Talk:HMS Invincible (R05)

Attack on HMS Invincible
I have proposed the deletion of the article Attack_on_HMS_Invincible. Editors of this article might like to participate in the discussion at Talk:Attack on HMS Invincible, should ant discussion take place. 2A00:23C6:3B82:8500:FC7D:DCFB:2C41:6525 (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Discussions don't take place with Prods, but AfDs. BilCat (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Where is the discussion? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Attack on HMS Invincible WCM email 10:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, WCM. I've responded at the AfD. Btw, I removed the prod since the tagger expressed an interest in having discussions, which a prod isn't designed for. I do think there is a need for greater detail on the fringe theory in a dedicated article, as it's a perennial issue in this article. BilCat (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Merge discussion
AfD for Attack on HMS Invincible has been closed as "redirect but merge". The other article has been tagged, with any discussion regarding the merge to take place here. - wolf  15:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What material is there to merge? WCM email 12:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some of the editors that tried to build that page up (eg: 7&6=thirteen, etc.) may have some input on what content to merge. - wolf  13:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The text and sources on the failed attack, its being thwarted and the Junta's misinformation campaign. Some of the Argentine pilots apparenty believe they succeeded – we know they are wrong.  IMO, this is better than what was in the HMS Invincible.  And ignoring the claims will not make them go away.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Junta's misinformation campaign isn't currently sourced in the article to be merged, it needs one before you could merge it. The pictures of Invincible in flames were published on May 1, so it's not relevant to May 30.  The problem being most of the conspiracy theories are on blogs, self-published books and personal websites, which are sources we cannot use. The text and sources on the failed attack were lifted from here in the first place, so there is nothing to add. And if we're going back to personal attacks, this really is unhelpful.  The issue is entirely one of reliable sources and ignoring that will not be helpful. WCM email 14:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * With my editor hat on and not speaking as a discussion closer, so I have no special authority in this: the most likely searches for this come from the blogs etc. that WCM mentions. Wikipedia isn't Snopes but we can have a role in combating misinformation. I would think that at minimum, there should be a subheading or sub-subheading for the attack which could be an anchor for the redirect. The map from the selectively-merged article would help to break up the large block of text.—S Marshall T/C 10:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Temporary display in London 1990
In 1990, when I was 8 years old, my primary school class had school trip in which we went aboard The HMS Invincible, it was temporarily in the Thames in London for a short time. Maybe at Greenwich, but I can't remember. I do remember being told it was difficult to get it up the Thames to where it was displayed.

I have looked online, and I can only find a little on it. I have found these pages online about the ship visiting London in 1990. It's not the most significant thing the ship has been involved with, but it may be worth a small mention in the article.
 * 
 * 
 * 

There may be more that I couldn't find  Carlwev  17:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)