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 2a00:23ee:2120:27ff:9144:358:e282:bac0 (talk) at 16:38, 28 June 2023 (→Infobox image: 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

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved to Titan submersible implosion (non-admin closure) Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

misplaced comments added to an outdated section of the discussion
Weak agree - Since we don't know PRECISELY what happened, and we don't know where the submarine is, it DISAPPEARED. If it's found before this discussion is closed, then Strongly oppose Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 07:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong agree Michael H 19:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The Coast Guard has stated in a press conference that debris consistent with an implosion of the vessel was found by the Oddyseus 6k. Jasoney (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would also make the title clearer as to what happened Jasoney (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak agree - Like many others below, I'd certainly prefer "...disaster" or "...accident", but I'll accept anything that corrects the ridiculous understatement "...incident", so I'll take "...implosion". --MaeseLeon (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak agree - I feel like this accurately describes what happened. We don't say "Titanic accident" we say "sinking of Titanic", because that is what happened. As another editor brought up in previous discussion however, the year as a qualifier is simply not necessary. Maybe we could change that.
Jmaxx37 (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak disagree -- Undoubtedly, it was an implosion and that's the most notable thing about it at present. However, it received international attention as an incident, and would likely not be a Wikipedia page if it were a mere implosion that came and went. The incident itself is what establishes notability. PickleG13 (talk) 00:02, 27 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

WP:BOLDLY closing this off due to loss of cohesiveness; discussion should continue in the survey immediately below - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 15:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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]
  • MOS:SECTIONCAPS does not support capitalizing "disaster." ~TPW 13:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the suggestion to move to Titan submersible implosion or Titan submersible disaster. As Significa liberdade pointed out, in the Costa Concordia case, the name of the ship was Costa Concordia, not Concordia, but this submersible was named Titan, not OceanGate Titan. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer Titan submersible implosion: it's more descriptive and straightforward than "disaster". I also prefer "Titan submersible" over "OceanGate Titan", as it's more descriptive, and the company name isn't part of the craft's name. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would actually move this page to the 2023 Titan submersible sinking not implosion. This vessel sank as a result of compressive implosion. The term implosion has a broad meaning including the intentional inward demolition of buildings through explosives, nuclear detonation and other meanings, that may confuse the common reader. Most subs that sink in deep water implode after they reach a certain depth anyway. In summary, this vessel sank as a result of a kinetic implosion and not a detonative implosion, so I propose moving it to sinking or keeping it at incident. Words in the Wind(talk) 21:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think incidindent still fits the bill. all the other words: "implosion", "disaster", etc, are not used uniformly across media outlets coverage of this "incident"... it is clearly tragic, and a disaster, but I think the current title should just hold. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have an authoritative source to support your assertion that "most subs that sink in deep water implode after they reach a certain depth"?
    Further, do you have a source to support your assertion that there was not any kind of explosion (detonation) on board Titan that triggered an implosion? Primie facie, a pressure vessel containing oxygen cylinders and Heath-Robinson electrical systems powered by lead-acid batteries sounds like a recipe for explosions. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That would mean making assumptions on the mechanism of incident since we currently have no official preliminary nor final reports, which is a big no-no in my books. It's better to use the more general terms for now such as incident or disaster, it could always be updated later without a discussion when a proper report comes out. Icehax (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Incident works for now i argue Iljhgtn (talk) 22:07, 22 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]
    Concur 92.22.127.50 (talk) 22:38, 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]
    The page is fairly broad already - it covers the leadup, predicted safety flaws etc. 92.22.127.50 (talk) 22:39, 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]
    Agree; I think it's too early to ascertain, given the intense media coverage, what actually happened. Keep in mind, whilst the Coast Guard's official statement strongly suggested the cause, it's yet to have been fully confirmed. Cobaj Thaite (talk) 12:12, 24 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]
    I think the most reasonable options are
    • Titan submersible implosion
    • Titan submersible disaster
    • OceanGate Titan implosion
    • OceanGate Titan disaster
    Patmorgan235 (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree: these are the best options. The year should be omitted and implosion or disaster should be used in place of incident, although disaster seems more appropriate. ~~~ kiepier (talk) 02:41, 24 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]
    Agree, count my vote for this. Goldddd (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, although I support 2023 being removed from title. User:DimensionalFusion 09:49, 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]
  • I say NO. This whole thing was an INCIDENT. So much about it doesn't make sense, because really the Coast Guard knew from day ONE that the thing had a catastrophic depressurization, they had been told of the noise that had been detected right when they lost contact with the Titan, and yet they went on that wild goose chase, for nothing. Searching an area twice the size of Connecticut? For what? As James Cameron has stated, as soon as that French (non-Coast Guard affiliated) ROV team went to the last place it had been, right above the Titanic, as soon as it got down there, they found it. And yet for 4 days the Coast guard was running around like chickens with their heads cut off. So no, disappearance is not appropriate, because it's not even accurate, not really. That thing was right where everyone should have known it would be the whole time, right next to the Titanic. Incident is 100% the correct word for it. Rebeccathecowgirl (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we know exactly when the acoustic information was passed from the U.S. Navy to the Coast Guard? The article does not seem to say. Thanks. 86.187.229.73 (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agreed with others that the name of article is fine and that 2023 should be removed. YborCityJohn (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is not only known for the dissapearance and it was found 173.168.100.26 (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close discussion — Too many tangents and seemingly no agreement on much here... it's hard to even follow the discourse, let alone discern any kind of consensus. We should open new discussions on proposals for more specific changes to the title, one by one. The first of which should be removing "2023", as that seems to have the most tacit support right now, and is the easiest to make clear support/oppose arguments for. — AFC Vixen 🦊 15:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. My notifications are getting spammed because i posted 1 comment on this page. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Survey on a general aggregate of the top 4 requests

Since this discussion has somewhat spiraled out of control, and we now have various competing titles, as the original starter of the discussion, I'm WP:BOLDLY closing off the above discussion to centralize it here and bring cohesiveness to more effectively form consensus. There is consensus to remove 2023 out of the title, but there is no consensus on the rest of the title. Out of all of the proposed suggestions, the following seemed to be generally favored:

  • Titan submersible implosion
  • Titan submersible disaster
  • OceanGate Titan implosion
  • OceanGate Titan disaster

Icehax (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I favour Titan submersible implosion. It doesn't offer information that may not be as useful as the reader, it shows the reader what kind of object it was, and what happened to it, all in just 3 words. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link!< 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 16:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. It succinctly describes the vessel and what happened. ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree.
"Titan Submersible Disappearance" sounds like a placeholder title, until more information is known. "Titan Submersible Implosion" is more direct and reflects the actual event that occurred. 2600:6C5A:407F:7DBF:10F8:E72A:DB73:60FD (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OceanGate Titan Disaster is my vote - Titan submersible disaster would be my second choice. I favor disaster over implosion here because the article involves a lot more than the implosion itself. For example, the Space Shuttle Challenger title doesn't talk about the cause, just references it as a disaster. Pressue (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The manual of style doesn't support capitalizing "disaster." ~TPW 18:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Titan submersible implosion is my preference. "Disaster" feels too much like editorializing unless it becomes the common name for the incident. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 16:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Name in italics. It is not an adjective. ElLutzo (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My vote too. Gawaon (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
XCBRO172 (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this, suggestion is well explained. OneRandomBrit (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 06:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I favor Titan submersible implosion, disaster seems to general, and the scale of the incident does not deserve the title of disaster. Implosion lets people know exactly what happened at a glance. Including the word submersible in the title is also crucial, in my opinion. Wikepediathefreeencyclopedia1 (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I favor Titan submersible implosion or Titan submersible disaster - there doesn't seem to be a precedent to include the name of the company owning the vehicle in the title. We don't have an article called Sinking of the White Star Line Titanic, we have an article called Sinking of the Titanic. I can see the cases for both "implosion" and "disaster" in the title. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I think in terms of providing context, OceanGate was an instrumental part in the overall 'vision' of Titan, and provides more context than establishing that Titan is a submersible. In this instance I believe that including the operator's name is important; and I think it sounds better, too, but I'm fine with any candidate.
I think the issue here is that there is little consistency when naming submarine tragedies. Take a look at: List of maritime disasters, 2008 Russian submarine accident, Submarine incident off Kildin Island. Maybe this could be discussed under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) or a similar project page? Cobaj Thaite (talk) 05:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Titan submersible implosion (followed by disaster). There's not really a precedent to include the company name. (See: List of submarine incidents since 2000). As for how we want to refer to the "incident," while disaster would work, some organizations define disaster as "serious disruptions to the functioning of a community that exceed its capacity to cope using its own resources" (IFRC). In this case, a community hasn't particularly been affected (except perhaps researchers and rich people who want to go to the Titanic in the future). As such, implosion is preferred. Significa liberdade (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OceanGate Titan Disaster gets my vote. It generalizes the entire thing for what it is: an unfortunate disaster (similarly to the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster and the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster). I also believe it important to include OceanGate in the title, due to, as far as I can tell, the vessel being commonly referred to as the OceanGate Titan. I would also like to bring up similar submarine/submersible incidents that have also used disaster in it's title (i.e. the Kursk submarine disaster). DylanJ10000 (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
lowercase disaster Sebbog13 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
not changing my vote just correcting the above message by dylan Sebbog13 (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a vote, and @Sebbog13 is correct regarding how we capitalize. ~TPW 18:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As before, adding "implosion" or "disaster" is redundant, and as per existing consensus for maritime sinkings (rather than spaceships being destroyed) it should only be named Titan submersible or OceanGate Titan. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• OceanGate Titan Implosion. I believe using 'implosion' instead of 'disaster' would be more concise, straight to the point for those in the future who might come across this. As I've previously stated, WP has a tendency to use the wrong word for an incident and I feel it's too much of editorializing. This occurred in a contained environment, and only impacted five people. 'Disaster' signifies something of a greater magnitude. JenM5595 (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd pick Titan submersible implosion. It's one of the most concise, and it pretty much explains literally the entire article, in my opinion.
Packnuts (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My vote goes for Titan submersible implosion. Second choice is Titan submersible disaster. Thanks team. Nir007H (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Titan submersible disaster is a better title, because the article isn’t exclusively about the implosion. ForTheGrammar (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Titan submersible implosion for the ease that it rolls off the tongue, and very eloquently sums up what happened. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 22:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OceanGate Titan disaster is the most descriptive and communicative in my opinion, and it follows Wikipedia precedent, namely Space Shuttle Challenger disaster and Chernobyl disaster. Cobaj Thaite (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titan submersible implosion would be best as “incident” doesn’t seem right. Who knows, there could be many other different “incidents” related to “Titan”, so it is good to be specific.
TheCorvetteZR1(The Garage) 13:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Titan submersible disaster gets my vote. It's succinct, and as an above replier said, the article isn't exclusively about the implosion. AliceBelmont (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Titan Submersible Implosion "OceanGate" isn't needed in my view. Disaster works as well but personally I think "Implosion" is the best. CatPerson987 (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In favour of Titan Submersible Implosion. "Disaster" sounds like it lost a lot of lives in my eyes. Implosion clearly states what happened and provides a more "single view" approach where the audience doesn't need to look further to see what happened in case they just want a quick search and scan. Lefty Lucy Righty Tighty (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+ don't get me wrong, 5 lives is still too many but "disaster" sounds like 200 to me. Lefty Lucy Righty Tighty (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titan submersible incident (current without the year)

- Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 15:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MtPenguinMonster (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 16:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Sebbog13 (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can just add our signature (4 consecutive tilde) under the title we want to vote if that's ok with you? Icehax (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Titan submersible implosion is also my preference. I think the italics are important. Also, no one is referring to the event as a "disaster," except possibly news channels. Natureader (talk) 04:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Doctor Duh, Eoj9020, 212.250.189.37, Sebbog13, Death Editor 2, Icehax, Gimmethegepgun, SmokeyJoe, ElectronicsForDogs, Davidships, Nir007H, GoPats, Macktheknifeau, Metalhead11000, Brandmeister, ForTheGrammar, Folly Mox, Renerpho, Words in the Wind, Cymru.lass, Kicking222, Maximilian775, 94.5.218.193, BhamBoi, A bit iffy, Celeron64, 156.143.240.139, Jim 2 Michael, OneRandomBrit, HAL333, Joseph2302, Tvx1, TulsaPoliticsFan, MtPenguinMonster, Songwaters, True Penguin Warrior, Pburka, Cpotisch, ERAGON, PolarManne, Rager7, DeFacto, TarkusAB, This is Paul, 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:1122:4FD:855C:AEEC, Northern Moonlight, AquilaFasciata, The Anome, Cocobb8, and Geordie: - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 15:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Askarion, DylanJ10000, Spilia4, Mfb, Zippybonzo, Local Variable, Jalapeño, 205.239.40.3, SmokeyJoe, GiantSnowman, Andrew Davidson, Kcmastrpc, Thehistorianisaac, Dh75, MT Princess Empress oil spill, Matthew Cambell, Khajidha, Mychemicalromanceisrealemo, 80.7.92.124, Iljhgtn, Tantomile, MaxLikesStuff, Ann Teak, Kirbix12, Veganoregano, Dylnuge, Zilch-nada, Usedbook, Abebenjoe, Zxcvbnm, David Tornheim, Yeoutie, Christian Toney, The Navigators, CatPerson987, Skarmory, Festucalex, Seth Whales, Wikepediathefreeencyclopedia1, Beginning, WikiHannibal, 205.239.40.3, Maineartists, Jnm5505, HumanBodyPiloter5, Davey2010, JoelJSK, Bradv, Nonovix, and Koplimek: - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 16:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JackWilfred, 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D, Ɱ, 99.224.199.140, Grahaml35, Piledhigheranddeeper, DynCoder, CatPerson987, Dat1 607, Jayson Black1, Atrenx90, XCBRO172, KeyKing666, 2607:FB91:515:6F4:412:6C2D:146C:E1A5, 216.201.29.14, Redacted II, 92.22.127.50, Typicalglazed, CitationIsNeeded, 80.7.168.14, Tamzin, KoP152, MaxnaCarta, Blaylockjam10, Novem Linguae, SYSS Mouse, L'Mainerque, Useight's Public Sock, TH1980, Grave8890, TheDataStudent, Pressue, Dual Freq, Schierbecker, Tantomile, Limesave, Super Goku V, Pivotman319, Laurel Wreath of Victors, ElLutzo, Significa liberdade, Gawaon, Xradicon, Chris vLS, Zippybonzo, Parham wiki, Horst Emscher, Colipon, 2601:89:8400:B9D0:DDC0:53FA:A9D3:AFEE, and KyuuA4: - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 16:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous users can't receive pings, also you would be better requesting a massmessage mailing at WT:MMS as pings don't always work/are turned off by the recipient. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Glman99, DarkSide830, Jake01756, 2A00:23C4:6B13:D801:243A:5816:555B:30FD, Liljimbo, CycloneYoris, Emkut7, InvadingInvader, AlphaBetaGammsh, Abebenjoe, Tol, Words in the Wind, Osunpokeh, Red Card For You, GoPats, WorkingOnTheRailroad, Javert2113, RandomInfinity17, Christian Toney, Rutebega, 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D, Neutrality, Pyraminxsolver, 205.155.236.138, Spilia4, Randy Kryn, 92.22.127.50, Cobaj Thaite, LilianaUwU, QueerFilmNerd, Kiepier, Goldddd, DimensionalFusion, The Anome, Packnuts, Swordfish36, Charcoal feather, SN54129, SecretName101, Anybar, XtraJovial, Ulysses Grant Official, Rebeccathecowgirl, 86.187.229.73, YborCityJohn, 173.168.100.26, AFC Vixen, and Thehistorianisaac: - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 16:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate being pinged and not even told why. I have already stated my opinion. Please stop pinging me here. --Renerpho (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I favour implosion over disaster, given how much that word crops up in headlines and how people are talking about it. However, may I also submit that the extra word "submersible" is unnecessary? I.e. I would go for either Titan implosion or Implosion of Titan (I've no special preference for having OceanGate or not, btw). I raised this possibility in the earlier discussion above. However, other commenters rejected this idea because removing "submersible" would mean that "to the outside eye you wouldn't have a clear understanding of what the article might entail". That's a valid concern, however I would also point out that we refer to it as the "Hindenburg disaster", not the "Hindenburg airship disaster". We don't worry that people might think "Hindenburg disaster" was actually a disaster involving the former President of Weimar Germany! It seems then to me there's a judgement call over whether someone might see a title like "Titan implosion" and be seriously confused. I don't think it's particularly likely, given how far this topic has penetrated popular culture, but ymmv. 2A00:23C4:6B13:D801:D51C:E4:6E5A:2165 (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also favour implosion per above, and the fact that most news coverage about it calls it an implosion. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote for OceanGate Titan disaster. It's more general and the full name is warranted. Songwaters (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titan submersible implosion or Titan submersible accident. I don't have a preference over which one to choose, but I think these are the best. It seems many media sources are calling this an implosion and not a disaster. Also, keep in mind WP:DISASTER, don't use the word disaster in the title unless many reliable sources are saying it is and it is more destructive than other events. This just seems like a normal submarine implosion/explosion. Having OceanGate in the title also doesn't describe what reliable sources are saying and submersible is good enough for the title. Submersible should also be included in the title to disambiguate from other Titans (like the 1980 Damascus Titan missile explosion). RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 16:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titan submersible incident works for me. The scale is insufficient for the use of the word "disaster". Also, although the vessel is definitely known to have imploded at some point, we don't know if that was what killed the passengers; they may have already been dead at that time. — The Anome (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think it's good to keep hatting and re-starting this discussion, which has now happened twice. This behavior seems very likely to result in a "no consensus" close. I think this discussion needs to close after 7 days, then a new RM should be started with whatever the most likely to succeed rename request is at that time, informed by the discussion in this RM. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. I understand the reason the hatting was done and it seems good faith, but it's added a lot of confusion. It's hard to figure out who is arguing for what at this point.
    As for the survey, it seems like a decent way to structure discussion on something like this, but I'm not clear that the options here had consensus or are even based in what was leading popularity-wise. I count 30 comments that supported the term "incident" (which is not a poll option) vs 11 that supported "disaster" and 9 that supported putting "OceanGate" in the title before the poll was opened (I'm including both hatted sections). There were also a non-trivial number of people opposed to any move, but the current page title isn't in the poll options. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 17:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. This discussion is very confusing. There's no way to assess votes, and the way the discussion has been "cut" effectively invalidates some votes, and that's not okay. Simply mass-pinging users is decidedly not helpful. Close discussion as "no consensus", because a consensus under those conditions is impossible. --Renerpho (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I initially thought that a close was the best choice forward when the discussion pivoted after it was confirmed the Titan was lost, but was convinced that hatting the older discussion would be better.
    But here, I don't see why a second hatting was a good idea. Now the closer has to deal with tracking comments from an additional section to prevent re-votes from counting. It requires people to come back who did not pick one of the four above names and decide which one they want to support. I also don't understand how two users can both claim to be the starter of the discussion and claim to have hatted the second section. (I also don't see why I was pinged because I suggested that the vote be closed, but that is another matter.)
    Honestly, it might be better to have this be prematurely closed and a new discussion started in 48 hours so that everyone can take a brief break and prepare. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • OceanGate Titan implosion due to it being the most accurate description of what happened based on the consensus of sources. I think that "incident" is too light of a word and it should not be used in light of more accurate descriptions. I would also support Titan submersible implosion if editors prefer that, though would discourage use of Disaster. In the end though, all four options are better than the current one, and if one option has reasonable more support than the other, as long as "incident" is removed from the page title, I will support the title. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Titan submersible implosion. Google search results for the topic without any of these keywords suggest that "implosion" is much more common than "disaster", and the company name is not very prominent in snippets. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer current title; "disaster" makes it sound like many lives were lost, especially non-adventurer lives. "Incident" is a more accurate term. If the current title is "out", then "implosion" is preferable to "disaster" (OK to drop "2023", though). Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Titan submersible implosion is how multiple RS have been referring to it in their ledes since debris field was found. Headlines generally don't include OceanGate. Xan747 (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titan submersible implosion or OceanGate Titan submersible implosion are the best titles.
DanTheMann15 (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support change to Titan submersible implosion, more encyclopedic and accurate. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titan submersible implosion works well I think. "Disaster" doesn't seem like the right word for the scale of the incident. There are lots of Titans, so a qualifier is needed. "OceansGate" doesn't offer much help to someone trying to find the article, since OceansGate is more obscure than Titan. So I think submersible is better. Chris vLS (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titan submersible incident (current title, with '2023' removed) is a better fit than any of the proposed alternatives. Here's my reasoning:
    • OceanGate is entirely superfluous as there is no other Titan submersible
    • Disaster is strongly suggestive of an incident with massive loss of life
    • Implosion: the implosion is just one, admittedly central, part of the story. The article is manifestly not just about the implosion itself.
    • Incident is neutral regarding massiveness or extent, and accurately and more broadly describes the subject of the article. --Ekaterina Colclough (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of Ultra-short baseline acoustic positioning system for ranging and text messaging

It has been mentioned by some of the 2022 „mission specialists“, that text message communication and location of the submersible were not available at all times. While this most certainly did not play a role in the 2023 incident, the equipment and technology used for this might be of some interest. Shots on the sea-level control room and some onboard footage show Sonardyne software running on computers for location and messaging (CBS‘s video titled „A visit to RMS Titanic“ at 7:52, BBC The Travel Show „Take me to the Titanic“). Some outside shots of the submersible seem to show a Sonardyne WMS 6+ transponder mounted on top of the aft compartment. Sonardynes „shallow water unit“ Mini-Ranger 2 USBL has a standard range of only 995 meters but can be extended to 4,000 meters. The off-shore grade standard Ranger 2 has up to 11,000 meters range, but the transponder look is not consistent with the photos.217.24.230.116 (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

217, that sounds like original research. If a reliable source talks about the specifications of the communication system, it seems appropriate to add somewhere in the articles we have on this topic, but if you are personally recognising software and hardware from news clips using your own knowledge and experience, we can't add that kind of information. Folly Mox (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So get the sources! It’s absurd — this critical piece of information isn’t covered in the article. Readers (such as myself) have every responsibility to complain about such an oversight w/o being told to “do it yourself“. I’ve read dozens of times that communication between the sub and the surface ship was done by brief text messages (including a link to ‘text messages’, as if that was going to be helpful). It’s like saying Titanic communicated with rescuers via SOS messages, instead of mentioning there was a radio on board. (In a similar cockeyed vein, the article on the Russian MIR submersibles mentions that they use VHF for communication. That’s absurd, but hasn’t been corrected for 12 years.) Roricka (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found a reference to USBL in Oceangates web-archived FAQ. The manufacturer/model of equipment is not mentioned. When the Transportation Board of Canada publishes its final report, we will know exactly. 217.24.230.116 (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Roricka, this is a do-it-yourself project. 99% of us are volunteers. No one is obligated to do anything for anyone else, and complaining to other volunteers about perceived oversights is not going to convince us to do the research for you. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Roricka: Other users are under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to take the time to hunt down sources to add this statement, and it's rather paradoxical to suggest that they are. If you or OP want this material added to the article, then the onus is on you to make it happen. You have no responsibility to "complain" just as we have no responsibility to address these "complaints." Cpotisch (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding why the communications and instrumentation worked so badly would add to the article. It appears many things on the sub were chintzy. 2603:7000:4EF0:9B0:3122:71D6:75F3:1F82 (talk) 22:52, 27 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]
Here's a better source in The Guardian] which says "370 nautical miles (685km) south-east." That source should be used in the Preparations – 16–17 June section, and the same distance should be used in the lead section, which then would not need a separate source. Rounding 366 nm to 370 nm is more reasonable. 86.187.228.193 (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section has now been updated to "about 370 nautical miles (690 km) off the coast of Newfoundland, Canada". But the distance does not appear anywhere, and is not sourced, in the main body of the article. The distance is from St. John's. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:49, 26 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]

The lead now says: "...about 320 nautical miles (590 km) off the coast of Newfoundland, Canada". Where has that come from? And why? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:bradv for changing that back to 370. Could I suggest that a source is added? And that it also appears in the main body text. Thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:59, 27 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]
The Titan did not have a nose "cone" - it had forward and aft bells and a tail "cone". Timtjtim (talk) 21:22, 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]
It seems like Hankins either misspoke or that the term is different depending on the organization. More likely the former, though. In any case, currently the article has been fixed and the issue as originally post has been resolved, so my suggestion is not needed. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
During the press briefing they recounted finding the "nose cone" and "aft end bell" as two separate events, so they may have actually found both. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is that there doesn't seem to be a nose cone. There are two end bells and something being described as a tail cone. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, slip of the tongue. If there was a nose cone there would be no view out of the window. Davidships (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Unless you're saying the coast guard aren't the investigators, in which case I'm not sure who you're referring to, they definitely did use the word "implosion": https://edition.cnn.com/americas/live-news/titanic-missing-sub-oceangate-06-22-23/h_c50808578ba1d353961d6c2f9979ff22 Timtjtim (talk) 21:25, 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]
The PSI differential in an airplane is up to 10 (0.7 atm) depending on model + altitude. The PSI delta in the submersible is 6000 (400 atm). The two scenarios are totally incomparable. There's no such thing as a "minor leak" at those depths. Timtjtim (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtjtim Of course there is such a thing as a minor leak, regardless of the pressure differential. The pressure vessel can be anything from perfectly sealed to thoroughly unsealed. It's a spectrum. There might be a poor joint-interface that allows a few millilitres of water to penetrate per hour. Or maybe a few litres per hour. Or thousands of litres in a few milliseconds. You get the picture, yes? 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
moments after you have a small amount of water coming it, it will rapidly turn into a vast amount of water. Timtjtim (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtjtim Please just stop saying incorrect stuff. What you said is a possibility, but only a possibility. Go and drill a small hole (let's say 1mm diameter) in your mains water pipe. Come back and let me know how long it takes for the hole to become significantly larger. It depends entirely on the physical nature of the leak and the structural integrity of the material surrounding the hole.
Stick a pin in a balloon - certainly, the pinhole very rapidly grows and the balloon bursts catastrophically.
Now, reinforce a part of the balloon with some Scotch Tape and stick a pin in that. What happens? Basically very little. There is minimal leakage and no catastrophic failure.
I turned my kitchen tap on earlier today, but only very slightly so that just a trickle of water came out. The flow of water remained constant. It didn't suddenly become a deluge. The tap's valve did not fail.
You really need to learn to accept when you are wrong. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your kitchen tap is not at a 6000 PSI differential Timtjtim (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even at 6000 psi, there are scenarios of small leaks that do not lead to escalating failure. A small leak is a pretty bad sign though. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtjtim That's one of the few correct things you've contributed recently. I understand that WP has issues with your attitude, competence and behaviour already. For that reason I regret I cannot interact with you any further. It's much too difficult for people like me to deal with people like you. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:7D8B:34CE:C9C3:F4CC (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - could you clarify that comment? Nobody has informed me of any issues with my attitude, competence or behaviour. If I've done something violating WP policies I'd really appreciate you let me know - feel free to start a discussion on my talk page. Timtjtim (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtjtim Here we go. More passive-aggressive belligerence...I'd like you to leave me alone now mister. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:7D8B:34CE:C9C3:F4CC (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to continue this on the discussion on your talk page if there's an issue. Timtjtim (talk) 09:15, 25 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]
Just to note, the article is in the process of being moved to "Titan submersible implosion". --Super Goku V (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All sources now call it an implosion (a catastrophic collapse), but I'm not sure thats a good title. 2603:7000:4EF0:9B0:24CF:D1E2:EA02:3CB5 (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For now it should work with WP:COMMONNAME, though down the road it might get reviewed over WP:CRITERIA. Likely it will depend if it is somehow confirmed to not be an implosion. For now though, implosion should be fine. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:11, 28 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]
Depending on where the boat broke up, currents, etc., it might to be hard to figure out where they ended up. In any case, this is all speculation on our part, and not anything that can be used in improvement of the article. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are no bodies. The implosion event is far too violent.
The water and hull fragments would collapse in on the occupants at velocities exceeding the speed of sound in water. The occupants are instantly obliterated and small body fragments dispersed by the rebounding debris, turbulent water and oscillating bubbles of compressed air.
The effects on the body would be similar to those seen in high velocity airplane crashes like that of Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771.
The fragmented remains would soon be eaten by fish and crustaceans that are known to live at this depth.
Teeth or small bone fragments may survive but would be very difficult to find and collect. 2A02:A456:1FDA:1:D5D4:7056:301B:E091 (talk) 21:32, 26 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]
Decompression sickness in fact was never a consideration at all in an event like this. The crew were breathing air at normal atmospheric pressure, by virtue of being in a pressure hull. This comment is entirely irrelevant to this article, but I feel compelled to correct what you just wrote.
Suppose the sub failed at 30m depth and suppose the occupants were able to evacuate. Had they taken a full gulp of air (at 1atm pressure) just before evacuating, upon evacuating that air in their lungs would have been compressed to 4atm (pressure increases by 1atm for every 10m of depth). While the mass of air in their lungs would not change, the volume of their inflated lungs would decrease significantly (but not in a harmful way). They would then have swum to the surface - as they ascended their lungs (assuming they still held their breath) would have increased in volume, and at the surface (where the pressure is 1atm) their lungs would have been the same fully inflated volume they were just before they evacuated the sub. They would have suffered no injury nor any decompression sickness.
However, had they been scuba diving at 30m for a period of an hour, let's say. Now there are two scenarios to consider. First: if they ascended rapidly while holding their breath, their lungs would have expanded considerably (probably to the point where they ruptured). That's because at 30m, not in a pressure hull, their air supply was being fed to them at 4atm pressure (not 1atm pressure). A basic skill in scuba diving is that, during an emergency ascent, you DO NOT hold your breath - instead you exhale slowly and constantly (to prevent your lungs being damaged or ruptured).
Second scenario: if they made an emergency ascent while breathing out slowly and constantly as per their training - while their lungs would not be damaged, gases (mostly nitrogen) that had dissolved in their blood stream (while they were at depth) would have rapidly come out of solution and formed bubbles in their blood stream. THAT is decompression sickness. To visualise what happens: consider opening a bottle of soda very slowly versus very rapidly. If you do it slowly, minimal bubbles form in the liquid. If you do it rapidly, the liquid bubbles a great deal.
Therefore, on a normal scuba ascent, the diver stops every ten metres for a number of minutes to allow gases dissolved in their bloodstream to come out of solution gradually (and be dispersed through lung diffusion).
The key difference is that scuba divers (and their lungs) are subject to the prevailing pressure at whatever depth they are diving: 2atm at 10m, 3atm at 20m, 4atm at 30m etc.
Divers within a properly built, rigid pressure vessel are subject to 1atm air regardless of their depth. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the detail about scuba diving, which is of course irrelevant to this incident. Can you tell us how deep the sub was when it imploded? Thanks. 86.187.228.193 (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC webpage https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65934887 gives an explanation about what happens at this depth with lots of detail. 80.47.58.68 (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
actually, I had read this article earlier today and it's poor. You say it covers the implications of depth in lots of detail: on the contrary it does not. It has nothing in it about physiology of the human body in relation to depth/pressure.
It mentions hydrocarbons in the atmosphere. That is complete rubbish. It would only apply to a submarine powered by diesel. Therefore the part about bodies being incinerated is absurd.
I've had BBC make several corrections to their articles on the last three days.
They've posted some total nonsense around this story. While they ought to be an authoratitve source, they sadly are not these days. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:5019:F810:88E8:1F6C (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this article should contain and detail about the physiology of the human body in relation to depth/pressure? If so, why? Thanks. 86.187.228.193 (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not think this article should contain any information about human physiology in relation to depth/pressure. That ought to have been clear from the two times I acknowledged that my comments in this regard were irrelevant to this article. I posted them (and again, I feel sure I pointed this out explicitly) to correct some erroneous information already posted. I hope that clarifies. If not, please let me know why. Thanks. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:7D8B:34CE:C9C3:F4CC (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Titan was sealed in a way that it could only be open from the outside. The Titan attempted to dive down to a depth of 3,800 m. Contact with the Titan was lost around the time a US Navy detected the characteristics of either an implosion or explosion. The debris that was discovered recently came from the Titan. These combined lead to a Presumption of death. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:37, 24 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]
@AndyMabbett I don’t really disagree with you. Nevertheless, in the situation like this incident, where are tons of things, being written, and things that sound reasonable and interesting, I don’t think there’s any problem with the reader, suggesting edits on the talk page. That’s what the talk page is about. The reason I didn’t give specific links was because I didn’t have that. I simply assumed that more informed editors would be aware of the sources, and I was simply pointing out where they were gaps. I apologize if it was unhelpful. Roricka (talk) 04:57, 26 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]

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]
That wasn't a consensus, and it was without full consideration of the details, more aspects have been brought up here. ɱ (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus. Both are used in Canada, but MDY is far more common, including in formal and government contexts. It was also an American sub and company, which kind of supports MDY.
The reasons giving for preferring DMY are that it's the format that the Titanic article (which is about a British ship) uses (who cares) and that it is valid in Canadian English (even if uncommon in Canadian English, and even if this article isn't really about a clearly Canadian topic). 2A01:CB05:8DB3:4700:C7F0:3F3F:3E4A:28 (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, MOS:RETAIN would suggest that we would use MDY if discussion does not resolve the issue. However, I do believe that the prior discussion did lead to a consensus. There were enough aspects of the incident as being tied to Canada that using DMY is fine in my opinion. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't a consensus, it wasn't closed or resolved or appears to have convinced anyone. And it was without full consideration of the details, more aspects have been brought up here. ɱ (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely felt convinced to drop my objections and agree with the other users, but very well. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, but consensuses can change and very often do. Here it makes the most sense to use MDY, and the guidelines support its use as the first iteration of date formatting here as well. ɱ (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Canadian link to this topic is kind of tenuous, and while DMY is acceptable in Canadian English, it is uncommon. The Wikipedia article for "Canada" uses MDY dates. 2A01:CB05:8DB3:4700:C7F0:3F3F:3E4A:28 (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the other thread, you referenced DATETIES, which says "Articles related to Canada may use either format with (as always) consistency within each article. (see Retaining existing format)". I think policy clearly supports reverting to MDY. 2A01:CB05:8DB3:4700:C7F0:3F3F:3E4A:28 (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And again, I don't think this has "strong" ties to Canada in the first place. It's an American company, an American ship, none of the passengers were Canadian, it happened in international waters, and they were visiting a British ship. That last one is the only reason anyone ever suggested switching to DMY, and then the Canadian link was just brought in as justification once the Titanic link was shot down. 2A01:CB05:8DB3:4700:C7F0:3F3F:3E4A:28 (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The vessel that imploded was American, I mean. The *ship* ship was Canadian and it departed from Canada, but that's a weak link. 2A01:CB05:8DB3:4700:C7F0:3F3F:3E4A:28 (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And even if it is a primarily Canadian topic, DATETIES is very clear that in that case, switching to DMY was not justified. 2A01:CB05:8DB3:4700:C7F0:3F3F:3E4A:28 (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a Canadian and I have legal documents in MDY format. Check more of yours. Wikipedia policy is clear that DMY is not preferred for Canada. Even the Canada article uses MDY. 2A01:CB05:8DB3:4700:C7F0:3F3F:3E4A:28 (talk) 19:09, 25 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]
@97.113.8.72 Stockton Rush would have taken issue with such a stoical point of view. He repeatedly said that rules stifle progress and innovation. Couldn't WP just steal/borrow one of his photos? What harm could it possibly do to break the rules a little bit now and again? ;) 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fellow IP, I think you should rein in your urge to make jokes on this page. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being flippant, but it's really not a joke. Stockton Rush and his Heath-Robinson 'sub' was a joke. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not turn Wikipedia into one. Timtjtim (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I am not up to date. What is important about the porthole? --Super Goku V (talk) 03:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think @Pigsonthewing is referring to the fact that Titan's porthole was much smaller than that of Cyclops 1 (and we're currently using a picture of the latter). 97.113.8.72 (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of points. First, a non-free image here is not more acceptable because we think we can get away with it without being sued. Second, some due diligence needs to be undertaken to ascertain if there really are no free license images available. Third, we don't automatically allow non-free images of people who are recently deceased for the very reason of due diligence needing to be done. Four, if due diligence were done, then I strongly agree that a non-free image would be permissible, and I think it would be appropriate to put it on this article, rather than the OceanGate article. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

U. S. Navy acoustic information

The article says: "A U.S. Navy acoustic detection system designed to locate military submarines detected an acoustic signature consistent with an implosion hours after Titan submerged. This was discovered after the submersible was reported missing, which caused the Navy to review its acoustic data from that time period. The Navy passed the information to the Coast Guard."

Some questions, answers to which would improve the article:

  1. How many "hours after" was that? Does that mean the sub was definitely on the sea floor by then?
  2. Was this data security classified and so was delayed in being passed on to the Coast Guard? How long did it take to pass the data on - hours or days?

Thanks. 86.187.229.73 (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is related to #U.S. Government knew of certain death but tried to hide it, failed to do so anyhow. As I mentioned there, in the lead our article does claim the sonar detection was declassified implying it was classified at one stage. But last I checked, the sources we use didn't specifically mention it was classified and so there was no mention of when it was declassified. Note that assuming it was classified, the declassification may have happened after it was passed to the Coast Guard, perhaps even not long before it was publicly revealed but the sources we use seem somewhat unclear on these aspects. Some other sources I've seen do mention or imply that this sort of stuff is shrouded in secrecy because it's mostly used for detection of foreign submarines so the US does not want to give away too many details of their capabilities but it would be OR to say this means the detection was classified. Nil Einne (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“was declassified implying it was classified at one stage”. Military raw data is classified by default. Live data is not subject to continuous classification decisions.
The process and decision maker for declassification is classified.
“Classified” is a generic term going down to the lowest level. It’s close to meaningless. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We still need a source that says it was classified or declassified or it's WP:OR Nil Einne (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And on that note, I've removed the declassified bit. If anyone is willing to provide a source rather than simply insist it's true, they're welcome to add it back. Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I guess my point of relevance to the article is that the classification level of the data is uninteresting. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, we have no sources to support it. In any case perhaps the U.S. Navy typically shares "sensitive" data with the U.S. Coast Guard any way. So there might have been no delays added on by having to "officially declassify" it once it had been identified. The biggest delay was obviously the delay in the announcement of the disappearance? 86.187.235.53 (talk) 08:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that any source has said anything about where the sub was, ie on/near the bottom, or still descending; indeed it is not clear whether the raw data can indicate direction from the point(s) of collection either horizontally or vertically - nor from how far away was the detection. I expect that, over time, some better understanding of this will emerge, but given the purpose of the USN system, not all questions will get answered publicly (nor should they). Davidships (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All useful info thanks. But the questions were really about timing. So, trying again:
  1. How many "hours after" was that? Does that mean the sub was definitely on the sea floor by then?
  2. How long did it take to pass the data on - hours or days?
Of course, as this was the U.S. Navy none of this info may (ever) be in the public domain. Thanks. 86.187.166.157 (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The vessel was not even reported missing by the operating company until it was overdue to resurface, by which point it would have had time to sink to the seafloor from the surface more than twice. Folly Mox (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, yes, thanks, that's useful information I'm sure. But the question is about the U. S. Navy acoustic information. Is it possible to tell, from the timing of the acoustic information (and coincidental loss of comms from the sub) where the sub was when the implosion occurred. I am unsure how to make this question any clearer. Thanks. 86.187.164.61 (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The real question is: has a reliable source produced such an analysis based on the data. And the answer is: so far, no one has produced one. We'll have to wait (possibly until the TSB/NTSB/CG investigations release their findings). 97.113.8.72 (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, that's the Wikipedia question. The above questions are just as real. Thanks. 86.187.164.61 (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Wikipedia talk page. WP:NOTFORUM applies. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this thread should be hatted or deleted? 86.187.164.61 (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It'll get archived after 3 days of inactivity, though someone with that fancy one-click script may come along and manually archive it sooner. Don't delete it, that's yet another thing which is Not Allowed (there are so many!). 97.113.8.72 (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to see what exactly is in that WSJ source as it's behind a paywall (and should be marked as such in the article). 86.187.164.61 (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is marked as such. That's what the little red padlock means. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked <ref name=":18"> and there is no "url-access=subscription" parameter? Perhaps you could tell us what the source says exactly. 86.187.164.61 (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you meant ref 1 - you're right, the other one (ref 8) isn't marked as paywalled. I can access ref 18 (Sky News article) just fine; what do you want to know? 97.113.8.72 (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ref is number 8 in the text. It's this one:[1] Can you access it? The claim is "hours after Titan submerged" - what does the source actually say? Thanks.86.187.164.61 (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I have no access. Maybe someone else does. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody should add the little red padlock... 86.187.164.61 (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
86, given that the US Navy acoustic survey network (whatever it's called) is supposed to track the movements of foreign submarines, it is almost definitely capable of triangulating the position of the implosion event, including depth in the water column. I don't have any experience in telemetry, but I feel like the intersection of three spheres is two points. I hope this is getting closer to answering your question. Folly Mox (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe. But that's a bit of a different world. Maybe they could triangulate it, without any need to know at what time the sub started to dive. The article says elsewhere that it normally took the sub 2 hours to descend? 86.187.164.61 (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah there are a couple sources that give that number as the estimated dive time. I think what I'm trying to get at is that if they detect an underwater noise with three sensors, the triangulation gives them two points, one of which may well be above the water surface. If they hear it with two sensors, they get a circle. In other words, either they have the precise location in 3d, or they just have an arc of possible locations in 3d space, with the latitude and longitude varying along with the depth in a tradeoff kinda fashion. I'm sure whoever wrote the software in COBOL in the 1970s put a lot of thought into it so they could use a minimal number of sensors for accurate results. Folly Mox (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Well Submarine detection system is suitably vague. The Pentagon must be suitably reassured that no-one at Wikipedia will ever know. 86.187.161.157 (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This source names it the Integrated Undersea Surveillance System, and says "Though the system itself is not classified, according to a Navy official, its operation and collection capabilities are secret." Folly Mox (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good source. Yes, it mentions triangulation. So maybe also depth, not just a raw acoustic signature (which is what the article currently suggests?) 86.187.161.157 (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding url=subs parameter. 86.187.161.157 (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I wanted to return to this thread briefly because I realised if the error bars in detection are greater than the ocean depth, then there would be no depth dimension to infer. Given that the ocean is way wider than it is deep, it doesn't seem out of the question that the margin of error could include the entire water column. Folly Mox (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kesling, Ben; Youssef, Nancy A.; Lubold, Gordon; Paris, Costas (22 June 2023). "WSJ News Exclusive | Top Secret U.S. Navy System Heard Titan Implosion Days Ago". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Archived from the original on 22 June 2023. Retrieved 22 June 2023.

What are the front and aft end bells?

Are they the 142 cm (56 in) internal diameter titanium hemispherical end caps: red parts of the right image? If so, more explanation is needed using this image.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are - but obviously you can't cite me. Does this fall under WP:BLUESKY? I'm not sure. The image description calls them "end caps"; I can't find anything in the OceanGate document cited which mentions them specifically. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, the "Sealab End Bell" section at the bottom of this page describes an end bell as a dome-shaped end cap (and has a picture). 97.113.8.72 (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't imagine these components have any accepted industry-standard name, especially in this instance where the submersible is essentially sui generis. Terms like 'bell end' or 'end bell' are satisfactory and should not cause confusion. However, 'hemispherical titanium end cap' is a precise descriptor, or possibly 'convex titanium end cap' to cater for anyone who might debate whether or not the end caps are geometrically hemispherical.
I'm not impressed with this image. The naked people standing next to it look odd. I don't mind the pretty naked lady so much. But the naked man waving gives me the willies [no pun intended].
When we have dimensional drawings, I don't think we need naked people included to give a sense of scale. If this became a 'thing', Wikipedia would end up being littered with images of naked people waving at readers.
Where drawings do not include dimensions, more acceptable ways of conveying scale (in above-surface instances) are to include double decker buses, elephants or soccer pitches. In underwater instances, accepted scale markers are blue whales, scuba divers or giant squid. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:7D8B:34CE:C9C3:F4CC (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The accepted industry term is end caps. It's worth pointing out that, in submarine design, there's a difference between hemispherical and torispherical end caps. See differences here: Head_(vessel) ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the human figures are from the Pioneer plaque. If the nudity bothers you I'd refer you to WP:NOTCENSORED. ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ElectronicsForDogs I'm okay with the pretty naked lady. There's just something overly familiar about the way the naked man is waving at me. If you like naked men waving at you then I guess that's okay. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:7D8B:34CE:C9C3:F4CC (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know that Wikipedia isn't censored but in this case the nudity doesn't add anything to the image. Would be better to depict them wearing clothes. RteeeeKed💬📖 00:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and WP:OM says it's better to avoid objectionable material if it has no encyclopedic value. RteeeeKed💬📖 05:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RteeeeKed Agreed. They could be wearing wetsuits. That would protect their modesty and be entirely in context. I'd also prefer that the man wasn't waving. Who is he? Why is he waving? Maybe we'll never know the answers to these questions. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6DEC:D014:ED5B:3E36 (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The wetsuit part I agree with, but the waving is fine. It's some random illustration that's going onto some random page somewhere, it's not that deep. RteeeeKed💬📖 19:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RteeeeKed Apparently it's the Pioneer Plaque. They're attached to a couple of space probes launched in the 1970s, and currently hurtling at break-neck speed into the abyss of Space. The idea is that if an alien race discover them, their curiosity will be piqued by a couple of people in the scud waving at them. If said aliens are sex-fiends they'll be sorely disappointed to arrive on Earth only to find us all/mostly fully clothed and (certainly in the case of London) rather unfriendly.
I guess I can live with the waving as long as they're covered up. I think the naked lady will look good in a slinky wetsuit. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6DEC:D014:ED5B:3E36 (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my gosh can we please stop sexualising the Pioneer Plaque? People have bodies. You're welcome to copypaste a different public domain human figure to scale in your own barebones geometric blueprint and upload it to Commons if this one is so objectionable. Folly Mox (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Folly Mox I'll stop feigning offence just as soon as you provide me with evidence [citation needed] that alien lifeforms in a neighbouring galaxy won't find a random naked dude waving at them offensive. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6DEC:D014:ED5B:3E36 (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I made an alternative version with just the man, converted to silhouette. (I tried a similar conversion for the woman, which became unrecognizable.) It looks like the silhouette alternative has been picked up for other languages, feel free to substitute.
Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

police investigation

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) announced it is investigating this. [3][4] -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way they'll get those horses down there. 86.187.164.61 (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [reply]
LOL😂😂 Matthew Campbell (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
true Chicken4War (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Boooooo. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 15:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NASA relation

I included the fact that the NASA astronaut was a serving member of OceanGate's Board of Directors because the paragraph insinuates that there were no ties between NASA and OceanGate's Titan.

(Removed by admin who is unsure how it relates)

There's a lot of buzz about the claim that experts from NASA were involved with OceanGate, and NASA's denial of it. So I think clarity should be provided about the expert from NASA who was involved, and how (not involved in creation or repair but a member of the board of directors). Jelly Garcia (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20230621000242/https://oceangate.com/news-and-media/press-releases.html Jelly Garcia (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It needs a secondary reliable source, not just an OceanGate press release. The sentence you added (Veteran NASA astronaut, Scott Parazynski was a member of OceanGate's Board of Directors, though his induction was announced long after the construction and repair of Titan, in May, 2022.) had far too much editorializing about its relevance to a supposed "NASA relation", which would need to come from a secondary RS to be included.
There is no mention of this buzz you refer to in the article, just of the claim by OceanGate and of NASA's clarification, so the mention of Parazynski seems bizarre without context. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay in addition to the Board Member list from OceanGate's site, I'll add this? I just archived it:
https://web.archive.org/web/20230625011506/https://twitter.com/AstroDocScott/status/1526263024776003586?s=20
Original: https://twitter.com/AstroDocScott/status/1526263024776003586?s=20 Jelly Garcia (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The buzz is mentioned. In current state, it basically implies: Rush / OceanGate claimed experts from NASA were involved, but NASA denied it. Jelly Garcia (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we would need secondary sourcing that explicitly describes this buzz, and brings up Parazynski as a relevant factor. Otherwise we're in WP:SYNTH/WP:OR territory. The issue is not about establishing whether Parazynski is on the board—that appears well established—but rather about whether it should be mentioned in this article and in what context. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This would leave someone walking away thinking, 'wow they're fraudsters / liars,' but the
OceanGate claim is they "collaborate with experts from NASA
NASA denies having anything to do with the creation of Titan
Both are true.
So the way it's presented would leave someone uninformed on one of the points being made. Jelly Garcia (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources about the statement that [Astronaut Scott Parazynski was a member on the OceanGate's Board of Directors] are: (1) OceanGate's Members List for their Board of Directors, via OceanGate website (2) Scott Parazynski via Scott Parazynski's Twitter (both archived). Those are not just a source, those are thee source. I'd have to scour for ones aside from the exact company and person the statement is about :( Jelly Garcia (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"This would leave someone walking away thinking"--no. That is how Facebook works. I don't see any reason why this connection--well, "connection" is unproven--this biographical factoid needs to be mentioned. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's because the paragraph is demonstrating that OceanGate made false claims about ties to NASA unless it's included
That's why it gives this impression. I don't use Facebook, I imagine people on any Internet forum would put 2 and 2 together that what's being said is [OceanGate made false claims] unless it's mentioned.
Otherwise, why include that paragraph at all or mention the claim & NASA's denial of it? Jelly Garcia (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because Business Insider mentioned it - possibly other news organizations too. That's the kind of secondary source coverage needed to make the connection. @Jelly Garcia, folks are being picky because this is a very highly-watched article at the moment. Sourcing needs to be impeccable. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write the part with any news source. I'm clarifying a false impression it gives - that might be present bias against the subject by implying they lied.
I'd clarify by explaining that both the claim and denial are true and there's no lie contained in either party's statement by explaining that (OceanGate's statement is true) [Guy] was on board of [Company] but (NASA's statement is true) bc he indeed do take part in […]. How would a source other than the [Company] and [Guy] be needed for a statement about nothing other than the company and guy?
Problem: Paragraph citing secondary source logically leads to a falsehood
Solution: Clarify using first-hand sources so the information is presented fairly
But need second-hand source? Jelly Garcia (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed took no part in* [..claim..] Jelly Garcia (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources are always preferred, and we can only present information actually in the sources, not make a synthesis across them (that is WP:OR). If this is what a reliable source - Business Insider - says, this is what we say. If another article comes out making the clarifications and connections you want to make, we add them. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. I don't see evidence of "buzz". You saying that someone on some forum is going to think this or that is just not relevant here, and the very first step is to provide reliable secondary sourcing (you did not) that makes that connection. As for "the paragraph is demonstrating..."--this is all so vague, so poorly written, that I don't know what paragraph you're talking about.
I edit-conflicted with your latest edits, which are just--well, I don't know. I don't know what falsehood you're talking about. "First-hand sources" are not necessarily fair or accurate, and more importantly they cannot establish whether something is worth including. "Second-hand sources" sounds like gossip, and it's a far cry from Secondary sources. Yes, this is an encyclopedia, and we write up our articles using secondary sources. You can tell me and GorillaWarfare that Wikipedia is doing it wrong, but this is how we do it. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have 2 sources for [Guy] was on Board of [Company]! I've shared them!
1 - [Guy] - https://web.archive.org/web/20230625011506/https://twitter.com/AstroDocScott/status/1526263024776003586?s=20
2 - [Company] - https://web.archive.org/web/20230608090354/https://oceangate.com/news-and-media/press-releases.html Jelly Garcia (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth including because the connection is made in the paragraph we're talking about. The one that starts with -
"OceanGate website claims they worked with experts NASA from NASA"
And goes on to state: NASA denies {strawman}.
The connection is made by: NASA denies OceanGate's claim
- within the paragraph in question
- not by any secondary sources, and yes I know what they are - I was making a point because, [problem: info from secondary source leads to misrepresentation of one side] and [first-hand source demonstrates both claims were right] and if you'd read the paragraph in question, well, we'd have probably have understood the point…
I'm open to critiques on my edits if you have something to say about them. They've been pretty minor, just some grammar/clarifications. Jelly Garcia (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jelly Garcia, the only thing that really matters here is whether the paragraph accurately reflects the reliable secondary source cited. Does it? 97.113.8.72 (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not. There is no source pertaining to the NASA claim. Only the claim pertaining to Boeing and UW has a source cited in the paragraph. Jelly Garcia (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What? The paragraph is cited to two sources - references 32 and 33 (currently). 33 backs up the one sentence, 32 the others. 32 is the source you'd need to check and verify against our article (Mayor, Grace; "Boeing and University of Washington deny OceanGate's claim that they helped design the lost Titan sub"; Business Insider). 97.113.8.72 (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link, it's easily accessible: [5]. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 03:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I just included the confirmation that was previously omitted from the quote 'and consulted on materials and manufacturing processes for the submersible.' Jelly Garcia (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jelly Garcia, PLEASE stop with the series of indents. It makes responding very difficult. Also, be precise: the paragraph started with "OceanGate claimed on its website", not "OceanGate website claims": it's hard to find something that's not there. By the same token, the paragraph does not say "NASA denies" (and I don't see the straw man), and that's not trivial. What I think you are saying is that there might be some who might say "well the one guy worked for NASA so the claim that they didn't test or manufacture for OceanGate" (because that is what it says) and that needs to be headed off at the pass? But really, as the IP said, as long as reliable sources don't comment on it (your tweet and press release just don't count), it's just really irrelevant. Sorry. Can we move on now? Drmies (talk) 02:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Talk is optional you you could probably move on if you want, but IDK I'm brand new here. I was hoping to discuss.
I read this paragraph, after looking through the through the OceanGate site the other night.
It keeps saying they "claimed" (Marriam Webster: to assert in the face of possible contradiction; Oxford: state or assert something is true, typically without providing evidence or proof) … Claimed [X] they collaborated - i had just seen the astronaut on the site - It then provides NASA's response to that claim, NASA: "did not" (denies) [Y] and [Z]x
What about X?
Based on presentation, 'typically there would be no evidence or proof' of [X], and 'possible contradiction.' Contradiction is unclearly demonstrated with a denial, but, despite being a response to X, pertains to Y and Z.
I wondered — (what about X?) Was the guy on their website wearing gear from the Kennedy Space Center NASA merch shop? Lol
External sources outside of the Wiki article are needed to look up to determine whether X is true or not, so it seems unnecessary to mention the exchange at all in the wiki page to me.
Or what makes the mention of the claim + response worth including? Jelly Garcia (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jelly Garcia, that bit is worth including because a reliable secondary source reported on it. If there are other reports from other reliable secondary sources, we can include those too. If you have a problem with the wording, and the wording does not accurately reflect the source, it should be changed to be more accurate.
Twitter and press releases are scraping the bottom of the source barrel in Wikipedia terms; they aren't going to work for what you want here. I realize you're new - if you have questions about sources and WP:OR and the like, the WP:TEAHOUSE (my usual stomping grounds on weekdays) is a good place to get friendly explanations and advice. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might be answering a question other than the one im asking.
I realize you view Business Insider's recount of what was said. Im wondering why what was said is included in the article about the submarine implosion.
Why is the content prevented by that source - written *after* the incident, relevant at all to the *background* of the company (aside from being partial, not representing the background of the company accurately, and being based off the same source I cited)? Jelly Garcia (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant to the construction of the Titan. It was reported in connection to the loss of that boat, which is what this article is about. I'm not sure if linking you to more reading will help, but you seem to making an argument that it isn't WP:DUE, while other folks are arguing that it is. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the background information that they collaborated with an expert from NASA (but not on the creation of the Titan) is relevant to the Titan incident, but the name of the person in reference is not relevant? Jelly Garcia (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jelly Garcia, you are making the connection that when OceanGate said Titan was "designed and engineered by OceanGate Inc. in collaboration [with] experts from NASA", they meant "we have an astronaut on our board", and that this is important/relevant/what-have-you. Others disagree, especially since this person apparently did not - according to the very sentence you added - have anything to do with Titan's design or engineering, and wasn't even employed by OceanGate at the time. Which may be why no news organizations are bringing it up. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source you're citing as the reliable one over the direct ones literally quotes NASA as saying they "consulted on materials and manufacturing processes for the submersible." Jelly Garcia (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to include that in the article, then (which I see you did). 97.113.8.72 (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IDK how it was not apparent that the words that were up there for the past day were cherry-picked, partial, omitted key information, and cast a negative light on the subject without need.
It's fixed with the acceptable source, which cites another source, which leads back to the original source, the one I used - their website - deemed an unreliable source for information about what "their website claims" but w/e at least it's fixed Jelly Garcia (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All this about Scott Parazynski is a red herring. It is clear that Insider's piece is a bit sloppy (or mischievous). Insider's quote from the OceanGate website is accurate, and clearly states that they were themselves responsible for the design and engineerng, then adding that they received input from experts at NASA, Boeing and UW. Leaving aside Boeing (on which there is little information from OceanGate or Boeing), both NASA and UW confirm that they collaborated with OceanGate, and then go on to deny that they did things that OceanGate didn't say they did anyway. To me it looks like a damage-limitation exercise and, at least for NASA and UW there is no actual discrepancy. I have re-edited that para to a more clearly neutral pov, and added two direct links to what OceanGate actualy said - these are consistent with WP:PRIMARY, WP:PRIMARYCARE, WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:USESPS. Davidships (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ought the paragraph on OceanGate and NASA/UW/Boeing be removed entirely? It's based entirely on the one Insider piece (and there is no consensus on the reliability of Insider), and there doesn't seem to be much independent reporting on the connection (or lack thereof) besides some other articles sourcing Insider. It's perhaps undue weight to have a whole graf on it, at least with the currently available sourcing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a wider range of sources on what may well have been triggered by the Insider's initial piece. I do not find anything particularly doubtful about Insider's piece - the latest assessment, in 2022 (triggered by the winning of a Pullitzer Prize), did indeed lack consensus, but there was a marked upward shift in assessments from 2020 - no longer any calls for deprecation and almost no support for "generally unreliable". That said, there are probably better sources now, but building from them would probably require more space, not less, and that might well be Undue. So I'll just park these here in case we come back to it.[6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. - Davidships (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you both that mentioning the expert collaborator by name is unnecessary, as long as it's mentioned that there actually was collaboration with NASA, not just that they claimed there was.
In that case, it's not misleading and the name of the guy doesn't need to be mentioned.
However I also don't see the point of the paragraph bc I originally viewed it basically he-said, she-said until reading further in the cited source which goes even farther beyond OceanGate's claim and says they actually did consult on the design and materials of Titan.
Also, Insider is a subsidiary of Business Insider. They're essentially the same company. If one is unreliable, they both are.
The only other place I saw NASA acknowledge involvement is on the OceanGate site and directly from the astronaut, but I didn't look elsewhere until I read it from this sacred source in reference. I just really thought it was unfairly presenting OceanGate's claim as questionable Jelly Garcia (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ROV Odysseus

Does the Odysseus 6K or however you spell it, have an article on Wikipedia? Or its operator Pelagic Research Services or however that's spelled? -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't edit war over WP:ENGVAR

Please discuss this on the talk page rather than edit warring about it, please. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Original ENGVAR was Canadian English. This is perfectly justified on several grounds:
  • The mother ship MV Polar Prince was Canadian;
  • The expedition set out from a Canadian port (St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador);
  • The nearest shore (Shingle Head, 600 km) was Canadian;
  • The investigations will largely focus on the Polar Prince, as it is Canadian-flagged and currently berthed at its home port, St. John's;
  • Any investigation done at the Titanic site will, of course, be nearer Canada than any other country.
Given this, I cannot see any justification for peremptorily changing the ENGVAR to American English.Kelisi (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, this discussion is related to 'Date structure?' in Archive 1 and 'Date format' above. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that Suleman didn't want to go on the trip isn't true. (?)

"Suleman Dawood (aged 19), the son of Shahzada Dawood, who was a student at the University of Strathclyde. According to his aunt Azmeh Dawood, Suleman was terrified of going on the trip, but did so to please his father.

This seems to be contradicted by the BBC's latest interview with his mother

"

Teenager Suleman Dawood, who died in the Titan submersible, took his Rubik's Cube with him because he wanted to break a world record, his mother told the BBC.

The 19-year-old applied to Guinness World Records and his father, Shahzada, who also died, had brought a camera to capture the moment. [...] In her first interview, Mrs Dawood said she had planned to go with her husband to view the wreck of the Titanic, but the trip was cancelled because of the Covid pandemic.

"Then I stepped back and gave them space to set [Suleman] up, because he really wanted to go," she said." [...] Mrs Dawood said they hugged and made jokes in the moments before her husband and son boarded the Titan submersible.

"I was really happy for them because both of them, they really wanted to do that for a very long time," she said.

" (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66015851)


So was he terrified and did it to please his father, or did he go out of his own volition? This seems contradictory to me. Monological (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just watched BBC News on BBC One and she was interviewed on that. She said she was supposed to go on the trip, but gave up her place because Sulieman wanted to go. This is Paul (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he got excited? Maybe he told his mom and aunt different stuff? Is any material about why people decided to board the incident vessel present in the live article? That doesn't seem encyclopaedic. Folly Mox (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The previous content quoting the teenager's aunt was removed this morning; there are non-controversial passing mentions regarding some of the adults. Davidships (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly he'll never be able to answer this conundrum for himself. The only certainty is to say that retrospectively, he wouldn't have wanted to go on this trip. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:B129:C1C5:EA8C:6D47 (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories - North America, Canada etc

I notice that the article is back in some "... in North America" categories. I previous removed it (several times), but other editor(s) put it back. Can have a discussion about this please. I think it should not be in "in North America" (or "in Canada" or "in Newfoundland and Labrador") categories because the incident happened in international waters, not North America. Previous talk page entry: Talk:2023_Titan_submersible_incident/Archive_2#Categories_-_Canada. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Pinging some editors who have previously added categories (not necessarily a complete list, only those who mentioned "category" in edit summary): @Howard61313 and Di (they-them):. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The event definitely took place off the coast of North America. It was in international waters, so categories like "Canada" don't apply because that implies it happening within the borders, but geographically "North America" does apply. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of note, the article Sinking of the Titanic is in Category:1910s in Newfoundland (Newfoundland being the closest land to the wreck), Category:1912 disasters in Canada (as noted before, Newfoundland is the closest land to the wreck), Category:1912 disasters in the United Kingdom (the Titanic's origin), and Category:1912 disasters in the United States (the Titanic's final destination). In fact, going through categories like Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in international airspace and Category:Disasters by sea or ocean, it seems like a lot of these "disaster" add "place categories" (be it closest land site to incident, place or origin, or intended destination).Canuck89 (Speak with me) or visit my user page 04:48, June 27, 2023 (UTC)
The event definitely took place off the coast of North America. — "Off the coast of" is not "in". Given that North America "is bordered .. by the Atlantic Ocean", then something in the ocean (400 nautical miles from the coast) is very definitely "out of" North America. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Mitch Ames here. Something that happens in the Atlantic Ocean is definitionally not in North America. Continents and oceans are different and have different categories.
The logic is a little different for countries since they have territorial waters, but since the incident happened in international waters we don't really need to get into that. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Mitch Ames. The incident took place in international waters, off the continental shelf. Technically still above the North American plate, but I hope that's not the scope of the relevant categories. Folly Mox (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Disaster tourism”

I think “extreme tourism” or “adventure tourism” is a more accurate descriptor. The Titanic has legitimate value as an ecological site and as a historical site in its own right, beyond it just being part of a terrible disaster. Obviously the disaster aspect is a big part of why people are drawn to it, but I think it’s such a famous cultural icon at this point that “disaster tourism” is a bit too narrow to describe the reasons that people might want to see it. Plus I think the extreme aspect of going 4000m underwater in a sub was supposed to be a big part of the appeal and they really marketed the “scientific adventure” aspect of it. So I think adventure tourism or extreme tourism are better terms to encompass the experience that Oceangate was trying to sell. 104.142.126.219 (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, we have disaster tourism, extreme tourism and adventure travel. Davidships (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dark tourism might also apply per The Atlantic --Super Goku V (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Going to 4,000m in a submersible would certainly be an extreme adventure. But you cannot overlook the fact that Titan was not simply taking tourists to extreme ocean depths. They were specifically headed for a graveyard with around 1,500 souls. Also, it is by no means a trivial thing to point out that the youngest tourist onboard Titan had taken his Rubik's Cube with him for the purpose of solving it while overlooking a mass graveyard. The idea of doing this is at best childish and at worst offensive. If tomorrow, someone was to propose taking overly-wealthy tourists to visit the wreckage of Titan (the submersible) I suspect very few people would argue with calling that "disaster tourism". Does the passage of time (111 years in the case of Titanic) make this kind of voyeurism any less unpalatable? I think not. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6C3C:5F5:C493:76FB (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Without comment on the larger issue of how to describe the voyage, the fact that a passenger packed a Rubik's Cube is, in the context of this article, deeply trivial. Folly Mox (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A passenger did not merely "pack a Rubik's Cube". Listen to or read the transcript of the interview his mother gave BBC. He took it with the express intention of solving it at the Titanic's wreck site.
Why frame this fact and my TALK contribution in "the context of this article"? I didn't propose including it in the article. It's merely a fact that contradicts any notion that this passenger took this trip for any useful purpose.
The OP took issue with the use of a phrase like "disaster tourism", saying that there are many legitimate reasons for visiting the Titanic graveyard. That's true. But this passenger went there with the express intention of solving a puzzle. Let's not anyone pretend therefore that he went there to do anything useful or befitting the 1,500 souls who died.
And please stop dismissing people's considered comments with one or two throwaway remarks, or bringing "context" into play without first properly understanding the specific/immediate context and the focus of a particular discussion. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6C3C:5F5:C493:76FB (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the goal of the talk page is to improve the article, I do not see a problem with focusing on the context of the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2A00, I'm sorry I made you feel dismissed. You are correct that I did misunderstand the immediate context of the discussion, which I misread as having to do with information present in the article (the typical context of talk page discussions). My apologies. Folly Mox (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll assume you're not being disingenuous.
Is 'information present in the article' really the typical context of talk page discussions? Sometimes it is, often it is not. People introduce topics or information in talk that is sometimes relevant for inclusion in the article, is sometimes irrelevant, is sometimes incorrect, or is sometimes totally off-topic.
If someone contributes something in talk that is (objectively or subjectively) incorrect or inaccurate, other contributors might wish to (or feel compelled to) present evidence or opinion to counter the OP.
In this instance the OP is arguing against the use of the term 'disaster tourism' on the basis that there are lots of legitimate/beneficial reasons for expeditions to the Titanic wreck. That is almost certainly true: however in the case of Suleman Dawood, his taking a Rubik's Cube is a rather clear indication that he didn't undertake this expedition to contribute anything useful to science or society.
To reiterate my point, which I shouldn't have to do, I never suggested there should be any mention of cubes in the article. I only mentioned it (in talk) to dispel the notion that (in the case of one passenger at least) there was ever intention to further science during his trip. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:B129:C1C5:EA8C:6D47 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

Re this edit: The lack of a free to use image of the Titan submersible is a problem, but the use of a mock-up CGI image isn't acceptable. This is misleading the reader. ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel that a computer-generated image is unacceptable or misleading?
The caption clearly states that the image is a computer-generated rendering. Unless it was inaccurate or poorly/incompetently created, I struggle to see any issue. On the contrary, it is in my opinion an extremely well-executed artwork that perfectly resembles the real-world images of Titan that I have seen. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6C3C:5F5:C493:76FB (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox image is one of the first things that people will see, and it will show up in search engine results. It shouldn't be a CGI pretend version. That's my two cents worth, but let's have some additional input.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Ianmacm. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Ianmacm. I appreciate the intent, but this seems like a problem regardless of quality. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 22:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dylnuge@Hammersoft@Ianmacm Thank you all for the pile-on. I asked the question, "Why do you feel that a computer-generated image is unacceptable or misleading?" and the only response is "The infobox image is one of the first things that people will see, and it will show up in search engine results. It shouldn't be a CGI pretend version."
I'm not sure that this answers the question I posed.
But in the spirit of adventure allow me to rephrase my question:
Why do you feel that a computer-generated image (clearly labelled as such) being one of the first things people will see (or showing up in search engine results) is unacceptable or misleading?
I can agree that a CG image is less preferable to an actual photograph, however an actual photograph cannot be used at the present time. Less-preferable and unacceptable are different things - there is such as a thing in life as 'a compromise'. Do you think that having no image is preferable to having a CG image (these being de facto the only choices presently available)?
I cannot see why a CG image that is labelled as such is misleading. You might argue that people will view the image (perhaps in a search engine preview) but not the caption. Sadly that is true of any online image. We know the internet contains CG images, doctored images, deepfake videos etc. There is a responsibility on content providers to correctly identify their images, and there is a responsibility on content consumers to assess the reliability and context of images.
In the worst case scenario, where an internet user views this CG image of Titan and fails to understand it is a CG image, they'll simply have viewed a CG image of Titan that looks remarkably like the actual Titan without knowing it.
If anyone fails to read the caption and assumes the CG image is a real photograph, doesn't that simply underline the fact that is a very realistic CG image that bears a striking likeness to the Titan submersible? 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6DEC:D014:ED5B:3E36 (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do think no image is preferable than a CG image. The CG image is deeply flawed, and missing a number of characteristics of what Titan actually was. I think it's an active disservice to the reader to include the image, as the various details that are missing convey the wrong impression of Titan. Even if the CG image were better, I think I would still tend to not include it, but I would need to see such a CG image before I could draw a conclusion. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I broadly agree with this. I think if the CG image were something associated with the Titan directly I'd feel less concerned; as is it's just a user-made mockup based on the non-free photographs (unless I'm misunderstanding this?). Personally I think that if there's no free images available WP:NFCC might be met here; there's discussion on that point above (Talk:Titan submersible implosion#Image of Titan) Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 02:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the Titan image is flawed, it should be removed from the article altogether. Better to have the reader go and search for what it actually looked like than get an inaccurate picture. -- Veggies (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When all is said and done Titan (modélisation sketchup - twilight render - Gimp).jpg isn't a very good CGI image anyway. It is someone's home brew based on photographs, but it isn't of good enough quality to use anywhere in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the CG image from the article entirely. I intend no insult to the person who created the image, but it is a poor representation of the vessel and at best is misleading. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ping Madelgarius (who created the image and added it to the article, but hasn't participated in this discussion) so they're aware of what happened and why. The image is still used over at Titan. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping. You know, when there was no freedom of panorama in Belgium, my computer-generated image of the Atomium remained online for over a year. Here, the absence of a photograph with a compatible licence prompted me to make this model. The reader is not cheated, it's clearly stated. Personally, I have no problem with that. Up to you. If it's better "nothing" than this, delete it. --Madelgarius (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I for one appreciate the considerable effort you put into to creating the image and I thought it was excellent. I do not understand the objections and despite asking for clarification none of those who piled-on (to advocate deletion) provided any meaningful rationale. I think the reaction was typically Wikipedian. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:9144:358:E282:BAC0 (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations

The article says, regarding Harding's report: "He also indicated the operation was scheduled to begin around 04:00." Was this local time or UTC? Thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated- as per the source, it was 0400 Eastern Daylight time, have added a conversion to UTC time too. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. The article seems to have a mixture of a.m./p.m. and 24-hour format? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Disappeared” or “imploded” in the lede?

