Misplaced Pages

Talk:IRIS Konarak: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:32, 14 May 2020 editJungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,529 edits →Merger proposal← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:19, 10 March 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,263,372 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Remove 1 deprecated parameter: importance.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(35 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{ITN talk|12 May|2020|oldid=956267988}} {{ITN talk|12 May|2020|oldid=956267988}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WPBS|1=
{{MILHIST|class=start|b1=y|b2=n|b3=y|b4=n|b5=y|Maritime=y|Middle-Eastern=y}} {{WikiProject Military history|class=start|b1=y|b2=n|b3=y|b4=n|b5=y|Maritime=y|Middle-Eastern=y}}
{{WikiProject Ships|class=start|importance=low}} {{WikiProject Iran|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Ships}}
}} }}


Line 22: Line 23:


It might be worth mentioning how 19 were killed and 15 injured when the boat's compliment is only 15 crew according to the infobox. Where did the other 19 people come from? †<span style="font-family:monospace;">]</span>†|] 16:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC) It might be worth mentioning how 19 were killed and 15 injured when the boat's compliment is only 15 crew according to the infobox. Where did the other 19 people come from? †<span style="font-family:monospace;">]</span>†|] 16:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
:Exactly, I changed the lede to reflect this.] (]) 21:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
:Although the "15 complement" could be cited to the Navypedia article, or elsewhere, it is not at all clear whether that refers to the vessel in its as-built role, or has been updated following the modifications to armed patrol boat. In any case, it is not at all unusual for the number of crew to be increased for particular assignments (in this case handling the intended targets). And if at sea for extended periods could well have a double crew on board - I don't think that there is any particular reason to doubt the Iranians if they describe the larger number as "crew". ] (]) 22:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion == == A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
Line 29: Line 32:


== Merger proposal == == Merger proposal ==
{{Discussion top|result=To '''not''' merge, on the grounds that the incident is independently notable of the ship, which itself has a notable pre-incident history; proposal stale for more than 10 months, with opposition before that. ] (]) 16:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)}}

I propose to merge ] into ]. This article already contains more information than the stand alone article. ] (]) 01:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC) I propose to merge ] into ]. This article already contains more information than the stand alone article. ] (]) 01:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - All the event information from ] can simply be merged into ]. There isn't much more at either article. They both have the same amount of content. ] <small>(...])</small> 03:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' - All the event information from ] can simply be merged into ]. There isn't much more at either article. They both have the same amount of content. ] <small>(...])</small> 03:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Line 37: Line 40:
*'''Oppose''' The two pages are independently notable. The fact that ] is stub does not mean it should be deleted; there is a lot more to add to it by a simple search. ] (]) 07:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' The two pages are independently notable. The fact that ] is stub does not mean it should be deleted; there is a lot more to add to it by a simple search. ] (]) 07:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' There's not much to write about the incident itself (which currently has only three sentences). ]<sup>]</sup> 07:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC) *'''Merge''' There's not much to write about the incident itself (which currently has only three sentences). ]<sup>]</sup> 07:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose, but''' repurpose this article as {{sclass-|Hendijan|support vessel|1}}. Much of the non-incident content here is about the class, and the Dutch-built batch in particular; there is undoubtedly more to be said beyond the bare names in ] and the mention there of ''Kalat'' and apparently others converted to missile boats. If there was already a class article I would have supported '''merge''' on content grounds. ] (]) 10:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC) *<s>'''Oppose, but''' repurpose this article as {{Sclass|Hendijan|support vessel|1}}. Much of the non-incident content here is about the class, and the Dutch-built batch in particular; there is undoubtedly more to be said beyond the bare names in ] and the mention there of ''Kalat'' and apparently others converted to missile boats. If there was already a class article I would have supported '''merge''' on content grounds.</s> ] (]) 10:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
:*'''Support the merge as proposed'''. As above suggestion not attracted any interest, I support the proposed merger on content grounds.] (]) 09:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support the merge as proposed'''.] (]) 11:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC) *'''Support the merge as proposed'''.] (]) 11:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Keep this article and remove the incident related parts from ] (leave a sentence or two about the incident with a link to this article).--] (]) 12:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' Keep this article and remove the incident related parts from ] (leave a sentence or two about the incident with a link to this article).--] (]) 12:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
::::1- There are 3 other languages that have separate article for Incident and the Support Vessel. Merging two articles messes the links. 2- Some users in favor of merge have mentioned that if there was a different country maybe they would vote for not merging the articles, I am not sure if this a definition of bias based on nation that the incident occurred in. 3- This is a developing matter yet, I believe that keeping the articles separate will keep the organizing relevant information better.--] (]) 19:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

