Talk:KRI Nanggala (402)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Location

CNN says in the Bali Strait. I don't think that's right. Most sources seem to be going with 95 km north of Bali. Janes is pretty reliable, they say "26.5 n miles northwest off Singaraja" [1]. GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I would go with Janes. Already used for crew numbers. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I see that the crew figures have now been removed from the info box. But Jane's clearly says "Nanggala ... can accommodate a crew of 34 including six officers." So why were there 53 aboard? Won't this affect survival? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Janes removed the sentence in an updated article.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I'm still a bit intrigued by the phrase "crew and passengers". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Has any source published co-ordinates for the last known position? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

This source indicates the last seen location of the ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeromi Mikhael (talk • contribs) 05:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Oxygen

"...would still be sufficient for the entire crew and passengers after a day of lost contact". Does this mean there was enough oxygen for one day, or for how long? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I've replaced the statement with a clearer one from the navy chief of staff. Hope it helps. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes thank you very much, that is now very clear. I have made a few minor tweaks for grammar/ style. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Depth

Reuters [2] write:

"It is possible [...] the ship falls to a depth of 600-700 metres," the Indonesian Navy said in a statement.
The submarine was built to sustain pressure at a maximum depth of around 250 metres, an official said.

Also, in [3]:

Yudo Margono, the navy chief of staff, said that there would be enough oxygen for the sailors to last until Saturday, [...]
Earlier, navy spokesman Julius Widjojono told KompasTV that the [...] submarine [...] could sustain a depth of 250-500 metres (820-1640 ft).
"Anything more than that can be pretty fatal, dangerous," the spokesman told KompasTV.

Of course, speculation as to the fate of the submarine is, at this point, just that - speculation - but I think our article should report the facts mentioned above.--Nø (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. A good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Any new news on the sub?

This page hasn't changed much since yesterday. Is there any new news, such as More people searching, or finding it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shipgirl your waifu (talk • contribs) 15:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Shipgirl your waifu: No more new news as far as I could observe. If the ship managed to be recovered and all the crews were alive there's a chance that this news would be catapulted back to the top of ITN. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
This is interesting: [4] Makes it sound like they've found the sub but are having trouble communicating with it. But I doubt that's the case. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Daggers

What's with all the daggers (†) in the Command structure section? Were these intended for a footnote that got left out? GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

[GA-RT-22], it appears that the "daggers" were a result of a copy and paste from another source that was not removed. My best guess is that the original source had more information that the daggers referenced. We should remove them as they serve no purpose. Jurisdicta (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I should have checked earlier, but they were added in this edit: [5] with the summary "† R.I.P. Eternally on duty." They seem unnecessary, as we know all hands were lost, and Wikipedia is not a memorial site. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Image placement

Do we have to have text sandwiched between the two images and the infobox? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Move two images to the end of the section with direction horizontal. Remove the Indonesian language video.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, a gallery for those images might be a possibility. I'd also agree that an Indonesian language video is inappropriate for en.wiki, unless it has subtitles with a running translation. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Factually incorrect statement added at the end claiming this was the biggest disaster since Chinese submarine malfunctioned

Kursk (K-141) This was the biggest submarine disaster prior to the sinking of the KRI Nanggala — Preceding unsigned comment added by LenovoShoes (talk • contribs) 20:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

In the Kursk 118 crew were lost, am I also missing something? Camp0s (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I dont follow you (unless the article has since changed). The Kursk incident was in 2000, the Changcheng was in 2003. The article is correct to state that this incident is the largest reported loss of life on a submarine since Changcheng - Dumelow (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Can confirm, I added that statement about it being the largest reported loss of life on a submarine since the Changcheng. The wording is still the same (save for a single word being added to the statement by another Wiki user). As mentioned by above user, unless there has been another submarine incident that resulted in more than 53 fatalities since the Changcheng, then the statement is correct. BreadyToCrumble (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
That's correct.TotallyAbrupt (talk) 09:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Under Water Telephone (UWT)

I changed the statement about the UWT back to "hampering" from "possibly hampering" for the following two reasons:

1. Subs use the UWT to communicate while submerged. Without it, voice communication with other vessels is impossible while submerged. According to the Janes article I sourced, before the incident "the boat has been relying on naval frequencies in the VHF and UHF bands for its communications needs while surfaced." Without a functioning UWT, there can be no voice communication while submerged. Granted, if the crew are all dead, a lack of UWT isn't preventing voice communications.

2. However, UWTs can be put into transponder and/or beacon mode in emergencies. Had the UWT been operational before the incident, and given that there were crew members able, the UWT could have been activated in beacon/transponder mode to assist search and rescue attempts.

Current reporting indicates there was not a detected explosion, which leads one to believe the crew had time to react and activate the UWT beacon, had it been operational beforehand.

UWTs are mentioned in NATO's Submarine Search and Rescue Manual, where it states:

If possible, the DISSUB’s crew will use the UWT as a primary source for communicating with the Search and Localization Forces (including the SPAG), as well as with the Escape and Rescue Forces. It is a National responsibility to provide an update to the SMER community with the technical data (e.g, frequencies both radio and UWT), as well as other embarked equipment.

