Talk:PNS Ghazi

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Good article nomination

Seems pretty much expanded and well sourced. Suggest to nominate --lTopGunl (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge USS Diablo (SS-479) here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was: Merge.
Both options – having all of the ship's history in one article and having two separate articles – have some support, and both are clearly justifiable according to the relevant guideline. After reading through the arguments presented, rough consensus here seems to be that the ship's history as USS Diablo is less significant compared to its history as PNS Ghazi, and that including the material about its time as USS Diablo would not make the PNS Ghazi article excessively long at this point. If at some point article size does become an issue due to the inclusion of the USS Diablo content, the article can of course be re-split. Jafeluv (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure how the ship articles are treated... do transferred ships have different articles for services with the two navies or are split on normal reasons of articles being long? I think the history with US Navy can be accounted for in the same article. Better to have a single article and take it to GA status? Propose merging the article about the same submarine for its service with the US Navy, USS Diablo (SS-479), here. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support merge to here. GBooks has 279 hits for "USS Diablo" -Wikipedia 314 for "PNS Ghazi" -Wikipedia GNews gets 29 hits for "USS Diablo" -Wikipedia and 4 for "PNS Ghazi" -Wikipedia Standard Google search gives 16,800 for Diablo and 81,100 for Ghazi. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose merger. The helpful link provided by Brad (the guideline applicable to the history of ships like this one) states:

But if the ship had significant careers in two navies, it may be best to create two articles with one ending at the transfer and the other beginning then, depending on how long the articles are and how extensive the transformation of the ship.

In this instance, I see two significant but distinctly different careers. Although neither article is hugely long, I think it likely that most readers would be interested in one or the other of the ship's roles, rather than both, and that preserving separate articles (with cross-wikilinks) is the best way to present the information. JamesMLane t c 03:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Check out the article USS Diablo (SS-479). The career with US Navy is simply covered in the lead (which might form a section) and then half the article is about its career with Pakistan Navy. This might be completed in a single article by dedicating a section for "USS Diablo (SS-479)". The infobox can contain all the upgrades I suppose? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose merger. When a ship is transferred, it in some sense starts a new career. Probably the USS Diablo article should be trimmed to remove the redundant stuff about its service as PNS Ghazi. Ngchen (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - (from uninvolved editor invited by RfC bot) - I don't have a strong opinion on merging or not. But surely the various military projects (esp Navy projects) must have a convention established on this topic? Dozens of ships & submarines are sold from country to country, and then renamed. What is the convention that the Navy projects have established for such articles? --Noleander (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I posted a request for input at 2 relevant projects. --Noleander (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment from WP:SHIPS member. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) has the following on 'Ships that changed name or nationality': "But if the ship had significant careers in two navies, it may be best to create two articles with one ending at the transfer and the other beginning then, depending on how long the articles are and how extensive the transformation of the ship." The example given is USS Phoenix (CL-46) and ARA General Belgrano, the same physical ship, under two separate careers. Benea (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• As Benea says, having two articles for a ship that has careers in two navies is a viable option. My instinct is it's probably right in this case. If a merge were to happen, I'd probably merge to this article rather than the other one, as its service with Pakistan is much more interesting than its service with the USN. Regards, The Land (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Equally, one article for both careers is viable, cf SMS Goeben and TGC Yavuz. The logic in that case makes perfect sense to me (would seem odd to change articles in the middle of World War I with that particular ship).... The Land (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I do not consider her career in the US Navy significant enough for a separate article, so in my opinion the article about USS Diablo should be merged here. Tupsumato (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support merger under PNS Ghazi. The sub had a much more notable and noteworthy career under the latter name. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support merger under PNS Ghazi. I take as an example the GA article about SMS Ostfriesland in which the ship had a lesser but still notable service with USA following its more active service with Germany. The two can easily be covered in one article. Part of my reasoning comes from the relatively large amount of text at the USS Diablo article which is devoted to PNS Ghazi. Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support merger. Although there are cases where a ship that served in multiple navies has multiple articles, my understanding of the primary reason for a split like that is due to the size of the combined article. This does not appear to be the case with the current articles. If content on Diablo becomes expanded to the point where this article becomes unwieldy, the articles can be re-split at that point in time. -- saberwyn 22:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support: as proposer. I was unclear about WP:SHIPS way of treating such cases so was a bit neutral even though I proposed, but now I support the merge as clarified by a project member and other reasons provided by me. If the section for its service with US Navy becomes long enough later, it can be resplit as per Saberwyn. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Merge or Keep two reformatted articles making the PNS article the main article, and the USS article a subarticle. There is sufficient length for a subarticle, but it is not so long that a single article also will work. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose merger:While it is always neater and more efficient to merge articles, I think in this instance due consideration should be given to the historical and sentimental value of the USS Diablo. It's former crewmen, the few that are left, still arrange social activities with each other. In fact, a reunion dinner is scheduled this October, as evident from this amateur, but very rich, site: http://www.ussdiablo.com/

Even as an outsider, viewing pages such as this, evokes strong nostalgic emotions. I am sure its historic value is looked upon highly by the twelve hundred odd former crew members and their families; not to mention trainees, as well as foreign participants in naval exercises.

It also fulfills the naming convention. While its history is shorter than the PNS Ghazi,it was a brief participant in WWII, and nearlyengaged a Nazi U-boat which sunk a commercial vessel 30miles from their location off the coast of Maine. Furthermore, 248 of its crew died while on duty. Misha Atreides (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Merging doesn't mean that the notable content about Diablo will be removed... it simply means we will then have a single article which will state that Ghazi was previously known as Diablo and a separate section precisely covering its duty with US Navy. It is only the title that will have actual precedence over the other, the sub will still have an article. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support merger (from uninvolved editor invited by RfC bot) per saberwyn. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge

I've performed a previous merge of Sinking of PNS Ghazi here and would be willing to carry out the one above too. Will do in due time. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done --lTopGunl (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

I've completed the merge but have put the infobox on top as it was as I prefer that a WP:SHIPS member merges that. I've made a request there. Please note here when completed. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done by Tupsumato. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on PNS Ghazi. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20100508210258/http://orbat.com/site/cimh/navy/kills%281971%29-2.pdf to http://www.orbat.com/site/cimh/navy/kills%281971%29-2.pdf
• Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tjLrihm5OfMJ:indiatoday.intoday.in/story/new-pictures-of-1971-war-pak-submarine-ghazi-renew-debate-on-cause-behind-blast-on-vessel/1/196709.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us with https://web.archive.org/web/20170619171124/http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/new-pictures-of-1971-war-pak-submarine-ghazi-renew-debate-on-cause-behind-blast-on-vessel/1/196709.html on http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/new-pictures-of-1971-war-pak-submarine-ghazi-renew-debate-on-cause-behind-blast-on-vessel/1/196709.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111128104709/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE4-2/harry.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE4-2/harry.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304011310/http://www.pppusa.org/Acrobat/Hamoodur%20Rahman%20Commission%20Report.pdf to http://www.pppusa.org/Acrobat/Hamoodur%20Rahman%20Commission%20Report.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060504180745/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/1971/Dec05/Art03.htm to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/1971/Dec05/Art03.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319212243/http://orbat.com/site/cimh/navy/navy_1971_kills.html to http://orbat.com/site/cimh/navy/navy_1971_kills.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020234824/http://orbat.com/site/history/volume4/438/pn_warships_part4A_submarines.htm to http://orbat.com/site/history/volume4/438/pn_warships_part4A_submarines.htm

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) 15:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)