Talk:Titan submersible implosion

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)

Weak agree - Since we don't know PRECISELY what happened, and we don't know where the submarine is, it DISAPPEARED. If it's found before this discussion is closed, then Strongly oppose Sincerely, Key of G Minor. ^Tools: (talk, contribs) 07:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Strong agree Michael H 19:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree. The Coast Guard has stated in a press conference that debris consistent with an implosion of the vessel was found by the Oddyseus 6k. Jasoney (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It would also make the title clearer as to what happened Jasoney (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

discussion before debris field were found

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) It has been located just now Icehax (talk) 18:54, 22 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. Brandmeistertalk 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)Struck because I voted again below, after the discovery of debris. 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) Agree , Move to Titan Submersible Disappearance. Regardless of final outcome, the Titan did disappear. If a plane disappeared and we found the wreckage later on, it would still be a disappearance. Date is redundant as I sincerely doubt that this event will be repeated to the extent that a second page is needed. OneRandomBrit (talk) 18:32, 22 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) Move to Titan submersible accident or similar. Incident is too vague. Disappearance appears wrong if debris are confirmed to be from the submersible. I'll try and update my vote if WP:RS settle on a term over the next few days. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:00, 22 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. TarkusABtalk/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) Support now we've had confirmation of its loss. This is Paul (talk) 19:10, 22 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.[1][2] 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. –Davey2010Talk 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) Why would it? It would still have disappeared. For example, one can still speak of the "disappearance of Agatha Christie". Of course, we would only continue to call it a disappearance if it were to reappear safely (as Christie did). As that now seems not to be the case, we would move on to titles like "wreck of ..." or "implosion of ...". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:53, 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) Move to Titan submersible disappearance. So far this is a disappearance rather than an incident. The year is also irrelevant. Grahaml35 (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion after debris were found

