Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Harvester (H19)

HMS Harvester (H19)

 * ... that the British destroyer HMS Harvester sank one German submarine by ramming on 3 March 1943 whilst escorting Convoy HX 228, but was sunk by another submarine the following day?
 * Reviewed: Pillnitz Castle

Created/expanded by Sturmvogel 66 (talk). Nominated by Sturmvogel 66 (talk) at 05:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This was not added to the nominations page until October 28. While some leeway is always allowed with the five-day rule, articles that are three weeks old are certainly not eligible anymore. - PM800 (talk) 07:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd ask that you reconsider as the article was nominated at the proper time, but I forgot to transclude it for review. So it did meet the five-day rule.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is the case. I've removed the delete symbol PM800 put in place above. I think we have to make allowances for mistakes with the new system. Johnbod (talk) 03:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to pass this entry. The article is well written, the hook is exciting, and generally I just like it. But all of the references are offline, so there's no way for me to check the accuracy of the statements. Assumed on good faith, I say this is a go. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 16px Tick based on above review. Based on what I've seen at WT:DYK, consensus is that this should be allowed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I see no indication of consensus at the discussion. If anything, roughly equal numbers of users have spoken up for and against including this. It's not fair to just abandon the discussion at WT:DYK and just steamroll this here, especially if you people intend to use this as a precedent for future noms with this problem. If we're going to consider this seriously, it should be put to a vote (not just about this nomination, but about the wording of the rules themselves--e.g., whether the 5-day rule should apply to when the nomination was started or when it was actually made, and whether exceptions should be made for editors who are too lazy to look at the instructions). r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking over the thread in question, I see four Support's and zero Opposes. I believe that's consensus by any common-man measure. The only voice against giving it a bye is your own; PM800 withdrew his oppose and MANdARAX only left a see-also. Put your greater issue to a vote if you wish, but this page is about noming this article, so let's stick to that. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the discussion. Just because certain users didn't write  in bold (understandable, since it was discussion and not a vote) doesn't mean they commented against passing these. I also don't see any indication of PM800 withdrawing his oppose (someone else modified his comment). r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I did read it, and I believe your characterization of the thread is wrong. If there was no need for an "Oppose", as you say, then there was no need for a "Support" either, Yet the fact that several people posted such Support comments suggests your position is not the consensus on this matter either. Enough sophistry; if you don't believe consensus was reached, either call another vote on it or let it go. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to approve this entry as an exception, not trying to change the rules, not saying cases like that should always be handled that way, - to show the content of this article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I also believe that this should be Pictogram voting keep.svg included. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto. --PFHLai (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)