Talk:ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772)

Merge 2010 Baengnyeong incident

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(Archived. There was no consensus for this merger, and it was not carried out.Xyl 54 (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC))

There is zero need to have this information duplicated over two pages at this point. MickMacNee (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment No opinion on this at the moment. As it's a current event, the merge proposal may be premature. Let's see how events develop over the weekend. Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Mjroots. This could turn into a major international event. Let's hold fire until a bit more information becomes available before we decide one way or another. Julianhall (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As it is a current event it is imperative that we don't duplicate information, it is entirely wasteful and doubles the effort required to check and maintain the articles. The content would have to expand hugely before a split was warranted tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me the info about the ship and it's sinking warrant different articles if there was an international incident, otherwise it seems ok to redirect both links to the ship page. I agree with the intent (if not the tone) of MickMacNee; but agree with Mjroots and Julianhall that the incident may prove to be worthy of a much longer non-PCC-722 centric article. Certainly waiting a few days cannot be unreasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.64.201.230 (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think waiting until the south and north korean governments commented on the incident would be best, right now virtually nothing is knownXavierGreen (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

merge this into the incident page--78.3.211.159 (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

78, that won't happen. Regardless of the incident, the ship is notable enough to sustain its own article. Mjroots (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought it would be best to keep them seperate for now, because both of these articles could potentially expand quite a bit as new information comes in. -OOPSIE- (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The only thing achieved by hanging around waiting to see if something happens, is that both of these articles remain substandard right now, because you have to read both articles before you know all the facts, because even though they are both very short, they are not properly formatted in a parent-child manner as you would expect - information has been randomly placed into one article or the other, with glaring issues like, why is the Reaction section, and the detailed timing info, in the ship article and not the incident article? This is unnacceptable, and makes Wikipedia look as if it has no clue as to how to properly present information. If people want separate articles, then per WP:SUMMARY, do it properly and make the incident article the detailed one, and the ship section a brief summary. But as there is very little information right now, it would be quicker, and better for readers, to just merge it. It would take ten minutes to do so. This is a wiki, it is not going to be a disaster if new information comes flooding in, I have yet to ever see a situation where that has occured so quickly that nobody was able to perform a decent enough split before the main article became huge, which the current ship article is far from being. MickMacNee (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The incident had a much larger scope than the involvement of this vessel. There were other south korean vessels involved, and this vessel was apparently not the one that fired upon the unidentified ship that cross the nll.XavierGreen (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no WP:DEADLINE, and if you feel that something is missing from the incident, WP:SOFIXIT can always be applied. Mjroots (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there is no need to merge at the moment, but to make sure we have all the information handy because, while this may not be an INTERNATIONAL incident, there will indubitably more information that comes out and THEN make an appropriate article. USS Cole (DDG-67) not only has its own article so the Cheonan is notable, but so does its bombing. --Hourick (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There has been no support yet for a merge, therefore I've reverted the conversion of the Baengnyeong Incident article into a redirect to this article. By all means let's continue to discuss this, but that action was premature. I think it is still too early to call this one, and am keeping an open mind for the moment as to whether there should be one or two articles. Mjroots (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There has been support for a merge, both from myself and MickMacNee, at least, not counting conditionals. I still support one properly updated article, rather than two badly out-of-date and incomplete ones. Rmhermen (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you hadn't expressed support for the merge here. How are other editors to know that you support a merge when you hadn't expressed that support. I made it 1 in favour of a merge (nominator) against 5 editors and 2 IPs saying "wait and see". Mjroots (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If this discussion is still open, I would also be against a merge; I think the USS Cole example that Hourick gave is a reasonable comparison. I've added a main article tag to the "Sinking" section, to address Mick's point about separate development. I would also agree that the "Reaction" section, at least, belongs over there. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

USS Cole is utterly irrelevent. Content should be organised according to what is known, not what might happen. All we have now, bizarrely, after the half reverted merge, is a 'child' article that is shorter than the 'parent' one. This is the worst of both worlds. Readers must be laughing their heads off at this mess, as they have done since the beginning. MickMacNee (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I’ve edited the Baengnyeong incident page a bit, in the spirit of WP:SOFIXIT; If there are no objections I’d like to move the "Reaction" section there, and trim the "Sinking" section here a bit.
I also think the link on the Main Page could do with changing ( something like "the South Korean Navy corvette Cheonan sinks after an explosion..."), but I’ve no idea how to do that. Any thoughts? (with hindsight, if that had been done in the first place, this discussion would probably have been un-necessary). Xyl 54 (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

still the worst of both worlds as Mick said above. not only are all three articles not up-to-date because the parent is longer than the child, information on the sinking in the ship class article is not included in either article and several recent developments appear in no article. i certainly oppose redirecting the main page to the inferior article on the topic. Rmhermen (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment Let's just wait until the discovery of what sunk the ship. From what I've read, it will be fairly easy to identify what happened to it, esp. since they said that it should take 20 days to finish salvaging the vessel. --Hourick (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The ship deserves its own article IMO. The incident is an entirely different event and the article should merely contain a summary. Barring a summary, which would require work, simply copy/paste the whole incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Booster4324 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the two points being kept separate. This article is about the ship, its class, its armaments, its construction and its naval role. The Baengnyeong incident involves the ship but is a a completely distinct issue. The same logic is applied on the RMS Titanic sinking. There is a page about its collision with the iceberg (that involves the ship) but there is a separate page discussing its class, i..e Olympic class.

