Jump to content

Talk:Titan submersible implosion

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 97.113.8.72 (talk) at 20:18, 23 June 2023 (→Implosion: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]

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

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]
Support Icehax proposal due to reason similar to InvadingInvader. The more precise the merrier.(AlphaBetaGammsh (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC))[reply]
SUPPORT. This is the typical phrasing for most "expedition" style catastrophic failures. Abebenjoe (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
People have raised good points and perhaps it is best to leave it at incident until we actually know more about the structural failure of the submersible. Words in the Wind(talk) 13:44, 23 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]
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]
  • I think news outlets are mostly just breaking a new detail/quoting USCG and other sources rather than referring to the whole incident as an implosion (with the exception of USA Today, who originally titled this article "Titanic submarine implosion victims: These 5 men died on Titan trip" which frankly does seem a bit insensitive)
    I would predict that over the next week as journalists refer more to the event in the past tense, the terms disaster, accident, and wreck will be used more frequently in headlines and elsewhere. —Rutebega (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:SECTIONCAPS does not support capitalizing "mishap." ~TPW 13:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Titan submersible disaster, this is how the public would refer to it, otherwise sinking. Do not use incident.Spilia4 (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to 2023 Titan submersible implosion.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use Implosion. That's what happened. "Incident" is too common and is not WP:PRECISE. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Submarine Titan disaster, per the Space Shuttle Challenger and Columbia pages. Redirects would get all the suggested names to the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continue to oppose There is not yet a WP:COMMONNAME for the situation. Wikipedia shouldn't try to dictate what it will be called which could lead to WP:CITOGENESIS. I'm sure one will emerge eventually. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you here, but the current title poses essentially the same risk; we need some title for the article, and it seems likely whatever is picked will be a common name for the disaster/incident/disappearance/implosion/sinking/accident. Of course, incident seems as fine as any of the others. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 04:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'd support leaving it at current title for now per my reasoning above, I'd also be fine with "accident". "Disaster" seems too large in scope. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continue to wait; I think the best course of action is to not make any major changes, and come back in like two weeks whenever news coverage calms down. We still don't have all the facts – don't rush to conclusions. I have no objections to removing the "2023" from the title (as there seems to be general consensus for that, I'm not going to try and stop things there when I don't disagree), but this was an "incident", there's no need to rush to change that. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove 2023 from title - I'm not sure what name to go with, but with any of those options, the year is unnecessary. There isn't another incident involving a submersible named Titan that we need to distinguish this incident from. Other articles of this type, like ship sinkings, major rail disasters do not include years in the title, unless there's another incident it could be confused for, such as at the same location or involving a vehicle of the same name. (Example: Channel Tunnel Fire articles. Channel Tunnel fires have happened multiple times, with major ones in 1996 and 2008, and both stand alone articles now named YEAR Channel Tunnel fire. However, the 2004 article for the 1996 incident was originally named simply Channel Tunnel Fire, prior to the 2008 fire.)
  • It didn't disappear for long, it was found, and in a bunch of pieces. Since it seems like it was an implosion, I recommend a variation of Titan submersible implosion, with or without the year. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As this discussion stands it seems almost impossible that a closer would be able to find a clear consensus. There are discussions on at least half a dozen different potential titles and variations. Proposed title changes include removing the year, removing the word submersible, adding OceanGate, changing the term from "incident" to any of implosion, disaster, accident, disappearance, or sinking, and changing the subject verb order ("Implosion of the Titan submersible" vs "Titan submersible implosion"). Can we get a short list of proposed options and have a !vote around those? Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 04:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    i agree Icehax (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These are all the ones I saw post the discovery of the debris:
    • Titan submersible implosion
    • Titan submersible disaster
    • Titan submersible disappearance
    • Titan submersible incident
    • OceanGate Titan disaster
    • OceanGate Titan implosion
    • Implosion of the Titan submersible
    • Implosion of the submersible Titan
    • Loss of the submersible Titan
    • Loss of the OceanGate Titan
    I took out a couple that included years and such. QueerFilmNerdtalk 05:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By short list I mean three or four options maximum. Alternatively, we could have several separate questions: what word should be used, should the year be included, should OceanGate be included, etc; that strikes me as overly complex, but there's enough voices in here that maybe we need it to have any chance of clarity. This has become a bikeshed problem; basically all these titles are reasonable and it's unlikely there's a strong policy argument against any of them, leaving us in the situation of settling the preferences of every editor whose eyes happen to come across this page.
    @Knightoftheswords281 as the original proposer of this move, do you have any thoughts on how to structure the discussion here? Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 05:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the policy on polls says they should not be used to filter the discussion in any way but rather to gauge consensus on outcomes, so you could argue against this. I feel like we should leave it to the neutral person that will eventually close the discussion to select the options he/she feels like have the most consensus and maybe create a poll using those. I don't think it would be useful to hold one right now. Icehax (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dylnuge, yeah, I was already noticing that (296 comments!). I'm thinking of dividing the poll up, i.e, including several subsections dedicated to the answer (e.g, OceanGate or no?) and hatting this section because the convo has spiraled out of control since neither of my original proposals seem to be favored now. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 18:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The list is missing the "sinking" variations. I personally don't agree with those but a poll should have all the options clearly laid out. Icehax (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This list is missing the most obvious solution, which is that it doesn't need any special name and that all the content can be collated simply in "Titan Submersible" or "OceanGate Titan". Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an article on notability guidelines for vehicles which states that if a vehicle is notable for one event only it should be presented in the article dedicated for the event without having another article dedicated to just the vehicle. Icehax (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why not Titan submersible or Titan submarine? Take a look at how Germans did it. Goldddd (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move until further information is revealed. However, I agree the year is unnecessary. QueerFilmNerdtalk 04:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, either make the title specifically about the submersible (way the Deutsch Wiki does it), or wait until the event has ended to make a final decision. However, I support 2023 being removed from the title at this point in time.
  • Move to Titan (submersible). Changing my vote after the fate of the Titan was determined. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, although I support 2023 being removed from title. User:DimensionalFusion 09:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Loss of the submersible Titan. — The Anome (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the current name is pretty clear already. But I would rather remove the "2023" in there. What about like, Titan submersible implosion, Titan submersible accident, Titan submersible catastrophe, Or you know, anything like that? I just want this discussion to be closed. Packnuts (talk) 7:03, 23 June 2023
  • Move to Titan submersible implosion. It's much more precise than incident. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Whether or not this is considered an “accident” or “incident” should be based in an internationally-agreed-upon definition of those terms in the maritime context, similar to how aviation accidents and incidents are differentiated. The UNDRR definition of a maritime accident includes the following: “ A marine accident is an event, or a sequence of events, that has resulted in any of the following occurring directly in connection with the normal operation of a marine vessel: the death of, or serious injury to, a person; the loss of a person from a ship; the loss, presumed loss or abandonment of a marine vessel; material damage to a marine vessel; the stranding or disabling of a marine vessel, or the involvement of a marine vessel in a collision…” What happened to the Titan was definitely a maritime accident under this definition. And “implosion” is a more specific definition of the type of accident. Swordfish36 (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any change other than removing the "2023". Wikipedia does not lead, it follows. Wait for a common name to emerge. Charcoal feather (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah keep or remove the 2023 no other change Sebbog13 (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to anything other than 'incident'. I was an incident when we knew something was wrong, bu not necessarily what; not we know it imploded, we know it has disappeared. Ergo it has become a disappearance. BTW, did someone ^^^ suggest that imploding into one's component atoms was not a disappearance? SN54129 16:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    disappearance would presuppose no part of the vessel was found, which is not the case. It didn't implode into atoms but rather into many clearly detectable pieces. Icehax (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to the move to "implosion" as that is almost certainly what happened. SecretName101 (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Titan Submersible Implosion, as that is exactly what this article is about. Anybar (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why have all the comments from before debris found been hatted like they don't matter? The fact they found debris doesn't change my opinions and vote on the name. You can't expect everyone to re-post just because they posted a few days ago. Honestly never seen a RM where someone has hatted half the discussion....... Joseph2302 (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Current name is appropriate, following discovery of debris. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the current name would be my vote. There's no reason to change it. The fact of the matter was that it was a tragic incident. Calling it a disaster is a bit too exaggerated, sinking doesn't sound right since it's a submersible not a ship. 'Implosion' would make sense at first, but that wasn't the whole thing. This article highlights not just the implosion, but also its disappearance and the search. Therefore, I believe the current title is appropriate. Ulysses Grant Official 19:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support yeah the current name is good the "2023" could be removed tho, but the current title also works great. Sebbog13 (talk) 19:48, 23 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) {{ref22 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.

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]
Even assuming it was indeed directly over the position of the wreck, the Titanic isn't just any old fishing boat. It's a cruise liner, it was a lot longer and wider than 31m even when it wasn't in bits. Plokmijnuhby (talk) 17:04, 23 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, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CEO said he didn't want to hire "50-year-old white guys"

"When I started the business, one of the things you'll find, there are other sub operators out there but they typically have gentleman who are ex-military submariners and you'll see a whole bunch of 50-year-old white guys. I wanted our team to be younger, to be inspirational and I'm not going to inspire a 16-year-old to go pursue marine technology but a 25-year-old you know who's a sub pilot or a platform operator or one of our techs can be inspirational. So we've really tried to to get very intelligent, motivated, younger individuals involved because we're doing things that are completely new."

Sources:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dka29FSZac

https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=63826

https://www.mrctv.org/blog/oceangate-ceo-hiring-crew-didnt-want-hire-50-year-old-white-guys-theyre-not-inspirational

These might not be the most reliable sources, but I wanted to raise the issue of this quote, and hope that better, more reliable sources become available.

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't relevant to the rescue. Like at all. Gots2bkidding (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This, like the bulk of your other contributions and "just asking questions" talk page posts, sure strikes me as WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:3D3A:A733:2B6A:33A3 (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. SquirrelHill1971's contributions seem to include a lot of right-wing talking points, making me wonder if they are actually here to improve the encyclopedia, or just here to make WP:TENDENTIOUS edits. — The Anome (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, if there is an issue, WP:ANI is available to use. Mjroots (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This could be relevant to the article if discriminatory hiring practices limited the talent pool of the company, and that had some effect in the decisions taken that could have led to this disaster. Personnel decisions can be as important as engineering decisions (and extensive coverage on the latter is being included in the article). Human errors are the causes or contributing factors to many disasters. So it is potentially topically relevant. The threshhold for inclusion is having reliable sources, probably beyond what was listed above. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources focusing on this are tabloids and right-wing websites. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Al83tito, thank you for saying that. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since people here have accused me of being right wing, I would like to point out that I think abortion, gay marriage, and all drugs should be legal. My own personal views are irrelevant to this article and this talk page, but I feel that I have a right to defend myself from false accusations. Anyway, going back to the actual topic, it is highly revlevant that the CEO chose to reject older, white males with military experience using submarines, in favor of younger people with no experience. My own personal views are not an issue, and I am disappointed and disgusted that people raised that issue. Like I already said, we would need better sources. But for now, this is all we have. The subject itself is extremely notable to the failing of this submarine and the deaths of the five people who were on it. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More sources:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lost-titanic-sub-wokeness_n_64949559e4b0c0ed59b12b5c

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/titanic-submersible-woke-hiring/

https://nypost.com/2023/06/21/why-stockton-rush-didnt-hire-50-year-old-white-guys-for-titanic-sub-tours/

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources aren't really better. As it happens, they all have shortcuts at WP:RSP: WP:HUFFPOST, WP:DAILYDOT, WP:NYPOST. It's telling that no better news sources have decided to publish this information, which is looks to me like the CEO's spin on a cost-cutting measure (hiring new graduates instead of experienced professionals). In any case, if the information belongs anywhere, it would be at OceanGate, not this article. Folly Mox (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's also stupid because even having said that, which was clearly for spinning hiring inexperienced young people on cheap salaries for his cut price unsafe, he still went ahead and hired an old white ex-navy guy to be on the sub with him. "woke submarine" is just another piece of garbage culture war nonsense and Wikipedia shouldn't bother including it, as it's a soundbite with no relevance at all. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:13, 23 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]
Why can't this be done? The lead section says "approximately 400 nautical miles (740 km) off the coast of Newfoundland" but this does not appear anywhere else in the article. Thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where has that "approximately 400 nautical miles" come from? Not the NPR source at the end of that sentence, which gives no positions at all. Presumably someone just calculated it from the co-ordinates? 86.187.171.168 (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the distance from St. John's to the Titanic wreck. I've added a citation to confirm: CNN. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. So I just calculated it, at this site, using the co-ords for this article and St. Johns, Newfoundland. The answer is: 366 nmi (678 km; 421 mi). I'm not sure "approximately 400 nautical miles" is close enough. Maybe it is. Or perhaps a better source could be found? 86.187.171.168 (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the debris was found "approximately 488 metres (1,601 ft) from the bow of the Titanic," strongly suggesting the dive site was very close to the wreck site. Unlike with an explosion, an implosion will not have immediately thrown debris across a wide field. The vessel parts may have drifted as they sank down. But not by many metres, I suspect. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:00, 23 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]
Great stuff. This page is enormously better than when I went to sleep. BusterD (talk) 12:01, 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]
BBC first received the statement at 22 Jun 19:46 (British time)
EddieColdrick (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly issued after USCG had informed them of their findings - IIRC the Admiral said that that had been a priority. I would be amazed if USCG and OceanGate had not been painfully co-ordinating their statements for a day or two, at least. Davidships (talk) 19:50, 23 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]
  • We have a need for two maps. The map in the infobox should be zoomed out to give the overall geographical context. The more detailed topographic map would then be appropriate for the body of the article, showing the detail of the voyage, site, search area and so forth. The infobox is supposed to be a summary, like the lead and so should not be overloaded with too much detail. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It should summarise however, which the minimalistic mapframe doesn’t do.Tvx1 07:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a reason that Template:Maplink has a zoom-switch feature. (See right) If your argument is that the reason for having two maps is the requisite zoom to give a clearer picture, there's already a singular feature for this. -- Veggies (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Map
    Map
    Map
    Wreck of the Titanic

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]
Currently the Debris section only cites two sources (both BBC news articles) and lists a tail cone plus the forward and aft end bells (no nose cone). This makes perfect sense so far. I'm not sure if adding a conflicting statement about an apparently non-existent nose cone would be helpful. (Did someone along the line conflate end bells with cones? Or nose with tail? Or just misspeak/type? Who knows.) 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:02, 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]
The info is also in the lead where it says it came from a declassified sonar detection. Yet neither the WSJ article nor the BBC live seems to mention the declassified part. I can't read the NYT source. They do mention how this information was earlier passed to the Coast Guard but wasn't made public until now but don't offer direct commentary on the possibility it was classified until now. Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an additional source to add to the article: https://www.foxnews.com/world/us-navy-detected-titan-sub-implosion-top-secret-acoustic-system-day-vessel-went-missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.1.24 (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably won't happen - see WP:FOXNEWS. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:17, 23 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]
None of the sources you mention here are direct transcription of statements of or publications from the investigative party. They are third party reports which clearly make their own synthesis. The investigators clearly avoid the word implosion. Just look at the publications and news conferences given directly by them cited in the article. The infobox uses the word twice, twice backed by the same source that doesn’t use the word at all. Tvx1 07:08, 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]
Not necessarily. There could be catastrophic leak and than break-up. Tvx1 06:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvx1 makes an excellent point that definitely needs proper consideration. The media/press/public have all been somewhat fixated on the notion of an implosion ever since Titan was reported missing. From the reports of the debris that was found it certainly sounds like the Titan failed catastrophically.
As @Mr rnddude says, the pressure inside the sub was 1atm and the pressure outside was around 400atm. If that pressure differential ceased to exist then the crew would be killed. But the crux of the issue is how rapidly (or slowly) the pressure inside and outside equalized.
Therefore, had a small leak developed the sub could in theory have simply filled slowly with water but remained essentially intact. The outcome for the crew would still have been fatal.
The other scenario (which appears to have happened) is that the carbon-fibre pressure hull suddenly collapsed. Carbon-fibre is extremely strong, but it is inflexible and when it breaks, it breaks.
Consider decompression of an airliner for comparison - it's the opposite scenario but the physics are similar. There have been cases where aircraft have slowly decompressed at altitude due to a minor air-leak. The pressure inside & outside slowly equalizes, the passengers put on their oxygen masks, people with sinus trouble feel like their head is exploding, the plane descends and ultimately lands safely. There have also been cases where aircraft have rapidly (explosively) decompressed - e.g. Pan AM 103.
To recap, the reports on the debris field support the view that the sub imploded (which, as an interesting thought experiment, one might also view as 'the sea around the sub exploded'). But a slow leak and non-catastrophic equalization of pressures was always an option that the media never caught on to. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that’s one of the alternate explanations is was inferring. Tvx1 11:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that the Coast Guard spokesperson did state that "the debris is consistent with a catastrophic implosion of the vessel" (see the 22 June press briefing, around 6:10). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:19, 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]
No, It could also be a break-up.Tvx1 06:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any sort of structural failure would immediately lead to catastrophic explosion at such depth 74.213.224.18 (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...I meant to write implosion. 74.213.224.18 (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wouldn’t. Please actually educate yourself on what an implosion is. Also, something could actually have caused an explosion inside the pressure chamber.Tvx1 07:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Structural failure of a cabin pressurized to 1 atm whilst in an environment of ~400 atm would not lead to an implosion? The linked article says an implosion is a process in which objects are destroyed by collapsing (or being squeezed in) on themselves and even provides a submarine being crushed from the outside by the hydrostatic pressure of the surrounding water as a prime example of an implosion. I already knew all that so my understanding of implosion isn't being revolutionized here. What other scenario is on the table? Torpedo, bomb-on-board, Cthulhu? Curt dismissals - as an aside, you've been unpleasant repeatedly on this talk page - aren't convincing responses. I have, however, removed both cites from the infobox as they don't mention 'failure of the pressure hull' or an implosion. It only mentions the debris field and press conference. I can personally entertain the explosion hypothesis, but it's a 'citation needed' affair. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude I'm afraid you're incorrect. Although it would appear that Titan catastrophically imploded, a structural failure could mean anything from a very slow leak to a sudden fracture/collapse of the pressure hull.
To reiterate, I'm not disputing that Titan catastrophically imploded. However, you've stated that an implosion is an inevitable consequence of a structural failure. That's incorrect.
Consider the scenario where a slow leak develops (e.g. a valve fails, a bolt fails, a seal fails). The pressure hull would slowly begin to fill with seawater, the air in the cabin would increase in pressure and be compressed, the crew would die, but the pressure hull would remain intact. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You all make the incorrect assumption that the break-up happened with certainty while the pressure inside the vessel was lower than the surroundings. It can just as well have equalised first, through a leak of variable size, with the vessel breaking-up later. That’s not an implosion. And there also could have been an explosion inside the vessel, which could have cause structural failure. That it was specifically an implosion that caused the loss has NOT been confirmed.Tvx1 11:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A break-up such as you describe wouldn't register on sonar the same way, and explosions do not leave the same kind of debris as implosions (I think explosions also sound different from implosions, but don't quote me on that). Obviously we can't take my word for it, or anyone else's in this discussion. We've got reliable sources (the WSJ, the Coast Guard) that say "implosion". Other sources that say "catastrophic loss of the pressure chamber" are not necessarily contradictory. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 18 or June 18-22?

It is confirmed that the 18th of June is the date of the implosion of Titan, but should the rescue mission be included in the date on the infobox as well? Popeetoes (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be too hard to pin down an end date of the rescue->recovery->investigation sequence which is likely to be ongoing for some time. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Horizon

Horizon Maritime Services (Horizon Maritime), the owner of Polar Prince and Horizon Arctic, might be good for an article? Apparently it is a Aboriginal Business [3][4]. There seems to be some business and First Nations news about it -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos!

I'd like to complement every editor who put this article together. Some of you may have done current event articles many times, but when the pressure is on, the job is that much harder. Well done! ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to extend my kudos to the many good-faith contributors who continue to manage such a tragic and dramatic situation using good sense, fine writing, and a fierce reliance on reliable sourcing. The Wikipedia model of page creation and social norms tends towards really excellent coverage of some forms of recent events. Thanks, folks. You make the rest of us look good. BusterD (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also echo the comments from my fellow editors above. The article is detailed and very well resourced and referenced. The fact that it has been created to this level in such a short period of time and under such tragic and difficult circumstances warrants praise to all those who have worked on the article! JLo-Watson (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mysteriously dissapeared

I added that it "mysteriously dissapeared" don't delete that. Yusuf Michael (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but as another editor said, that's just non encyclopaedic writing in the first place. But particularly in this case where the disappearing is not considered particularly "mysterious". Nil Einne (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who said that? Yusuf Michael (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Asperthrow said that in one of their reversions of your edit [5] Nil Einne (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editors may WP:BOLD delete whatever they wish or they may delete edits which were non-constructive and sensationalised, as yours was.
Your contribs suggest you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia’s customs and guidelines, so I recommend acquainting yourself with them before continuing to edit articles. Asperthrow (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How am I unfamiliar Yusuf Michael (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because your contribs show that you have repeatedly deleted factual and long-standing information, accused one article of being written “on a liberal basis”, and demonstrated a lack of understanding for MOS:PRON. Asperthrow (talk) 06:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
nope, that was only one time. Yusuf Michael (talk) 06:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have under 100 edits so your bad edits are likely to stand out a lot. But let's put that aside, and concentrate on this article. You need to stop trying to add word which you've been repeatedly told is unsuitable and which clearly lacks WP:Consensus. Nil Einne (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serendipity

Submersible Pilot’s Spouse Is Descended From a Famous Titanic Couple.

