Jump to content

Talk:2010 Copiapó mining accident

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.92.138.9 (talk) at 22:29, 13 October 2010 (→Miners (About to be) rescued! Politicians steal credits again?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Victims list

The list of trapped miners has been added, removed, and re-added, so we should probably discuss it and come to a consensus. Though they are mere guidelines, the rationale behind deletion seems to be coming from WP:Victim Lists, WP:Notability (people)#Victims and #People notable only for one event. I doubt anyone would argue that we should not include those miners who are otherwise notable (i.e. have their own wiki article) or provide demographic info on the group as a whole (i.e. nationality, other occupations), but is a full list of otherwise non-notable victims really necessary? How about an external link instead? - Ruodyssey (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of them are notable except for Franklin Lobos. I removed the list again. Diego Grez (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the list is notable enough since they are very famous in Chile now and every Chilenos encouraging them. Information about each indivisuals are already broadcasted on national TV. At least they are more notable than sports player of minor games, small city, Jr high school in US,....--Taquoma (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, they aren't notable, they're just part of a notable event. Lots die on other events, such as earthquakes, etc., but that doesn't mean we have to create a list with all of the people involved. Diego Grez (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only notable miner trapped is Franklin Lobos, as I noted above. Diego Grez (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is quite clear, wikipedia articles don't include lists of victims. Bigger digger (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they are typical victims. Now they are working in one of the most famous and historical rescue. they are as notable as the members in apollo project.--Taquoma (talk) 07:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sorry, they really are not. There are whole books about each of the members of the apollo project; we have articles on each of them; if you use Google, you will find specific articles about them. Therefore, wikilinks to their names in the article Apollo project helps with our comprehension of that subject. For the unfortunate trapped miners, the facts simply are not available; if we tried to write an article about them, all we could say was that they were stuck in a mine. There is no other information on the individuals. Knowing their names does not help us to understand this incident; there is no encyclopaedic value in listing them.  Chzz  ►  06:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've got a lot of editing ahead of you then Bigger digger - because lists of 'non notable' victims and survivors absolutely abound all across Wikipedia.24.16.181.82 (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CNN every now and then runs little bios on one or another of them; and unless somthing goes wrong, they all are survivors, calling them "victims" kinda sounds like they aren't alive anymore... --TiagoTiago (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added list under NPOV section heading. It is unencyclopedic to leave the names of "the 33" out of the article at this point, i.e., October 13, 2010. --Artiquities (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Artiquities about keeping the list as they are rescued. Chances are, they will be famous in the future, as books and articles will be written about them, and they will likely become notable over time. This is a Guiness Book of World Record event. There is already a list forming in the rescue section of the names of the rescued miners. Should we just use the table that was up earlier? User:71.130.128.55 02:45 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think "notable" rescues should be expounded on as well; e.g., the second miner (Mario Sepúlveda) seeming to be in very good spirits and very energetic, handing out rocks as souvenirs, etc. This particular individual seems to have demonstrated that at least some of the miners have kept in good mental and physical condition, though they ARE bringing up the "strongest" miners first in case something goes wrong with the capsule, but I think it's still article-worthy. I can't find any permanent references to this at the moment (most of the videos of Sr. Sepúvelda's return are semi-dynamic links that'll likely be dead in a few days or weeks), but I'm sure there's permanent video/etc available, and this does seem notable. 71.57.48.148 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I think it's perfectly acceptable to include the names of the miners. This is, for Chile, a national event and if there weren't any miners there and just non-human-boxes, there wouldn't be all this interest. These are REAL people and to my mind, people have names, lives, families, etc. The event is notable for:

a) it has a great number of people trapped (a long way underground)
b) they survived the event, (other miners have sadly died during their work for this company)
c) they survived for a long amount of time and I keep hearing on the bbc updates that this is a record amount of time they're spent underground....alive..

My (humble) vote, is keep their names in. If in 20 years time someone wants their name removed, then we can remove it but for now, as the story is unfolding and they are being rescued, keep their names in. Veryscarymary (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the matter is settled because we don't have a victims list, but we do have a list of rescue times with names. Everybody should be happy now. HaŋaRoa (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calculation of the drilling debris mass

Calculation of the volume of drilling debris to be evacuated by the miners themselves.

