258:
240:
882:, 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 Knowledge 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
2222:(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,
2237:
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.
526:
2018:
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.
4013:) 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?
2347:, 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,
3331:
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.
304:
43:
510:
591:
570:
395:
59:
21:
2396:, 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!
542:
90:
467:
456:
445:
423:
142:
2754:, 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
121:
353:
321:
212:
3680:); 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?
434:
2287:; 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?
3330:
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.
3094:
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
2236:
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),
2032:
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,
1435:
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
3653:
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
3632:
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
3424:
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
3402:
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
3305:
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...
3282:
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
2971:
article about a major international incident which occurred in 2010. It stands just fine on its own, and meets
Knowledge 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
2365:
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
2221:
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
3909:
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
3419:
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
3170:
stands just fine on its own, and meets
Knowledge 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
2735:
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,
2709:
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
2017:
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?
1353:
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
789:
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
4095:
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.
2410:
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
2338:
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
1907:
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
1391:
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
1243:
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
979:
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
4232:
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
2503:
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
1373:
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
1108:
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
2914:
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
2717:
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.
1454:
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").
3657:
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
2736:
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!
2848:. 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
3828:, 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.
2705:
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.
3994:
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.
1406:
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?
2868:. 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.--
2323:
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.
3283:
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
1052:, 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.
3701:
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"
1436:
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
949:
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.
1010:
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".
2680:
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.
3661:
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.
762:
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.
3098:
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.
1181:
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
4168:
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.
2041:
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.
1032:
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.
1318:
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.
2605:
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.
3950:
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.
3262:. 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 Knowledge article on a ship in class.
257:
239:
886:
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.
4115:
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
4233:
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.
3450:. 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
3965:
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
533:
335:
3257:
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
1851:
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?
4273:
assisted, unless it was reported by the media, then it can't be put in the article. However, Knowledge is a work in progress, and this fact may emerge at some point in the future, and can then be added to the article.
1126:
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.
904:
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
4294:
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'
2441:
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
1142:
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.
1756:. 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.
517:
331:
3618:
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.
1890:
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.
995:
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.
3846:
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.
2713:
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.
2064:
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.
3371:
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
1421:
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. --
2864:. 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
2123:
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.).
1871:
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?
4313:- 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.
3038:
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.
2185:
3353:
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.
2191:
2188:
2182:
1583:, 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) --
3166:; 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
1646:
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
4037:
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.
4365:
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
4184:
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
3081:. 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. —
2915:
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.--
1961:
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
4490:
4435:
2852:
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
2640:
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.
641:
631:
3376:.) 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
2658:
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.
4475:
3636:
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.
2996:
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.
2484:
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.
4480:
2853:
1093:..."), 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).
408:
365:
4470:
4034:, except that its part of the SK Navy. If Knowledge didn't have a "include any old rubbish, even if it's not necessary" position, Sokcho wouldn't have its own article.
3206:
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.--
864:
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.
4430:
2805:- 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.
607:
192:
4485:
4465:
2545:
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
394:
4077:
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
1994:. (Un-referenced too I might add!) Consistency of data across related articles is a common issue on Knowledge IMHO. I have added a ref and made it more NPOV.
4420:
549:
339:
221:
2186:
http://news.naver.com/main/hotissue/read.nhn?mid=hot&sid1=100&gid=467439&cid=468997&iid=1024094&oid=006&aid=0000044770&ptype=011
2822:- 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,
2192:
http://news.naver.com/main/hotissue/read.nhn?mid=hot&sid1=100&gid=467439&cid=468997&iid=650926&oid=006&aid=0000044794&ptype=011
2189:
http://news.naver.com/main/hotissue/read.nhn?mid=hot&sid1=100&gid=467439&cid=468997&iid=215032&oid=006&aid=0000044818&ptype=011
2183:
http://news.naver.com/main/hotissue/read.nhn?mid=hot&sid1=100&gid=467439&cid=468997&iid=209646&oid=006&aid=0000044750&ptype=011
4460:
4455:
3421:
3515:'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
2392:
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
3967:
2366:
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. --
1209:
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
598:
575:
1806:
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.)
1177:
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
274:
160:
3271:
3231:
4425:
4415:
2381:
2265:
2209:
2168:
2141:
4004:
3765:. 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
3091:
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.
360:
326:
202:
4105:
4049:
3884:
3856:
3671:
2085:
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?
1753:
369:
3705:
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.
1265:
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.
4450:
4153:
1320:
1266:
740:
turn into a major international event. Let's hold fire until a bit more information becomes available before we decide one way or another.
4361:
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
3960:
3790:, 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.--
811:
I think waiting until the south and north korean governments commented on the incident would be best, right now virtually nothing is known
4440:
2049:
1997:
1251:
797:
4249:
1923:, if someone could find information about the vessels part in that battle it might expand the history second a bit beyond the sinking.
1720:
835:
2468:
2019:
1924:
1469:
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...
1159:
2527:
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
2504:
ship's life, or possibly of the salvage operation pulling the ship out of the water, would be appropriate. What to others think?
1633:
many ships with far less data stand alone with its own article, and there's clearly enough unique data to support its own here. --
2837:
The following is the commentary I posted in the sinking article prior to tagging for merger. Also, one endorsement is included:
2737:
2719:
878:
The only thing achieved by hanging around waiting to see if something happens, is that both of these articles remain substandard
278:
164:
70:
4445:
3875:
You have misread me. My passions are hardly "inflamed", I was just pointing out some facts that you might have missed. Thanks,
2933:
Your edit summary did say see discussion, but on clicking the link, there was no discussion - which is why I started it here.
2377:
2261:
2205:
2137:
4161:
1550:
article so they now largely duplicate each other again. 2) If you put both articles into the article traffic statistics tool,
3451:
3111:
282:
168:
2976:
article content with this content on the demise of the ship, and the major international political actions which followed.
4081:
the main article) on the sinking. It could also do with an edit note (<--) to discourage people adding more stuff there.
3072:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2788:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1677:
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.
672:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3900:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3057:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2152:
EDIT: BTW, the reason why I put neut-dispute is because the article makes no mention of these alternative possibilities.
1668:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1600:, I believe about 80% of the contents in this article is about sinking. This ship is only notable because of the sinking.
4156:)). It seemed to me largely like a bunch of the inevitable consiparcy theories around the incident, which run up against
2241:
790:
prove to be worthy of a much longer non-PCC-722 centric article. Certainly waiting a few days cannot be unreasonable.
101:
3676:
I didn't know it was you that closed the last proposal. But if you closed the proposal you should have summarized it (
3175:
article content with the sinking and international politics that are, appropriately, covered in the sinking article.
3095:
really, apart from the sinking, there's nothing to do except regurgitate the information from the ship class article.
2301:
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
2164:
1716:
1075:; If there are no objections I’d like to move the "Reaction" section there, and trim the "Sinking" section here a bit.
265:
245:
149:
126:
4040:
I would appreciate your continued input on the merger discussion - things aren't as black and white as you make out.
3454:? The sinking makes this ship notable. However, the sinking has its own article. This ship's prior, un-sinky life is
4117:
3808:
1920:
3795:
2751:
1349:
2523:
as being under copyright (I think that's what it means, I'm not familiar with image policy...) and subsequently
4147:
3639:
And can I also suggest that, (unless someone actually has something new to say) that “closed” means “closed”.
