Talk:Titan submersible implosion

OceanGate Titan

Perhaps the DSV OceanGate Titan should also have an article, as well as the expedition set that this mission was part of OceanGate Titanic Expeditions, and the tour operator OceanGate Expeditions separate from OceanGate, Inc. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It should at least have a redirect, but I'm not sure of the name. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#OceanGate Titan. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Date structure?

I believe instead of June 18, 2023, it should be 18 June 2023, in line with other incidents from similar pages including the sinking of the RMS Titanic itself. What do you think? KeyKing666 (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree it should use DD MMM YYY formatting -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Concur, format should be DMY. Will edit as it appears we have consensus. Ng.j (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@KeyKing666 and Ng.j: Based on what I have read, the reason that the Titanic articles use DMY is because the Titanic was a ship operated by a British company which allows MOS:DATETIES to take effect. In contrast, this is a "sub" that is owned and operated by a US company. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It was operating out of St. John's, on a chartered Canadian ship[1]Polar Prince, so Canadian English can also apply. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 01:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I had forgotten about the support ship. That works for me. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Stockton Rush should have his own page

Does anyone think he deserves his own page? 2A02:C7C:2D07:9B00:4D0:BBEB:A9A1:1FEA (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to be particularly notable, either in general or within the submersible/tourist industry. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:A5C8:50FA:2049:2767 (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, there is quite a bit on him prior to this year. I think there might be enough for at least a section on the OceanGate article. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I have started Draft:Stockton Rush. I think he will probably meet notability guidelines with the coverage. He got quite a bit of media before the disappearance, so Wikipedia:BLP1E doesn’t apply.

Thriley (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

He may have been on the sub though 156.143.240.139 (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Stockton Rush is currently a redirect and could be made into an article if he meets notability guidelines. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:BLP1E.Tvx1 21:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe that he should have his own page on the OceanGate page because he is the founder of the company Duck Dur (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Stockton Rush is being reviewed at Articles for Creation ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Disagreement on date of departure from Newfoundland

Though the map states that the expedition left on 18 June, the text states it was 17 June. Anyone know the correct date? 2600:4040:9985:D300:91B5:7504:B8FA:7A0F (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The submersible was launched on the 18th, the world was alerted on the 19th, so it would make sense if the expedition left port on the 17th, as you'd normally not launch the sub late on the day you left port -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

BBC news (source) says the expedition left on June 16th 92.68.99.18 (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

yeah I agree, the map should be changed to detect this new information. Death Editor 2 (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Knightoftheswords281 Would you kindly revise your map please? Also, box should read "... where RMS Titanic sank." Davidships (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Davidships Map revised. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 18:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated Davidships (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Bogus archive url

@Significa liberdade: Please don't add bogus archive urls to our source citations. This one [2] does not support the material, including a quote, for which we need a legit source. GA-RT-22 (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@GA-RT-22: You are mistaken. The archive URL doesn't need to support any material. It just needs to be an archive of the source that exists within the ref tags. The archive URL that was added (https://web.archive.org/web/20230619190805/https://news.sky.com/story/uk-billionaire-hamish-harding-on-board-missing-titanic-submersible-family-confirms-12905616) is an archive of this URL: https://news.sky.com/story/uk-billionaire-hamish-harding-on-board-missing-titanic-submersible-family-confirms-12905616. This has nothing to do with source quality or the relevance of a source. Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Is the question here whether we need a better source or whether the source provided shouldn't be archived? As Nythar noted, the archived link is just an archive of a source, which can be helpful with rapidly changing information. Significa liberdade (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The issue was that the story at the original url supported the material, but the archived version was different and did not. It has been resolved. GA-RT-22 (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 20 June 2023

2023 Titan submersible incident → 2023 Titan submersible disappearance – Per the discussion above, there's support amongst some editors, and personally, as the original article creator, I frankly agree that disappearance is a more straightforward name. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 05:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Yep, makes sense to me - methinks WP:JUSTDOIT might apply. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 06:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• "Incident" is the best term for an ongoing situation. We do not know what happened or what will happen. The submersible may yet be found, or some new developing information will change the context. Ng.j (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  The sub literally disappeared and hasn’t been located Eoj9020 (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  It has been a few days, I wouldn't add it right now. Maybe wait a week or so as there is still an ongoing investigation. 212.250.189.37 (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah nothing has happened yet, like "oh yeah they are missing" well no shit it has only been a few days. Wait until they get found dead/alive or not found at all in a week or two. Sebbog13 (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  they will run out of air tomorrow, so I doubt they will be found alive in a week or two. Death Editor 2 (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  "dead/alive or not found at all in a week or two." Sebbog13 (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Wait At least give it a few days for them to try to locate it --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Articles should be titled based on current information. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Wait we don't know if they'll find anything yet ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• No. Certainly wait a few days. There are several possible outcomes, of which disappearance is only one. Davidships (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Still No. It's still too early to decide. Nir007H (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Wait Within the next few days it will become clearer what the title should be. There's no urgency to change it now. GoPats (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Neither: This entire conversation is backward. Regardless if the submarine has imploded or is never found or recovered with or without the passengers alive, it's likely the subject (the submarine) will never need more than a single wikipedia page with the title of "Titan Submersible" with redirects for other potential titles only and where any loss is a subheading. From a quick check of various wikipedia pages regarding maritime disasters, almost all of those involving single ships are simply written about within the article titled for the ship itself and not on their own "wreck" pages. Example, MV_Doña_Paz, which sank killing an estimated 4300+ people, MV Wilhelm Gustloff and SS General von Steuben were sunk in action thousands of deaths and again, no individual articles for their loss. The information within could also be placed in the OceanGate, Inc. page, with redirects from "Titan Submersible" and "OceanGate Titan" (or vice versa), to ensure that there is only one overarching Wikipedia page that hosts the content regarding this one-event notability situation. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Yes it makes sense owing it's a dissaperance. Also while your at it pls can you protect the page from unverified editors? Metalhead11000 (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Wait If the search gets abandoned with no hopes, then we can move to disappearance. But if they found alive, there will be need in moving the article back from disappearance. Brandmeister^talk 13:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  +1? I agree, but it feels like there should be a better way to say this on Wikipedia. ForTheGrammar (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  User:ForTheGrammar, try {{Agree}}. Folly Mox (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Folly Mox: I'm not sure they meant a better way to express their endorsement. Maybe they were asking whether there could be a better way to talk about "abandoning them with no hopes" on Wikipedia. --Renerpho (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly this, we wait. Words in the Wind(talk) 21:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  I mean... even if they're found, they still disappeared. The incident is still a disappearance, right? cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Absolutely everyone has missed that none of these titles are correct because no other submersible named Titan has ever sunk/disappeared/whatever, so "2023" is completely superfluous. It's not like the article for what it was going to see is "1912 Sinking of the Titanic". -- Kicking222 (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  I concur with @Kicking222here, there is no need for qualifiers Maximilian775 (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  I feel like having the "2023" doesn't lose us anything - it definitely doesn't make the titles incorrect - this event happened/is happening in 2023 and if anything having the year there does futureproof the article in case another submersible or submarine goes missing 94.5.218.193 (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  That's not how WP naming conventions work. If there's no need to disambiguate, don't. Kicking222 (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NOYEAR: "Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. As this is a judgement call, please discuss it with other editors if there is disagreement."

