All crewmen on board the submarine perished. The explosion and sinking of the submarine took place in the Barents Sea, north of the Russian peninsula of Kola and around km from the Norwegian-Russian border. Photo Credit To Wikipedia Commons. Mit Spotify verbinden. Es steht eine neue Version von Last.
Bitte lade die Seite neu. Alle Titel anzeigen. Alle Alben anzeigen. Scrobbeln bedeutet, dass Last. Mehr erfahren.
Direkt zur Shout-Seite gehen. Alle angesagten Titel anzeigen. Player wird geladen Von Spotify scrobbeln? Mit Spotify verbinden Verwerfen. Suche Suche. Bei Last. Kaufen Wird geladen. Album wiedergeben Kaufen Wird geladen. Angesagte Titel 1. Titel wiedergeben. Samstag, 3. Over time, this carbon dioxide would build up to a level that would kill any crew members who survived the initial accident.
The oxygen limit is about 0. Respiration produces roughly 1 molecule of carbon dioxide for each molecule of oxygen consumed. This suggests that, starting with 0. While some Russian Navy officials maintained that some crew members remained alive and were sending an SOS message by banging against the submarine's hull, other officials said there had been no communication and that the crew might already be dead.
Admiral Motsak said a Norwegian-led team of divers was videotaping the interior of the rear compartment after successfully breaking in through damaged escape hatches. On 01 September an agreement was reached on the technical and organizational aspects of the international effort to lift to the surface the bodies of the crewmen of the Kursk.
The Norwegian Stolt Offshore company received blueprints representatives of the naval design center which designed the sunken submarine that showed where deep water frogmen may enter the boat.
A team of international and Russian divers planned to cut holes in the Kursk's hull to pull out the remains of the seamen who died. The operation was scheduled to begin in October There was no chance of quickly salvaging the Kursk submarine, since September is the month when storms start raging in the Barents Sea, which would make such impossible. At best the salvaging operation could be carried in Neither the Russian submarine base at Vidyaevo, nor any western base have hoists capable of salvaging such a large vessel the Kursk submarine, or even moving it to a shallow place closer to the coast.
It would take several months only to build such a device. Another priority on the agenda is the salvaging of the submarine and taking it to shallow waters. The Norwegian Stalled Offshore Company has given its consent to participate in the salvage effort.
This will follow the protocol of NationalityNameMethod of disambiguation. The alternative titles can be set as redirects for those searching with other combinations. Your proposal to change the guidelines received no support. You have gone back to the practice of citing a long list of guideline pages and claim that WP:Naming conventions ships is 'contrary to following the protocol of This is your opinion.
On none of these pages does it indicate that the style used here is to be avoided. When I pointed out to you that this was merely your interpretation, you treated me like an idiot, saying 'what part of it had I not understood'. Your attempt to secure this viewpoint in a general discussion did not achieve consensus, one of the final comments being 'Serge does not see the advantage of predictable names, but he is almost alone in this inability'.
You have been treated with considerable patience Album) this. I have tried to resist engaging you in this crusade because you clearly hold such strong views over the issue of disambiguation, but when you continue to recycle your opinions as facts that our poor little niche has been unable to comprehend, and continue to press your point of view of bemoaning our blatant inability A Time To Die - Rukkanor - Requiem For K-141 KYPCK (CDr understand why we are all in the wrong, it becomes disruption to push your point of viewno matter how unintentional.
Your last lines below - "Mindless naming is not necessarily a bad thing though I believe it is for a variety of reasonsbut that's clearly what this is, isn't it? If anyone disagrees, I would like to understand why. When that changes, this issue can be revisited. Otherwise, it's time to draw this to a close.
Benea talk27 November UTC [ ] Benea, at the ships naming conventions talk page you asserted that my proposal was "a solution in search of a problem". I replied by explaining in detail what the problem s were that my proposal would be solving, and also addressed every point you made.
You never responded to that, and here you keep posting about my proposal and arguments, but not actually addressing the content of anything I'm saying. This is not a discussion. And yes, of course this is about personal opinion. Both sides necessarily are in such discussions about naming. But the discussions are supposed to be about the reasons that support each opinion, not whining about the other side being an opinion.
Of course it is. You don't see the need to explain how these guidelines identify our conventions as being wrong, and a search through those guidelines reveals that many of these things are open to interpretation. You have interpreted it, and expressed those opinions on the general guideline page, the specific ship naming conventions page and now here.
Other people, myself included, don't agree with your antipathy towards predictable disambiguation, nor do I see why because you think we are not addressing your concept of the big picture, we should be badgered and insulted for it, or that you should at each stage make such opinionated comments such as 'blatantly wrong' and about us having our blinders on over what is your opinion, that does not have consensus.
