Jump to content

Talk:Brazilian aircraft carrier São Paulo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

[edit]

I removed the "in excellent condition" in the introductory paragraph, since one of its cauldrons recently blew up, killing at least 4 people and injuring a few more. The explosion was due to lack of routine maintenance. Also, the ship is nowadays (december 06) docked undergoing major reparations in infrastructure, which hardly qualify the ship's condition as "excelent"LtDoc 16:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The armament is not up-to-date I think. If you take a look at the pictures you won't see any 100 mm-turrets. According to this website: http://www.naval.com.br/biblio/biblio3/foch.htm the armament has been reduced to two SACP Crotale EDIR systems, five 12.7 mm machine guns and two dual Sadral/Simbad launchers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nturrini (talk • contribs) 20:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This ship doesn't navigates for about two years.Agre22 (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

article new name

[edit]

Where is the discussion relative to the new article name ? are you going to rename USS Enterprise (CVN-65), HMS Invincible (R05), HMAS Melbourne (R21), etc. etc. etc. too ? --Jor70 (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I noticed a reference to the Basel treaty. Which is perfectly acceptable, but it doesn't apply to this article much at all. Actually it introduces a bit of bias on the part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.149.216.66 (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a reference to the Basel treaty. Which is perfectly acceptable, but it doesn't apply to this article much at all. Actually it introduces a bit of bias on the part of the article.

--[(User:BobDole|BobDole)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.149.216.66 (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was here. Further to that discussion I feel it appropriate to point out that unlike prefixes such as "USS", "HMS" and "HMAS" which apply to all naval ships of their respective navies and which indicate to which navy (and country) the ships in question belong, the Brazillian prefixes refer to ship types and are not national identifiers. Consequently, it is appropriate that the article include the country in the title. - Nick Thorne talk 21:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt notice that. Its common to use MB when referring marinha (not only in their home page [1] but also in newspapers, official reports, etc. as well FAB for forca aerea and EB for exercito) but yes they are not part of the official name of the ships. Personaly I still think "Sao Paulo (A12)" would be enough and more common to all the other ship articles. But as you already reach a consensus I suppose we will need to live with this articles names --Jor70 (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Charles de Gaulle (R 91), Juan Carlos I (L61), and Principe de Asturias (R11) all appear to be mistitled also. CdG and PdA were both moved from the correct titles in Sept 06 and Jan 07, respectively, so I've reverted the moves. However, I don't know what to call the Juan Carlos I! Spanish aircraft carrier Juan Carlos I and Spanish amphibious assault ship Juan Carlos I are not quite accurate, as the ship is both per the Spanish Navy. Either would be fine with me, or we could use Spanish multipurpose carrier Juan Carlos I. Thoughts? Also, I'm sure there are other misnamed ship articles out there. - BillCJ (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to maintain this (IMHO somewhat unfair if compared with the others ships who were lucky enough to have a prefix) JCI would be called "Spaniard Strategic Proyection Ship Juan Carlos I" (!!!) because officially is not a carrier nor an assault ship. Officially the ship name is "Juan Carlos I (L61)" why should force disambig if there is not other ship with that name ? --Jor70 (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is disambiguation, but it does follow the naming conventions set forth for ships not having national identifiers. Feel free to take this up as WPSHIPS. Who knows, you might gain a consensus to make a change. I'll probably support you, as the conventions do get quite complicated - per COMMONNAMES, the name and pennant number should be sufficient. - BillCJ (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are replacing the prefix with not only the navy name but also the ship type, why dont add the shipyard or current captain too then ? What is the need to add the ship type ? There is common sense to not put that in articles ( e.g. Thulium is not called "chemical element Thulium" ) and in any case, under this logic, USS Dickens (APA-161) should be renamed "attack transport USS Dickens (APA-161)". --Jor70 (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The naming conventions have been in place for a long time, long before I became active in WPSHIPS. I don't know why they are the way they are, so I can't explain it. But it is the consensus, and so I follow it until it changes. I suspect you'll get better answers at WT:SHIPS, and probably from some of those who helped to for the naming conventions as they are now. Like most things on WP, I'm sure a lot of compromises involved. - BillCJ (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jor70. It doesn't make any sense for the ship type to be included in the article name. It would be the same as adding the aircraft type to an aircraft article (e.g. "Multirole jet fighter aircraft F-16 Fighting Falcon", "Transport aircraft C-5 Galaxy", etc). Jor70 and I aren't the only ones who don't agree with the Ship naming conventions... I think we should reopen the discussion. Limongi (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the most recent discussion on discontinuing the "predisambiguated" titles on the NC talk page, I don't think any new sugesstions to change this is going to go very far. However, that's the purpose of such discussions, to see if the consensus has changed any since the last discussion. Perhaps it has. I definitely support the COmmon name approach over the misapplication of the "associated country must be in the title" approach. - BillCJ (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Training is Main Function?