This is in fact the quarter or the half of the 3000 to 4000 tons erroneously reported in the WikiNews article:

Race to save Chilean miners trapped underground from spiralling into depression continues

"Quotation from WikiNews (as seen on September 4th, 2010)":

"But over the weekend, The New York Times reported that the "miners who have astonished the world with their discipline a half-mile underground will have to aid their own escape — clearing 3,000 to 4,000 tons of rock that will fall as the rescue hole is drilled, the engineer in charge of drilling said Sunday ..."

In fact, the miners will have to remove by themselves a total mass of fine rock debris (drilling cuttings) estimated between 700 and 1500 metric tons considering a borehole diameter of 70 cm or 1 m respectively, with a depth of 688 m and a rock density of 2.7 metric ton per cubic meter. See the table below for the volume and mass calculations easy to verify.

And it is already a large mass to be continuously evacuated by the miners.

Calculation of the drilling debris mass (in metric ton)

Diameter D (m) 0,20 0,50 0,66 0,70 0,80 0,90 1,00 1,50 1,65
Radius r (m) 0,10 0,25 0,33 0,35 0,40 0,45 0,50 0,75 0,83
Section area S (m2) 0,031 0,196 0,342 0,385 0,503 0,636 0,785 1,767 2,138
Depth L (m) 688 688 688 688 688 688 688 688 688
Volume V (m3) 22 135 235 265 346 438 540 1216 1471
Density rho (metric ton/m3) 2,7 2,7 2,7 2,7 2,7 2,7 2,7 2,7 2,7
Mass m (metric ton) 58 365 636 715 934 1182 1459 3283 3972

Oops, I realized I forgot to sign. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikinews is not Wikipedia. Post your comments about the article there, not here. --Diego Grez (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did it, but this matter is also relevant to this page, so I copied it here, to also share it on this discussion page. Shinkolobwe (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The figures for mass in metric tonnes seem to include the mass of rock in the initial small tunnel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.59.216 (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this observation is correct. Indeed, in my calculations, I did not substract the volume of the inner "empty" cylinder (small borehole of ~20 cm diameter) from the outer cylinder. I envisaged first to do it, but the effect of doing so on the total volume of rocks debris to be removed is negligible. The reason is that in a cylinder most of the volume (or of the corresponding mass) is located in the outer part of the cylinder, because the surface of a circle depends on the square of its radius (S =  π r2). The main uncertainty on the rock volume of the borehole resides thus in the imprecision on the final diameter of the effectively realised borehole ("as built" dimensions). So it presently makes no sense to determine more precise numbers than the range I have provided. However, if you wish, you can substract the 58 tons of the 20 cm diameter borehole (first column intentionally provided for this purpose) from the numbers given in the hereabove mentioned table, but it does not change very much the situation: a tremendous amount of work is awaiting for the miners (657 to 1401 metric tons). For concluding, the range 700 to 1500 metric tons presently seems to be a reasonable estimation and is much less than the numbers given by the New York Time[s] (3000 to 4000 tons). Or by the way, could this discrepancy simply occur because a forgotten conversion factor between non-metric and metric tons ? I have to check this hypothesis !
A last precision about mining terminology: a tunnel always describes a horizontal gallery or drift, while a borehole, a shaft, or a well, is drilled (or sunk) in the vertical direction. I do not consider here inclined engineering works which can belong to both categories, depending on their diameter. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could this discrepancy simply occur because a forgotten conversion factor between non-metric and metric tons ? No, the conversion factor between ton and metric ton (or tonne) is always close to one (0.910 or 1.016 for short ton (US) or long ton (UK) respectively). It is thus not a factor two or more. Shinkolobwe (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at the information in the article and in the news, and I think the estimation in the article is too high and needs to be revised. The news articles I've read indicate that the Strata 950 is the only drilling operation that the miners have to help with right now, and that that borehole is 66 cm in diameter. If that's true, then the miners will "only" have to remove about 578 tonnes of drill cuttings (636 tonnes for the 66cm borehole minus 58 tonnes for the 20cm pilot hole). This agrees (more or less) with one estimate I read of "12 to 15 tonnes per day" until early November. See here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11155447 --Lukeonia1 (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rock type?

