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)

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)

@Michael.C.Wright: That is a correct translation. Sorry for the really late-late-late-late-late reply. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 18:44, 26 May 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)

@Dying: As an Indonesian I understand where are you coming from. Harry Setyawan holds a position where he is responsible for all submarines that operates within the territory of the 2nd Fleet. This ship sunk during an exercise (torpedo drill), so as mentioned in RS he only acts as an observer and not as the commander. And the captions mentions the fact that two of KRI Nanggala commanders (Heri as current and last and Harry as a former commanders) sank alongside the ship.--Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 18:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

And not to mention that a former KRI Nanggala crew is appointed to command the fleet two days after the ship sank; probably as an act of solace. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 18:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

This source says that Iwan then appointed Wirawan Ady Prasetya (also a former commander of KRI Nanggala) to replace the position the late Harry Setyawan held. My observation is that KRI Nanggala crews has assumed more and more important positions in the navy after this incident happened. It is likely to say that one of them would probably reach the highest position in the navy or even the armed forces.--Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 18:49, 26 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)

GA-RT-22, that sounds like a good idea. Meticulo, i think what you have now done with the lead also works. i am not sure which version is better. dying (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with it now. Short, to the point, includes major dates, not overloaded with unneeded refs or tags. The only thing out of chronological order is the loss, but that's fine because it's the most notable thing. GA-RT-22 (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Blatherings of politicians

tubagus hasanuddin

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)

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)

i have decided to comment it out. feel free to undo this if a consensus forms to add the statement back in. dying (talk) 07:17, 26 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)

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)

i don't have any experience with good article nominations, either as nominator or as reviewer, so perhaps a more experienced editor would be better suited to give advice regarding what needs to be done and expected rates of success. however, i have been meaning to gain some experience in the area, so if the article is eventually picked up by a reviewer at a time when i am not distracted by real life, i would be happy to help.

also, Jeromi Mikhael mentioned nominating the article as well. dying (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@SunDawn: Please go forward. I will be glad to co-nominate this article. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 07:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I have added the template, hopefully I have done it the right way. Thanks. SunDawn (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

dsme statement

is it appropriate for us to use wikipedia's voice for the statement regarding dsme under the cause section?

as determining cause for this disaster may be controversial, i had been assuming that we should be particularly careful to present this issue from a neutral point of view.

currently, the rest of the cause section presents a number of theories while attributing them to their speakers. as a result, switching to wikipedia's voice for the last statement regarding dsme to present it as fact feels rather jarring, or at least it does to me.

also, although i am not personally familiar with submarine maintenance, i hesitate to state as fact that submarines "need ... to undergo maintenance at least once every six years", especially since a section above on this talk page mentions that the maintenance schedule may have shifted from five to eight years, implying that there may be some disagreement regarding how often a submarine needs to be maintained.

in addition, because the statement about dsme appears to attempt to absolve dsme of all liability, presenting this last statement as fact may lead readers to question wikipedia's point of view.

furthermore, hankook ilbo attributed to a dsme official the statement that dsme had not been involved with nanggala for nine years, so if hankook ilbo has apparently preferred to not use its own voice with respect to that statement, it seems strange that we would decide to use wikipedia's voice to present that statement as fact. (however, hankook ilbo appears to have used its own voice to present the statement regarding frequency of maintenance as fact.)

admittedly, as i was the one who originally attributed the statement to hankook ilbo and the dsme official, i do not feel that it is appropriate for me to reinsert the attributions unilaterally, so i was hoping to get additional opinions on the matter. dying (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

cropped photo

Fourthords, is there a reason why you prefer to use the cropped image in the infobox? you had replaced the original image with a cropped version about two weeks ago, apparently without explanation, and EvoSwatch reverted your change, explaining in the edit summary that the uncropped image "is sufficient and [has a] better aspect ratio". you've recently replaced the image again with the cropped version, again seemingly with no explanation, so i fail to understand why your cropped version should be preferred. had the positive aspects of your cropped image made themselves obvious to me, i may have been able to understand your decision, but perhaps i simply have not had enough experience in this area.

personally, i prefer the uncropped version for the same reasons that EvoSwatch mentioned. in addition, there appears to be no significant reason to save that extra vertical space in the infobox, and i feel as if the ship is artificially constrained if it is pictured in its environment in an unusual aspect ratio. had the image been a schematic of the submarine, as seen in the article on russian submarine losharik, i think there is no reason to add additional white space to establish a more familiar aspect ratio, but cropping this image when there appears to be no obvious reason to do so makes one wonder why it has been unnaturally cropped in the first place.