Wendy Rush is a great-great-granddaughter of the retailing magnate Isidor Straus and his wife, Ida, two of the wealthiest people to die aboard the ocean liner.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/21/us/wendy-stockton-rush-titanic-missing-submersible.html?smid=nytcore-android-share 2600:8800:386:F000:DD26:8799:9B62:A40 (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tyat doesbt natter Yusuf Michael (talk) 06:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This is currently mentioned at Stockton Rush. I'm not going to comment if it belongs there but I see no reason why it should be mentioned here. Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove table Arrival information

This page is starting to read like unhinged paranoia the whole arrival of ships table is totally unnecessary. canolanext (talk) 23 June 2023 — Preceding undated comment added 06:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic background information

@Canolanext — I fail to understand the reasoning behind deleting three sentences of background information, which explains exactly what the submersible was travelling to view.

It’s also best not to assume that everyone knows the same as you. Not all readers will be familiar with the Titanic or its sinking; however famed it may be. Asperthrow (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is an entire article on the titanic, it mentions in infobox about the titanic with a link to it. It is so unnecessary to start unpacking titanic on this page. It is nearly repeating verbatim what wreck of titanic page says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canolanext (talk • contribs) 09:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories - Canada

The incident occurred in international waters, not in Newfoundland and Labrador or Canada. I propose that that "in Newfoundland and Labrador" and "in Canada" categories should be removed. Thoughts? Mitch Ames (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They've been removed, apparently. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Technical question

May I ask why the passengers and the pilot are completely considered dead when they are technically missing? What rules govern this issue? Or should we pay attention to the fact that they objectively had no chance of being saved? Solaire the knight (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article says this: "OceanGate issued a statement regarding the deaths of the people aboard.[1]" That source clearly says: "All five people aboard the submersible, known as the “Titan,” were killed, the US Coast Guard said in a Thursday news conference." So the US Coast Guard, who are best placed to make a judgement, has decided they are dead. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fair question. It's known that the five people were 'locked' inside the pressure hull, which was bolted shut from the outside. And yesterday's discovery showed the pressure hull completely destroyed (both both titanium bell-ends separated). Whilst that means there was no Earthly chance of survival, it's fair to take the line that they're missing until confirmed otherwise.
However, the ROV that photographed the wreck has UHD cameras and strong lighting. So it would have viewed the debris field in great detail, one can assume. On that basis (and given the authorities are unequivocally saying the crew are dead) I suggest that the ROV detected the five bodies, but that information has not been divulged to the public for reasons of privacy/respect.
In terms of what happens to a body at extreme depth. Imagine a sealed, empty glass bottle dropped to 3,800m. That would implode because air is compressible. The same bottle (but filled entirely with water) would remain intact because water is almost completely incompressible. My understanding is that a body would be slightly compressed, but nothing dramatic (e.g. exploding or imploding) would occur. The air held in the victim's lungs/trachea/sinuses would be momentarily compressed to near-zero-volume, but after death/relaxation these spaces would fill with seawater. Compare this to the scenario where a scuba diver ascends rapidly while holding a breath - the decreasing water pressure causes the lungs to inflate like a balloon and burst. For this reason a basic scuba skill is knowing how to make an emergency ascent: where a trickle of air must be constantly allowed to leave the lungs. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I may add on to this excellent explanation, different portions of the human body are compressible at different pressures - see, for example, crush injuries. Also worth noting is that the sudden catastrophic failure of the vehicle would have resulted in a great deal of debris rushing inwards at the occupants in a manner akin to shrapnel. And finally, if we assume the implosion happened nearly two hours into the dive, keep in mind that the world record for holding one's breath, without exertion, is just over ten minutes. It would not be possible for the occupants to surface in time, even if they were able to survive the implosion of the vehicle, the incredible pressure at depth, and the immense cold (around 4°C (39°F)). Given the way that pressure works, my opinion on the most likely scenario is that they were gone before they even realized something was wrong; any hull buckling at that depth would likely have caused an instantaneous implosion, and the crush would've happened too fast for their senses to relay to their brains that something was happening.
For Wikipedia purposes, though, the most important thing is that the authorities are reporting their deaths. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, even without official statements, can it be objectively said that these people not only had no chance of surviving, but that they most likely did not even "understand" that they died? Sorry for the pun, I hope you get what I mean. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But of course we rely on official statements, not our own knowledge. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and therefore do not edit the article. It's just that in my country if a person goes missing, then declaring him dead is basically perceived as a formal legal status. Although of course, it seems that here the question is unfortunately already obvious. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. There are probably legalities which are in process at the moment, and they probably depend on official statements from some government source or other, but that's basically a sidebar to the incident itself. Credible sources are reporting their deaths because we know - possibly as surely as we will ever know - they're dead. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are two facets, which should not be conflated. We know beyond doubt (and have sources saying as much) that the passengers cannot have survived the incident; and are therefore dead. Legally declaring them dead (and so allowing their heirs to access their assets, for instance) is a matter for legal bodies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suspect the ROV that found the wreckage also spotted human remains. The remains will be there - it's a question of how intact (or otherwise they might be). There's every possibility they're largely intact and identifiable. I don't think the discovery of the bodies would have been made public at this stage out of respect/privacy. I fully realise that surviving this incident is one hundred percent impossible, but still there is something about the unwavering certainty with which we were told the five were dead that makes me think the bodies were photographed by the ROV. Otherwise the language at this stage might be expected to be couched in terms like "presumed dead", "no hope", "zero chance of survival". 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The US Navy will know the time the sound was detected. The dive team on Polar Prince will know when the dive started. So OceanGate will be able to compute when the implosion occurred, i.e. during the descent or on the sea floor. The loss of comms will also coincide with that. Even at relatively modest depths, rapid drowning will have been almost certain. And even if escape from the sub was possible, decompression sickness would have been very likely. 86.187.164.212 (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Salahieh, Nouran; Cohen, Gabe; Levenson, Eric (22 June 2023). "Located debris has been assessed to be from the external body of the missing submersible, according to memo reviewed by CNN". CNN. Archived from the original on 22 June 2023. Retrieved 22 June 2023.