  I personally vote to omit the year. BhamBoi (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Move to title without the disambiguation, Titan submersible incident. I oppose the originally suggested move. --Renerpho (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Agree, Move to Titan submersible incident. Date is unnecessary, and it's looking like 'disappearance' isn't going to be required.--A bit iffy (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Just to cite some precedent, the Chinese balloon incidents earlier this year are titled as 2023 Chinese balloon incident. Celeron64 (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Yes Even if they find it it will have been a disappearance. 156.143.240.139 (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Move to Titan submersible disappearance. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• No Wikipedia is not news. We'll know what to call this article in a few days. Hopefully Titan submersible rescue. ~ HAL333 15:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• But would support move to Titan submersible incident. ~ HAL333 01:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Move to Titan submersible disappearance. 2023 is not needed, and it's a disappearance, so this is the proper WP:COMMONNAME for it right now. We shouldn't be pre-empting what it might be in a week or two time, but right now, it's a disappearance. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  It’s incident too, so that’s neither here nor there.Tvx1 16:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Move to Titan submersible disappearance. As per above. Death Editor 2 (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Move to Titan submersible incident. The year is redundant, an other potential change to the title is speculation.Tvx1 16:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep: I think its WP:TOOSOON for us to know the best title. Wait a little before moving and see what happens. With the exception that I agree 2023 is not needed in the title here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. The year 2023 is redundant, and it is too soon to know if it disappeared or if it will later be found. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Move to Titan submersible disappearance. The title should say exactly what it was. Incident is too vague. Songwaters (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Not yet; as others have said, "incident" is fine until more is known, but "2023" should not be part of the final title in any case.--~TPW 17:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Move to Titan (submersible) or something similar, per User:Macktheknifeau. The name of the vessel alone is concise and sufficiently unambiguous, and is consistent with how other shipwrecks are covered. pburka (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Wait. While I do agree that it would be a better title, it'll only be one or two days until (in all likelihood) those onboard will have run out of oxygen (sorry to be grim), at which point the media coverage can give us a better sense of how to classify it. Cpotisch (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Changed my mind. Move to "Titan submersible disappearance". That's quite clearly what it is now, and it's helpful that it's the only submersible disappearance ever, because we can indeed take off the 2023 and make it shorter. Cpotisch (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Move to Titan submersible disappearance", for concision.--ERAGON (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Move to "Titan submersible disappearance". More concise, and even if the submersible and its crew are found and rescued the fact that it disappeared in the first place is what makes it notable. PolarManne (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Agree: And like MtPenguinMonster said remove the 2023 from the title as well. Rager7 (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• None of these suggestions match the common names though. As "Titanic" and "missing" seem to be present in most news media headlines, I'd support moving to something similar to Missing Titanic submersible for now. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Wait but removing the year is fine. Y'all are so quick. It could very likely be located within a couple days, at which point it won't be remembered as a disappearance but as a "rescue", or an "implosion" or "crash" or "disaster" or whatever once we get more information. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  you are too optimistic about their chances of being found. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Move to Titan submersible incident per above comments regarding year and time.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  21:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Wait to see what happens before making any changes. This is Paul (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Wait. It's definitely an incident, and may only be a disappearance for a bit longer. The current title harms nobody. Folly Mox (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Incident. Not disappeared. It has not disappeared. Its whereabouts are simply unknown at present. I haven't seen a squirrel since two weeks ago. However, squirrels have not disappeared. The people with WP usernames who are actively debating this really need to get a grip of themselves. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:1122:4FD:855C:AEEC (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure if a person's whereabouts are completely unknown to the wider world, that means it disappeared. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

We know precisely where Titan is. It hasn't disappeared. It's approximately 435 miles south of Newfoundland (Google will show you the exact spot) and somewhere between sea level and 4,000 metres below sea level. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:1122:4FD:855C:AEEC (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

wow, that is the most idiotic statement I have heard in a long time! So no, you are wrong and it has disappeared because we DON'T FUCKING KNOW WHERE IT IS! Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Please remain WP:CIVIL. NM 10:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Someone get this man in contact with the U.S. Coast Guard immediately, the mystery has been solved. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Wait until it is either found, or the search abandoned -- and then follow whatever terminology reliable sources are using at that point. — The Anome (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Wait until the submersible is found or declared lost, then we can qualify it as a disappearance depending on what happens.

Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Move to Titan submersible disappearance. Geordie (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
• Wait per TulsaPoliticsFan and The Anome. It's WP:TOOSOON to predict how this search will end. When it does, a more appropriate title can be found. 〜 Askarion ✉ 02:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Wait, or drop 'Submersible' from title: The current title seems to tell us exactly what it is: An incident, occurring in 2023, regarding the Titan submersible. The '2023' portion of the title seems to bristle some hairs, it does help differentiate from other similarly named articles, particularly the 1980 Damascus Titan missile explosion. I believe that shortening the title to 2023 Titan Incident, is the best course of action, at this moment. As many others have said, we will have more information in the coming days - with casualties expected, if any, within the next 30-35 hours, once the submersible's oxygen supply runs out. Then, we could talk about more specific, final title changes. DylanJ10000 (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support, and drop 2023 regardless: It has literally already disappeared. Further the incident has gained wide enough press and recognition that 2023 is no longer needed, Titan is sufficient. Changing the title also makes the article more accurate, acceptable and digestible to the general audiences which Wikipedia tailors too. Spilia4 (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
• Wait - there is no rush, and if it's found in a few days then we would have to move it again which is silly. Drop 2023 when deciding on a final title. The submersible is a better disambiguation than the year, I think that should stay in. --mfb (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
• Move, it's disappeared, not had an incident, if they don't get it, then it's a disappearance and incident. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 05:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Wait. Disappearance has an air of finality about it. Nobody has concluded it has disappeared yet. It is currently missing. If it is found, the article will be moved again. In general, we should avoid haste at seeking to rename articles documenting a current event, requiring a maintenance tag slapped on top of a highly visited article. Finally, and with the greatest of respect to the article's original author for their efforts, the view of the original author of the article has no special standing in determining consensus - WP:OWN. Local Variable (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Wait until it's confirmed that the Titan is lost. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 06:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  It will probably be found in time. Titanic was lost and then found again, many years later. But it looks likely that the crew of Titan will be lost? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  If it wasn’t lost, they wouldn’t be looking for it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Wait as above, current name is fine, although agree we could drop 2023. GiantSnowman 08:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
• Wait until we see how this plays out. The most prominent precedent seems to be Kursk submarine disaster. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know if I'd categorize this as a "disaster", regardless of how the events unfold. Kursk had a significant number of souls on board, a nuclear reactor, and was the apparatus of a State. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Wait: Still a few days less. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I meant left Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

shame on you Dh75 (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Wait, as it is an ongoing event. I'm unclear of what the precedent here would be but 'disappearance' would be correct once there was no longer an ongoing search. I concur with dropping the year in line with the other incident this year that has its own article, MT Princess Empress oil spill. JackWilfred (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Agree Matthew Campbell (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Move article to be about the submersible in all aspects (design, capabilities, and disappearance). Also, can we please ban the usage of the pointless non-description "incident" in Wikipedia page titles? Anything and everything that has ever happened is an "incident", an article shouldn't start off by being purposefully obfuscating--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Not a bad idea here, actually. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 03:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  This prohibition should also extend to other meaningless descriptions like "tragedy" and "disaster". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Yep I agree. 80.7.92.124 (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Wait, they still have air supply until after June 22 this says. Give them a chance! Iljhgtn (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  • the morning of June 22nd