2793:
A merge from tag has been added to this article, yet no rationale has been given. Per previous discussions, I
1324:
1270:
4101:
4090:
4063:
4045:
4025:
4000:
3989:
3956:
3880:
3870:
3852:
3837:
3820:
3799:
3740:
3717:
3692:
3667:
3648:
3565:
3477:
3340:
3296:
3267:
3245:
3227:
3215:
3201:
3184:
3152:
3129:
3107:
2053:
1315:
1255:
801:
3552:. This truely international incident (US-DPRK vs nK-sK), had very significant reprecussions. But we have a
3523:, you have six sentences and an infobox, which may be well-cited but show no significant coverage in RS per
2001:
1724:
1542:
Having observed what has happened since our attempt at a logical split earlier this month, I'm now strongly
839:
364:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
3915:
propose a concerted effort by interested editors to remove a lot of the excessive detail from this article.
4397:
4245:
3458:; since the sinking is already covered in another article, this one is not needed. PS I'd also argue that
2520:
2367:
2251:
2195:
2160:
2127:
1083:
849:
78, that won't happen. Regardless of the incident, the ship is notable enough to sustain its own article.
4143:
3627:
ships are inherently notable; if anyone is unhappy with that notion I suggest they take it up over there.
1380:
4342:
4300:
4193:
4125:
4010:
3816:
3459:
3373:
3368:
3171:
would lose its very appropriate prominence as article-worthy in its own right, as well as overwhelm the
2887:
2464:
2445:
2023:
1928:
1155:
910:
816:
107:
4393:
4241:
4188:, and sinking vessels much larger than cheonan. Some people just dont believe historical facts I guess.
3791:
2883:
2460:
4389:
4237:
4165:
3758:
3583:
3579:
3561:
3241:
3211:
3167:
2953:
2920:
2905:
2873:
2741:
2723:
2456:
2284:
2156:
2045:
1857:
1498:
1247:
1178:
1147:
1089:
1068:
1057:
892:
793:
768:
745:
705:
660:
33:
89:
75:
4267:
3762:
3754:
3736:
3708:
And we can discuss it by all means, but there comes a point when we start going round in circles...
3683:
BTW I’ve closed the first proposal, as that hadn’t been done either; I trust you are OK with that.
3549:
3022:
2849:
2841:
2401:
2393:
2329:
2306:
2302:
1991:
1987:
1948:
1876:
1811:
1761:
1571:
1563:
1445:
1305:
1218:
865:
603:
3807:
The Cheonan was involved in other notable events besides this one, for one it was involved in the
606:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
42:
4185:
4097:
4041:
3996:
3985:
3952:
3876:
3861:
I was voicing my opinion, I'm sorry I inflamed your passions over what appears to be a non-issue.
3848:
3663:
3534:
3473:
3463:
3410:
3391:
3263:
3223:
3103:
2362:
2090:
1701:
1634:
1114:
1001:
928:
869:
2361:
Exactly. By the logic of the "cause of sinking should not be listed" people, the article on the
1493:
The article should not be merged, all that does it make it harder to find information of wiki.--
20:
4374:
4318:
4279:
4219:
3975:
3766:
3591:
3500:
3487:
3358:
3148:
3125:
3043:
2938:
2861:
2827:
2810:
2686:
2663:
2634:
2596:
2549:
2489:
2314:
2105:
2070:
1910:
1896:
1848:
1682:
1620:
1528:
1426:
1359:
1132:
1072:
1016:
985:
963:
951:
940:
932:
854:
727:
1615:
The ship would have been sufficiently notable for an article had it still been afloat today.
4338:
4296:
4189:
4121:
4086:
4059:
4021:
3866:
3833:
3812:
3774:
3713:
3688:
3644:
3504:
3311:
3301:
John -- You wanted a reply to your point, which (AFAICS)is that there is little interest in
3001:
2344:
1976:
1785:
1739:
1655:
1474:
1460:
1412:
1397:
1151:
1098:
1038:
955:
906:
812:
690:
525:
2840:
The fact that we have separate articles for the ship and its sinking smacks of POV. It is
4259:
4157:
3971:
3677:
3620:
3557:
3346:
3237:
3207:
3082:
2949:
2916:
2901:
2869:
2845:
2802:
1887:
1853:
1605:
1588:
1523:
was deliberately targeted or not is unclear. There is potential for this to escalate yet.
1494:
1338:
1053:
888:
764:
741:
701:
2856:. Is there an article for each of those sinkings?) Similarly, the German battle cruiser
3349:
convention is that ships are generally inherently notable enough to sustain an article.
2244:
1288:
If we are to move the info, I think we need a better name than the rather uninformative
4366:
4211:
4174:
3941:
3732:
3599:
3430:
3336:
3197:
3017:
2865:
2798:
2763:
2574:
2536:
2450:
2416:
2397:
2352:
2325:
2292:
2247:
2227:
1872:
1833:
1807:
1757:
1567:
1441:
1301:
1214:
3511:
and its sister ships are all considered to be notable, for one reason or another, and
1825:
4409:
4207:
3980:
3922:
3529:
3524:
3468:
3405:
3386:
3292:
3260:
this article covers the existence and multi-year life and missions of the ship itself
3180:
2981:
2857:
2645:
2611:
2560:
2509:
2242:
http://www.pressian.com/article/article.asp?article_num=10100510161737§ion=05
2086:
1697:
1519:
now. The cause of the explosion was external, not internal as first thought. Whether
1110:
997:
700:
There is zero need to have this information duplicated over two pages at this point.
273:-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please
4262:
to be told then? Unfortunately, your personal experiences fall under the heading of
4370:
4362:
4314:
4275:
4263:
4215:
4203:
3483:
3381:
3354:
3163:
3144:
3121:
3039:
2968:
2934:
2823:
2806:
2755:
2682:
2659:
2592:
2485:
2310:
2101:
2100:
Per the article on the ship class, 1,350 tons would seem to be the correct figure.
2066:
1892:
1678:
1616:
1524:
1422:
1355:
1128:
1028:
If this discussion is still open, I would also be against a merge; I think the USS
1012:
981:
959:
936:
850:
723:
303:
4401:
4378:
4346:
4322:
4304:
4283:
4223:
4197:
4178:
4129:
3945:
3926:
3778:
3603:
3538:
3491:
3434:
3414:
3395:
3362:
3315:
3085:
3047:
3028:
3005:
2985:
2957:
2942:
2924:
2909:
2891:
2877:
2831:
2814:
2767:
2745:
2727:
2690:
2667:
2649:
2615:
2600:
2578:
2564:
2540:
2513:
2493:
2472:
2420:
2405:
2387:
2356:
2333:
2318:
2309:. Either can cause the ship to break, and it has happened many times in the past.
2296:
2271:
2231:
2215:
2172:
2147:
2109:
2094:
2074:
2057:
2027:
2005:
1980:
1932:
1914:
1900:
1880:
1861:
1837:
1789:
1765:
1743:
1728:
1705:
1686:
1659:
1637:
1624:
1609:
1592:
1575:
1532:
1502:
1478:
1464:
1449:
1430:
1416:
1401:
1385:
1363:
1342:
1328:
1309:
1274:
1259:
1222:
1163:
1136:
1118:
1102:
1061:
1042:
1020:
1005:
989:
967:
944:
914:
896:
873:
858:
843:
820:
805:
772:
749:
731:
709:
694:
3519:, you still have a notable ship. However, if you remove the bombing section from
1048:
USS Cole is utterly irrelevent. Content should be organised according to what is
4082:
4055:
4017:
3862:
3829:
3770:
3709:
3684:
3640:
3587:
3307:
2997:
2710:"Maine-Cuba-1898" copycat incident if and when the opportunity arises later on.
