Talk:ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772)

Merge 2010 Baengnyeong incident

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date of sinking

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

Cost

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

Location map

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weaponary

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

Twenty years?

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

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

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

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

Location POV

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

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

mine, cabins

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