*'''Support merge as proposed''' <span style="color:#CD0000">comrade ] (])</span> 13:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC) *'''Support merge as proposed''' <span style="color:#CD0000">comrade ] (])</span> 13:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''--] (]) 15:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC) *'''Oppose'''--] (]) 15:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support''' merging both articles to ] (preferred) ''or'' to ]. ] (]) 16:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC) * '''Support''' merging both articles to ] (preferred) ''or'' to ]. ] (]) 16:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support the merge as proposed'''. All information can be adequately captured under the vessel's page without running into length issues. ] (]) 21:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC) *'''Support the merge as proposed'''. All information can be adequately captured under the vessel's page without running into length issues. ] (]) 21:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' a merge - either as proposed or as a reverse of what was proposed, but we don't need 2 articles. i doubt the ''Konarak'' is notable as a standalone topic, but I could be persuaded otherwise. ] (]) 02:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC) *<s>'''Support''' a merge - either as proposed or as a reverse of what was proposed, but we don't need 2 articles. i doubt the ''Konarak'' is notable as a standalone topic, but I could be persuaded otherwise. ] (]) 02:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)</s>
*: {{small|Struck comment by {{np|JungerMan Chips Ahoy!}}, a blocked and banned ]. See {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive#06 May 2020}} and ] for details. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 15:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)}}
There should be a completely different section under the page ] containing most of this information. ] (]) 15:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC) There should be a completely different section under the page ] containing most of this information. ] (]) 15:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support the merge as proposed'''. Merging will keep information together. Semper Fi! ] (]) 13:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support merger either way''' - No disrespect intended to the author of this, but it's a short article, with no major further information is likely to come to light to expand it or make it massively notable. Merge either way - ] into this would probably be best, as it's a non-notable ship, but the other way round is fine too. By the way, whatever is happening, shouldn't this be linked on the Main Page? ] (]) 15:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support the merge as proposed'''. If this were a collision from a more transparent nation, subsequent reports on its causes and news coverage might be generated, but I'd be surprised if that were the case for Iran. Given that, it seems most reasonable to merge the two. ] (]) 18:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support the merge as proposed'''. — ] (]) 02:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', This is an incident that has been widely reported in the media and the discussions around it continue. ] (]) 17:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support an inversion of the proposed merge'''. A merge does seem the appropriate course of action under these circumstances, but clearly the subject of interest which is the focus of the majority of the sources (and which brings this relatively small support vessel itself to international attention for the first time) is the incident itself. The articles for the incident and the ship are both recent additions, and there's really no reason to believe the vessel would have had independent notability justifying a stand-alone article under ] if not for the incident. In all respects (including the crucial detail of the focus of the RS), the most intuitive and significant namespace for the article would seem to be the one which references the incident. That said, I would also argue that all or most of the content of the vessel article should be included in the ultimate merged article, since it will mostly be fully cite-able to the relevant sources and is significant contextual information which may reasonably be of interest to those wanting information about the incident and the vessel itself. ''] ]'' 07:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
: '''Support merger as proposed''' - many other friendly fire incidents in a ship's history are on the individual ship page. This does not need its own page.] (]) 17:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
:'''Support merger as proposed''' - There are quite a few pages on Misplaced Pages that provide details of various ships; for example ] and ]. If these modern ships from the west are notable, I would imagine that this Iranian ship is notable as well (perhaps notable more to the Iranians than to westerners).<span style="background:#F0F0FF; padding:3px 9px 4px">''']''' </span> <sup>]</sup> 16:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:'''Support merger as proposed''' The incident with the Konarak is important for understanding the Konarak as a ship, keeping the Konarak incident as a seperate article takes away from the learning about the Konarak one can gain from reading this article. I Support the Merger <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:'''Oppose''' - Both are valid and independent subjects in their own right. - ] (]) 16:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
::It's definitely not unheard of to keep both the article on the ship and the one on the incident (like we did with ] for example) but are they really both "valid and independent subjects in their own right" in this case? 1) I can't find any sources that cover the vessel without mentioning the incident; 2) our article on Konarak was only created after the incident and 3) all of the sources it currently uses relate to the incident. That said, I obviously '''oppose''' the merger as proposed as well (but support it the other way around, i.e. vessel into incident). ] (]) 22:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
:::When you say you did not find any sources that cover the ship without mentioning the incident, did you search beyond English based articles? It’s possible that coverage for specific Iranian ships in general on English based search engines might be relatively low unless there was such an incident. Semper Fi! ] (]) 11:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Added some older sources available on the web; editors with easier access to standard naval ref sources (Jane's, Conway etc) will be able to add more. ] (]) 21:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
:'''Support''' the merge, all of the sources refer to the incident, there are no sources on the vessel that do not refer to the incident. Regarding the title of the merged page, 'Konarak vessel incident' is the most appropriate. Ideally it should be a citeable english translation of a popular citeable persian name for the incident. Please note that the only persian source so far is of the BBC, a UK source. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:: It is incorrect that there were no pre-incident sources when you wrote this (and there would be more, but my library is currently closed). ] (]) 16:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:::The thing is, if you are talking about Navypedia and that sort of thing, that's not really the kind of detailed, contextual coverage that is meant to be contemplated when making a determination of ] under our relevant policies. In fact, some of those per-incident sources that have been added arguably do not even rise to the level of a ]. In any event, all the coverage prior to this incident really only amounts to a few dry isolated technical details about the ships dimensions, construction, and years in service. They do not constitute enough information to have justified an independent article for the ship under either ] or a subject-specific notability policy, which pretty much highlights the fact that the ship itself is the dependent topic, whereas the incident is the independent topic that unquestionably satisfies notability guidelines. If there is a merge, it should certainly go the direction of the information in this article being merged into the namespace for the incident. Not that it's going to be a huge deal either way, but that's definitely the most intuitive and appropriate move under every relevant policy.''] ]'' 18:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' per arguments by ]. I can find sources about operational history of ''Konarak'' and make it a better article. ] (]) 16:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
{{Discussion bottom}}

