Talk:KRI Nanggala (402)

infobox specifications

Specifications

Could someone do the specifications part? I'm at Indonesia so most of my sources are in Indonesia and poor Indonesia media news that tried its best using English. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 00:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

This could be copied from the ship class article. But be aware that some of the specs changed in the last rebuild. GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Top speed

I mentioned this once before, but we have a discrepancy in the top speed. Last sentence of the History section says 25 knots, infobox says 21.5 knots. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

It was increased during the refit, so i suspect 25 knots is the correct figure. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Pronouns

Per WP:SHE4SHIPS "articles should not be needlessly changed from one style to another without clear and substantial reason." "She" was first introduced here [1], without clear and substantial reason, and at that time "it" was already in use. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I am reverting the recent attempted switch. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. --Cutlass^Ciera 02:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

FYI in Indonesia we don't use feminine pronouns when referring to ships. Frankly neither masculine nor feminine pronouns exist. So I think using "it" made more sense here. enjoyer -- talk 02:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Indonesian here and I found the western habit of referring to ships with female pronouns confusing. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 02:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Jeromi Mikhael, we should defer to the usage of the country for which the article is directed at. Here in the United States, we do refer to ships in feminine pronouns but since this article is talking about a Indonesian ship, it should follow the custom of the country. Jurisdicta (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

What the owning county uses is irrelevant. We should use whatever the majority of sources use - and remember this is the English language wikipedia and feminine pronouns are normally used in English sources but neutral are also acceptable. Just don't chop and change, choose one and stick with it Lyndaship (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. In Russia, ships are called "he," which might be appropriate for the Russian Wiki. Here, on the English Wiki, we follow English norms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.50.145 (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

should this edit be reverted under similar reasoning? the word "sister" appears to have first been introduced with this edit, but i had removed it here, both to conform with the gender-neutral pronouns agreed to on this page, and because i had not recalled cakra being referred to as a sister of nanggala anywhere except in this article. dying (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

article quality

Promote to C/B?

Is this article sufficient enough for a C/B class? Need opinion. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 02:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Jeromi Mikhael, based off the criteria listed by wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Grading_scheme), I believe the article is a solid "C" class article. Given that the event is still ongoing, I believe it will be sometime before it could become a "B" class article as there is much information to come (result of rescue efforts, final findings of investigation board, international efforts, government response). Jurisdicta (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I am planning to nominate this for GA after this ends.

Any suggestions for the non-updating parts of the article are welcomed. Thank you.--Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Blatherings of politicians

Do we really need the remarks by Hasanuddin? He obviously has no idea what he's talking about. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@GA-RT-22: Well....as long as it is reported by RS we should input it here, however right or wrong. Probably try to put some commentary from Frans Wuwung, a former crew. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Jeromi that if its reported, it's fair game for documentation here. I don't think we have enough information to determine that Hasanudddin doesn't know what he's talking about. It is known that the ship was completely refitted in 2012 by Daewoo and there may be a known (but not publicly documented, i.e., classified) history of problems after that refit that may be informing Hasanuddin's statement.

Maybe the underlying problem that caused the electrical outage (if that was the cause) is found to be related to the UWT not functioning and things are slowly coming together. They may even already have a pretty good idea the problem was electrical, given a history after the refit.

Besides, if Hasanuddin's way off the mark, when/if the truth comes out and he's dead wrong, he will be on record as such.

—Michael.C.Wright (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Ship fate

There has been a lot of back-and-forth on the "Ship fate" field of the infobox. I call your attention to the template documentation, which says, "Only list the event and the date it occurred (for example: "Sank following collision on 10 February 1964", or "Sold for scrap in 1975". Details such as location, cause, etc. should be discussed in the article." GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

article split

Split the article?

Shouldnt the disappearance have article of it's own instead of here? It's notable enough in terms of coverage, to the point the president himself addressed it. Nyanardsan (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I suspect not. The only reason this article was created was that it went missing. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

No! All the info can be contained in the current article.50.111.50.145 (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Till now, there is not enough info. If the thing becomes more complex with a lot of activities, it may or may not have an article later. Hope they're rescued. That will be a good article. SReader21 (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Creating Page

I would created the Page here Sinking of KRI Nanggala 402. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lola Clementine (talk • contribs) 23:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary to me. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with GA-RT-22 that it's better to have it all in one page. There are already plenty of examples of similar incidents that don't have a dedicated page for the incident separate from the vessel: List_of_submarine_incidents_since_2000

—Michael.C.Wright (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Maintenance schedule moved?