  Matthew Campbell (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Wait, at least until friday. Also drop the 2023, as it is unnecessary Tantomile (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Move to Titan submersible incident or Wait: Incident is what describes this best until it disappears for good. They may find the sub and it's wreck, then it would be "Wreck of...", or they are rescued and it's the same as it is now. 2023 is needless because it's the only time this kind of thing has happened. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Wait, if it's recovered then keep, if not then move. MaxLikesStuff (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• "Incident" seems best for now. We don't know if it has entirely disappeared, as there may or may not be sounds coming from it at this time. Ann Teak (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Wait: As per other waits, we're unsure if they're able to recover the submersible or not. We're pretty much playing the waiting game until something happens. Kirbix12 (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Do it. Veganoregano (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Move to Titan submersible disappearance, removing both the 2023 over-disambiguation and using a more common title. Most current news seems to be referring to this as the "missing Titan submersible;" it seems accurate to say that the event is a disappearance, even if it is later found, and regardless of whether the crew are rescued alive or not. No strong prejudice against waiting some period of time before moving, but I'd note that a large chunk of the Wait comments don't specify how long we should wait (or use recovery of the vessel as a line, which can't ever be confirmed as a negative), nor is there any reason the article couldn't be moved again if that title is somehow rendered inaccurate. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 22:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Move to Titan submersible disappearance. It's clear that "2023" is unnecessary (this hasn't happened with Titan before); the disappearance itself is going to remain relevant, whether it is found or remains lost. Zilch-nada (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Move to Titan submersible disappearance. The incident is primarily a disappearance, regardless of the outcome. The search may go on for years, like Air France which wasn't found until almost 2 years later. No need to mention 2023 as there will never be another incident involving the Titan submersible. Usedbook (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
• NO! Wait at least a week. I'd suggest the qualifier "2023" is not needed. Keep it for now. Suggested title if located: Titan submersible incident. If not found and the recovery phase is called off, then I'd concur with a move with the title Titan submersible disappearance makes sense. Abebenjoe (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Category:Maritime incidents in 2023 - no other article there uses "disappearance". And it may or may not be found, with or without the crew alive, so it is way too soon to call it a "disappearance". If it cannot be found and the search is permanently called off, then we can revisit this move. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Wait per Ng.j. The original name of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster was Space Shuttle Columbia explosion.[3][4] In an early version of the article, two of the five paragraphs discussed the unlikely possibility it was a terrorist attack and precautions related to the fact that there was an Israeli aboard. None of that is mentioned in the current article--it was all removed last year. As new information comes in the best title of the article will be clear. "Incident" covers almost anything. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
• Move to Titan submersible disappearance. remove 2023 per above; the submerisble has disappeared, that will not change even if it is found.Yeoutie (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Wait until the search has concluded. Christian Toney 01:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Wait until the search is ended by the authorities. If it isn't located in anyway at that point, we can reasonably conclude it's unlikely it will be located and it has 'disappeared'. If they locate it in anyway (floating on surface, submerged, on the bottom, debris field), then I'd say we leave it at incident.--The Navigators (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Also support removing "2023" from the final title, regardless of what we decide on.--The Navigators (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. Even if the submarine if found the submarine still disappeared, however "2023" is not needed for the new title - CatPerson987 (he/him) — Preceding undated comment added 02:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Nope. Incident encompasses disappearance here. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 03:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
• Not yet: Let's see how they report on things over the next few days. 2023 probably should be removed from the title, though I don't have the policy on that memorized and I have no strong opinion either way. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
• Move to Titan submersible incident per Kicking222 and Tvx1. 〜 Festucalex • talk 03:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Move to the current page name? MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 04:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Oops, yeah, the year is superfluous. Ignore this. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 04:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support “disappearance” as proposed. It is merely disappeared, and may well remain merely disappeared for decades. Change to “incident” only if reliable sources report an incident involved (eg sabotage, aliens). “Incident” implies something unusual, well beyond an accident, or a wiring or seal failure. OPPOSE dropping the year and current events cannot be presumed to have long term significance, it takes years worth of sources to demonstrate that the event is referred to with a timeless COMMONNAME. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2023‎ (UTC)
• Wait at least until the search ends, then rename. But the year is not needed, so remove. SethWhales ^talk 05:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Wait. We don't know if it has disappeared yet. Also, I would be in favor of putting this incident under the Oceangate Inc. page@

Wikepediathefreeencyclopedia1 (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Move to Titan submersible incident, since "incident" better covers all aspects of both the initiating event (the disappearance) and the resulting ones (search and rescue, governmental responses, company response, etc.). Beginning (talk) 06:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Move to Disappearance of Titan. See Disappearance of ARA San Juan, a submarine. "Incident" is misleading (what was the "incident" here?). Year is not needed. WikiHannibal (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Move to Disappearance of Titan. As per WikiHannibal, see Disappearance of ARA San Juan. Don't need "Incident" and very unlikely to ever need year. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Wait. WP always rushes to do this. Geez. If the Titanic went down today, the article would have been changed to Titanic: Incident, Titanic: Sinking, etc. Hour by hour. Once the smoke clears, the "incident" (regardless of its outcome) should just be a section at the overall article Titan since there is so much more information coming to light about the backstory than just this current tragedy. This morning I came to WP and typed in "Titan". It took me forever to find this article because of all the attached description. KISS. Maineartists (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Move to Disappearance of Titan. I am uncertain about needing the year; but WP has always mixed up Disappearance, Disaster, Tragedy, and Incident in my opinion. Right now, the issue is that the Titan submersible has disappeared; it has not been found. The search is on-going for a missing vehicle and its occupants. While it might be very likely the occupants are now deceased, we can't state this fact — and call it a disaster or tragedy — until we find trace evidence of the submersible or the potential remains of the occupants. JenM5595 (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Drop "2023" from the title as it doesn't seem to be disambiguating anything, neutral regarding everything else. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
• Move to Disappearance of Titan - As far as we know the submersible wasn't involved in any sort of accident .... it simply disappeared so "disappearance" would be more correct. I live in hope that all those on board are still alive. –Davey2010^Talk 13:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Agree Matthew Campbell (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Wait. Still actively being searched for, so as of now it doesn't seem sensible to say that it's gone. JoelJSK (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Move – it has disappeared. Even if it gets found soon, it still will have disappeared. – bradv 14:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  It will have disappeared, yes; however, as people have said, once we know more we will know whether it was a crash, implosion, etc., which should take precedence over whether it has disappeared. Nonovix (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Change to 2023 Titan submersible situation. That way whatever the outcome, the actual impact of this accident is still the same without too much deviation from what it is. We don't know what's happened other than they have disappeared and banging metallic noises have been heard. Too much gobbledy gook info spewing out of the media. Koplimek (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Would it be possible to change it to a tragedy/accident maybe after the press conf, they have found debris in the field if it is confirmed as belonging to the Sub then it could be classed as that. 212.250.189.37 (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not suggesting whatever has happened to Titan was deliberate, but that is a possibility. Therefore, until we know otherwise it would be unencyclopedic to use the word "accident". In addition, if the Titan has failed due to negligence or poor engineering it might not be appropriate to call that an "accident" either. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Who or what would have an interest in Sabotaging The Titan? Death Editor 2 (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

No disrespect, but I sense you would (given the opportunity). That aside, my point (clearly made) is that it cannot be assumed to be an accident. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It was an accident, stop fooling around. Death Editor 2 (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

