Talk:2010 Copiapó mining accident

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)

None of them are notable except for Franklin Lobos. I removed the list again. Diego Grez (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

The only notable miner trapped is Franklin Lobos, as I noted above. Diego Grez (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The policy is quite clear, wikipedia articles don't include lists of victims. Bigger digger (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Please do not attack the editor, Mr. IP. Anyway, that logic is fallacious. If Wikipedia is not intended to have lists of victims, then there should not be a list of victims on this page! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

I think "particularly hard rock" is clear enough to understand the situation. Veriss (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a copper and gold mine. Gold usually occurs in granite and quartz, both very hard rocks.—Quicksilver^{T @} 16:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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."

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.—Quicksilver^{T @} 16:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

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. —Quicksilver^{T @} 19:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

"wikifairy"? Pink? The red is ugly! Too dark! IMHO. 2/3 columns probably better. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs05:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The list of names and rescue times will seem pretty darn goofy in a month or so. For now, there's too much momentum to change it (everyone wants to touch this article, with 180 edits just today?!?), but after things settle I think it should be removed. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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) BBC still saying only 2 rescuers down there. They're going to look a bit silly soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.186.189 (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, in the last hour alone they've (BBC) seem to stress there are only two rescuers down there total, although I don't know how verifiable that is. Watching the live feed they have down in the mine, it certainly looks like only two rescue workers,..but obviously that's not worth much. 98.165.176.87 (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The BBC are still saying there's only 2 down there, and the progress bar has been reverted again to say 5 though someone set it to 2 earlier. What is any other news agency saying? El Paulio (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Update: Now someone's upped it to 6. Care to provide some links, whoever it was? El Paulio (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It was me that changed it from 2 to 5 because the BBC is wrong. I base this on two sources: http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/detalle/detallenoticias.asp?idnoticia=441043 and the Spanish version of this page Messelink (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Well it's certain the BBC were wrong as a brief headcount by myself from the mine camera shows 9 people. 4 miners, 5 rescuers. But it's possible I'm missing one. Wonder who was in charge of keeping count at the BBC... El Paulio (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

BBC have now acknowledged that "there is a certain amount of confusion".--81.106.147.132 (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

A BBC reporter just stated on the live feed that they themselves are confused about the number of rescuers. They said they think it's 4 or 5, and considering other sources and that we have descent times for 5 of them, that seems like the right number. 71.57.48.148 (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The Chilean mining minister just tweeted (at least per being quoted in the BBC live feed text) that there are six rescuers. However, multiple other sources point to 5, including the BBC crew carefully counting heads live. I suggest we leave it at 5 unless we get further confirmation that this number is incorrect. 71.57.48.148 (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur. El Paulio (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The link I gave above at 14:05 local time report a spokesperson saying they will send a sixth rescuer down. I haven't found that this has actually happened already. Messelink (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be an edit war going on between several people due to the mining minister's tweet. I added a comment to the markup to please see the talk page before changing it to 6 based solely on that. 71.57.48.148 (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I did a headcount when they were loading the last minor in the capsule, I saw 6 rescue workers. I'm going to update the status bar on that basis. 64.114.67.195 (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur, though I have no information regarding his name or when he decended. Messelink (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There are six in the BBC live feed right now. Six just posed on the CNN live feed holding a sign so they weren't moving around. Veriss (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, definitely 6.--81.106.147.132 (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there's definitely 6. Bizarre that no news agencies seemed to get that right. El Paulio (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some mistake regarding the age of the rescuers. The article is not coherent with either earlier revisions or the spanish version (e.g. Manuel Gonzalez appears to be 66 now, although he was told to be 32 before). 94.21.93.151 (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Are rescue workers genuine?

I have removed Mitchaleo Tismandianano from the rescue workers as there was no proper citation. I have to wonder whether the other rescue workers listed are genuine. Can someone who speaks Spanish assess whether the given emol.com refs support them?--81.106.147.132 (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In view of El Paulio's response I presume the other workers are genuine.--81.106.147.132 (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The five are genuine, I have added them from the emol source, including the times the went down. You should be able to verify this even if you don't speak Spanish. emol is the website of el mercurio, a renowned Chilean newspaper. Messelink (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, apologies.--81.106.147.132 (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all necessary! You did right to remove the 6th one. Messelink (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a note per my above comment about the mining minster (very possibly incorrectly) stating that there are 6 rescuers...even if there are, I do not think it is the one you removed. (I tried to do the same removal but you beat me. :)) I could not find that name in any of the references concerning other rescuers, nor Googling (and both with the first and last names alone) for the rescuer. So I agree this removal was correct and should stand; it can always be fixed if we get updated information! 71.57.48.148 (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Upon watching live video of the rescue in progress, there were definitely six people still in the mine after the 33rd miner was rescued. I have no idea where there is any information that can confirm this, but it appears that the count of 6 is correct.--Jvanderb (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Agreed & removed that column. --Xeeron (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

The image shows as : The note sent by the miners does not seem original. The original is the one here, I suppose. Someone who can read Spanish, please check. http://elmundosigueahi.blogspot.com/2010/08/estamos-bien-en-el-refugio-los-33.html 122.172.43.172 (talk) 03:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)nikhilnarayanan

Resolved

 – by me! - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 11:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

On second thought that wasn't what you meant was it? - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 11:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

11th miner just rescued

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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. —Quicksilver^{T @} 17:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

For sure about a museum. It would be nice if someone who is able to keeps track of this over the next few months. Ideally, two of the capsules should go to a museum - #2 for display, and #1 or #3 for people to actually be able to step into and see if they'd fit (and hinge it in case some doof gets stuck!). GBC (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Your vague allegations or suspicions aren't particularly helpful, dear anonymous-editor-who-doesn't-sign-his-comments. —Quicksilver^{T @} 17:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Just 1 Q at the moment. Who were the "funny" guy that thought he could heavily edit this talk page and get away with it, an American? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.28.90 (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, Brazil's TV Globo correspondent discussed this issue at length with his anchor. Anybody else? Aldo L (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

