Talk:MS Sea Diamond

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

Almost 100 years after Titanic, seaworthiness has actually degraded, even on the drawing table![edit]

I cannot understand why this ship sunk after getting a hole in the bottom? I mean double hulls have been used in shipbuilding for at least 120 years. Add compartmentalization, massive bilge pumps and a small army sized crew available during havaria events. With all this a 150 meter long ship simply can not sink in a reef incident.

This is scary. If a stupid reef can sink a luxury liner, what stops a bunch of terrorists in a trotil-laden rubber dingy from ramming and sinking one of the recent 300+ meter megaliners? Shouldn't ocean liners have double hull, reinforced keel, pugliese, torpedo belt, deck armour, 5000 compartments etc. installed, considering there are over 1000 to 3000 civilian people on each one? Cars and train carts are built to strong crash-protection standards to protect people from all aspects. Why are ships built like fold-paper boats? 82.131.210.162 14:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reminded me of USS Cole bombing --Dennis Valeev 23:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the things you mentioned helped in keeping the ship afloat to take out 1,100+ passengers. From a 20m gap (that's 1/6th of the ship length !), taking more than 12 hours to sink is incredible in my opinion (and since I'm a shipbuilder myself, I believe my opinion does have some importance). So, speaking in a friendly manner, the title of your comment looks to me like the hysterical headlines we got her and is - in my opinion - invalid. The simple reason the ship was sunk is that nobody seemed like wanting to save it. Looks to me like it was left to sink, instead of starting some rescue effort. Why was this done is beyond the engineering scope, however.Geohack 09:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She was no ocean-liner, but originally built for Baltic Sea. She was owned by Birka Line, a company that operates between Finland and Sweden. 213.139.171.67 16:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the ship wasnt towed for repairs...it sank this morning wtf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.56.34 (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that modern liners are indeed built like paper boats. This ship was 6.25 meters tall under the waterline and about 20 meters tall over the water. Considering Archimedes' law, this means the whole superstructure was about as dense as dry sponge on average. Possibly the whole deck things were built of a few millimeters thick aluminium at best and internal cabin walls made of plywood and plastiline. The hull also must have been light, few ribs, thin steel sheets and little compartmentalization (bulkheads are heavy). Maybe if people cared a damn about safety and could live with two promenade decks less and sans topmost swimming pool, the cruise liners could be built a little sturdier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Modern shipbuilding regulations stipulate very strict rules about watertights compartments. Additionally aluminium is relatively rarely used in shipbuilding at it hardens and cracks as it ages. Additionally in order to have an 1 A ice class the hull must be relatively thick, at least along the waterline. That said, all the extra stuctures added to the ship in the 1999 and 2006 refits were probably built of aluminium, oterwise she would have probably become too top heavy to be stable. - Kjet 17:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheer up! Almost anyone got out alive and unhurt![edit]

Hey, this is current event stuff- it is already scheduled to change thus named that! Let us pray for the two missing.

Fixed it already - added info on missing and current status of the event

It is true though that they reside on the side that broke through and this may be why they are still missing.

Speaking of seaworthyness, I must state that Titanic took 2 hours to sank, compared on 15 hours of Sea Diamond - and was much larger than her.

It is true that s*** happens always - if it didn't, we on wikipedia wouldn't have anything but nice stories to write on.

Makrisj 18:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was set to have boarded this ship the Monday after it sank. All of my friends thought I was on it because they knew I was in Greece. Especially since apparently some news came out there was an Asian family on it (I'm Asian).
I'm that lucky. Only dead fish go with the flow. (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am thankful but i don't understand either[edit]

The ship was pulling into a port when it was beached and got a hole ripped into its side when they went to tow it. Why didn't they just leave the ship there in the rocks and make a more secure evacuation?

That way the other passengers would have a chance to get out if they were stuck. The thing that concerns me is that there was a hole in the side but what about the Andrea Doria? The andria Doria got another ship to plow through it and it sank in more time than it did this one. strange don't you think. The boats marked this spot up and we'll know when they take a dive to it to see what happened. Let's hope they wrote down cowardenants. This is a sad day in greek ship history. [salute] it went down with a fight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.178.109 (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are definatey right. But...[edit]

If they didn't move the ship and kept it stabbed, less water would have leak in it and it wouldn't sink that fast.

Who can ensure though, that the rescue ships wouldn;t stuck on the reefs too?