Don't think Titanic is a good example. The RMS Tinanic article has a substantial general account of the sinking, far in excess of what the Cheonan article has. And the auxiliary article is the specialised Timeline of the sinking of the RMS Titanic. Rwendland (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This incident might have happened to any ship of the Republic of Korea Navy so it make little sense to include the details of the sinking on this page. It should be have its own distinct article. The material on this page should be reduced to a short précis of what happened with a redirect. TBH I can't believe this is even an issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.38.157 (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. the summary of the incident on this page should be VERY short with the meat of the content transferred to the page on the incident. 94.195.129.125 (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

If we are to move the info, I think we need a better name than the rather uninformative Baengnyeong incident. Perhaps The sinking of the ROKS Cheonan or 2010 sinking near Baengnyeong Island. Rwendland (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sinking of ROKS Cheonan would suit me. I think this and the moving of the info should be done as a matter of priority as it looks silly to have so much duplicated content. Sadly I can't move the page myself as an IP, but it would be good if someone could do it. 94.195.129.125 (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this title. Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If I may interject with this, 2010 Baengnyeong incident makes more sense, particularly if there might be a skirmish or another "Baengnyeong incident" in the future. A few redirects would also suffice to point people in the right direction. We ARE talking about two countries that are, believe it or not, at war. Whatever it is that we name it, the year should be included for that reason alone. --Hourick (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The incident happened almost 2 weeks ago, and the mess go only worse. In the current state, the Baengnyeong article is much worse than the Cheonan article, but I don't care if it's merged or not. But if it's not, all the information from the Cheonan article should be pushed into the Baengnyeong article, except for a short summary. -- iGEL (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I asked before, but I've not been here for a while, so I'll ask again; are there any objections to my trimmimg the "Sinking" section to a summary, and moving the "Reactions" (and now "Speculation") sections to the Baengnyeong Incident article? This is the Ship article, after all; they belong over there, not here.Xyl 54 (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

PS As far as renaming the Baengnyeong Incident article goes, I'd incline towards "if it ain't broke..."; but shouldn't that discussion be on the talk page over there? And isn't that a symptom of the problem with this, that stuff that belongs over there keeps winding up here? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection with what Xy has recommended, and I think it is the right time to do so. But let's try to word the "speculation" so it can later be included when the actual cause is determined. --Hourick (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm in two minds about if we need a secondary article yet. So far I'd have been content with a single article. If/when this story develops significantly beyond the sinking and recovery politically, then I'd have gone for a secondary article. But since we already have a seconondary article, perhaps it would be best to switch to that to avoid duplication. NB Besides "Baengnyeong Incident" not being a very informative title, until we know if this is an "accident" or "incident" I'd point out that using either word in a title is somewhat POV - I'd prefer Sinking of ROKS Cheonan. Rwendland (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by this "secondary article" bit (also "parent-child" articles, mentioned above); which is which? The Baengnyeong Incident article pre-dates this one, and, I presumed, this was created so as to provide the ship details in a more usual format (and then, "just growed"). Xyl 54 (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

PS Anyway, I've moved it over; I trust that everyone's OK with that. I've no strong opinion on how good an article it is, though... Xyl 54 (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The article should not be merged, all that does it make it harder to find information of wiki.--Az81964444 (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards oppose now. The cause of the explosion was external, not internal as first thought. Whether Cheonan was deliberately targeted or not is unclear. There is potential for this to escalate yet. Mjroots (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Having observed what has happened since our attempt at a logical split earlier this month, I'm now strongly for merger. 1) Info/speculation on the sinking has been put back into the Cheonan article so they now largely duplicate each other again. 2) If you put both articles into the article traffic statistics tool, Cheonan has had about 3,500 daily views the last few days, compared to about 900 for Baengnyeong incident, so the readers are mainly using Cheonan. 3) Similar one major event articles like USS Pueblo (AGER-2) have just one article. Rwendland (talk) 09:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

merge, A casual reader (like me) spent a lot of time reading two articles where is much dup info. BTW, I added current status on opening paragraph which was not clear (after reading both) --Jor70 (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

merge, I believe about 80% of the contents in this article is about sinking. This ship is only notable because of the sinking. Qajar (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The ship would have been sufficiently notable for an article had it still been afloat today. Mjroots (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

oppose many ships with far less data stand alone with its own article, and there's clearly enough unique data to support its own here. --emerson7 00:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

(I've archived this. The discussion of this proposal was largely finished by the end of April, and the last contribution was June. Some 20 editors took part; 8 were for, and 12 against, so there was no consensus for the merger.Xyl 54 (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Date of sinking

Per the quoted BBC source, the ship sank at 21:30 hrs Korean time on 26 March 2010. This equates to 12:30 UTC on 26 March. Mjroots (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Cost

Do we have any idea what a ship of this class costs to build? Rmhermen (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Location map

...here --93.137.17.45 (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Added. —WWoods (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Updated Yonhap map here. Interesting it sunk off the opposite side of Baengnyeong Island from the sea border with North Korea, so in fact a considerable distance from the NLL. I haven't seen any western media with a similar map yet. Rwendland (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Any idea what the captions say? Or the significance of "183 m"?