You sound adamant? Exactly what a saboteur would say to throw police off the scent :) 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Move: whether or not found, it's still a disappearance. 'Incident' or 'situation' is vague and unhelpful. ɱ (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  You say whether it's found or not it should be termed a disappearance? When it is found wouldn't that have to be changed to 'former disappearance'? 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Incident is a better term as especially in regards to deep sea incidents recovery is usually not viable whether the submarine reappears or not is irrelevant 99.224.199.140 (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Deep Energy Ship arrived for help

As a pro User of Marinetraffic i can see that the Ship Deep Energy (https://www.technipfmc.com/en/investors/archives/technip/press-releases/the-deep-energy-technip-s-new-state-of-the-art-pipelay-vessel/) arrived at the position of the Polar Prince to support the rescue. They arrived 3-4 hours ago.

https://abload.de/img/bildschirmfoto2023-06lyf2o.png https://abload.de/img/bildschirmfoto2023-0630epr.png Sanafan321 (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Found a citation from a secondary source (ie the news) and added this in. Others have now added separate vessels on scene ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Do we have an article on the Deep Energy ? or the other ships that have come to help, like the CCGS John Cabot , etc -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Lots of pretty red hulled vessels in the vicinity. Cabot, Deep Energy, Atlantic Merlin, 1959 built Polar Prince and Skandi Vinland. BidgeeBoy (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Horizon Arctic a blue hulled vessel will be there soon too -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Apparently the CCGS John Cabot (is it this one?) was part of the deepest submarine rescue ever, when it hauled up Pisces III in 1973.[5][6] -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 08:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Craft participating in rescue

The BBC has reported on what is participating in the rescue operation, near the end of the rescue operation section. Mainly it mentions that 3 C-130's are in the operation. This article specifically Mahargs (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Canada does not operate P-8 Poseidon aircraft. The Anti Sub warfare aircraft on scene is a CP-140 Aurora. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.190.110 (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Rory Golden

Rory Golden, who is reportedly onboard the submersible, reportedly wrote on Facebook that they are alive[7]. Meanwhile, in the article Rory Golden is not even listed among those onboard! Should this information be included?79.139.159.217 (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The article you linked says Golden is on board the the main ship located in the north Atlantic Ocean (I assume that refers to the Polar Prince), not on the actual submersible. Taavi (talk!) 15:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Golden reported that he is alive, as he wasn't on the sub. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Times in "incident" section

Can it be stated what the relevant time zone is? McPhail (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I have updated the time zone information so it aligns with the time zone of the Coast Guard (i.e., EST). I'm curious if we should set a time zone for the article and simply have it stated somewhere that all time zones are XYZ. What's the general protocol on this? Significa liberdade (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The wreck is located in -3 UTC. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade: - thank you. McPhail (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Incidents like this are in local time, unless otherwise states d. Ng.j (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The CNN article that is referenced for the timeline has a major error. It states that the times are Atlantic Daylight Time (ADT) which would be correct for Halifax, Nova Scotia. However, the article mentions that ADT is 1.5 hours ahead of Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). That's incorrect. ADT is only one-hour ahead of EDT. So, if the reporter actually meant the time zone in St. John's, Newfoundland, that location is Newfoundland Daylight Time (NDT). NDT is 1.5 hours ahead of EDT or 2.5 hours behind UTC. I'm guessing the CNN author meant NDT.~~ Abebenjoe (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Image / Map

Is it possible to convert the map that's a PNG image format into a more accessible one? Does Wikipedia have a system for maps in the info box? 92.22.127.50 (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Inventors killed by their own invention

IF they die/are already dead, could we hypothetically add the Inventors killed by their own invention category? Death Editor 2 (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Do we know if the CEO is actually the inventor of the Titan, or just the concept of a submersible company? If he didn't have significant hand in creating the Titan, like engineering or blueprinting at least, I personally would not call him the inventor. UnapolMaker (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Or is he just a person who was hired to be CEO of the company?.Tvx1 21:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It said that he was the founder of the company as well as the CEO. Death Editor 2 (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

According to a profile in the Smithsonian, I think the Titan is Rush's brainchild, which I think would make him eligible for the category.Significa liberdade (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

So it can be added if/when they die, got it. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Probably not here, but if someone writes the Stockton Rush article it may be includable there. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Now, it's my understanding that it does not require one to have a wikipedia article on their own, since both Michael Dacre and Henry Smolinski are listed. Death Editor 2 (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

In those cases the category went on the redirect page for the person's name, not the other article itself. So to be analogous to those case, you'd put the category on Stockton Rush and not here. It's pretty clear from the categories wording Inventors killed by their own invention. The category is for a subcategory of inventors specifically and should include people, not things or incidents. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah fair enough. Death Editor 2 (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2023

Canada does not operate P-8 Poseidon aircraft as erroneously reported. The CP-140 Aurora in in use to support the search with sono buoys. 24.143.190.110 (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -Lemonaka‎ 20:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_P-8_Poseidon#Operators 24.143.190.110 (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.canada.ca/en/air-force/services/aircraft/maritime-aviation.html 24.143.190.110 (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.boeing.com/defense/maritime-surveillance/p-8-poseidon/index.page 24.143.190.110 (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

See "Customers". 24.143.190.110 (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Nargeolet or Nageolet ?

In the "people aboard" part, there's both way written. As I don't know which is correct, I won't edit it and just inform you. 37.174.71.183 (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Significa liberdade (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• P.-H. Nargeolet seems like he is notable enough to have his own article -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Re: Reactions section

I appreciate having a section about the reactions to this event, especially considering the discussions around class, but I'm curious about the notability of some of the reactions, as well as credibility of sources. For instances, the Daily Beast is presently cited, and Wikipedia considers it a "high-end tabloid." Not exactly what I would consider a credible source. Significa liberdade (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd support removing the Belfast interviews and the tennis coach tweet. Those don't seem encyclopaedic. Folly Mox (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hours of oxygen left in the lead

I’m wondering whether it’s appropriate to include the maximum time until which the submersible should have oxygen left in the lead. Sadly we’re not sure at all whether the vessel is even still structurally sound. Tvx1 21:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is your objection? WP Ludicer (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

That this information is in the lead. Tvx1 02:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that I think that the cited figure was the estimate for the period with all occupants breathing, in other circumstances it might well be longer. Davidships (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course it should be. That's essential information. Veganoregano (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Game Controller

This is over-the-top: "It included allegations that the steering for the submarine was controlled by a $30 Logitech F710 game controller." Even U.S. Submarines use game controllers. This kind of sensationalism distracts from the likely real problems. 72.88.128.58 (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Source? Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

As can be seen here and in other sources, the military submarine used an Xbox controller to move its periscope around, and not to operate the entire submarine. The CEO of the company that designed the submarine that went missing, on the other hand, said "we run the whole thing with this game controller." Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Game controllers are reliable heavily tested pieces of precision equipment. Lots of important equipment uses them. [8][9] -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

At this point, there are a number of sources discussing the controller, which makes it fine for including in the article. (1, 2) We can also include information that various militaries uses controllers as well, given that a number of sources have also mentioned this point in connection to the Titan: 3, 4 (MREL), 5, 6, 7 --Super Goku V (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

As it was controlled by a gaming controller, we should have an image if a suitable one is available. Commons:Category:Xbox Controller may have such an image, but it's outside my area of knowledge. Mjroots (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

They use them, they don't operate the whole submarine with them Veganoregano (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

None of those images would be suitable, as it's a Logitech controller and not an official Xbox controller. There is one image of an F710 I can see on the commons- the lower of the two devices in this image:

--ERAGON (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

ERAGON - that image can be copied, cropped and uploaded as a new image. Mjroots (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Marine Technology Society letter to OceanGate

I tried to verify this source, and the pdf displays blank content to me. Tried to archive it through archive.org and got the same outcome. I'm not a New York Times subscriber. Can someone with a subscription verify that their site is still hosting this letter? Other sources have covered the NYT's receipt of the letter, so we may have to change the source to something else rather than linking the primary document. Folly Mox (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems fine to me. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Same. I also resaved the PDF. Try that, otherwise it may be your browser. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Starlink Usage

"Prior to losing contact, internet access was provided from SpaceX's satellite system, Starlink." I don't think Starlink can operate underwater. I believe the Starlink was being used for the support ships? Do we have confirmation that the sub itself was using Starlink while underwater? 101.98.135.42 (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely that Starlink equipment could survive the dive, unless it was contained inside the pressure vessel. The electronics would be damaged by the high pressure sea water otherwise. Putting a big moving dish inside the tiny passenger compartment seems not likely. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It is currently unclear. All that is confirmable about this is that OceanGate (...) relied on Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites to provide communications during the expedition. Personally, I would say that the sentence is likely problematic and will try to rewrite it. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I tried to improve it, but it might need more tweaking. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

UHF radio waves do not penetrate seawater beyond a few centimeters. Enough of this ridiculous nonsense. Obviously the support vessel had the Star Link connection. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:5019:F810:88E8:1F6C (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Only ultralongwave would be available beyond any freediving depths, so you'd need an antenna the size of Titanic, and not accessible to the K-band Starlink -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the support vessel's SATCOM provider is really relevant for this article. Hawkeye mitch j (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree, this info seems to be trivia and not especially relevant for this article. GoPats (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

They're just trying to use it in a vain attempt to shift the blame to someone else. 2605:8D80:4C0:49BF:A73:27BE:6C5C:7278 (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Mapframe

@Tvx1, Daniel Maak, and Veggies: In my opinion, an interactive map is superior to a static, poorly framed map only useful to those familiar with where Newfoundland is. — AFC Vixen 🦊 00:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

That it’s poorly framed is only just your opinion. In infobox is also intended to summarise an article. Where newfoundland, or more generally the incident site is situated should be conveyed in the body of the article and not firstly by the infobox. Your map is just an unexplained point on a large body of water. The map you keep replacing is actually informative through included text, which defeat the inconveniences its static nature could have. Tvx1 01:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The current map is also "just an explained point on a large body of water", so I don't understand what your point is. Ironic to your point about conveying things in the article body, the text in the image should be conveyed in the article body or infobox, and should not be presented as an image, per MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. — AFC Vixen 🦊 02:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

There are a couple of options we could use that are a little more zoomed out if we wanted. I'm no SVG whiz or I'd make a map that was a bit more zoomed in than the top option, capturing just eastern Canada and Northeast US. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

class=notpageimage|

"North America" option

class=notpageimage|

"North Atlantic" option

You can much more simply just set {{Infobox mapframe}} to |zoom=2 instead of |zoom=3. — AFC Vixen 🦊 04:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, true:

GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Very nice. Use a typo against someone. Your map coveys nothing. It’s not an improvement in any way. The current map summarizes the origin, the path and location of mishap of the expedition. And all we have to do to make it MOS compliant is to make sure that the crucial information is repeated in the caption and that the text is also presented with alt parameters. Als no text is “presented as an image” here. There is an image with some explenatory text.Tvx1 04:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Please assume good faith towards fellow editors. I apologise for causing offense, but I can't reasonably have known it was a typo in the first place. Do be mindful that changing the wording of other editors' replies like you did to mine is not kosher either, per WP:TPO. Back on topic, there isn't really any point in having the text in the image if the text is going to be in the caption anyway, no?. — AFC Vixen 🦊 05:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that was on obvious mistake. I meant to fix my own post. And I don’t think I accused you of bad faith anywere. And I never said the text in the caption should be identical to the text in the image.Tvx1 19:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You accused me of "using a typo against someone". — AFC Vixen 🦊 19:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

And that’s bad faith according to you???? That comment intended to deal with low class.Tvx1 10:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that a zoomable map is best and, having looked at the alternatives suggested, agree that this should start with a big picture view of the North Atlantic. I have accordingly updated the infobox to use {{infobox mapframe}} with zoom=2 as suggested by GW. The previous static map was unsatisfactory, as discussed. For another thing, that map mentions France and so may completely mislead people who are not familiar with this geography. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I honestly do not so see an improvement in your change. Now there’s just an uninformative map of dismal quality with a marker which is horrible off scale. The previous map actuall showed an informative visual summary of the subject of this article.Tvx1 19:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• I like the latter two options proposed above. ~ HAL333 16:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Implosion due to breach in the hull is the most likely scenario

See here. Count Iblis (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It's the most likely scenario according to a technology journalist. I would hesitate to add such a statement to the article without a more expert source. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It happened that i’m in the area. An hour ago (around 02:11 UTC) i heard a call from SAR vessel that there was a banging nosie detected by sonars in search area. In progress of investigation by ROV. There are numerous scenarios that might have happened but there’s still hope. 193.220.243.20 (talk) 03:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Titanic Expeditions Section - Some questions?

This section seems to heavily imply that they've done a whole bunch of these missions already. But have they? I can't find any article that suggests they've actually done dives to the Titanic before. (Not of course other dives to Titanic which seem regular, but this particular company.) Jjazz76 (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok so they did one in July 2021. How many successful dives happened before this incident? Jjazz76 (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

2023 Titan submersible incident#Prior concern describes four others besides this one. Not sure how many they've done in total, it's a good question. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

NBC says "It was on only its third trip since OceanGate Expeditions began offering trips in 2021." Not clear on how many dives in total, though. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it is a bit hard to suss out. Like how many successful dives did they make to the Titanic wreckage? Their Twitter page calls the recent trips Mission 3 and Mission 4 but not sure if each "mission" involves multiple dives: https://twitter.com/OceanGateExped

I do think editors for this article need to take anything coming from OceanGate with a real, real grain of salt. The 2018 MTS letter to OceanGate seems to call them out for using lots of corporate-speak to make things seem better/more secure/whatever than they actually are. Jjazz76 (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

There have been several previous dives over several years, starting in 2021. A draft about that is at DRAFT: OceanGate Titanic Expedition -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

On the CBS feature with David Pouge, 3 different dives are shown. It's not talked about, but clear from the different passengers in the submarine. One of these dives seem to be the same as the one featured in the BBC documentary Take Me to Titanic. KristofferR (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

7:44, 8:38 and 9:44 (BBC doc) shows the different dives. KristofferR (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this draft. It seems from the draft they've only done one successful mission? Jjazz76 (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

No. The draft seems to confuse missions/expeditions with dives. 28 persons visited Titanic in 2022 on the Titan, according to court filings, and the sub has a capacity for 3 customers, so there had to be plenty of successful dives. KristofferR (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious how many successful dives there actually were before this event, and how many dives total. Can't seem the find that anywhere. Jjazz76 (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2023

There are no P8's being used. Canada does not own P8's. 2001:1970:4E16:AD00:85A6:20CD:AC04:823B (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the confusion about aircraft came from the Boston spokesperson for the United States Coast Guard at the Tuesday, 20 June 2023 press conference. He made two mistakes about the names of the aircraft. Number one, calling the P8-Poseidon Canadian, when in fact that was an American-owned and operated aircraft. The second mistake was calling the Canadian CP-140 Aurora a P3. It is based on the Lockheed P3, sharing the airframe, but a different avionics and electronics suite. Abebenjoe (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Position of dive site