This is why Captain of the ship took her in deeper waters (she had a in-water depth of about 6m. and still stroke the reef. Imagine that - twice as high as your home's ceiling and still mortal! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makrisj (talk • contribs) 19:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This is true. I'm still amazed how many people they managed to get out, and how slowly it sank. The most disappointing thing I've seen here is that the crew panicked, according to some passengers, more than the passengers themselves did, and there's also the fact that the reef was clearly marked.... Andrew 00:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Hellenic Cruise Lines[edit]

...Has been created. Graeco 23:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She/it[edit]

Can we please have some consistancy- is this boat a 'she' or an 'it'? J Milburn 23:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume the English language requires inanimate objects be "it". Countries are also sometimes described with the pronoun "she", but Wikipedia uses "it". --334 23:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at RMS Titanic, the predominant pronoun used for the ship is "she." This is a traditional usage among sailors, that ships are referred to as female. I cannot find a point on this in the MOS, though. —C.Fred (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's somewhat comparable to referring to Jesus of Nazareth as "He" in the middle of a sentence (reflecting a Christian perspective) rather than "he". As we're not all Christians, we're also not all sailors. Referring to ships by the pronoun "she" instead of "it" simply to satisfy a specific group of people doesn't make sense. --334 03:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although the Jesus example is covered under the manual of style, and He is properly referred to with uppercase pronouns.
The other thing that crossed my mind is whether sailors made any distinction between a "living," still-afloat ship and a wrecked ship. Since that would be an esoteric distinction in the nautical community, and since "she" is in common usage to refer to ships, "she" is the pronoun with the strongest argument. —C.Fred (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"She" is the correct pronoun in English to refer to ships. I'm surprised the subject isn't talked about at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships but I guess, since they all are constantly immersed in nautical matters, they take it for granted. Note that throughout the entire project they use the pronoun "she". Countries used to also be referred to as "she", but that was a term more in use during the days of empire. It's since fallen out of use as archaic. --Monotonehell 05:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When referring to the Titanic, Britannica says ". . . Over 1,500 of its 2,200 passengers were lost."
Confusingly enough, in another article it says "With her she took the lives of some 1,500 men." This probably isn't the best place for this type of discussion. --334 16:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only since the discussion keeps happening again and again. Actually, WP:SHIPS has taken the issue under discussion a number of times (see the archives), but no clear consensus was reached. All things considered, I say go with the first-editor's-usage rule, and whatever the majority of usage in the article is as of right now, keep that. —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was the rock charted?[edit]

Santorini is an active volcano. Was the rock she hit charted, or is it a new feature resulting from volcanic activity? If the latter, then this is important news in its own right. Santorini is strongly implicated in the destruction of the Minoan civilization, and may be the source of the Atlantis legends. So, renewed activity is of considerable interest.--APRCooper 23:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'd need to find sources for all of that. I've visited Thira and the other Islands of Santorini and you're quite right, the volcano is pushing up new land in the centre of its caldera. And the Atlantis myth is anecdotally attached to the archaeological digs on the South of Thira. --Monotonehell 05:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Launch Date[edit]

The launch date in the article body and the one in the side box are different, and im quite honestly too lazy to look into which one is correct BBnet3000 05:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The was launched from drydock in 1985 and delivered in 1986. I'm fixing the article body text to display the delivery date. Also, for some reason the infobox doesn't seem to be displaying all the years entered to it; if you look at it whilst editing the article, there's a lot of info that doesn't display when you view the article. - Kjet 09:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Names?[edit]

Do we have names for the people missing and/or the wife and son of the missing Frenchman? I've looked everywhere and I can't find them. Andrew 00:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know if the missing people were travelling with a tour group, and which tour group this was. Steve 00:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.128.194 (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their names are Anne and Raphel according to this Article [1] Mfalcian 16:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images of the wreck.[edit]

Does anyone know if there are images of the wreck itself out there? I Know that there are lots of photos of the sinking, but i have found nothing about the wreck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.27.54 (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the wreck is 200 m deep. i took some pictures at the port (low Q), menly of the oil spil effects. check them at my commons account commons:User:יוסי הראשון. 89.1.145.34 15:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur videos[edit]

Here are some amateur videos I found on the web. Some could be linked to from the article. It would also be great if we could find some free material to post on Commons. If we find the original creators, maybe we can ask them to release under a free license. -- Petri Krohn 22:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube[edit]

Material by zakhayes1[edit]

Myself and a group of 77 students from Paisley Magnet School in North Carolina...