—WWoods (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry. Google translate of the surrounding text does not help. (Guessing, the two red X are where the two sections of the ship are now resting.) Rwendland (talk)

BBC has a map here; labeled in English. C628 (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Weaponary

Hi. This Global Security report about the sinking says that the Cheonan (PCC-772) was a ASW Patrol Combat Corvette, without SSM (Harpoons or Exocet). However, according with this source, the ship was equipped with depth charges. Is this correct? --Montgomery (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Twenty years?

This ship is twenty years old and the only noteworthy thing about the ship is that it blew up and sank? Is this the only reason this article along with the corvette-class article was created? Mentor397 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominate it at AfD if you like, but WP:SHIPS generally hold that all ships are inherently notable. Obviously the sinking was the event that spurred the creation of the article, but it would have been worthy of an article if the event had not happened. Mjroots (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is likely that there is quite a bit of coverage in Korean-language sources that is unrelated to the sinking; over a period of 20 years, there surely must have been coverage of the ship's commissioning, construction, and operations. While this expectation of other coverage by itself does not prove notability, it is something to consider. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The ship was also involved in the First Battle of Yeonpyeong, if someone could find information about the vessels part in that battle it might expand the history second a bit beyond the sinking.67.84.178.0 (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Location POV

I've removed this
"The island, inside South Korea's (ROK) territorial waters, is located near the Northern Limit Line, dividing South from North Korea (DPRK)"
As it’s POV. The Northern Limit Line is not a de jure boundary; it was not part of the Armistice agreement, and is not accepted by North Korea, which claims Baengnyeong Island and others. The most that can be said is that it is the de facto boundary between the two Koreas and the Cheonan was on the South Korean side.
So I’ve put that instead. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Northern Limit Line contained similar rather POV text HERE. (Un-referenced too I might add!) Consistency of data across related articles is a common issue on Wikipedia IMHO. I have added a ref and made it more NPOV. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

mine, cabins

i read on the aljazeera website a possible cause could be a northkorean mine from the korea war. since most had been recovered but some had been left. however the last one to explode was 20 years ago. i wonder is this the same theory mentioned in the article? why not say an "old" mine in that case? also i read that after aome 38 hours or 3 days at most)i didnt bother memorising exactly but it wasn't very much) the air in survival cabins would be exhausted. my question are such cabins standard in 20 year old ships of this size? the cabins appeared the reason for the immediatly very high level of rescue activity's. however at 40 m deep the water of 4 degrees, strong currents and poor visibility apparently frustrated all attemps to enter parts of the ship.80.57.43.99 (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Response: It is possible it was an old mine, though more probable it was a torpedo. If you do a search for HMAS Torrens you'll see how a ship of similar vintage can be split in half with a detonation occurring some distance from the actual hull. I was in the Australian Navy at the time this occurred, it was a weapon leased from the US - fired from a Collins class submarine.

Armament

The Armament section in the Infobox varies from the Armament section in the article. When the correct armament is determined I suggest the Infobox be made correct and the section in the article be deleted. Data should not be duplicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.122.34.10 (talk) 09:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You're half right, the infobox shoud match the main section, but the data is correct to both. The infobox is there to give a quick resumé of the ship, but the details lie in the main body of the article. Mjroots (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

how big, really

the size of this ship is variously reported as 1,200 tons, 1,350 tons, 1,400 tons, and even 1,500 tons. only one can be right but which one? Rmhermen (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Per the article on the ship class, 1,350 tons would seem to be the correct figure. Mjroots (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Cause

I see the cause, and it's like, "what?" There are plenty of people who say that the cause was not due to a bubble-jet torpedo. I'll put some sources here shortly (they're in Korean, of course.).

--Exec. Tassadar (comments, contribs) 07:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: BTW, the reason why I put neut-dispute is because the article makes no mention of these alternative possibilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Executor Tassadar (talk • contribs) 07:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Here, then, are the sources:

http://news.naver.com/main/hotissue/read.nhn?mid=hot&sid1=100&gid=467439&cid=468997&iid=209646&oid=006&aid=0000044750&ptype=011 http://news.naver.com/main/hotissue/read.nhn?mid=hot&sid1=100&gid=467439&cid=468997&iid=1024094&oid=006&aid=0000044770&ptype=011 http://news.naver.com/main/hotissue/read.nhn?mid=hot&sid1=100&gid=467439&cid=468997&iid=215032&oid=006&aid=0000044818&ptype=011 http://news.naver.com/main/hotissue/read.nhn?mid=hot&sid1=100&gid=467439&cid=468997&iid=650926&oid=006&aid=0000044794&ptype=011 --Exec. Tassadar (comments, contribs) 07:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...I'm not sure...I honestly don't think any of those are right (I mean, c'mon, how does the grounding of a ship cause it to break in half? That's gotta be a first), but I don't see any harm in writing something in there to the effect of "Other theories have also been proposed by the Korean media (BTW, is that site South or North Korean?), most notably that of a grounding on a reef near Baengnyeong Island. Those in favor of this theory say that a torpedo triggered explosion is unlikely, as the hull of the ship was scratched and the propeller shaft was bent, which they say would have been as a result of the ship impacting with the reef." One other thing: it would help your case immensely if you could find another source, doesn't even have to be English, that says the same thing; I'm a little wary of possibly controversial topics supported by a single source. Cheers, C628 (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but there's equally as a lot of things that don't add up if you take the case about bubble-jet torpedoes, like the fact that there's no water spout from the explosive that was sighted, the injured didn't hurt their ears (remember, people who just shoot guns wear earplugs to shield their ears), the torn part on the ship is not consistent with the torpedo theory, the fact that no explosive material (RDX) was found on the bodies while they were found on the ship, the fact that it would've been nigh impossible for a submarine to sneak past dozens of American and South Korean ships, let alone the fact that the ROKS Cheonan is the kind of ship designed for this kind of thing and has lots of anti-submarine procedures. In any case, here's some more sources, not from Media Today.