WP:BOLDLY closing this off due to loss of cohesiveness; discussion should continue in the survey immediately below - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 15:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No. Incident is the right word. Debris have been found and identified so the sub has not "disappeared" but rather imploded in a million pieces. I think this news alone should close this discussion outright. Icehax (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree: It's no longer a "disappearance", and "disaster" seems a bit much for a loss of this magnitude. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Concur: I agree that incident is the correct word to use here. The current title is clear. DynCoder (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Disagree. "Titan Submersible Implosion" would be a better name for the article. CatPerson987 (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Disagree. "Titan Submersible Implosion" is too specific. --sign Dat1 607 (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC) MOS:SECTIONCAPS does not support capitalizing "implosion." ~TPW 13:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Agree to "Incident" this is what Emergency services call such cases on land sea and air, Police call Car accidents "Incidents" because they are absolutely not accidents but some form of carelessness.you could call it an event but it does sound right for some reason. same with fire dept's and even surf life saving drownings. I think "Incident" is perfect. Jayson Black1 (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Agree. Debris was found, no longer a disappearance. Atrenx90 (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Agree. Disappearance implies that the submarine was never found, however debris was found. XCBRO172 (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Adding in re Stockton Rush’s incompetence and the fact he basically murdered these people seems logical. 2A00:23EE:17E0:27CB:E866:ACD8:845E:B71 (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible implosion and remove 2023 as there is no need in distinguishing the implosion when this is the only one of its kind.:KeyKing666 (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC) we do not know when it imploded, and this whole news feels like it would just be worded as an incident that the world watched. 2607:FB91:515:6F4:412:6C2D:146C:E1A5 (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC) We absolutely do know when it imploded - the US Navy detected the implosion when it happened. 216.201.29.14 (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible implosion per @KeyKing666. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Change to 2023 Titan Disaster, in accordance with Wikipedia precedent. Redacted II (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Concur: This title fits the bill perfectly, especially when compared to other catastrophic events, such as the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster or Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Alternatively, I believe that OceanGate Titan Disaster is a sound title. DylanJ10000 (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Sorry, Space Shuttle Challenger disaster or Space Shuttle Columbia disaster! DylanJ10000 (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC) MOS:SECTIONCAPS does not support capitalizing "disaster." ~TPW 13:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Concur, but disaster with lowercase 92.22.127.50 (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC) I agree with Icehax here. The sub imploded and took 5 lives, meaning its probably enough to be call an incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Typicalglazed (talk • contribs) 18:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible disappearance. All five passengers are believed to be dead. CitationIsNeeded ツ 19:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Titan Submersible loss 80.7.168.14 (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Implosion of the Titan submersible per Coast Guard statement. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree with Tamzin KoP152 (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Implosion of the Titan submersible or Titan submersible implosion would be best. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Removing the "of the" would make this a bit more WP:CONCISE and I feel is good practice when picking titles for articles: Titan submersible implosion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Strongly oppose and I suggest close the discussion now. The company and media outlets says they believe the sub is now destroyed. SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Concur with Tamzin, sources will be published soon, if not already published. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Concurring with Tamzin. - L'Mainerque - (r/talkpage) - 19:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Oceangate Titan Disaster: It has been confirmed that the pressure chamber on the vessel exploded, instantaneously killing everyone aboard. Debris from the vessel has also been located and identified. DylanJ10000 (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I agree with this, but with a lower-case "d" in "disaster". Useight's Public Sock (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I agree, including using a lowercase "d" for "disaster." TH1980 (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Move to OceanGate Titan Implosion: I disagree, sort of. While disaster is not an incorrect label, calling it an implosion is more informative. Grave8890 (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Disagree (sort of), The closest comparison I can see with this event would be the Kursk Submarine disaster, I think disaster is still apt given the length of time it took and the widespread international response it took to get. Based on that comparison, I would back the use of term "Disaster" TheDataStudent (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Disagree, the overall situation and response involves more than the implosion itself, the implosion was just the cause of the overall 'disaster', and this article represents more than the implosion itself. Pressue (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC) MOS:SECTIONCAPS does not support capitalizing "implosion." ~TPW 13:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Agree with Dylan. It should be a lowercase D. I don't think it particuarly matters whether it is 2023 or Oceangate, but the Oceangate would fit more with Wikipedia precedent, similiar to the Space Shuttle Disaster wikis. Pressue (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Agree, but lowercase D per MOS:AT. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 07:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Agree, OceanGate Titan disaster is a good fit. No need to state the year. Company name should be in front of Titan similar to DeepFlight Challenger. --Dual Freq (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC) I move to close this discussion and reopen a new one. Schierbecker (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree with Schierbecker Tantomile (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I don't think that is possible as this one isn't 7 days old yet. Furthermore you can just suggest a new title here and whoever closes the discussion in a few days will take it into consideration. Icehax (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Discussion does not have to take full 7 days. In addition, the discovery of the debris field meaning the vessel had imploded means that the request move discussion has been contaminated. I believe it might be better to restart a fresh discussion. SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I don't think that's necessary. I've put a subheading up for comments after we learned debris had been found; I think the closer should be able to use common sense and weigh !votes before and after that point. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I've also just struck my old vote and posted a new one below. Effectively, this is a new discussion. --Renerpho (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Noting that (prior to the last few comments) I've reverted a close by 90.254.6.237 that seemed to ignore all recent developments in this dicussion. Per WP:NACD, IPs cannot close RMs. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agreed, there are a lot of possible titles that have been suggested so closing it right now is not the best idea. Icehax (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I collapsed the discussion as they are no longer relevant. SYSS Mouse (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC) No they found the wreckage so moot point Limesave 19:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Close early and start again: It is clear from recent developments that the vessel is no more and that significant parts of the original discussion no longer applies as initial written. Starting over will give participants a clean break to suggest different names with less confusion. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Amended as the discussion above has been collapsed instead, which works for me. (It does give the benefit that the closer can review prior comments that have not been superseded by comments in this subsection.) --Super Goku V (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible implosion. The sub violently collapsed onto itself, so frankly the word "implosion" would be a better fit for this. - pivotman319 (📫) 19:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree with this or "disaster," with a preference for implosion. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 20:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree, or Titan submersible destruction. -- ElLutzo (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree with either of the suggestions OneRandomBrit (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree with Titan in italics. Significa liberdade (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree. That seems the best choice considering what we know now. Gawaon (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I agree with this, as other articles refer to it as an implosion when referring to the event itself Xradicon (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Loss of the submerisble Titan or Loss of the OceanGate Titan are also possibilities. Somehow disaster seems off for an incident of this size craft and crew. I'd support quick close and open new discussion with voting among the more popular suggestions consistent with the news. Chris vLS (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to 2023 Titan submersible implosion It's clearly imploded or suffered severe damage causing it to appear imploded. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 19:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Remove 2023 -- There's no need to distinguish between the 2023 Titan submersible implosion and some other Titan submersible implosion. Significa liberdade (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree Parham wiki (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree, too. Later, when we know more about the subject, we can move the Article to Titanic tourists disaster. Within a few years one may only reminiscend about this and the name Titan will be lost and only a link in the article Titanic or the disambiguation Titan should help. Horst Emscher (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Just remove "2023" - I don't really have a strong opinion on whether we call it "implosion" or "disaster" but there is absolutely no need to include the year [2023] in the title. Colipon+(Talk) 20:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree Parham wiki (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree, 2023 isn’t necessary 2601:89:8400:B9D0:DDC0:53FA:A9D3:AFEE (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Comment. Renaming of this article should not include the cause, because an investigation will follow to determine the sequences of events to this disaster. Therefore, the article name needs to be generic. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 20:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible implosion per Coast Guard statement. 2023 is unnecessary. Glman99 (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Just remove "2023", and keep the word "incident". I second what User:KyuuA4 has said two lines above. We should be careful implying any kind of cause, even if the media have discussed it, and just referring to it as an incident is the safe approach. Please note that the US coast guard, in their press release an hour ago, said that the discoveries are consistent with a catastrophic loss. They are not saying "we have found proof of an implosion, case closed", even though that's the obvious conclusion. --Renerpho (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible implosion. Year is not needed, and "implosion" is magnitudes more descriptive then "disaster" or "incident" DarkSide830 (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree: maybe a redirect from Titan submersible diaster? Jake01756 (talk) (contribs) 03:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Sadly, Titan submersible disaster would seem to be appropriate now. Ann Teak (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Implosion of Titan - reads better this way round (rather than "Titan implosion"), and I can't think of any other famous implosions of Titans, so "submersible" seems unnecessary. 2A00:23C4:6B13:D801:243A:5816:555B:30FD (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Submersible helps define context, you might not have heard of other Titans imploding but to the outside eye you wouldn't have a clear understanding of what the article might entail. I would keep the title almost as is and just remove 2023 since this is an ongoing event and we don't even have a preliminary report yet. What is certain is that this was not a disappearance. Icehax (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC) As @Icehax stated, it's best to include "submersible" for outsider context. Secondly, it's best to be concise for article titles, which means removing prepositions if possible. Titan implosion is grammatically sound. Significa liberdade (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to OceanGate Titan disaster; "OceanGate Titan" sounds nicer than "Titan submersible", and including the word disaster would be consistant with other incidents, such as Costa Concordia disaster and Hindenburg disaster. Liljimbo (talk) 20:35, June 22, 2023 (UTC) Move to either Titan submersible implosion or Titan submersible disaster. I'm not sure how the company's name could fit in any of these titles to be honest, and we should only leave it at that. CycloneYoris talk! 21:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC) There have been similar instances in the past where the name of the company has remained in the title. I personally think it's an integral part of the vessel's name. For reference see the Costa Concordia disaster Icehax (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC) In the case you're referencing, the company name was Costa Cruises, and the name of the ship was Costa Concordia. This is not an instance of keeping the company name in the Wiki title but rather an instance of a company naming a ship after the company. Significa liberdade (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I'd say keep the company name out of the title. Looking at past disasters, there's no precedent to include the company name. ETA: See List of submarine incidents since 2000. Significa liberdade (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree with Titan submersible disaster, like the title of the Kursk submarine disaster article. Emkut7 (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Rename to OceanGate Titan Disaster. I think this would be the best title to both provide context (some have suggested just "Titan" but it feels too vague to me) and remain in line with other similar articles. Icehax (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Support Icehax proposal as it's more precise and more concise than just "incident". I'd agree that WP:NOYEAR applies here as it would be closer to CRYSTALBALL to imply more incidents have happened in the past…mentioning the specific submarine further reduces the need for year as well. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Support Icehax proposal due to reason similar to InvadingInvader. The more precise the merrier.(AlphaBetaGammsh (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)) SUPPORT. This is the typical phrasing for most "expedition" style catastrophic failures. Abebenjoe (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC) MOS:SECTIONCAPS does not support capitalizing "disaster." ~TPW 13:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC) I agree with the suggestion to move to Titan submersible implosion or Titan submersible disaster. As Significa liberdade pointed out, in the Costa Concordia case, the name of the ship was Costa Concordia, not Concordia, but this submersible was named Titan, not OceanGate Titan. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I would prefer Titan submersible implosion: it's more descriptive and straightforward than "disaster". I also prefer "Titan submersible" over "OceanGate Titan", as it's more descriptive, and the company name isn't part of the craft's name. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I would actually move this page to the 2023 Titan submersible sinking not implosion. This vessel sank as a result of compressive implosion. The term implosion has a broad meaning including the intentional inward demolition of buildings through explosives, nuclear detonation and other meanings, that may confuse the common reader. Most subs that sink in deep water implode after they reach a certain depth anyway. In summary, this vessel sank as a result of a kinetic implosion and not a detonative implosion, so I propose moving it to sinking or keeping it at incident. Words in the Wind(talk) 21:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I think incidindent still fits the bill. all the other words: "implosion", "disaster", etc, are not used uniformly across media outlets coverage of this "incident"... it is clearly tragic, and a disaster, but I think the current title should just hold. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Do you have an authoritative source to support your assertion that "most subs that sink in deep water implode after they reach a certain depth"? Further, do you have a source to support your assertion that there was not any kind of explosion (detonation) on board Titan that triggered an implosion? Primie facie, a pressure vessel containing oxygen cylinders and Heath-Robinson electrical systems powered by lead-acid batteries sounds like a recipe for explosions. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC) That would mean making assumptions on the mechanism of incident since we currently have no official preliminary nor final reports, which is a big no-no in my books. It's better to use the more general terms for now such as incident or disaster, it could always be updated later without a discussion when a proper report comes out. Icehax (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Incident works for now i argue Iljhgtn (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC) In that case, "accident" would be a better word in my opinion. CycloneYoris talk! 23:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I would refrain from using "accident" as that tends to imply an error was made (and that someone is at fault). Again, we don't know why the vessel imploded (at least not yet). Perhaps sticking with "incident" is the best course for now. Significa liberdade (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC) People have raised good points and perhaps it is best to leave it at incident until we actually know more about the structural failure of the submersible. Words in the Wind(talk) 13:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Support Titan submersible disaster in line with other submarine losses such as Kursk submarine disaster. [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 21:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Support Titan submersible incident Until there is a definitive report from a government agency that details the mechanism of failure for the craft, I say referring to it as an "incident" in the title is entirely appropriate. It is purposefully vague enough to not rule out any other possibilities even though evidence currently suggests implosion as the most likely scenario. Discussion of moving the page should only be revived once an official report is released in my opinion. As for the year, I agree that the page should be moved to Titan submersible incident specifically, and neither "sinking" nor "implosion" for the reason I listed above -- we don't know for sure what happened until an official report is released. I am not necessarily opposed to "disaster" either. Red Card For You (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC) yes, these are my thoughts too Iljhgtn (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC) 100% agree with you, this would be the most sensible choice for now. Also everybody has a slightly different idea for the title so i think going with the most general option might be best. I suggested OceanGate Titan disaster but your version works as well. Icehax (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree Significa liberdade (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree This is the best option, until and unless there's definitive proof of an implosion. GoPats (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC) 2023 Titanic Submersible Sinking like a normal person would. That's after most people calling it a submarine. WorkingOnTheRailroad (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC) MOS:SECTIONCAPS does not support capitalizing "submersible sinking." ~TPW 13:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC) but most do not even call this a submarine, they are calling it a submersible Iljhgtn (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Adding sinking would presupposes a known mechanism of failure which we currently do not have. Until we have at least a preliminary report i wouldn't use such specific vocabulary. Icehax (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Support "Titan submersible implosion" or "incident", per above, and per Coast Guard statement. Best to be succinct and detailed about the event itself, whilst mourning the lives lost. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I would support either Titan submersible accident or Titan submersible implosion. Both seem natural and a good description of the event. Incident doesn't seem proper for an event that caused the deaths of all 5 people in the submersible. We should also keep in mind WP:DISASTER, the word "disaster" shouldn't be used unless it is more severe than other events of the same type and there is significant usage of the word. This event doesn't seem too extraordinary compared to others. There has only been one Titan accident before so the year isn't that necessary. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 22:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose. They found debris, so it's not a disappearance anymore. Christian Toney 22:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Support Titan submersible implosion. ~ HAL333 22:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible disaster or Titan submersible incident or Titan submersible accident or Titan submersible sinking. The former is most consistent with similar articles from what I can tell. Calling it an implosion is too specific and unnatural for the title (Space Shuttle Challenger disintegration is still red as of now). We should specify that we are discussing the titan sub and not one of the many other vessels called Titan, but including the year is probably unnecessary and reduces conciseness. Calling the sub "OceanGate Titan" would also distinguish it but that's not part of its official name, so it's not consistent with other articles and could be confusing to readers. The word "incident" is rather vague, but we still don't know what exactly led to the implosion. "Accident" conversely might imply we know more than we do about the causes, but it's used broadly to describe many marine incidents. "Sinking" might be a reasonable middle ground but it just sounds weird to me; I might be prejudiced against gerunds. I think "disaster" is best, but any of the above would be OK, maybe depending on what reliable sources call it after today. Definitely not "implosion" though. —Rutebega (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Disagree They found two piles of debris. It imploded Matthew Campbell (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Where did I say it didn't implode? We decide article titles based on this policy, which specifies that they should be, among other things, natural. As I pointed out, we don't have articles called "Space Shuttle Challenger disintegration" or "Hindenburg rapid exothermic oxidation" even though that is what happened to those craft. —Rutebega (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC) 😂 I'm just stupid. But I think it should be "Implosion of Titan Submersible". It wasn't a disaster. A disaster is like Chernobyl. Only 5 people died. A disaster is 50+ Matthew Campbell (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC) No 20+ Matthew Campbell (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Where's the reliable sources calling this a "disaster"? Macktheknifeau (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC) The Telegraph does use the wording 'Titan submersible disaster' in the headline to refer to the situation. However, I am currently unsure if there is enough reliable sources to have that be the article name. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I've been fighting for decades to have the Hindenburg disaster relabelled as the "Hindenburg-rapid-exothermic-oxidation-and-succumbence-to-downward acceleration-due-to-the-force-of-gravity-event". Please DM me and let's work together to make this happen. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose: The article page should simply be named "Titan submersible" or "OceanGate Titan" with all content regarding the submarine on this one page. It doesn't need "incident" or "implosion" or "disaster" on the end as anything but redirects if required. The vast majority of ship sinkings on wikipedia have their article names solely as the name of the ship and only when a vessel itself and the the sinking event are both significantly notable to the point that splitting content over a "Ship" and "Ship Sinking" page does such a split page be required. There is no such justification here, there is no reason to split the content between an article regarding the submarine and the sinking. It also handily avoids the inevitable complaining from people who think it should or should not be suffixed with "incident" or "implosion" or "sinking" or "disaster" or "disappearance" or "loss". Macktheknifeau (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Strongly Disagree People should know right away what happened. I do think that the Titan should have its own Wikipedia page. Matthew Campbell (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Your use of all-bold text is duly noted Matthew. Thank you for your forthrightness. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia:BLP1E Icehax (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I thought about this as well. I had assumed that certain naval ships had their own notability guideline dictating they have their own article anyway, but there isn't one that I can find. The other argument would be that when dealing with people, we typically cover the notable event rather than the person involved. This isn't about a person however, the sub would certainly meet the GNG, and I can't think of any other reason it can't have its own article. I would also support a move to Titan (submersible), though I won't strike my comment above since I think those options are also reasonable. —Rutebega (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC) If you search for the Titan specifically you won't find basically any sources talking about it specifically (OceanGate had other subs as well), so i don't believe it would meet the notability guidelines. It might not be a person but WP:BLP1E still applies i think. Icehax (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC) i went and looked around and found this: Wikipedia:Notability (vehicles) which says this specifically about individual (unique) vehicles: "When possible, a vehicle that is only notable for participation in a single event that was not specifically modified for the purpose of the event should be covered in the article about the event, not in a separate article." So i would argue we dont need a separate article for the Titan. Icehax (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I wouldn't assume that 1E applies to any subject notable for a single event, but I missed that essay which does seem to apply it to vehicles. It isn't a guideline but it's longstanding and doesn't appear to have generated controversy, so I'm reversing my support. —Rutebega (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to implosion of the submersible Titan. Much clearer, and eliminates useless year from the title. Neutralitytalk 23:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC) 2023 implosion of Titan Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC) i do not like how that sounds.. if someone were googling it, i do not think they would google "implosion of the submersible Titan" Iljhgtn (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC) maybe "Titan submersible accident" ? Has anyone suggested that Iljhgtn (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC) i do agree that the year is uselss though and does not need to stick around Iljhgtn (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible implosion (or if really need be Titan submersible disaster) as per those above and per sources which now state it imploded, May Shahzada Dawood, Suleman Dawood, Hamish Harding, Paul-Henri Nargeolet and Stockton Rush all rest in peace, My sincere condolences to friends and family at this sad time. Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 23:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Rename to OceanGate Titan Mishap. This is a "maritime mishap" which resulted in catastrophic loss of vessel and fatalities. You may further wait to mirror the language classifying this mishap in the likely ensuing U.S.C.G. Incident Investigation Report. The Titan (i.e., Cyclopes 2) is technically a class of vessel developed by Oceangate (flagship). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.236.138 (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I think news outlets are mostly just breaking a new detail/quoting USCG and other sources rather than referring to the whole incident as an implosion (with the exception of USA Today, who originally titled this article "Titanic submarine implosion victims: These 5 men died on Titan trip" which frankly does seem a bit insensitive) I would predict that over the next week as journalists refer more to the event in the past tense, the terms disaster, accident, and wreck will be used more frequently in headlines and elsewhere. —Rutebega (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC) MOS:SECTIONCAPS does not support capitalizing "mishap." ~TPW 13:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible disaster, this is how the public would refer to it, otherwise sinking. Do not use incident.Spilia4 (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Move to 2023 Titan submersible implosion.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Use Implosion. That's what happened. "Incident" is too common and is not WP:PRECISE. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Submarine Titan disaster, per the Space Shuttle Challenger and Columbia pages. Redirects would get all the suggested names to the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Concur 92.22.127.50 (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Continue to oppose There is not yet a WP:COMMONNAME for the situation. Wikipedia shouldn't try to dictate what it will be called which could lead to WP:CITOGENESIS. I'm sure one will emerge eventually. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC) I agree with you here, but the current title poses essentially the same risk; we need some title for the article, and it seems likely whatever is picked will be a common name for the disaster/incident/disappearance/implosion/sinking/accident. Of course, incident seems as fine as any of the others. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 04:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC) While I'd support leaving it at current title for now per my reasoning above, I'd also be fine with "accident". "Disaster" seems too large in scope. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC) The page is fairly broad already - it covers the leadup, predicted safety flaws etc. 92.22.127.50 (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Continue to wait; I think the best course of action is to not make any major changes, and come back in like two weeks whenever news coverage calms down. We still don't have all the facts – don't rush to conclusions. I have no objections to removing the "2023" from the title (as there seems to be general consensus for that, I'm not going to try and stop things there when I don't disagree), but this was an "incident", there's no need to rush to change that. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Agree; I think it's too early to ascertain, given the intense media coverage, what actually happened. Keep in mind, whilst the Coast Guard's official statement strongly suggested the cause, it's yet to have been fully confirmed. Cobaj Thaite (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Remove 2023 from title - I'm not sure what name to go with, but with any of those options, the year is unnecessary. There isn't another incident involving a submersible named Titan that we need to distinguish this incident from. Other articles of this type, like ship sinkings, major rail disasters do not include years in the title, unless there's another incident it could be confused for, such as at the same location or involving a vehicle of the same name. (Example: Channel Tunnel Fire articles. Channel Tunnel fires have happened multiple times, with major ones in 1996 and 2008, and both stand alone articles now named YEAR Channel Tunnel fire. However, the 2004 article for the 1996 incident was originally named simply Channel Tunnel Fire, prior to the 2008 fire.) It didn't disappear for long, it was found, and in a bunch of pieces. Since it seems like it was an implosion, I recommend a variation of Titan submersible implosion, with or without the year. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Comment. As this discussion stands it seems almost impossible that a closer would be able to find a clear consensus. There are discussions on at least half a dozen different potential titles and variations. Proposed title changes include removing the year, removing the word submersible, adding OceanGate, changing the term from "incident" to any of implosion, disaster, accident, disappearance, or sinking, and changing the subject verb order ("Implosion of the Titan submersible" vs "Titan submersible implosion"). Can we get a short list of proposed options and have a !vote around those? Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 04:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC) i agree Icehax (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC) These are all the ones I saw post the discovery of the debris: Titan submersible implosion Titan submersible disaster Titan submersible disappearance Titan submersible incident OceanGate Titan disaster OceanGate Titan implosion Implosion of the Titan submersible Implosion of the submersible Titan Loss of the submersible Titan Loss of the OceanGate Titan I took out a couple that included years and such. QueerFilmNerdtalk 05:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC) By short list I mean three or four options maximum. Alternatively, we could have several separate questions: what word should be used, should the year be included, should OceanGate be included, etc; that strikes me as overly complex, but there's enough voices in here that maybe we need it to have any chance of clarity. This has become a bikeshed problem; basically all these titles are reasonable and it's unlikely there's a strong policy argument against any of them, leaving us in the situation of settling the preferences of every editor whose eyes happen to come across this page. @Knightoftheswords281 as the original proposer of this move, do you have any thoughts on how to structure the discussion here? Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 05:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC) I believe the policy on polls says they should not be used to filter the discussion in any way but rather to gauge consensus on outcomes, so you could argue against this. I feel like we should leave it to the neutral person that will eventually close the discussion to select the options he/she feels like have the most consensus and maybe create a poll using those. I don't think it would be useful to hold one right now. Icehax (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC) @Dylnuge, yeah, I was already noticing that (296 comments!). I'm thinking of dividing the poll up, i.e, including several subsections dedicated to the answer (e.g, OceanGate or no?) and hatting this section because the convo has spiraled out of control since neither of my original proposals seem to be favored now. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 18:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC) I think the most reasonable options are Titan submersible implosion Titan submersible disaster OceanGate Titan implosion OceanGate Titan disaster Patmorgan235 (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Agree: these are the best options. The year should be omitted and implosion or disaster should be used in place of incident, although disaster seems more appropriate. ~~~ kiepier (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC) The list is missing the "sinking" variations. I personally don't agree with those but a poll should have all the options clearly laid out. Icehax (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC) This list is missing the most obvious solution, which is that it doesn't need any special name and that all the content can be collated simply in "Titan Submersible" or "OceanGate Titan". Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC) There's an article on notability guidelines for vehicles which states that if a vehicle is notable for one event only it should be presented in the article dedicated for the event without having another article dedicated to just the vehicle. Icehax (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Comment: Why not Titan submersible or Titan submarine? Take a look at how Germans did it. Goldddd (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose move until further information is revealed. However, I agree the year is unnecessary. QueerFilmNerdtalk 04:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose, either make the title specifically about the submersible (way the Deutsch Wiki does it), or wait until the event has ended to make a final decision. However, I support 2023 being removed from the title at this point in time. Move to Titan (submersible). Changing my vote after the fate of the Titan was determined. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Agree, count my vote for this. Goldddd (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose, although I support 2023 being removed from title. User:DimensionalFusion 09:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose, the current name is pretty clear already. But I would rather remove the "2023" in there. What about like, Titan submersible implosion, Titan submersible accident, Titan submersible catastrophe, Or you know, anything like that? I just want this discussion to be closed. Packnuts (talk) 7:03, 23 June 2023 Move to Titan submersible implosion. It's much more precise than incident. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Agree. Whether or not this is considered an “accident” or “incident” should be based in an internationally-agreed-upon definition of those terms in the maritime context, similar to how aviation accidents and incidents are differentiated. The UNDRR definition of a maritime accident includes the following: “ A marine accident is an event, or a sequence of events, that has resulted in any of the following occurring directly in connection with the normal operation of a marine vessel: the death of, or serious injury to, a person; the loss of a person from a ship; the loss, presumed loss or abandonment of a marine vessel; material damage to a marine vessel; the stranding or disabling of a marine vessel, or the involvement of a marine vessel in a collision…” What happened to the Titan was definitely a maritime accident under this definition. And “implosion” is a more specific definition of the type of accident. Swordfish36 (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose any change other than removing the "2023". Wikipedia does not lead, it follows. Wait for a common name to emerge. Charcoal feather (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC) yeah keep or remove the 2023 no other change Sebbog13 (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Move to anything other than 'incident'. I was an incident when we knew something was wrong, bu not necessarily what; not we know it imploded, we know it has disappeared. Ergo it has become a disappearance. BTW, did someone ^^^ suggest that imploding into one's component atoms was not a disappearance? SN54129 16:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC) disappearance would presuppose no part of the vessel was found, which is not the case. It didn't implode into atoms but rather into many clearly detectable pieces. Icehax (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC) I have no objection to the move to "implosion" as that is almost certainly what happened. SecretName101 (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan Submersible Implosion, as that is exactly what this article is about. Anybar (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Comment why have all the comments from before debris found been hatted like they don't matter? The fact they found debris doesn't change my opinions and vote on the name. You can't expect everyone to re-post just because they posted a few days ago. Honestly never seen a RM where someone has hatted half the discussion....... Joseph2302 (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC) No Current name is appropriate, following discovery of debris. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Keep the current name would be my vote. There's no reason to change it. The fact of the matter was that it was a tragic incident. Calling it a disaster is a bit too exaggerated, sinking doesn't sound right since it's a submersible not a ship. 'Implosion' would make sense at first, but that wasn't the whole thing. This article highlights not just the implosion, but also its disappearance and the search. Therefore, I believe the current title is appropriate. Ulysses Grant Official 19:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Support yeah the current name is good the "2023" could be removed tho, but the current title also works great. Sebbog13 (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC) I say NO. This whole thing was an INCIDENT. So much about it doesn't make sense, because really the Coast Guard knew from day ONE that the thing had a catastrophic depressurization, they had been told of the noise that had been detected right when they lost contact with the Titan, and yet they went on that wild goose chase, for nothing. Searching an area twice the size of Connecticut? For what? As James Cameron has stated, as soon as that French (non-Coast Guard affiliated) ROV team went to the last place it had been, right above the Titanic, as soon as it got down there, they found it. And yet for 4 days the Coast guard was running around like chickens with their heads cut off. So no, disappearance is not appropriate, because it's not even accurate, not really. That thing was right where everyone should have known it would be the whole time, right next to the Titanic. Incident is 100% the correct word for it. Rebeccathecowgirl (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Do we know exactly when the acoustic information was passed from the U.S. Navy to the Coast Guard? The article does not seem to say. Thanks. 86.187.229.73 (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose Agreed with others that the name of article is fine and that 2023 should be removed. YborCityJohn (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose It is not only known for the dissapearance and it was found 173.168.100.26 (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Close discussion — Too many tangents and seemingly no agreement on much here... it's hard to even follow the discourse, let alone discern any kind of consensus. We should open new discussions on proposals for more specific changes to the title, one by one. The first of which should be removing "2023", as that seems to have the most tacit support right now, and is the easiest to make clear support/oppose arguments for. — AFC Vixen 🦊 15:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Agree. My notifications are getting spammed because i posted 1 comment on this page. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Survey on a general aggregate of the top 4 requests

Since this discussion has somewhat spiraled out of control, and we now have various competing titles, as the original starter of the discussion, I'm WP:BOLDLY closing off the above discussion to centralize it here and bring cohesiveness to more effectively form consensus. There is consensus to remove 2023 out of the title, but there is no consensus on the rest of the title. Out of all of the proposed suggestions, the following seemed to be generally favored:

• Titan submersible implosion
• Titan submersible disaster
• OceanGate Titan implosion
• OceanGate Titan disaster

Icehax (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I favour Titan submersible implosion. It doesn't offer information that may not be as useful as the reader, it shows the reader what kind of object it was, and what happened to it, all in just 3 words. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link!< 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 16:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Likewise. It succinctly describes the vessel and what happened. ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree.