Latest revision as of 03:19, 10 March 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the IRIS Konarak 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
In the newsA news item involving IRIS Konarak was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 12 May 2020.
Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Maritime / Middle East
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion not met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Maritime warfare task force
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
WikiProject iconIran Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconShips
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShipsWikiProject icon

Image

User:Mjroots, User:SamHolt6, User:Dumelow: I am amazed at how this article expanded with your work! I have a question, since I am not good with copyright. Can the image in Tehran Times , of the ship in better times, be uploaded? The bottom of the page says "All Content by Mehr News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.". There is also video and images after the strike (the whole superstructure is gone): , but I can't find licensing for that yet. Vici Vidi (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

CC4.0 means we can copy across to Commons. Use {{Mehr}} to attribute the correct licence. Mjroots (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Uploaded: pre-accident and burning total loss. Vici Vidi (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

( ) ]Konarak burning after being hit by missile
  • ... that the Iranian support vessel Konarak was struck by a missile during training on 10 May 2020, killing 19 of its crew?"Nineteen sailors have been killed and 15 others injured in an accident involving Iranian naval vessels in the Gulf of Oman, Iran's navy has said. Iranian media reported that the support ship Konarak was hit by a new anti-ship missile being tested by the frigate Jamaran during an exercise on Sunday.""Iranian sailors killed in 'friendly fire' incident". BBC News. 11 May 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
    • ALT1:... that the Iranian support vessel Konarak has since been converted into a combatant vessel armed with anti-ship missiles? "Veel van deze schepen van Hendijanklasse, waaronder dus de Konarak, zijn namelijk door de Iraanse marine recent zwaar bewapend, en voorzien van antischipkruisvluchtwapens." Which translates as "Many of these ships of the Hendijan class, including the Konarak, have recently been heavily armed by the Iranian navy and are equipped with anti-ship cruise missile." from: Karremann, Jaime (11 May 2020). "Raket van Iraans fregat treft Iraanse patrouilleboot: 19 doden" . Marine Schepen (in Dutch). Retrieved 11 May 2020.

Created by Dumelow (talk), Vici Vidi (talk), Mjroots (talk) and SamHolt6 (talk) . Nominated by Dumelow (talk) at 14:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC).

Withdrawing, this article has now been featured on "In the News" and so is ineligible for DYK (Eligibility rule 1e) - Dumelow (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
"Mehr news is creative commons" -- I am not familiar with Mehr but I can't see the CC license anywhere on their front page. What makes you say so? Can you point me to their licensing page please? -- Wesha (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Nearly double the number of crew were killed or injured

It might be worth mentioning how 19 were killed and 15 injured when the boat's compliment is only 15 crew according to the infobox. Where did the other 19 people come from? †dismas†| 16:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, I changed the lede to reflect this.174.0.48.147 (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Although the "15 complement" could be cited to the Navypedia article, or elsewhere, it is not at all clear whether that refers to the vessel in its as-built role, or has been updated following the modifications to armed patrol boat. In any case, it is not at all unusual for the number of crew to be increased for particular assignments (in this case handling the intended targets). And if at sea for extended periods could well have a double crew on board - I don't think that there is any particular reason to doubt the Iranians if they describe the larger number as "crew". Davidships (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge, on the grounds that the incident is independently notable of the ship, which itself has a notable pre-incident history; proposal stale for more than 10 months, with opposition before that. Klbrain (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I propose to merge Konarak vessel incident into Iranian support vessel Konarak#2020 friendly-fire incident. This article already contains more information than the stand alone article. 203.185.249.147 (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

1- There are 3 other languages that have separate article for Incident and the Support Vessel. Merging two articles messes the links. 2- Some users in favor of merge have mentioned that if there was a different country maybe they would vote for not merging the articles, I am not sure if this a definition of bias based on nation that the incident occurred in. 3- This is a developing matter yet, I believe that keeping the articles separate will keep the organizing relevant information better.--F4fluids (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