Material by bluedonkeyman[edit]

It seems that bluedonkeyman is the creator of the night time footage and the sinking footage widely circulated.

Secondary material[edit]

Paisley Magnet School[edit]

Is the part about the school students really important? While I don't doubt that 77 high schoolers were on board and rescued, they don't seem to have a special connection to the desaster the way the french family whose members are missing have - the students are mere 77 of about 1600 of the rescued ones, and thus their mentioning is not of encyclopaedic value. With the same right one could argue to have a passengers list, including every other rescued person, in this article. I'd say we should axe that part. --Hohenberg 18:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put them partly because they are the reference for use of the car ramp for evacuation. (See the videos by YouTube:zakhayes1. There are also written reference on the web.) They have also been widely reported in the news; in fact it seem that they may have given the face to U.S. coverage of the event. Beside, I think that this material by zakhayes1 is great! -- Petri Krohn 19:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think en.wikipedia.org, being some kind of überwikipedia, often used as well in nonenglish countries (not to mention lots of english-speaking countries that are not the US), should be overly US-centric. Basically, I did learn of them because from this wikipedia article, and would never have otherwise (living in Germany)... I think the High Schoolers have earned themself a recognition in form of an reference, but not really a mentioning within the article. --Hohenberg 06:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Lermontov[edit]

I've added a See Also reference to the sinkning of the Mikhail Lermontov because there are several similarities between that wreck and the Sea Diamond:

  • Both vessels were near port and sailing in ideal conditions.
  • Both struck rocks well charted on maps
  • In both cases the only casualties were people in the vicinity of the initial impact.

Anyway, any comments are welcome and I'm happy for the link to be removed if deemed unsuitable. Milbs 07:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malta[edit]

Wasn't the Sea Diamond registerd at Valetta, Malta? Camptown 10:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Originally yes, but she was re-flagged to Greece before the sinking. - Kjet 10:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article now has references to show this, but it is also evident from photograps, where the text on the stern changes from Valetta to Piraeus. -- Petri Krohn 11:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dollars???[edit]

Why would a Cyprus based cruise ship company be paying for a refurb from a German shipbuilders in US Dollars?? Surely the money paid would have been Euro's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.241.225 (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus does not (yet) use the Euro as it's main currency. It is reasonable that this international business is done in USD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hohenberg (talk • contribs) 06:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, the refit was done in 1999 when the Euro was not yet in use... and she was owned by Birka Line at the time, not Louis, soa Sweden-based shipping company. - Kjet 08:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So therefore if this work pre-dated the Euro then the payment would have been in Deutsche marks, It is not reasonable to assume that two European countries would do business in US dollars. In fact during the last 10 years the US dollar has been so unpredictable and weak that it would not make any sense whatsoever for anyone not dealing directly with the US to use that currency. I was under the impression that Wiki guidlines state that we use local currency for dealing with figures, i.e. British films budgets will always be in Pounds. I do not know what gives you the impression that international business is always done in US dollars but i promise you this is not the case. Same thing as not all Burgers served in the world are from US companies, not all soft drinks are from Coke or Pepsico, not all coffee houses are Starbucks etc.. etc.. Please allow other far older and more civilised nations in the world to have their own currency. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.186.241.225 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

One issue is what currency the source used. If they only expressed the price in dollars, then it is not unreasonable to leave it stated as dollars only. Not only do we not know the currency of the transaction, but we also do not know the exchange rate at the time of the transaction! That is at least generally researchable, but still, that's a fair bit of synthesis of information. —C.Fred (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, can the person who wrote the section in question tell us where the figure came from? the source used does not mention a figure at all. The German shipbuilder would have invoiced in Deutsche marks, that should be the assumption with no evidence to say otherwise. It is possible that the original source was a US press source and therefore would have performed a currency conversion against the Euro figure that was taken from whoever was their own source on this. You may think i am being picky here but surely there are other Europeans on here that do not want to see this Americanisation of the world go so far as to assume that any business done in the world would be in US$. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.186.241.225 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, the purchase and refurb prices are not mentioned in the provided sources. I'm going to tag them for verification needed; otherwise, they come out.
With regard to the original purchase, price, I don't think that can be effectively converted to Euros, simply because of the time factor involved. There are too many calculations here that, unless a published reliable source does the conversion, that kind of conversion is original research. I think the purchase price in the currency of the transaction should be listed, if known; or else the currency of the buyer; or the seller; or else—or possibly in addition for comparison purposes—the price in US Dollars or Pounds Sterling as an international factor. (Which one did the Common Market do most of their transactions in at that point?) —C.Fred (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by User:86.150.128.252[edit]