Here's one RS ref which says their pay was 30–40% higher than at other private mines. Physchim62 (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

We have to consider that this was a worldwide event, as it was watched live by many millions of people around the planet. Paraguay's Diario Popular newspaper aptly carried the following cover title on 13 October 2010: "The country [Paraguay, 2000 km away] did not sleep last night". Argentina's TodoNoticias TV correspondent stated that there were journalists from about 40 countries at Campamento Esperanza. I think that use of UTC at important milestones is granted. Aldo L (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Fair enough, that seems like a reasonable middle ground. Jrmarsico (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The transit time has actually decreased. Initially, it was estimated at about 30 minutes one-way. Then, this estimate was reduced to 20 minutes. In fact, the first rescue worker reached the underground mine in 16 minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.138.9 (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, and that's what I tried to point out in my edit, which was subsequently reverted. Jrmarsico (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the elapsed time column be eliminated. It has no historical or encyclopediac value, as there can be variations due to checking the technology. While it may seem significant that the extraction time has been decreased, the actual time of egress for each miner is most important, in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.139.35 (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur. A brief textual explanation of how long the rescues were taking in general, once the operation is completed, is more appropriate in my opinion. 71.57.48.148 (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

… once the operation is completed … Fair enough - then it will be possible to provide an overall perspective. Until then, such an overview is not possible, so I suggest leaving the elapsed time column in place until then. Vilĉjo (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The transit time in the table is definitely different from the travel time which was less than 10 minutes for some of the later rescues. For example, I remember José Henríquez entering the capsule around 22:49 CEST (17:49 CLDT) and reaching the surface aroung 22:59 (17:59, as shown in the table). Actually, the transit time in the table also includes the descent time of the capsule and the entering and exit procedure, or, in other words, simply the time difference between two subsequent rescues. Therefore I would suggest to replace the term "transit time" by something like "rescue duration" or remove it completely (since it does not contain additional information the reader couldn't acquire by simple subtraction of two rescue times).--SiriusB (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Camp 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)

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)

Consider their arms need to move freely, there are compressed air tanks near their legs, plus the bulk of clothing, sweater and rescue harness all adds to the calculations. Also, the escape hatch at the bottom of the capsule is most likely smaller then the distance between the cage walls. Multiple factors that the source does not address are most likely driving those measurements. Veriss (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In that case, the word "meaning" is misleading, as it suggests that the one fact logically follows from the other. If there are other factors which are known to come into play, they ought to be stated, otherwise we will for ever have people (perfectly reasonably) pointing out that 54π is a great deal more than 90. Vilĉjo (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that humans are not cylindrical. :) There's more adjustment to be due to that and from other bits already noted. Chances are that their hip width is just as important now. 71.57.48.148 (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I doubt we'll find an accurate description of the factors driving the maximum waistline in the mainstream media. I think we are witnessing another situation of non-technical journalists interpreting and homogenizing data into easily digestible bits of information for the general public. Perhaps interested editors can look for more detailed articles discussing the design of the capsule in more technical publications or engineering journals. Veriss (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

New article created for Center Rock

After seeing several articles on this small mining equipment company involved in the rescue operation, went and created a page but have not integrated into this article yet. I'm fairly confident the company meets our notability requirements given it's significant involvement with two major mine rescues. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Some factual checks to-do

Encased top shaft -- either 54 or 56 metres, capsule OD -- either 54 or 55cm, shaft length -- either 622 or 624 metres.

As well, in spite of many claims about escape hatch, it seems that in fact the entire bottom half of the capsule can be separated (and winched down separately from the top) in case the capsule gets stuck. Egh0st (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps interested editors can look for detailed articles discussing the design of the capsule in more technical publications or engineering journals. Veriss (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, besides the media is typically rather bad at exact numbers anyway. As well, I would suggest adding RIG-421 vs RIG-422. 87.194.188.201 (talk) 10:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Fifth biggest story on the web since 2005

The statement "The response from the general public was huge, becoming the fifth biggest story on the web since 2005 records" has two citations, but neither of them verify this claim, as has been pointed out previously by people adding Not In Citation Given flags after these citations. As a result, I am removing this claim. After all, is this not quite an extraordinary claim, which requires a solid and reliable source? Unnachamois (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with removal--81.106.147.132 (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

How would you even measure something like that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Luis Urzúa will set record

Should Luis Urzúa's time trapped of 69 days, plus the hours/minutes since 14:00 local time (or whatever time is officially designated for the accident), be significantly highlighted to indicate the longest time a human has ever been trapped before rescue from a mine or other similar accident? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.139.35 (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point, should the record undergo any official verification to be added in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.113.40.1 (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Mario Gómez age

We have three references for his age, they give 59, 62 and 64. Yet, somehow the article says in two places he is 63! Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/work-matters/201009/boss-luis-urzua-and-the-trapped-miners-in-chile says 62
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11170852 says 64
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mario_Gomez_being_rescued_from_the_San_Jos%C3%A9_mine.jpg says 59

Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian lists him as 63. I say we go with whichever age the majority of articles agree on. Until we know for sure.

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2010/aug/23/chile-san-jose-mine-trapped-miners

--Welshsocialist (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sky News also lists him as 63 years old. Very confusing the various aged. Maybe somekind of footnote might help with the age issues for the time being, to list the various ages that are sourced.

• http://news.sky.com/skynews/Interactive-Graphics/chileminers

--Welshsocialist (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I imagine he's 64 and had a birthday recently. The oldest miner, 64-year-old Mario Gomez Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by 200.88.98.205

Vandal has changed miners' ages, people's names, etc. Not sure on procedure to request an edit ban, but I do believe this vandal needs to be hit with a banhammer. 71.57.48.148 (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV, but he hasn't made enough vandal edits to get a block yet. :/ -174.117.237.76 (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Done?