There should be a completely different section under the page Iranian support vessel Konrak containing most of this information. Ringo Asinal - Nocead12345 (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Support the merge as proposed. Merging will keep information together. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merger either way - No disrespect intended to the author of this, but it's a short article, with no major further information is likely to come to light to expand it or make it massively notable. Merge either way - Iranan support vessel Konarak into this would probably be best, as it's a non-notable ship, but the other way round is fine too. By the way, whatever is happening, shouldn't this be linked on the Main Page? Sir Magnus has spoken! (So can you!) 15:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the merge as proposed. If this were a collision from a more transparent nation, subsequent reports on its causes and news coverage might be generated, but I'd be surprised if that were the case for Iran. Given that, it seems most reasonable to merge the two. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the merge as proposed. — Goszei (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, This is an incident that has been widely reported in the media and the discussions around it continue. Shahab760 (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support an inversion of the proposed merge. A merge does seem the appropriate course of action under these circumstances, but clearly the subject of interest which is the focus of the majority of the sources (and which brings this relatively small support vessel itself to international attention for the first time) is the incident itself. The articles for the incident and the ship are both recent additions, and there's really no reason to believe the vessel would have had independent notability justifying a stand-alone article under WP:GNG if not for the incident. In all respects (including the crucial detail of the focus of the RS), the most intuitive and significant namespace for the article would seem to be the one which references the incident. That said, I would also argue that all or most of the content of the vessel article should be included in the ultimate merged article, since it will mostly be fully cite-able to the relevant sources and is significant contextual information which may reasonably be of interest to those wanting information about the incident and the vessel itself. Snow 07:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Support merger as proposed - many other friendly fire incidents in a ship's history are on the individual ship page. This does not need its own page.Llammakey (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Support merger as proposed - There are quite a few pages on Misplaced Pages that provide details of various ships; for example USS_George_H.W._Bush and HMCS_Ville_de_Québec_(FFH_332). If these modern ships from the west are notable, I would imagine that this Iranian ship is notable as well (perhaps notable more to the Iranians than to westerners).Dig deeper 16:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Support merger as proposed The incident with the Konarak is important for understanding the Konarak as a ship, keeping the Konarak incident as a seperate article takes away from the learning about the Konarak one can gain from reading this article. I Support the Merger — Preceding unsigned comment added by JazzClam (talk • contribs) 13:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - Both are valid and independent subjects in their own right. - chris_j_wood (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
It's definitely not unheard of to keep both the article on the ship and the one on the incident (like we did with USS Liberty incident for example) but are they really both "valid and independent subjects in their own right" in this case? 1) I can't find any sources that cover the vessel without mentioning the incident; 2) our article on Konarak was only created after the incident and 3) all of the sources it currently uses relate to the incident. That said, I obviously oppose the merger as proposed as well (but support it the other way around, i.e. vessel into incident). 78.28.44.111 (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
When you say you did not find any sources that cover the ship without mentioning the incident, did you search beyond English based articles? It’s possible that coverage for specific Iranian ships in general on English based search engines might be relatively low unless there was such an incident. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Added some older sources available on the web; editors with easier access to standard naval ref sources (Jane's, Conway etc) will be able to add more. Davidships (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Support the merge, all of the sources refer to the incident, there are no sources on the vessel that do not refer to the incident. Regarding the title of the merged page, 'Konarak vessel incident' is the most appropriate. Ideally it should be a citeable english translation of a popular citeable persian name for the incident. Please note that the only persian source so far is of the BBC, a UK source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TZubiri (talk • contribs) 02:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
It is incorrect that there were no pre-incident sources when you wrote this (and there would be more, but my library is currently closed). Davidships (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The thing is, if you are talking about Navypedia and that sort of thing, that's not really the kind of detailed, contextual coverage that is meant to be contemplated when making a determination of WP:Notability under our relevant policies. In fact, some of those per-incident sources that have been added arguably do not even rise to the level of a WP:RS. In any event, all the coverage prior to this incident really only amounts to a few dry isolated technical details about the ships dimensions, construction, and years in service. They do not constitute enough information to have justified an independent article for the ship under either WP:GNG or a subject-specific notability policy, which pretty much highlights the fact that the ship itself is the dependent topic, whereas the incident is the independent topic that unquestionably satisfies notability guidelines. If there is a merge, it should certainly go the direction of the information in this article being merged into the namespace for the incident. Not that it's going to be a huge deal either way, but that's definitely the most intuitive and appropriate move under every relevant policy.Snow 18:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per arguments by User:chris_j_wood. I can find sources about operational history of Konarak and make it a better article. Pahlevun (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2020 (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. Categories: