Jump to content

Talk:Titan submersible implosion: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Pressue (talk | contribs)
45 edits
→Implosion: Reply
Line 633: Line 633:


:Would a catastrophic structural failure of a pressure chamber at 12,500 ft depth not also be an "implosion"? [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] (she/her • [[User talk:GorillaWarfare|talk]]) 01:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
:Would a catastrophic structural failure of a pressure chamber at 12,500 ft depth not also be an "implosion"? [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] (she/her • [[User talk:GorillaWarfare|talk]]) 01:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
:"Catastrophic loss of the pressure chamber" and "catastrophic structural failure" are not separate possible causes - the latter is a possible explanation for what caused the former. And the former, at that depth, means an implosion. [[Special:Contributions/97.113.8.72|97.113.8.72]] ([[User talk:97.113.8.72|talk]]) 01:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:34, 23 June 2023

Date structure?

I believe instead of June 18, 2023, it should be 18 June 2023, in line with other incidents from similar pages including the sinking of the RMS Titanic itself. What do you think? KeyKing666 (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should use DD MMM YYY formatting -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concur, format should be DMY. Will edit as it appears we have consensus. Ng.j (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KeyKing666 and Ng.j: Based on what I have read, the reason that the Titanic articles use DMY is because the Titanic was a ship operated by a British company which allows MOS:DATETIES to take effect. In contrast, this is a "sub" that is owned and operated by a US company. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was operating out of St. John's, on a chartered Canadian ship[1]Polar Prince, so Canadian English can also apply. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 01:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I had forgotten about the support ship. That works for me. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian English uses "June 18" the same as America, though. 80.11.60.74 (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian English does not use "18 June"-style dates. 80.11.60.74 (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 June 2023

2023 Titan submersible incident → 2023 Titan submersible disappearance – Per the discussion above, there's support amongst some editors, and personally, as the original article creator, I frankly agree that disappearance is a more straightforward name. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 05:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to OceanGate Titan Mishap. This is a "maritime mishap" which resulted in catastrophic loss of vessel and fatalities. You may further wait to mirror the language classifying this mishap in the likely ensuing U.S.C.G. Incident Investigation Report. The Titan (i.e., Cyclopes 2) is technically a class of vessel developed by Oceangate (flagship). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.236.138 (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to OceanGate Titan Disaster. I think this would be the best title to both provide context (some have suggested just "Titan" but it feels too vague to me) and remain in line with other similar articles. Icehax (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Icehax proposal as it's more precise and more concise than just "incident". I'd agree that WP:NOYEAR applies here as it would be closer to CRYSTALBALL to imply more incidents have happened in the past…mentioning the specific submarine further reduces the need for year as well. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
discussion before debris field were found
Incident. Not disappeared. It has not disappeared. Its whereabouts are simply unknown at present. I haven't seen a squirrel since two weeks ago. However, squirrels have not disappeared. The people with WP usernames who are actively debating this really need to get a grip of themselves. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:1122:4FD:855C:AEEC (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure if a person's whereabouts are completely unknown to the wider world, that means it disappeared. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We know precisely where Titan is. It hasn't disappeared. It's approximately 435 miles south of Newfoundland (Google will show you the exact spot) and somewhere between sea level and 4,000 metres below sea level. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:1122:4FD:855C:AEEC (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
wow, that is the most idiotic statement I have heard in a long time! So no, you are wrong and it has disappeared because we DON'T FUCKING KNOW WHERE IT IS! Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please remain WP:CIVIL. NM 10:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Someone get this man in contact with the U.S. Coast Guard immediately, the mystery has been solved. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the submersible is found or declared lost, then we can qualify it as a disappearance depending on what happens.
Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, or drop 'Submersible' from title: The current title seems to tell us exactly what it is: An incident, occurring in 2023, regarding the Titan submersible. The '2023' portion of the title seems to bristle some hairs, it does help differentiate from other similarly named articles, particularly the 1980 Damascus Titan missile explosion. I believe that shortening the title to 2023 Titan Incident, is the best course of action, at this moment. As many others have said, we will have more information in the coming days - with casualties expected, if any, within the next 30-35 hours, once the submersible's oxygen supply runs out. Then, we could talk about more specific, final title changes. DylanJ10000 (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and drop 2023 regardless: It has literally already disappeared. Further the incident has gained wide enough press and recognition that 2023 is no longer needed, Titan is sufficient. Changing the title also makes the article more accurate, acceptable and digestible to the general audiences which Wikipedia tailors too. Spilia4 (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - there is no rush, and if it's found in a few days then we would have to move it again which is silly. Drop 2023 when deciding on a final title. The submersible is a better disambiguation than the year, I think that should stay in. --mfb (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move, it's disappeared, not had an incident, if they don't get it, then it's a disappearance and incident. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 05:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. Disappearance has an air of finality about it. Nobody has concluded it has disappeared yet. It is currently missing. If it is found, the article will be moved again. In general, we should avoid haste at seeking to rename articles documenting a current event, requiring a maintenance tag slapped on top of a highly visited article. Finally, and with the greatest of respect to the article's original author for their efforts, the view of the original author of the article has no special standing in determining consensus - WP:OWN. Local Variable (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant left Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
shame on you Dh75 (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep I agree. 80.7.92.124 (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Titan submersible incident or Wait: Incident is what describes this best until it disappears for good. They may find the sub and it's wreck, then it would be "Wreck of...", or they are rescued and it's the same as it is now. 2023 is needless because it's the only time this kind of thing has happened. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do it. Veganoregano (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Titan submersible disappearance, removing both the 2023 over-disambiguation and using a more common title. Most current news seems to be referring to this as the "missing Titan submersible;" it seems accurate to say that the event is a disappearance, even if it is later found, and regardless of whether the crew are rescued alive or not. No strong prejudice against waiting some period of time before moving, but I'd note that a large chunk of the Wait comments don't specify how long we should wait (or use recovery of the vessel as a line, which can't ever be confirmed as a negative), nor is there any reason the article couldn't be moved again if that title is somehow rendered inaccurate. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 22:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Titan submersible disappearance. It's clear that "2023" is unnecessary (this hasn't happened with Titan before); the disappearance itself is going to remain relevant, whether it is found or remains lost. Zilch-nada (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Titan submersible disappearance. The incident is primarily a disappearance, regardless of the outcome. The search may go on for years, like Air France which wasn't found until almost 2 years later. No need to mention 2023 as there will never be another incident involving the Titan submersible. Usedbook (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO! Wait at least a week. I'd suggest the qualifier "2023" is not needed. Keep it for now. Suggested title if located: Titan submersible incident. If not found and the recovery phase is called off, then I'd concur with a move with the title Titan submersible disappearance makes sense. Abebenjoe (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Category:Maritime incidents in 2023 - no other article there uses "disappearance". And it may or may not be found, with or without the crew alive, so it is way too soon to call it a "disappearance". If it cannot be found and the search is permanently called off, then we can revisit this move. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the search has concluded. Christian Toney 01:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the search is ended by the authorities. If it isn't located in anyway at that point, we can reasonably conclude it's unlikely it will be located and it has 'disappeared'. If they locate it in anyway (floating on surface, submerged, on the bottom, debris field), then I'd say we leave it at incident.--The Navigators (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also support removing "2023" from the final title, regardless of what we decide on.--The Navigators (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. We don't know if it has disappeared yet. Also, I would be in favor of putting this incident under the Oceangate Inc. page@
Wikepediathefreeencyclopedia1 (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Titan submersible incident, since "incident" better covers all aspects of both the initiating event (the disappearance) and the resulting ones (search and rescue, governmental responses, company response, etc.). Beginning (talk) 06:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. WP always rushes to do this. Geez. If the Titanic went down today, the article would have been changed to Titanic: Incident, Titanic: Sinking, etc. Hour by hour. Once the smoke clears, the "incident" (regardless of its outcome) should just be a section at the overall article Titan since there is so much more information coming to light about the backstory than just this current tragedy. This morning I came to WP and typed in "Titan". It took me forever to find this article because of all the attached description. KISS. Maineartists (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Disappearance of Titan. I am uncertain about needing the year; but WP has always mixed up Disappearance, Disaster, Tragedy, and Incident in my opinion. Right now, the issue is that the Titan submersible has disappeared; it has not been found. The search is on-going for a missing vehicle and its occupants. While it might be very likely the occupants are now deceased, we can't state this fact — and call it a disaster or tragedy — until we find trace evidence of the submersible or the potential remains of the occupants. JenM5595 (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Still actively being searched for, so as of now it doesn't seem sensible to say that it's gone. JoelJSK (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to 2023 Titan submersible situation. That way whatever the outcome, the actual impact of this accident is still the same without too much deviation from what it is. We don't know what's happened other than they have disappeared and banging metallic noises have been heard. Too much gobbledy gook info spewing out of the media. Koplimek (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be possible to change it to a tragedy/accident maybe after the press conf, they have found debris in the field if it is confirmed as belonging to the Sub then it could be classed as that. 212.250.189.37 (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not suggesting whatever has happened to Titan was deliberate, but that is a possibility. Therefore, until we know otherwise it would be unencyclopedic to use the word "accident". In addition, if the Titan has failed due to negligence or poor engineering it might not be appropriate to call that an "accident" either. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who or what would have an interest in Sabotaging The Titan? Death Editor 2 (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No disrespect, but I sense you would (given the opportunity). That aside, my point (clearly made) is that it cannot be assumed to be an accident. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was an accident, stop fooling around. Death Editor 2 (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You sound adamant? Exactly what a saboteur would say to throw police off the scent :) 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion after debris were found

In that case, "accident" would be a better word in my opinion. CycloneYoris talk! 23:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would refrain from using "accident" as that tends to imply an error was made (and that someone is at fault). Again, we don't know why the vessel imploded (at least not yet). Perhaps sticking with "incident" is the best course for now. Significa liberdade (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
but most do not even call this a submarine, they are calling it a submersible Iljhgtn (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding sinking would presupposes a known mechanism of failure which we currently do not have. Until we have at least a preliminary report i wouldn't use such specific vocabulary. Icehax (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inventors killed by their own invention

IF they die/are already dead, could we hypothetically add the Inventors killed by their own invention category? Death Editor 2 (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know if the CEO is actually the inventor of the Titan, or just the concept of a submersible company? If he didn't have significant hand in creating the Titan, like engineering or blueprinting at least, I personally would not call him the inventor. UnapolMaker (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or is he just a person who was hired to be CEO of the company?.Tvx1 21:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It said that he was the founder of the company as well as the CEO. Death Editor 2 (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to a profile in the Smithsonian, I think the Titan is Rush's brainchild,[1] which I think would make him eligible for the category.Significa liberdade (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So it can be added if/when they die, got it. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not here, but if someone writes the Stockton Rush article it may be includable there. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now, it's my understanding that it does not require one to have a wikipedia article on their own, since both Michael Dacre and Henry Smolinski are listed. Death Editor 2 (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In those cases the category went on the redirect page for the person's name, not the other article itself. So to be analogous to those case, you'd put the category on Stockton Rush and not here. It's pretty clear from the categories wording Inventors killed by their own invention. The category is for a subcategory of inventors specifically and should include people, not things or incidents. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah fair enough. Death Editor 2 (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it’s a big leap to say he invented a deep-diving submersible. In reality, he merely designed this particular type of that vessel. Tvx1 22:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Hughes didn't invent the idea of Rockets but yet due to creating his OWN rockets he is classified under the category inventors killed by their own invention. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source that explicitly discusses the loss of Titan in this context (the inventor being killed by his own invention)? If so then you can include it in the list. If not then that would be user-generated content, which does not belong on Wikipedia. A source that merely states that it is their invention is not sufficient, unless it puts that into relation with the incident. --Renerpho (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a better conversation for Talk:Stockton Rush and/or Talk:List of inventors killed by their own invention, though the category has been added to the Rush bio and he's been added to the list article already. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Magazine, Smithsonian; Perrottet, Tony. "A Deep Dive Into the Plans to Take Tourists to the 'Titanic'". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 2023-06-20.

Mapframe

@Tvx1, Daniel Maak, and Veggies: In my opinion, an interactive map is superior to a static, poorly framed map only useful to those familiar with where Newfoundland is. — AFC Vixen 🦊 00:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That it’s poorly framed is only just your opinion. In infobox is also intended to summarise an article. Where newfoundland, or more generally the incident site is situated should be conveyed in the body of the article and not firstly by the infobox. Your map is just an unexplained point on a large body of water. The map you keep replacing is actually informative through included text, which defeat the inconveniences its static nature could have. Tvx1 01:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current map is also "just an explained point on a large body of water", so I don't understand what your point is. Ironic to your point about conveying things in the article body, the text in the image should be conveyed in the article body or infobox, and should not be presented as an image, per MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. — AFC Vixen 🦊 02:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of options we could use that are a little more zoomed out if we wanted. I'm no SVG whiz or I'd make a map that was a bit more zoomed in than the top option, capturing just eastern Canada and Northeast US. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Titan submersible implosion is located in North America
Titan submersible implosion
class=notpageimage|
"North America" option
Titan submersible implosion is located in North Atlantic
Titan submersible implosion
class=notpageimage|
"North Atlantic" option
You can much more simply just set {{Infobox mapframe}} to |zoom=2 instead of |zoom=3. — AFC Vixen 🦊 04:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, true:

Map

GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice. Use a typo against someone. Your map coveys nothing. It’s not an improvement in any way. The current map summarizes the origin, the path and location of mishap of the expedition. And all we have to do to make it MOS compliant is to make sure that the crucial information is repeated in the caption and that the text is also presented with alt parameters. Als no text is “presented as an image” here. There is an image with some explenatory text.Tvx1 04:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith towards fellow editors. I apologise for causing offense, but I can't reasonably have known it was a typo in the first place. Do be mindful that changing the wording of other editors' replies like you did to mine is not kosher either, per WP:TPO. Back on topic, there isn't really any point in having the text in the image if the text is going to be in the caption anyway, no?. — AFC Vixen 🦊 05:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was on obvious mistake. I meant to fix my own post. And I don’t think I accused you of bad faith anywere. And I never said the text in the caption should be identical to the text in the image.Tvx1 19:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You accused me of "using a typo against someone". — AFC Vixen 🦊 19:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And that’s bad faith according to you???? That comment intended to deal with low class.Tvx1 10:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvx1: It sounds like bad faith to me. Are you saying you assumed the original comment was "low class"? Please don't do that. --Renerpho (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No just that one sentence. So I have to accept anything that’s thrown against me, but replying to that in anyway is utterly unacceptable?? Tvx1 22:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was that you immediately assumed I was throwing anything against you in the first place. I was merely making a counterargument. — AFC Vixen 🦊 00:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honest opinion: the plain blue MS-Paint map that was initially used when the article was beginning to form was poorly made. Shit even. The map currently used now should've been used at the very beginning, or your creation should have been formed to fit Wikipedia's style instead of it's ugly seasickness. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a zoomable map is best and, having looked at the alternatives suggested, agree that this should start with a big picture view of the North Atlantic. I have accordingly updated the infobox to use {{infobox mapframe}} with zoom=2 as suggested by GW. The previous static map was unsatisfactory, as discussed. For another thing, that map mentions France and so may completely mislead people who are not familiar with this geography. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly do not so see an improvement in your change. Now there’s just an uninformative map of dismal quality with a marker which is horrible off scale. The previous map actuall showed an informative visual summary of the subject of this article.Tvx1 19:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate precision