http://www.pressian.com/article/article.asp?article_num=10100510161737&section=05 http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/opinion/column/420051.html http://www.viewsnnews.com/article/view.jsp?seq=62879 --Exec. Tassadar (comments, contribs) 14:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks like it just got a little more complicated; an anon user removed all of that, on the grounds that this discussion should be taking place at ROKS Cheonan sinking; he then failed to add said information into that article. Crap! I'm inclined to revert his edit, although I'd agree that merge tag is unneeded. Definitely want to keep the cause of sinking in this article, at least a bit. And I'm perfectly happy to add something in on the alternate theories. Thoughts? C628 (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

C628, a ship can easily break in half in a grounding. If the middle is supported and the bow and stern aren't it will hog, if the bow and stern are aground and the middle isnt, it will sag. Either can cause the ship to break, and it has happened many times in the past. Mjroots (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that if there is to be any sense in having the secondary article, we have to keep the cause speculation/discussion out of this ship article so they have different scope. So I agree with the anon edit. I've given up on these articles mostly due to this duplication. Rwendland (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, obviously they can't overlap entirely, but I think it's insane not to make any mention of the cause of sinking in this article; there has to be at least a sentence or two on it. The bulk should go to the sinking article, which I haven't been a part of editing, but to me it makes no sense to leave something that important out of this article entirely. See USS Cole for an example of what I'm thinking about; most stuff on the bombing is in USS Cole bombing, but the article on the ship itself doesn't just say "The ship was attacked" and leave it at that; it says the basic stuff about the attackers and aftermath. What I'm concerned about here is this article ending up saying, in effect, "The ship sank," and not going any further. While I do think this article shouldn't go particularly in-depth into the cause of sinking, not mentioning it at all is, IMHO, a little lacking. Cheers, C628 (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. By the logic of the "cause of sinking should not be listed" people, the article on the World Trade Center should not have any mention of the 9/11 attacks. Instead, it should simply say "airplanes hijacked by terrorists crashed into the buildings and caused them to collapse." It should not have a whole section about the destruction of the towers, or specific casualties(and these have stuff like "oh, this company lost a lot of employees, how many of them were firefighters, etc."). Again, another example of what C628 is saying, just a more famous one. --Exec. Tassadar (comments, contribs) 16:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This is why I've come round to the view it would be better to have a single article. I think a better one-major-event minor-ship comparison article is USS Pueblo (AGER-2), which has just one article. USS Cole was a major ship that already had a substantial article, justifying a secondary article. I think the Cheonan situation is more like the Pueblo. But I don't feel strongly enough about this to make a major change! It will be easier when the official report is out, as that could be the basis in this article and the secondary one can be the whole saga! Rwendland (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd also prefer a single article, but it's not worth the amount of effort it would take to do so, IMO, since there's already been so much work put into the two. That said, I still advocate at least a brief section on the cause of the sinking in this article; is there anyone who would specifically object to that? Cheers, C628 (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The evidence is mounting against the 'so-called' international investigation (mainly 3 NK haters: US, Japan and SK) which determined NK to have torpedoed the Cheonan. The Chinese are not buiying it, neither are the Russians.

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/427801.html

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1006/1006.0680.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Be gottlieb (talk • contribs) 07:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Refs

I've just converted some bare url refs to the standard format. Ref #15 needs the title checking, as I suspect I've picked the wrong one. The language also needs checking. Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Why no photo(s)?

I came here to learn and was surprised to find no photos of this (now) very notable ship. I would think that a standard file photo of the Cheonan when sailing would be the minimum to go with a well-done encyclopedic article. But beyond that, my view is that one or two photos of the end of the ship's life, or possibly of the salvage operation pulling the ship out of the water, would be appropriate. What to others think? N2e (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There was one at one point, but it was deleted as being under copyright (I think that's what it means, I'm not familiar with image policy...) and subsequently removed from the article...I suppose the best shot at an image now would be getting a South Korean Wikipedian to snap a picture of another Pohang-class ship...anyone got any better ideas? C628 (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That's good to know. I'm not an image-meister either, but I understand that some image-oriented Wikipedians monitor the {reqphoto} list so the addition of the {{reqphoto}} tag may be helpful to improving the article. N2e (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't hurt... C628 (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The only free-use image we have is of a sister ship, Sinseong, which I have added as Cheonan would have looked similar in profile. Mjroots (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mjroots, the picture of the sister ship is acceptable if no free image of the intact Cheonan can be found. Hard to believe some Korean sailor from a sister ship, or from a dock, never took a photo they would be willing to share. N2e (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Leaving the {{reqphoto}} tag on the article to see if we can find a free image of the post-explosion ship (either at recovery, or in dry dock), as this would still be helpful to improving the article. N2e (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with keeping the tag too. It's a similar situation to many aircraft accident articles, where we have to have a photo of a similar aircraft where no free image exists. Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added an image of the ship's bow on the infobox and removed the tag from this section. No free image of the ship intact exists, which makes this IMO the best we can get. Credit to Lt. Jared Apollo Burgamy of the US Navy for taking the photo. Wolcott (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Article totally biased!