An anonymous editor quoted this article: https://nasional.tempo.co/read/1455716/eks-kkm-kri-nanggala-minta-hilangnya-kapal-tak-dikaitkan-peremajaan-alutsista. In that article, it appears to me (using Google translate) that the maintenance routine was changed from an engine overhaul every five years, to an overhaul every 8 years.

Can any Indonesian speakers verify that? Google translated it to this:

Frans said that the postponement of the overhaul period from 5 years to 8 years should be grateful because it coincided with the arrival of the order to monitor the alleged smuggling of weapons from the Philippines to the Ambon and Poso conflict areas.

--Michael.C.Wright (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

people aboard

Ship's complement

Here's a source (already cited in the article) that says the complement is 50 including a special forces unit. [2] Which might explain why there were 53 on board when the normal crew is 34. It's also likely there would have been observers for a live fire exercise. GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@GA-RT-22: Correct. Colonel Harry Setyawan is counted as an observer, as according to the diagram he shouldn't be there. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Complement

Jane's Fighting Ships (2009) clearly says the complement was "34 (6 officers)": [3]. Why were there 53 people aboard? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Presumably, because it was conducting a torpedo drill. NFarras (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The source was published in 2009. While after 2012 refit, the submarine has a complement of 50 personnel, including a special force unit for infiltration.. Although current article says Hasanuddin also stated that Nanggala had exceeded its capacity when 53 people were on board when it sank, even though the submarine was designed to have 38 crew members.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't access that source. Does it really say the compmlement, not the crew, is 34? Our sources are sparse but it's my impression the crew is 34 and the complement is 50 including special forces. Also I think the special forces were added in the Korean refit. What's the date on that source? GA-RT-22 (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm starting to get even more confused! (... not difficult, I know). Sorry if that Jane's source is out of date. Would a re-fit really have led to such a large increase in compliment? I guess we need to start by agreeing the difference between "crew" and "compliment". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Ship's complement is fairly well defined in military circles. It's all the military personnel who are on board to do a job. It doesn't include civilians, passengers (people who are just being transported and have no job to do on board), or guests (Admirals who want to see how a torpedo is fired but are not in the ship's chain of command).

"Crew" doesn't have a precise definition, at least in the US Navy. Sometimes it means just the enlisted personnel. Usually it means the people who are there to operate the ship or its weapons. It can include officers or not. It does not include for example the pilots on an aircraft carrier. Part of our problem with this article stems from this imprecise definition. Different sources will use different definitions. General interest press might say everyone on board is part of the crew. Military sources will give a lower number.

To further muddy the waters, the numbers in the infobox will reflect official numbers but not necessarily the numbers who are on board for a particular mission. Maybe two torpedomen got left behind to make room for two extra special forces for example.

A refit can indeed increase the crew size. In WWII the Gato boats started out with something like 52 and added a dozen or so by the end of the war as equipment was added and weapons got more complex.

I believe what we have here is a crew of 34, 16 special forces, and three observers. But that's a lot of guesswork on my part and I'd be happier if we could find some good (military) sources to clear this up. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much. That's a very clear summary. Do we know if the 2012 re-fit did increase the crew size? I'm guessing someone will have access to a (much) more recent edition of Jane's. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I know people who have access to Jane's 2016-17 and 2018-19 editions. Neither mention anything comprehensive about the 2012 refit in South Korea. Seloloving (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

But do they give a revised figure for complement? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Nope - the 34 (6 officers) figure remains the same. Seloloving (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems there's no specification for any safe number of passengers. I guess operators are able to have as many occupants as they want, regardless of safety considerations such as oxygen supply/ crew escape/ etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Too many people can make the air run out faster as you say. But it's irresponsible to say the boat was overloaded without any further explanation. It's not overloaded in the conventional sense of the word, because a submarine with 50 people on it weights exactly the same as one with 34 people on it. The extra weight is compensated for by pumping water out of the trim tanks. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. But there is a finite amount of room in any ship. I'm just saying that a vessel can never be "overloaded" if there are no technical limits imposed or advised by the manufacturer. We are not party to the contractual details agreed between the manufacturer and the Indonesian Navy. Perhaps Indonesia submarines often carry this many (or even more) Special Forces personnel and observers. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Command