"Titan Submersible Disappearance" sounds like a placeholder title, until more information is known. "Titan Submersible Implosion" is more direct and reflects the actual event that occurred. 2600:6C5A:407F:7DBF:10F8:E72A:DB73:60FD (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

OceanGate Titan Disaster is my vote - Titan submersible disaster would be my second choice. I favor disaster over implosion here because the article involves a lot more than the implosion itself. For example, the Space Shuttle Challenger title doesn't talk about the cause, just references it as a disaster. Pressue (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Titan submersible implosion is my preference. "Disaster" feels too much like editorializing unless it becomes the common name for the incident. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 16:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

+1. Name in italics. It is not an adjective. ElLutzo (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

My vote too. Gawaon (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

XCBRO172 (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this, suggestion is well explained. OneRandomBrit (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 06:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I favor Titan submersible implosion, disaster seems to general, and the scale of the incident does not deserve the title of disaster. Implosion lets people know exactly what happened at a glance. Including the word submersible in the title is also crucial, in my opinion. Wikepediathefreeencyclopedia1 (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I favor Titan submersible implosion or Titan submersible disaster - there doesn't seem to be a precedent to include the name of the company owning the vehicle in the title. We don't have an article called Sinking of the White Star Line Titanic, we have an article called Sinking of the Titanic. I can see the cases for both "implosion" and "disaster" in the title. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• I think in terms of providing context, OceanGate was an instrumental part in the overall 'vision' of Titan, and provides more context than establishing that Titan is a submersible. In this instance I believe that including the operator's name is important; and I think it sounds better, too, but I'm fine with any candidate.

I think the issue here is that there is little consistency when naming submarine tragedies. Take a look at: List of maritime disasters, 2008 Russian submarine accident, Submarine incident off Kildin Island. Maybe this could be discussed under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) or a similar project page? Cobaj Thaite (talk) 05:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Titan submersible implosion (followed by disaster). There's not really a precedent to include the company name. (See: List of submarine incidents since 2000). As for how we want to refer to the "incident," while disaster would work, some organizations define disaster as "serious disruptions to the functioning of a community that exceed its capacity to cope using its own resources" (IFRC). In this case, a community hasn't particularly been affected (except perhaps researchers and rich people who want to go to the Titanic in the future). As such, implosion is preferred. Significa liberdade (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

OceanGate Titan Disaster gets my vote. It generalizes the entire thing for what it is: an unfortunate disaster (similarly to the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster and the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster). I also believe it important to include OceanGate in the title, due to, as far as I can tell, the vessel being commonly referred to as the OceanGate Titan. I would also like to bring up similar submarine/submersible incidents that have also used disaster in it's title (i.e. the Kursk submarine disaster). DylanJ10000 (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

lowercase disaster Sebbog13 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

not changing my vote just correcting the above message by dylan Sebbog13 (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

As before, adding "implosion" or "disaster" is redundant, and as per existing consensus for maritime sinkings (rather than spaceships being destroyed) it should only be named Titan submersible or OceanGate Titan. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• OceanGate Titan Implosion. I believe using 'implosion' instead of 'disaster' would be more concise, straight to the point for those in the future who might come across this. As I've previously stated, WP has a tendency to use the wrong word for an incident and I feel it's too much of editorializing. This occurred in a contained environment, and only impacted five people. 'Disaster' signifies something of a greater magnitude. JenM5595 (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'd pick Titan submersible implosion. It's one of the most concise, and it pretty much explains literally the entire article, in my opinion.

Packnuts (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

My vote goes for Titan submersible implosion. Second choice is Titan submersible disaster. Thanks team. Nir007H (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Titan submersible disaster is a better title, because the article isn’t exclusively about the implosion. ForTheGrammar (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Titan submersible implosion for the ease that it rolls off the tongue, and very eloquently sums up what happened. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 22:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

OceanGate Titan disaster is the most descriptive and communicative in my opinion, and it follows Wikipedia precedent, namely Space Shuttle Challenger disaster and Chernobyl disaster. Cobaj Thaite (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Titan submersible implosion would be best as “incident” doesn’t seem right. Who knows, there could be many other different “incidents” related to “Titan”, so it is good to be specific.

TheCorvetteZR1^{(The Garage)} 13:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Titan submersible disaster gets my vote. It's succinct, and as an above replier said, the article isn't exclusively about the implosion. AliceBelmont (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Titan Submersible Implosion "OceanGate" isn't needed in my view. Disaster works as well but personally I think "Implosion" is the best. CatPerson987 (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Titan submersible incident (current without the year)

- Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 15:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

MtPenguinMonster (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 16:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

- Sebbog13 (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

We can just add our signature (4 consecutive tilde) under the title we want to vote if that's ok with you? Icehax (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• OceanGate Titan disaster Abebenjoe (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• Titan submersible implosion Seems like the most fitting title that describes what happened. Canuck^{89 (Speak with me) or visit my user page} 18:11, June 24, 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion gets my vote, it's straight forward and makes sense. Tantomile (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Pings. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Doctor Duh, Eoj9020, 212.250.189.37, Sebbog13, Death Editor 2, Icehax, Gimmethegepgun, SmokeyJoe, ElectronicsForDogs, Davidships, Nir007H, GoPats, Macktheknifeau, Metalhead11000, Brandmeister, ForTheGrammar, Folly Mox, Renerpho, Words in the Wind, Cymru.lass, Kicking222, Maximilian775, 94.5.218.193, BhamBoi, A bit iffy, Celeron64, 156.143.240.139, Jim 2 Michael, OneRandomBrit, HAL333, Joseph2302, Tvx1, TulsaPoliticsFan, MtPenguinMonster, Songwaters, True Penguin Warrior, Pburka, Cpotisch, ERAGON, PolarManne, Rager7, DeFacto, TarkusAB, This is Paul, 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:1122:4FD:855C:AEEC, Northern Moonlight, AquilaFasciata, The Anome, Cocobb8, and Geordie: - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 15:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC) @Askarion, DylanJ10000, Spilia4, Mfb, Zippybonzo, Local Variable, Jalapeño, 205.239.40.3, SmokeyJoe, GiantSnowman, Andrew Davidson, Kcmastrpc, Thehistorianisaac, Dh75, MT Princess Empress oil spill, Matthew Cambell, Khajidha, Mychemicalromanceisrealemo, 80.7.92.124, Iljhgtn, Tantomile, MaxLikesStuff, Ann Teak, Kirbix12, Veganoregano, Dylnuge, Zilch-nada, Usedbook, Abebenjoe, Zxcvbnm, David Tornheim, Yeoutie, Christian Toney, The Navigators, CatPerson987, Skarmory, Festucalex, Seth Whales, Wikepediathefreeencyclopedia1, Beginning, WikiHannibal, 205.239.40.3, Maineartists, Jnm5505, HumanBodyPiloter5, Davey2010, JoelJSK, Bradv, Nonovix, and Koplimek: - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 16:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC) @JackWilfred, 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D, Ɱ, 99.224.199.140, Grahaml35, Piledhigheranddeeper, DynCoder, CatPerson987, Dat1 607, Jayson Black1, Atrenx90, XCBRO172, KeyKing666, 2607:FB91:515:6F4:412:6C2D:146C:E1A5, 216.201.29.14, Redacted II, 92.22.127.50, Typicalglazed, CitationIsNeeded, 80.7.168.14, Tamzin, KoP152, MaxnaCarta, Blaylockjam10, Novem Linguae, SYSS Mouse, L'Mainerque, Useight's Public Sock, TH1980, Grave8890, TheDataStudent, Pressue, Dual Freq, Schierbecker, Tantomile, Limesave, Super Goku V, Pivotman319, Laurel Wreath of Victors, ElLutzo, Significa liberdade, Gawaon, Xradicon, Chris vLS, Zippybonzo, Parham wiki, Horst Emscher, Colipon, 2601:89:8400:B9D0:DDC0:53FA:A9D3:AFEE, and KyuuA4: - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 16:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Anonymous users can't receive pings, also you would be better requesting a massmessage mailing at WT:MMS as pings don't always work/are turned off by the recipient. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC) @Glman99, DarkSide830, Jake01756, 2A00:23C4:6B13:D801:243A:5816:555B:30FD, Liljimbo, CycloneYoris, Emkut7, InvadingInvader, AlphaBetaGammsh, Abebenjoe, Tol, Words in the Wind, Osunpokeh, Red Card For You, GoPats, WorkingOnTheRailroad, Javert2113, RandomInfinity17, Christian Toney, Rutebega, 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D, Neutrality, Pyraminxsolver, 205.155.236.138, Spilia4, Randy Kryn, 92.22.127.50, Cobaj Thaite, LilianaUwU, QueerFilmNerd, Kiepier, Goldddd, DimensionalFusion, The Anome, Packnuts, Swordfish36, Charcoal feather, SN54129, SecretName101, Anybar, XtraJovial, Ulysses Grant Official, Rebeccathecowgirl, 86.187.229.73, YborCityJohn, 173.168.100.26, AFC Vixen, and Thehistorianisaac: - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 16:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC) I don't appreciate being pinged and not even told why. I have already stated my opinion. Please stop pinging me here. --Renerpho (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• I favour implosion over disaster, given how much that word crops up in headlines and how people are talking about it. However, may I also submit that the extra word "submersible" is unnecessary? I.e. I would go for either Titan implosion or Implosion of Titan (I've no special preference for having OceanGate or not, btw). I raised this possibility in the earlier discussion above. However, other commenters rejected this idea because removing "submersible" would mean that "to the outside eye you wouldn't have a clear understanding of what the article might entail". That's a valid concern, however I would also point out that we refer to it as the "Hindenburg disaster", not the "Hindenburg airship disaster". We don't worry that people might think "Hindenburg disaster" was actually a disaster involving the former President of Weimar Germany! It seems then to me there's a judgement call over whether someone might see a title like "Titan implosion" and be seriously confused. I don't think it's particularly likely, given how far this topic has penetrated popular culture, but ymmv. 2A00:23C4:6B13:D801:D51C:E4:6E5A:2165 (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• I also favour implosion per above, and the fact that most news coverage about it calls it an implosion. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• I vote for OceanGate Titan disaster. It's more general and the full name is warranted. Songwaters (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion or Titan submersible accident. I don't have a preference over which one to choose, but I think these are the best. It seems many media sources are calling this an implosion and not a disaster. Also, keep in mind WP:DISASTER, don't use the word disaster in the title unless many reliable sources are saying it is and it is more destructive than other events. This just seems like a normal submarine implosion/explosion. Having OceanGate in the title also doesn't describe what reliable sources are saying and submersible is good enough for the title. Submersible should also be included in the title to disambiguate from other Titans (like the 1980 Damascus Titan missile explosion). RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 16:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• Titan submersible incident works for me. The scale is insufficient for the use of the word "disaster". Also, although the vessel is definitely known to have imploded at some point, we don't know if that was what killed the passengers; they may have already been dead at that time. — The Anome (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't think it's good to keep hatting and re-starting this discussion, which has now happened twice. This behavior seems very likely to result in a "no consensus" close. I think this discussion needs to close after 7 days, then a new RM should be started with whatever the most likely to succeed rename request is at that time, informed by the discussion in this RM. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  Seconded. I understand the reason the hatting was done and it seems good faith, but it's added a lot of confusion. It's hard to figure out who is arguing for what at this point.

  As for the survey, it seems like a decent way to structure discussion on something like this, but I'm not clear that the options here had consensus or are even based in what was leading popularity-wise. I count 30 comments that supported the term "incident" (which is not a poll option) vs 11 that supported "disaster" and 9 that supported putting "OceanGate" in the title before the poll was opened (I'm including both hatted sections). There were also a non-trivial number of people opposed to any move, but the current page title isn't in the poll options. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 17:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  Seconded. This discussion is very confusing. There's no way to assess votes, and the way the discussion has been "cut" effectively invalidates some votes, and that's not okay. Simply mass-pinging users is decidedly not helpful. Close discussion as "no consensus", because a consensus under those conditions is impossible. --Renerpho (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  I initially thought that a close was the best choice forward when the discussion pivoted after it was confirmed the Titan was lost, but was convinced that hatting the older discussion would be better.

  But here, I don't see why a second hatting was a good idea. Now the closer has to deal with tracking comments from an additional section to prevent re-votes from counting. It requires people to come back who did not pick one of the four above names and decide which one they want to support. I also don't understand how two users can both claim to be the starter of the discussion and claim to have hatted the second section. (I also don't see why I was pinged because I suggested that the vote be closed, but that is another matter.)

  Honestly, it might be better to have this be prematurely closed and a new discussion started in 48 hours so that everyone can take a brief break and prepare. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• Titan submersible implosion - No need for company name to be in front, Disaster would be my second option but that doesn't fully explain things, "Titan submersible implosion" says exactly what happened. –Davey2010^Talk 16:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• None of these are correct. It should just be the name of the vessel, as we do for most other shipwrecks. pburka (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• OceanGate Titan implosion due to it being the most accurate description of what happened based on the consensus of sources. I think that "incident" is too light of a word and it should not be used in light of more accurate descriptions. I would also support Titan submersible implosion if editors prefer that, though would discourage use of Disaster. In the end though, all four options are better than the current one, and if one option has reasonable more support than the other, as long as "incident" is removed from the page title, I will support the title. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• My preferences are either Titan submersible disaster or Titan submersible implosion. This is Paul (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion, short and descriptive. --ERAGON (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• OceanGate Titan disaster Abebenjoe (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Just leave it at Titan submersible implosion for now, and possibly open another RM in a few weeks or months once more details come to light. Implosion is the word the media is currently using, so it should be used here also. CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• I remain supportive of Titan submersible implosion, with the year notedly removed because we do not need to disambiguate here. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Titan submersible implosion. Google search results for the topic without any of these keywords suggest that "implosion" is much more common than "disaster", and the company name is not very prominent in snippets. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• Titan submersible implosion at the moment (though one day the cause may change - we can worry about that at the time); I have some sympathy with the suggestion for Titan (submersible), but that might depend on whether that is spun off from OceanGate, so could be left to a later merge discussion if that happens. Davidships (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• New *OceanGate Titan accident or another title using the word accident Five people dying is a disaster? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:4ef0:9b0:b54b:ede1:aad5:f94 (talk • contribs)
• Titan submersible implosion or Titan submersible disaster. I favor disaster because I feel it better conveys that there was a loss of life and not just that a submersible imploded; but implosion better describes what happened. Either would be fine with me as long as "2023" is dropped and "incident" is changed in the title. 〜 Askarion ✉ 19:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion is my favorite option. Unambiguous and short. "submersible" is more descriptive than "OceanGate" in the future. --mfb (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion - Short and descriptive. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible disaster seems like a good summary succinctly describing the nature of the event [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 20:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• I'll agree with OceanGate Titan implosion despite my preference for the word incident, but in my opinion the scale of the event is way too small to be called a disaster. DynCoder (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion is my vote out of the four. I do prefer a simple Titan (submersible) however. as per @Macktheknifeau and @Khajidha.MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 21:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion is straight to the point and referred to a lot in the news. I think we should go with that one. Christian Toney 21:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible incident, for the same reason as I stated previously. The word "implosion" in the title is not acceptable until after the investigation has finished. --Renerpho (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Strike in favour of a close as "no consensus". Same result, but having participated in this vote would look as if I believe this discussion to be useful (or valid), which is not the case, as I explained in an earlier comment. --Renerpho (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion is my choice. Disaster is typically meant for large scale death or mass destruction. Including the name OceanGate is unnecessary. Usedbook (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Implosion, reflecting how the event is now being reported in HQRS. Agreed with Usedbook above re. Disaster and the non-inclusion of the company name. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion, it is more concise than the current title. We likely do not need a preceding year, and incident offers ambiguity. Persent101 (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion, I agree with all the viewpoints above in favor of this title as it is the most concise and straightforward title for the article.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• OceanGate Titan disaster is my narrow preference, given how important the operation and owner of the company is to the story. Narrowly followed by Titan submersible disaster and then Titan submersible implosion. My logic is more or less that attention is drawn to it because of the disappearance and then deaths, rather than that it was an implosion in particular. Cpotisch (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• A quick google search at this point is immediately pulling up news sources using "implosion" in the title, so Titan submersible implosion is fine, though I still think it's probably better to wait for things to settle down and just remove the year, and start a new discussion soon. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion is my preference. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible disaster is how I imagine most will refer to it going forward. I give a backup vote to Titan submersible implosion, but it really should be disaster.Spilia4 (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• OceanGate Titan disaster OceanGate should be in front of Titan similar to DeepFlight Challenger, Pro-Design Titan, and Ellipse Titan. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• I'm sticking with Titan submersible implosion. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion: Use of the word "disaster" is discouraged per WP:DISASTER and the word implosion is both precise and concise. The name of the ship should be italicized per WP:SHIPNAME. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• OceanGate Titan disaster remains the most appropriate, in my opinion, because the title encompasses the entire tragedy, not just the fatal implosion itself. TH1980 (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible disaster. You can read my earlier comments, or just WP:CRITERIA if you want to know why. —Rutebega (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion is the most precise & descriptive title. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Let's go with Titan submarine implosion, or (my preferred choice) Loss of the submersible Titan. It doesn't qualify as a disaster, and "accident" seems inappropriate, given the many warnings about the safety of the system. And it certainly wasn't a disappearance; the debris field is clear evidence of that.— The Anome (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Did you mean to put "submersible" in your first title? Titan is not a submarine. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Titan submersible disaster. The cause of the incident does not belong on the article title, especially when the investigation is still ongoing. It is not Wikipedia's job to draw these kinds of conclusions. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 11:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Prefer Titan submersible implosion to Titan submersible disaster. "Disaster" is more vague and "implies a certain level of destruction" (WP:DISASTER) that doesn't apply here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion is my preference, similar articles have had the fate of the vechicle in the title. Helicopters and Subs. 2603:7080:7000:1108:45A3:2234:B4B7:95AD (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• I prefer either of the titles with implosion. It's clearer without sensationalizing. Mason (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion This title is the most precise title. The person who loves reading (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• I think I'd prefer "disaster" over "implosion" but seems like a lot of people are in favour of implosion so in the interest of closing this, I'll go with Titan submersible implosion. For the record I just want the year "2023" removed from the title ASAP and think this is an uncontroversial change that any admin can perform without impacting the wider discussion. Colipon+(Talk) 18:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion -- glad disappearance is off the table. I see no reason to mention the company's name. Implosion provides specificity in a single word. I like the idea of including the word "submersible" to differentiate it from a Titan rocket. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion sounds best to me. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion makes the most sense. It's specific and short. RteeeeKed💬📖 00:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Use of Ultra-short baseline acoustic positioning system for ranging and text messaging