The so-called "international investigation" mentioned in the article is worth nothing, because they were comprised entirely of people hailing from imperialist and capitalist economy countries, who are inherently hostile to the socialist-communist DPRK and thus never impartial.

The torpedo remains as mentioned in the article, are worth nothing, because the imperialist south could have obtained those fragments by combing the sea-floor after previous DPRK naval excercises to spy on communist battle tech, then conveniently warehoused the remains for handy use in some kind of "Maine-Cuba-1898" copycat incident if and when the opportunity arises later on.

All in all the Cheonan incident smells much like a repeat of the 1898 american battleship Maine trick to start the Cuba war: sacrifice a warship to create pro-war sentiment, but this time in South Korea.

Luckily the DPRK has just achieved fission-ignition-less fusion a few weeks ago, a world first and now xenon-smelling South Korea does not dare to attack, knowing they could be pelted by literally pocket-sized pure fusion nuclear hand grenades, employed by the dreaded DPRK spec-op troops. 87.97.52.2 (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It should also be mentioned that the idea of a 29 meter long DPRK "mini submarine" conducting combat in an area of shallow sea less than 25 meters deep is implausible. Shallow water combat is intolerably dangerous for subs due to collision, look at what happened to the 160 meter long russian Kursk, which tried to fool around in 120 meters of water. Submarines need 1.5x the depth of water compared to their lenght to be able to fight without destroying themselves. The Cheonan was killed by a stray naval mine or a South Korean "Maine 1898" style conspiracy, not a DPRK mini-sub! 87.97.52.2 (talk) 08:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Mmm...first of all, your concerns belong more at Talk:ROKS Cheonan sinking, which deals more with the sinking of the ship, and covers it in more detail than this article. Secondly, that article does already discuss alternate theories, such as what you appear to be propounding. Lastly, it's pretty unlikely that it's going to get changed; the current consensus is to focus more on the official theory behind the sinking, since that's what most reliable sources are reporting, although as I said, other theories are present. Regards, C628 (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge of sinking article into this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A merge from tag has been added to this article, yet no rationale has been given. Per previous discussions, I oppose the merger of the sinking article into this article. Reasons are WP:SIZE and WP:UNDUE - the latter meaning that merging the sinking article into this article would give undue weight to the sinking compared with the rest of the history of the ship. Mjroots (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

oppose - agree with Mjroots, and also the sinking is a politically and historically significanrt event in its own right, and worthy of it's own article. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The following is the commentary I posted in the sinking article prior to tagging for merger. Also, one endorsement is included:

The fact that we have separate articles for the ship and its sinking smacks of POV. It is WP:RECENTISM & WP:UNDUE. In this case, it is part of its own article and a separate sinking article. But "ROKS Cheonan" itself is mentioned in 43 other articles and the sinking ("ROKS Cheonan sinking") is referred to in 26 articles. My gosh! Compare and consider other significant ship sinkings. The USS Arizona (BB-39) has an article, but its sinking is described in its basic article and in the larger attack on Pearl Harbor. (Indeed, the US lost 3 battleships and 6 aircraft carriers in WWII List of United States Navy losses in World War II. Is there an article for each of those sinkings?) Similarly, the German battle cruiser SMS Lützow was sunk during the WWI Battle of Jutland. Over eight thousand (8,645) sailors died in this battle! Is there a separate article for the sinking of each ship? No. Keeping this article separate from the main ship article contributes to WP:BIAS. Creating and keeping it as a separate article is nothing more than editors saying "I think something notable happened here because I see it in the news and I'm concerned about the tensions between the Koreas." Moving it into the main article will lessen this problem.--S. Rich (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me!--Be gottlieb (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, when I posted the merge tag, my editors summary said see discussion.--S. Rich (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I shall add that SIZE should be addressed by skillful editing -- this is an encyclopedia after all and concise articles are the norm. (Are all the pictures needed?) The UNDUE argument is skewed by Mjroots. It is the devotion of so many digits to this recent event that is UNDUE. This point is brought out by Lynbarn -- now that several months have passed, what is going on between N & S Korea? Not much. The attention has turned to succession issues in the north.--S. Rich (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment Your edit summary did say see discussion, but on clicking the link, there was no discussion - which is why I started it here. Mjroots (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Understood. And I am sorry for the confusion.--S. Rich (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose—this article is a well-researched and well-cited article about a major international incident which occurred in 2010. It stands just fine on its own, and meets Wikipedia criteria for notability. If it were to be buried inside the article on the ship itself, it would lose its very appropriate prominence as article-worthy in its own right, as well as overwhelm the ROKS Cheonan article content with this content on the demise of the ship, and the major international political actions which followed. N2e (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• I would still be opposed to a merger. The sinking was an incident with wider implications, best explored in an article specifically on that subject; it'd be to much for a section in a ship article. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Mjroots. wackywace 18:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Mjroots. All we need is a picture of the Cheonan. As all US military photos are considered public domain, surely an American serviceman might have seen the ship and taken a picture of it. Wolcott (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The result was: no consensus to merge. There is, however, a fair amount of interest in reconfiguring the articles to address some of the concerns behind this proposal, so I suggest that this be discussed further. —David Levy 21:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