[edit]

This article states: "Brazil's A-4s are capable of carrying armament including rockets, free-fall bombs and Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, though the São Paulo currently serves mainly to train pilots to fly carrier operations." This is a head scratcher as the next paragraph goes on to quote Brazil's president about how important the ship is to his country's defense, something odd for a ship whose main purpose is to "train pilots to fly carrier operations." Is it a warship or a training vessel? In peacetime (and even wartime when not actively engaged in combat operations), all carriers are used to maintain the flying skills of their pilots, so how is this ship's role different from them? If this ship's main role is truly training carrier pilots, where do they go from here as this is the country's only active carrier? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.140 (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is very relative. As Brazil is not currently involved in any war nor forcing a military presence anywhere it can be assume that the carrier is only use for training but this could change as needed. --Jor70 (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's mainly due to Brazil having no carrier-based fixed-wing aircraft until 2000. May have changed by now, but initially it was in fact used only for training/building up the capability to operate fixed-wing aircraft.
Also, it is still used for training the Argentine Navy air wing, as they have no carrier of their own anymore.
So yes, when this was written it was mostly a dedicated training vessel. But as the Skyhawks seem to be fully operational now and taking part in naval exercises, this too should be updated. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting Whitespace

[edit]

Bushranger, I haven't seen a notice about edit warring on Anir1uph page. Why do you treat us differently?