It has been mentioned by some of the 2022 „mission specialists“, that text message communication and location of the submersible were not available at all times. While this most certainly did not play a role in the 2023 incident, the equipment and technology used for this might be of some interest. Shots on the sea-level control room and some onboard footage show Sonardyne software running on computers for location and messaging (CBS‘s video titled „A visit to RMS Titanic“ at 7:52, BBC The Travel Show „Take me to the Titanic“). Some outside shots of the submersible seem to show a Sonardyne WMS 6+ transponder mounted on top of the aft compartment. Sonardynes „shallow water unit“ Mini-Ranger 2 USBL has a standard range of only 995 meters but can be extended to 4,000 meters. The off-shore grade standard Ranger 2 has up to 11,000 meters range, but the transponder look is not consistent with the photos.217.24.230.116 (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

217, that sounds like original research. If a reliable source talks about the specifications of the communication system, it seems appropriate to add somewhere in the articles we have on this topic, but if you are personally recognising software and hardware from news clips using your own knowledge and experience, we can't add that kind of information. Folly Mox (talk) 23:42, 25 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)

User:Al83tito, thank you for saying that. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but its worse than that. It looks like Stockton became a BS artist selling expensive crappy trips. Investigation results will be scathing. He will be the correct fall guy and lucky for all they died instantly. Got young people to go along, woke too. Built even crappier then crappy new cars. Cylindrical design + 6 other junkyard innovations celebrated: for a deepwater tourist sub a spherical design with large transparent wedge plugs is the way. This sub often had trouble finding its target because it didn't even have cheap gyroscopic position instruments. It was a flimsy dangerous amusement park ride that avoided regulations by operating outside of US/Canadian waters. 2603:7000:4EF0:9B0:B54B:EDE1:AAD5:F94F (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Since people here have accused me of being right wing, I would like to point out that I think abortion, gay marriage, and all drugs should be legal. My own personal views are irrelevant to this article and this talk page, but I feel that I have a right to defend myself from false accusations. Anyway, going back to the actual topic, it is highly revlevant that the CEO chose to reject older, white males with military experience using submarines, in favor of younger people with no experience. My own personal views are not an issue, and I am disappointed and disgusted that people raised that issue. Like I already said, we would need better sources. But for now, this is all we have. The subject itself is extremely notable to the failing of this submarine and the deaths of the five people who were on it. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

More sources:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lost-titanic-sub-wokeness_n_64949559e4b0c0ed59b12b5c

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/titanic-submersible-woke-hiring/

https://nypost.com/2023/06/21/why-stockton-rush-didnt-hire-50-year-old-white-guys-for-titanic-sub-tours/

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Those sources aren't really better. As it happens, they all have shortcuts at WP:RSP: WP:HUFFPOST, WP:DAILYDOT, WP:NYPOST. It's telling that no better news sources have decided to publish this information, which is looks to me like the CEO's spin on a cost-cutting measure (hiring new graduates instead of experienced professionals). In any case, if the information belongs anywhere, it would be at OceanGate, not this article. Folly Mox (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It's also stupid because even having said that, which was clearly for spinning hiring inexperienced young people on cheap salaries for his cut price unsafe, he still went ahead and hired an old white ex-navy guy to be on the sub with him. "woke submarine" is just another piece of garbage culture war nonsense and Wikipedia shouldn't bother including it, as it's a soundbite with no relevance at all. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

"Over cigars one night, Rush told Weissmann that he got the carbon fiber for the Titan’s hull at a big discount because it was past its shelf-life for use in airplanes, Weissmann said. But Rush reassured him it was safe." 2603:7000:4EF0:9B0:E4A4:C288:97D:9EC4 (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

This had been in the article, or maybe it still is and I can't find it. Boeing denies it. The information and denial are still in the live article at OceanGate. Folly Mox (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's still in there, right above the game controller image. I've added Boeing's counterclaim in this edit. Folly Mox (talk) 03:44, 25 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)

Why can't this be done? The lead section says "approximately 400 nautical miles (740 km) off the coast of Newfoundland" but this does not appear anywhere else in the article. Thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Where has that "approximately 400 nautical miles" come from? Not the NPR source at the end of that sentence, which gives no positions at all. Presumably someone just calculated it from the co-ordinates? 86.187.171.168 (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It's the distance from St. John's to the Titanic wreck. I've added a citation to confirm: CNN. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. So I just calculated it, at this site, using the co-ords for this article and St. Johns, Newfoundland. The answer is: 366 nmi (678 km; 421 mi). I'm not sure "approximately 400 nautical miles" is close enough. Maybe it is. Or perhaps a better source could be found? 86.187.171.168 (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's a better source in The Guardian] which says "370 nautical miles (685km) south-east." That source should be used in the Preparations – 16–17 June section, and the same distance should be used in the lead section, which then would not need a separate source. Rounding 366 nm to 370 nm is more reasonable. 86.187.228.193 (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, the debris was found "approximately 488 metres (1,601 ft) from the bow of the Titanic," strongly suggesting the dive site was very close to the wreck site. Unlike with an explosion, an implosion will not have immediately thrown debris across a wide field. The vessel parts may have drifted as they sank down. But not by many metres, I suspect. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:00, 23 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)

Great stuff. This page is enormously better than when I went to sleep. BusterD (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Is there a source (AIS) that the straight line is actually the route they took? It's a good map, but it's potentially misleading 92.22.127.50 (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I've seen nothing in the reporting to suggest anything other than a direct transit from St John's to the Titanic site, nor can I see why any likely variation on that (wind & tide?) would be of any significance in the story of the incident. Davidships (talk) 02:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of social media effect in Reactions section

Hi all, at one point there was a blurb about the social media impact/effect that the incident had (with sources): "The submersible's disappearance, build and the search and rescue efforts were widely discussed on social media and the internet. While some of the comments and critiques were viewed as in bad taste, it also brought a renewed interest into the Titanic with the subreddit for the Titanic seeing about a 9.5% increase in activity in the first 48 hours of the submersible's disappearance." it was then parsed down before eventually being fully removed. I have seen multiple articles about the disaster and social media, as well as its contrasting coverage/discussion to recent other disasters. Should it be re-added in any capacity or left out? Leaky.Solar (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

A 9.5% increase in the activity of a single subreddit would be quite trivial to mention. Perhaps once edited it could be re-added. Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

As we create Wikipedia articles for events, it's important to think about the encyclopedic value the information is bringing. For instance, we might imagine what someone looking at this page in 10 years might find relevant to understand what happened or what might be included in a printed encyclopedia. I'm not saying the social media aspect isn't noteworthy, just that we need to think about how important each bit of information is as Wikipedia isn't a repository of all available information. Significa liberdade (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree entirely. Very occasionally, some aspect of social (or indeed, any kind of) media activity is a significant part of the events/story in itself (eg built groundswell for social or political change, or provoked racist attacks, for example). Or I suppose if Facebook went down due to bandwidth restriction. Nothing of substance here that I can see. Davidships (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Shahzada Dawood "billionaire"

According to the Financial Express source linked in the article his networth is 136.73 millions USD. How is he a billionaire? KomradeRice (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

None of the sources seem to be accurate at all and financial express doesn't say how they got the figure. Krynh (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The obvious answer is that there are other currencies besides the US dollar...$136 million USD is about 40 billion Pakistani rupees, so that would more than qualify him as a billionaire in Pakistan. It's sometimes assumed that "billionaire" means either US dollars or Euros, but it's not a term that's used exclusively for those currencies. FearlessLingonberry (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Why are there two maps?

We don't need two separate maps for this one incident. Pick one. -- Veggies (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I prefer the first map, and I think a zoomed-in version could alleviate the problems of too much information and too small text DecafPotato (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

500km
300miles

  

See discussion at Talk:2023 Titan submersible incident#Mapframe and Talk:2023 Titan submersible incident#Reworked SVG map. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. Two maps, two discussions. We need to stop talking past each other and pick which one of these maps should remain. -- Veggies (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I prefer the OSM Location Map (with a descriptor for the two markers), because the text on the SVG is far too small to read at infobox size. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed - the OSM is superior. The isobath lines/shading on the SVG is an unnecessary distraction and the text, as GuerillaWelfare says, is too small to be useful. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The OSM presentation much preferred as uncluttered by irrelevant info. It might on that basis prove possible to shift coverage towards the west, and reduce the scale a bit, to include Boston, the location of the Search & Rescue/Recovery management. It would be interesting to see whether that is feasible or not. Davidships (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Eminently diplomatic. I too am intrigued to see if someone with advanced IT/cartographic skills and a restricted social-life can reduce the scale and move the map's focus somewhat westward in a Bostonly direction. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Done, and also ouch. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's a digital band-aid :) 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

?? - Davidships (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It is off-topic so to be brief to get back on track, the words and a restricted social-life was what GorillaWarfare was saying ouch to and why the IP user gave a digital band-aid. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that OSM map is superior in anyway. On the contrary it’s utterly minimalistic. The perceived “too small” text on the other is something that can easily be fixed.Tvx1 22:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

What information is missing from the OSM map that you think ought to be conveyed? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Just about everything. It's just a bland poor quality map frame with not geographic identifications, nor explanation about the incident. Tvx1 00:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

1000km
620miles

  

MV Polar Prince departed St. John's, Newfoundland (1) on 16 June, and arrived at the dive site (2) on 17 June, where the Titan was deployed and began its descent the day after.

Here is the map currently used in the infobox, which has more geographic context and a caption explanation: GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong with minimalistic? IKEA have traded extremely successfully on that model for 40 years. You must have owned a LACK table or had a friend who did surely?

As to fixing the perceived "too small" text: perception is reality...dismissing another human being's perception is simply a ghastly thing to even contemplate in today's world. Rather than castigate your fellow man/woman who may be disabled by presbyopia, why not instead just quietly (and easily, to use your very own words) fix that "too small" text for the greater good?

I hardly need remind you that today, mankind is reeling from the news that 5 extremely brave explorers lost their lives in the cruelest possible way, roughly 3 miles underwater in the chilling North Atlantic (about 370 nautical miles south-south-east of Newfoundland). Nobody, least of all the visually-challenged, needs more shite on their plate today of all days. Please try to assume good faith at all times and be a better WP:Editor. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

For crying out loud, there is nothing bad faith in my post, I merely stated a map could be fixed. I can't do it myself because I don't have the tools. Get your ego out of this. And what is wrong with minimalistic is that it is uninformative to our readers.Tvx1 00:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• We have a need for two maps. The map in the infobox should be zoomed out to give the overall geographical context. The more detailed topographic map would then be appropriate for the body of the article, showing the detail of the voyage, site, search area and so forth. The infobox is supposed to be a summary, like the lead and so should not be overloaded with too much detail. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  It should summarise however, which the minimalistic mapframe doesn’t do.Tvx1 07:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  There's a reason that Template:Maplink has a zoom-switch feature. (See right) If your argument is that the reason for having two maps is the requisite zoom to give a clearer picture, there's already a singular feature for this. -- Veggies (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Now there are two maps within one infobox, showing largely the same thing, which seems like a step in the wrong direction... GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

We need to get rid of the SVG one - for a start it claims the route the boat took was a straight line which is unlikely. An interactive map is significantly better here 92.22.127.50 (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

(That was me, logged out) - I've done that. If someone finds a source that the route taken is accurately depicted by the SVG map feel free to add it back in Timtjtim (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Outdated reaction

The last paragraph of the reactions section contains statements made before the wreck of Titan was found. I am not sure whether the best course is to remove the comments or clarify when they were made, so noting the issue here. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I would be inclined to remove it. I'm not really sure what it adds to the article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps 2 subsections, one for before and one for after the debris was found? OneRandomBrit (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

DSV or just submersible

DSV chart reviewed by PH Nargeolet in 2019

Should we change the initial description to deep submergence vehicle instead of just submersible ?

-- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

No. The fact that it imploded strongly implies that it was not a deep submergence vehicle. It was merely a poorly-constructed and non-approved tube that sank like a stone and was crushed like a Coke can. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Damn. Just.... damn. Brusque, but accurate. -- Veggies (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The fact that it made successful dives to the site before suggest it was a DSV. Tvx1 00:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Having made several earlier successful dives, would indicate that it was a DSV. Just as the Hawaiian Airlines flight that had its roof ripped off, doesn't mean the plane involved wasn't a high altitude jetliner. Or a top-fuel dragster that explodes at the christmas tree isn't a drag racer. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with above - Boeing 737 MAX aircraft were still aircraft, Hotpoint tumble driers are still driers, etc. Faulty design / manufacture doesn't mean it's not a DSV Timtjtim (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Is it relevant to point out the modification to the controller is 3d printed joystick extenders?

Hello,

As someone that owns and operates 3d printers for work and pleasure, I noticed that the Logitech controller seen in the videos has 3d printed joystick extenders added to the joystick. This increase in height allows for more precise control and are commonly used in certain video games for a competitive advantage.

The controller is repeatedly being reported as a "modified controller" as well as a "PlayStation controller" while the only discernable modification is the addition of two 3d printed joystick extenders. Should this be included in the article? It could have been a unique design but I am checking all known .STL repositories for a match. ZANZIBARLAND (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Only if you find a reliable source which can be cited to back up your information. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

"nose cone"

Paul Hankins during the live press conference referred to Titan's "nose cone". Other discussions have referred to its "tail cone". All images and drawings show Titan having a tail assembly attached to the outside of the pressure hull, and no nose cone.

I have not found anyone making a citeable correction to Hankin's statement, and lots of articles quoting him saying "nose cone". Because of this, it looks like it would be OR to make any correction to this.

Does this sum up the current situation? NapoliRoma (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't take much imagination to understand that both the bow and stern segments were referred to. Tvx1 00:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The Titan did not have a nose "cone" - it had forward and aft bells and a tail "cone". Timtjtim (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

We have footage of the Coast Guard's Rear Admiral John Mauger discussing the situation. In Mauger's words, This morning an ROV [...] discovered the tail cone of the Titan submersible [...] Hankin's words were as follows: The first thing we found was the nose cone which was outside of the pressure hull This should be enough to connect that the same object has been described as a "tail cone" and as a "nose cone" by Mauger and Hankins. This gives us the option to attach a note to the text saying something along the lines of U.S. Navy director(?) Paul Hankins said in a press briefing on June 22, 2023, that the first discovered object was a nose cone, while U.S. Coast Guard Rear Admiral John Mauger said that the object was a tail cone and leave it up to the sources to clarify. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Currently the Debris section only cites two sources (both BBC news articles) and lists a tail cone plus the forward and aft end bells (no nose cone). This makes perfect sense so far. I'm not sure if adding a conflicting statement about an apparently non-existent nose cone would be helpful. (Did someone along the line conflate end bells with cones? Or nose with tail? Or just misspeak/type? Who knows.) 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems like Hankins either misspoke or that the term is different depending on the organization. More likely the former, though. In any case, currently the article has been fixed and the issue as originally post has been resolved, so my suggestion is not needed. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

During the press briefing they recounted finding the "nose cone" and "aft end bell" as two separate events, so they may have actually found both. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

U.S. Government knew of certain death but tried to hide it, failed to do so anyhow

"The [appropriate agency] of the U.S. government were aware the sub imploded at [date time] but chose not share this information with the public over fears of leaking their submarine detection capabilities. This cover-up came to light on [date time], after search and rescue had failed and the projected maximum survival of the sub was exceeded"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-navy-detected-titan-sub-implosion-days-ago-6844cb12 85.147.66.47 (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That is an extremely skewed interpretation of that WSJ article, but the source is useful anyhow. Looks like it's already been incorporated in an appropriately neutral fashion at 2023 Titan submersible incident#Timeline of events. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The info is also in the lead where it says it came from a declassified sonar detection. Yet neither the WSJ article nor the BBC live seems to mention the declassified part. I can't read the NYT source. They do mention how this information was earlier passed to the Coast Guard but wasn't made public until now but don't offer direct commentary on the possibility it was classified until now. Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's an additional source to add to the article: https://www.foxnews.com/world/us-navy-detected-titan-sub-implosion-top-secret-acoustic-system-day-vessel-went-missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.1.24 (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Probably won't happen - see WP:FOXNEWS. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Here is how CBS News puts it: A U.S. Navy official said the military detected "an acoustic anomaly consistent with an implosion" on Sunday — shortly after the sub, called the Titan, lost contact with the surface, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reported. But search and rescue teams did not want to give up hope, and used the information to help narrow down the search area.

Here is how the BBC puts it: The official told CBS News their information about the "acoustic anomaly" had been used by the US Coast Guard to narrow the search area. According to CNN, it was deemed to be "not definitive" and therefore the search and rescue mission continued.

And here is how CNN puts it: A senior Navy official told CNN the Navy detected an acoustic signature consistent with an implosion on Sunday in the general area where the vessel was diving and lost communication with its mother ship. The Navy immediately relayed that information to on-scene commanders leading the search effort, and it was used to narrow down the area of the search, the official said Thursday. But the sound of the implosion was determined to be “not definitive,” the official said, and the multinational efforts to find the submersible continued as a search and rescue effort.

None of that suggests that this was a cover-up. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Carbonfibrecomposite

James Cameron has compared the Titan design to the DeepFlight Challenger, and how it is prone to delamination and crush implosion failure. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Implosion

I noticed that article has describe the event as an implosion since the remains of the vessel have been found. However, the parties involved in the search have not specified this as an implosion, but rather as a catastrophic loss of the pressure chamber. I might also have been the result of a catastrophic structural failure, for instance. So we should reflect the sources more accurately.Tvx1 00:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems like many sources are referring to it as an "implosion"? Which sources are you thinking of that aren't using that word recently? See “This is an incredibly unforgiving environment down there on the sea floor and the debris is consistent with a catastrophic implosion of the vessel,” US Coast Guard Rear Adm. John Mauger, the First Coast Guard District commander, told reporters. from https://www.cnn.com/americas/live-news/titanic-missing-sub-oceangate-06-22-23 and it looks like three of the sources currently in our article have implosion in the title or URL. And The US Navy detected “an acoustic anomaly consistent with an implosion” shortly after the Titan lost contact with the surface, an official has told CBS News, the BBC's US partner. from https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-65967464 so it seems like the current trend is toward describing it as an implosion. Skynxnex (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

None of the sources you mention here are direct transcription of statements of or publications from the investigative party. They are third party reports which clearly make their own synthesis. The investigators clearly avoid the word implosion. Just look at the publications and news conferences given directly by them cited in the article. The infobox uses the word twice, twice backed by the same source that doesn’t use the word at all. Tvx1 07:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Unless you're saying the coast guard aren't the investigators, in which case I'm not sure who you're referring to, they definitely did use the word "implosion": https://edition.cnn.com/americas/live-news/titanic-missing-sub-oceangate-06-22-23/h_c50808578ba1d353961d6c2f9979ff22 Timtjtim (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Would a catastrophic structural failure of a pressure chamber at 12,500 ft depth not also be an "implosion"? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There could be catastrophic leak and than break-up. Tvx1 06:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Tvx1 makes an excellent point that definitely needs proper consideration. The media/press/public have all been somewhat fixated on the notion of an implosion ever since Titan was reported missing. From the reports of the debris that was found it certainly sounds like the Titan failed catastrophically.

As @Mr rnddude says, the pressure inside the sub was 1atm and the pressure outside was around 400atm. If that pressure differential ceased to exist then the crew would be killed. But the crux of the issue is how rapidly (or slowly) the pressure inside and outside equalized.

Therefore, had a small leak developed the sub could in theory have simply filled slowly with water but remained essentially intact. The outcome for the crew would still have been fatal.

The other scenario (which appears to have happened) is that the carbon-fibre pressure hull suddenly collapsed. Carbon-fibre is extremely strong, but it is inflexible and when it breaks, it breaks.

Consider decompression of an airliner for comparison - it's the opposite scenario but the physics are similar. There have been cases where aircraft have slowly decompressed at altitude due to a minor air-leak. The pressure inside & outside slowly equalizes, the passengers put on their oxygen masks, people with sinus trouble feel like their head is exploding, the plane descends and ultimately lands safely. There have also been cases where aircraft have rapidly (explosively) decompressed - e.g. Pan AM 103.

To recap, the reports on the debris field support the view that the sub imploded (which, as an interesting thought experiment, one might also view as 'the sea around the sub exploded'). But a slow leak and non-catastrophic equalization of pressures was always an option that the media never caught on to. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that’s one of the alternate explanations is was inferring. Tvx1 11:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the Coast Guard spokesperson did state that "the debris is consistent with a catastrophic implosion of the vessel" (see the 22 June press briefing, around 6:10). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The PSI differential in an airplane is up to 10 (0.7 atm) depending on model + altitude. The PSI delta in the submersible is 6000 (400 atm). The two scenarios are totally incomparable. There's no such thing as a "minor leak" at those depths. Timtjtim (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Timtjtim Of course there is such a thing as a minor leak, regardless of the pressure differential. The pressure vessel can be anything from perfectly sealed to thoroughly unsealed. It's a spectrum. There might be a poor joint-interface that allows a few millilitres of water to penetrate per hour. Or maybe a few litres per hour. Or thousands of litres in a few milliseconds. You get the picture, yes? 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

moments after you have a small amount of water coming it, it will rapidly turn into a vast amount of water. Timtjtim (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Timtjtim Please just stop saying incorrect stuff. What you said is a possibility, but only a possibility. Go and drill a small hole (let's say 1mm diameter) in your mains water pipe. Come back and let me know how long it takes for the hole to become significantly larger. It depends entirely on the physical nature of the leak and the structural integrity of the material surrounding the hole.

Stick a pin in a balloon - certainly, the pinhole very rapidly grows and the balloon bursts catastrophically.

Now, reinforce a part of the balloon with some Scotch Tape and stick a pin in that. What happens? Basically very little. There is minimal leakage and no catastrophic failure.

I turned my kitchen tap on earlier today, but only very slightly so that just a trickle of water came out. The flow of water remained constant. It didn't suddenly become a deluge. The tap's valve did not fail.

You really need to learn to accept when you are wrong. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Your kitchen tap is not at a 6000 PSI differential Timtjtim (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Even at 6000 psi, there are scenarios of small leaks that do not lead to escalating failure. A small leak is a pretty bad sign though. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Timtjtim That's one of the few correct things you've contributed recently. I understand that WP has issues with your attitude, competence and behaviour already. For that reason I regret I cannot interact with you any further. It's much too difficult for people like me to deal with people like you. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:7D8B:34CE:C9C3:F4CC (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry - could you clarify that comment? Nobody has informed me of any issues with my attitude, competence or behaviour. If I've done something violating WP policies I'd really appreciate you let me know - feel free to start a discussion on my talk page. Timtjtim (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Timtjtim Here we go. More passive-aggressive belligerence...I'd like you to leave me alone now mister. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:7D8B:34CE:C9C3:F4CC (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to continue this on the discussion on your talk page if there's an issue. Timtjtim (talk) 09:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

"Catastrophic loss of the pressure chamber" and "catastrophic structural failure" are not separate possible causes - the latter is a possible explanation for what caused the former. And the former, at that depth, means an implosion. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

No, It could also be a break-up.Tvx1 06:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Any sort of structural failure would immediately lead to catastrophic explosion at such depth 74.213.224.18 (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

...I meant to write implosion. 74.213.224.18 (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

No, it wouldn’t. Please actually educate yourself on what an implosion is. Also, something could actually have caused an explosion inside the pressure chamber.Tvx1 07:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Structural failure of a cabin pressurized to 1 atm whilst in an environment of ~400 atm would not lead to an implosion? The linked article says an implosion is a process in which objects are destroyed by collapsing (or being squeezed in) on themselves and even provides a submarine being crushed from the outside by the hydrostatic pressure of the surrounding water as a prime example of an implosion. I already knew all that so my understanding of implosion isn't being revolutionized here. What other scenario is on the table? Torpedo, bomb-on-board, Cthulhu? Curt dismissals - as an aside, you've been unpleasant repeatedly on this talk page - aren't convincing responses. I have, however, removed both cites from the infobox as they don't mention 'failure of the pressure hull' or an implosion. It only mentions the debris field and press conference. I can personally entertain the explosion hypothesis, but it's a 'citation needed' affair. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude I'm afraid you're incorrect. Although it would appear that Titan catastrophically imploded, a structural failure could mean anything from a very slow leak to a sudden fracture/collapse of the pressure hull.

To reiterate, I'm not disputing that Titan catastrophically imploded. However, you've stated that an implosion is an inevitable consequence of a structural failure. That's incorrect.

Consider the scenario where a slow leak develops (e.g. a valve fails, a bolt fails, a seal fails). The pressure hull would slowly begin to fill with seawater, the air in the cabin would increase in pressure and be compressed, the crew would die, but the pressure hull would remain intact. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

You all make the incorrect assumption that the break-up happened with certainty while the pressure inside the vessel was lower than the surroundings. It can just as well have equalised first, through a leak of variable size, with the vessel breaking-up later. That’s not an implosion. And there also could have been an explosion inside the vessel, which could have cause structural failure. That it was specifically an implosion that caused the loss has NOT been confirmed.Tvx1 11:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

A break-up such as you describe wouldn't register on sonar the same way, and explosions do not leave the same kind of debris as implosions (I think explosions also sound different from implosions, but don't quote me on that). Obviously we can't take my word for it, or anyone else's in this discussion. We've got reliable sources (the WSJ, the Coast Guard) that say "implosion". Other sources that say "catastrophic loss of the pressure chamber" are not necessarily contradictory. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

June 18 or June 18-22?

It is confirmed that the 18th of June is the date of the implosion of Titan, but should the rescue mission be included in the date on the infobox as well? Popeetoes (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it might be too hard to pin down an end date of the rescue->recovery->investigation sequence which is likely to be ongoing for some time. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Horizon

Horizon Maritime Services (Horizon Maritime), the owner of Polar Prince and Horizon Arctic, might be good for an article? Apparently it is a Aboriginal Business [3][4]. There seems to be some business and First Nations news about it -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Kudos!

I'd like to complement every editor who put this article together. Some of you may have done current event articles many times, but when the pressure is on, the job is that much harder. Well done! ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I would also like to extend my kudos to the many good-faith contributors who continue to manage such a tragic and dramatic situation using good sense, fine writing, and a fierce reliance on reliable sourcing. The Wikipedia model of page creation and social norms tends towards really excellent coverage of some forms of recent events. Thanks, folks. You make the rest of us look good. BusterD (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I also echo the comments from my fellow editors above. The article is detailed and very well resourced and referenced. The fact that it has been created to this level in such a short period of time and under such tragic and difficult circumstances warrants praise to all those who have worked on the article! JLo-Watson (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Technical question

May I ask why the passengers and the pilot are completely considered dead when they are technically missing? What rules govern this issue? Or should we pay attention to the fact that they objectively had no chance of being saved? Solaire the knight (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The article says this: "OceanGate issued a statement regarding the deaths of the people aboard." That source clearly says: "All five people aboard the submersible, known as the “Titan,” were killed, the US Coast Guard said in a Thursday news conference." So the US Coast Guard, who are best placed to make a judgement, has decided they are dead. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a fair question. It's known that the five people were 'locked' inside the pressure hull, which was bolted shut from the outside. And yesterday's discovery showed the pressure hull completely destroyed (both both titanium bell-ends separated). Whilst that means there was no Earthly chance of survival, it's fair to take the line that they're missing until confirmed otherwise.

However, the ROV that photographed the wreck has UHD cameras and strong lighting. So it would have viewed the debris field in great detail, one can assume. On that basis (and given the authorities are unequivocally saying the crew are dead) I suggest that the ROV detected the five bodies, but that information has not been divulged to the public for reasons of privacy/respect.

In terms of what happens to a body at extreme depth. Imagine a sealed, empty glass bottle dropped to 3,800m. That would implode because air is compressible. The same bottle (but filled entirely with water) would remain intact because water is almost completely incompressible. My understanding is that a body would be slightly compressed, but nothing dramatic (e.g. exploding or imploding) would occur. The air held in the victim's lungs/trachea/sinuses would be momentarily compressed to near-zero-volume, but after death/relaxation these spaces would fill with seawater. Compare this to the scenario where a scuba diver ascends rapidly while holding a breath - the decreasing water pressure causes the lungs to inflate like a balloon and burst. For this reason a basic scuba skill is knowing how to make an emergency ascent: where a trickle of air must be constantly allowed to leave the lungs. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

If I may add on to this excellent explanation, different portions of the human body are compressible at different pressures - see, for example, crush injuries. Also worth noting is that the sudden catastrophic failure of the vehicle would have resulted in a great deal of debris rushing inwards at the occupants in a manner akin to shrapnel. And finally, if we assume the implosion happened nearly two hours into the dive, keep in mind that the world record for holding one's breath, without exertion, is just over ten minutes. It would not be possible for the occupants to surface in time, even if they were able to survive the implosion of the vehicle, the incredible pressure at depth, and the immense cold (around 4°C (39°F)). Given the way that pressure works, my opinion on the most likely scenario is that they were gone before they even realized something was wrong; any hull buckling at that depth would likely have caused an instantaneous implosion, and the crush would've happened too fast for their senses to relay to their brains that something was happening.