Why are the coordinates at the top so precise? It gives a false sense of precision. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's the location of the dive site, and the wreck of the Titanic. (ie. the mission goal for the expedition) -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does that correspond to "approximately 900 mi (1,450 km) east and 400 mi (643.7 km) (643km) south of St. Johns, Newfoundland", as BBC have said (except it looks like they have used miles instead of nautical miles)? Should this be added somewhere? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This information from the BBC is obviously incorrect. 900 miles east of Newfoundland is halfway across the Atlantic to Ireland. The wreck is more like 9 or 90 miles east of Newfoundland (and around 400 miles south). 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:D8B6:15A7:35D9:3D73 (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 90 nmi might be more plausible. Wreck of the Titanic says "... 370 nmi (690 km) south-southeast of Newfoundland". So that might be better and simpler. If that's where the dive site is or was. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My suspicion is that the BBC saw reports that the USCG was conducting operations 900 nmi from Cape Cod, and confused that with the reporting around the expedition leaving from Newfoundland. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've since seen on Reuters website (from where BBC lifted the story) they've given the position of the Titanic wreck as around 900 miles east of Cape Cod, and 400 miles south of St Johns.
The BBC have edited it (for clarity no doubt) and removed the reference to Cape Cod: putting both measurements relative to St Johns (and putting the wreck equidistant between Newfoundland and Ireland).
I flagged it up with BBC three hours ago but the story is unaltered. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:1C76:BBE4:82F1:A241 (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:COORDINATES for additional details on how we display them. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Goku V: That guideline says "Avoid excessive precision (0.0001° is <11 m, 1″ is <31 m)." Currently it's specified to the arc second, which is pretty exact. My point is that we could just specify it to within the arc minute, or whatever level of significant figures we think is accurate enough.
I'm not sure what that precise point is supposed to be (it's not discussed in the infobox or elsewhere in the article). Is it the last point of contact before it disappeared, or something like that? Where did the arc seconds come from, anyway? Did someone make them up or were they actually mentioned in a report? I notice that the longitude exactly matches what is given in the Titanic article, which makes me think someone might have just taken that and offset the latitude by an estimate of how far they were from their goal. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the dive site not be directly over the position of the wreck? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. The difference between the currently provided latitudes is about half a (statute) mile by my estimates. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed, but I am currently unsure if it needs modification to reduce the precision at this time. But sure, we can choose to modify it if it is too much. In any case, I think that the coordinated were copied over from the Titanic article exactly given that was their intended destination. I did fix the latitude issue as there were two competing templates for some reason wit different numbers, so I synchronized them. (It seems that someone determined which one wasn't needed and removed it.) --Super Goku V (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They've found debris 500 metres (1,600 ft) off the bow of the Titanic, so we have a location now, just a little off the Titanic. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time zone

