Talk:HTMS Sukhothai

Inaccuracy regarding first loss since WW2
The Khaosod English claim, quoted by the Guardian, that "The last known loss of a Thai navy ship took place during the World War II in 1945, when the replenishment ship HTMS Samui was torpedoed by an American submarine off the Malaysian coast, killing 31 sailors" is incorrect. HTMS Prasae ran aground and was scuttled during the Korean War in 1951, and HTMS Sri Ayudhya was sunk in a coup attempt the same year. I've removed the reproduction of the inaccurate fact. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with that action. So, can we now find a RS for Sri Ayudhya being the previous Royal Thai Navy vessel to be lost? Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * BBC Thai reports that it's the fourth sinking of a Navy ship, after Thonburi, Samui, and Sri Ayudhya, citing the Facebook page of military analyst website Thaiarmedforce.com. It's still missing mention of the Prasae, though maybe they didn't count it as it was a beaching rather than sinking? --Paul_012 (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But then the Thonburi was also grounded to prevent capsizing and two other ships were sunk in that battle, so it's more likely the case that the list is incomplete. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the scarcity of sources, and the potential gaps that is mentioning in the BBC Thai article, I propose avoiding any mention altogether of previous Thai sinkings, until a time where there are more RS mentioning HTMS Ayudhya. I am hopeful as the story develops, more information becomes available. This does feel important to monitor in terms of WP:DUE Schwinnspeed (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

How many people were rescued? 84 or 75?
I'm a little confused with the last couple of paragraphs. It says 75 were rescued with around 31 missings, but then goes on to say 84 were rescued with 24 still missing. If there is any outdated information here, we should remove it. Zufux (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks like most verifiable sources are still saying 31 missing, with one even mentioning the Royal Navy have denied earlier reports. So I have removed the other information stating additional stats until there is confirmation that any additional crewmembers were either rescued or confirmed dead. Schwinnspeed (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Construction
This section includes the sentence "The crew complement was 87, of which 15 were officers, plus an expected contingent of flag officer's staff." This is unrelated to the heading. Perhaps a new section headed "Crew complement"? Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should add a whole section for just a little thing. We can try moving it somewhere else where it's most relevant. 216.107.236.98 (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Non-Combat Loss
I seem to remember from somewhere that if a ship is not lost in combat "Sank" or "Sunk" are not the correct words. "Foundered" is the correct word. I'm going to do some research on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D6E0:7A00:ACAE:38AC:203F:B68E (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Namesake
I found a source that says HTMS Sukhothai was named after "the first king of the Kingdom of Sukhothai". The problem with this is that the first king was named Si Inthrathit, not Sukhothai. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Going by the timestamp, that website probably copied the error from this Wikipedia article. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Accuracy of reporting the admiral's statements
The general statement about there not being enough life jackets was further revised. It included new information but dropped part of the original idea from the article, which was that the admiral noted that even if there were enough life jackets, it might not have made a difference. I understand why the admiral's name was included, and I think that was a much better sentence than before, but I do not understand why the second part of his statement was dropped. I have included it here for reference (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/death-toll-from-sinking-of-thai-navy-ship-rises-to-18/ar-AA15EsUk):

"The ship was carrying 30 more people than usual at the time of its sinking, and there were not enough life jackets for all of them, the commander-in-chief of the Royal Thai Navy Adm. Cherngchai Chomcherngpat said Tuesday..."With or without life jacket (it) doesn’t affect the odds of surviving,” the admiral said.

He said the ship sank after seawater entered and disabled its power systems."

Is there a reason why the second part of his statement was not allowed? Thanks. FinisKoronatOpus (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see that when I read the article. If it really is in there somewhere, feel free to put it back in the article, but make sure it's attributed to the admiral. GA-RT-22 (talk) 07:10, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for checking on this. I am going to add it back in. I do not know why it does not appear for you, although it might be because it is an MSN article referencing a CNN piece. I will add in the CNN article. Cheers FinisKoronatOpus (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Maybe a layout issue, there is a video clip that might be obscuring some text. But I do see it in the CNN source. I'm going to simplify the sentence a bit. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

December 30 update
This edit and the ref belongs in the Sinking section. See WP:LEAD. I'll fix it for you. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)