Is it worth naming the prevailing rock type? - e.g. "... the particularly hard igneous rock ..." or "... the particularly hard igneous rock, diorite..." (cite [1]). - The only descriptor is: "The particularly hard rock exacerbated the drill's tendency to drift." -- ...... "Hard rock" may be sufficient. Yes? No? - Regards, Cablehorn (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think "particularly hard rock" is clear enough to understand the situation. Veriss (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a copper and gold mine. Gold usually occurs in granite and quartz, both very hard rocks.—QuicksilverT @ 16:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing point in article

I think I know the answer to this point from elsewhere but the article does not explain it.

If a borehole is being drilled through rock (or wood), the bits and pieces cut loose or ground loose by the drillhead cannot fall out of the bottom of the hole during the initial drilling process. It is only when the hole reaches an open space that some debris can fall through.

Where the article talks about 500 kg of rock falling into the mine shaft per hour and having to be cleared away by the miners, it would be helpful to explain that an initial relatively small hole is drilled and then progressively enlarged by repeated drilling. And that the fall of rock out of the bottom of the hole will happen during the repeated drillings, not the drilling of the initial small hole.

I'm not going to try to make this change because what I wrote would be at least 3rd, 4th, or 5th hand, not based on a proper source.

I'm also wondering if the rock that will fall and need to be cleared will be primarily small pieces of broken rock or whether there will be a high percentage of rock "dust" that the miners will have to try to avoid inhaling.

Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logically thinking the rocks fall down during the shaft widening process, not during the pilot bore drill Egh0st (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Title of the Article is Not in Normal Title Case. It Should Read "2010 Copiapó Mining Accident".

I hate to dredge this subject up again after all that debate but the title of the article is not in normal title case and is tagged move=sysop. I would fix it if I could. Veriss (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The admin who protected the page asked that I get consensus here for the minor case fix before I request the rename. I am asking for consensus to simply correct the name of the article to read "2010 Copiapó Mining Accident". Veriss (talk) 10:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The title is not "perfectly good" in proper English but I recognize that many articles, bookmarks, etc. on the internet probably link to the current, though incorrect, article name so agree that it should remain unchanged. Veriss (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Links pointing into Wikipedia from external sites are non-issue. When a page on Wikipedia is renamed a redirect is automatically created and external incoming links follow the redirect. It also complies with Wikipedia:Article titles already anyway.--Alvin-cs ✉ 20:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, also, why do you say "the title is not perfectly good in proper english"? I created it under this title based on: titles of earthquakes and events that happen more than once in history (example: 2006 Copiapó mining accident); why Copiapó? Because Copiapó is the place where the San José mine is located; why mining accident? Because that's the proper way to call whatever this accident is. --Diego Grez (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the attention to detail, Veriss, but Wikipedia uses sentence case, not title case (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles). cheers, 205.250.164.112 (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for rescue capsule photo or diagram

A photograph, link to a photograph, or diagram of the rescue capsules would be very interesting here, I think. I found this picture gallery to be very informative, and will add it to the external links, but it doesn't have photos of the rescue capsules. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found some: side view; top view cross-section; side view, occupied. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lining of the head of the shaft with a casing

'Mañalich also indicated he expected only the first 100 - 200 meters of the shaft to be encased, a task that could be performed in only 10 hours.' What does it means ? Could you explain ? Thanks, db1987db (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they mean "encamisado" by "encased". --Diego Grez (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That refers to the need to line the rescue shaft with a metallic casing (a tube) to keep it from collapsing. It turns out that the material they were drilling through was so firm below the first few hundred meters that they won't need to line any of that much longer lower segment to be assured of the integrity of the rescue shaft. This operation is also needed to avoid the fall of dangerous rock debris on the rescue pod. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC). Shinkolobwe (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect explanation! Cheers for that :) db1987db (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gang of five planned their own escape?

Mutiny of the miners: Gang of five 'planned their own escape', Mail Online, UK, By Matheus Sanchez, Last updated at 8:54 AM on 11th October 2010:

“ . . . There had been reports of fist fights, weeping and extreme depression caused by their bleak situation, particularly in the gruelling 17 days before they were found alive.

“It is understood that five men, who had been subcontracted to work at the mine and do not have close relations with the others, had ‘broken away’ from the main group. . . ”

posted by Cool Nerd (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong pod/s number?

from the article: "Several custom-built rescue pods, designed by NASA engineers and constructed by the Chilean Navy, were delivered to the site of the accident.[48] "

and where does it actually say that there are several escape pods? I'm rather under impression there's only one such pod constructed. Egh0st (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With even a cursory check, there have been multiple articles, even on the BBC, describing three or four copies of the escape capsule. Several media outlets have provided pictures of the secondary and tercerary pods being delivered to the rescue site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veriss1 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Ack, the bot was right. Damn bots! I forgot to sign. Veriss (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs Work

This sub-section needs serious work if you want to include it in the intro. I am an American observer and have no dog in this fight but this sentence has too many weasel words in it to be included in the intro.

"Some, including lawyers representing the mining company, suspect that the owners of the mine will declare bankruptcy after the men are rescued.[1][2]"

I moved it here in hopes others more qualified can fix it, evaluate the sources, provide some context and determine where it best fits within the article. Thanks Veriss (talk) 03:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was told

That this article could end up on the wiki main page as a current event with thousands of visitors hourly while I was doing some minor readability edits.

This is an article about a major Latin American event with Global Impact on an English speaking wiki. Our brothers in Chile did both the right thing and the awesome thing and and fully own the just rewards.

That this situation might normally result in awkward statements and translations from either side of the culture divide but we can't avoid actual reality so us Gringos and Latinos are in this together and need to clean this article up.

I took a good stab at it but I know the sources need a lot of help. Please step in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veriss1 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Dang sinebot...lol. Veriss (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I requested....

...copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. I was told that there is a group that provides these services if we put the {grammar} tag in the article. Veriss (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duration of ascent

In the article, the duration of the ascent is quoted as three hours for each miner, on CNN it says 15 minutes. What is right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.113.85.95 (talk) 09:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Most sources are indicating that each cycle will take roughly an hour. Several minutes to harness the person into the capsule, ten to twenty minutes to lift them to the surface, several more minutes at the surface to unhook and remove the passenger and then twenty minutes or so to lower the capsule again. Veriss (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My Wikinews investigation says the ascent will take from 15 to 20 minutes for each miner. --Diego Grez (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing that they drilled through such dense rock all the way; if they had seams from tube lining or looser rock, it would take much longer. The original estimate was very conservative, though, and should probably not even appear in the article. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In watching the BBC News continuous streaming news feed on the Internet, it appears that the trip up the borehole is taking about 10 to 15 minutes, with a round trip time of around 45-50 minutes. After the fifth miner was brought up there was an extended delay of 20-30 minutes as technicians checked the rescue capsule and swapped out or lubricated the urethane-coated guide rollers. I haven't watched the coverage continuously, but presumably it will be necessary to periodically perform maintenance or even swap out rescue capsules to ensure that the rescue proceeds smoothly.—QuicksilverT @ 16:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 21st miner came up at 16:30, about 16.3 hours after the 1st miner, who came up just ten minutes after midnight (0:10), so the average time per trip is about (16.3*60)/(21-1) = 48.9 minutes. —QuicksilverT @ 19:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Progress Bar

I eliminated the progress bars for the “plan A” and “plan C” drills, since they have been shut off to focus on the rescue effort through the now-completed “plan B” shaft. A new progress bar is in place to keep track of how many men have been lifted out (a process which could take a couple of days). I don’t know if that should be upped to 35, to include the doctor and mining expert who will be lowered in, or not? Mburn16 (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The progress bars were a great feature, I'm sure many appreciated them but I think there is still some value in leaving the Plan A and Plan C progress bars in the article. From what I've read so far, there will be a total of 38 people to eventually lift to the surface. Three rescuers will descend on the first three cycles of the capsule and an additional two rescuers will join them at the 12 hour mark to permit the first three an opportunity to rest during the possibly up to 48 hour long extraction phase. Veriss (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After going back to look for good sources, it appears that there is little consistency in the reporting of exactly how many rescuers they are planning to send down. In light of this, and since the planned number may be subject to change as things develop, I suggest that the bar should just indicate the 33 victims. To try to include the rescuers would be a moving target and the significant number is mainly the 33. Veriss (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a small point, in my opinion. If a catastrophe happened, the rescuers sent down would then become victims of their own right. Perhaps the running count can indicate the status of the 33 initial victims/survivors, along with a separate count for the rescuers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.139.35 (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused about the progress bar. At the moment it says: 4 rescued, 33 remaining, 3 rescuers. If there are 33 miners plus 3 rescuers the total should be 36 but 33 + 4 = 37. What's going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.218.171 (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's 4 rescued of 33 total (not 4 rescued, 33 remaining). The rescue workers are not included in the total. 96.50.109.213 (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The progress bar should not count the rescue workers as victims, but should indicate that there currently 3 rescue workers down there with the miners. It should indicate the number rescued followed by the number of miners remaining (e.g. 5 miners rescued, 28 remaining). We should be subtracting from 33, not include in the rescue workers in the rescued miner count, but still indicate that there are 3 rescue workers down there. Let's focus on the miners, so as to not confuse readers.Poetworm (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previous survival record?

The article says, "The miners have survived underground for a longer period of time than any other group in any prior mining accident." What was the previous record? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but the other most important mining accident is the German Wunder von Lengede or something like that. --Diego Grez (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Last year, three miners survived 25 days trapped in a flooded mine in southern China, and two miners in northeast China were rescued after 23 days in 1983. Few other rescues have taken more than two weeks."[2] I read somewhere else that was the previous world record. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 04:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miners rescued

Are we goimg to list the names & time (to the second!) of the rescue of each miner? In the long term this won't seem very encyclopaedic it seems to me. - 220.101 talk\Contribs 05:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listing to the second does seem a bit excessive to me. The time between each rescue may be useful as a broad illustration of the operation's timeline, but such precision is unnecessary. Jrmarsico (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One can keep it as such now, and move it when it goes off ITN. As you say "in the long term..." Right now, its ongoing and likely the 33rd will be after a day or so.
Also for the colours, should we wikifairy it? i tried something but took it off for now.Lihaas (talk) 05:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"wikifairy"? Pink? The red is ugly! Too dark! IMHO. 2/3 columns probably better. - 220.101 talk\Contribs05:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue workers in the mine?

I updated the progress bar info to reflect 3 rescuers currently underground, but this was reverted back to 2.

Per http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11489439, mine rescuer Manuel Gonzalez went down first (supposedly to be pulled back up to test things, but instead they chose to bring miner Florencio Avalos first.) After that, rescuer Sgt. Robert Rios Seguel descended; apparently replacing rescuer Cpl. Patricio Robledo who was scheduled to go down. However, after the capsule next came up, apparently Cpl. Robledo did go down. That makes 3 rescuers on the bottom, and both BBC and a couple other sources state that there are 3 rescuers down at the moment. Are there any sources backing this up or refuting this?

Personally, I think the rescuers should NOT be counted in the "to be rescued" progress bar at all; they obviously should be mentioned in the article, but they are part of the rescue, not part of the "victim" group of miners. However, since the page was updated to reflect these rescuers, I felt it appropriate to try to update it to the correct number of rescuers. Chances are the number of rescuers may go up and perhaps back down during the rescue, and chances are news reports will be less explicit about those changes and more about the miners being rescued, so again I think it's best just to leave them out of the progress bar. However, if they ARE being included, it seems that there are currently 3 of them, not 2... 71.57.48.148 (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per http://news.blogs.cnn.com/category/latest-news/world/chile-world/ "We forgot to note that a third rescuer, Patricio Robledo, was lowered to the miners' refuge before the third rescued miner, Juan Illanes, was lifted to the surface. So, three rescue workers are assisting the miners who are awaiting their trip home." This confirms 3 rescue workers... 71.57.48.148 (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The latest change (to 3/33 rescued, with the notation "Plus 3 rescue workers") seems much better to me than including the rescue workers in the tally. Should try to keep the number of rescue workers up to date. (Apparently these 3 are the only ones planned for now, but 2 more are planned to go down for relief per other discussion comments; however, I assume none of them will be extracted before all of the miners are up.) 71.57.48.148 (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely three rescue workers in the mine right now. I've been watching the live video feed and saw them go down.