A group of 33 students and three teachers from The Henley College mangaged to escape the accident scene by driving a steam train through the railing
I left this message on his talk page:

If you, or your group, have some first hand experience of the accident, you could best contribute to the article by uploading images. If you want to include some trivia, it is best done as image captions to your own photographs. -- Petri Krohn 23:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heheh, well handled. I hope, though, that we don't end up with a huge influx of grinning, life-jacket-wearing mugshots and other imagecruft. --YFB ¿ 00:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic more seaworthy than most cruise ships today![edit]

(Moved long essay to User talk:69.204.131.53#Titanic more seaworthy than most cruise ships today!. -- Petri Krohn 04:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Stability issues[edit]

It is clear that the changes made to the ship in 1999 and later decreased her stability. They also increased her draught by 0.3 meters, bringing the lover porthole that much closer to the sea. It is highly likely, that the ship could have been saved without these changes. We should cover the stability issue in the article.

Open portholes?[edit]

User:69.204.131.53 points out an interestig fact; passengers might have kept the port holes open. The dolphin-hellas.gr web site in fact shows the porthole open in the picture of a lower deck "B" standard outside cabin. I have also speculated on this. Is it possible that the water in cabin 2206 entered, not through a leak, but throug an open porthole? -- Petri Krohn 05:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure the "window" that is open in the picture is not an inside window cover? Because I haven't found a single window that could be opened on ships built after 1977. Plus (although I admit this is far from the most reliable source), in an episode of the Rederiet TV series a big point was made out of the fact the cabin windows in the ship could not be opened. - Kjet 06:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe it is an outside window; that is what the text says. Also, the same page has pictures of inside cabins; they have a mirror in place of the window. Note the brass hook on the roof, to keep the porthole cover in the open position. -- Petri Krohn 07:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to the cabin photo: the “porthole” is not open, nor does it appear to be openable. In naval architecture parlance, circular windows are called “side scuttles.” International load line regulations in force at the time of her original construction (in 1985) required that side scuttles in this location (i.e., in the hull below the freeboard deck) be fitted with a hinged watertight deadlight cover on the interior side, which can be readily closed and secured during heavy weather (as a precaution in case the glass pane is broken by waves). The arrangement in the photo is typical: the deadlight cover is hinged on the top edge so that it can be held open and out of the way against the ceiling. (Refer to Regulation 23 of the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966 (as amended by the ICLL Protocol of 1988)).-- TDJ (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for "open porthole" on Google gives some interesting precedence:
-- Petri Krohn 08:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These “open porthole” flooding cases are not modern cruise ships. Although openable side scuttles once were necessary for cabin ventilation, this is not necessary (nor desirable) in modern air conditioned cruise ships. Furthermore, current load line regulations state that if a side scuttle would become submerged as a result of damage flooding to the vessel, then it must be a non-opening design. -- TDJ (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Water-tight doors[edit]

Personally I'm not sure about this sentence: "These water-tight doors are one of the most important safety features of a cruiser, and the fact that they didn't work raises serious suspicions on the nature of the company's safety practices."

Compared with the Mikhail Lermontov - where several water-tight doors also failed - it was suspected that this may have been caused by distortion of the ship's hull caused by the impact. It also appears that most of the safety equipment on the Sea Diamond was very much better maintained than on the Russian vessel, so I think it's a bit dicey to speculate on poor maintenance of the vessel. Is there any other evidence that points to poor maintenance?

Milbs 22:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a current event any more?[edit]

Is it time to remove the "current event" tag? Edits have slowed down now considerably. --MoRsE 22:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This is definately still a current event, at least in Santorini. Nine months have passed and the Sea Diamond is still laying in our waters, polluting the Aegean sea. When will the fuel, batteries, and various toxic products still onboard the ship be removed? Santorini locals are concerned with the ecological consequences and have began complaining for the delay. Eleni73 (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish source -- translation available?[edit]