You have expressed your opinion, have the good grace to accept that other people have disagreed, without feeling the need to challenge it at every step.
Benea talk27 November UTC [ ] Benea, I would be happy to agree to disagree, as long as I understand the nature of the disagreement. I do admit that I've been assuming the contradiction is obvious -- it's certainly been recognized in other contexts by many others, Belhalla even came close to acknowledging it here when he wrote, "the very nature of a wiki can allow for what may appear to be contradictory interpretations of policies" -- and that there is no need to spell it out. I don't understand whether you're saying that preemptive disambiguation doesn't contradict the general guidelines I've been citing, or that you recognize the contradiction, but are okay with it believing that the advantages of predabbing, at least in this niche, outweigh the disadvantages of contradicting the general guidelines and any problems caused by doing so.
I believe it's the former, but I'm not sure. Please clarify. Regardless which is your position, I'm in the dark with respect to the reasons for holding that position. What are they? This is like choosing between getting a paper cut on the left or right side of the tongue. Both current and proposed names are horrible. I suppose Wikipedia:Naming conventions ships is to blame.
Wikipedia article titles are supposed to convey the most common name of the topic of the article, with additional information A Time To Die - Rukkanor - Requiem For K-141 KYPCK (CDr precision only when necessary to disambiguate from other uses of that name per WP:PRECISIONand even then only when the given topic is not primary usage for the name in question.
Having these article titles prefixed with " Countryname submarine" means the titles are not conveying the name of the article topic. This practice is inconsistent with fundamental Wikipedia naming conventions and guidelines. I would support something which is consistent with Wikipedia general naming guidelines and conventions, like the following.
In "Kursk K", the naval code K means little to many readers. Note that this title already redirects to this article. This form clearly identifies the most common name of the topic, Kurskand clearly disambiguates from all other uses. If there were other non-Russian submarines named Kurskthen Kursk Russian submarine would be appropriate. K should not be in the title unless it is part of the name, or, perhaps, to disambiguate it from other Russian submarines named Kursk. Whether such information is necessary needs to be decided on a per-article basis, forcing a comparative evaluation of all uses of the particular name in question in this case Kurskrather than blindly following some mindless naming format.
This is not in keeping with long-established consensus nor with Wikipedia:Naming conventions ships in regard to names of naval vessels in navies that do not use prefixes. But keep your blinders on and only look at this from the perspective of this little niche of Wikipedia, and how to make it easer to predictably determine the names of all the articles in this niche, as if that solves a problem that needs to be solved.
Unfortunately, the very nature of a wiki can allow for what may appear to be contradictory interpretations of policies, guidelines, etc. In any case, you presented your case for changes to the ships naming convention thereand were rebuffed. I stated my opinion on the alternative proposal and how it is contrary to the consensus naming convention.
Keep the personal attacks to yourself, please. This was discussed at the naming convention page, and your suggestions achieved no consensus whatsoever, similar to how your other wider proposal about disambiguation also received no support.
You have interpreted the guidelines one way, Album) it has been demonstrated that your view is a minority one. Please stop attempting to claim that your opinions are right and that everyone else is wrong because they disagree. Statements such as 'But keep your blinders on' and 'blindly following some mindless naming format' are unnecessarily insulting, and this is now coming across as disruption to push your point of view.
Benea talk25 November UTC [ ] No insults or disruptions were intended, and I apologize for conveying that. But I will continue to hold that predisambiguatory naming conventions are "mindless naming formats" that allow for being "blindly followed", by definition. That is, their very purpose is to define how articles are Album) be named within a particular niche if you will so that the article names in that niche are predetermined, don't have to be thought about, other potentially conflicting uses of the primary name of each article in that niche don't have to be considered, etc.
Seel In Not(Metus Mix) - Lacrimosa - MP3 Collection (CDr), George Jones (2) - 24 Gospel Greats (Vinyl, LP), Still No Air - Alice Cooper - Easy Action (Vinyl, LP, Album), Let Down - Radiohead - Tourism (CD, Album), Böhse Onkelz - Live In Wiesbaden 1989 (CDr), Stop - Money Makers - Going Round (Vinyl, LP, Album), Shake It - Aaron Carter - Aaron Carter (CD, Album), I Know What I Like - Steve Hackett - The Tokyo Tapes (CD, Album), Oculto - Luis de Pablo, Grupo Círculo - Tornasol / Oculto / Imaginario I / Dibujos (Vinyl, LP, Album, Turkish Song Of The Damned, Oh Jungleland - Simple Minds - Once Upon A Time (CD, Album), Lady Beast - II (CD, Album)