Talk:2010 Copiapó mining accident

Links

is there some place on Links of Chile, or Economy of Chile, or Mining in Chile, or the company's page where this can be linked to?(Lihaas (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)).

I don't think so, I doubt that the mining company is even notable... Diego Grez (talk) 03:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Name of article

I think we should rename this "2010 Chile mining accident" because I fear very few people will find this article with the current name.

What do we think? ValenShephard (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the name is fine as it is, at Mining accident most of the disasters are are named for the area they occurred in, not the country. Searching for "2010 Chile mining accident" puts this article at (or near) the top of the results, but to be sure, I have boldly made 2010 Chile mining accident a redirect. Bigger digger (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I didnt know they mostly refer to the specific area. A redirect like that is more than fine. Thanks. ValenShephard (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I only knew because I was trying to find a better way to structure the article and had looked through mining accident... Bigger digger (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• (late reply) Well, Chile has lots of other mines, including El Teniente, Chuquicamata, and nobody know when another mining accident will take place :) --Diego Grez (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well if another accident happes, and hoping it doesn't, we can change the redirect. ValenShephard (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of current template

The current template has been removed, added back and now removed again by me. On seeing User:Yellowdesk's edit [1] I thought it was mistaken, but the edit summary suggests checking Template:Current#Guidelines, and on reading that I agree that it was time to remove it. That's why I undid User:Diego Grez's replacement [2].

Hope that's ok with everyone? Bigger digger (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Metallic gel?

In response to fact tag, Bigger digger says: (talk | contribs) m (15,221 bytes) (→Future plans: Alter fact tag - info was in the ref, but the BBC have updated the news story.)

A google search of "metallic gel" -chile does not find what would be expected if this was a real product. Thousands of hits (when searched without -chile) can be traced back to the BBC or Reuters Chile story. The fact that BBC took it out seems to imply that they made a mistake. Someone was probably referring to a standard cable-lubricating gel used in conduit (hence, a "lubricating gel") which might be metallic-colored.

In any case, a lubricating gel only indirectly contributes to the integrity of the shaft. 173.73.192.6 (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It's no big deal, I just corrected the fact tag to one more suitable. Whether there was or wasn't metallic gel is hardly an important part of the article so not worried if another editor feels it should be removed. Bigger digger (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

How long/deep is the cave in?

There is no media articles explaining this. Why isn't the shaft being cleared and reopened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.33.85 (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I work in an underground mine, and can guarantee that nobody knows the answer to your first question. Before the cave-in proper there might be hundreds of metres of broken ground, quite probably along a spiraling ramp - nobody will dare approach it too close from either direction.

The shaft isn't being reopened because it looks to be a decline - a long steep ramp. Good luck finding a miner who thinks he can clear a collapsed decline safely - normal practice would be to build a new decline around the collapse. In good circumstances with modern equipment in a metalliferous mine a decline will advance maybe 25 metres per day, build at a 1:5 gradient and they are advancing down 5 metres per day. Normally 1:7 grade is more common but let's say they are rushing. If they have to go down 450m to intersect the refuge tunnels that gives you three months to rescue. These advance rates are assuming good ground - if they find bad ground they have to slow down to fix support as they go, in this case it takes as long as it takes.

In Australia the standard cost for a decline is maybe $5000 per metre advance ... building a 2500 metre rescue tunnel costs enough that the shareholders will feel the cost. No choice though - when you work underground you know that while you are alive they will work to rescue you. They might do it slowly so as not to risk more lives, but you will not be left down there to die. AND if the mining company ever tried to shirk the workforce would build a rescue decline anyway.

Shafts are even slower than this because every bit of rock you break off has to be lifted out of the hole. Current practice if you want a vertical shaft is to first make a decline, then use a raise-borer to make the shaft from bottom up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.210.35 (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Move

This article was created at 2010 Copiapó mining accident but Mootros has twice moved it, without discussion, to Copiapó mining accident. I think it's disruptive to repeatedly move it back and forth so would like to establish the consensus for the article's location here.

