Talk:RFA Sir Tristram (L3505)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Tristram was damaged in the Falklands war [1]. Changed page to reflect this.

Finlay McWalter 16:00, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on RFA Sir Tristram (L3505). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive to this link

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion regarding removal of Roll of honour?

Could someone please explain why all of a sudden, we have editors queuing up to remove the roll of honour section citing WP:MEMORIAL? This is nothing to do with the content here, which is providing information on the crew members that died in the incident. Only vaguely relevant section I see is:

“ Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. (However, for the Wikipedia page for deceased Wikipedia editors, see WP:RIP). ”

Those crew members are not the subject of this article, its an article about the ship and its relevant that those crew members died in a notorious incident involving this ship. And btw I was about to add the source demanded [2]. WCM_email 22:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

If you have a source to support the content regarding the incident, then certainly add it. If the source supports the information that two crew members were killed, then note that. But there is no need to add their names. On their own, they were non-notable, and they didn't appear to play any notable role in the incident, other then having the misfortune of dying. Adding their names in no way lends to the readers understanding of the incident, or the ship in general, which is the primary focus of the article. And listing them under their own section titled "Role of Honour" is just a bit much. We don't even have that in naval ship articles, some of which depict incidents where men died performing acts of heroism that saved the lives of others and posthumously earned them Medals of Honor. This is an encyclopaedia article, not an obituary. - wolf 00:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes it's an article about the ship and the details of crew members who died is a detail relevant to this article. Particularly with the controversy that later emerged with Hong Kong crew members, which is something that needs to be added. Oh and please don't refactor talk page discussions. WCM_email 08:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you have planned for the article (left my crystal ball at my summer place) but while the addition of names of non-notable ship's crew, or any victims from a mass-death event are being debated right now, they are also being removed. If you can make a case for adding them specifically by name, showing that they are somehow notable to that event, in their actions before or during, or somehow after, with support, then add them. But to the prose, not in a plain list, and certainly not with the heading "Roll of Honour". That is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. It will be interesting to see just how their names, as opposed to "two crew members from Hong Kong", will make any difference in the readers understanding of the article.

I didn't touch your comments, headings are a different matter though, (check the guidelines) they are supposed to be neutral and informative about the sections subject. What you wrote was a blatant personal attack, and it was removed. Not sure why you're so upset about the quotes, but whatever.

And speaking of upset, I get that you are unhappy about the edit, but you need to chill out and lay off the insults and accusations. You have repeatedly accused a respected, veteran editor editor of colluding and meat puppetry. You should strike those accusations, apologize to that editor and focus on the article. Your hostility is getting us no where. - wolf 10:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

At this point you stomped in the middle of a discussion and imposed a solution, when it would likely have been resolved with an amicable discussion (the edit reverted had the summary "self revert pending discussion if a Roll of Honour section is appropriate in this article" so it was plain what was going on). I might easily have come round to accepting what the original editor said. So your lecture is very much misplaced given your own conduct. You should have left us to sort it out between us. WCM_email 11:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL has been widely accepted over the years as reason for not including the names of non notable casualties. However as you rightly point out the wording can be construed to only affect the subject of articles and not the content. Therefore lets look beyond it and reconsider what we are trying to provide in articles. We want articles whose content is relevant and of interest to a general reader looking at that subject. Individual names of those who died without further context might be considered relevant but does it offer any interest to a reader, is it just skimmed over, could the same information be better imparted by just giving a total and any other significant fact - in this case that they were Hong Kong Chinese? By naming a section Roll of Honour that is clearly designed to memorialise these individuals without adding anything to the understanding of the event. You mention the fact that subsequently questions were raised about the employment of Chinese crews on RFA ships, thats interesting but primarily belongs in the RFA or Falklands War articles and could be covered in this article without the use of the individuals names. Galahad also had two Chinese seamen killed, their names are not mentioned in that article nor is there a list of the other 50 odd people who died, nor on the other ships lost a list of their casualties, nor on other ships articles for Royal Oak, Barham, Repulse etc. Why should these two individuals be treated differently to the hundreds who died on other ships, every persons sacrifice who died was the same - its unfair to name some and we cannot name them all and maintain articles of interest to general readers. Therefore regardless of if you accept if NOTMEMORIAL covers inclusion in articles or not I urge you to accept the removal of the individuals names Lyndaship (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

oppose addition of roll of honour. Visit a war memorial for that kind of thing. It does not belong in an encyclopedia and is not encyclopedic. Llammakey (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - you may reference an external website with the names so people who are truly interested can click and view the names if they desire to. Crook1 (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Who said this was a vote? Why all of a sudden has a bunch of people decided to turn up and start throwing their weight around? You wasted your time piling on. I saw Lyndaship's comments yesterday, as I was on my phone waited till I got home to reply. Basically I was about to reply that I accepted their reasoning for not having a "roll of honour" section. However, if I do add some material on the controversy over HK sailors entering the war zone I may find it necessary to mention the names of those who died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wee Curry Monster (talk • contribs) 14:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

You know better than that, it's not a vote, it's a consensus. There are no private discussions here, anyone can contribute to any talk page discussion at any time, barring AE bans. If there is a difference of opinion of, people can add their support or opposition, to help form consensus. That's all that was happening wolf 05:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: Self-reverted to remove my comment, no point in responding in kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wee Curry Monster (talk • contribs) 04:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

":Sign your comments Thewolfchild, you really don't know when to just shut up or not to interfere. - Wee CuWee Curry Monster 01:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)" - Actually, you'll notice that I added the unsigned template to your last comment because you forgot to sign. That is why I didn't add a sig to mine, I wanted to see why the sig-bot didn't sign yours (or mine, so I'll report that). Forgetting to sign is not a big deal, we all do it from time to time. Why you chose to make a big deal about it is beyond me. But then, I don't really understand any of your obnoxious behaviour. I can only imagine you self-reverted because even you were starting to become embarrassed by your own rash, type-and-save-before-thinking posts. You should give this essay a read. - wolf 05:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)