For Wikipedia purposes, though, the most important thing is that the authorities are reporting their deaths. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

So, even without official statements, can it be objectively said that these people not only had no chance of surviving, but that they most likely did not even "understand" that they died? Sorry for the pun, I hope you get what I mean. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. But of course we rely on official statements, not our own knowledge. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand and therefore do not edit the article. It's just that in my country if a person goes missing, then declaring him dead is basically perceived as a formal legal status. Although of course, it seems that here the question is unfortunately already obvious. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah. There are probably legalities which are in process at the moment, and they probably depend on official statements from some government source or other, but that's basically a sidebar to the incident itself. Credible sources are reporting their deaths because we know - possibly as surely as we will ever know - they're dead. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

There are two facets, which should not be conflated. We know beyond doubt (and have sources saying as much) that the passengers cannot have survived the incident; and are therefore dead. Legally declaring them dead (and so allowing their heirs to access their assets, for instance) is a matter for legal bodies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I strongly suspect the ROV that found the wreckage also spotted human remains. The remains will be there - it's a question of how intact (or otherwise they might be). There's every possibility they're largely intact and identifiable. I don't think the discovery of the bodies would have been made public at this stage out of respect/privacy. I fully realise that surviving this incident is one hundred percent impossible, but still there is something about the unwavering certainty with which we were told the five were dead that makes me think the bodies were photographed by the ROV. Otherwise the language at this stage might be expected to be couched in terms like "presumed dead", "no hope", "zero chance of survival". 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Depending on where the boat broke up, currents, etc., it might to be hard to figure out where they ended up. In any case, this is all speculation on our part, and not anything that can be used in improvement of the article. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The US Navy will know the time the sound was detected. The dive team on Polar Prince will know when the dive started. So OceanGate will be able to compute when the implosion occurred, i.e. during the descent or on the sea floor. The loss of comms will also coincide with that. Even at relatively modest depths, rapid drowning will have been almost certain. And even if escape from the sub was possible, decompression sickness would have been very likely. 86.187.164.212 (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Decompression sickness in fact was never a consideration at all in an event like this. The crew were breathing air at normal atmospheric pressure, by virtue of being in a pressure hull. This comment is entirely irrelevant to this article, but I feel compelled to correct what you just wrote.

Suppose the sub failed at 30m depth and suppose the occupants were able to evacuate. Had they taken a full gulp of air (at 1atm pressure) just before evacuating, upon evacuating that air in their lungs would have been compressed to 4atm (pressure increases by 1atm for every 10m of depth). While the mass of air in their lungs would not change, the volume of their inflated lungs would decrease significantly (but not in a harmful way). They would then have swum to the surface - as they ascended their lungs (assuming they still held their breath) would have increased in volume, and at the surface (where the pressure is 1atm) their lungs would have been the same fully inflated volume they were just before they evacuated the sub. They would have suffered no injury nor any decompression sickness.

However, had they been scuba diving at 30m for a period of an hour, let's say. Now there are two scenarios to consider. First: if they ascended rapidly while holding their breath, their lungs would have expanded considerably (probably to the point where they ruptured). That's because at 30m, not in a pressure hull, their air supply was being fed to them at 4atm pressure (not 1atm pressure). A basic skill in scuba diving is that, during an emergency ascent, you DO NOT hold your breath - instead you exhale slowly and constantly (to prevent your lungs being damaged or ruptured).

Second scenario: if they made an emergency ascent while breathing out slowly and constantly as per their training - while their lungs would not be damaged, gases (mostly nitrogen) that had dissolved in their blood stream (while they were at depth) would have rapidly come out of solution and formed bubbles in their blood stream. THAT is decompression sickness. To visualise what happens: consider opening a bottle of soda very slowly versus very rapidly. If you do it slowly, minimal bubbles form in the liquid. If you do it rapidly, the liquid bubbles a great deal.

Therefore, on a normal scuba ascent, the diver stops every ten metres for a number of minutes to allow gases dissolved in their bloodstream to come out of solution gradually (and be dispersed through lung diffusion).

The key difference is that scuba divers (and their lungs) are subject to the prevailing pressure at whatever depth they are diving: 2atm at 10m, 3atm at 20m, 4atm at 30m etc.

Divers within a properly built, rigid pressure vessel are subject to 1atm air regardless of their depth. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all the detail about scuba diving, which is of course irrelevant to this incident. Can you tell us how deep the sub was when it imploded? Thanks. 86.187.228.193 (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The BBC webpage https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65934887 gives an explanation about what happens at this depth with lots of detail. 80.47.58.68 (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

actually, I had read this article earlier today and it's poor. You say it covers the implications of depth in lots of detail: on the contrary it does not. It has nothing in it about physiology of the human body in relation to depth/pressure.

It mentions hydrocarbons in the atmosphere. That is complete rubbish. It would only apply to a submarine powered by diesel. Therefore the part about bodies being incinerated is absurd.

I've had BBC make several corrections to their articles on the last three days.

They've posted some total nonsense around this story. While they ought to be an authoratitve source, they sadly are not these days. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:5019:F810:88E8:1F6C (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you think this article should contain and detail about the physiology of the human body in relation to depth/pressure? If so, why? Thanks. 86.187.228.193 (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

No, I do not think this article should contain any information about human physiology in relation to depth/pressure. That ought to have been clear from the two times I acknowledged that my comments in this regard were irrelevant to this article. I posted them (and again, I feel sure I pointed this out explicitly) to correct some erroneous information already posted. I hope that clarifies. If not, please let me know why. Thanks. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:7D8B:34CE:C9C3:F4CC (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The Titan was sealed in a way that it could only be open from the outside. The Titan attempted to dive down to a depth of 3,800 m. Contact with the Titan was lost around the time a US Navy detected the characteristics of either an implosion or explosion. The debris that was discovered recently came from the Titan. These combined lead to a Presumption of death. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Magellan ROV

no mention of the Magellan ROV and efforts from USAF to pick up from Jersey 81.20.188.36 (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

In fact there’s very little mention of ANY other vehicles capable of ferrying humans two miles undersea. I’ve read there exist ten such in the world, but only Titan lacked certification. Is this true? The victims are described as having visited titanic or the deepest part of the ocean dozens of times. How did they do that? What vehicles did they use? Is there such a thing as this kind of certification? Can any country force certification regarding activities, conducted in international waters? I’ve read the American accompanied Titan on every dive to the titanic. Is this true? I’ve read Cameron’s sharp criticism. Will this be included? All of these issues should be covered here, or there should be links to other articles.Roricka (talk) Roricka (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Cameron's comments are already included. I'm not sure where you read all of the other things you mentioned - if it was here on Wikipedia, presumably they had a citation attached (and if not, there's no reason to believe the claim is true). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

R U kidding?? I’m not going to edit this article, so I’m not going to provide actual sources here. But one of the places I’ve read this is on the BBC website. (Cameron was quoted as saying he wouldn’t set foot in Titan. I don’t see that here.) The business about there being 10 submersibles, or, however, many there are, should be discussed here. People will come here wanting to know about this entire topic. When you read that an explorer has been to the titanic 23 times, the vehicle should be described. It’s the vehicles that are one primary focus here. When you read the communication to the submersible is done with text messages, it should mention how that’s done. There’s no Wi-Fi down there. Did they use acoustic modems? There are many many many technological issues that are of great interest, not to mention importance, which eventually are going to have to be in this article. It’s silly to say that I’ve read things that aren’t true. That’s not the point. Roricka (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

What 10 submersibles? How are they relevant to this incident with this submersible? Which explorer? If you want to know more about the Titan, see OceanGate#Titan. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's a link describing the ten (now nine) submersibles: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/oceangate-warned-2018-david-lochridge-1.6883432 Roricka (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry -- I forgot to log in before I provided that link. Roricka (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Fixed: BusterD (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

And here is Deep-submergence vehicle. A link to submersible is already in the article, along with the link to OceanGate. There are also links to articles on all of the people who died (except the student). This article is necessarily focused on the event itself - subsidiary topics are summarized, if relevant, and linked to. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Roricka: Whether you are going to edit the article or not, if you are asserting statements to be true, claiming to have read about them, and asking for them to be included in the article, it is incumbent upon you to provide sources; and not in the least unreasonable for other editors to ask you to furnish them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

As far as I read the Magellan ROV was en route, but the debris was discovered before it arrived. I'm not sure it's worth including that information, given it had no role in the search. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

BBC: Sufficient checks following each dive?

Quote from https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-65967464

"Another focus of the investigation will be whether there were sufficient checks following each dive. Each time the Titan went down on a deep dive, its hull would have been compressed by the immense water pressure - it would have become smaller and then returned to its normal size on its return to the surface. This regular stress would have led to fatigue of the material, weakening it. It is so far unclear whether there were checks for cracks after each dive and if so how extensive they were." Uwappa (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Date format

For an article relating to an American company and American-built submersible, shouldn't date format be MDY? See MOS:DATETIES. ɱ (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Noting there was also some discussion of this at Talk:2023 Titan submersible incident/Archive 1#Date structure? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The incident happened in Canada. So no. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

This article says international waters in the very first sentence. The Titanic wreck is outside of the 200 NM US EEZ and also Canada's EEZ. --Dual Freq (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I was just about to update my comment, and got edit conflicted. It was a Canadian chartered ship, and legal Canadian documents use dmy dates. It happened in international waters nearest to Canada, and so it cannot be argues that MOS:TIES applies for American dates. In case of ambiguity, MOS:PRESERVE applies, so we don't need to change the date format anyway. We shouldn't just blindly default to American dates. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

These ideas about Canada conveniently ignore the fact that it's an American company with an American CEO, American pilot, American craft, American mission, American-led rescue mission, etc. etc. "Departure area of the boat from Canada into international waters" is irrelevant to the actual submersible mission. ɱ (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Joseph, was the article not created with MDY? So we can preserve that, based on MOS:DATERET? ɱ (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, I support reverting to the original date format of MDY. Also worth noting that Canada also primarily uses MDY format in common usage, the DMY is only really used in governmental/formal contexts. Even government entities like Canadian Broadcasting Corporation use MDY primarily. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 18:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

There was a consensus for dmy in the archive discussion linked. So don't see why we need to change that consensus based on flimsy evidence. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

That wasn't a consensus, and it was without full consideration of the details, more aspects have been brought up here. ɱ (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

There was no consensus. Both are used in Canada, but MDY is far more common, including in formal and government contexts. It was also an American sub and company, which kind of supports MDY.

The reasons giving for preferring DMY are that it's the format that the Titanic article (which is about a British ship) uses (who cares) and that it is valid in Canadian English (even if uncommon in Canadian English, and even if this article isn't really about a clearly Canadian topic). 2A01:CB05:8DB3:4700:C7F0:3F3F:3E4A:28 (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, MOS:RETAIN would suggest that we would use MDY if discussion does not resolve the issue. However, I do believe that the prior discussion did lead to a consensus. There were enough aspects of the incident as being tied to Canada that using DMY is fine in my opinion. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

That wasn't a consensus, it wasn't closed or resolved or appears to have convinced anyone. And it was without full consideration of the details, more aspects have been brought up here. ɱ (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I definitely felt convinced to drop my objections and agree with the other users, but very well. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Cool, but consensuses can change and very often do. Here it makes the most sense to use MDY, and the guidelines support its use as the first iteration of date formatting here as well. ɱ (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The Canadian link to this topic is kind of tenuous, and while DMY is acceptable in Canadian English, it is uncommon. The Wikipedia article for "Canada" uses MDY dates. 2A01:CB05:8DB3:4700:C7F0:3F3F:3E4A:28 (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

In the other thread, you referenced DATETIES, which says "Articles related to Canada may use either format with (as always) consistency within each article. (see Retaining existing format)". I think policy clearly supports reverting to MDY. 2A01:CB05:8DB3:4700:C7F0:3F3F:3E4A:28 (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

And again, I don't think this has "strong" ties to Canada in the first place. It's an American company, an American ship, none of the passengers were Canadian, it happened in international waters, and they were visiting a British ship. That last one is the only reason anyone ever suggested switching to DMY, and then the Canadian link was just brought in as justification once the Titanic link was shot down. 2A01:CB05:8DB3:4700:C7F0:3F3F:3E4A:28 (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The vessel that imploded was American, I mean. The *ship* ship was Canadian and it departed from Canada, but that's a weak link. 2A01:CB05:8DB3:4700:C7F0:3F3F:3E4A:28 (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

And even if it is a primarily Canadian topic, DATETIES is very clear that in that case, switching to DMY was not justified. 2A01:CB05:8DB3:4700:C7F0:3F3F:3E4A:28 (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm a Canadian and I have legal documents in MDY format. Check more of yours. Wikipedia policy is clear that DMY is not preferred for Canada. Even the Canada article uses MDY. 2A01:CB05:8DB3:4700:C7F0:3F3F:3E4A:28 (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Image of Titan

Since we now know the vessel was destroyed, and there are no known free images, I think there is a strong rationale to add a copyrighted image to the article. (Like using copyrighted images after a person dies) The vessel is the subject of the article, but without any image to aid the reader, it can be challenging to understand some passages. I think there is a good enough NFUR here to add an image. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm - would WP:NFCC justify a picture here, rather than at OceanGate (or the proposed split article on Titan itself)? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Nope, we don't know that there are no free images, unless people have actually done a proper check. Also, would fail WP:NFCC#8 as an image of it probably doesn't significantly enhance this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Such an image would very much enhance the article, not least by showing the size of the porthole. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed an image here definitely passes NFCC. Someone do a thorough check for free images first. ɱ (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

+1 - Without an image the article makes no general sense - This was a unique submersible not a run-of-the-mill submersible or submarine that everyone's seen before so a picture is definitely warranted here. –Davey2010^Talk 19:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a little flippant, so apologies. Can I suggest using one of OceanGate's own photos of Titan, without worrying about possible copyright infringements etc. OceanGate's lawyers are going to be rather busy with other matters for many, many years to come - I can't see them suing over a photo. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules remain Wikipedia's rules. No. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@97.113.8.72 Stockton Rush would have taken issue with such a stoical point of view. He repeatedly said that rules stifle progress and innovation. Couldn't WP just steal/borrow one of his photos? What harm could it possibly do to break the rules a little bit now and again? ;) 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Fellow IP, I think you should rein in your urge to make jokes on this page. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm being flippant, but it's really not a joke. Stockton Rush and his Heath-Robinson 'sub' was a joke. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's not turn Wikipedia into one. Timtjtim (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess I am not up to date. What is important about the porthole? --Super Goku V (talk) 03:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I think @Pigsonthewing is referring to the fact that Titan's porthole was much smaller than that of Cyclops 1 (and we're currently using a picture of the latter). 97.113.8.72 (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

OceanGate "partnerships" with NASA, Boeing, & Washinghton University

On its website, the company boasted its “state-of-the-art vessel” was “designed and engineered by OceanGate Inc. in collaboration with NASA, Boeing and the University of Washington”. However, some the alleged "partners" denied any association with OceanGate Inc. whatsoever. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Already mentioned in the article (here). Is there something you think should be added to that? 97.113.8.72 (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Safety section

Just added to Rush's quote here. Apologies for failing to include an edit summary. It makes more sense now. For reference, Rush's words are at 24'16" in the referenced video. Davidships (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no experience of citing video or sound recordings. I there a method to include the time point (equivalent to a page number)? Davidships (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Davidships, {{Cite AV media}} supports the |time= parameter, which has the function you're seeking. I've added it here. Folly Mox (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023 (5)

Change this text ++After a search lasting nearly 80 hours, a remotely operated underwater vehicle (ROV) discovered a debris field containing parts of the Titan, approximately 1,600 feet (about 500 metres) from the bow of the Titanic. The findings were based on the U.S. Navy's declassified sonar detection of an implosion in the area on the day of the voyage, which suggested that the pressure vessel had imploded while Titan was descending, resulting in the instant death of all five occupants that were riding the submersible.++

to this

++After a search lasting approximately 80 hours, a remotely operated underwater vehicle (ROV) discovered a debris field containing parts of the Titan, approximately 1,600 feet (approximately 500 metres) from the bow of the Titanic. U.S. Navy sonar data (which was declassified following the discovery of the Titan's wreckage) revealed that a significant acoustic event had been detected in the same area and at the same time that communication with the Titan submersible was lost. This acoustic event is now assumed to be the moment when Titan catastrophically imploded, instantaneously killing the five people aboard.++

Rationale:

The current phrase "The findings were based on..." simply makes no sense. They were looking for Titan in that area because that is the area it was headed for (i.e. adjacent to the Titanic wreckage). After the event (the discovery of the wreckage) the U.S. Navy revealed that they had detected an acoustic event in that area, the time of which was consistent with Titan imploding during its descent.