They've all been saved now right? Mr. R00t ^Talk 01:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the five rescuers who were sent from the surface still remain in the mine at the time of this comment. Jrmarsico (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

...and some a-hole, eager for the glory of updating the completion, broke the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrovagus (talk • contribs) 01:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

the exact time it took to get all 33 miners out, given on the news, is "24 hours and 35 minutes." ResearchRave (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The Mining Minister tweeted that all there was left were 6 rescuers that were sent down that were left to be brought up. I also just heard from BBC UK that there were only six rescuers still left underground that were to be brought back to the surface. Shouldn't we update the progress meeter?Clarkcj12 (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

TV pics clearly show 6. So we've missed one.©Geni 01:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not only did we miss one, but so did CNN as their website has said 5 for some time. But the picture underground clearly shows 6 rescuers. SargeAbernathy (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I was flipping channels, back and forth, and Fox News a few minutes ago said that there was confusion, but that there's actually 5 rescue workers. (And by the way, it's not that big a deal though, because they've only been down a few hours, whereas the miners were down there suffering for well over 2 months.) But it's 5 rescuers I believe... ResearchRave (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

They sent an extra worker about halfway through the rescue. One rescuer left, so there are five left in the mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.138.9 (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There were clearly 6 when the mission accomplished sign was held up.©Geni 01:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw 6 at that point as well. 02:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I just heard "6" now, on Fox.... I might have mis-heard it before. But there was some confusion. But the number is 6....ResearchRave (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a change from what Fox said maybe an hour ago. The only sure way to know is to count them as they come out, and I think Fox is still doing live coverage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

New page

Just to bring to everyone's attention this article which I hope can detail international and local reactions to the event, including comments on media coverage etc. I will add some info but others need to espand the article. 03md 01:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Rescuers

Are they even relevant to the table? I am deleting it. Thanks.(In 10 years we will look back and we will see how silly it was to put that little table there.)--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the table for the rescuers is unnecessary, but it seems appropriate that their presence should be mentioned within the text somewhere. That is to say, those five (six?) men retain the (dubious) distinction of being the last to inhabit the mine, and in a very literal sense, the operation is not complete until they are safely on the surface. Though, since they've been underground for a matter of only hours rather than weeks, they do not merit the special prominence suggested by a distinct table. Jrmarsico (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Tracking the complete series of events is the kind of thing we will want to have been done in 10 years time.©Geni 01:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Why delete it? The work has already been done to make the table, why are you worried about saving a few bytes of space on the servers? I originally thought the table was unneeded but it's there now so let's keep it. Those rescuers displayed some serious cajones going in there, they deserve their names to be on the table. We'll figure out shortly whether it was five or six left and the name of the unknown one if there he exists. Veriss (talk) 01:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no harm keeping it, and the mission is not over until the rescuers are also out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. These are special people. Recording their contribution for prosperity is important. Gstein (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Please review the table. It appears that Manuel González (the first rescuer) will be the last to be removed from the mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.42.105.21 (talk) 02:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC) http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidente_en_el_yacimiento_San_José_de_2010 mentions a "Pedro Rivero" as the last rescuer to reach the mine, rather that Cristián Bugueño (mentioned at http://www.eluniversal.com/2010/10/12/int_ava_designan-a-rescatisi_12A4595053.shtml). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.42.105.21 (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Please keep the table. Those rescue workers deserve recognition for potentially risking their lives and actually going down there. Imagine if the mine had collapsed then and there. We would have SIX (yes, six, not five) extra casualties. Their names must be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.138.9 (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Number of Rescuers in Mine

Is there 5 or 6? --Kuzwa (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

6 but we don't know who number 6 is.©Geni 01:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

On TV a few minutes ago they said the number was 5, and that appeared to be the count of those walking around in front of the webcames down in the mine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thats because one has been taken out. But when the Mission accomplished sighn was help up and they were all standing still in frame there were clearly 6.©Geni 01:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.eluniversal.com/2010/10/12/int_ava_designan-a-rescatisi_12A4595053.shtml It mentions another Chilean Navy Officer (Cristián Bugueño). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.42.105.21 (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

We're currently showing Rescuer number 6 as "name unknown". It's got to be Chuck Norris, surely.86.101.36.174 (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe "Gran Juan". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Rescuer extraction times

The first time listed for rescuer extraction are wrong. The first rescuer came out at 22:30 chilean local time. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source?--81.106.147.132 (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I was watching BBC's live feed at the time, and they displayed Chile Local Time at the top in a banner. Obviously some other Wikipedian thinks the time was 22:18 when the first rescuer came out; I'm hoping some other viewer can help provide evidence supporting one or the other of our times, so we don't just keep reverting it back and forth. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

the minute-to-minute text feed at http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/detalle/detallenoticias.asp?idnoticia=441043 has stopped. The only other source I can find is the BBC Live feed text. Do we want to use that or is there a better one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veriss1 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the BBC Live has stopped coverage as well. A Chilean source would probably be better, but http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidente_en_el_yacimiento_San_Jos%C3%A9_de_2010 doesn't (yet?) seem to have a better source. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

BBc feed still live. latest one out at 17 mins past the hour.©Geni 02:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Supporting evidence against a 22:18 extraction is that it's only 23 minutes from the extraction of the last miner, which would make it the fastest extraction so far. However, watching the celebration when the last miner came out, it definitely looked to me like they stopped work for at least a few minutes which would make this less likely...this is just conjecture, of course. 71.57.48.148 (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, how do we know the order in which the rescuers are being extracted? I.e. are times being assigned to the right people?--81.106.147.132 (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

They announced "first in, first out" at one point on the broadcast. That's all I've got to go on. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Per BBC live feed text concerning first miner "2236: ...the first rescue worker is now out of the shaft." At this point we can be sure it was prior to 22:36. The mining minister clearly stated first in first out. We need to find a Chilean source, hopefully they are covering it more closely. Veriss (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

At 23:30, the Fenix 2 is at the bottom of the shaft, and it appears that there were only two rescuers down there. The second-to-last rescuer got in the Fenix, leaving one person on the bottom. So it looks like we're missing one rescuer time. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Another Chilean minute-to-minute feed is at http://www.eluniversal.com/2010/10/12/int_esp_minuto-a-minuto-resc_12A4598573.shtml but my Spanish isn't reliable enough to use it myself. Veriss (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Penultimate rescuer (whoever he is) comes out at 00:03 local time. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

How many rescue workers?