Bushranger, I see that you pointed out the MOS to me - have you read it yourself? --91.10.23.83 (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because he had not hit three reverts yet, and appeared clearly aware of the consequences for edit warring. You had hit three reverts, and I could not be sure. Hence the comment. Also, regardless of the policy discussion, under WP:BRD you boldy remove it, it's reverted, then you discuss and establish consensus (even policy can be overridden) before reverting back. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So edit-warring starts at three reverts? I don't believe you, could you provide a source (policy etc.) for that?
If you want to plead IAR you better start providing a reason for it. --91.10.23.83 (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @91.10.23.83: FYI, I use WP:AWB to perform certain task on Wikipedia and that line, which you have removed without providing any rationale or explanation, was necessary to prevent automated drones from altering the space before the navbox at the bottom of the article page. And about WP:COMMENT, have you noted that there is a specific instruction stating that "Invisible comments are useful for flagging an issue or leaving instructions about part of the text, where this is more convenient than raising the matter on the talk page." Please ask and clarify if you don't understand, thank you. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 00:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So let's recap: Out of the four pieces of documentation I provided, y'all ignore three, and find one piece of text in the fourth that can be misinterpreted to support your case, while still ignoring the part that is pertinent. Did I miss anything?
Let's address the line you quoted from WP:COMMENT: This only explains why one uses invisible comments at all. In our case, "an issue" or "the matter" is the comment itself, not something pointed out in the text. You also ignore the next-but-one sentence of a very short paragraph, which explicitly forbids the very fact you are trying to defend. AGF has its limits, after your extensive quotes from this section I have to consider this a deliberate dishonesty on your part. Please explain.
An even bolder lie is your statement that I have removed the comment "without providing any rationale or explanation", stated in a paragraph where the very first four lines are policies which explicitly forbid what I removed.
One last thing about your edit comment: "FYI, I added this into the article page originally, please explain if you want to delete this" - please read WP:OWN. --91.10.23.83 (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who are the three people towards whom I've shown animosity? Is pointing out a lie a show of animosity for you? Do you have anything to say that is on-topic? --91.10.23.83 (talk) 08:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As Dave explains, that gap was necessary to prevent automated drones from altering the space before the navbox at the bottom of the article page. I did not know that when i reverted your edits, but i trusted previous editors of the page would not have left that hidden comment in place without some reason. One must not blindly quote/follow policies, and first try to find out why a particular edit was made by using the talk page. Unless its vandalism, there is simply no harm in waiting and seeking opinion of others. Regards Anir1uph (talk) 09:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the latter part, you shouldn't have reverted me before knowing the reasons for my edit. Please assume good faith next time.
Dave explained nothing, he simply re-read the comment to me. I was obviously already aware of its contents. --91.10.23.83 (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, anything on the actual issue? Anyone? --91.10.23.83 (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to say that the community has already answered your questions by its actions. But i wont say that. Regards, Anir1uph (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again I agree with you, the community expressed its preferences clearly, by writing down policies and other guidelines.
So we are almost in agreement. Let's give Bushranger a little more time to come up with an explanation for IAR.
(Just making sure that we understand each other: Nobody even attempted to give a reason to keep the comments so far except for the unexplained IAR.) --91.10.23.83 (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, none of the documentation you have pointed to are policy, the MOS is a guideline, the others are just essays. None of the documentation you provide prohibits the use of white space and in fact at most only talks about the undesirableness of unneccessary whitespace/hidden comments. In this case, as has been explained to you, the hidden text is there for a very good reason. If you don't like that then you are free to try and change the consensus about including it, otherwise I suggest you forget about it and get on with improving the encyclopedia. - Nick Thorne talk 10:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument is that the MOS is not policy and hence (I have to assume) could be ignored out of whim? If not, what is your argument?
You are wrong in stating that the documentation I provided does not prohibit the use of white space. Read again, and let me know if you still can't find the section.
Nothing has been explained; the very reason Dave states is against policy. This is akin to saying "I want to disrupt Wikipedia, so my vandalism is ok." --91.10.23.83 (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that still nothing was said about the validity of the comment in the first place. ie. whether or not there should be a white space at all. --91.10.23.83 (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are just repeating yourself and failing to convince anyone, it's time for you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. - Nick Thorne talk 22:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you think I have to convince you to follow policy? --91.10.61.22 (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can go against policy per WP:IAR. The consensus here is that your arguments re: policy are unconvincing and, in this case, the item you argue contravenes policy is, indeed, appropriate. Also, note that, as mentioned, WP:MOS is not policy, but a guideline. Please drop the stick. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So please explain what is the reason for this consensus to IAR. So far, the only arguments against the policies I mentioned turned out to be false, ie. not true, ie. untrue facts. Is this some secret knowledge only open to the initiated? Surely before you IAR you think the case through, what are your arguments?
Again, is your argument that this is only the MOS and not policy? If not, I suggest you drop the bickering about terms.