2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

and at the same time that communication with the Titan submersible was lost. CBS News says the following: A U.S. Navy official said the military detected "an acoustic anomaly consistent with an implosion" on Sunday — shortly after the sub, called the Titan, lost contact with the surface, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reported. (Emphasis mine) Is there a source that you have that says both occurred at the same time or would you be okay with amending your suggested text? --Super Goku V (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm very happy with your suggestion. The part that reads, "The findings were based on..." is for me the most problematic. I can see what it is driving at, however there are two issues. One is that (as I understand it) the ROV found the Titan wreckage before the Navy revealed their sonar data - but I might be wrong here. Notwithstanding this, it doesn't seem sensible to suggest that the ROV was looking in that particular spot based on the sonar data. Common sense dictates that the ROV would be looking in the vicinity of Titanic, which indeed is where the Titan wreckage was discovered. The underwater search would (surely) always have been initiated in the vicinity of Titanic, with or without any specific prior information (i.e. sonar data). Had Titan been quickly found a considerable distance from Titanic (based on sonar data), then it would be apparent that the sonar data had definitively informed the search location.

I'd be interested to hear any feedback whether for or against this point of view.

Addendum - a very simple fix that I would be happy with is to change "The findings were based on..." to "This discovery was consistent with...", while keeping the rest of the paragraph as it is now.

2A00:23EE:2658:8721:7D8B:34CE:C9C3:F4CC (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

IP editor, the sources I've seen indicate that the US Navy passed their information to the US Coast Guard – evidently not one of their branches, but a separate agency – once they learned of the missing vessel and search operation (i.e. same day). It can be assumed that the ROV operators had this information when selecting their initial search zone, before the information was presented to the media. Folly Mox (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Folly Mox Perhaps you could read my latest comments again. I've acknowledged that the timing of when the sonar data was made available is a moot point. My issue is the phrase "The findings were based on...". At best it reads very badly, at worst it is nonsense. Changing it to "This discovery was consistent with..." is a simple, non-controversial fix.

In the present text, "findings" means "parts of the Titan". If you substitute that into the present sentence you get:

"The parts of the Titan were based on the U.S. Navy's sonar detection of an implosion in the area on the day of the voyage, which suggested that the pressure vessel had imploded while Titan was descending, resulting in the instantaneous death of all five occupants inside the submersible."

It does not make sense. The intention surely is to communicate the idea that "This specific search area was informed by...". That's awkward phraseology however. Again, "This discovery was consistent with..." communicates the information intended in a clear manner.

The talk commentary on this article has slowed down very considerably in the last 24 hours. However, another individual has raised this same issue a little further down the page from here. While two individuals saying the same thing is not a consensus, I think if this talk page was attracting the same attention of a few days ago that few people would disagree with this suggestion.

I'm commenting under my IP address (as you noted) because I've never felt the urge to set up a WP account or to be regularly involved in editing: the principal reason being I see this intractability frequently here on WP and the reluctance to accept certain suggestions is frustrating. There is a tendency among some frequent editors (appointed authorities) to resist changes to the status quo regardless of quality. I can understand the reluctance to adopt pedantic suggestions, or suggestions rooted in a personal point of view. But in this case the status quo is grammatically poor, low in readability, and fails to convey the intended message.

2A00:23EE:2658:8721:7D8B:34CE:C9C3:F4CC (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

My apologies if addressing you as "IP editor" was understood as judgemental. I don't mean to question your choices or set you aside as a member of a lower class. It's just hard to use a different term, although I've occasionally used "unregistered editor". If you provide a name or handle when signing, most editors will refer to you by whatever you choose to put there.

I do like your suggestion of the target search area was informed by as most precise. I'm tempted to read the current text as the discoveries were based on, but I agree that the wording could be read otherwise, and can be improved. Folly Mox (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't implement your exact wording, but I think I increased the clarity of the sentence in this edit. Folly Mox (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Folly Mox The amendment is perfect, thank you! 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:7D8B:34CE:C9C3:F4CC (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I am glad that this has been further amended to remove any claim for the accoustic data informing the location of the ROV deployment. As yet no reliable sources on such a link have appeared - I think that nothing has yet been revealed about the accoustic recording regarding distance, range, multiple receptors, accuracy etc. Meanwhile the ROV was deployed in exactly the sort of location that might have been chosen anyway, informed by data on the descent of Titan from Polar Prince. Davidships (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Oops, I thought that was sourced. Folly Mox (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Patent US-11119071-B1

It would be helpful to many readers to cite the actual patent pertaining to the Titan's Acoustic Hull Monitoring system (US-11119071-B1). It is illuminating that such flimsy patent claims (IMO) can be granted. It's a very broad claim with little more than rephrasing a vague claim - that using acoustics sensors and a computer to imply the condition of a composite material- with no specifics - restated 50x over and little more. The basic idea is obvious and unoriginal. The information in the patent is not the product of a large R&D investment. I recommend people actually go read the patent and see what kinds of fluff apparently passes muster for granting a patent. What is the purpose of the patent system if such flim-flam is sufficient?

And very pertinent to this story, did granting of this patent give customers a false sense of security? Would the sub's passengers have booked without the reassurance they were protected by this system? Were customers deceived into believing the system surely must work because the US granted it a patent?

The full patent can be found here:

https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/11119071 58.152.226.191 (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The merits or otherwise of the patent are not for us to debate, but I agree that it does not hurt to [cite the patent, and I have done so. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

U. S. Navy acoustic information

The article says: "A U.S. Navy acoustic detection system designed to locate military submarines detected an acoustic signature consistent with an implosion hours after Titan submerged. This was discovered after the submersible was reported missing, which caused the Navy to review its acoustic data from that time period. The Navy passed the information to the Coast Guard."

Some questions, answers to which would improve the article:

1. How many "hours after" was that? Does that mean the sub was definitely on the sea floor by then?
2. Was this data security classified and so was delayed in being passed on to the Coast Guard? How long did it take to pass the data on - hours or days?

Thanks. 86.187.229.73 (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

This is related to #U.S. Government knew of certain death but tried to hide it, failed to do so anyhow. As I mentioned there, in the lead our article does claim the sonar detection was declassified implying it was classified at one stage. But last I checked, the sources we use didn't specifically mention it was classified and so there was no mention of when it was declassified. Note that assuming it was classified, the declassification may have happened after it was passed to the Coast Guard, perhaps even not long before it was publicly revealed but the sources we use seem somewhat unclear on these aspects. Some other sources I've seen do mention or imply that this sort of stuff is shrouded in secrecy because it's mostly used for detection of foreign submarines so the US does not want to give away too many details of their capabilities but it would be OR to say this means the detection was classified. Nil Einne (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

“was declassified implying it was classified at one stage”. Military raw data is classified by default. Live data is not subject to continuous classification decisions.

The process and decision maker for declassification is classified.

“Classified” is a generic term going down to the lowest level. It’s close to meaningless. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

We still need a source that says it was classified or declassified or it's WP:OR Nil Einne (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

And on that note, I've removed the declassified bit. If anyone is willing to provide a source rather than simply insist it's true, they're welcome to add it back. Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Good. I guess my point of relevance to the article is that the classification level of the data is uninteresting. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, we have no sources to support it. In any case perhaps the U.S. Navy typically shares "sensitive" data with the U.S. Coast Guard any way. So there might have been no delays added on by having to "officially declassify" it once it had been identified. The biggest delay was obviously the delay in the announcement of the disappearance? 86.187.235.53 (talk) 08:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not think that any source has said anything about where the sub was, ie on/near the bottom, or still descending; indeed it is not clear whether the raw data can indicate direction from the point(s) of collection either horizontally or vertically - nor from how far away was the detection. I expect that, over time, some better understanding of this will emerge, but given the purpose of the USN system, not all questions will get answered publicly (nor should they). Davidships (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

All useful info thanks. But the questions were really about timing. So, trying again:

1. How many "hours after" was that? Does that mean the sub was definitely on the sea floor by then?
2. How long did it take to pass the data on - hours or days?

Of course, as this was the U.S. Navy none of this info may (ever) be in the public domain. Thanks. 86.187.166.157 (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The vessel was not even reported missing by the operating company until it was overdue to resurface, by which point it would have had time to sink to the seafloor from the surface more than twice. Folly Mox (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, yes, thanks, that's useful information I'm sure. But the question is about the U. S. Navy acoustic information. Is it possible to tell, from the timing of the acoustic information (and coincidental loss of comms from the sub) where the sub was when the implosion occurred. I am unsure how to make this question any clearer. Thanks. 86.187.164.61 (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The real question is: has a reliable source produced such an analysis based on the data. And the answer is: so far, no one has produced one. We'll have to wait (possibly until the TSB/NTSB/CG investigations release their findings). 97.113.8.72 (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Well yes, that's the Wikipedia question. The above questions are just as real. Thanks. 86.187.164.61 (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia talk page. WP:NOTFORUM applies. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you think this thread should be hatted or deleted? 86.187.164.61 (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

It'll get archived after 3 days of inactivity, though someone with that fancy one-click script may come along and manually archive it sooner. Don't delete it, that's yet another thing which is Not Allowed (there are so many!). 97.113.8.72 (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see what exactly is in that WSJ source as it's behind a paywall (and should be marked as such in the article). 86.187.164.61 (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

It is marked as such. That's what the little red padlock means. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I just checked <ref name=":18"> and there is no "url-access=subscription" parameter? Perhaps you could tell us what the source says exactly. 86.187.164.61 (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I thought you meant ref 1 - you're right, the other one (ref 8) isn't marked as paywalled. I can access ref 18 (Sky News article) just fine; what do you want to know? 97.113.8.72 (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The ref is number 8 in the text. It's this one: Can you access it? The claim is "hours after Titan submerged" - what does the source actually say? Thanks.86.187.164.61 (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Nope, I have no access. Maybe someone else does. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Somebody should add the little red padlock... 86.187.164.61 (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

86, given that the US Navy acoustic survey network (whatever it's called) is supposed to track the movements of foreign submarines, it is almost definitely capable of triangulating the position of the implosion event, including depth in the water column. I don't have any experience in telemetry, but I feel like the intersection of three spheres is two points. I hope this is getting closer to answering your question. Folly Mox (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Well maybe. But that's a bit of a different world. Maybe they could triangulate it, without any need to know at what time the sub started to dive. The article says elsewhere that it normally took the sub 2 hours to descend? 86.187.164.61 (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah there are a couple sources that give that number as the estimated dive time. I think what I'm trying to get at is that if they detect an underwater noise with three sensors, the triangulation gives them two points, one of which may well be above the water surface. If they hear it with two sensors, they get a circle. In other words, either they have the precise location in 3d, or they just have an arc of possible locations in 3d space, with the latitude and longitude varying along with the depth in a tradeoff kinda fashion. I'm sure whoever wrote the software in COBOL in the 1970s put a lot of thought into it so they could use a minimal number of sensors for accurate results. Folly Mox (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well Submarine detection system is suitably vague. The Pentagon must be suitably reassured that no-one at Wikipedia will ever know. 86.187.161.157 (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

This source names it the Integrated Undersea Surveillance System, and says "Though the system itself is not classified, according to a Navy official, its operation and collection capabilities are secret." Folly Mox (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Good source. Yes, it mentions triangulation. So maybe also depth, not just a raw acoustic signature (which is what the article currently suggests?) 86.187.161.157 (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for adding url=subs parameter. 86.187.161.157 (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Before

Does anyone else think removing nearly 25K bytes is right? Knocksocksoff (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you clarify? Timtjtim (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

No, but you have engaged in an edit war, therefore I warned you and the other editor, discuss after you revert, not after it progresses to an edit war. I disagree with the other user taking your tenure into account, you are both in the wrong. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 10:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy link (first of several in an edit war): [5]. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Some of the information could be hived off to a potential Titan (submersible) article, but the discussion on whether to create that article is still ongoing. This is Paul (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

What are the front and aft end bells?

Are they the 142 cm (56 in) internal diameter titanium hemispherical end caps: red parts of the right image? If so, more explanation is needed using this image.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they are - but obviously you can't cite me. Does this fall under WP:BLUESKY? I'm not sure. The image description calls them "end caps"; I can't find anything in the OceanGate document cited which mentions them specifically. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

If it helps, the "Sealab End Bell" section at the bottom of this page describes an end bell as a dome-shaped end cap (and has a picture). 97.113.8.72 (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't imagine these components have any accepted industry-standard name, especially in this instance where the submersible is essentially sui generis. Terms like 'bell end' or 'end bell' are satisfactory and should not cause confusion. However, 'hemispherical titanium end cap' is a precise descriptor, or possibly 'convex titanium end cap' to cater for anyone who might debate whether or not the end caps are geometrically hemispherical.

I'm not impressed with this image. The naked people standing next to it look odd. I don't mind the pretty naked lady so much. But the naked man waving gives me the willies [no pun intended].

When we have dimensional drawings, I don't think we need naked people included to give a sense of scale. If this became a 'thing', Wikipedia would end up being littered with images of naked people waving at readers.

Where drawings do not include dimensions, more acceptable ways of conveying scale (in above-surface instances) are to include double decker buses, elephants or soccer pitches. In underwater instances, accepted scale markers are blue whales, scuba divers or giant squid. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:7D8B:34CE:C9C3:F4CC (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The accepted industry term is end caps. It's worth pointing out that, in submarine design, there's a difference between hemispherical and torispherical end caps. See differences here: Head_(vessel) ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, the human figures are from the Pioneer plaque. If the nudity bothers you I'd refer you to WP:NOTCENSORED. ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@ElectronicsForDogs I'm okay with the pretty naked lady. There's just something overly familiar about the way the naked man is waving at me. If you like naked men waving at you then I guess that's okay. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:7D8B:34CE:C9C3:F4CC (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I know that Wikipedia isn't censored but in this case the nudity doesn't add anything to the image. Would be better to depict them wearing clothes. RteeeeKed💬📖 00:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Fatalities

Why are the five passengers listed in their current (seemingly random) order, and not alphabetically by surname? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

IMO it makes sense to list Rush first as whatever his role was, he was effectively crew rather than a passenger. I think Paul-Henri Nargeolet was also crew although this seems unclear. (Some sources say he was the pilot, other say Rush was. Most sources seem to agree there's normally only 3 passengers, along with a pilot and guide but not what was the case for this.) The rest I don't know, they seem to be currently sorted by age (including Nargeolet but not Rush) whether that's intentional or not. Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Debris field discovery

Last sentence of the second paragraph is long. It also is a bit confusing in that it states that the findings of the ROV were based on the Navy’s discovery of an acoustic event. 24.178.187.217 (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, I've made this same point above (edit request 5). Simple fix in my opinion is to edit "The findings were based on..." to "This discovery [Titan wreckage] was consistent with..." (omitting the part in square brackets). 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:7D8B:34CE:C9C3:F4CC (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

police investigation

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) announced it is investigating this. [6][7] -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

There's no way they'll get those horses down there. 86.187.164.61 (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

LOL😂😂 Matthew Campbell (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

true Chicken4War (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Boooooo. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 15:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Cause ?

Delaminated carbon fibre due to repeated pressure cycles? Thereallanger (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

No one has issued a report on the cause yet. We probably won't get one for months, up to years - if we ever know for sure. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

NASA relation

I included the fact that the NASA astronaut was a serving member of OceanGate's Board of Directors because the paragraph insinuates that there were no ties between NASA and OceanGate's Titan.

(Removed by admin who is unsure how it relates)

There's a lot of buzz about the claim that experts from NASA were involved with OceanGate, and NASA's denial of it. So I think clarity should be provided about the expert from NASA who was involved, and how (not involved in creation or repair but a member of the board of directors). Jelly Garcia (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Oops. Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20230621000242/https://oceangate.com/news-and-media/press-releases.html Jelly Garcia (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

It needs a secondary reliable source, not just an OceanGate press release. The sentence you added (Veteran NASA astronaut, Scott Parazynski was a member of OceanGate's Board of Directors, though his induction was announced long after the construction and repair of Titan, in May, 2022.) had far too much editorializing about its relevance to a supposed "NASA relation", which would need to come from a secondary RS to be included.

