Jump to content

Talk:Deepwater Horizon: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Sources: new section
Orniphobe (talk | contribs)
130 edits
No edit summary
Line 167: Line 167:
I am not sure if Billy-Bob politician from some parish in Louisiana would be considered a credible source for technical drilling rig matters
I am not sure if Billy-Bob politician from some parish in Louisiana would be considered a credible source for technical drilling rig matters
--[[Special:Contributions/187.132.75.133|187.132.75.133]] ([[User talk:187.132.75.133|talk]]) 06:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
--[[Special:Contributions/187.132.75.133|187.132.75.133]] ([[User talk:187.132.75.133|talk]]) 06:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
:I agree. I just changed the crew complement from 130 to what it really was, 144. This incident has taught me some of the major news providers are horrible fact checkers. [[User:Orniphobe|Orniphobe]] ([[User talk:Orniphobe|talk]]) 11:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:04, 2 May 2010

First article

My first article. Orniphobe 02:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job.--Supertouch (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was no consensus to merge Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion into Deepwater Horizon.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support reduce confusion, if you're searching for deepwater horizon you are most likely looking for the latest information on the status of the vessel and investigation in to the accident. The current article is lacking in information anyway so it makes sense to merge the two articles.
  • Support Seeing that the main article was little more than stub prior to the addition of material regarding the explosion, it seems unnecessary to have a separate page for the explosion.--Supertouch (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a reason to prefer a merge. Instead, we look to other concerns like size, relevance to the article, and the relation of the two topics. Ask yourself this question. Wouldn't someone looking at the rig article be interested in the accident, and vis versa? That question, plus the practical concerns, including the increase in difficulty, consistency, and management, and you'll realize why we commonly use size as the split proxy. In this case, that's not an issue. Shadowjams (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I concur with the original proposal, there seems to be only limited content on this page except for that about the explosion. FienX (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually there is a number of reliable sources about the rig publsihed before the accident. And as it drilled the deepest oil well ever and was one of the largest semi-submersible oil rigs, it is notable notwithstanding the accident. Beagel (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Most material is duplicated across the two pages. Geoboffin (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed most of duplication. Beagel (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Even with the removal of duplicated material I see no need for two separate articles. The lede of WP:SPLIT suggests (i.e., does not list specific reasons for splitting a page, but I think two can reasons can be inferred) that the two most common reasons for splitting a page are page size and on section of an article becoming disproportional to the rest. The first reason does not apply here as each article has approximately 8.5 KG, while the guideline at WP:SPLIT says that the splitting articles of less than 30 KG is not justified by length alone. (Check my "calculations" using either User:Dr pda/prosesize.js or [1].) This leaves us with the second reason. In my opinion, combining the two pages would produce a page with about one half describing the rig itself and its history and the other half (or probably a little more) describing the explosion.--Supertouch (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and see - if the explosion article doesn't increase substantially more by the time the story is out of the news it can be merged. However, if it does increase much more it would be undue weight to merge it in based on the current length of coverage of the rest of the rig's history. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the time being I agree we should wait until this incident is cycled out of the news before making a final decision, I think WP:UNDUE would actually support a merge not oppose it. The significance of the explosion and subsequent sinking of the rig is very significant to the article on the rig therefore justifying a major chunk of the (merged) article dealing with that.--Supertouch (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Deepwater Horizon has notable events prior to this one. If you merge it now you will just have to split it later. In general when events like this occur, "wait and see" should be the approach taken before merging. Trying to determine whether to merge an article of a current event while that event is still occurring just doesn't make sense!! Argel1200 (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree that they are two separate topics, and thus two separate articles. There is a lot of information in the 'Explosion' article that isn't in this one, and if they were merged, it would probably need to be split again later. —ems24 02:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. They are not separate topics. Would we consider the construction, operation, or any other event to be a separate article? Obviously not. So why having the explosion as a separate article? In some cases this is done because the main article gets to big but here is not enough info to warrant splitting the info.-- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It is not is the custom of Wikipedia to create separate articles on maritime disasters. For example, the sinking of the RMS Titanic was a serious, notable event in world history, but it does not currently constitute a separate article; it is part of the article on the ship.Bigturtle (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Neither of the two articles have significantly differing information except that one concentrates on the incident and the other on the drilling rig itself. Even if the available information on the Deepwater Horizon disaster becomes substantial, it will not in and of itself justify two separate pages because the page outlining the Deepwater Horizon is not very comprehensive. In addition, BigTurtle's argument above makes perfect sense in that the Titanic is a much larger disaster in terms of potential historical impact, yet there is no separate page for the ship itself. Flybywire_e2c 23:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support because there is repetition in both articles and they would both be better served by combining them. If the oil leakage becomes a major disaster, then that disaster would warrant its own article. Diiscool (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article should simply mention the fate of the rig and not go into root cause analysis of the explosion. It might be an idea to create an article on offshore oil & gas incidents wherein the details of the explosion can be explored, developed and linked to the article about the rig Jonesinperth (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If and when, in the fullness of time, the facts show the circumstances surrounding the end of the rig known as the Deepwater Horizon do not warrant a separate article, then (and only then) merge this article in with the primary article. In the meantime, keep the articles separate. //Don K. (talk) 06:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As a number of people have stated, let's wait until this cycles through. Two weeks should be enough time to see what develops. The way this is playing out, a merge might be the way to go since this isn't a "major" spill. Two weeks isn't a long time, I'd imagine. --Hourick (talk) 09:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support but explosion is more notable than the platf. --DAI (Δ) 19:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Just like many other articles, specific events (calamities/disasters, inaugurations, historic moments) that happen at specific structures have their own articles if they are historically important. This explosion/leak undoubtedly has become that, and will only become more important as the clean-up and effects of the spill become apparent. In fact, this article is just the place to expand on the future clean up, cleaning technologies, ecosystems, political impacts, etc- and not in the article concerning the structure itself. gloushire 16:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose People reading about the disaster should not be sent to the bottom of the page and/or distracted by all the technical specs of the rig. People reading about the rig should not be distracted by the minute details of the disaster timeline. Of course, those interested in both can always follow the link. Xenonice (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill deserves its own page and that title. Why are we making this so non-user friendly by not putting the word "Oil Spill" in that page title. The Exxon Valdez incident is called the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Who the heck cares about the drilling rig itself, or, will one year from now. It's the oil spill that is the news. Have you heard of the KISS theory? Keep it simple stupid! Myk60640 (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. Oil rig is/was independently notable beyond the spill for its accomplishment in 2009. The oil spill topic is an incident that originated at the rig, but has moved far beyond that, both literally and figuratively. 23skidoo (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. The rig was a thing with its own history (the deepest well is pretty interesting), the explosion and spill is an event. The rig's entry has also existed for a couple of years, long before it was famous because of this event. Merging would cause the details of the event to dominate the details of the thing. UltraNurd (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Both articles are notable, and trying to add this in to the rig article will only add clutter. --Falcorian (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Because like others have posted, it is the spill and everything connected to it- the rig of course, the BOP failure, the formation, ongoing activities, and all contractor companies.
  • Oppose The event is notable on its own, and over time the two articles will diverge even more, with this article including consequences of various kinds, and the other article covering the impact of the present location of the wrecked platform. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Latitude, Longitude