Mootros cites Wikipedia:Naming_conventions for justifying the move, saying names should be kept as short as possible. The more specific policy is Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events). It's only brief, so you can go and read it, but the 3 main issues in the title are what, where and possibly when. It then uses the following as an example:

• 2003 Bam earthquake
  • When: 2003. There is no other "Bam earthquake" in Wikipedia, but earthquakes happen many times in history in the same place, so the year is a useful identifier.
  • Where: Bam
  • What: earthquake

There have been other accidents at Copiapo, this source I stumbled across [3] says as much, and I'm sure refs already in the article could back that up. Therefore, I think the article should be kept at 2010 Copiapó mining accident. I would be interested to see other opinions. Bigger digger (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should be kept as "2010 Copiapó mining accident". The Main Page still links to "2010 Copiapó mining accident", but now it goes through a redirect. The reason for moving, cited by user Mootros, seems flimsy at best -- keeping titles as short as possible. If there have been other mining accidents in the region, even if Wikipedia currently has no articles on them, by calling it "2010 Copiapó mining accident" will leave no doubt in a searcher's mind which accident the article describes, without having to read an abstract or the lead section. Sometimes a title is all one gets as a search result, and reading further into an article is simply not possible.—Quicksilver^{T @} 14:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think Mootros is right in having this article title remain without the year. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Conventions does cover this. The citation noted by Bigger digger indicates prior accidents at this mine, but none specific that caused significant death numbers or miners being trapped for extended periods. I.e., no secondary sources to a specific event. This is apparently the only notable disaster at this specific mine. More realistically, this article should be renamed to San José mine disaster, as this mine is referred to as the San José mine, not the Copiapó mine. There are apparently many mines in this region, and referring to it as Copiapó is too generic. A redirect at this name would of course be appropriate. Getting back to putting the year on it, have a look through Category:Coal mining disasters in the United States. All of the sub categories there with the exception of Illinois have all of their articles without the year. The trend continues elsewhere; Category:Coal mining disasters in Mexico, Category:Mining disasters in Australia, etc. The trend is obvious. This is apparently the first notable accident in this region, much less this mine. I don't think anyone is going to be confused about what year it was in. Further, a few years from now people will tend to forget which year this happened in. If there are future notable incidents, then some adjustment should be made. Not now. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• The article should stick at 2010 Copiapó mining accident. Nobody can predict when is there going to be another mining accident there again. As it has been pointed out above, there have been more accidents in Copiapó too. San José mining accident is just too specific. Diego Grez (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• The point with being specific is to differentiate this mine from the surrounding region, which has many mines. Also, if there are other notable accidents, what are they? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Moving article back to 2010 Copiapó mining accident. Diego Grez (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

•  Done Diego Grez (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Going against existing standards and a lack of consensus. Nice. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• No, it already has standard name, there's no need to shorten it furthermore. It also responds the questions When? Where? and What?. Diego Grez (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The note

The article currently contains the line

The note said: "We are fine in the shelter, the 33 of us."[19]

However, the note was in Spanish, not English. Shouldn't it be more like

The note written in Spanish said "We are fine in the shelter, the 33 of us."[19]

or

The note said: "Estamos bien en el refugio los 33" (English:"We are fine in the shelter, the 33 of us.")

I realize that a *lot* of the newsmedia are doing it the way that the article does it now, but I think we can do better.--Naraht (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better to stick to the Spanish source as closely as possible. On first reading, the article and its supplemental materials seem to suffer from poor translation of idiomatic expressions, as if translated into English through a computer program or a person whose command of English is less-than-native. The phrasing of the note, plus its translation and lack of punctuation, should be:

The note read: "EstAMOS BieN EN EL REfugio  los 33" (English: "We are fine in the shelter the 33 [of us]").

There's a YouTube video (F_4sk7KnSRQ) wherein one can see the note in question in the hands of one of the rescuers, a strip of paper torn from a spiral-bound notepad. Based on Google search results, it appears that some news services have already begun to muck with the text of the note, adding punctuation where there was none in the original and changing capitalisation.
In the beginning of the video clip there is an image of another note that contains much more than the single line now quoted in the article and is printed in uppercase and lowercase letters, but there's too much motion and lack of detail to be able to read it in its entirety. What is needed here is a clear photo or scanned image of the longer note.—Quicksilver^{T @} 15:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything I've found has had the note by itself. See http://momento24.com/2010/08/22/estamos-bien-en-el-refugio-los-33-escribieron-los-mineros-atrapados/ and http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/america_latina/2010/08/100822_chile_mina_vivos_pea.shtml
Also, I don't think keeping track of which letters are improperly capitalized is worthwhile.Naraht (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, if keeping track of capitalisation isn't worthwhile, then keeping track of punctuation, spelling, order of words or even choice of words isn't worthwhile either.—Quicksilver^{T @} 15:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• As Spanish-language native speaker, it should be "We are fine in the shelter the 33" [of us]. Diego Grez (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the capitalization: As a sometime teacher of native Spanish speakers and wife of another, I can assure you that irregular capitalization is common in cases where the person writing has had only brief formal education in Spanish or penmanship. That said, I think the choice of words should be maintained and no punctuation added unless it is in brackets [] to make clear that it is an addition. The choice of words is more likely than the capitalization to be something revealing of their state of mind or their haste to communicate their message in the brief window they had. The reproduction and the English translation as they stand at this moment, with "[of us]" bracketed in the English, is faithful and accurate.Lawikitejana (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Escape tunnel diameter and waist size. How big is too big?