(Incidentally, I wonder who is flogging the horse here.) --91.10.61.22 (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've had enough of this. I have once more carefully gone through all four guidelines and essays that 91 provided links to at the beginning of this section. I cannot find any direction/instruction/suggestion in any of these that states what 91 seems to be saying it does and in particular that contradicts the use of a hidden comment as used in this article. 91, please provide direct quotes of exactly what wording in each of these documents that says that a hidden comment should not be used in the way and for the purpose that is is in this article. I will take a failure to provide these as a tacit admission that you have nothing and that from here on we can safely ignore your comments on this matter as being irrelevant and unsupported. In other words, put up or shut up. - Nick Thorne talk 12:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, your post is positively drenched in AGF, you should milk it and sell it! I guess all your numerous other, friendlier request have fallen on deaf ears, so you had to use a sterner tone here.
  • WP:WHITE: "Comments in the wikicode added by <!-- Comment --> can contribute to whitespace. Format the comment to avoid this, [...]"
  • WP:MOS#Formatting issues: "Modifications in font size, blank space, and color [...] are an issue for the Wikipedia site-wide style sheet, and should be reserved for special cases only."
  • Help:Hidden text: "Inappropriate uses for hidden text [...] Creating whitespace."
  • WP:COMMENT: "Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode."
Up put. --79.223.3.1 (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise that the purpose of the hidden comment is to prevent AWB from changing the whitespace, don't you? No, apparently not. Taking your points in order: the hidden comment is there to prevent changes in whitespace; this is a special case; this is to prevent inapproapriate creation of whitespace by AWB; the hiden comment does not change the appearance of the page, AWB will, this hidden comment stops that. Looks like what you put up falls over. Oh, and making comments about AGF is a bit rich given the title you chose for this section and your comments about other editors at the beginning of it. People that live in glass houses and all that. - Nick Thorne talk 22:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Your statement is nothing but a repetition of the comment in question. Please don't bother doing that, I'm already aware of its contents and I already addresses that: The reason given is against policy.
  2. You still have said nothing on your reason to IAR ("this is a special case") in this case. There was plenty of opportunity, I'm starting to doubt your sincerity here.
  3. This is the first time that somebody implies that AWB would add white space without the comment. I don't use AWB and might not understand how it works, so please give me an example, here or in some sandbox or in a badly formatted article in the field, on how that particular section of the article would look like without the "protecting" comment after AWB would work on it. (I expect it to look like this, ie. simply without any white space.)
  4. Again, it does.
Your comment about my AGF is a big Tu quoque and does nothing to defend yourself. However, the title was chosen as a result of hypocrisy shown from one of the editors in the initial exchange (schooling me on the very document he violated), and I regret it. I've gladly changed it. --91.10.36.86 (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will address each of your comments in turn:
  1. You have not once addressed the contents of the hidden comment. You also have not shown that using the hidden comment is against a single policy. You have not raised any policies in relation to this issue. This has already been explained to you, continuing to claim that the use of the hidden comment is a breach of policy when it simply is not is bordering on a breach of Wikiquette and demonstrates a lack of AGF and could conceivably be considered a personal attack.
  2. I have not once used IAR for any of my comments. There is ample reason to use the hidden comment, which reason has been explained to you - indeed the comment itself explains the reason - and it does not breach policy or even the guidelines or essays you have quoted, so IAR is not even in question.
  3. Did you even read the comment? The reason for it was in the comment itself - it says right there that the comment is to preven AWB from altering the whitespace. No one probably felt the need to explain it to you at first because it was blindingly obvious. However, despite this the reason for the comment has been explained to you several times in this discussion. IDHT is not a satisfactory response from someone allegedly involved in a collegiate process to build an encyclopedia.
  4. It does what? You have demonstrated that you don't understand AWB and you don't accept the consensus here. Why should everyone else bend to your will?
Actually, it was you that raised AGF as an issue. I was not defending myself, rather I simply pointed out to you that it is not wise to bandy AGF accusations around unless one is blameless - let he that is without sin cast the first stone. That you raise tu quoque simply shows yet another essay that you don't properly understand. - Nick Thorne talk 11:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I would say that I implicitly addressed it by deleting it, and by providing documentation about its validity, but let's not linger there. I mention the comment here. Before I reply to the rest of your remark: Are you referring to the quibble that this is only the MOS and assorted other documentation, and not policy? If yes, then please restate this clearly.
  2. You have called this "a special case", so far without any explanation or even attempts of an explanation as to why that would be the case. Honestly, I don't see anything, please give diffs if I missed anything. If there is any functional difference between IAR and "this is a special case", I'm not aware of it, please elaborate. (I wonder why this is both completely congruent with policy and "a special case" .)
  3. I made a very simple request: Please point out what the comment is meant to prevent. Use a sandbox, this talk page if possible, screenshots or anything else. Please point out what's wrong with ARA General Belgrano (which lacks the comment), or tell me why the case is different. You can help bringing this forward now, just show what happens when the comment is removed. I don't know what "IDHT" meant, but the implied accusation of disruptive editing is "bordering on a breach of Wikiquette and demonstrates a lack of AGF and could conceivably be considered a personal attack." My last edit was days ago, I'm trying to clear up this matter on the talk page.
  4. I have not "demonstrated" that I don't know AWB, I have freely admitted it. I also provided an explanation about my working hypothesis, including an example of a comment-less page on which my considerations are based. I think that it would now be your best move to assume good faith and use the opportunity to educate me.
  5. Of course I raised AGF, what's your point? I assumed (prematurely, as it turned out) that you would like to defend yourself against the accusation of AGF by pointing our my hypocrisy; in turn, I used an article on WP to show that this was a logical fallacy and thus not a valid defense. Sorry for that, although I'm glad that you don't want to defend yourself and have to assume that you accept the charge. --91.10.36.86 (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the rest of your post above because you raise nothing new, the reason why I did not defend myself against the AGF allegation is that I have no case to answer, simple as that. You may draw whatever conclusion you wish from that, I will abide by the community's judgement, which I suspect may not be the same as yours. - Nick Thorne talk 01:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP's Recap