Any geo co-ordinates available to map this?
--Atikokan (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are coordinates on the page about the explosion (here). - Gump Stump (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

of which. (Left something out?)

of which WHAT? On September 2, 2009, Deepwater Horizon drilled on the Tiber oilfield the deepest oil well ever drilled with a total depth of 35,055 feet (10,685 m), of which 4,132 feet (1,259 m). Sentences without endings don't make much sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of water. Sentence fixed. Beagel (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

Explosion is a final part of the rig's history and therefore I think it suits better as a subsection of the history section. Beagel (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But some of the description of the rig is necessary to understand the explosion section, for example, the process the rig was engaged in at the time of the explosion.--Supertouch (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Datums

"...deepest oil well ever drilled with a total depth of 35,055 feet (10,685 m), of which 4,132 feet (1,259 m) was water"

This is meaningless unless you state Measured Depth (MD) or True Vertical Depth (TVD). I imagine it's TVD, as there are plenty of wells with greater MDs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.12.23.225 (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both, MD and TVD are added. Could you please give example of oil well with deeper TVD? Beagel (talk) 08:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to tweak the metre-feet conversions: MD is shown as 5m and also 5ft greater than TVD. Also, the rig description section cites a max drilling depth of 30 000ft; perhaps a parenthesised "deeper than its design capacity" or similar is in order to avoid confusion? Geoboffin (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She or it?

As a ship, Deepwater Horizon should be referred as 'she'. As a rig, 'it' seems to be more correct. What is the correct form to use? Beagel (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deepwater Horizon was self-propelled Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit. She was manned and operated just like a drillship (Captain, officers, crew, etc). She has to meet all the same rules of a merchant ship (MARPOL, ISM, ISPS, Loadline, COLREGs, etc.) The term "rig" is layman for many things including MODU's, stationary production platforms, even FPSO's. Orniphobe (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Photo

The proper lead photo seems to be the one of the rig prior to the explosion. The fire photo is more pertinent to the separate article about the explosion and disaster. We don't show Kennedy's corpse as the JFK article's lead nor do we show the wreckage of the Titanic as the lead for the ship's article. --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Kevin, and I'm the one who placed the original photo after crop. The same photo is used in the other article. Stubbleboy (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I am not sure if Billy-Bob politician from some parish in Louisiana would be considered a credible source for technical drilling rig matters --187.132.75.133 (talk) 06:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I just changed the crew complement from 130 to what it really was, 144. This incident has taught me some of the major news providers are horrible fact checkers. Orniphobe (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deepwater_Horizon&oldid=359619390"