Magellan ROV

no mention of the Magellan ROV and efforts from USAF to pick up from Jersey 81.20.188.36 (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there’s very little mention of ANY other vehicles capable of ferrying humans two miles undersea. I’ve read there exist ten such in the world, but only Titan lacked certification. Is this true? The victims are described as having visited titanic or the deepest part of the ocean dozens of times. How did they do that? What vehicles did they use? Is there such a thing as this kind of certification? Can any country force certification regarding activities, conducted in international waters? I’ve read the American accompanied Titan on every dive to the titanic. Is this true? I’ve read Cameron’s sharp criticism. Will this be included? All of these issues should be covered here, or there should be links to other articles.Roricka (talk) Roricka (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cameron's comments are already included. I'm not sure where you read all of the other things you mentioned - if it was here on Wikipedia, presumably they had a citation attached (and if not, there's no reason to believe the claim is true). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
R U kidding?? I’m not going to edit this article, so I’m not going to provide actual sources here. But one of the places I’ve read this is on the BBC website. (Cameron was quoted as saying he wouldn’t set foot in Titan. I don’t see that here.) The business about there being 10 submersibles, or, however, many there are, should be discussed here. People will come here wanting to know about this entire topic. When you read that an explorer has been to the titanic 23 times, the vehicle should be described. It’s the vehicles that are one primary focus here. When you read the communication to the submersible is done with text messages, it should mention how that’s done. There’s no Wi-Fi down there. Did they use acoustic modems? There are many many many technological issues that are of great interest, not to mention importance, which eventually are going to have to be in this article. It’s silly to say that I’ve read things that aren’t true. That’s not the point. Roricka (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What 10 submersibles? How are they relevant to this incident with this submersible? Which explorer? If you want to know more about the Titan, see OceanGate#Titan. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link describing the ten (now nine) submersibles: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/oceangate-warned-2018-david-lochridge-1.6883432 Roricka (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry -- I forgot to log in before I provided that link. Roricka (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed: BusterD (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And here is Deep-submergence vehicle. A link to submersible is already in the article, along with the link to OceanGate. There are also links to articles on all of the people who died (except the student). This article is necessarily focused on the event itself - subsidiary topics are summarized, if relevant, and linked to. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Roricka: Whether you are going to edit the article or not, if you are asserting statements to be true, claiming to have read about them, and asking for them to be included in the article, it is incumbent upon you to provide sources; and not in the least unreasonable for other editors to ask you to furnish them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I read the Magellan ROV was en route, but the debris was discovered before it arrived. I'm not sure it's worth including that information, given it had no role in the search. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BBC: Sufficient checks following each dive?