Watching coverage from the mine just now as Jorge Bustamante entered the capsule, there was only one more rescue worker in the picture. Maybe it was just five workers after all? 84.181.96.138 (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No, definitely 6. Several editors observed the "mission accomplished" banner displayed in front of 6 rescuers.--81.106.147.132 (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we missed a time for one of the rescuers coming up. BBC cut away for a recap and I didn't have a live feed for a number of minutes. There were definitely 6 in frame. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I figured it out. 1st one was up at 22:30, *second* was up at 22:39. We're missing the 2nd time. Yes, nine minutes between first and second was a new record! Third was at 22:53, elapsed time of 14 minutes, so they were keeping up the torrid pace for a while before calming down. So all the entires are off by one. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If you missed it so did the BBC reporters. Again they appear not to be sure how many people are still down there.©Geni 02:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

AAt 54 minutes past there are two people at the bottem of the shaft.©Geni 02:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, heck. It's 23:54 and there are two people down there again. So maybe my correction wasn't correct. =( The guy in black is now going up, leaving a guy in orange. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

At 00:03 the penultimate capsule appears, at 00:06 the rescuer emerges. I think my earlier 22:39 time was actually a rebroadcast on the BBC feed of the 22:30 rescuer. So the times from the beginning are 22:30, 22:53, 23:17, 23:42, 00:03, 00:32. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There are clearly two left in the mine's live feed via both CNN and Fox. BBC is distracted running political speeches it seems. Veriss (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Now that the capsule is down again, another worker has emerged from the dark. :-) 84.181.96.138 (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think the list of rescue workers, aside from missing the sixth one, shows the wrong order for return to surface, as it appears that Manuel Gonzalez is first in, last out based on the current CNN feed. Risker (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

At this point no one seems quite sure best bet may be to keep track of the times and see if we can work it what order they went out in when more sources come through.©Geni 03:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

BBC is saying the same thing, he must be the rescue leader and so was first in and last out. Veriss (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

BBC is also saying that he was called "Manuel" by the ground crew. We should probably put a notice like http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidente_en_el_yacimiento_San_Jos%C3%A9_de_2010 has, which says the times are right, but the people they correspond to are probably not. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I support following the lead of the Spanish version's editors. I'm sure they have access to more detailed sources. Veriss (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been watching the live feed through Swedish television (which had no interruptions at all) for the last few hours. There were six rescuers in the mine. And I am pretty sure the rescuers were carrying uniforms in this order when coming up: Miner, military, military, miner, military, miner. (I was continually comparing what I saw with the list in the Spanish article, and the uniforms matched the "Afiliación" column in that article, as the column looked at the time. Note that I can't tell a GOPE and Armada uniform apart.) I hope that might help in checking who is who. And the last one up had the name "Manuel González" written on his helmet.

--David Göthberg (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Media attention

Now when it's over with a happy ending. I think it should be a section about media coverage or media attention of worldwide media, social media and public opinion. I read somewhere that at least 1 billion of people watching this event and 2 thousand journalist acredited in the mine. And appear to be the event most covered of recent years.

what do you think guys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.100.119.27 (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed entirely. This was a media event of enormous magnitude by any standard, and such a fact should be noted with at least a cursory mention. (Incidentally, I'd be interested to learn more about the presence and activity of the North Korean media delegation, whom I heard was present at the scene; but I wonder how relevant, let alone encyclopedic, such a fact would be.) Jrmarsico (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I worked half my life in broadcast and switch to the live feed scene of the capsule first entering the mine was simply the most incredible piece of footage I have ever seen in my life. I was in studio for the live feed of "tank Man at Tienanmen, and also handled feeds of tapes of footage from the Thailand Tsunami first hitting the beach, as well as lots of "bang bang" from war reporting, but this rescue coverage in both content and breadth is singularly unique in so many ways. The confluence of technology with feeds from the trapped miners, the probable TV and internet live feed audience numbers, down to the the President of Chile (well a press aide for sure) tweeting, make this event media impact worthy of its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.51.134 (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. What about the mysterious last person in the mine? 'Unknown'. Go, go, go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.113.27 (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't hardly wait for the article Conspiracy theories of the 2010_Copiapó_mining_accident and Criticism of the 2010_Copiapó_mining_accident!--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The second one might actually be a perfectly good article... Bouchecl (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

North Korean "media" delegation? No wonder, as an American "geological" delegation opened the rescue shaft. Remember dual-use technology? Aldo L (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm curious about. I'd be surprised if the North Koreans were there simply to conduct journalism. Certainly we can assume that, if their countrymen back in NK did get news coverage of the event, there was a bit of a partisan slant (to the effect, I would imagine, of "Look how Glorious Leader has single-handedly delivered these poor Chileans from their captivity!") Jrmarsico (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Man in the photo with Álex Vega

The man in the photo with the tenth miner, Álex Vega (the guy with the pony tail), is one of the rescuer who got down the shaft. He got back up from the bottom at 23:17 Chliean time, according to what I saw on BBC World. Might be useful to know later, so I'm writing it here.Bouchecl (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Last rescuer