Also, rescuer Manual Gonzalez is now listed as the 34th "miner" to be rescued (though correctly noted as "Rescue Worker".) Is there any sort of source on him being the first rescuer to be brought up? I do not think the rescue workers should be listed unless there is a proper source for their schedule to be brought up, hopefully including all rescue workers. Keep in mind that not all rescue workers are even down there yet. I would again say that I think rescue workers should be kept out of the general counts and lists, and just mentioned in the article instead... 71.57.48.148 (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the news reports I've seen indicate he will be the last rescue worker brought up, not the first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.109.213 (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting dilemma, whilst there are men in the mine whether worker or rescuer, the operation might be considered unfinished. It would be a little obtuse to suggest that, if it continues to run smoothly, when Luis Urzua, the last on the list, is brought to the surface that the operation is not complete because a rescue worker has been down there for what might be 30 hours needs to be "rescued". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.251.181 (talk) 06:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As impersonal as it may sound, I would suggest that the rescuers in the mine be considered as part of the "rescue infrastructure." The primary rescue mission really is over once the 33 miners are safely up from my viewpoint; however, obviously the rescue operation itself is not over until the rescuers are all back up, and they of course deserve to be tracked just as the miners are since they'll have spent significant time underground as well. Perhaps we can keep the current status bar for the 33 miners until they're all up (assuming no rescuers need to be brought up prematurely), then perhaps have a status bar/etc for the rescuers being brought up below it as soon as the miners are up and extraction of the rescuers begins? 71.57.48.148 (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the current solution which displays a second progress bar for the status of the rescue workers is an excellent solution. Veriss (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BBC is repeatedly reporting that there are 2 rescuers to be brought back up after the miners are rescued. They're stating that the first rescuer was already brought back up to the surface, but this contradicts previous reports and the given timeline on rescues. Were those 2 additional rescuers (for the total of 5) even sent down? Need a better reference than the BBC live stream to edit this since they cannot agree with themselves on this specific issue. In the long run, it's really not important when the rescuers came back up, however I do think it is important to make sure the list of rescuers who WERE sent down is correct...so is it the first 3, or are there 5? I wasn't watching the live stream overnight so perhaps I missed something. 71.57.48.148 (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earth rotation side effects

Other editors in time zones where they are fully awake please keep updating the bar as the miners are rescued. It's sleep time in the NYC to Los Angeles time zones. Thanks.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what happened to "The City that Never Sleeps" ? in Oz - 220.101 talk\Contribs 07:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rescued miners from the Beaconsfield Mine collapse, Todd Russell and Brant Webb, have been commentators on this event on the Nine Network. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.233.21 (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for Plans & Drills

Found this recent reference with good details of rescue Plans A,B,& C and the relevant drilling equipment.
Yang, Jennifer (October 10 2010) “From collapse to rescue: Inside the Chile mine disaster”. TheStar.com, Accessed on October 13, 2010

<ref name=thestar>Yang, Jennifer (October 10 2010) [http://www.thestar.com/news/world/chile/article/873382 “From collapse to rescue: Inside the Chile mine disaster”]. [[TheStar.com]], Accessed on October 13, 2010</ref>

(edit conflict) - 220.101 talk\Contribs 08:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality in table

Is this really necessary? The flag overkill seems to violate MOS:FLAG, but why include nationality at all, when it's enough to say in the text somewhere that all the miners are Chilean except one? The article is after all about a Chilean mine. Lampman (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, though I haven't read the relevant policy. Maybe even have one flag then '' to repeat except for the Bolivian, at most. - 220.101 talk\Contribs 09:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed & removed that column. --Xeeron (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likely error

The text refers to the "RIG-422" in the "Rescue Plans" section, but it should be "RIG-421". Ref precisiondrilling.com Chile Rescue Updates from Precision Drilling Corporation which was the company involved in 'Plan C'. I'll fix, revert if you have a good reason to object. - 220.101 talk\Contribs 09:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
 – by me! - 220.101 talk\Contribs 11:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images available ...