The article uses Atlantic Daylight Time, as used by the CNN source, but the source is incorrect. The source says that ADT is 1.5 hours ahead of EDT, but that's actually the Newfoundland Time Zone. Atlantic time is 1 hour ahead of Eastern time. I suspect that CNN is using Newfoundland time and has misidentified it as Atlantic time, but we would need a separate source to confirm this. – bradv 18:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian also gives a timeline, but its times do not match what CNN is saying, in either time zone. For example, the Guardian says the sub began its descent at 7 ET, CNN says 9 AT. CNN says they lost communication at 11:47 AT, the Guardian says 8:45 ET (which would be 9:45 AT, or 10:15 NT). – bradv 18:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I found that so confusing. I am assuming the CNN reporter meant NDT. ADT would be for Halifax, Nova Scotia. But that would only make sense if they were coordinating this operation, but they are not, St. John's, Newfoundland is. So, the local time should be in NDT. I'll see if a Canadian Newspaper has it. Abebenjoe (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bradv probably The Guardian is using Standard Time instead of Daylight Time in their report. If that is the case, then indeed, EST would be 2.5 hours behind NDT, or five hours behind UTC. With that confirmation, we can conclude the CNN time is definitely in the NDT timezone. Abebenjoe (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian is using standard time, so let's calculate this from GMT instead. NDT is UTC-2:30. According to the Guardian, the dive began at 9:30 am local time, and contact was lost at 11:15 am local time. (Total elapsed time: 1 hour and 45 minutes).
But according to CNN, the dive began at 9 am, and contact was lost at 11:47 am. (Total elapsed time: 2 hours and 45 minutes). So maybe CNN is using ADT and not NDT?
Or maybe there's a simpler explanation: CNN screwed this up (that's obvious: ADT is not 1.5 hours ahead of EDT), and the Guardian copied them and screwed it up some more (which is also obvious: ET is not currently GMT-5).
I think we need to take the times out of the article, unless we can find something direct from horse's mouth. – bradv 21:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found 3 more sources:
  1. ABC News says the dive began at 8 am ET (9:30 NDT), and lost contact 1 hour and 45 minutes later. This agrees with the Guardian timeline.
  2. The Independent says the same thing, if we assume that they meant EDT rather than EST. (Thie is an understandable error for British sources, as they use the "S" to indicate summer time rather than daylight time.)
  3. Reuters says 8 am ET for the dive and 9:45 for lost contact.
All three of these sources, and the Guardian, are better than the CNN source we are using now. – bradv 21:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! It should be changed. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bradv agree. The article is now using a better source. I also added UTC times because Newfoundland Time is confusing (when a program is broadcast the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) TV or Radio, they say "10 o'clock local time, 10:30 in Newfoundland.") Abebenjoe (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Search-and-rescue - Hyphens or not

It appears the standard is to write search and rescue without the hyphens, but throughout the article the phrase is hyphenated. Is there a reason to keep it in the hyphenated form? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does it fucking matter Veganoregano (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be nice, OK? WP:TPNO. Significa liberdade (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping a consistent and encyclopedic style matters for an encyclopedia. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 03:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes 〜 Festucalex • talk 03:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because it's a large project with many contributors and it does no good to get bogged down in matters of style. That means agreeing upon standards so that there is no room for debate, therefore minimizing the potential for edit-warring. The Wikipedia manual of style does cover this particular issue, as Synpath has pointed out. WP Ludicer (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I've added hyphens where they're missing just for consistency's sake. I'm not sure which is correct. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Search and rescue is correct. It is commonly abbreviated as SAR. For more info, please refer to Search and rescue. Hyphens are not necessary. Ng.j (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:HYPHEN, specifically #3; compound modifiers. If "search and rescue" is being used to describe a noun use hyphens (e.g. search-and-rescue efforts or search-and-rescue mission). Hyphens wouldn't be needed when not used as a modifier (e.g. Search and rescue was hampered by low visibility weather conditions, which cleared the next day.). Of course, this is subtle and context will probably do most of the disambiguation for you if it comes up. ― Synpath 18:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed clarification of location of dive site

Propose to change:

"The ship arrived at the dive site on 17 June, and the dive operation began the following day on Sunday.."

to:

"The ship arrived at the dive site on 17 June, approximately 370 nmi (690 km; 430 mi) south-southeast of Newfoundland, and the dive operation began the following day on Sunday..".

This matches the position given in Wreck of the Titanic. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t whether it dove precisely above the wreck, so no this shouldn’t be added. Tvx1 10:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so maybe we must have a source, even if we use the word "approximately". But what are the "highly accurate" co-ordinates and the map position meant to be telling us... just where the wreck is? where the submersible is now? (if only) where the incident began? The map caption says: "Location of the wreck of the Titanic, where the Titan was diving." We don't even know if it got to the wreck. I'm just saying that the map point could also be described in nautical miles from somewhere. Thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree change proposed. The position suggested is qualified "approximately", as well as the Titanic position being apparently rounded to the nearest 10nmi etc. It is perfectly valid to point readers to the relevant area of the ocean. Davidships (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reworked SVG map

I wanted to improve the original SVG map a bit, since – like the discussion remarked – it was lacking in displaying the scale of the operation. But the work took so long I apparently came a bit late to the party, and the infobox map has now been replaced with an interactive map, which is arguably more useful. But I'll link the map in case someone wants to use it, or rework it or offer feedback.

It's not really infobox-legible at this stage, but I'm trying to strike a balance between informativity and legibility. —Nelg (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is much better than the current mapframe. Interactivity is good, but it should never trump legibility and informativity. The priority should be a summary of the article.Tvx1 10:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:2023 Titan submersible incident map.svg has more useful information that the zoomable map, even at the highest levels of zoom. I just swapped them; let's see if it sticks. Moscow Mule (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could the text size in the red label be increased? It's minuscule in the infobox. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Submersible destroyed" in infobox; parts of submersible debris found