Current article: "The diameter of the rescue tunnel will be 66 cm (26 inches),[11] meaning each miner will have to have a waistline of no more than 90 cm (35 inches) to escape.[11][30]" Assuming your waist can be fit into a circular shape (certainly true if you are sufficiently heavy) that means a circle of diameter 28.65 cm. So that means the tunnel is (66 - 28.65) = 37.35 cm larger in diameter than the requested waist size. So the wall thickness of the rescue capsule is more than 18 cm (> 7 inches)? Really? I know there must be some gap between borehole wall and capsule to avoid friction, but surely not that much. What am I missing? Bealevideo (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I too did a double-take when I read this. In any case, the limiting width dimension of a non-obese human is the width of the shoulders, which you can do nothing about. I think some innumerate journalist has got the wrong end of the stick. PhilUK (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I looked at NASA data, http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section03.htm and I see a 40-year old American male ranges from 159 to 183 cm in vertical trunk circumference (5th to 95th percentile range). On that page, hip width ranges from 35 to 42 cm. I don't think Chilean miners can reasonably be expected to measure half the size of the smallest 5% of US men, so the report of a 90 cm waistline requirement is almost certainly an error. This article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38884569/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/ mentions a US rescue capsule that is 54.6 cm in diameter which was used in a 66 cm hole (2002, Quecreek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quecreek_Mine_Rescue). Bealevideo (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I take back my above comments. I just measured my own waist, and it is 90 cm. Many men in my office have a bigger waistline than me, but apparently most of US adult population is overweight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bealevideo (talk • contribs) 06:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Drill bit diameter

Here the manufacturer of the drill bit that broke through first, gives the diameter of the drill bit as 5cm. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0825/1224277541194.html
Here is a photo of the life line shoved down to the miners, which when I measure it out on my hand is about 5cm.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3113194/Submariners-join-rescue-effort.html
I am taking into account that the glove makes his hand look larger than it actually is. This wiki article perpetuates the notion that the hole is: "grapefruit sized"/6 inches in diameter. Would someone please either correct the diameter/delete the size/include a picture of the containers that they are sending down there/remove any size measurement/explain to the American media the difference between centimeters and inches/explain to the American media the difference between lemons and grapefruits. 00:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Frank L. (American, but our media . . .) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.225.146.106 (talk)

Victims list

The list of trapped miners has been added, removed, and re-added, so we should probably discuss it and come to a consensus. Though they are mere guidelines, the rationale behind deletion seems to be coming from WP:Victim Lists, WP:Notability (people)#Victims and #People notable only for one event. I doubt anyone would argue that we should not include those miners who are otherwise notable (i.e. have their own wiki article) or provide demographic info on the group as a whole (i.e. nationality, other occupations), but is a full list of otherwise non-notable victims really necessary? How about an external link instead? - Ruodyssey (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

None of them are notable except for Franklin Lobos. I removed the list again. Diego Grez (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Another area to explain in the details of how they will cope

In reading the (amazing) details of what is being done to help them cope with the potentially debilitating situation of being in the mine for months -- can't even begin to imagine being mentally strong enough to take what they're taking -- I notice that no mention is made of how wastes are/will be handled in order to keep from sickening or mentally distressing them. If anyone finds articles that detail the ill effects these wastes will have, or what steps are being taken to forestall or ameliorate the ill effects, that information should be added. Even as little as they are consuming, at some point the body must eliminate waste, and it's well established that being confined with it can be emotionally and physically detrimental over time. Lawikitejana (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

They have 2 km of galleries to move around in, and I imagine that the mine has primitive toilet facilities at various points (otherwise what would they do in the middle of a shift?), so I don't think that keeping waste well away from where they are living will be a problem. PhilUK (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop moving the page.

OK. I've got enough of seeing this page being moved from here to there, stop. Moved thrice without consensus. Let's make a consensus here.

• The original title, 2010 Copiapó mining accident responds three basic questions, When? Where and What?
• The current title, Chile mining accident is just too undescriptive. It's like to say "Power outage in Europe", when it just happened in a single town.
• The other title, Copiapó mining accident removed the When? part, when there have been other mining accidents previously in Copiapó.

Discussion

• Move back at the original title, 2010 Copiapó mining accident. Diego Grez (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

  I am sure there is more than one mining accident in Chile this year. That is my two cents. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Move to 2010 Chile mining accident. ValenShephard (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

  2010 Chile mining accident is still too undescriptive in my opinion, and even more when Chile has lots of other mines. Diego Grez (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)