Therefore I would say that not having a functional UWT before the incident is now hampering communication with the sub (not necessarily just voice communication, but also the possibility of utilizing the UWT's transponder function).

Here is some marketing material for a UWT: http://www.123seminarsonly.com/Seminar-Reports/029/47313886-Underwater-Communications.pdf

The sourced article from Jane's also states that "“The lack of this UWT is preventing the boat from communicating with assets...[emphasis added]". The article didn't say the lack of UWT is preventing the crew from communicating. I think that is an important distinction.

See also: Underwater_acoustic_communication#Applications

—Michael.C.Wright (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: Ah, someone who is living near the site! Thanks for the edit Wright. Please help us take some photos of the searching process if possible. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 08:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Indeed I live in Bali. Unfortunately I won't have time to get out and get any pictures—though I would love to be able to! I live south of the airport, so it would be about a three-plus hour motorbike ride to get there and since operations are 26+ miles off the coast, there might not be a lot to photograph anyway. Nothing notable has popped up on Instagram either so I suspect there isn't much that is easily photographed. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
--Michael.C.Wright (talk) 09:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Michael.C.Wright, i thought i should possibly respond since i was the one who added the word "possibly" to that section. i agree with your choice to not use the word "possibly", both when you first added the uwt to the page, and when you removed the word "possibly" in your more recent edit. my use of the word "possibly" was only to take into account the cases in which the whole crew had died before attempting communications, a possibility you've also pointed out above. your initial choice of using the word "survivors" instead of "crew" in the earlier edit makes the use of "possibly" moot, and your later choice of using the word "boat" instead of "crew" in the latter edit, parallelling the wording in jane's, also does not require the use of the word "possibly".
there was an intermediate edit that shifted the tense to a conditional one and used the word "crew". when i merged those two sentences into one, i decided to not use a conditional tense, but ended up using the word "possibly" when trying to retain the word "crew". i don't think i had realized you had initially used the word "survivors", since otherwise i would have just used that word instead.
in any case, thanks for the thorough explanation. my initial knowledge of uwts was pretty much limited to that wikipedia section, so i enjoyed following the links you had provided. also, i had decided to use the word "hampering" since i had reasoned that there were still other less effective forms of communication, such as tapping on the hull, and the nato manual you linked explicitly included "hull tapping" as a form of communication (amongst others), so it was nice to see that i had reasoned correctly. dying (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Teamwork makes the dream work. ツ --Michael.C.Wright (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Map

Map
The location where Nanggala was found

In the article, the map doesn't pinpoint the location unless I click it, or unless I try Firefox. It doesn't work with Edge or Chrome. It is working as I preview it on this talk page, but not in the article. Windows 10. Art LaPella (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

It also doesn't work on this talk page, except in preview mode. Art LaPella (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

There are some other subtle differences, for example in preview I get a "1000 km" scale at the lower left, followed by "Wikimedia maps | Map data ©..." but non-preview I get no scale followed by "Wikimedia | © OpenStreetMap". And zoom buttons in preview but not in published. Time to ask some experts, maybe at Module talk:Mapframe. GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Actually no need to ask, this is a known bug. From the FAQ: "Q5: Why are line, shape, or point features are not shown after editing or adding a map, even though they were shown in the page preview? A5: This is a bug related to generating thumbnail map images. It should fix itself in an hour or two. See phab:T269984 for details." GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
thanks for pointing this out, Art LaPella and GA-RT-22. i am editing with an ancient computer, and had believed the issue was only on my end. i have since learned that one workaround for the bug appears to be simply not previewing the edit that adds the map before publishing it. also, if the map has already been added, introducing a minor cosmetic change (e.g., shifting the center of the map slightly) with an edit (without previewing it) should rectify the issue. i will take this into account in the future. dying (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Just to note that I have vectorised the logo. I did my best to retain most of the imperfections of the original (non-centralised banner for instance), but anyone is welcome to overwrite it if they have a better version, or fixed something I have missed, without notifying me. Cheers. Seloloving (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

thanks, Seloloving. i've incorporated your vectorization into the article. it looks like quite a few other wikipedias have done so as well. dying (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Photo box

Major Harry Setyawan - should read Colonel Harry Setyawan. Corrected. Irish Melkite (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Irish Melkite: Major is his rank while serving as the commander of the ship in 2013. He was a colonel when the ship sank. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Significance of 402