1972:
1952:
1947:"The island, inside South Korea's (ROK) territorial waters, is located near the
1781:
1735:
1651:
1470:
1456:
1408:
1393:
1094:
1034:
686:
4160:. So I removed a bunch of it (some was unreferenced, the other referenced to a
3556:
article covering it. (And thank you, John, for persisting in this proposal.) --
58:
1601:
1584:
1334:
718:
No opinion on this at the moment. As it's a current event, the merge proposal
590:
569:
541:
1554:
has had about 3,500 daily views the last few days, compared to about 900 for
4170:
3937:
3595:
3426:
3332:
3193:
2900:
Also, when I posted the merge tag, my editors summary said see discussion.--
2759:
2570:
2532:
2412:
2348:
2288:
2223:
1829:
1375:
1078:
509:
65:
27:
2343:
for an example of what I'm thinking about; most stuff on the bombing is in
2283:
all of that, on the grounds that this discussion should be taking place at
2033:
it was a weapon leased from the US - fired from a Collins class submarine.
4009:
John, I'm not clear what you are proposing, here. A comparable ship page (
3697:
PS As far as the current rationale goes; it presents a mis-understanding;
281:. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the
3918:
3288:
3176:
2977:
2641:
2607:
2556:
2505:
2340:
26:
A news item involving ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772) was featured on Knowledge's
2758:
are reporting, although as I said, other theories are present. Regards,
2279:
Well, it looks like it just got a little more complicated; an anon user
1081:
could do with changing ( something like "the South Korean Navy corvette
954:
not only has its own article so the Cheonan is notable, but so does its
3731:
per rationale. Also think the comparison with USS Pueblo is pertinent.
1109:
oppose redirecting the main page to the inferior article on the topic.
980:
mind for the moment as to whether there should be one or two articles.
141:
120:
1546:
merger. 1) Info/speculation on the sinking has been put back into the
3574:
article is an exception to more common practice; see the examples of
2446:
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/427801.html
4206:. Blogs generally fail RS. The editor's username suggests either a
352:
320:
211:
155:
153:, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to
3970:
of the other article, because the other article is essentially a
2797:
the merger of the sinking article into this article. Reasons are
2339:
leave something that important out of this article entirely. See
3761:
article is already 70 KB, which is the sort of size we would be
2305:, if the bow and stern are aground and the middle isnt, it will
270:
3633:
a paragraph (at most; many ship articles just have a sentence).
3222:
This is my proposal - please don't remove it just yet. Thanks,
1778:
Any idea what the captions say? Or the significance of "183 m"?
931:, and if you feel that something is missing from the incident,
167:. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the
1696:
Do we have any idea what a ship of this class costs to build?
83:
53:
15:
3548:- For a comparison which has even more relevance, please see
3466:(yes I know it's a BLP policy, but the spirit is the same). -
540:
524:
508:
393:
210:
41:
722:
premature. Let's see how events develop over the weekend.
3811:. One of the bloodiest naval battles in korea since 1950.
4392:
can remain higher. don't need both to be high priority
4139:
3933:
3425:
opposite of what the section below proposes, though...
2524:
2280:
3905:
Excessive detail in the ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772) article
1908:
not prove notability, it is something to consider. --
3102:
Both these points deal with SIZE and UNDUE concerns.
2583:
The only free-use image we have is of a sister ship,
2245:
http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/opinion/column/420051.html
64:
A fact from this article was featured on Knowledge's
2451:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1006/1006.0680.pdf
2248:
http://www.viewsnnews.com/article/view.jsp?seq=62879
602:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
406:
This article has been checked against the following
4016:(BTW I've answered the question you posed, above)
491:
405:
3910:geopolitical aftermath of the sinking. I agree.
4266:. Much as we would like to include the fact that
2854:List of United States Navy losses in World War II
2750:Mmm...first of all, your concerns belong more at
2948:Understood. And I am sorry for the confusion.--
3420:changes to move it away from that (we now have
4030:The reason the Sokcho page is shorter is that
1957:As it’s POV. The Northern Limit Line is not a
3168:article on the sinking incident and aftermath
2555:tag may be helpful to improving the article.
8:
3162:—both articles are well-researched and well-
2967:—this article is a well-researched and well-
1354:should be included for that reason alone. --
685:for this merger, and it was not carried out.
4491:Low-importance Disaster management articles
4436:Korean military history task force articles
4032:there is nothing noteworthy about that ship
2531:-class ship...anyone got any better ideas?
1562:. 3) Similar one major event articles like
1205:Don't think Titanic is a good example. The
4476:Asian military history task force articles
3422:Reactions to the 2010 ROKS Cheonan sinking
2778:Merge of sinking article into this article
1211:Timeline of the sinking of the RMS Titanic
564:
488:
402:
315:
234:
115:
616:Knowledge:WikiProject Disaster management
4481:C-Class Korean military history articles
3917:And I will sign up to assist. Cheers.
3482:M Nelson, see my reply above your post.
1965:boundary between the two Koreas and the
1374:article, except for a short summary. --
619:Template:WikiProject Disaster management
358:This article is within the scope of the
159:. All interested editors are invited to
4471:C-Class Asian military history articles
4210:or that they wish to push a particular
3380:), and this article should give only a
2519:There was one at one point, but it was
566:
317:
236:
117:
87:
4142:made me nervous, as did the username (
3367:If there is consensus that all of the
2591:would have looked similar in profile.
1244:can't believe this is even an issue.
378:Knowledge:WikiProject Military history
368:. To use this banner, please see the
222:the Korean military history task force
4431:Low-importance Korea-related articles
3403:"Political effects of ..." article. -
381:Template:WikiProject Military history
7:
4486:C-Class Disaster management articles
4466:Maritime warfare task force articles
3068:The following discussion is closed.
2784:The following discussion is closed.
2368:
2252:
2196:
2128:
1886:Nominate it at AfD if you like, but
1298:2010 sinking near Baengnyeong Island
668:The following discussion is closed.
596:This article is within the scope of
263:This article is within the scope of
147:This article is within the scope of
4421:Selected anniversaries (March 2020)
834:merge this into the incident page--
106:It is of interest to the following
1990:contained similar rather POV text
1919:The ship was also involved in the
1558:, so the readers are mainly using
550:Korean military history task force
14:
4461:C-Class maritime warfare articles
4456:C-Class military history articles
4388:set this one to low for WPK; the
3139:per my rationale at the previous
3023:
534:Asian military history task force
3932:So something along the lines of
3896:The discussion above is closed.
3053:The discussion above is closed.
3018:
1664:The discussion above is closed.
589:
568:
465:
454:
443:
432:
421:
351:
319:
302:
256:
238:
140:
119:
88:
57:
19:
1294:The sinking of the ROKS Cheonan
636:This article has been rated as
599:WikiProject Disaster management
197:This article has been rated as
4426:C-Class Korea-related articles
4416:Knowledge In the news articles
3452:Template:Pohang class corvette
3236:Certainly. (And see below.) --
2958:03:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
2943:21:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
2925:14:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
2910:14:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
2892:23:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
2878:15:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
2832:10:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
2815:06:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
1347:If I may interject with this,
1:
4224:20:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
4198:16:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
4179:15:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
4130:07:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
4106:16:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
4091:13:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
4064:01:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
4050:16:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
4026:14:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
4005:10:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
3990:01:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
3961:00:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
3946:22:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
3927:19:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
3821:07:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
3800:03:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
3779:01:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
3741:14:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
3718:00:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
3693:00:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
3672:16:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
3649:13:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
3604:15:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
3566:11:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
3539:18:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
3492:18:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
3478:18:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
3435:22:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
3415:18:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
3396:18:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
3363:18:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
3341:15:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
3316:13:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
3297:18:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
3272:15:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
3246:11:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
3232:15:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
3216:14:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
3202:14:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
3185:13:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
3153:06:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
3130:05:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
3120:per Mjroots, N2e and Xyl 54.