This seems very premature and has been contested twice already. What are the specific sources you're referring to in your edit summary, DanDeMedicMan? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2 parts of the sub were found so it is highly likely it is destroyed (bbc confirmed) St1vaida (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link? Is this about the Sky News report mentioned in the edit summary referred to above? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was revealed on air on the bbc St1vaida (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BBC News Online live feed. Mjroots (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now on both BBC and Guardian live feeds. Still not official, of course (Guardian: "These claims have not been confirmed".) Sky is here. Moscow Mule (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Coast Guard press conference may give that official confirmation. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it will. The bigger question is how this article should handle "one bloke talking to Sky News" for the next hour and a bit. I'd be inclined to remove if from the infobox until then, but it'd only get put back. Moscow Mule (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I also agree that the edit warring will simply continue. Not sure if it's worth upping the protection level. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the link: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-65967464 Duck Dur (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Sources are being cautious by saying "a friend of the passengers" (who does not seem to be a part of the search operation, and is himself receiving the information at least thirdhand from the Explorers Club, who got it from unclear sources). That is a far cry from us putting "submersible destroyed" in wikivoice in the infobox. Presumably more information will be available from a far more reliable source in ~40 minutes with the press conference. We should prioritize being accurate over being up-to-the-millisecond with every headline.
I've stuck a link to this discussion in a hidden comment, hopefully that might mitigate edit warring. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The landing frame and a rear cover allegedly included in the "debris field" found in the search for the Titan sub could have been from a previous Titan dive... the message that the club’s president, Richard Garriot, sent to others in a group was misrepresented." Guardian Live @ 19.40 BST. So those calling for caution are vindicated. OK, overtaken by events minutes later. But it may say something about the Explorers Club's reaction to one guy spilling the beans from a WhatsApp group on TV. Moscow Mule (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now folks are switching things to past tense and suchlike based on CNN and Ocean Gate reports. C'est la vie. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C'etait la vie. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OceanGate statement

I'm having trouble finding the original statement, but according to CNN (https://www.cnn.com/americas/live-news/titanic-missing-sub-oceangate-06-22-23/index.html), OceanGate has made a statement indicating they believe the crew members aboard the Titan have "sadly been lost." It seems we're reaching the time of making updates to the page to reflect these statements, as well as those I'm sure are coming soon. Significa liberdade (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i found the same thing, seems that their website is down, so i guess we will have to use the CNN link for now Tantomile (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I would probably add this statement to thee article somewhere. This will be covered by the media. The article should then be updated to reflect what is then said. Gust Justice (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
quick update, https://www.cnn.com/americas/live-news/titanic-missing-sub-oceangate-06-22-23/h_4600cd3013726aee0de8a25c03fd5647. Debris was "consistent with catastrophic loss of the pressure chamber," Tantomile (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BBC is also doing live coverage, taking quotes from the press conference:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-65967464
EddieColdrick (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When was the statement issued? There's some lack of clarity in the article at the moment over whether they issued the statement based on their assumptions from the amount of oxygen available to the sub, vs. after the Coast Guard discovered the debris suggesting the vessel had imploded. Not the most important thing, but we should avoid implying one way or the other if the timing isn't clear. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of social media effect in Reactions section

Hi all, at one point there was a blurb about the social media impact/effect that the incident had (with sources): "The submersible's disappearance, build and the search and rescue efforts were widely discussed on social media and the internet. While some of the comments and critiques were viewed as in bad taste, it also brought a renewed interest into the Titanic with the subreddit for the Titanic seeing about a 9.5% increase in activity in the first 48 hours of the submersible's disappearance." it was then parsed down before eventually being fully removed. I have seen multiple articles about the disaster and social media, as well as its contrasting coverage/discussion to recent other disasters. Should it be re-added in any capacity or left out? Leaky.Solar (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A 9.5% increase in the activity of a single subreddit would be quite trivial to mention. Perhaps once edited it could be re-added. Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As we create Wikipedia articles for events, it's important to think about the encyclopedic value the information is bringing. For instance, we might imagine what someone looking at this page in 10 years might find relevant to understand what happened or what might be included in a printed encyclopedia. I'm not saying the social media aspect isn't noteworthy, just that we need to think about how important each bit of information is as Wikipedia isn't a repository of all available information. Significa liberdade (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree entirely. Very occasionally, some aspect of social (or indeed, any kind of) media activity is a significant part of the events/story in itself (eg built groundswell for social or political change, or provoked racist attacks, for example). Or I suppose if Facebook went down due to bandwidth restriction. Nothing of substance here that I can see. Davidships (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shahzada Dawood "billionaire"

According to the Financial Express source linked in the article his networth is 136.73 millions USD. How is he a billionaire? KomradeRice (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources seem to be accurate at all and financial express doesn't say how they got the figure. Krynh (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious answer is that there are other currencies besides the US dollar...$136 million USD is about 40 billion Pakistani rupees, so that would more than qualify him as a billionaire in Pakistan. It's sometimes assumed that "billionaire" means either US dollars or Euros, but it's not a term that's used exclusively for those currencies. FearlessLingonberry (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assets Status