---

I have started a new discussion as the previous motion to merge had no rationale and should not have been discussed. It had also gotten stale.

The reason that the articles should be merged is simple. There is little of interest about this ship apart from the sinking. If it had a notable service record such that it would be a bad idea to have so much information detracting from that I could quite understand. Yet it was just a patrol ship and really, apart from the sinking, there's nothing to do except regurgitate the information from the ship class article.

It makes sense to have the bulk of the information here. Yet there is no need to merge every piece of information on the sinking page. There is a large amount of information there that could be summarised briefly and linked through citations.

Both these points deal with SIZE and UNDUE concerns. John Smith's (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Mjroots, N2e and Xyl 54. Wolcott (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per my rationale at the previous two merger proposals. Mjroots (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose—both articles are well-researched and well-cited; this article covers the existence and multi-year life and missions of the ship itself, while the other article explicates a major international incident which occurred in 2010. The article on the sinking incident and aftermath stands just fine on its own, and meets Wikipedia criteria for notability. That article is only partially about the demise of the ship; it is significantly about the major international political actions which followed the sinking. If it were to be buried inside this article on the ship itself, it would lose its very appropriate prominence as article-worthy in its own right, as well as overwhelm the ROKS Cheonan article content with the sinking and international politics that are, appropriately, covered in the sinking article. N2e (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, per everyone above me. C628 (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• I was the original proposer back in September. Alas, the proposal did not go anywhere then, and its not going anywhere now. So I've deleted it. History will tell.--S. Rich (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This is my proposal - please don't remove it just yet. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. (And see below.) --S. Rich (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Guys, with all due respect as far as I can see you're just supporting each other. No one has addressed my points, though if someone can point to where they were made previously, I would stand corrected. N2e, you say that this article covers the existence and multi-year life and missions of the ship itself. With all due respect, there is nothing of any interest there and it is a few sentences. As I say above, the ship is really only notable because of the sinking. Otherwise it would be just another Wikipedia article on a ship in class. John Smith's (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

John -- I absolutely see your point about the Cheonan article; and I agree with you that there is, to date, very little additional info about the multi-year life of the Cheonan that is documented in this article. However, that is a separate topic of discussion from a merger. If you were to start a separate Talk-page discussion section on deleting a large amount of the redundant material from THIS article, since the detail is covered in the sinking article, I would be a big supporter of that sort of cleanup for this article, along with you I imagine. I continue to oppose a merger. N2e (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

John -- You wanted a reply to your point, which (AFAICS)is that there is little interest in Cheonan apart from her sinking. Apart from the subjectivity of that (people like me who are interested in ships for their own sake would like to know more about the ship itself) it was pointed out on 27 March that ships are inherently notable, and that has been alluded to a couple of times since. Regards... Xyl 54 (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• • I think a merger is a bad idea because I'm thinking more along the lines of N2e; whether or not the ship would be notable without the sinking is irrelevent; what we have to think about is how we get the better articles. In this case, I think higher quality content come from having seperate articles. Combining them would result in a sort of mish-mash of completely seperate content--the ship and its sinking, covered more in this article, and the political background and effects of the sinking, covered in the other. Putting the two together would completely outweigh the content that's more appropriate in this article, as well as throw the content of the other under a title and in a context where it fits rather awkwardly. C628 (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
    • John, WP:SHIPS convention is that ships are generally inherently notable enough to sustain an article. Cheonan would not be any less able to support an article today if the incident had not happened. The fact that an article hadn't been written before the incident happened in neither here nor there. Mjroots (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
      • If there is consensus that all of the Pohang class corvettes are notable, then yes, I think that this ship deserves an article. (Going on a tangent, if they are notable, all the articles could likely be created in a semi-automatic fashion, using refs 1 and 2 from here.) However, I still think that this article gives too much weight to the sinking; all information contained herein should also be covered at the sinking article (because it's about the sinking), and this article should give only a summary of that material. -M.Nelson (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Re C628: If the other article is covering the political background and effects rather than the actual sinking, why is it titled "sinking"? All sinking-related information should be in the article with "sinking" in the title; if there's too much political stuff in there, maybe it should be split to a "Political effects of ..." article. -M.Nelson (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Because when it was originally created, it was a lot more about the actual sinking; it was created very shortly after the original incident, and the political effects were largely nonexistant, and it's just developed into having a great deal of the political effects of the event. There's been some changes to move it away from that (we now have Reactions to the 2010 ROKS Cheonan sinking instead of a long list within the sinking article), but perhaps a better solution would be to merge everything upwards of the "cause of sinking" section of the sinking article into this, and rename the other something like "effects of the sinking of ROKS Cheonan." That would of course be exactly the opposite of what the section below proposes, though... C628 (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Originally I came here to oppose, thinking that the original ship is notable in its own right (as pretty well every USA ship seems to be), but seriously, what makes this ship any more notable than any other ship listed at Template:Pohang class corvette? The sinking makes this ship notable. However, the sinking has its own article. This ship's prior, un-sinky life is not notable; since the sinking is already covered in another article, this one is not needed. PS I'd also argue that ROKS Sokcho (PCC-778) is not notable, failing WP:ONEEVENT (yes I know it's a BLP policy, but the spirit is the same). -M.Nelson (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • M Nelson, see my reply above your post. Mjroots (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • (ec) PPS, compare this to USS Cole (DDG-67) and USS Cole bombing. USS Cole and its sister ships are all considered to be notable, for one reason or another, and Cole's article gives a relatively in-depth view of the ship's entire history, not being overweighted by the bombing. If you remove the bombing section from Cole, you still have a notable ship. However, if you remove the bombing section from Cheonan, you have six sentences and an infobox, which may be well-cited but show no significant coverage in RS per WP:GNG. -M.Nelson (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - For a comparison which has even more relevance, please see USS Pueblo (AGER-2). This truely international incident (US-DPRK vs nK-sK), had very significant reprecussions. But we have a single article covering it. (And thank you, John, for persisting in this proposal.) --S. Rich (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The Pueblo article is an exception to more common practice; see the examples of Cole and article pairs like USS Liberty (AGTR-5)/USS Liberty incident and SS Mayaguez/Mayaguez incident. C628 (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• I would still oppose this merger. This is the third time this discussion has taken place, and there is as little support for the idea as there was before. Also there is nothing new in this proposal, which shows a misunderstanding of what the article is about. WP:SHIPS holds that all ships are inherently notable; if anyone is unhappy with that notion I suggest they take it up over there.