3112:22:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
3086:21:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
3048:15:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
2691:13:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
2179:Here, then, are the sources:
1969:was on the South Korean side.
1660:00:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
1077:I also think the link on the
1071:page a bit, in the spirit of
695:00:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
610:and see a list of open tasks.
219:This article is supported by
4402:09:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
4379:06:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
4347:10:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
4323:07:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
4305:20:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
3885:18:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
3871:19:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
3857:18:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
3838:15:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
3753:example is interesting; but
3029:18:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
3006:23:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
2986:20:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
2375:
2259:
2203:
2135:
622:Disaster management articles
361:Military history WikiProject
4451:All WikiProject Ships pages
4135:Potential POV/soapbox edits
3767:how it's supposed to happen
518:Maritime warfare task force
291:Knowledge:WikiProject Ships
269:, a project to improve all
177:Knowledge:WikiProject Korea
4507:
4441:WikiProject Korea articles
4284:19:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
4118:First Battle of Yeonpyeong
3809:First Battle of Yeonpyeong
2006:01:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
1981:22:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
1971:So I’ve put that instead.
1933:16:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
1921:First Battle of Yeonpyeong
1915:17:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
1901:21:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
1881:21:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
1862:20:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
1838:13:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
1790:17:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
1766:14:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
1744:16:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
1729:10:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
1706:21:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
1687:19:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
1576:09:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
1533:21:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
1503:20:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
1479:00:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
1465:23:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
1450:09:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
1431:08:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
1103:23:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
1062:01:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
1043:23:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
1021:16:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
1006:13:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
990:12:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
968:07:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
945:15:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
915:15:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
897:14:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
874:13:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
859:06:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
844:04:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
821:02:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
806:02:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
773:22:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
750:19:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
732:19:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
710:19:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
642:project's importance scale
426:Referencing and citation:
294:Template:WikiProject Ships
203:project's importance scale
180:Template:WikiProject Korea
3978:for a similar example). -
3614:this merger. This is the
3192:, per everyone above me.
2768:22:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
2752:Talk:ROKS Cheonan sinking
2746:08:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
2728:08:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
2473:07:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
2110:04:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
2095:00:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
2075:09:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
2058:09:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
2028:12:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
1417:23:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
1402:23:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
1386:19:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
1364:02:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
1350:2010 Baengnyeong incident
1343:23:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
1333:I agree with this title.
1329:23:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
1310:14:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
1275:14:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
1260:12:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
1223:14:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
1164:09:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
1137:17:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
1119:16:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
736:Agree with Mjroots. This
635:
584:
548:
532:
516:
487:
384:military history articles
346:
251:
218:
196:
135:
114:
38:section on 28 March 2010.
3898:Please do not modify it.
3462:is not notable, failing
3070:Please do not modify it.
3055:Please do not modify it.
2860:was sunk during the WWI
2786:Please do not modify it.
2668:18:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
2650:17:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
2616:17:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
2601:04:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
2587:, which I have added as
2579:01:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
2565:00:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
2541:00:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
2514:22:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
2494:05:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
2421:14:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
2411:object to that? Cheers,
2406:11:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
2388:16:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
2357:19:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
2334:12:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
2319:10:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
2297:19:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
2272:14:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
1666:Please do not modify it.
1638:00:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
1625:02:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
1610:17:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
670:Please do not modify it.
4337:dominate the article!--
4202:The main issue here is
3578:and article pairs like
2701:Article totally biased!
2232:12:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
2216:07:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
2173:07:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
2148:07:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
1593:13:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
1566:have just one article.
1438:Sinking of ROKS Cheonan
1316:Sinking of ROKS Cheonan
935:can always be applied.
492:Associated task forces:
437:Coverage and accuracy:
277:, or contribute to the
4446:C-Class Ships articles
4054:(I've replied, above.
3369:Pohang class corvettes
1951:, dividing South from
1828:; labeled in English.
545:
529:
513:
470:Supporting materials:
398:
215:
183:Korea-related articles
163:and contribute to the
96:This article is rated
47:
4164:), moved some to the
4011:ROKS Sokcho (PCC-778)
3499:PPS, compare this to
3460:ROKS Sokcho (PCC-778)
3079:no consensus to merge
2630:(outdent)Leaving the
544:
528:
512:
397:
214:
45:
4390:ROKS Cheonan sinking
4166:ROKS Cheonan sinking
3584:USS Liberty incident
3580:USS Liberty (AGTR-5)
2882:Sounds good to me!--
2285:ROKS Cheonan sinking
1849:This Global Security
1556:Baengnyeong incident
1515:I'm leaning towards
1290:Baengnyeong incident
1179:Baengnyeong incident
1069:Baengnyeong incident
1067:OK, I’ve edited the
661:Baengnyeong incident
3763:considering a split
3550:USS Pueblo (AGER-2)
3384:of that material. -
2850:USS Arizona (BB-39)
2394:USS Pueblo (AGER-2)
1988:Northern Limit Line
1949:Northern Limit Line
1752:Updated Yonhap map
1564:USS Pueblo (AGER-2)
613:Disaster management
604:Disaster management
576:Disaster management
459:Grammar and style:
412:for B-class status:
4333:Well, the sinking
4186:HMS Ramillies (07)
3143:merger proposals.
3071:
2787:
2363:World Trade Center
671:
546:
530:
514:
399:
366:list of open tasks
279:project discussion
216:
102:content assessment
48:
4384:importance rating
4264:original research
4258:So, you want the
4254:
4240:comment added by
3976:USS Cole (DDG-67)
3592:Mayaguez incident
3501:USS Cole (DDG-67)
3498:
3378:about the sinking
3069:
2992:I would still be
2972:as overwhelm the
2862:Battle of Jutland
2785:
2476:
2459:comment added by
2386:
2270:
2214:
2176:
2161:Executor Tassadar
2159:comment added by
2146:
2048:comment added by
1945:I've removed this
1384:
1250:comment added by
1167:
1150:comment added by
952:USS Cole (DDG-67)
796:comment added by
669:
656:
655:
652:
651:
648:
647:
563:
562:
559:
558:
555:
554:
483:
482:
439:criterion not met
370:full instructions
314:
313:
310:
309:
283:full instructions
266:WikiProject Ships
233:
232:
229:
228:
150:WikiProject Korea
82:
81:
52:
51:
4498:
4290:Should be merged
4253:
4234:
3792:$ 1LENCE D00600D
3505:USS Cole bombing
3496:
3077:The result was:
3027:
3025:
3020:
2756:reliable sources
2639:
2633:
2554:
2548:
2499:Why no photo(s)?
2475:
2453:
2385:
2374:
2372:
2345:USS Cole bombing
2269:
2258:
2256:
2213:
2202:
2200:
2175:
2153:
2145:
2134:
2132:
2060:
1392:there, not here.
