion
editHi Wikipedians, as the search effort goes on less news are published (except in Argentina). Is anyone still monitoring what news about the San Juan appear, to keep this article updated? How can we coordinate this task? Regards, DPdH (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Agree ! This article needs update . Mainly based on this paper http://www.infodefensa.com/latam/2018/01/11/noticia-retired-analyst-office-naval-intelligence-could-solved-mystery.html Michel1961 (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)