One of the problems with this page is that it is dominated by the section about the sinking. This is a ship article page, which should deal with the stuff we normally have in ship articles (construction, dimensions, armament (if it's a warship), career; the ships fate shouldn’t have more than about a paragraph (at most; many ship articles just have a sentence).

There is a sugestion (below) that the "sinking" section be pruned; I suggest we go with that, to deal with the overlap issue, and that we close this, as having no consensus.

And can I also suggest that, (unless someone actually has something new to say) that “closed” means “closed”. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Xyl, you are misrepresenting my position. I have not just repeated previous proposals. The last one didn't have a rationale and the one before that was not properly concluded (nor carried out in my view). This is the first merger proposal as far as I can see that's trying to get outside comment, for example.

There is also, despite your assertions, a fair bit of support this time. You should not be so dismissive of other people's views, especially given that the proposal had been up for just two days. I am trying to engage in a proper discussion about this. After all, this isn't "votes for merger".

I am also disturbed that you want to shut down the discussion so prematurely. You showed no interest in closing the last proposal despite the fact it was stale for the best part of a month and had been running for two months before I closed it. John Smith's (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know it was you that closed the last proposal. But if you closed the proposal you should have summarized it (here, stage IV); as 6 contributors were against, and only 2 (the nominator and another) in favour, there was hardly a consensus for the merger. And as the last comment was the day before you closed it, the discussion was hardly “stale”. And am I being criticized for not closing the last proposal in time, or for wanting to close this one too soon?

BTW I’ve closed the first proposal, as that hadn’t been done either; I trust you are OK with that. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

PS As far as the current rationale goes; it presents a mis-understanding; Cheonan is not notable because of the circumstances of her sinking, but because she is a ship. As has been said several times, here and in previous discussions, ships are inherently notable, so there shouldn't be any question of moving this content to the "sinking" page.

As for support, the discussion is curently running two-to-one against, which is better than the last proposal, but not as good as the first.

And we can discuss it by all means, but there comes a point when we start going round in circles...Xyl 54 (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support per rationale. Also think the comparison with USS Pueblo is pertinent. Rwendland (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The Pueblo example is interesting; but that article is 28 KB. The "Sinking" article is already 70 KB, which is the sort of size we would be considering a split. So a merger seems to be going in the wrong direction (unless by “merge” what is meant is actually “delete and redirect”; which really isn’t how it's supposed to happen. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, this event was certainly notable enough to be deserving of it's own page it shpuld be renamed to say "Sinking of ROKS Cheonan" though.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The Cheonan was involved in other notable events besides this one, for one it was involved in the First Battle of Yeonpyeong. One of the bloodiest naval battles in korea since 1950.XavierGreen (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, This is a very important article and there is no need to merge it with the article about the ship itself. Because this is a major political/military/media event, it obviously needs it's own article, like many other similar events. Therefore I am going to remove the merge tag.M4bwav (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not "votes for merger", so please do not arbitrarily decide to close a proposal until someone neutral like an uninvolved admin has made a decision. The proposal has been up only just over a week. John Smith's (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I was voicing my opinion, I'm sorry I inflamed your passions over what appears to be a non-issue.M4bwav (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You have misread me. My passions are hardly "inflamed", I was just pointing out some facts that you might have missed. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Excessive detail in the ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772) article

Per discussion in the section above, on the potential merger of the Cheonan article (this one) with the Cheonan sinking article, several editors have offered that THIS article contains entirely too much detail about the sinking, given the existence of the other article on the sinking alone, and the geopolitical aftermath of the sinking. I agree.