[edit]

I see a whitespace between the list of external links and the Clemenceau box.

A comparison with similar articles, eg. ARA General Belgrano shows that the whitespace is created by an invisible comment. An inspection of the article after removal of the comment confirms that.

The comment says "non-breaking space to keep AWB drones from altering the space before the navbox". The meaning is not immediately clear: A "space" to keep sth from "altering a space"? Which is which?

I can think of three meanings of "altering the space before the navbox":

  • The "AWB drones" add to the whitespace: That contradicts what can be seen in comment-less articles.
  • The "AWB drones" substract form the whitespace: This is consistent with the appearance of the article, ie. a visible whitespace caused by the comment which is not present in comment-less articles.
  • The "AWB drones" change the nature of the whitespace: If there is more than one kind of whitespace, I'm not aware of it. Please elaborate.

So let's go with "This comment is meant to keep AWB drones from substracting from the whitespace before the navbox." (Disagree?) My interpretation (consistent with other editors' statements) is that the commenter would like to have the result of two consecutive blank lines, but AWB would automatically remove these, hence the comment.

Bringing in the policies (see above for sources):

  • "Comments in the wikicode added by <!-- Comment --> can contribute to whitespace. Format the comment to avoid this, [...]"
  • "Modifications in font size, blank space, and color [...] are an issue for the Wikipedia site-wide style sheet, and should be reserved for special cases only."
  • "Inappropriate uses for hidden text [...] Creating whitespace."
  • "Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode."

Three of these explicitly forbid not only the comment, but the very reason given for the comment, ie. adding comments to create ("AWB drone"-proof) whitespace. The fourth describes how whitespace should be changed in an article, if the wish comes up. (The source also provides rationales for this.)

Comments? --91.10.36.86 (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUS is against the removal of the comment. You continue to argue against it despite this. Please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. - The Bushranger posting as Aerobird from a public computer Talk 21:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is meaningless if you can't even express a reason for it.
I'll take a break. Please think about this. --79.223.1.234 (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Aircraft Carrier Is a Piece of Crap

[edit]

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/f3f52d299588

Too biased to use? Hcobb (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sensationalism. Typical of that blog site. Not a reliable source. - BilCat (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Brazilian aircraft carrier São Paulo (A12). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Brazilian aircraft carrier São Paulo (A12). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brazilian aircraft carrier São Paulo (A12). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brazilian aircraft carrier São Paulo (A12). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

picture of sinking?

[edit]

https://www.karar.com/guncel-haberler/turkiyeye-alinmayan-zehirli-gemi-batirildi-tonlarca-asbest-simdi-1725934 https://cdn.karar.com/other/2023/02/04/whatsapp-image-2023-02-04-at-15-45-19.jpeg 2003:E7:B70E:9030:B879:9829:3162:D09B (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brazilian_aircraft_carrier_São_Paulo&oldid=1246312948"