The BBC here says "The Titan submersible is thought to be approximately 900 miles (1450km) east and 400 miles (643km) south of St. Johns, Newfoundland." Is this correct? Presumably this was the position of the dive site and the submersible went straight down? Should this position be added to the article? Perhaps on the map? 86.187.171.79 (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

There are some very precise co-ordinates, so maybe that's last known position i.e. the surface dive site? The only position defined in the article seems to be that for the wreck ".. around 400 nautical miles (740 km) from the coast of Newfoundland", but that gives no direction, so simply describes an arc 400 nm long. One might expect very basic information on the position of the dive site to be given, rather than relying on readers to work it out for themselves from the co-ordinates. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

That information from the BBC is nonsensical. 900 miles east of Newfoundland takes you halfway across the Atlantic to Ireland. I think they meant to say the wreck site is around 900 miles east of Massachusetts (and it's about 400 miles south of St John Newfoundland). But to give a location as distance east of one place and distance south of another is absurd.

They had also incorrectly quoted Rush as saying the journey used $1m of fuel. In fact Rush said he had used $1m worth of fuel without specifying any time period - perhaps he meant in his lifetime. I pointed out to the BBC that the Polar Prince could operate for over 100 days on $1m of fuel - and it's an 8 day trip to the Titanic site. They've removed that information. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:D8B6:15A7:35D9:3D73 (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Yes, that BBC detail seems to be rubbish. Is there another RS source that gives the position relative to the nearest point on land? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Coordinate precision

Why are the coordinates at the top so precise? It gives a false sense of precision. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It's the location of the dive site, and the wreck of the Titanic. (ie. the mission goal for the expedition) -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Does that correspond to "approximately 900 mi (1,450 km) east and 400 mi (643.7 km) (643km) south of St. Johns, Newfoundland", as BBC have said (except it looks like they have used miles instead of nautical miles)? Should this be added somewhere? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

This information from the BBC is obviously incorrect. 900 miles east of Newfoundland is halfway across the Atlantic to Ireland. The wreck is more like 9 or 90 miles east of Newfoundland (and around 400 miles south). 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:D8B6:15A7:35D9:3D73 (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, 90 nmi might be more plausible. Wreck of the Titanic says "... 370 nmi (690 km) south-southeast of Newfoundland". So that might be better and simpler. If that's where the dive site is or was. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

My suspicion is that the BBC saw reports that the USCG was conducting operations 900 nmi from Cape Cod, and confused that with the reporting around the expedition leaving from Newfoundland. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I've since seen on Reuters website (from where BBC lifted the story) they've given the position of the Titanic wreck as around 900 miles east of Cape Cod, and 400 miles south of St Johns.

The BBC have edited it (for clarity no doubt) and removed the reference to Cape Cod: putting both measurements relative to St Johns (and putting the wreck equidistant between Newfoundland and Ireland).

I flagged it up with BBC three hours ago but the story is unaltered. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:1C76:BBE4:82F1:A241 (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

See MOS:COORDINATES for additional details on how we display them. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Super Goku V: That guideline says "Avoid excessive precision (0.0001° is <11 m, 1″ is <31 m)." Currently it's specified to the arc second, which is pretty exact. My point is that we could just specify it to within the arc minute, or whatever level of significant figures we think is accurate enough.

I'm not sure what that precise point is supposed to be (it's not discussed in the infobox or elsewhere in the article). Is it the last point of contact before it disappeared, or something like that? Where did the arc seconds come from, anyway? Did someone make them up or were they actually mentioned in a report? I notice that the longitude exactly matches what is given in the Titanic article, which makes me think someone might have just taken that and offset the latitude by an estimate of how far they were from their goal. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Why would the dive site not be directly over the position of the wreck? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea. The difference between the currently provided latitudes is about half a (statute) mile by my estimates. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I noticed, but I am currently unsure if it needs modification to reduce the precision at this time. But sure, we can choose to modify it if it is too much. In any case, I think that the coordinated were copied over from the Titanic article exactly given that was their intended destination. I did fix the latitude issue as there were two competing templates for some reason wit different numbers, so I synchronized them. (It seems that someone determined which one wasn't needed and removed it.) --Super Goku V (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2023 (2)

Summary: I wish to post the internet reaction to this event, speculate about the affected persons, cite a news article about the security violations from OceanGate (https://techcrunch.com/2023/06/20/a-whistleblower-raised-safety-concerns-about-oceangates-submersible-in-2018-then-he-was-fired/), and speculate internet opinion of the ultra-wealthy in light of the recent orca-attacking-a-yatch event.

Changes: Add a section for News updates to talk about the OceanGate company's lack of safety standards, firing of the engineer who raised safety concerns. We also just got word that there was a lawsuit involved in the firing of the engineer, so we'll have to find records and cite that as well (https://abcnews.go.com/US/lawsuit-alleged-flaws-titanic-submersible-now-missing/story?id=100251012). Change the Reactions section to include "Internet reaction to event" section, talk about popular internet celebrities', musicians', and entertainers' opinions. Starliftenthusiast (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not confident enough to make those changes myself, but on the surface (pun intended):

- The information about Titan is relevant and could be transferred from the existing section from OceanGate Titan, while the information about the whistleblower and lawsuit is also relevant.

- Internet reaction... eh, I'm not so sure about that. It's kinda an internet celebrity's job to comment on literally everything, so I don't think that their inclusion is warranted unless covered separately in an RS.

Couruu (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

There is already discussion of the concerns over safety standards in 2023 Titan submersible incident#Prior concerns, which includes details about the fired engineer and the lawsuit. As for "Internet reaction", the reactions of celebrities and entertainers is not likely to be encyclopedically relevant. See WP:IINFO. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks guys! will find something else to suggest. Starliftenthusiast (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Path of descent

Does the submersible dive directly down to the wreck site, dropping like a stone, or does it dive at an angle and have to be steered? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It requires steering, as ocean currents will cause it to drift off course. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess if the dive site is directly over the wreck, it could circle down in a spiral. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Plane that detected the banging?

Most sources are saying the banging was detected by a Canadian P-3 Orion, what is the verification for it being a CP-140? Or is it just being called a P-3 in the media because of the airframe? Wasianpower (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Technically it is a P-3, but it is more specifically a CP-140 which more media outlets are correcting. Part of this is that the US media tends to use their own military designations. The other is that the media tends to get many military subjects incorrect. Ng.j (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the confusion about aircraft came from the Boston spokesperson for the United States Coast Guard at the Tuesday, 20 June 2023 press conference. He made two mistakes about the names of the aircraft. Number one, calling the P8-Poseidon Canadian, when in fact that was an American-owned and operated aircraft. The second mistake was calling the Canadian CP-140 Aurora a P3. It is based on the Lockheed P3, sharing the airframe, but a different avionics and electronics suite. Abebenjoe (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Iron Lung connection

I cannot tell if this is appropriate or not, but on media online (especially Twitter and Tumblr), people are connecting the incident to the Indie Game "Iron Lung", both about a small claustrophobic submarine stuck in an ocean. Is this notable? QwertyPc Game17 (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

no isn't. Death Editor 2 (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Not at all. Parelance (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