i was trying to figure out if you were enforcing an established standard for submarine infobox pictures, but the articles on uss scorpion and uss thresher, both submarines lost with their entire crew, have submarine infobox pictures that could conceivably be cropped but aren't. dying (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree the uncropped photo has a better aspect ratio, the cropped one is just too narrow.TotallyAbrupt (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

recent edits

Megaladox and Samudera Hindia, i hate to say this, as you two seem like you are interested in improving the encyclopedia, but these recent edits seem to violate many en wikipedia standards, especially wp:npov, and also do not appear to conform to either the manual of style or the layout already previously established in the article. some of the information provided could be successfully integrated into the article, and indeed, some of it i had been meaning to add myself, but right now, the article has become a mess. this is rather unfortunate considering that it was recently nominated to be listed as a good article, and it would almost certainly fail such a review now.

Meticulo has previously reverted two such edits, noting that they were "non-constructive", so i know i am not alone in thinking this. personally, i would prefer to revert all these recent edits, but i do not want to make such a bold reversion unilaterally, and i wanted to let you know why i felt that this should be done before either i or another editor did so (assuming that others agree that these edits should be reverted). in addition, i would like to suggest that you discuss any serious additions you would like to make on this talk page first. many of us have been discussing possibly controversial edits on this page before performing them, as you can see above.

i see that both of you have accounts on id wikipedia, so i wanted to let you know that en wikipedia and id wikipedia have different standards. therefore, it may be best to avoid making such bold edits until you become more familiar with how en wikipedia works. also, Samudera Hindia, you seem to be blocked indefinitely on id wikipedia for using a prohibited name. is that something that you can resolve?

AryaTargaryen, i thought i might ping you since if these edits were reverted, one of yours would be as well.

to everyone else paying attention to this page, what are your thoughts on the recent edits? dying (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Dying, there are a number of unnecessary quotes since the meaning in the quotes have been conveyed. This is turning into a news piece, which should be avoided. – robertsky (talk) 06:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, what's with the controversy section? the content in there should be integrated with the rest of articles or restructured. – robertsky (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I've posted comments, using Red Warn boilerplate, on both their talk pages about specific problems with recent edits. Meticulo (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

AryaTargaryen, i thought i might ping you since if these edits were reverted, one of yours would be as well. - Fine by me. Article can definitely use some pruning. AryaTargaryen 18:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Yellow tag?

@Dying, SunDawn, and GA-RT-22: I think we need to fix the article and remove the yellow tag before the GAN gets an instant fail. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Jeromi Mikhael I haven't checked the article for long time and seen that there are things that could be improved. I think the Controversy section could be trimmed, and direct quotations should be reduced, description of the quotation is more than enough in most cases. Any ideas? SunDawn (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about the excessive links but the article is littered with style problems. Inline ELs, italic quotes, missing punctuation, incomplete sentences, and more. It needs a good proofreading. Controversy sections are generally frowned on, but if we have one, why is the mis-named "Modernization" section not part of it? Way too much speculative content for my taste. Sorry I don't have time to work on this now. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The main problem I see now is the Controversy section. When I nominate this article few months back I don't think we even have this section, and most of the styles are great. I think most of the problems on the article is on this section. I have done some trimmings, we need more trimmings. Compared to the style of writing of other sections, it is clear that there are clear differences. SunDawn (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Commander's complaints of poor workmanships by PT PAL

I need comments for this section. Basically, the article claims that the commander of the sub had complained about the quality of the submarine way before the incident to a Kompas reporter. Is that still considered as WP:RS? Kompas itself is surely WP:RS, but the way this article is written - just some informal discussion between the sub commander and the reporter - which didn't make news when the discussion takes place - can it still be considered as reliable source? SunDawn (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

A commander complaining of poor maintenance is boring news, until... the ship sinks. This is a reliable source and this is significant.TotallyAbrupt (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

GA Nomination Issues

Hello, I received a message on my talk page concerning the nomination of this article being on hold, that there are minor issues that have to be fixed. I will be unable to access my laptop and won’t be able to do proper pings, but can I know what issues should be fixed? Thank you. SunDawntalk 14:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi SunDawn, see the bottom of Talk:KRI Nanggala (402)/GA1. I'll watch that page, so just post there when you're ready. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much Sammi. Is it possible to delay the 7-day rule? I am in quarantine for few weeks and I won’t be able to make the changes. Thank you. SunDawntalk 01:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)