1378:
1262:
1166:
1144:
808:
624:
623:
620:
617:
614:
593:
586:
585:
580:
572:
565:
499:
489:
473:
469:
468:
462:
458:
457:
451:
447:
446:
440:
436:
435:
429:
425:
424:
403:
386:
385:
382:
379:
376:
375:Military history
355:
348:
347:
342:
327:Military history
323:
316:
306:
299:
298:
295:
292:
289:
275:join the project
260:
253:
252:
242:
235:
185:
184:
181:
178:
175:
161:join the project
144:
137:
136:
131:
123:
116:
99:
93:
92:
84:
61:
54:
23:
16:
4506:
4505:
4501:
4500:
4499:
4497:
4496:
4495:
4406:
4405:
4386:
4359:
4292:
4235:
4137:
3907:
3902:
3901:
3074:
3064:
3062:Merger proposal
3059:
3058:
3016:
2790:
2780:
2703:
2637:
2631:
2552:
2546:
2501:
2482:
2454:
2154:
2121:
2083:
2081:how big, really
2043:
2039:
2015:
1943:
1869:
1845:
1734:Thanks. Added.
1713:
1694:
1675:
1673:Date of sinking
1670:
1669:
1650:for the merger.
1245:
1145:
884:new information
791:
674:
664:
621:
618:
615:
612:
611:
578:
497:
471:
466:
460:
455:
449:
444:
438:
433:
427:
422:
383:
380:
377:
374:
373:
329:
296:
293:
290:
287:
286:
182:
179:
176:
173:
172:
129:
100:on Knowledge's
97:
12:
11:
5:
4504:
4502:
4494:
4493:
4488:
4483:
4478:
4473:
4468:
4463:
4458:
4453:
4448:
4443:
4438:
4433:
4428:
4423:
4418:
4408:
4407:
4385:
4382:
4358:
4357:Move protected
4355:
4354:
4353:
4352:
4351:
4350:
4349:
4326:
4325:
4295:perspective.--
4291:
4288:
4287:
4286:
4231:
4229:
4228:
4227:
4226:
4144:Cheonantruther
4136:
4133:
4113:
4112:
4111:
4110:
4109:
4108:
4075:
4074:
4073:
4072:
4071:
4070:
4069:
4068:
4067:
4038:
4035:
4014:
3948:
3906:
3903:
3895:
3894:
3893:
3892:
3891:
3890:
3889:
3888:
3887:
3841:
3840:
3823:
3802:
3784:
3783:
3782:
3781:
3757:is 28 KB. The
3744:
3743:
3725:
3724:
3723:
3722:
3721:
3720:
3706:
3703:
3695:
3681:
3678:here, stage IV
3659:
3655:
3637:
3634:
3629:
3628:
3610:I would still
3608:
3607:
3606:
3543:
3542:
3541:
3494:
3444:
3443:
3442:
3441:
3440:
3439:
3438:
3437:
3400:
3399:
3398:
3325:
3324:
3323:
3322:
3321:
3320:
3319:
3318:
3275:
3274:
3251:
3250:
3249:
3248:
3219:
3218:
3204:
3187:
3156:
3155:
3133:
3132:
3089:
3075:
3066:
3065:
3063:
3060:
3052:
3051:
3050:
3032:
3031:
3009:
3008:
2989:
2988:
2961:
2960:
2928:
2927:
2912:
2898:
2897:
2896:
2895:
2894:
2791:
2782:
2781:
2779:
2776:
2775:
2774:
2773:
2772:
2771:
2770:
2702:
2699:
2698:
2697:
2696:
2695:
2694:
2693:
2673:
2672:
2671:
2670:
2653:
2652:
2627:
2626:
2625:
2624:
2623:
2622:
2621:
2620:
2619:
2618:
2569:Can't hurt...
2500:
2497:
2481:
2478:
2449:
2448:
2444:
2443:
2440:
2438:
2437:
2436:
2435:
2434:
2433:
2432:
2431:
2430:
2429:
2428:
2427:
2426:
2425:
2424:
2423:
2370:Exec. Tassadar
2254:Exec. Tassadar
2239:
2238:
2234:
2198:Exec. Tassadar
2130:Exec. Tassadar
2120:
2117:
2115:
2113:
2112:
2082:
2079:
2078:
2077:
2038:
2035:
2014:
2011:
2010:
2009:
1970:
1956:
1946:
1942:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1904:
1903:
1868:
1865:
1844:
1841:
1824:BBC has a map
1822:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1779:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1747:
1746:
1712:
1709:
1693:
1690:
1674:
1671:
1663:
1628:
1627:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1467:
1404:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1321:94.195.129.125
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1267:94.195.129.125
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1140:
1139:
1121:
1076:
1065:
1064:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
920:
919:
918:
917:
862:
861:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
755:
754:
753:
752:
675:
666:
665:
663:
657:
654:
653:
650:
649:
646:
645:
638:Low-importance
634:
628:
627:
625:
608:the discussion
594:
582:
581:
579:Low‑importance
573:
561:
560:
557:
556:
553:
552:
547:
537:
536:
531:
521:
520:
515:
505:
504:
502:
500:
494:
493:
485:
484:
481:
480:
478:
476:
475:
474:
463:
452:
441:
430:
416:
415:
413:
400:
390:
389:
387:
356:
344:
343:
324:
312:
311:
308:
307:
300:
297:Ships articles
261:
249:
248:
243:
231:
230:
227:
226:
217:
207:
206:
199:Low-importance
195:
189:
188:
186:
145:
133:
132:
130:Low‑importance
124:
112:
111:
105:
94:
80:
79:
76:March 26, 2020
62:
50:
49:
39:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
4503:
4492:
4489:
4487:
4484:
4482:
4479:
4477:
4474:
4472:
4469:
4467:
4464:
4462:
4459:
4457:
4454:
4452:
4449:
4447:
4444:
4442:
4439:
4437:
4434:
4432:
4429:
4427:
4424:
4422:
4419:
4417:
4414:
4413:
4411:
4404:
4403:
4399:
4395:
4391:
4383:
4381:
4380:
4376:
4372:
4368:
4364:
4356:
4348:
4344:
4340:
4336:
4332:
4331:
4330:
4329:
4328:
4327:
4324:
4320:
4316:
4312:
4311:Oppose merger
4309:
4308:
4307:
4306:
4302:
4298:
4289:
4285:
4281:
4277:
4272:
4271:
4265:
4261:
4257:
4256:
4255:
4251:
4247:
4243:
4239:
4225:
4221:
4217:
4213:
4209:
4205:
4201:
4200:
4199:
4195:
4191:
4187:
4183:
4182:
4181:
4180:
4176:
4172:
4167:
4163:
4159:
4155:
4152:
4149:
4145:
4141:
4134:
4132:
4131:
4127:
4123:
4119:
4107:
4103:
4099:
4094:
4093:
4092:
4088:
4084:
4080:
4076:
4065:
4061:
4057:
4053:
4052:
4051:
4047:
4043:
4039:
4036:
4033:
4029:
4028:
4027:
4023:
4019:
4015:
4012:
4008:
4007:
4006:
4002:
3998:
3993:
3992:
3991:
3987:
3983:
3982:
3977:
3973:
3969:
3964:
3963:
3962:
3958:
3954:
3949:
3947:
3943:
3939:
3935:
3931:
3930:
3929:
3928:
3924:
3920:
3916:
3911:
3904:
3899:
3886:
3882:
3878:
3874:
3873:
3872:
3868:
3864:
3860:
3859:
3858:
3854:
3850:
3845:
3844:
3843:
3842:
3839:
3835:
3831:
3827:
3824:
3822:
3818:
3814:
3810:
3806:
3803:
3801:
3797:
3793:
3789:
3786:
3785:
3780:
3776:
3772:
3768:
3764:
3760:
3756:
3752:
3748:
3747:
3746:
3745:
3742:
3738:
3734:
3730:
3727:
3726:
3719:
3715:
3711:
3707:
3704:
3700:
3696:
3694:
3690:
3686:
3682:
3679:
3675:
3674:
3673:
3669:
3665:
3660:
3656:
3652:
3651:
3650:
3646:
3642:
3638:
3635:
3631:
3630:
3626:
3622:
3617:
3613:
3609:
3605:
3601:
3597:
3593:
3589:
3585:
3581:
3577:
3573:
3569:
3568:
3567:
3563:
3559:
3555:
3551:
3547:
3544:
3540:
3536:
3532:
3531:
3526:
3522:
3518:
3514:
3510:
3506:
3502:
3495:
3493:
3489:
3485:
3481:
3480:
3479:
3475:
3471:
3470:
3465:
3461:
3457:
3453:
3449:
3446:
3445:
3436:
3432:
3428:
3423:
3418:
3417:
3416:
3412:
3408:
3407:
3401:
3397:
3393:
3389:
3388:
3383:
3379:
3375:
3370:
3366:
3365:
3364:
3360:
3356:
3352:
3348:
3344:
3343:
3342:
3338:
3334:
3329:
3328:
3327:
3326:
3317:
3313:
3309:
3304:
3300:
3299:
3298:
3294:
3290:
3286:
3281:
3280:
3279:
3278:
3277:
3276:
3273:
3269:
3265:
3261:
3256:
3253:
3252:
3247:
3243:
3239:
3235:
3234:
3233:
3229:
3225:
3221:
3220:
3217:
3213:
3209:
3205:
3203:
3199:
3195:
3191:
3188:
3186:
3182:
3178:
3174:
3169:
3165:
3161:
3158:
3157:
3154:
3150:
3146:
3142:
3138:
3135:
3134:
3131:
3127:
3123:
3119:
3116:
3115:
3114:
3113:
3109:
3105:
3100:
3096:
3092:
3088:
3087:
3084:
3080:
3073:
3061:
3056:
3049:
3045:
3041:
3037:
3034:
3033:
3030:
3026:
3021:
3015:per Mjroots.