I propose a concerted effort by interested editors to remove a lot of the excessive detail from this article. And I will sign up to assist. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

So something along the lines of this? C628 (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. There is no way at all that the article had too much information on the sinking. If anything it needs more, assuming there isn't a merger. You're reducing the article to a shell that only exists for the sake of it. John Smith's (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The sinking has its own article! Thus, all sinking information should be there. Because we currently have separate articles (merge discussion is above, not here), we don't need duplication-- this article should only have a summary of the other article, because the other article is essentially a content fork (see USS Cole (DDG-67) for a similar example). -M.Nelson (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be duplication, it would be setting out a decent summary of the matter. There's so little information here, if you strip out virtually everything on the sinking you're left with "this was a ship of the South Korean Navy. It had guns. It was sunk." That's pathetic. John Smith's (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

John, I'm not clear what you are proposing, here. A comparable ship page (ROKS Sokcho (PCC-778)) runs to 4KB; this one is 19KB with a large chunk of that in the "sinking" section. It's already overweight, there; why do you want to add more? There is a 70KB article already on the sinking, and the fall-out from that. What, of the 15-odd KB about the sinking here isn't overlap? And why wouldn't it be more economical, as well as clearer, to have a brief statement here about the sinking, and a main article link to the other page for anyone who wants more?

(BTW I've answered the question you posed, above) Xyl 54 (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason the Sokcho page is shorter is that there is nothing noteworthy about that ship, except that its part of the SK Navy. If Wikipedia didn't have a "include any old rubbish, even if it's not necessary" position, Sokcho wouldn't have its own article.

The section here is not overweight in the slightest, it is two short paragraphs. This can be expanded upon, though possibly by replacing some of the existing content at the same time.

I would appreciate your continued input on the merger discussion - things aren't as black and white as you make out. John Smith's (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(I've replied, above. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC))

I agree with N2e, C628 and M.Nelson; the sinking section needs drastically reducing, to avoid the overlap with the main article (or giving the impression this is the main article) on the sinking. It could also do with an edit note (<--) to discourage people adding more stuff there.Xyl 54 (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. As things stand there are only two short paragraphs about the sinking. No one can be confused by that at all. It is key that on an article like this people be given a full summary. A summary it shall be, but it should all the relevant information that is key to understanding the subject. John Smith's (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to add more of the ships previous service history to its article, the ship was in commision for decades before this incident and was even involved in at least one other naval battle to my knowledge, the First Battle of Yeonpyeong.XavierGreen (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Potential POV/soapbox edits

This diff made me nervous, as did the username (Cheonantruther (talk · contribs)). It seemed to me largely like a bunch of the inevitable consiparcy theories around the incident, which run up against WP:UNDUE. So I removed a bunch of it (some was unreferenced, the other referenced to a blog), moved some to the ROKS Cheonan sinking article, and made some tweaks to the last bit. Now I'd like someone to tell me if that was a reasonable response, an overreaction, or if it didn't help at all. I will also shortly leave a not on the user's talk page directing them to this. C628 (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Its quite amazing to see people questioning the capabilities of minature submarines, especially when one looks at how they were used in the past, such as crippling the battleship HMS Ramillies (07), and sinking vessels much larger than cheonan. Some people just dont believe historical facts I guess.XavierGreen (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The main issue here is WP:RS. Blogs generally fail RS. The editor's username suggests either a COI or that they wish to push a particular POV. Mjroots (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea how to edit this thing. Never had to, and I'm probably doing it wrong. Oh well. Someone can help me out on that part surely. I just wanted to add, USS LASSEN was there. We were one of the first responders(US side) and were stationed between N and S korea ships. We never got reported in stars and stripes, and just got the mention of "other US ships" in most US papers, but i can gurantee you, we were. I hate that the whole story doesnt get reported. - anon PO2 aboard USS LASSEN during this event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.43 (talk • contribs)

So, you want the WP:TRUTH to be told then? Unfortunately, your personal experiences fall under the heading of original research. Much as we would like to include the fact that USS Lassen assisted, unless it was reported by the media, then it can't be put in the article. However, Wikipedia is a work in progress, and this fact may emerge at some point in the future, and can then be added to the article. Mjroots (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Should be merged

This should definitely be merged into the sinking article. Most of this article deals with the sinking. I note that this has already been discussed, but perhaps editors can come to a different view with a few years' perspective.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose merger - per my reasons given in the original discussion. I can see no good reason to merge, as the sinking would dominate the article, which was the reason that it was split off in the first place. Mjroots (talk) 07:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, the sinking does dominate the article!--Jack Upland (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Move protected

I've move-protected the article. It has been moved a number of times now, so any further moves should only be as a result of a successful WP:RM request. I'm not saying that any move was in and of itself disruptive, and none was in bad faith, but the time has come to settle on a title. The current title is in accordance with WP:NC-S. Mjroots (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

importance rating

set this one to low for WPK; the ROKS Cheonan sinking can remain higher. don't need both to be high priority toobigtokale (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)