On Flickr at http://www.flickr.com/photos/rescatemineros - posted by the Chilean government under Creative Commons CC-BY-ND 2.0 - Alison ❤ 09:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is now there under "External links" Ms Alison, though it was misplaced under "References" until I moved it at 10:05. ;-) - 220.101 talk\Contribs 11:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought that wasn't what you meant was it? - 220.101 talk\Contribs 11:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CC-BY-ND is verboten because ND. Free culture enthusiasts agree on the fact that, if you can't use Photochop to insert 34, there is no point in having them. PirateCrackK (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although Rescate Mineros selected the CC-BY-ND license, the Flickr description says "These photographs are property of the Government of Chile for editorial use only". This contradicts the license and think we need them to clarify, if they really do allow commercial use and use on Wikipedia. --Aude (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing these images on Flickr licensed with CC-BY, not CC-BY-ND [3]. Still, the note in the photo description about commercial use contradicts the license. --Aude (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sent them a message asking for clarification, noting that we want to use the images on Wikipedia. --Aude (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

11th miner just rescued

I changed the numbers in the graph to reflect that. Atomic1fire (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Progress Bar alignment faulty

The progress bars are badly aligned and goes off the right-hand edge of the page, no matter how wide the browser window (IE7). The left-edge of each bar is aligned with the centre of the infobox. The heading of each bar is ok. Bazza (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, I have the same problem with IE7. (Time to Update Bazza?) - 220.101 talk\Contribs 15:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Safari 5.0.2 on OS X has some progress bar issues too; specifically, the upper third of the "Extraction Progress" text overlaps with the black outline around the "Drilling Progress" progress bar above. It's still somewhat readable, but it looks ugly being broken such. IE7 really has standards compliance issues and changes should be made only if it's not going to negatively impact the display on more compliant browsers, I think...however, I plan to add a slight space above the "Extraction Progress" text to address the Safari issue since it is much more standards compliant and doing so will not majorly change the layout. 71.57.48.148 (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which capsule?

"The capsule ... is called Fénix" - TV pictures show it's labelled "Fénix 2", has this capsule been used throughout? TacoJim (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they have been using the Fénix 2 throughout, though I can't provide you with any references.195.171.2.22 (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fénix 1 is the capsule that was revealed to the public originally and into which some family members and members of the press were allowed to climb. Fénix 2 and Fénix 3 allegedly have some minor improvements over Fénix 1, so that's why they started the rescue with Fénix 2. Fénix 3 and Fénix 1 are available for parts or substitution if there should be a failure of Fénix 2. —QuicksilverT @ 17:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if someone made a section on the pods themselves. I think if anything the rescue vehicle deserves more credit. E.g. BBC news website has some good references on that http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11527129. This section would be pretty dull though unless someone adds images like the actual capsule photos and an illustrative model of the vehicle (like on BBC). Egh0st (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that the capsule deserves a lot of credit. As I am watching the twenty-eighth rescue, that capsule really looks all scratched and beat up. It's probably going to wind up in a museum somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.138.9 (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The scene was broadcast by a camera brought by rescue worker González.

There was a live feed already established when rescue worker González reached the bottom. Judging by the quality, it was a web-cam-type device. When the first miner was about to be raised, the original audio carried the following commands (in Spanish): "Tell Manolo (Manuel González, first rescuer) that when everything is ready he has to come to the telephone [to communicate it]", and "Don't block the camera as the winch operator has to see the cage". Later in the night the same person warned Manolo to refrain his manners "as the whole planet is watching you". So I assume it was a closed TV circuit established earlier and primarily to oversee the technical aspects of the operation. Aldo L (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miners (About to be) rescued! Politicians steal credits again?