3014:
3011:
3010:
3007:
3003:
2999:
2995:
2991:
2990:
2987:
2983:
2979:
2975:
2970:
2966:
2963:
2962:
2959:
2955:
2951:
2947:
2946:
2945:
2944:
2940:
2936:
2932:
2926:
2922:
2918:
2913:
2911:
2907:
2903:
2899:
2893:
2889:
2885:
2881:
2880:
2879:
2875:
2871:
2867:
2863:
2859:
2855:
2851:
2847:
2843:
2839:
2838:
2836:
2835:
2834:
2833:
2829:
2825:
2821:
2817:
2816:
2812:
2808:
2804:
2800:
2796:
2789:
2777:
2769:
2765:
2761:
2757:
2753:
2749:
2748:
2747:
2743:
2739:
2734:
2733:
2732:
2731:
2730:
2729:
2725:
2721:
2715:
2711:
2707:
2700:
2692:
2688:
2684:
2679:
2678:
2677:
2676:
2675:
2674:
2669:
2665:
2661:
2657:
2656:
2655:
2654:
2651:
2647:
2643:
2636:
2629:
2628:
2617:
2613:
2609:
2604:
2603:
2602:
2598:
2594:
2590:
2586:
2582:
2581:
2580:
2576:
2572:
2568:
2567:
2566:
2562:
2558:
2551:
2544:
2543:
2542:
2538:
2534:
2530:
2526:
2522:
2518:
2517:
2516:
2515:
2511:
2507:
2498:
2496:
2495:
2491:
2487:
2479:
2477:
2474:
2470:
2466:
2462:
2458:
2452:
2447:
2422:
2418:
2414:
2409:
2408:
2407:
2403:
2399:
2395:
2391:
2390:
2389:
2383:
2379:
2373:
2371:
2364:
2360:
2359:
2358:
2354:
2350:
2346:
2342:
2337:
2336:
2335:
2331:
2327:
2322:
2321:
2320:
2316:
2312:
2308:
2304:
2300:
2299:
2298:
2294:
2290:
2286:
2282:
2278:
2277:
2276:
2275:
2274:
2273:
2267:
2263:
2257:
2255:
2249:
2246:
2243:
2235:
2233:
2229:
2225:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2211:
2207:
2201:
2199:
2193:
2190:
2187:
2184:
2180:
2177:
2174:
2170:
2166:
2162:
2158:
2150:
2149:
2143:
2139:
2133:
2131:
2124:
2118:
2116:
2111:
2107:
2103:
2099:
2098:
2097:
2096:
2092:
2088:
2080:
2076:
2072:
2068:
2063:
2062:
2061:
2059:
2055:
2051:
2050:188.122.34.10
2047:
2036:
2034:
2030:
2029:
2025:
2021:
2012:
2008:
2007:
2003:
1999:
1998:220.101.28.25
1993:
1989:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1978:
1974:
1968:
1964:
1960:
1954:
1950:
1940:
1934:
1930:
1926:
1922:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1913:
1912:
1906:
1905:
1902:
1898:
1894:
1889:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1878:
1874:
1867:Twenty years?
1866:
1864:
1863:
1859:
1855:
1850:
1842:
1840:
1839:
1835:
1831:
1827:
1813:
1809:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1780:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1767:
1763:
1759:
1755:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1745:
1741:
1737:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1726:
1722:
1718:
1710:
1708:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1691:
1689:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1672:
1667:
1662:
1661:
1657:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1640:
1639:
1636:
1632:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1577:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1549:
1545:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1504:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1405:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1382:
1377:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1352:
1351:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1317:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1263:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1252:86.164.38.157
1249:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1185:
1180:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1125:
1122:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1091:
1086:
1085:
1080:
1074:
1070:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1031:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1003:
999:
994:
993:
992:
991:
987:
983:
969:
965:
961:
957:
953:
948:
947:
946:
942:
938:
934:
930:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
916:
912:
908:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
894:
890:
885:
881:
876:
875:
871:
867:
860:
856:
852:
848:
847:
846:
845:
841:
837:
822:
818:
814:
810:
809:
807:
803:
799:
798:65.64.201.230
795:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
774:
770:
766:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
751:
747:
743:
739:
735:
734:
733:
729:
725:
721:
717:
714:
713:
712:
711:
707:
703:
698:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
673:
662:
658:
643:
639:
633:
630:
629:
626:
609:
605:
601:
600:
595:
592:
588:
587:
583:
577:
574:
571:
567:
551:
543:
539:
538:
535:
527:
523:
522:
519:
511:
507:
506:
503:
501:
496:
495:
490:
486:
479:
477:
472:criterion met
464:
461:criterion met
453:
450:criterion met
442:
431:
428:criterion met
420:
419:
418:
417:
414:
411:
410:
404:
401:
396:
392:
391:
388:
371:
367:
363:
362:
357:
354:
350:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
328:
325:
322:
318:
305:
301:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
267:
262:
259:
255:
254:
250:
247:
244:
241:
237:
224:
223:
213:
209:
208:
204:
200:
194:
191:
190:
187:
170:
169:documentation
166:
162:
158:
157:
152:
151:
146:
143:
139:
138:
134:
128:
125:
122:
118:
113:
109:
103:
95:
91:
86:
85:
77:
73:
72:
67:
63:
60:
56:
55:
44:
40:
37:
36:
35:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
4394:toobigtokale
4387:
4360:
4334:
4310:
4293:
4269:
4242:138.162.0.43
4236:— Preceding
4230:
4150:
4138:
4114:
4098:John Smith's
4078:
4042:John Smith's
4031:
3997:John Smith's
3979:
3972:content fork
3953:John Smith's
3914:
3912:
3908:
3897:
3877:John Smith's
3849:John Smith's
3825:
3804:
3787:
3755:that article
3750:
3728:
3698:
3664:John Smith's
3624:
3615:
3611:
3575:
3571:
3553:
3545:
3528:
3520:
3516:
3512:
3508:
3467:
3455:
3447:
3404:
3385:
3377:
3350:
3302:
3284:
3264:John Smith's
3259:
3254:
3224:John Smith's
3189:
3173:ROKS Cheonan
3172:
3159:
3140:
3136:
3117:
3104:John Smith's
3101:
3097:
3093:
3090:
3078:
3076:
3067:
3054:
3035:
3012:
2993:
2974:ROKS Cheonan
2973:
2964:
2930:
2929:
2842:WP:RECENTISM
2819:
2818:
2794:
2792:
2783:
2716:
2712:
2708:
2704:
2588:
2584:
2528:
2502:
2483:
2439:
2369:
2253:
2240:
2197:
2181:
2178:
2151:
2129:
2125:
2122:
2114:
2084:
2040:
2031:
2016:
2013:mine, cabins
1995:
1966:
1962:
1958:
1944:
1941:Location POV
1911:Black Falcon
1909:
1870:
1846:
1823:
1721:93.137.17.45
1714:
1711:Location map
1695:
1676:
1665:
1648:no consensus
1647:
1643:
1641:
1630:
1629:
1597:
1596:
1580:
1579:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1541:
1520:
1516:
1437:
1372:
1348:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1287:
1210:
1206:
1183:
1141:
1123:
1090:an explosion
1088:
1087:sinks after
1082:
1066:
1049:
1029:
1027:
978:
927:There is no
883:
879:
877:
863:
836:78.3.211.159
833:
737:
719:
715:
699:
683:no consensus
682:
681:. There was
678:
676:
667:
637:
597:
407:
359:
264:
220:
198:
154:
148:
108:WikiProjects
69:
32:
31:
4339:Jack Upland
4297:Jack Upland
4190:XavierGreen
4122:XavierGreen
3813:XavierGreen
3623:holds that
3588:SS Mayaguez
3464:WP:ONEEVENT
3456:not notable
2884:Be gottlieb
2461:Be gottlieb
2455:—Preceding
2155:—Preceding
2044:—Preceding
2020:80.57.43.99
1953:North Korea
1925:67.84.178.0
1246:—Preceding
1207:RMS Tinanic
1152:Booster4324
1146:—Preceding
929:WP:DEADLINE
907:XavierGreen
813:XavierGreen
792:—Preceding
659:Merge 2010
448:Structure:
74:section on
71:On this day
34:In the news
4410:Categories
3287:a merger.
3083:David Levy
2858:SMS LĂĽtzow
2738:87.97.52.2
2720:87.97.52.2
1854:Montgomery
1495:Az81964444
1292:. Perhaps
1073:WP:SOFIXIT
1054:MickMacNee
933:WP:SOFIXIT
889:MickMacNee
765:MickMacNee
742:Julianhall
702:MickMacNee
165:discussion
4140:This diff
3759:"Sinking"
3733:Rwendland
2442:Russians.
2398:Rwendland
2326:Rwendland
1873:Mentor397
1843:Weaponary
1808:Rwendland
1758:Rwendland
1568:Rwendland
1442:Rwendland
1302:Rwendland
1215:Rwendland
1079:Main Page
880:right now
66:Main Page
46:Knowledge
28:Main Page
4260:WP:TRUTH
4250:contribs
4238:unsigned
4158:WP:UNDUE
4154:contribs
3981:M.Nelson
3658:merger".
3654:example.
3621:WP:SHIPS
3530:M.Nelson
3469:M.Nelson
3406:M.Nelson
3387:M.Nelson
3347:WP:SHIPS
2846:WP:UNDUE
2803:WP:UNDUE
2635:reqphoto
2585:Sinseong
2550:reqphoto
2469:contribs
2457:unsigned
2382:contribs
2378:comments
2341:USS Cole
2266:contribs
2262:comments
2210:contribs
2206:comments
2169:contribs
2157:unsigned
2142:contribs
2138:comments
2087:Rmhermen
2046:unsigned
2037:Armament
1963:de facto
1888:WP:SHIPS
1698:Rmhermen
1644:archived
1635:emerson7
1248:unsigned
1160:contribs
1148:unsigned
1111:Rmhermen
998:Rmhermen
866:-OOPSIE-
794:unsigned
679:Archived
409:criteria
332:Maritime
4371:Mjroots
4367:WP:NC-S
4315:Mjroots
4276:Mjroots
4216:Mjroots
3968:summary
3729:Support
3699:Cheonan
3558:S. Rich
3546:Support
3521:Cheonan
3484:Mjroots
3448:Support
3382:summary
3355:Mjroots
3351:Cheonan
3303:Cheonan
3255:Comment
3238:S. Rich
3208:S. Rich
3145:Mjroots
3122:Wolcott
3040:Wolcott
2994:opposed
2950:S. Rich
2935:Mjroots
2931:Comment
2917:S. Rich
2902:S. Rich
2870:S. Rich
2866:WP:BIAS
2824:Lynbarn
2807:Mjroots
2799:WP:SIZE
2683:Wolcott
2660:Mjroots
2593:Mjroots
2589:Cheonan
2525:removed
2521:deleted
2486:Mjroots
2311:Mjroots
2281:removed
2102:Mjroots
2067:Mjroots
1967:Cheonan
1959:de jure
1955:(DPRK)"
1893:Mjroots
1782:—WWoods
1736:—WWoods
1679:Mjroots
1617:Mjroots
1560:Cheonan
1552:Cheonan
1548:Cheonan
1525:Mjroots
1521:Cheonan
1423:Hourick
1356:Hourick
1184:Olympic
1129:Hourick
1124:Comment
1084:Cheonan
1013:Mjroots
982:Mjroots
960:Hourick
956:bombing
937:Mjroots
851:Mjroots
724:Mjroots
716:Comment
640:on the
201:on the
98:C-class
68:in the
30:in the
4270:Lassen
4083:Xyl 54
4056:Xyl 54
4018:Xyl 54
3863:M4bwav
3830:M4bwav
3826:Oppose
3805:Oppose
3788:Oppose
3771:Xyl 54
3751:Pueblo
3710:Xyl 54
3685:Xyl 54
3641:Xyl 54
3612:oppose
3572:Pueblo
3554:single
3525:WP:GNG
3507:. USS
3345:John,
3308:Xyl 54
3285:oppose
3190:Oppose
3160:Oppose
3137:Oppose
3118:Oppose
3036:Oppose
3013:Oppose
2998:Xyl 54
2965:Oppose
2844:&
2820:oppose
2795:oppose
2529:Pohang
1973:Xyl 54
1652:Xyl 54
1642:(I've
1631:oppose
1517:oppose
1471:Xyl 54
1457:Xyl 54
1409:Xyl 54
1394:Xyl 54
1186:class.
1095:Xyl 54
1035:Xyl 54
720:may be
687:Xyl 54
340:Korean
104:scale.
4363:WP:RM
4204:WP:RS
3974:(see
3702:page.