Do y'all think we still need to have the status of if assets have arrived on site or are en route still on the page? After today, it's kinda pointless for someone to know, and per CNN (https://www.cnn.com/americas/live-news/titanic-missing-sub-oceangate-06-22-23/h_37ae012fe3ebf25ccd705808e2772ca4), the assets are demobilizing. Tantomile (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The assets are to start demobilizing in 24 hours. In any case, if someone wants to turn the table into prose, then I would be okay with that. But removing the information without keeping any mention in text would be disappointing. I believe that readers would want to know what ships responded when an incident occurs. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to phrase it, but it may be worthwhile for people to know not just the sheer number of assets deployed but also when they arrived on the scene (or didn't arrive). As the person who moved everything to the table, I'd be fine with it being rewritten as prose; I just find tables easier to understand at times to clearly showcase information. Significa liberdade (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SGV that it should not be removed until prosified. Some of the detail will no doubt get dropped in that process, but additional material, particularly about what those assets brought or were bringing to bear would be welcome. Worth noting something of what the Admiral said about the extraordinary international response. Although he mentioned 24 hours, I thank that he also said that some things would stop sooner, instancing those specialist medical facilities already there. Davidships (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it from prose to a list in this edit, if the previous prose would be useful. However, I think that it would probably be better be presented as prose in its own section rather than scattered throughout the timeline when it was announced that various assets would be joining the search. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there two maps?

We don't need two separate maps for this one incident. Pick one. -- Veggies (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the first map, and I think a zoomed-in version could alleviate the problems of too much information and too small text DecafPotato (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Map
About OpenStreetMaps
Maps: terms of use
500km
300miles
June 18
June 16
See discussion at Talk:2023 Titan submersible incident#Mapframe and Talk:2023 Titan submersible incident#Reworked SVG map. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for proving my point. Two maps, two discussions. We need to stop talking past each other and pick which one of these maps should remain. -- Veggies (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the OSM Location Map (with a descriptor for the two markers), because the text on the SVG is far too small to read at infobox size. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - the OSM is superior. The isobath lines/shading on the SVG is an unnecessary distraction and the text, as GuerillaWelfare says, is too small to be useful. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The OSM presentation much preferred as uncluttered by irrelevant info. It might on that basis prove possible to shift coverage towards the west, and reduce the scale a bit, to include Boston, the location of the Search & Rescue/Recovery management. It would be interesting to see whether that is feasible or not. Davidships (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eminently diplomatic. I too am intrigued to see if someone with advanced IT/cartographic skills and a restricted social-life can reduce the scale and move the map's focus somewhat westward in a Bostonly direction. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and also ouch. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a digital band-aid :) 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
?? - Davidships (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is off-topic so to be brief to get back on track, the words and a restricted social-life was what GorillaWarfare was saying ouch to and why the IP user gave a digital band-aid. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree that OSM map is superior in anyway. On the contrary it’s utterly minimalistic. The perceived “too small” text on the other is something that can easily be fixed.Tvx1 22:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What information is missing from the OSM map that you think ought to be conveyed? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just about everything. It's just a bland poor quality map frame with not geographic identifications, nor explanation about the incident. Tvx1 00:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Map
About OpenStreetMaps
Maps: terms of use
1000km
620miles
June 18
June 16
MV Polar Prince departed St. John's, Newfoundland (1) on 16 June, and arrived at the dive site (2) on 17 June, where the Titan was deployed and began its descent the day after.
Here is the map currently used in the infobox, which has more geographic context and a caption explanation: GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with minimalistic? IKEA have traded extremely successfully on that model for 40 years. You must have owned a LACK table or had a friend who did surely?
As to fixing the perceived "too small" text: perception is reality...dismissing another human being's perception is simply a ghastly thing to even contemplate in today's world. Rather than castigate your fellow man/woman who may be disabled by presbyopia, why not instead just quietly (and easily, to use your very own words) fix that "too small" text for the greater good?
I hardly need remind you that today, mankind is reeling from the news that 5 extremely brave explorers lost their lives in the cruelest possible way, roughly 3 miles underwater in the chilling North Atlantic (about 370 nautical miles south-south-east of Newfoundland). Nobody, least of all the visually-challenged, needs more shite on their plate today of all days. Please try to assume good faith at all times and be a better WP:Editor. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For crying out loud, there is nothing bad faith in my post, I merely stated a map could be fixed. I can't do it myself because I don't have the tools. Get your ego out of this. And what is wrong with minimalistic is that it is uninformative to our readers.Tvx1 00:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated reaction

The last paragraph of the reactions section contains statements made before the wreck of Titan was found. I am not sure whether the best course is to remove the comments or clarify when they were made, so noting the issue here. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to remove it. I'm not really sure what it adds to the article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps 2 subsections, one for before and one for after the debris was found? OneRandomBrit (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DSV or just submersible

DSV chart reviewed by PH Nargeolet in 2019


Should we change the initial description to deep submergence vehicle instead of just submersible ?


-- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. The fact that it imploded strongly implies that it was not a deep submergence vehicle. It was merely a poorly-constructed and non-approved tube that sank like a stone and was crushed like a Coke can. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Damn. Just.... damn. Brusque, but accurate. -- Veggies (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it made successful dives to the site before suggest it was a DSV. Tvx1 00:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having made several earlier successful dives, would indicate that it was a DSV. Just as the Hawaiian Airlines flight that had its roof ripped off, doesn't mean the plane involved wasn't a high altitude jetliner. Or a top-fuel dragster that explodes at the christmas tree isn't a drag racer. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it relevant to point out the modification to the controller is 3d printed joystick extenders?

Hello,

As someone that owns and operates 3d printers for work and pleasure, I noticed that the Logitech controller seen in the videos has 3d printed joystick extenders added to the joystick. This increase in height allows for more precise control and are commonly used in certain video games for a competitive advantage.

The controller is repeatedly being reported as a "modified controller" as well as a "PlayStation controller" while the only discernable modification is the addition of two 3d printed joystick extenders. Should this be included in the article? It could have been a unique design but I am checking all known .STL repositories for a match. ZANZIBARLAND (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you find a reliable source which can be cited to back up your information. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"nose cone"

Paul Hankins during the live press conference referred to Titan's "nose cone". Other discussions have referred to its "tail cone". All images and drawings show Titan having a tail assembly attached to the outside of the pressure hull, and no nose cone.

I have not found anyone making a citeable correction to Hankin's statement, and lots of articles quoting him saying "nose cone". Because of this, it looks like it would be OR to make any correction to this.

Does this sum up the current situation? NapoliRoma (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take much imagination to understand that both the bow and stern segments were referred to. Tvx1 00:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have footage of the Coast Guard's Rear Admiral John Mauger discussing the situation. In Mauger's words, This morning an ROV [...] discovered the tail cone of the Titan submersible [...] Hankin's words were as follows: The first thing we found was the nose cone which was outside of the pressure hull This should be enough to connect that the same object has been described as a "tail cone" and as a "nose cone" by Mauger and Hankins. This gives us the option to attach a note to the text saying something along the lines of U.S. Navy director(?) Paul Hankins said in a press briefing on June 22, 2023, that the first discovered object was a nose cone, while U.S. Coast Guard Rear Admiral John Mauger said that the object was a tail cone and leave it up to the sources to clarify. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Government knew of certain death but tried to hide it, failed to do so anyhow

"The [appropriate agency] of the U.S. government were aware the sub imploded at [date time] but chose not share this information with the public over fears of leaking their submarine detection capabilities. This cover-up came to light on [date time], after search and rescue had failed and the projected maximum survival of the sub was exceeded"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-navy-detected-titan-sub-implosion-days-ago-6844cb12 85.147.66.47 (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is an extremely skewed interpretation of that WSJ article, but the source is useful anyhow. Looks like it's already been incorporated in an appropriately neutral fashion at 2023 Titan submersible incident#Timeline of events. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ report

In the timeline of events, "According to a report in the Wall Street Journal,..." may be true, but is not necessary. This information has been reported elsewhere, and according to the Guardian, was first reported by Associated Press.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/jun/22/titanic-sub-live-updates-search-titan-missing-submarine-submersible-rescue-us-coast-guard-latest-news 76.14.122.5 (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonfibrecomposite

James Cameron has compared the Titan design to the DeepFlight Challenger, and how it is prone to delamination and crush implosion failure. [1][2] -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "22nd of June 2023". Anderson Cooper 360. 22 June 2023. CNN.
  2. ^ ABC News, James Cameron reacts sub implosion: 'I'm struck by the similarity of the Titanic disaster itself' on YouTube, 22 June 2023

Implosion

I noticed that article has describe the event as an implosion since the remains of the vessel have been found. However, the parties involved in the search have not specified this as an implosion, but rather as a catastrophic loss of the pressure chamber. I might also have been the result of a catastrophic structural failure, for instance. So we should reflect the sources more accurately.Tvx1 00:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like many sources are referring to it as an "implosion"? Which sources are you thinking of that aren't using that word recently? See “This is an incredibly unforgiving environment down there on the sea floor and the debris is consistent with a catastrophic implosion of the vessel,” US Coast Guard Rear Adm. John Mauger, the First Coast Guard District commander, told reporters. from https://www.cnn.com/americas/live-news/titanic-missing-sub-oceangate-06-22-23 and it looks like three of the sources currently in our article have implosion in the title or URL. And The US Navy detected “an acoustic anomaly consistent with an implosion” shortly after the Titan lost contact with the surface, an official has told CBS News, the BBC's US partner. from https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-65967464 so it seems like the current trend is toward describing it as an implosion. Skynxnex (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would a catastrophic structural failure of a pressure chamber at 12,500 ft depth not also be an "implosion"? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Catastrophic loss of the pressure chamber" and "catastrophic structural failure" are not separate possible causes - the latter is a possible explanation for what caused the former. And the former, at that depth, means an implosion. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Titan_submersible_implosion&oldid=1161488064"