Apparently, the commander of Nanggala had been in this position for only three weeks. Furthermore, there was his superior officer on board, who had held command of Nanggala in the past, and was new to his position as the unit commander. Not sure if the article should spell this out. There are historical examples where having someone on board who outranks a vessel's commander has caused difficulties. -- Seelefant (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Seelefant, if i'm reading this source correctly, heri oktavian had assumed command of nanggala over a year ago. however, harry setyawan does appear to have assumed command of the submarine unit recently, in early march. i would hesitate to explicitly mention either harry setyawan's recent assumption of the position or the possible conflict between the two commanders, for fear of implying something that i have not seen a reliable source mention. however, the presence of two commanders on board the submarine at the time of the disaster is currently mentioned in the caption for the photos of the two commanders. are you aware of a reliable source that mentions at least one of the above issues as a possible contributing factor to this specific accident? dying (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

You're right of course, and no, I don't have a specific source, so this would probably be undue speculation. Thanks, -- Seelefant (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

no problem, Seelefant, thanks for bringing the issue up. dying (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Ship fate - prominence in intro

Am I alone in thinking that the "loss of all 53 crew members on board" should be mentioned earlier than in the 10th sentence of the introduction? I made this edit yesterday but it has in effect since been undone. Meticulo (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't revert that, but I think it was because we already say that in the last paragraph, and the lead needs to be as concise as possible. Note that not even USS Indianapolis (CA-35) mentions its loss in the first sentence. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd point to Russian submarine Kursk (K-141) and Chinese submarine Changcheng 361, which both mention their disasters in the second sentence. Arguably the final paragraph of the Nanggala intro should be reworded and become the second paragraph, which would also solve the issue of concisiness. Meticulo (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Still no mention about Kursk [4] alongside Changcheng [5]. Maybe better to avoid comparing disaster dimensions for not related events while no dedicated list page based on common criteria yet exists. Missing to mention a similar event while outlining another is only creating frustration among those emotionally involved in that "forgotten" one. Cosminvs (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Cosminvs, i am admittedly not sure if i follow you. i believe kursk is not mentioned in that sentence because more people died in the chinese submarine than in nanggala. had more people been aboard nanggala than aboard the chinese submarine, then the loss of life would have been the largest reported loss of life aboard a submarine since kursk.

for similar reasons, the french submarine surcouf is not mentioned, even though more people died aboard surcouf than aboard kursk. however, kursk is mentioned in the article's see also links, and has been mentioned there for about six days now, so i do not believe kursk has been "forgotten".

also, i am not sure if it is appropriate to add links for every submarine accident to the lead in order to avoid frustrating people emotionally involved in those accidents. i am assuming that you agree with this since you did not mention adding a link to surcouf to the lead, even though surcouf appears to be the "forgotten" one, and not kursk.

by the way, i am not sure if this is what you were referring to, but there is a dedicated page for submarine incidents since 2000. dying (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I have made an edit. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Meticulo, i was the one who reverted it, and i apologize if i have made a mistake. at the time, i had believed that there was a silent consensus to not duplicate the mention in the lead, and the reasons given for reintroducing the early mention did not appear convincing to me, since both cited articles mentioned their associated disasters in their second sentences simply because the only sentences in their leads that had nothing to do with the disasters were their first sentences. (in the case of kursk, the lead only had two sentences.) also, i performed a brief sanity check by looking at the leads of a few other articles on shipwrecks, and do not recall finding a lead at the time that mentioned the disaster before shifting back to unrelated matters. in addition, the edit reintroducing the early mention appeared to have been performed haphazardly, without taking the structure of the rest of the lead into account, since a paragraph break would have likely been proper after the newly inserted sentence.

i should note that i have no personal preference over whether or not the disaster should be mentioned as early as the second sentence, but i did mention it in the second sentence of the lead when i first created the article, simply because, aside from the infobox, the entire article consisted of only two sentences. the first significant expansion to the lead happened two days later, with the addition placed after the two sentences that were already in the lead.

