Talk:Argentine naval forces in the Falklands War

Bad Spelling,, Grammar
This article contains so many spelling and Grammatical errors, that i'm not even going to bother trying to fix it! It seems like someone with less than fluent english wrote it! It should be fixed! Captain Octopus (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Spanish names
As we are talking about the Argentine order of battle here I think their respectives commands names should be mentioned too, which were TOM (Teatro Operaciones Malvinas) and TOAS (Teatro Operaciones del Atlantico Sur)  --Jor70 (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Is Task Group Spanish? I merely made the article consistent as it used a mixture of the English and Spanish names.  I nevertheless appreciate your good faith assumption in taking it to talk.  I've no objection to working in Spanish names with the Lang-ES templates somehow, though we might need to think how we do it.  My initial thought would be to put it in the text rather than the headings.  Would you agree? Justin talk 14:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I assumed your good faith too, that why I took it here. the Lang-ES on the text would be fine --Jor70 (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you put it in the ground force article as well, I thought I'd added the Lang-ES article to all the Falklands War articles, has someone been removing them and I missed it? Justin talk 16:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Somellera
Justin, it was a not wartime error I see books from late 80s with that, and in any case, we can changed it to used to claim or whatever due as you can check in my source it is published TODAY. so is notable enough to merit a clarification --Jor70 (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we need to report erroneous information? The British corrected wartime claims after the war. The fact that sources are known to be incorrect simply makes them unreliable.  OK?  Justin talk 13:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think is important, as I said you can still find it today, what is the problem to mentioning as an error ?, in fact might be a difference with my fellow contrymen :-) --Jor70 (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But it isn't an official British claim is it? I think you'll find in the aftermath of the war British forces re-evaluated wartime claims and published corrections.  You're simply commenting on bad journalism, not official British claims as your edit "by many British sources" implies.  Also mainstream British sources don't continue to make that claim.  About the best edit you can manage is that many British sources published immediately after the war incorrectly repeated wartime claims the ship was sunk, this is no longer the case and has not been the case since the early '80s.  Justin talk 14:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ok then many books published immediately after the war incorrectly repeated wartime claims the ship was sunk by Sea Skua missiles, this was re-evaluated after the war and denied  --Jor70 (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the point that the edit as proposed is commenting on the mistakes some books made, not on the subject. It would be better to report that British forces incorrectly thought they'd sunk the ship at the time.  See my edit in a second.  Justin talk 15:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * nice. what about adding the references I found ? --Jor70 (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'm on my way out but you can add them if you like. Justin talk 16:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Argentine naval forces in the Falklands War. 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/20120403023339/http://conflictodemalvinas.blogspot.com.ar/2012/03/pesqueros-argentinos-durante-la-guerra.html to http://conflictodemalvinas.blogspot.com.ar/2012/03/pesqueros-argentinos-durante-la-guerra.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)