To expand a bit more fully on what others are saying, no. Unless it is reported in reliable sources that the internet reaction has drawn that connection, we should generally ignore it - Twitter and Tumblr are not reliable sources in general. Couruu (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Understood, thank you for the explanation! QwertyPc Game17 (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding June 21st to the timeline

When should we add June 21st to the timeline, as a huge part of the day is on June 20th. Redyr iksachli (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Probably after 00:00 UTC 22 June 2023. Most news sources would have already filed reports on the day's events by then, which is nighttime in the search zone. Abebenjoe (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Page editing should be locked

With a situation like this, constant updates from users means misinformation or vandalism is possible. The page should be protected, allowing only authorised editors to make changes. RhapsodyWIK (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protection is enough in my opinion. Death Editor 2 (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, full-protection is only reserved for major content disputes and edit-wars. This page is highly watched right now by wikipedians and most vandalism is mitigated by semi-protection. The next step would be extended protection. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Time zone

The article uses Atlantic Daylight Time, as used by the CNN source, but the source is incorrect. The source says that ADT is 1.5 hours ahead of EDT, but that's actually the Newfoundland Time Zone. Atlantic time is 1 hour ahead of Eastern time. I suspect that CNN is using Newfoundland time and has misidentified it as Atlantic time, but we would need a separate source to confirm this. – bradv 18:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian also gives a timeline, but its times do not match what CNN is saying, in either time zone. For example, the Guardian says the sub began its descent at 7 ET, CNN says 9 AT. CNN says they lost communication at 11:47 AT, the Guardian says 8:45 ET (which would be 9:45 AT, or 10:15 NT). – bradv 18:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I found that so confusing. I am assuming the CNN reporter meant NDT. ADT would be for Halifax, Nova Scotia. But that would only make sense if they were coordinating this operation, but they are not, St. John's, Newfoundland is. So, the local time should be in NDT. I'll see if a Canadian Newspaper has it. Abebenjoe (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bradv probably The Guardian is using Standard Time instead of Daylight Time in their report. If that is the case, then indeed, EST would be 2.5 hours behind NDT, or five hours behind UTC. With that confirmation, we can conclude the CNN time is definitely in the NDT timezone. Abebenjoe (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian is using standard time, so let's calculate this from GMT instead. NDT is UTC-2:30. According to the Guardian, the dive began at 9:30 am local time, and contact was lost at 11:15 am local time. (Total elapsed time: 1 hour and 45 minutes).

But according to CNN, the dive began at 9 am, and contact was lost at 11:47 am. (Total elapsed time: 2 hours and 45 minutes). So maybe CNN is using ADT and not NDT?

Or maybe there's a simpler explanation: CNN screwed this up (that's obvious: ADT is not 1.5 hours ahead of EDT), and the Guardian copied them and screwed it up some more (which is also obvious: ET is not currently GMT-5).

I think we need to take the times out of the article, unless we can find something direct from horse's mouth. – bradv 21:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I found 3 more sources:

1. ABC News says the dive began at 8 am ET (9:30 NDT), and lost contact 1 hour and 45 minutes later. This agrees with the Guardian timeline.
2. The Independent says the same thing, if we assume that they meant EDT rather than EST. (Thie is an understandable error for British sources, as they use the "S" to indicate summer time rather than daylight time.)
3. Reuters says 8 am ET for the dive and 9:45 for lost contact.

All three of these sources, and the Guardian, are better than the CNN source we are using now. – bradv 21:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree! It should be changed. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bradv agree. The article is now using a better source. I also added UTC times because Newfoundland Time is confusing (when a program is broadcast the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) TV or Radio, they say "10 o'clock local time, 10:30 in Newfoundland.") Abebenjoe (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

CEO said he didn't want to hire "50-year-old white guys"

"When I started the business, one of the things you'll find, there are other sub operators out there but they typically have gentleman who are ex-military submariners and you'll see a whole bunch of 50-year-old white guys. I wanted our team to be younger, to be inspirational and I'm not going to inspire a 16-year-old to go pursue marine technology but a 25-year-old you know who's a sub pilot or a platform operator or one of our techs can be inspirational. So we've really tried to to get very intelligent, motivated, younger individuals involved because we're doing things that are completely new."

Sources:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dka29FSZac

https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=63826

https://www.mrctv.org/blog/oceangate-ceo-hiring-crew-didnt-want-hire-50-year-old-white-guys-theyre-not-inspirational

These might not be the most reliable sources, but I wanted to raise the issue of this quote, and hope that better, more reliable sources become available.

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

This isn't relevant to the rescue. Like at all. Gots2bkidding (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

This, like the bulk of your other contributions and "just asking questions" talk page posts, sure strikes me as WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:3D3A:A733:2B6A:33A3 (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. SquirrelHill1971's contributions seem to include a lot of right-wing talking points, making me wonder if they are actually here to improve the encyclopedia, or just here to make WP:TENDENTIOUS edits. — The Anome (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Guys, if there is an issue, WP:ANI is available to use. Mjroots (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

This could be relevant to the article if discriminatory hiring practices limited the talent pool of the company, and that had some effect in the decisions taken that could have led to this disaster. Personnel decisions can be as important as engineering decisions (and extensive coverage on the latter is being included in the article). Human errors are the causes or contributing factors to many disasters. So it is potentially topically relevant. The threshhold for inclusion is having reliable sources, probably beyond what was listed above. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The only sources focusing on this are tabloids and right-wing websites. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Search-and-rescue - Hyphens or not

It appears the standard is to write search and rescue without the hyphens, but throughout the article the phrase is hyphenated. Is there a reason to keep it in the hyphenated form? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Does it fucking matter Veganoregano (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's be nice, OK? WP:TPNO. Significa liberdade (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Keeping a consistent and encyclopedic style matters for an encyclopedia. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 03:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes 〜 Festucalex • talk 03:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that I've added hyphens where they're missing just for consistency's sake. I'm not sure which is correct. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Search and rescue is correct. It is commonly abbreviated as SAR. For more info, please refer to Search and rescue. Hyphens are not necessary. Ng.j (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Communications During the Expedition

Snopes, a source that is considered “generally reliable” by Wikipedia, claimed that it was true that Titan, the submersible that went missing in June 2023 on a Titanic wreckage exploration, used Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites to provide communications during the expedition. 2600:1001:B129:783A:E5B2:8B0:306A:AEE1 (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

See #Starlink Usage above. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Bathyscaphe?

Is the Titan a Bathyscaphe? Uwappa (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

No. Tvx1 05:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Presumed deaths

When the oxygen supply supposedly runs out, should we presume all people aboard the Titan to be deceased (if they don't get rescued before then?) Pyraminxsolver (talk) 07:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

No. We follow what reliable sources say, and what they will likely say is that the crew are presumed dead. That will then be added to this page. As for the 3 articles of individuals onboard, I don’t know. This will be decided on their respective talk pages. Asperthrow (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Images

File:Ocean Gate 2.jpg

File:Ocean Gate 3.jpg

ZOKIDINuz (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

You've shown the toilet as being at the same end as the porthole window. I think it's at the other end of the passenger tube?