According with BBC and TVN, the last rescuer is Manuel González, not Pedro Martinez. Manuel go down first, and now he's comming to surface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.100.119.27 (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"Pedro Martinez" is a famous baseball pitcher. That name was some vandal's idea of a joke, I think. The spanish wiki (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidente_en_el_yacimiento_San_Jos%C3%A9_de_2010) lists the name as Pedro Gomez. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Note on rescuer table that times don't match names

What is this supposed to mean? "Note: The recovery times for several of the rescuers do not necessarily match with the correct names although the names and times are correct." Jpatokal (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

We know the times that people appeared on the surface. We don't know what order people appeared in though.©Geni 03:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

See the discussions above concerning the number of rescuers and the times. It will get sorted out but for now it's not exactly correct and needs a notice. Veriss (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it needs to be reworded for clarity. Feel free to word-smith it. Veriss (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've done so: "Note: The recovery times for the rescuers may be out of order and not listed next to the correct rescuer." Feel free to clarify further; I still don't think it reads quite right, but that was the best I could do quickly without being excessively verbose. 71.57.48.148 (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks better then my attempt. I too was worried about wordiness. I think we may have more source info available soon in Spanish language media. Veriss (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I took another stab at wordsmithing the disclaimer. If we can't find good sources soon the table will need to be reworked so it's not original research. Veriss (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Drilling Technology Errors

Clearly, there is mis-information here about the drilling technology used to rescue these minors. First, the "hammer drill" referenced in the main article has virtually no similarity with the DTH (Down The Hole) hammer drills actually used. There is a vast array of websites explaining DTH technology, otherwise known in mining and drilling as "percussion hammers". A percussion hammer employs a large piston that cycles up-and-down in a sleeve with air-port-valving at the top and bottom of the stroke. At the top of the stroke, the piston is cushioned by the compressed air as to not impact the hammer housing. At the same time, the air pressure is directed by the valving to accelerate the piston downward where it impacts the anvil of the drill bit, translating its kinetic energy into an impact transferred through the anvil, shaft and matrix of the bit to the carbide buttons embedded in the face of the drill bit to the rock. These multiple impacts spall off pieces of rock (and dust) which the exhausted air carries back to the surface, either with "straight" or "reverse" circulation. After the piston impacts the anvil, the ported-valving sends the piston upward to start another cycle. Percussion hammers typcially operate at 1000-1100 impacts per minute and sound much like a air-jack hammer (that employs the same piston/anvil concept). In this case, the rescue, pilot holes were all drilled with percussion hammers from surface located drilling equipment. Once the "Plan B" pilot hole was drilled, a special hole-opening, LP, multiple-hammer bit, from Center Rock, Inc., was employed to enlarge the hole from the surface to the completed depth. There is no question that some rock debris fell down the pilot hole while it was being enlarged. We'll have to wait for interviews from the miners to get a feel for how much debris they had to clear away. It will also be interesting to learn from the miners what sound and pressure-impact waves they felt while in the mine. Drilling with percussion tools, well, makes a lot of noise and uses high pressure air. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.160.61 (talk) 05:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd assume miners are used to, and equipped for, working in extremely noisy environments. I also saw an article^[5] about using 12 pounds of dynamite to enlarge part of the opening (and maybe to clear out some of the rubble from drilling). One of the miners, Dario Segovia, job function was drilling holes for dynamite and so the blasting was likely done with locally available material. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Rescuer ordering

I think the rescuers should be ordered by descent time, not by extraction time. When you think "first rescuer", for example, you think of the first one in, not the first one to be extracted. We also don't even know if the removal order is correct right now. If there are no objections, I will re-sort the rescuers by descent time. The only negative I can think of is that this is different than the sorting of the miners, but it's different information being presented. 71.57.48.148 (talk) 05:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Go for it. Veriss (talk) 06:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Then I would remove the extraction time column for the rescuers: 1) it is not essential 2) we know it could be (and quite probably is) wrong 3) the rescuers are already in another table, so we dont'have to worry to have the same informations as for the miners. It is enough to write, after the rescuers' table, that they have all been extracted between 13 October 21:55 and 14 October 00:32; we can add that Manuel González was the last to be extracted (which seems true and sourced, and the information is now missing on the page) --Maxbeer (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

NASA ref source

[6] - NASA description of their role here, and I think that earth orbiter view is better than the one on the page, where the mine is almost indistinguishable and at the very bottom of the image. Posting here to see if anyone feels these might be useful (plus, I don't "do" images.) Risker (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the NASA image is significantly better; the mine is centered, clearer, and annotated. I don't really "do" images either. If someone who does could please scale/crop this and replace the current image, I believe it would enhance the article. 71.57.48.148 (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Transit Times

The final rescued miner took 27 minutes to transit but emerged only 25 minutes after the previous man - how come? TheOneOnTheLeft (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Since as far as I know, the "transit time" is just calculated based on the other data, seems like a math error. The second to last one was off by two minutes as well. I think consensus above is to eventually remove this column anyways, but I went ahead and fixed it. 71.57.48.148 (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Times for the rescuers

I have translated this table from es:Accidente en el yacimiento San José de 2010 in the Spanish Wikipedia:

	Rescue worker	Age	Affiliation	Descent time	Rescue time
1	Manuel González	32	El Teniente mine	23:20 (12 October)	00:32 (14 October) (confirmed)
2	Roberto Ríos	37	Chilean Navy	00:42 (13 October) (at bottom)	00:05 (14 October) (confirmed)
3	Patricio Roblero	39	Chilean Navy	1:40 (13 October) (at bottom)	23:17 (13 October)
4	Jorge Bustamante		El Teniente mine	10:22 (13 October)	22:37 (13 October)
5	Patricio Sepúlveda		GOPE	12:14 (13 October)	23:41 (13 October)
6	Pedro Rivero		Minera Carola	Between 14:05 & 20:55 (13 October)	22:52 (13 October) (confirmed)

Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I stated before that the Spanish Wikipedia editors probably have ready access to more detailed sources about the rescue team's activities and that we should follow their lead. I support pasting this information in but we will need help with references if the existing ones don't cover it. Thanks Veriss (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Text on rescue shaft lid

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11539784 shows the President putting an engraved lid on the rescue shaft after all the men were out. Has anyone got a full copy of the engraved text? What I can read on the video at this link including by stop-go'ing through it is "RETIRE LA TAPA SIN / ..ES HABER PENSADO EN LA / ..-ACION Y PLANIFICACION / ..... ABAJO / .... REALIZAR"; / means newline and dots mean lacuna (manuscripts). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

My guess: "NO RETIRE LA TAPA SIN / ANTES HABER PENSADO EN LA / FUNCIÓN [or PREPARACIÓN] Y PLANIFICACIÓN/ DEL TRABAJO/ A REALIZAR" i.e, "DO NOT REMOVE THE LID WITHOUT HAVING THOUGHT BEFOREHAND ABOUT THE PURPOSE [or PREPARATION] AND PLANNING OF THE WORK TO BE PERFORMED". The lid looks rusty, so I think it is an off-the-shelf piece of hardware with a standard trade warning written on it. Aldo L (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Anticipating Future Questions

• Here are some questions that people will be asking later that would be great to document the answers for. The answers/facts could be incorporated into the article text.

  If the rescue capsule door is secured from the outside, how do the final rescuer ascend? Will the mine collapse be cleared and the remaining equipment left in the workshop be removed? How were power and connectivity delivered? (e.g., fiberoptic cable through ventilation shaft, etc.) How much longer will cleanup work at the mine take? Will the site be closed off, or will people be allowed to return for annual remembrances, etc.? Will the rescue shaft be more permanently closed?

74.37.237.216 (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• The last man out (Manuel González, a rescuer) climbed unaided into the capsule (which swayed somewhat, with nobody to steady it), bolted the capsule door from inside, and put his own safety harness on. I watched it on a live video feed from Chile (and some of it live from in the mine) in a web page that was linked to from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special_reports/chile_mine/ . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Given that, after the mine collapse, the pre-existing ventilation shafts remained sufficiently clear to provide the trapped miners with fresh air, why were rescuers not able to make use of them to at least establish initial communication with the men? Granted that the routes of these shafts are quite circuitous, but doesn't the technology exist to navigate such routes? Much has been made in recent years of small, autonomous robots that can travel through the debris of collapsed buildings (after earthquakes, for instance) to locate survivors. Was this not a good application for such technology? Was this, in fact, tried? Convit (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

33 number

AFP wrote a report about the seemingly lucky number 33 in the incident. In Chile mine accident, 33 is lucky number. This might warrant mention in a sentence or two. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 13:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Only interesting if you are superstitious. Hmmm, time to clean my lucky coffee cup.  :) Veriss (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Information about the miners

This is a raw Google translation from pt:Acidente na mina San José em 2010 in the Portuguese Wikipedia:

• Claudio Acuña Cortés: 35 years
• Juan Carlos Aguilar Gaete: 49 years, worked as a miner for 19 years and throughout that time has had to rescue many companions who had been buried. Was a supervisor at the time of the accident.
• Osman Isidro Araya Araya: 30 years.
• Samuel Avalos Acuña: 43 years.
• Florencio Silva Avalos: first appears in the video and is the foreman, first and second in rank to have been rescued.
• Renan Silva Anselmo Avalos: Nurses and doctors responsible for the data. Brother Florencio Silva Avalos.
• Carlos Alberto Contreras Barrios: 47 years.
• Yonny Barrios Rojas: 52 years.
• Carlos Alfaro Bugueño: 27 years.
• Enrique Bustos Raúl Ibáñez, 40, has survived the earthquake in Chile in 2010. On August 5 had completed his shift and was to have gone but there was a failure and called it.
• Pedro Cortez Contreras, had had an accident with a machine in the mine. As a means of electricity, was instrumental in assembling and maintaining communication with the outside world.
• Galleguillos Jorge Orellana, 56, survived two accidents in 2009, broke a rib in the first and the second a stone that fell from the roof of the mine took her a piece of skin on the back. Between the two accidents was four months on sick leave.
• Mario Gomez Heredia: 63 years, the oldest of the group. It was without three fingers of his left hand in an accident seven years ago.
• José Manuel Henríquez González: 56 years, entered the service of mine in January and shortly afterwards there was a gas leak. Pulled out from within two companions and trying to get the third ended up passing out, although he survived the accident.
• Daniel Herrera Campos, 27, driver, was working at the mine for seven months.
• Juan Andrés Palma Illanes: 52, ex-military.
• Franklin Lobos Ramirez: 58 years, former player of the Chile national football team. For five years he worked as a truck driver and only those mines there were four in San Jose
• Carlos Mamani: The only foreigner, from Bolivia. Of the few who have completed secondary studies.
• Jose Ojeda Vidal: 45 years, it was he who wrote the now famous paper note "We bien en el refugio los 33" (We're right in the refuge 33. ") Conductor of heavy machinery and mining for 27 years.
• Edison Fernando Peña, 34, who stayed during the days without communication with the outside was responsible for verifying that the batteries of the flashlights of helmets is not exhausted.
• Orlando Reigada Omar Rojas: 56 years, working as a miner for 30 years and this is the third time since suffering an accident at work. The first was saved by a companion, who eventually died. The second occurred when the vehicle that followed was partially buried for 8 hours, but suffered no injury.
• Carrizo Esteban Rojas, 44, who was carrying the explosives in the mine.
• Pablo Villacorta Amadeo Rojas: 45 years.
• Jimmy Alejandro Sánchez Lagues: 19 years, the youngest of the group. No one put obstacles to their employment, even though the legislation is very clear: mine workers must be over 21 years.
• Arturo Darío Segovia Rojas: 48 years, a miner for 40 years.
• Víctor Segovia Rojas: 48 years, did drilling work when the accident.
• Mario Sepúlveda Espinacas: Unionist, who narrated the video was 40 minutes where the miners sent greetings and reported how they were living.
• Ticona Yáñez Ariel: 29 years, father was on September 14, when he was buried.
• Luis Alberto Urzúa Iribarrem: Head of the group assumed duties as head of shift when the accident occurred. Miner for 31 years, worked at the mine in San Jose for only two months when the accident occurred.
• Alex Vega Richard Salazar, 31 years.
• Richard Villarroel Godoy: 26 years, the family did not know who worked at the mine.
• Claudio Yáñez Lagos: 34 years, worked for a mine in.
• Victor Zamora Bugueño: 33 years.

Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't add it into the article. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Franklin Lobos, the footballer, is already mentioned once or twice and has its own article. The other miners are only known for this accident. Diego Grez (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is already kinda long and I'm sure the "byte counter" editors are salivating for their chance to cut and slash once the spotlight is off of it. If there is an interest to add some of this information, I suggest adding a "comments" column to the existing table to keep the scroll time to a reasonable length. Veriss (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Clock change effect on time underground?

Does the amount of time the miners were stranded - 69 days and eight hours, I believe, before the Manuel Gonzalez reached them - reflect the fact that one hour was lost on Saturday, October 9 when Chile moved to summer time? GBC (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The link at http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?NoCache=1&Dato=20101013&Kategori=NEWS01&Lopenr=101013060&Ref=AR says 69 days eight hours. However, taking the date and time of the collapse - August 5 at 14:00 CLT (Chile Standard Time) - to the time of rescue, is less.

The first miner emerged at 00:10 Chile Summer Time on Oct 13, which would be 23:10 standard time, or 68 days, 9 hours, 10 minutes, while the last miner emerged at 20:55 Chile Summer time, which would be 19:55 standard time, or 69 days, 6 hours, 55 minutes. The median stranding interval would be approximately 68 days, 20 hours, 2 minutes. The average is 68 days, 21 hours, 52 minutes. GBC (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Donated Oakley sunglasses

Can someone please permanently remove the crass commercial exploitation of the miners situation by some marketer from Oakley?

If you try to remove this it immediately undone.

thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.70.22.220 (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's more a case of sunglasses fans, specifically fashion conscious American Oakley fans, replacing it. I really don't think the edits are "crass commercial exploitation". To be sure, it was a very clever product placement move by Oakley that was picked up and carried by most English media sources so I expect that these fans are going to continue to keep putting it back in as it is both a verifiable true fact and very well sourced across multiple prominent sources. I don't think it's worth taking a stand one way or the other and after a few days there will be less pedestrian editing and it will eventually disappear. Veriss (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think another good, and perhaps more neutral, reason to remove it is that there were supplies donated by many different companies which are not listed. I'm sure references could be found for some of those, but adding them all into the article would just read like an annoying sponsored piece, thus not listing any of them unless there's a really good reason to do so, which I don't see being the case with Oakley. (E.g., how come nobody's hunted down a manufacturer for those rescue "tracksuits" yet? Answer: Probably because it's likely not a "famous" company like Oakley with pop-culture value.) Agree with the poster above, leave it be for now until edits quiet down, at which point we can just reference "sunglasses." Anyone who has a GOOD reason to keep the "Oakley" text in the article is of course free to rebut here. 71.57.48.148 (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that there is "a GOOD reason to keep the "Oakley" text in the article", or at least THIS article, but I would suggest that somebody looking to research "the crass commercial exploitation" of natural disasters and other events that draw global media attention may find an article listing such exploitation useful.

It is not just the commercial interests who attempt to use such events as promotion, there are also political interests and the promotion of nationalism. Chile seems to be great for this, the Chilean flag was plastered around this event more than the Stars & Stripes in an American Legion on Independence Day. Kid Bugs (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Chile is a relatively small country and was proud of pulling off something so enormous and complex without complications plus eager to shed what they felt was a lingering world image of Pinochet and coup d'état. National pride is normal and to be expected. One day a major English site in China only ran an article about the two Chinese made cranes at the site, no mention of the imminent break through. Australian, Canadian and South African media all ran extensive coverage of their nation's contributions just as US media did the same with NASA's involvement. The Canadian Globe and Mail ran long articles explaining to their readers how the US Plan B had a head start over Plan A and C which had heavy Canadian participation. Editors all made sure their nation's congratulations was listed in the "Reaction" section. The Chileans were very savvy in ensuring they put their best face on while under the media's glare.

I was actually surprised that no one tried to start a section listing all the contributions of the reportedly 30 to 40 nations who lent their expertise throughout the operation. If there was such a listing, Oakley would deserve mention but I don't think it should be mentioned in the text of the article. Please don't start such a listing, the article is pretty long already. Veriss (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Was the capsule spinning?

