Talk:Air-sea rescue

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

A fact from Air-sea rescue appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 September 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the first peace-time air-sea rescue unit equipped entirely with helicopters was No. 275 Squadron RAF in 1953?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/September.

Wikipedia

Needs more civilian unit text

Yeah. Binksternet (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image Available

File:RAF seaside rescue.jpeg

RAF seaside rescue

Britain and Lawrence

I am not sufficiently confident that I understand the current writing to edit it. The Supermarine S.6 would be a superior motor launch even by modern standards! SovalValtos (talk) 04:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note! The confusion is real; whoever wrote that bit was confused about the source website, and got the story wrong. Lawrence was thinking back to the Biscayne Baby, a fast motor launch with troublesome engines. I have changed the text here to match the source. Binksternet (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still some chronology to clarify H S-P designed Miss Britain 111 rather later, as it used S.6B engines. SovalValtos (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and fix the problem you see. Binksternet (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Air-sea rescue. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 16:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with
Maritime search and rescue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was: Clear consensus to merge/redirect, given the article's creator has chosen not to respond to a valid request for sources. I've not moved any actual content at this time, but anyone else is free to merge in any content they believe is relevant. BilCat (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already has a much better article over at Air-sea rescue. Whispe ring 18:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. - Ahunt (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I created a separate article was because air-sea rescue refers to a specific way of rescuing at sea, and there is no broad article for SAR at sea (only a broad article for all forms of SAR). Anywikiuser (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to come up with refs that show these are two different subjects and not the same thing. - Ahunt (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

2-1 is not a consensus, and more references have been added into the article since this discussion last took place. I've been against the merger because there needs to be an overall topic on rescues at sea.

If there is a merge, then the article of

maritime search and rescue (or sea rescue, water rescue, whatever it's called) ought to become the primary article. Most rescues at sea are not done with a helicopter – at least, that's the case in the UK. For example, search and rescue helicopters get 1,200 call-outs to coastal/maritime areas in a typical year. The RNLI gets over 8,000 call-outs in a typical year

, and that's not including non-RNLI lifeboats.

Merging the air-sea content into the general article would be better than deleting the article, but has its own downsides. There's already enough air-sea content into a general article on rescues at sea is that there is already enough air-sea content for a separate article, and it would dominate the merged article. Therefore, my preference is to keep the two separate and develop the general article. Anywikiuser (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed separate article on sea rescue

I propose that content on rescue at sea should be reinstated as a separate page called either sea rescue or maritime search and rescue, drawing from both the content that was lost when it was deleted as well as

coastguard

, are too specific to provide an overview on the subject.

This is an odd situation for a number of reasons. I created a separate article on

maritime search and rescue last October. Another user immediately proposed merging it with air-sea rescue. There was a 2-1 majority in favour of a merge and the discussion stalled. Later that month, I expanded the article and added a significant amount of referenced content. The article was quiet for a while until last month, when another user called consensus and replaced the article with a redirect. There was some content on that article that has been lost in the process, including an overview history of sea rescue and a section on international responsibility. I plan to move this content over to search and rescue

if an article on sea rescue is not reinstated.

I realise that this proposal could be seen as overturning a consensus and that this should never be taken lightly. But it was only a 2-1 majority, and the original complaints about the article (mainly that the article lacked sources) had been answered by the time the article was removed. Anywikiuser (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we really need a larger discussion on organizing and rationalizing all these article related to SAR. - Ahunt (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the same conversation on Talk:Search and rescue. That page covers a lot of topics, so it would be better as an overview or even a disambiguation page, with all content moved to specialist articles. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, let's pursue it there. - Ahunt (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]