Talk:MV Rena

File:MV Rena Aground.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MV Rena Aground.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Split

Time to split this article, perhaps? One about the ship and one about the incident? It is certainly notable now - being labelled New Zealand's worst maritime disaster ever. 203.184.41.59 (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. But what to call it? Oil spill, disaster, or sinking? --IdiotSavant (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Could go by location, but following the these conventions Exxon Valdez oil spill and Deepwater Horizon oil spill, MV Rena oil spill may be best. See also List of oil spills. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Other choices:

• New Zealand oil spill a whole country in the name may not be good, but it is their biggest
• Tauranga oil spill googles a bit more than MV Rena oil spill it seems
• 2011 New Zealand oil spill a maybe Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 Tauranga oil spill Done. Now to decide how much information to keep here.--IdiotSavant (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

How about Rena oil spill? Currently a redir. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Why split at all? Any MOS line you're thinking of? No splitting for now. I'd say. -DePiep (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that it is described as New Zealand's worst ever environmental disaster. It is a very notable topic and likely to be permanently notable. It therefore justifies its own article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

How nice of you to respond, Liefting. And all this talk while you knew for hours it was moved already. Next time, if there is anything I can do for you, just let me know. Like, I know what a favor is, or behaviour. At all. -DePiep (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I am missing something here. What point are you trying to make? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

DePiep: the question is the most appropriate title for the new page. I picked one based on one style in list of oil spills, but there's no consistent pattern; if people come to some agreement on a better one they should rename the page --IdiotSavant (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Liefting: you responded here, so continuing the discussion while the page was already split. IdiotSavant, such a talk should be at the new page. This talk is titled "Split", which is clear enough. -DePiep (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

To be clear: I feel x-ed because of this semi-discussion. Don't ask me an opinion when there is nothing left to choose. -DePiep (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)-DePiep (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Origin / Destination

From which port did the ship originate on this journey? Which port was its destination? Shouldn't this be mentioned? Oz1sej (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes it should. The article needs some balance by adding al sorts of info about the ship itself. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

She left Napier on october 4th. Noted in the owners excuse message for a source. -DePiep (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Prefix "CV"

A quick Google lookup reveals that "CV Rena" is only used by the US Coast Guard. I don't think we need to bring yet another merchant ship prefix to Wikipedia. Tupsumato (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The ship itself is labeled "CV Rena", not "MV Rena". The media appears to have the wrong name. View a photo clearly showing the ships name here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/image.cfm?c_id=1&gal_objectid=10759388&gallery_id=122188#8166452 The media seems to be simply assuming it has the prefix MV AlaskaMike (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That might explain why the USCG refers to her as CV Rena. However, ABS, Equasis, the shipowner and other sources call her just Rena, so I would say that's the ship's official name. The name is also written in the ship's stern without "CV". As for the prefix "MV" (motor vessel), it is commonly used for cargo ships and is usually considered interchangeable with "MS" (motor ship). In Wikipedia it is usually used in the article name to distinguish the ship from other articles with the same name and usually is only given in the beginning of the lead section or when mentioning the ship in another article. Tupsumato (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you have written here. The ship is clearly the CV Rena. I am assuming the prefix CV stands for either "cargo vessel", or perhaps "Costamare vessel", but those are just assumptions. I don't believe a link to a photograph, even one on the website of an otherwise reliable source, would itself be considered a reliable source, although the USCG site was. So until the media or other sources figure it out... AlaskaMike (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

What's the value added of the USCG finding from 2006 anyway? Its five years ago and the ship seemed to have a different name, a different owner and a different operator? If so this should be mentioned. -- Traveletti (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)