about 20 hours after that expansion, the second sentence was removed, with the explanation that the edit was removing a duplication in the lead. (the deleted sentence, however, did include information that had not been duplicated in the lead, so the lead was soon amended to reincorporate the deleted information.) the reinsertion of the duplication was performed about 40 hours later, at which point, i had believed that a silent consensus had already been reached, and that i was merely restoring the lead to what had been agreed upon before. of course, once it was reintroduced again, i realized that my assumption that there was a silent consensus might have been erroneous, so i have left it alone since.

one argument in favor of mentioning the disaster early in the lead appears to not have been previously mentioned here: doing so would allow the disaster to be included in navigation popups and in the wikipedia blurbs of google search results.

by the way, if the second sentence mentioning the disaster is retained, i think it would be useful to include a mention of the torpedo drill, as was seen in the version of the page immediately before the second sentence was first removed. dying (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Dying, no need to apologise. I only posted about the issue here on the Talk page in an effort not to fall foul of WP:BRD. I agree with your suggestion about mentioning the torpedo drill and have made this change, along with much else, in an admittedly bold edit to the intro today. Thanks, Meticulo (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Meticulo, i was admittedly a bit surprised by the bold edit, as i don't recall previously encountering an article about a sunken vessel that has a two-paragraph lead with a substantial initial paragraph focused on its sinking, followed by a substantial second paragraph about the vessel prior to its sinking. however, even if no other articles follow this structure, i don't see why it can't be done here if there's consensus for it. seeing that so far no one has reverted your change or voiced a contrary opinion, i'm currently assuming this is the new consensus unless told otherwise.

by the way, thanks for adhering to wp:brd. i hope i have been able to do the same. dying (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Dying, I'm a bit surprised too, as I was expecting more people would boldly revise my bold edit. My changes were intended more as a proof of concept. The lead is still far from perfect. Any suggestions? Perhaps we could trim some of the details about the search, and restore some of the cut material in a third paragraph? And now that you mention it, that first paragraph does look a little chunky. Meticulo (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Meticulo, at the moment, the thing that seems a bit strange to me is how the lead does not feel like it ends properly. it feels like i'm reading a biography where the first half deals with the subject's career and notable events during adulthood, and the second half covers the subject's upbringing, but ends abruptly upon the completion of the subject's education.

admittedly, i don't know how much of the lead should be about the sinking and how much about the submarine. wp:recent suggests that there shouldn't be too much focus on the sinking. however, due to the nature of submarines, much of the service history of nanggala has been kept secret, so it's unlikely that this article will have as much detail in that area as that of indianapolis, for example.

by the way, i don't know if i'm reading this correctly, but when GA-RT-22 stated "the lead needs to be as concise as possible", i had interpreted the statement to mean that words should not be wasted, not that details needed to be dropped. prior to your edit, the length of the lead was comparable to that of indianapolis, so i had no issue with its length.

one interesting thing to note is that the event now at the top of "in the news" currently has a two-paragraph lead where the initial paragraph focuses on the incident and the second paragraph covers background details. however, i think the ending of the lead there does not feel lacking because the subject of that article is the disaster itself, while this article covers both the submarine and its sinking.

the article on titanic may be useful to examine. it sank on its maiden voyage, so perhaps there isn't much to cover prior to that event, but the structure of the lead may be of interest. because the article is rather long, the lengthy lead doesn't seem uncalled for, and the lead's initial paragraph quickly covers the main points and also mentions some details that end up not being repeated in the lead. the featured article on vasa, which also sank during its maiden voyage, has a similarly structured lead. the featured article on uss missouri, which did not sink, mentions the surrender of japan aboard the ship in the second sentence, while also using its second and third paragraphs effectively. dying (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it would work better chronologically. Keep the first sentence. End the second sentence after "Bali Sea". Follow that with what is now the second paragraph. Then everything from the first paragraph following "Bali Sea". GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Susi Pudjiati's Twitter

I see no reason in placing her tweet in such prominent position. She is merely criticizing Jokowi for only promoting by one rank per custom, instead of two to four ranks. While her criticism should be on the article, I don't think her particular tweet should be placed there, as it infers her importance and given her tweet undue weight. Thoughts? SunDawn (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Why is the tweet included at all? It's just political hot talk.TotallyAbrupt (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I would be all in favor of removing it. GA-RT-22 (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Good article

I think this article would be great for GA nomination. Can I get opinions on this matter? SunDawn (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)