Food for thoughts if there will be a controversy section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.28.90 (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your vague allegations or suspicions aren't particularly helpful, dear anonymous-editor-who-doesn't-sign-his-comments. —QuicksilverT @ 17:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could find no instance of the spelling "chili" in the entire article. Perhaps it was fixed without comment since your observation but it is not there at this point. Veriss (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not mind what arrogant Americants say. Their so called "news" are only about death and destruction 24/7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.28.90 (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the vast majority of the sources used in this article are from Spanish language, international news services and notable European services and newspapers. Please point out this supposed "American propaganda". Veriss (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pay at the mine

I saw it reported on the live BBC stream last night more than once that these miners are being paid around 20% more than at other Chilean mines, due to the safety record. Since the article does touch upon the pay of Chilean miners, I found it noteworthy to mention the higher pay at this specific mine. Unfortunately, I cannot find any usable references to support this specific number. I updated the article simply to note that the miners are being paid more than at other Chilean mines, with a reference to the English-language version of Der Spiegel, the only one I could readily find. If anyone can find backing information that they were indeed being paid around 20% higher than at other mines, please update and reference it... 71.57.48.148 (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's with all the UTC?

The intro reads really bad with all the "local time" and UTC information in brackets. Is this really necessary? Local time is the most important thing and the rest is just not needed and if you look at other important event is not used. Bjmullan (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been an ongoing battle on how the time is expressed which I've given up on but still watch with a bemused eye. I agree that the only important time is local time and all this monkeying with UTC business is a waste of effort and a distraction, especially over a transient issue that will be moot after today. Veriss (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, these should be changed from "local time" to just CLT/CLDT with the proper link to Time in Chile. (All of the current operations are in CLDT, but at least one reference is in CLT, as DST just started on 9 Oct there.) Excessive use of UTC is not needed as all operations are happening in the same location. 71.57.48.148 (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happens all the time, its a thing that always gets fixed after a few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.28.90 (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up a bunch of these. Probably still requires a bit more cleanup, but it reads more cleanly now with most UTC references removed (I left one in the infobox since it seemed appropriate.) Also noticed that the infobox time of 14:05 CLT contradicts the collapse time of 14:00 CLT in the article, neither properly referenced... 71.57.48.148 (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capsule transit time

I'm still very green to Wikipedia, so forgive me if I've inadvertently defied protocol in the way I've edited this article, participated in discussion, etc.

Anyway, I'm hoping to resolve the somewhat ambiguous and potentially inaccurate reference to the travel time of the Fenix capsule ([4]). I've been following the TV coverage rather closely, and I recall that as the operation began, officials predicted that bringing each miner to the surface would take at least an hour: about thirty minutes for the capsule to travel down, a few minutes to attach, calibrate, etc the medical and safety equipment, and another thirty to raise him. However, as the evening went on, it became obvious that the initial estimate was rather conservative, and the capsule's transit itself would take significantly less than a half hour. (This isn't just my subjective observation, mind you – the television reporters made similar remarks.) I tried to point out this development within the article, but my edit was reverted. Can anyone comment? Jrmarsico (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we all just leave it alone till after the event is concluded. All it takes is the door getting jammed again and it throws all the speculation out the window once more. Veriss (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, that seems like a reasonable middle ground. Jrmarsico (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Hope & the journalists

I see that no mention is made in the article about the fact that the sprawling camp that has grown up at the mine is called "Camp Hope". I'm I miss something? Also nothing about the total global media coverage (over 1000 journalists at the camp) and the 24 hour TV coverage (we are getting in the UK & probably everywhere else). Bjmullan (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

90 cm waistline seems too little

The diameter of the rescue borehole is 66 cm (26 inches), meaning each miner has to have a waistline of no more than 90 cm (35 inches) to escape.[16] In order to ensure they are the correct size an exercise regimen was developed to keep them in shape.[40] The men are being extracted in a steel rescue capsule 54 cm in diameter (21 inches).

If the diameter of the tube is 54 cm, a simple math calculation leads to a circumference of about 170 cm, not 90. Also, the average waistline for men is about 101 cm, so designing the tube to be 90 cm seems a bit optimistic. Does anyone have any actual numbers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.222.10 (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Guardian-4months was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Accident brings scrutiny to Chile's mining system", Associated Press, Google News, 26 August 2010, retrieved 26 August 2010
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Copiapó_mining_accident&oldid=390588294"