It was reported in some media that the capsule would be spinning during the ascent. No such spinning is visible, however, in the videos of the borehole as the capsule comes up the hole. Spinning of the capsule appears impossible given that the wheels are aligned vertically. This was maybe a kind of an urban legend.  Andreas  ^(T) 19:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it started as a concern by experts that spinning could happen and complicate the rescue and disorient the passengers. It was addressed during several press conferences that the design of the capsule with it's spring loaded wheels were meant to reduce spinning and that the actual winch and cable system to be used was specifically designed to minimize spinning as well. It appears that the plans adequately mitigated that concern and since the speculation was so heavily covered, it should be addressed somehow in the article if appropriate sources can be dug up. Veriss (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"Dug up"? Good one. :) Seems to me they said during the coverage that there was some small degree of spinning but that the efforts you describe kept that to a minimum. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

During a press conference on 13 October 2010, Chilean Minister of Health confirmed that there was "almost no spinning" and that that was good because it abated the risk of disorientation side-effects. http://america.infobae.com/notas/11542-La-Fnix-se-est-comportando-extraordinariamente-bien Aldo L (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As I understood it, it was not so much a question of the capsule "spinning" like a cork on a string, but the fact that the tunnel wasn't perfectly straight and had "corkscrew"-like twists in it. In either case, it didn't prove to be a practical problem. Physchim62 (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

pinera's speech

doeas anybody have a link to the rtext of pinera's post rescue speech? spanish or english —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.174.64 (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the full text, but it has substantial extracts (and it's official). Piñera seemed to be ad-libbing quite a lot in his various speeches, so there probably isn't a "text" as such (unless someone could be bothered to transcribe it all) As an irrelevant aside, one of the British media (can't remember which one) described him as "coming from the Fidel Castro school of public speaking", meaning he was using lots of words to say not very much. Physchim62 (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Religious significance section

I attempted to remove this section per WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK; it's basically an organized summary of miscellaneous bits of trivia. If any of the material is worth using, it should be integrated into the rest of the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This section about the religious significance has been added and removed twice now. Due to it's geographical location, the Roman Catholic beliefs and traditions figured prominently throughout the incident and probably rates it's own section.

However, the original submission is bloated with extraneous facts and reads like an attempt to proselytize via the article. If it is to remain then it needs serious pruning to at most one or possible two short paragraphs.

The parts about the lead driller studying for his license to preach is a good example what needs to be removed in my opinion. P/S: I was raised a Catholic so am somewhat empathetic but it appears to be over promotional in it's current form. Veriss (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

(I believe the poster below me is using the term "You" as a general expression and that it is not directed at me personally since I never deleted or blanked any sections) Veriss (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The section is not overweigh in light of the heavy coverage of the subject. Plus, if a section is overweight then you edit it down (although not warranted here). You don't just blank the entire section. Mamalujo (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the section was definitely WP:Coatrack and I removed it. The remaining paragraphs need more pruning. A member of the brigade sized rescue operation, someone not even part of the 33+6, becoming a deacon in their local parish is frankly, not all that notable. It certainly does not deserve it's own paragraph.

You put a lot of work into it but it's too much. Veriss (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

hello. Thanks for writing me on my Talk page. And inviting me to the discussion. And for your attention to this. And yes, I did notice this matter being brought out in this talk page. I thought that maybe it would resolve itself, get tweaked, with trimming, and more NPOV perhaps. I think the section is probably valid, as there was definitely a significance or connection with religion and faith and spirituality. Ala, one of the trapped miner's themselves being religious or a spiritual leader figure, and also one miner said that he never prayed before in his life, but he learned and got into heavy praying during those weeks in that deep mine, and also the religious paraphernalia. etc....

The IP "96" summarily removed the whole thing, with no explanation. Which arguably violates WP:VANDTYPES. Hence why I undid it. It was vandalism and wholesale blanking, with no summary or rationale, also in violation of WP:NOBLANKING, as that IP never discussed it on Talk, and did not even put an edit comment (against edit summary disputes), and the section has some merit, and is well-sourced and well-covered. Though it could use some re-working. Thanks again. ResearchRave (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As someone from the outside coming in to read this article, this section feels entirely out of place and unnecessary. It seems as though it has no connection to the mine, the accident or the rescue, it's just a comment on the personal beliefs of the miners. If this is noteworthy, then shouldn't the idea that they requested certain food items be noted too? What side of the bed did they sleep on? Did it change in the mine? After? It seems to have no good connection to the article as a whole. Apolloae (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the section is relevant to the article, as it demonstrates how the accident impacted the miners spiritually. Ricardo Santiago (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps since it is tacked on at the end it appears as an afterthought. I'll try moving it under the Miner's Health section and see if it fits better there. Veriss (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"Enriched Oxygen"?

With regards to the "Health of miners" section - the Washington Post article referenced does in fact say "A second tube for enriched oxygen". However, it is highly unlikely that they were sending down Oxygen 17 or 18 - it's more likely the tube was delivering "air enriched with oxygen", ie, air with more than the standard ~21% oxygen. Delivering air with a higher concentration of oxygen is a standard way of making breathing easier. Mr. Bene (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Satellite image caption

The caption under the satellite image may be considered incorrect, or misleading. The mine can barely be seen even in full resolution above the center of the frame. People who are not alert may mistake Copiapó for the mine.Mirrordor 01:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrordor (talk • contribs)

I updated the image description in wiki commons with more instructions for locating the mine in the picture. Veriss (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Procedure

The post-emergence steps are not quite right. At the moment of surfacing, a doctor approached the cage to check for the miner's alertness. Then, he was helped out of the cage, was immediately reunited with a maximum of 3 next-of-kins and received a protocolary salute. After this, he was laid in a stretcher and entered into a field hospital for a triage. After successfully passing the triage, he was transferred by ambulance to an office building, still on the mine premises, for a private time with his next-of-kins. Finally, they were transferred in groups of 4, via helicopter, to Copiapó Hospital for a 24-48 hour period of medical observation. Later on the rescue day it was possible to appreciate that when the capsule was seconds from emergence a worker on the surface yelled down the pipe to the upcoming miner: "[Name], how are you doing?!", and the miner's response came back, usually: "I'm fine!". The rescue workers stepped back to give room and finally the capsule erupted to the surface. Aldo L (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Auto-collapsing wiki table attempt

The article was becoming pretty long and in danger of pruning by the ever eager byte counters roaming at large on Wikipedia. I made the two tables auto-collapsing but in my opinion they could be more attractive. My first attempt at wiki tables so will welcome adult supervision there to make them a bit better looking. Veriss (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)