Most contemporaneous coverage of the event treated it as a missing persons/stranded vehicle case. By all means, it had disappeared for over 3 days. Should this not be reflected in the article? Asperthrow (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. The word "disappeared" might be better to start with. A later sentence could explain that it was later concluded the vessel had imploded, after debris had been found. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor copy edit

In the Titan submersible section, there's a slight problem with the sentence "The entire pressure vessel consisted of two titanium hemispheres, two matching titanium interface rings, connected by the 142 cm (56 in) internal diameter, 2.4-metre-long (7.9 ft) carbon fibre-wound cylinder." Perhaps it could be "two titanium hemispheres and two matching" or "two titanium hemispheres, with two matching". 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC) - struck out, see below 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and well spotted. As it stands it could be inferred that the two interface rings match one another (which I imagine they do), but the point is that they match the hemispherical bell-ends.
There is another issue with this text. As it reads, it doesn't properly convey the engineering design (and could be misconstrued) - this is a semantic issue arising from how/where the word 'connected' is placed.
The connections (in the strict sense) are between the interface rings and the bell-ends. It's an arguable point, but I'd say a connection (might not always but can) mean something that can be made (connected) and unmade (disconnected), as opposed to a 'joint' (which has a more permanent quality).
In Titan, the interface rings are integral parts of the carbon fibre tube - they're joined/bonded to it. The titanium bell-ends then connect to this assembly (using nuts and bolts). The bell-ends can be connected and disconnected (and we know that the frontal bell-end is mounted on a hinge allowing ingress/egress of crew).
Ideally this text "The entire pressure vessel consisted of two titanium hemispheres, two matching titanium interface rings, connected by the...etc."
should be changed to:
"The entire pressure vessel consisted of two titanium hemispheres and two matching titanium interface rings, the latter being integral to (i.e. permanently bonded to either end of) the 142 cm (56 in) internal diameter, 2.4-metre-long (7.9 ft) carbon fibre-wound cylinder. The titanium hemispheres were connected to the interface rings by nuts & bolts, which in the case of the front (windowed) hemisphere allowed the pressure hull to be opened & closed for maintenance and the ingress/egress of crew & passengers."
I hope this can be edited without too much kerfuffle. I think sometimes with WP there is excessive inertia against changing the status quo text, on the basis that the status quo has an inherent superiority over a new version. That may sometimes be true in cases of very mature, established articles. However, this is an immature article and WP:editors should be inclined to give full & proper consideration to well-informed, articulate suggestions on improving clarity and detail. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6C3C:5F5:C493:76FB (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that much detail is needed here, as opposed to over at OceanGate#Design and construction (and is all of that in the currently cited source? I can't check at the moment). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've only proposed a single additional sentence for clarity. It hardly qualifies as "that much detail".

My WP:Talk contribution is certainly heavy on detail. However, that's why WP has the WP:Article separated from WP:Talk. I've gone into detail explaining why I think your suggestion is a good one, and why one additional sentence might also be beneficial to clarity and information. I find it quite frustrating that you've effectively dismissed my detailed rationale (in talk) for a minor edit (to the article), and conflated my detailed rationale with me wishing to bog-down the article with excessive detail. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6C3C:5F5:C493:76FB (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to resubmit my original minor suggestion as a formal edit request. Feel free to use this section to further discuss your proposal. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

This text "In presentation by Rush, he claimed his teams even shook the building and cause damage, during pressure test of its acoustic system of hull" is grammatically extremely poor.

Even with the grammar/syntax fixed, what on earth does it mean? Who or what shook the building? What building is being referred to?

It is implied that the acoustic system was being put through a pressure test, when surely it means that the hull was being pressure tested and the responses of the acoustic system evaluated.

Some work is needed here. (Or just delete it) 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6C3C:5F5:C493:76FB (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. Folly Mox (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2023

In the Titan submersible section, the sentence "The entire pressure vessel consisted of two titanium hemispheres, two matching titanium interface rings, connected by the 142 cm (56 in) internal diameter, 2.4-metre-long (7.9 ft) carbon fibre-wound cylinder." needs a bit of copy editing. Perhaps it could be "two titanium hemispheres and two matching" or "two titanium hemispheres, with two matching". 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit I've changed the sentence to read The entire pressure vessel consisted of two titanium hemispheres with matching titanium interface rings bonded to the... cylinder. I think that conveys how all the pieces related. Folly Mox (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Lloyd’s Register declined a request from Ocean Gate to provide classification"

Right now, the lead section ends with the sentence OceanGate executives... had not sought certification for Titan, arguing that excessive safety protocols hindered innovation. However, this source quotes a representative of Lloyd's Register stating Lloyd's had declined a request from OceanGate to classify the submersible. The timeline appears to be that OceanGate said they would not seek classification, then tried for it anyway and got turned down. I'm not sure how best to express this in the lead. Folly Mox (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps OceanGate executives, including its CEO Stockton Rush (one of the fatalities in the implosion), had not at first sought certification for Titan, arguing that excessive safety protocols hindered innovation;<ref #1> a subsequent certification request to Lloyd's Register was declined.<ref #2>? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And a follow-up should then be inserted at 2023 Titan submersible incident#Safety, of course (unless a better spot presents itself). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request for “see also”

“The Wreck of the Titan” seems irrelevant aside from the Titan name and any proximity to the Titanic herself; does that belong in the “see also”? Fibbage (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, agreed that it has no relevance to this article. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 22:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

It is both pointless and meaningless to put all of the timeline under an "Incident" heading; especially "Further mission". I'm also unclear why the heading "Aftermath" has been removed from above the latter sub-section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible solution - move the 23 and 24 June information to the Investigation section, retitle the Incident section (Final expedition and disappearance? Too long?). The day-by-day breakdown of events may no longer be necessary. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Game-Controller, no IP code rating, no functional safety

The References that using a "consumer grade controller" was appropriate all go to articles related to Oceangate. No one in the right mind would use “Consumer-Grade” switches, risk a multi-million-dollar machine and put life at risk, for a few hundred Dollars of equipment. IP Rated, reliable remote Controls, wired and wireless, from e.g. Siemens are very widely available, some even equipped with an emergency-off switch.

I would propose to remove that using a "Game Controller" is common in the marine-industry and add the following:

Using „Consumer-Grade“ switches without an appropriate IP-Rating IP_code is uncommon in the marine industry, as the corrosive nature of saltwater destroys contact surfaces. Furthermore electronics used in marine-applications may have coatings, are potted or at least have a IP-Code rated enclosure with a membrane, the latter one to allow for pressure-equalization without intrusion of moisture.

Because a collision between the submersible and an object, e.g. the Titanic, could lead to high forces and potentially severe damages, it makes the controls a safety-critical component. An appropriate Safety integrity level rating, e.g. by applying IEC 61508, should have made it obvious, that the controller used, was inappropriate. Other factors, like corrosion of the controllers electronics from salt water-mist, should have been known by anyone with a basic engineering-degree, making it obvious that no process for Functional safety was ever established at OceanGate. MCP9843 (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MCP9843, that is sourced to Forbes, VICE and Kotaku. What are your sources? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes, Vice and Kotaku are no magazines that cover aspects of marine-design, electronics-design or functional safety.
1) Forbes did not state that using a "consumer grade" from a game console was ever used in any other submersible or representative of the industry. But they stated:
If you’ve ever used a video game controller, on or off-brand versions, you know that over time, they tend to degrade or can become unreliable. Looking at some reviews of this controller specifically, we can see that like all controllers this also can happen to this one: ”I bought this back in February and I'd like to say I game a decent amount on the daily on my pc. If, that's also you then I highly recommend you shop around first. The buttons are already dying on me. It's been a struggle.”
2) VICE did not mention "consumer grade" from a game console would be in control of any safety-related component in any submarine.
3) Kotaku even stated: "...there’s no confirmation if it was still in use during the current expedition." MCP9843 (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to argue that the current sentence should be reworded or removed, that's fine. But you need sources of your own to add any new information. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is all very true. There is an argument that the inside of Titan should have been entirely protected from the marine environment, but clearly that protection broke down in a catastrophic way at some point. Even if the sub hadn't imploded, the game-controller was as you say still at risk from being used in a marine application. I agree with you that it is indicative of a disturbingly odd approach to safety. At the most basic level, OceanGate/Rush might have made it known that a spare controller was kept in a sealed bag aboard Titan in the event that the controller in use failed, for the reasons you've detailed.
In the David Pogue interview video, Stockton Rush proudly points out Titan's one-and-only switch before stating that the game controller is the only control the sub has. I don't know the answer to this, but does this mean the sub's buoyancy control (hence its controlled ascent and descent) was achieved via the game controller? Rush's own words (on camera) would appear to indicate that this was indeed the case. If that is correct, it makes the issues you've raised infinitely more poignant.
To place yourself and others:
- 3,800m underwater
- without a tether
- knowing that (extremely low bandwidth) communication with the surface cannot be depended upon; and
- relying solely on a cheap video game controller to control ascent/descent
is abject madness.
I desperately hope that the investigation reveals he'd packed a couple of spare AA batteries. That would be some comfort. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6DEC:D014:ED5B:3E36 (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The claim "the inside of Titan should have been entirely protected from the marine environment" is not helping, they have a hatch that opens,... Salt-water-mist is present everywhere, even miles from the coast this is an issue.
One failure-mode may be that the controller, software(device driver), etc. engages thrusters and the submersible collides with another object at great depth. This could lead to damages, but the submersible could also be entangled or stuck. There are mor components involved than the controller alone and the batteries, also the USB-to-wireless adapter, etc. . As the walls may get humid, there will be significant damping of the 2.4Ghz Signal, a microwave oven uses that frequency because the water is resonant at that frequency.
I did not like to mention "Titan's one-and-only switch", fall-back modes, etc. may not exist or may be very difficult to engage. But that is speculation and I'd like to stay with what is known: A "toy" with no water-proofing was the control for a safety-device in a wet and corrosive environment. MCP9843 (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. While I said that Titan should have been protected from the marine environment I did acknowledge that it is still a marine application - and the moment you're near, on or underwater, contamination by salt/saline is inevitable (and extremely deleterious to electrics/electronics).
The humidity you mention is something I'd thought about previously. The exhaled moisture of five occupants in a sealed capsule where the external temperature is near zero celsius is a major design/engineering consideration. As you say, it's better not to get into speculation about what was/was not taken into consideration with Titan's design.
However, I cannot help myself from pointing out that Stockton Rush made a big play of showing off (to CBS) the game-console-controller, that "single button" and the chemical toilet. If that had been me (and I, like you I think) have experience of designing and manufacturing safety critical components) I would have been showing off the safety-critical aspects of the submersible (e.g. maintaining a breathable atmosphere, managing humidity, back up control/electrical systems, ascent/descent control systems, navigation control, positional awareness, buoyancy control, emergency systems...). This all seems like such an obvious thing to showcase to the world's media that it leads me to wonder if any of this existed... 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6DEC:D014:ED5B:3E36 (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering

There is a recent scientific paper that deals in a general way with the design of composite pressure vessels, including direct reference to Titan. I must warn readers that the paper was written by a relatively inexperienced engineer, and is not a comprehensive source for composite pressure vessel design. It may however be found good reading for those with a general background in mechanical engineering:

[13] 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:24 (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a diploma thesis, rather that a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal. But unless this has been explicitly mentioned in RS sources about the Titan, adding any of it would probably amount to WP:OR. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Titan_submersible_implosion&oldid=1162361709"