I attempted to find an online English translator for Finnish, that would work with the Finnish source cited in the article (Åsa Hellmanin seinäreliefit upposivat risteilijäaluksen mukana) but was unable to find one that worked. If anyone is aware of one, could they post here (or on the article)? Or if not, could a translation into English be posted? Thanks! 75.214.40.193 (really User:JesseW/not logged in) 22:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't translate the whole thing, but I can spot enough words to get the gist of it. It speaks of the ship and some ceramic pieces installed in her when she was the Birka Princess. For example the picture's caption "Åsa Hellmanin keramiikkareliefi Albatrossi upposi risteilijäalus Sea Diamondin mukana." As far as I can see reads literally "Åsa Hellmanin ceramic scupture Albatross aboard the foundered cruise ship Sea Diamond" Does that help? --Monotonehell 23:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that I don't have anything better to do... Mind you, I'm not a professional translator so this will sound a bit crappy.
Åsa Hellman's ceramic sculptures sunk with a cruise ship
In the loss of the cruise ship Sea Diamond near the island of Santorini two large works of the ceramic artist Åsa Hellman were also lost. Wallsculptures (the Finnish word used is "reliefi", which I don't know how to translate) "Underwater Landscape" and "Albatross" were made in 1987 by order for the restaurants onboard the passenger ship Birka Princess. The ship trafficked on the Baltic Sea until 2006, when it was sold to the Cyprus-based Louis Cruise Lines -shipping company.
The sculptures were manufactures in the Pot viapori ceramic workshop in Suomenlinna (sea fortress outside Helsinki) and they are some of the largest public ceramic works made in Finland outside the Arabia ceramic factory. Åsa Hellman, living in Porvoo, is known for works influenced by the Mediterranean culture. Now her ceramic fishes swim 140 meters below the surface of the Aegean Sea and have "returned to the reign of Poseidon". - Kjet 14:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL "returned to the reign of Poseidon" I thought that's what the last line read, but I thought I must have been crazy. --Monotonehell 14:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for translating that, Kjet! Now us-non-Finnish speakers can verify those details from the article. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing[edit]

Does anybody know if the two persons who went missing have been found or not? 84.211.227.30 (no:Bruker:Alexanderkg) 13:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't been found. Its very unlikely they will be. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greek scuba diver killed whilst investigating Sea Diamond[edit]

A Greek scuba diver died whilst investigating the Sea Diamond shipwreck in October 2007. [1] Eleni73 (talk) 07:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.cdnn.info/news/safety/s071007.html

Wreck site coordinates?[edit]

Anybody know the coordinates for the wreck site? There's a placemarker on Google Earth but I don't think its accurate. It doesn't match the photo. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw her on GE[edit]

I saw the boat on GE at [2]. Images from the forth and the back of the ship before sinking mach the wreck layout, the boat is 150m max depth therefore daylight reaches there.

A researcher commenting on the damage she suffered while rolling to the bottom of the caldera said that the boad rolled on the sliding terrain and ended up on current position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.105.110 (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Displacement[edit]

I removed the displacement (said to be "2,441 metric tons") as it's definitely wrong.Tupsumato (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the past there has been some confusion on (the english) Wikipedia as to what exactly are deadweight tonnage and displacement. Resultingly in several articles DWT still remains in the wrong field (it should be under tonnage). I've gone and re-added the DWT figure, but now in the correct field. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 18:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I should've checked if someone had just writteni in the wrong field instead of giving wrong figures. Thanks for fixing that up. I guess I'll have to keep an eye open for such errors while browsing through shipping-related articles in the future. Tupsumato (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, the removal was easily fixed. :) There are probably still many articles with the same mistake around (and I'm to blame for some of them), as very few wiki editors seem to care enough about non-military ships to give them proper attention. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 10:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flag : Finland or Åland[edit]

  • Flag of Finland was my decision, but I have seen later the photo of this ship with ensign of Åland on the stern mast and I have restored your revision, Gwafton, thanks for your attention,--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I believe when I see it, it shall be Åland flag then. This is new to me – in the past the Åland registered ships sailed under the flag of Finland as Åland is not a country. Regulations seem to have changed in the meantime. --Gwafton (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your fast response, all right, regards,--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on MS Sea Diamond. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on MS Sea Diamond. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How could reef be 'well-marked' if a later study showed the charts were wrong?[edit]

Reference 12 claims the reef was well-marked, but a later study showed the reef was further out to sea and shallower than represented on the map. While it was irresponsible to approach a volcanic cliff so close, it was not a result of misreading the map. (Though I am a bit perplexed on how they missed the reef on sonar.) Pete Mack (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MS_Sea_Diamond&oldid=1215679152"