Talk:Russian deep submergence rescue vehicle AS-28

Merge or split?
How about retitleing this "AS-28 Submarine Rescue"? As28 is pretty obscure and wouldn't come up for anyone searching about the rescue.

Almost all the content in AS-28 is present in Priz class. The AS-28 article should probably be merged into Priz class to prevent duplication and the articles getting out of sync. There are less than 5 of these small (3-6 man) vessels so even if they all were involved in notable events they could be covered in the Priz class article. Richard Taylor 19:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. Dan100 (Talk) 19:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * This then leaves the main page linking to two identical articles, which seems kind of weird to me. C14 20:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -  BanyanTree 20:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, the accident should be at AS-28 ***NOT*** Priz class!69.156.19.242 03:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * For why this article was restored, see Talk:Priz class.--Pharos 08:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The accident should sit at AS-28, the accident involves AS-28, not every Priz class sub. It's also the most significant of the two (Priz vs AS-28), and the one that the various news services are using as a label for the sub, since it is about the AS-28 and NOT the Priz class. 69.156.19.242 03:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I would rather have one long stub than two just graduated sub-stubs. All the info on Priz class was being repeated at AS-28 to give it some context, while anyone typing in "Priz" and ending up at Priz class right now is looking for AS-28.  They should stay in one article. -   BanyanTree 03:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a developing event and it shouldn't be surprising that AS-28 was still a stub. There should anyway be one main, bolded, directly relevant article to point to on ITN.  So I support separating it back out again.--Pharos 06:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ditto what Pharos wrote. Split --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 07:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Disagree. We now have two even smaller stubs, both with information out of sync of one-another. Dan100 (Talk) 12:25, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, there was only one contributor at Talk:AS-28 not represented here who favors a split. Category:Submarine accidents exists for a reason, to represent notable vessels ships involved in notable accidents.  If the AS-28 is notable enough to be the subject of an ITN blurb, it is certainly notable enough for its own article--Pharos 12:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Re-split: There needn't be much mention of the accident in the Priz article at all, for those concerned about de-synching. -The Tom 15:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to merge. FlubbedNebula88 (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Air Force Picture to Add
An Air Force picture at might be a nice addition to this article. The section of the AF's site containing the pic is at. Nrbelex (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I did it myself once I had some free time. Nrbelex (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Why show the USAF loading operation instead of the RAF?. I know that when Hollywood makes the movie it will be a truly gripping all-American rescue with nobody else around (except as idiots) but lets just indulge the Brits for a while :-). CharlieB 8 August 2005


 * US Government photos and graphics are released into the public domain according to US law while British government photos are not. This results in many US government photos on Wikipedia as we don't have to worry about copyright infringement issues.  Time for the Brits to lobby their government to change their laws... -   BanyanTree 17:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What was said above + that's just what I found; I didn't seek out an American photo over a British photo. If Wikipedia had permission to use a British picture and I found it as easily as I did the posted one, I would have been more than happy to use the other. Nrbelex (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Fishing nets or Anchor Cable
The British team on the site says it's cutting through nets - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4127586.stm The article also refers to reports with entangled with anchor / anchor cable - is that still considered a possibility?

No one really knows what that was. FlubbedNebula88 (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

What's a ROV?
I'm not sure what the wikipedia style manual says, but shouldn't the full name "remotely Operated Vehicle" be used at least once before adopting the acronym. Aids readability, without forcing readers to follow links just to get the meaning of the story.--stib 11:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC) Done. (you could have fixed it too!) Richard Taylor 15:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Interpreted wrongly
"This time too, it took more than 24 hours before the navy admitted to an accident and longer still to ask for help, our correspondent says."

Look at the sentence that follows, this actually refers to the incident five years ago. Edited the section in the article to reflect this. Read the news carefully!

Communication with Sub
Were the surface ships in communication with the sub during the rescue? How was the accident relayed to the Russian Navy in the first place? I could not find anything on TV news or internet which discussed communication with the sub. Thanks. Jimaginator 14:19, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * According to this local ABC article "It wasn't clear if contact was made by radio or by some other means, but officials said it was taking place every few hours." I don't think the Russians are being very clear about it. C14 19:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * IIRC The Russians have some sort of Under-Water Telephone that they use for Sub-to-Ship and Sub-to-Sub comms.--Theredstarswl 21:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like there is much on the subject which could be added to the article unfortunately. Thanks Jimaginator 11:53, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Russian deep submergence rescue vehicle AS-28. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050706102522/http://sorbetroyal2005.celex.net:80/ to http://www.sorbetroyal2005.celex.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Russian deep submergence rescue vehicle AS-28. 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/20101130062533/http://russian-ships.info/eng/submarines/project_1855.htm to http://russian-ships.info/eng/submarines/project_1855.htm
 * Added tag to http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-08-06T153752Z_01_L06478971_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-RUSSIA-SUBMARINE-COL.XML
 * Added tag to http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/08/06/liftsub.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080205064859/http://onnachrichten.t-online.de/c/51/17/32/5117326.html to http://onnachrichten.t-online.de/c/51/17/32/5117326.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) 15:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Rename/Move
The article is not about the submarine at all, just about the accident; the title should reflect the content of the article. It is called AS-28 emergency in List of submarine incidents since 2000, so I suggest to use this title. WikiHannibal (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Split: to Rescue of the AS-28
 The following discussion 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.

I propose that this article be split, as it is a wp:COATRACK mostly being about the accident and the rescue of the sub. Similar to the Titan (submersible) and Titan submersible implosion situation, where the accident article is separate from the sub article. This article is mostly about the sub accident and not the sub itself outside of that accident. So that content needs to be moved as it seems like the topic of this article from its content is the accident instead of the sub. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hardly seems worthwhile for so small an article. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and this is not what a COATRACK is. The accident happened to this submersible, so it's reasonable to talk about it here. That no one has bothered to write up anything else about the vessel yet isn't a reason to split this fairly short article up. Parsecboy (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No advantage in splitting this article (and leaving behind just two lines of prose). No objection to Rescue of the AS-28 or similar as a redirect to here. (Incidentally Titan (submersible) was not a split from Titan submersible implosion, but from OceanGate, to restore balance in that article.) Guessing from the inordinate length of External Links, there should be ready material to improve this article. Davidships (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. If the rescue operation is split into a separate article, there is very little left for the original article. Tupsumato (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There is not enough content to justify a split. The current title accommodates the vessel and the rescue so is not a coatrack and should not be changed, so no split, no move. Reconsider if the article is ever big enough. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 11:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not enough to warrant a split. Llammakey (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2023 (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.