There is no mention of this buzz you refer to in the article, just of the claim by OceanGate and of NASA's clarification, so the mention of Parazynski seems bizarre without context. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay in addition to the Board Member list from OceanGate's site, I'll add this? I just archived it:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230625011506/https://twitter.com/AstroDocScott/status/1526263024776003586?s=20

Original: https://twitter.com/AstroDocScott/status/1526263024776003586?s=20 Jelly Garcia (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The buzz is mentioned. In current state, it basically implies: Rush / OceanGate claimed experts from NASA were involved, but NASA denied it. Jelly Garcia (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, we would need secondary sourcing that explicitly describes this buzz, and brings up Parazynski as a relevant factor. Otherwise we're in WP:SYNTH/WP:OR territory. The issue is not about establishing whether Parazynski is on the board—that appears well established—but rather about whether it should be mentioned in this article and in what context. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

This would leave someone walking away thinking, 'wow they're fraudsters / liars,' but the

OceanGate claim is they "collaborate with experts from NASA

NASA denies having anything to do with the creation of Titan

Both are true.

So the way it's presented would leave someone uninformed on one of the points being made. Jelly Garcia (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The sources about the statement that [Astronaut Scott Parazynski was a member on the OceanGate's Board of Directors] are: (1) OceanGate's Members List for their Board of Directors, via OceanGate website (2) Scott Parazynski via Scott Parazynski's Twitter (both archived). Those are not just a source, those are thee source. I'd have to scour for ones aside from the exact company and person the statement is about :( Jelly Garcia (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

"This would leave someone walking away thinking"--no. That is how Facebook works. I don't see any reason why this connection--well, "connection" is unproven--this biographical factoid needs to be mentioned. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

It's because the paragraph is demonstrating that OceanGate made false claims about ties to NASA unless it's included

That's why it gives this impression. I don't use Facebook, I imagine people on any Internet forum would put 2 and 2 together that what's being said is [OceanGate made false claims] unless it's mentioned.

Otherwise, why include that paragraph at all or mention the claim & NASA's denial of it? Jelly Garcia (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Because Business Insider mentioned it - possibly other news organizations too. That's the kind of secondary source coverage needed to make the connection. @Jelly Garcia, folks are being picky because this is a very highly-watched article at the moment. Sourcing needs to be impeccable. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't write the part with any news source. I'm clarifying a false impression it gives - that might be present bias against the subject by implying they lied.

I'd clarify by explaining that both the claim and denial are true and there's no lie contained in either party's statement by explaining that (OceanGate's statement is true) [Guy] was on board of [Company] but (NASA's statement is true) bc he indeed do take part in […]. How would a source other than the [Company] and [Guy] be needed for a statement about nothing other than the company and guy?

Problem: Paragraph citing secondary source logically leads to a falsehood

Solution: Clarify using first-hand sources so the information is presented fairly

But need second-hand source? Jelly Garcia (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed took no part in* [..claim..] Jelly Garcia (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Secondary sources are always preferred, and we can only present information actually in the sources, not make a synthesis across them (that is WP:OR). If this is what a reliable source - Business Insider - says, this is what we say. If another article comes out making the clarifications and connections you want to make, we add them. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

No. I don't see evidence of "buzz". You saying that someone on some forum is going to think this or that is just not relevant here, and the very first step is to provide reliable secondary sourcing (you did not) that makes that connection. As for "the paragraph is demonstrating..."--this is all so vague, so poorly written, that I don't know what paragraph you're talking about.

I edit-conflicted with your latest edits, which are just--well, I don't know. I don't know what falsehood you're talking about. "First-hand sources" are not necessarily fair or accurate, and more importantly they cannot establish whether something is worth including. "Second-hand sources" sounds like gossip, and it's a far cry from Secondary sources. Yes, this is an encyclopedia, and we write up our articles using secondary sources. You can tell me and GorillaWarfare that Wikipedia is doing it wrong, but this is how we do it. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I have 2 sources for [Guy] was on Board of [Company]! I've shared them!

1 - [Guy] - https://web.archive.org/web/20230625011506/https://twitter.com/AstroDocScott/status/1526263024776003586?s=20

2 - [Company] - https://web.archive.org/web/20230608090354/https://oceangate.com/news-and-media/press-releases.html Jelly Garcia (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

It's worth including because the connection is made in the paragraph we're talking about. The one that starts with -

"OceanGate website claims they worked with experts NASA from NASA"

And goes on to state: NASA denies {strawman}.

The connection is made by: NASA denies OceanGate's claim

- within the paragraph in question

- not by any secondary sources, and yes I know what they are - I was making a point because, [problem: info from secondary source leads to misrepresentation of one side] and [first-hand source demonstrates both claims were right] and if you'd read the paragraph in question, well, we'd have probably have understood the point…

I'm open to critiques on my edits if you have something to say about them. They've been pretty minor, just some grammar/clarifications. Jelly Garcia (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jelly Garcia, the only thing that really matters here is whether the paragraph accurately reflects the reliable secondary source cited. Does it? 97.113.8.72 (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

No, it does not. There is no source pertaining to the NASA claim. Only the claim pertaining to Boeing and UW has a source cited in the paragraph. Jelly Garcia (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

What? The paragraph is cited to two sources - references 32 and 33 (currently). 33 backs up the one sentence, 32 the others. 32 is the source you'd need to check and verify against our article (Mayor, Grace; "Boeing and University of Washington deny OceanGate's claim that they helped design the lost Titan sub"; Business Insider). 97.113.8.72 (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's a link, it's easily accessible: [8]. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 03:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok I just included the confirmation that was previously omitted from the quote 'and consulted on materials and manufacturing processes for the submersible.' Jelly Garcia (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Jelly Garcia, PLEASE stop with the series of indents. It makes responding very difficult. Also, be precise: the paragraph started with "OceanGate claimed on its website", not "OceanGate website claims": it's hard to find something that's not there. By the same token, the paragraph does not say "NASA denies" (and I don't see the straw man), and that's not trivial. What I think you are saying is that there might be some who might say "well the one guy worked for NASA so the claim that they didn't test or manufacture for OceanGate" (because that is what it says) and that needs to be headed off at the pass? But really, as the IP said, as long as reliable sources don't comment on it (your tweet and press release just don't count), it's just really irrelevant. Sorry. Can we move on now? Drmies (talk) 02:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I think Talk is optional you you could probably move on if you want, but IDK I'm brand new here. I was hoping to discuss.

I read this paragraph, after looking through the through the OceanGate site the other night.

It keeps saying they "claimed" (Marriam Webster: to assert in the face of possible contradiction; Oxford: state or assert something is true, typically without providing evidence or proof) … Claimed [X] they collaborated - i had just seen the astronaut on the site - It then provides NASA's response to that claim, NASA: "did not" (denies) [Y] and [Z]x

What about X?

Based on presentation, 'typically there would be no evidence or proof' of [X], and 'possible contradiction.' Contradiction is unclearly demonstrated with a denial, but, despite being a response to X, pertains to Y and Z.

I wondered — (what about X?) Was the guy on their website wearing gear from the Kennedy Space Center NASA merch shop? Lol

External sources outside of the Wiki article are needed to look up to determine whether X is true or not, so it seems unnecessary to mention the exchange at all in the wiki page to me.

Or what makes the mention of the claim + response worth including? Jelly Garcia (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jelly Garcia, that bit is worth including because a reliable secondary source reported on it. If there are other reports from other reliable secondary sources, we can include those too. If you have a problem with the wording, and the wording does not accurately reflect the source, it should be changed to be more accurate.

Twitter and press releases are scraping the bottom of the source barrel in Wikipedia terms; they aren't going to work for what you want here. I realize you're new - if you have questions about sources and WP:OR and the like, the WP:TEAHOUSE (my usual stomping grounds on weekdays) is a good place to get friendly explanations and advice. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you might be answering a question other than the one im asking.

I realize you view Business Insider's recount of what was said. Im wondering why what was said is included in the article about the submarine implosion.

Why is the content prevented by that source - written *after* the incident, relevant at all to the *background* of the company (aside from being partial, not representing the background of the company accurately, and being based off the same source I cited)? Jelly Garcia (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

It's relevant to the construction of the Titan. It was reported in connection to the loss of that boat, which is what this article is about. I'm not sure if linking you to more reading will help, but you seem to making an argument that it isn't WP:DUE, while other folks are arguing that it is. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

So the background information that they collaborated with an expert from NASA (but not on the creation of the Titan) is relevant to the Titan incident, but the name of the person in reference is not relevant? Jelly Garcia (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jelly Garcia, you are making the connection that when OceanGate said Titan was "designed and engineered by OceanGate Inc. in collaboration [with] experts from NASA", they meant "we have an astronaut on our board", and that this is important/relevant/what-have-you. Others disagree, especially since this person apparently did not - according to the very sentence you added - have anything to do with Titan's design or engineering, and wasn't even employed by OceanGate at the time. Which may be why no news organizations are bringing it up. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The source you're citing as the reliable one over the direct ones literally quotes NASA as saying they "consulted on materials and manufacturing processes for the submersible." Jelly Garcia (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to include that in the article, then (which I see you did). 97.113.8.72 (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

IDK how it was not apparent that the words that were up there for the past day were cherry-picked, partial, omitted key information, and cast a negative light on the subject without need.

It's fixed with the acceptable source, which cites another source, which leads back to the original source, the one I used - their website - deemed an unreliable source for information about what "their website claims" but w/e at least it's fixed Jelly Garcia (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

All this about Scott Parazynski is a red herring. It is clear that Insider's piece is a bit sloppy (or mischievous). Insider's quote from the OceanGate website is accurate, and clearly states that they were themselves responsible for the design and engineerng, then adding that they received input from experts at NASA, Boeing and UW. Leaving aside Boeing (on which there is little information from OceanGate or Boeing), both NASA and UW confirm that they collaborated with OceanGate, and then go on to deny that they did things that OceanGate didn't say they did anyway. To me it looks like a damage-limitation exercise and, at least for NASA and UW there is no actual discrepancy. I have re-edited that para to a more clearly neutral pov, and added two direct links to what OceanGate actualy said - these are consistent with WP:PRIMARY, WP:PRIMARYCARE, WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:USESPS. Davidships (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Ought the paragraph on OceanGate and NASA/UW/Boeing be removed entirely? It's based entirely on the one Insider piece (and there is no consensus on the reliability of Insider), and there doesn't seem to be much independent reporting on the connection (or lack thereof) besides some other articles sourcing Insider. It's perhaps undue weight to have a whole graf on it, at least with the currently available sourcing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a wider range of sources on what may well have been triggered by the Insider's initial piece. I do not find anything particularly doubtful about Insider's piece - the latest assessment, in 2022 (triggered by the winning of a Pullitzer Prize), did indeed lack consensus, but there was a marked upward shift in assessments from 2020 - no longer any calls for deprecation and almost no support for "generally unreliable". That said, there are probably better sources now, but building from them would probably require more space, not less, and that might well be Undue. So I'll just park these here in case we come back to it.[9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. - Davidships (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you both that mentioning the expert collaborator by name is unnecessary, as long as it's mentioned that there actually was collaboration with NASA, not just that they claimed there was.

In that case, it's not misleading and the name of the guy doesn't need to be mentioned.

However I also don't see the point of the paragraph bc I originally viewed it basically he-said, she-said until reading further in the cited source which goes even farther beyond OceanGate's claim and says they actually did consult on the design and materials of Titan.

Also, Insider is a subsidiary of Business Insider. They're essentially the same company. If one is unreliable, they both are.

The only other place I saw NASA acknowledge involvement is on the OceanGate site and directly from the astronaut, but I didn't look elsewhere until I read it from this sacred source in reference. I just really thought it was unfairly presenting OceanGate's claim as questionable Jelly Garcia (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

"Titanic exhibition company"

This source describes David Scott-Beddard of White Star Memories as CEO of a Titanic exhibition company. From what I can tell, dude's company sells antiques affiliated with Titanic's sister ships and parent company, and doesn't seem to have anything to do with the salvage / scavenging / looting / conservation (you choose) of artefacts from the Titanic site. Wreck of the Titanic doesn't mention him or his company. But, it is in the ==Reactions== section, where we have even less affiliated stuff that made it to press, like GTA V mods? Scott-Beddard has an interesting take, but I'm not sure if we should leave it in or how to describe him if we do. Folly Mox (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh I guess White Star Memories does also sell scavenged Titanic bits. And exhibition cabinets. So maybe they're not not a Titanic / exhibition company? I've got feelings about the antiquities market so I'll leave this up to others. Folly Mox (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

ROV Odysseus

Does the Odysseus 6K or however you spell it, have an article on Wikipedia? Or its operator Pelagic Research Services or however that's spelled? -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't edit war over WP:ENGVAR

Please discuss this on the talk page rather than edit warring about it, please. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Original ENGVAR was Canadian English. This is perfectly justified on several grounds:

• The mother ship MV Polar Prince was Canadian;
• The expedition set out from a Canadian port (St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador);
• The nearest shore (Shingle Head, 600 km) was Canadian;
  • (The next nearest territory, by the way, was French — Saint Pierre and Miquelon);
• The investigations will largely focus on the Polar Prince, as it is Canadian-flagged and currently berthed at its home port, St. John's;
• Any investigation done at the Titanic site will, of course, be nearer Canada than any other country.

Given this, I cannot see any justification for peremptorily changing the ENGVAR to American English.Kelisi (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The notion that Suleman didn't want to go on the trip isn't true. (?)

"Suleman Dawood (aged 19), the son of Shahzada Dawood, who was a student at the University of Strathclyde. According to his aunt Azmeh Dawood, Suleman was terrified of going on the trip, but did so to please his father.

This seems to be contradicted by the BBC's latest interview with his mother

"

Teenager Suleman Dawood, who died in the Titan submersible, took his Rubik's Cube with him because he wanted to break a world record, his mother told the BBC.

The 19-year-old applied to Guinness World Records and his father, Shahzada, who also died, had brought a camera to capture the moment. [...] In her first interview, Mrs Dawood said she had planned to go with her husband to view the wreck of the Titanic, but the trip was cancelled because of the Covid pandemic.

"Then I stepped back and gave them space to set [Suleman] up, because he really wanted to go," she said." [...] Mrs Dawood said they hugged and made jokes in the moments before her husband and son boarded the Titan submersible.

"I was really happy for them because both of them, they really wanted to do that for a very long time," she said.

" (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66015851)

So was he terrified and did it to please his father, or did he go out of his own volition? This seems contradictory to me. Monological (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I've just watched BBC News on BBC One and she was interviewed on that. She said she was supposed to go on the trip, but gave up her place because Sulieman wanted to go. This is Paul (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe he got excited? Maybe he told his mom and aunt different stuff? Is any material about why people decided to board the incident vessel present in the live article? That doesn't seem encyclopaedic. Folly Mox (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Categories - North America, Canada etc

I notice that the article is back in some "... in North America" categories. I previous removed it (several times), but other editor(s) put it back. Can have a discussion about this please. I think it should not be in "in North America" (or "in Canada" or "in Newfoundland and Labrador") categories because the incident happened in international waters, not North America. Previous talk page entry: Talk:2023_Titan_submersible_incident/Archive_2#Categories_-_Canada. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Pinging some editors who have previously added categories (not necessarily a complete list, only those who mentioned "category" in edit summary): @Howard61313 and Di (they-them):. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The event definitely took place off the coast of North America. It was in international waters, so categories like "Canada" don't apply because that implies it happening within the borders, but geographically "North America" does apply. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The event definitely took place off the coast of North America. — "Off the coast of" is not "in". Given that North America "is bordered .. by the Atlantic Ocean", then something in the ocean (400 nautical miles from the coast) is very definitely "out of" North America.

Mitch Ames (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Mitch Ames here. Something that happens in the Atlantic Ocean is definitionally not in North America. Continents and oceans are different and have different categories.

The logic is a little different for countries since they have territorial waters, but since the incident happened in international waters we don't really need to get into that. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with Mitch Ames. The incident took place in international waters, off the continental shelf. Technically still above the North American plate, but I hope that's not the scope of the relevant categories. Folly Mox (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

“Disaster tourism”

I think “extreme tourism” or “adventure tourism” is a more accurate descriptor. The Titanic has legitimate value as an ecological site and as a historical site in its own right, beyond it just being part of a terrible disaster. Obviously the disaster aspect is a big part of why people are drawn to it, but I think it’s such a famous cultural icon at this point that “disaster tourism” is a bit too narrow to describe the reasons that people might want to see it. Plus I think the extreme aspect of going 4000m underwater in a sub was supposed to be a big part of the appeal and they really marketed the “scientific adventure” aspect of it. So I think adventure tourism or extreme tourism are better terms to encompass the experience that Oceangate was trying to sell. 104.142.126.219 (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)