Why is the article KRI Nanggala (402) the main article and not KRI Nanggala or KRI Nanggala II and KRI Nanggala a redirect. I couldn't get explanation for the "402" in the text. So the reader is in the dark on the naming. It doesn't seem to be part of the name even in media reports. werldwayd (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Werldwayd: RS writes it as KRI Nanggala-402 or KRI Nanggala 402, not with an ellipsis. And the number 402 always appears in announcements. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
It's also a norm for articles on Wiki about Naval vessels. For example: USS_Dorado_(SS-248) and USS_Holland_(SS-1). — Michael.C.Wright (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
But what is the significance of 402 and why not 401 or 403? This is an obvious question any reader would ask. How many KRI Nanggalas are there anyhow? This is KRI Nanggala II. What about KRI Nanggala I the original one? werldwayd (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
402 is simply the hull number. There's often little to no significance to the numbers other than for tracking purposes of the respective navy. Seloloving (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Werldwayd, List of former ships of the Indonesian Navy. KRI Nanggala I was a Whiskey-class sub before it was decommed. It seems that the Indonesian Navy numbers submarines in 4xx series, and 402 simply denotes it as the second active submarine being pressed into service, after a possible reset of numbering when the Whiskey-class submarines were being phased out ending with KRI Pasopati which was numbered 410 (Indonesia purchased 12 Whiskey-class subs in the 50s from USSR, with 2 being used as spare parts). See also for a quick history titbits on Indonesia submarine fleet: https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2021/04/26/when-indian-navy-worried-indonesia-would-send-submarines-to-aid-pakistan-in-1965.html http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2015/11/indonesian-submarine-history-and-youtube.html – robertsky (talk) 06:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Very cool, thank you for the information! —Michael.C.Wright (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
See also: List_of_active_Indonesian_Navy_ships#Submarine_Fleet. – robertsky (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 27 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by requester. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

KRI Nanggala (402) → KRI Nanggala 402 or KRI Nanggala-402 – I have never seen any written source, except Wikipedia, that uses ellipsis parentheses when talking about the ship. The most common nameform is either with a strip for the number, without a strip, or without the number. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

You posted this just as I responded to the other, similar topic, lol. The naming of this article at least conforms to a convention/norm previously set on other wiki articles such as USS_Dorado_(SS-248) and USS_Holland_(SS-1). I don't know the history of the titling convention/norm. Maybe someone in the wiki naval community could weigh in? —Michael.C.Wright (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
There's a guide for this at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Hull_or_pennant_number_or_disambiguation. Seloloving (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
@Seloloving: OK. I've removed the unnumbered alternative. But still, there is no other source that use ellipsis parentheses as its commonname. If we were to use the ellipsis, it would violate WP:COMMONNAME but obey the convention. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 06:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The KRI Nanggala-402 (with the strip) are only used by Indonesian authorities (which then the media also used it) therefore it's Indonesian naming norms and then only appropriate in Indonesian Wiki. As this is English Wiki it might be better to stick with WP:SHIPNAME. Jauhsekali (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The accepted way of dabbing a ship when there has been more than one by that name is having in brackets after the name the year of launching if it was pre WWII or the pennant/hull number if it was later. The current title is therefore correct as I believe there was an earlier KRI Nanggala. Lyndaship (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems to follow existing naming conventions. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The naming convention for military ships is as per Lyndaship's comment. Officially, the name of the ship is KRI Nanggala – see the ship's badge reproduced in the article – and there was an earlier KRI Nanggala. The present name of the article therefore conforms in every respect with WP:SHIPNAME, on which various English Wikipedia templates are based. So too do the present names of other articles about Indonesian Navy ships, which, where disambiguation is required, are in the same form. Bahnfrend (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I think you mean parentheses, not ellipsis. We should stick with the MOS, which says hull numbers go in parens. We could leave off the hull number, since no disambiguation is required, but my preference would be to keep it. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @GA-RT-22: Thank you for correcting. I am no expert in English but I found myself sometimes using complex words to make me sound more photosynthesis.--Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
aahahaha—71.120.25.72 (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2021 (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.

Pioneer crew photos

There are photos of KRI Cakra and KRI Nanggala's pioneer crew in this Indonesian Navy publication, which would likely be in the public domain per Indonesia's copyright law. I would suggest someone extract the photos as the Indonesian Navy seemed to have purged several pages related to Nanggala since the accident (such as the original link which led to the ship badge). I would do it but I am presently busy at the moment. Seloloving (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

What about the video, shot on board weeks before the loss? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The song may be copyrighted. Even if muted, I can't say for sure it's published/created on behalf of the Indonesian government. From what I have heard, it was just a farewell video for their former squadron CO. It would be hard to justify it as under PD. Seloloving (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Possible candidate for the EL section? GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@Seloloving: OMG, thank you so much Selo for the book! I'll extract the image. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Accidents category

this article currently belongs to the Indonesia submarine accidents category. should this be the Indonesian submarine accidents category instead? the submarine accidents category includes a number of subcategories for individual countries, but they appear to be named with the adjectival form of the country, e.g., Japanese submarine accidents instead of Japan submarine accidents. dying (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

it looks like the category has already been renamed. thanks, Good Olfactory! dying (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Year in fourth paragraph

We don't need the year in the fourth paragraph, "Three days later, on 24 April 2021". Per WP:DATE, "Omit year only where there is no risk of ambiguity". I would argue we don't need the date here at all. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:KRI_Nanggala_(402)/Archive_1&oldid=1024430142"