Who would want to take a poo in front of a window looking at the wreck of the Titanic? Besides, anything (whales, sharks, jellyfish, monsters) could be watching. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:2D8E:F1C7:A43C:4B5D (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

At 3:19 in the video on this article, you can see that the toilet is indeed at the porthole side of the capsule. XgXFd9ct (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

You're quite correct. There's an image elsewhere showing it on the hinged end of the sub where the porthole is: it looks like it doubles up as a seat for whoever is observing out the window. It seems rather disrespectful for someone to take a dump while looking onto the graveyard of 1,500 drowned souls. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:2D8E:F1C7:A43C:4B5D (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed clarification of location of dive site

Propose to change:

"The ship arrived at the dive site on 17 June, and the dive operation began the following day on Sunday.."

to:

"The ship arrived at the dive site on 17 June, approximately 370 nmi (690 km; 430 mi) south-southeast of Newfoundland, and the dive operation began the following day on Sunday..".

This matches the position given in Wreck of the Titanic. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

We don’t whether it dove precisely above the wreck, so no this shouldn’t be added. Tvx1 10:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, so maybe we must have a source, even if we use the word "approximately". But what are the "highly accurate" co-ordinates and the map position meant to be telling us... just where the wreck is? where the submersible is now? (if only) where the incident began? The map caption says: "Location of the wreck of the Titanic, where the Titan was diving." We don't even know if it got to the wreck. I'm just saying that the map point could also be described in nautical miles from somewhere. Thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree change proposed. The position suggested is qualified "approximately", as well as the Titanic position being apparently rounded to the nearest 10nmi etc. It is perfectly valid to point readers to the relevant area of the ocean. Davidships (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Reworked SVG map

I wanted to improve the original SVG map a bit, since – like the discussion remarked – it was lacking in displaying the scale of the operation. But the work took so long I apparently came a bit late to the party, and the infobox map has now been replaced with an interactive map, which is arguably more useful. But I'll link the map in case someone wants to use it, or rework it or offer feedback.

It's not really infobox-legible at this stage, but I'm trying to strike a balance between informativity and legibility. —Nelg (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I think this is much better than the current mapframe. Interactivity is good, but it should never trump legibility and informativity. The priority should be a summary of the article.Tvx1 10:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

File:2023 Titan submersible incident map.svg has more useful information that the zoomable map, even at the highest levels of zoom. I just swapped them; let's see if it sticks. Moscow Mule (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Could the text size in the red label be increased? It's minuscule in the infobox. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Time of oxygen loss

The submarine lost oxygen at approximately 7:08 EST according to what the Coast Guard told the New York Post.[10] Should we add this info? And if so, what time zone should we use? Aquaticsans (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd say use the time zone where is was last seen 2603:7081:5C00:A4E:91E7:91A0:8713:AF50 (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:OR. Don't say that until the sources say that. Couruu (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

June 23

If the craft is not found by June 23, should we replace “missing” with “presumed dead”? RidgelantRL (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

See similar question just above on this page. If the sources start using that term, so should we, but not otherwise. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. We will use the term that is common to the most secondary sources, once they start doing it. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Stockton Rush article?

I started a draft for Stockton Rush. I’m not sure if he warranted an article before the disappearance, but with all the coverage that is likely to change. Thriley (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal says here that he was "Born into a wealthy San Francisco family..." But that source is subscription only. Daily Mail says here he's 61, but does not give any date of birth. And that source is not usable. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Stockton Rush is being reviewed at Articles for Creation ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Possible update on expected amount of oxygen left

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/titanic-submarine-oxygen-missing-hamish-harding-b2362246.html Experts suggest that near-freezing temperatures could keep them alive longer than predicted. It'salwaysyou (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

French translator?

If anyone here has good French translation skills it would be great to translate the L'Atalante article from the French Wikipedia as it seems noteworthy. AusLondonder (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Rename the arrival from incident to accident

I believe that it should be renamed from incident to accident because the 96 hours of oxygen should have ran out by now and a news outlets have claimed that a debris field has been found by a French ROV near the wreck which is presumed the submarine which has imploded Duck Dur (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

We shouldn't rename it unless/until that is confirmed. This is Paul (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Quite so. In addition, it would be a presumption to call it an accident. I'm not suggesting for a moment anyone acted deliberately to wreck the sub, however that is a possibility until we know otherwise. This is an encyclopaedia: that means stating facts and not making any assumptions. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I would wait to see what RS say first. As far as I know, it has not yet been confirmed that the debris is from the Titan. Gust Justice (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Good point but if it was a debris field from the Titanic they should say so Duck Dur (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

We already have a discussion about the page name: #Requested move 20 June 2023. Please contribute there instead of starting a new thread. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

You'll get the answer to that in roughly 3 hours. Tweedle (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2023

"The wreck lies at a depth of about 3,810 metres (12,500 feet; 2,080 fathoms" meters and feet depth are interverted. Fix with values from the Titanic entry.

"a wreck that lies over 12,000 feet (3,700 m) below the surface" Arthurski (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This article uses Canadian English and so meters should be used as the primary unit. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

*Ahem*... metres – bradv 16:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Titanium or actually steel rings ?

Looking at the cited sources I failed to find any direct mention of the material of those interface rings between the composite cylinder and the titanium half-domes. Optically there is always a striking difference between those rings and the half-domes suggesting different materials. Is there a source that explicitely declares that those rings were made of titanium on that latest vessel ? Sorry if I missed the obvious. And while I'm at it ... the "glue" between the composite and the metal imho should be mentioned explicitely as a structural component and not just as a "fastener" since there was/is nothing else in parallel like a 3d Z connection or so (there is a video showing the fitting of the rings to the "tube" with that "glue"). A significant location of potential stresses etc. but we would need a source for that, optimally NASA or the university that helped design the vessel. JB. --92.195.94.67 (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

By steel I would assume you mean stainless steel. Stainless steel and titanium have very different expansion coefficients, therefore it would be engineering madness to use these two different metals to make a life-critical junction. Also, in marine environments you don't mix metals because of galvanic corrosion. As to the glue - once the pressure vessel is underwater the glue is irrelevant. The water pressure after a few tens of metres would make it all but impossible to separate the titanium endcaps from the carbon fibre tube. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure that this is the right place for a technical discussion, I was just looking for a source that would clearly state the material of those rings. However for the sake of the argument, while I see the reason in your argument I would think that there would also be a different expansion coefficient between the composite and the metal and titanium, steel and aluminum have actually been used together in the structures of high-performance airframes, so without sitting down and actually calculating things and checking on available materials and possible combinations ... As for the glue - of course I did not think about this becoming unglued. As you mention the external pressure would rather reinforce the connection. I was only considering the glue as an additional ring which is also under pressure from the side. Metal layers are historically immune to thin water channels finding a way inside a pressure vessel. I'm not so sure layered composite has the same track record under fatique conditions and particularly at their interface with other materials. That's why I pointed at that location. Speculation, yes, which is why I wrote that sources would be required covering the actual design details. Forget it, we'll know all that sooner or later. Tragic that humans suffer. JB. --92.195.94.67 (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much we'll eventually know. This was a private company operating an uncertified vessel in international waters, so will either the NTSB or TSB get involved? And how involved? That'll be something to wait and see on. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Note that we have OceanGate#Titan; details of construction (when relevant to improvement of the article) are probably better discussed on that talk page, unless they're relevant to whatever happened to the boat, and then only if sources make the connection. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

100% I do not intend to touch the article. Way above my paygrade. JB. --92.195.94.67 (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

"Submersible destroyed" in infobox

This seems very premature and has been contested twice already. What are the specific sources you're referring to in your edit summary, DanDeMedicMan? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

parts of submersible debris found

2 parts of the sub were found so it is highly likely it is destroyed (bbc confirmed) St1vaida (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Link? Is this about the Sky News report mentioned in the edit summary referred to above? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Was revealed on air on the bbc St1vaida (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)