3616:third
3164:cited
3019:wacky
2969:cited
2119:Cause
1602:Qajar
1598:merge
1585:Jor70
1581:merge
1335:Cla68
1050:known
738:could
336:Asian
288:Ships
246:Ships
174:Korea
156:Korea
127:Korea
4398:talk
4375:talk
4343:talk
4335:does
4319:talk
4301:talk
4280:talk
4268:USS
4246:talk
4220:talk
4194:talk
4175:talk
4171:C628
4162:blog
4148:talk
4126:talk
4102:talk
4087:talk
4060:talk
4046:talk
4022:talk
4001:talk
3986:talk
3957:talk
3942:talk
3938:C628
3934:this
3923:talk
3881:talk
3867:talk
3853:talk
3834:talk
3817:talk
3796:talk
3775:talk
3749:The
3737:talk
3714:talk
3689:talk
3668:talk
3645:talk
3600:talk
3596:C628
3586:and
3576:Cole
3570:The
3562:talk
3535:talk
3517:Cole
3513:Cole
3509:Cole
3503:and
3497:(ec)
3488:talk
3474:talk
3431:talk
3427:C628
3411:talk
3392:talk
3374:here
3359:talk
3337:talk
3333:C628
3312:talk
3293:talk
3268:talk
3242:talk
3228:talk
3212:talk
3198:talk
3194:C628
3181:talk
3149:talk
3126:talk
3108:talk
3044:talk
3024:wace
3002:talk
2982:talk
2954:talk
2939:talk
2921:talk
2906:talk
2888:talk
2874:talk
2828:talk
2811:talk
2801:and
2764:talk
2760:C628
2742:talk
2724:talk
2687:talk
2664:talk
2646:talk
2612:talk
2597:talk
2575:talk
2571:C628
2561:talk
2537:talk
2533:C628
2510:talk
2490:talk
2480:Refs
2465:talk
2417:talk
2413:C628
2402:talk
2353:talk
2349:C628
2330:talk
2315:talk
2293:talk
2289:C628
2228:talk
2224:C628
2165:talk
2106:talk
2091:talk
2071:talk
2054:talk
2024:talk
2002:talk
1992:HERE
1986:The
1977:talk
1929:talk
1897:talk
1877:talk
1858:talk
1847:Hi.
1834:talk
1830:C628
1826:here
1812:talk
1786:talk
1762:talk
1754:here
1740:talk
1725:talk
1717:here
1702:talk
1692:Cost
1683:talk
1656:talk
1621:talk
1606:talk
1589:talk
1572:talk
1529:talk
1499:talk
1475:talk
1461:talk
1446:talk
1427:talk
1413:talk
1398:talk
1381:talk
1376:iGEL
1360:talk
1339:talk
1325:talk
1306:talk
1271:talk
1256:talk
1219:talk
1156:talk
1133:talk
1115:talk
1099:talk
1058:talk
1039:talk
1030:Cole
1017:talk
1002:talk
986:talk
964:talk
958:. --
941:talk
911:talk
905:nll.
893:talk
870:talk
855:talk
840:talk
817:talk
802:talk
769:talk
746:talk
728:talk
706:talk
691:talk
271:Ship
4212:POV
4208:COI
3919:N2e
3625:all
3527:. -
3289:N2e
3177:N2e
3141:two
2978:N2e
2642:N2e
2608:N2e
2557:N2e
2506:N2e
2307:sag
2303:hog
1715:...
1544:for
1300:.
1296:or
697:)
632:Low
193:Low
4412::
4400:)
4377:)
4369:.
4345:)
4321:)
4303:)
4282:)
4252:)
4248:•
4222:)
4214:.
4196:)
4177:)
4128:)
4104:)
4089:)
4079:is
4062:)
4048:)
4024:)
4003:)
3988:)
3959:)
3944:)
3936:?
3925:)
3913:I
3883:)
3869:)
3855:)
3836:)
3819:)
3798:)
3777:)
3769:.
3739:)
3716:)
3691:)
3670:)
3647:)
3602:)
3594:.
3564:)
3537:)
3490:)
3476:)
3433:)
3413:)
3394:)
3361:)
3339:)
3314:)
3295:)
3270:)
3244:)
3230:)
3214:)
3200:)
3183:)
3151:)
3128:)
3110:)
3046:)
3004:)
2984:)
2956:)
2941:)
2923:)
2908:)
2890:)
2876:)
2830:)
2813:)
2766:)
2744:)
2726:)
2689:)
2666:)
2648:)
2638:}}
2632:{{
2614:)
2599:)
2577:)
2563:)
2553:}}
2547:{{
2539:)
2512:)
2492:)
2471:)
2467:•
2419:)
2404:)
2380:,
2355:)
2332:)
2317:)
2295:)
2264:,
2250:--
2230:)
2208:,
2194:--
2171:)
2167:•
2140:,
2126:--
2108:)
2093:)
2073:)
2056:)
2026:)
2004:)
1996:--
1979:)
1931:)
1899:)
1879:)
1860:)
1852:--
1836:)
1788:)
1764:)
1742:)
1727:)
1719:--
1704:)
1685:)
1658:)
1623:)
1608:)
1591:)
1574:)
1531:)
1501:)
1477:)
1463:)
1448:)
1440:.
1429:)
1415:)
1400:)
1362:)
1341:)
1327:)
1308:)
1273:)
1258:)
1221:)
1213:.
1162:)
1158:•
1135:)
1127:--
1117:)
1101:)
1060:)
1041:)
1019:)
1004:)
988:)
966:)
943:)
913:)
895:)
872:)
857:)
842:)
819:)
804:)
771:)
748:)
730:)
708:)
693:)
498:/
338:/
334:/
330::
4396:(
4373:(
4341:(
4317:(
4299:(
4278:(
4244:(
4218:(
4192:(
4173:(
4151:·
4146:(
4124:(
4120:.
4100:(
4085:(
4066:)
4058:(
4044:(
4020:(
3999:(
3984:(
3955:(
3940:(
3921:(
3879:(
3865:(
3851:(
3832:(
3815:(
3794:(
3773:(
3735:(
3712:(
3687:(
3666:(
3643:(
3598:(
3590:/
3582:/
3560:(
3533:(
3486:(
3472:(
3429:(
3409:(
3390:(
3357:(
3335:(
3310:(
3291:(
3266:(
3240:(
3226:(
3210:(
3196:(
3179:(
3147:(
3124:(
3106:(
3042:(
3000:(
2980:(
2952:(
2937:(
2919:(
2904:(
2886:(
2872:(
2826:(
2809:(
2762:(
2740:(
2722:(
2685:(
2662:(
2644:(
2610:(
2595:(
2573:(
2559:(
2535:(
2508:(
2488:(
2463:(
2415:(
2400:(
2384:)
2376:(
2351:(
2328:(
2313:(
2291:(
2268:)
2260:(
2226:(
2212:)
2204:(
2163:(
2144:)
2136:(
2104:(
2089:(
2069:(
2052:(
2022:(
2000:(
1975:(
1927:(
1895:(
1875:(
1856:(
1832:(
1814:)
1810:(
1784:(
1760:(
1738:(
1723:(
1700:(
1681:(
1654:(
1619:(
1604:(
1587:(
1570:(
1527:(
1497:(
1473:(
1459:(
1444:(
1425:(
1411:(
1396:(
1383:)
1379:(
1358:(
1337:(
1323:(
1304:(
1269:(
1254:(
1217:(
1154:(
1131:(
1113:(
1097:(
1056:(
1037:(
1015:(
1000:(
984:(
962:(
939:(
909:(
891:(
868:(
853:(
838:(
815:(
800:(
767:(
744:(
726:(
704:(
689:(
677:(
644:.
372:.
285:.
225:.
205:.
171:.
110::
78:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.