Quote from https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-65967464

"Another focus of the investigation will be whether there were sufficient checks following each dive. Each time the Titan went down on a deep dive, its hull would have been compressed by the immense water pressure - it would have become smaller and then returned to its normal size on its return to the surface. This regular stress would have led to fatigue of the material, weakening it. It is so far unclear whether there were checks for cracks after each dive and if so how extensive they were." Uwappa (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Date format

For an article relating to an American company and American-built submersible, shouldn't date format be MDY? See MOS:DATETIES. ɱ (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting there was also some discussion of this at Talk:2023 Titan submersible incident/Archive 1#Date structure? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The incident happened in Canada. So no. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article says international waters in the very first sentence. The Titanic wreck is outside of the 200 NM US EEZ and also Canada's EEZ. --Dual Freq (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to update my comment, and got edit conflicted. It was a Canadian chartered ship, and legal Canadian documents use dmy dates. It happened in international waters nearest to Canada, and so it cannot be argues that MOS:TIES applies for American dates. In case of ambiguity, MOS:PRESERVE applies, so we don't need to change the date format anyway. We shouldn't just blindly default to American dates. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These ideas about Canada conveniently ignore the fact that it's an American company with an American CEO, American pilot, American craft, American mission, American-led rescue mission, etc. etc. "Departure area of the boat from Canada into international waters" is irrelevant to the actual submersible mission. ɱ (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph, was the article not created with MDY? So we can preserve that, based on MOS:DATERET? ɱ (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, I support reverting to the original date format of MDY. Also worth noting that Canada also primarily uses MDY format in common usage, the DMY is only really used in governmental/formal contexts. Even government entities like Canadian Broadcasting Corporation use MDY primarily. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 18:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was a consensus for dmy in the archive discussion linked. So don't see why we need to change that consensus based on flimsy evidence. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Titan

Since we now know the vessel was destroyed, and there are no known free images, I think there is a strong rationale to add a copyrighted image to the article. (Like using copyrighted images after a person dies) The vessel is the subject of the article, but without any image to aid the reader, it can be challenging to understand some passages. I think there is a good enough NFUR here to add an image. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm - would WP:NFCC justify a picture here, rather than at OceanGate (or the proposed split article on Titan itself)? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, we don't know that there are no free images, unless people have actually done a proper check. Also, would fail WP:NFCC#8 as an image of it probably doesn't significantly enhance this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Such an image would very much enhance the article, not least by showing the size of the porthole. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed an image here definitely passes NFCC. Someone do a thorough check for free images first. ɱ (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 - Without an image the article makes no general sense - This was a unique submersible not a run-of-the-mill submersible or submarine that everyone's seen before so a picture is definitely warranted here. –Davey2010Talk 19:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a little flippant, so apologies. Can I suggest using one of OceanGate's own photos of Titan, without worrying about possible copyright infringements etc. OceanGate's lawyers are going to be rather busy with other matters for many, many years to come - I can't see them suing over a photo. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's rules remain Wikipedia's rules. No. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OceanGate "partnerships" with NASA, Boeing, & Washinghton University

On its website, the company boasted its “state-of-the-art vessel” was “designed and engineered by OceanGate Inc. in collaboration with NASA, Boeing and the University of Washington”. However, some the alleged "partners" denied any association with OceanGate Inc. whatsoever. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Already mentioned in the article (here). Is there something you think should be added to that? 97.113.8.72 (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023

In the 'Expeditions to the Titanic' paragraph in the 'Background' section, change "eight-day expedition" to "eight-hour expedition." Trillvirgo (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's an eight day trip, according to the sources. You're thinking of the time for each individual dive. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done:The price includes the ride to the site, the dive and the ride home, which all takes eight days. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023 (2)

Suleman Dawood should be listed explicitly as a reported death in the info box. He may not have a Wikipedia page, but he deserves to be mentioned in the same manner as all the victims of this incident. Troulson (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Nobody is listed - FlightTime (open channel) 19:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Titan_submersible_implosion&oldid=1161603169"