Talk:Tham Luang cave rescue

Musk submarine

[1] This looks dubious but it's something to keep an eye on. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

This too: [2] 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I've removed this from the article. Elon Musk states that his companies are developing ways to rescue the children, but they haven't actually been completed, tested, sent to Thailand, transported to the site, tested again, approved for use by the Thai Government, or used. It seems unclear to me whether the Thais would actually be very interested in using brand-new and untested technology to rescue children from a complex and very dangerous cave system. This seems much less significant than the experts and teams of experts from around the world who have travelled to Thailand and are actually helping, but aren't described at all in the article. Musk appears to be trying to milk this incident for PR purposes. Given that various sources say that parts of the caves are now free of water, it's hard to see how a little submarine would be very useful at present. I'd suggest only including this if/when Musk's assistance is accepted and used. Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I wasn't suggesting including it in the article unless it actually was used or at least delivered. It was just something to be aware of in possible updates. Still I can't blame Musk or anyone else from wanting to help. This is pretty silly too, but same idea. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Musk's ground penetrating radar also sounds useless at that depth. But I've wondered if they could use acoustic rangefinding. Put some seismographs with precise clocks in the cave and make some vibrations (maybe using small explosions) on the ground, and do multilateration on the seismograph recordings. I'm sure they have thought of this though. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D, I find it really shitty of you to suggest bad intentions behind Musk actually trying to help, and you have absolutely no reason to believe that. What you believe is more likely a projection that says more about you than about him. As opposed to most people, and especially billionaires, Musk has a long history of actually wanting to do good in the world; you should try to read more about him. Furthermore, I find even the fact that he wants to help and is actually working hands-on on a possible solution, even if it turns out not to be used, noteworthy and interesting. It shows how many people are involved and trying to help, even people from the other side of the globe. --Jhertel (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I mostly agree (though I think Nick-D was perfectly well-intentioned!). Musk's attempts have been widely reported, including The New York Times and Business Insider. I was surprised this wasn't mentioned in the article. Apparently the "submarine" is nearly past the testing phase and will soon be sent to Thailand. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Australia's public broadcaster is reporting that Musk "really wants the world to know he's at the cave rescue operation site in Thailand, and he's there to help", but his little submarine has been rejected as impractical. [3]. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Elon Musk has personally flew to Thailand and delivered his kid-sized submarine. So he deserves major credit for making this successful submarine. I reintroduced this into the article.Rwat128 (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It may have been very magnanimous for Musk to fly in "personally" with his new product, but in my view he deserves no credit at all for the successful outcome of this event. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to remind anyone who needs their memory refreshed, that Wikipedia is not a place for advertisement or personal promotion. It seems the cave, in several places, is dry and requires quite a bit of climbing to go from one underwater section to the next. The mini-sub was nothing more than a desperate attempt at getting public attention while accomplishing absolutely nothing. This is not the kind of things an encyclopedia should focus on. Leave the Twitter clickwhoring where it belongs, far away from here. 92.161.54.249 (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Elon Musk is a living individual and you should not be attributing to him un-sourced negative motivations for what was ostensibly an attempt to be of help. Bus stop (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Here you go: Elon Musk's attempt to help the Thai cave rescue mission has attracted both praise and criticism (BBC News). Firebrace (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Firebrace for bringing that to my attention. Is there also criticism to be found out there of the dozen countries who tried to contribute to the task? Were the dozen countries that tried to help also accused of having ulterior motives? Bus stop (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

No, because they were all experienced cavers who knew what they were doing. Firebrace (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

So, not knowing what one is doing makes one a cynical opportunist with ulterior motives? The criticism there was for "advertisement or personal promotion" and "nothing more than a desperate attempt at getting public attention" and "Twitter clickwhoring". That seems over the top to me. Bus stop (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Musk's intervention was a bit silly. After being told the submarine was impractical, he left it behind in Thailand "in case it may be useful in the future". You may see a philanthropist, others see a megalomaniac who cannot admit failure. Firebrace (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

"he left it behind in Thailand" Even generosity is problematic? What is the reasoning there? Why doesn't he take his garbage home with him? You say that "Musk's intervention was a bit silly, but isn't his real offense that of being a billionaire? That is his only wrongdoing. It's not like he came over there with a hammer and hit someone over the head. You say he "cannot admit failure". Is that assertion supported by a source? Bus stop (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I take back everything I said about Mr Musk. Earlier today, Musk gave an interview in which he said "we were huge idiots and didn't know what we were doing". [4] It seems he can admit failure after all... Firebrace (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that source. But to be clear he is not saying that in reference to mini-submarines. Yes, it illustrates that he can admit failure, but he is saying "we were huge idiots" in reference to the failure to fully utilize robots to automate an automobile assembly line. He admits that "[a] lot of the hoped-for automation was counterproductive." Bus stop (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, well done. Firebrace (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The bottom line is that "A lot of people don't have much food on their table, But they got a lot of forks and knives". Bus stop (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the repeated addition of "Billionaire entrepreneur and philanthropist" to the front of Elon Musk's name per MOS:JOBTITLE and WP:PEACOCK. Per MOS:JOBTITLE: Avoid also the use of titles that are unnecessary for clarity or identification in the context. Prefixing his net worth or job is not necessary to explain the context of what he offered. It is just puffery to include that. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Guys should this source be added to its article itself Elon Musk?. Siton (talk) 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to note, there is now a discussion about this topic (or at least a direct consequence of it), at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tham Luang cave rescue. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: Musk has now apologised: [5]. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Saman Kunan article

While the ppl above still can't upload a picture of the guy to the article, I think he deserves a standalone one on it's own, seeing how the two british divers, their organization and the cave itself apparently pass the notability guidelines I don't see how he may not, especially after he was awarded the order and all Openlydialectic (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair point. But is he notable apart from being involved in this incident? You're free to upload an image of him at any time. Here's the guidance: WP:NFC. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The photo suggested in the previous discussion has now been uploaded here. The fair use rational needs to be checked and the image may need to be cropped before adding to the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The image is now marked as "orphaned" and will be deleted after 7 days unless it is used in this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not notable prior to the event, his actions can be covered in the rescue article; WP:ONEEVENT. WWGB (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Neither was the cave or the two british divers, or am I wrong? Openlydialectic (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

In answer to your above question, unfortunately you do at least appear to be wrong with regard to the British divers. Although their bio articles were created as a result of the current incident, the articles appear to show that they were already notable (which is not necessarily the same as 'famous') for other events prior to the incident, including other rescues, and various caving world records, etc. It is perhaps unfortunate that this has not being previously stated here, as this omission has perhaps tended to make us seem to be in violation of WP:BIAS. (I know nothing about our notability criteria for articles about caves, tho I suspect the criteria are different from those for notability of people).Tlhslobus (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Possible future support, current oppose. Currently, it is too short, for one thing. If it gets longer, then it is a possibility. One event people are discouraged but not prohibited. Look at Lee Harvey Oswald. Known for only one thing, shooting JFK. Look at JFK's infant son who died as an infant. He was known for nothing but has an article. When a section becomes too long, it becomes possible to have a sub-article, which is a separate article. Vanrich (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Not just Lee Harvey Oswald, but the police officer who he shot while trying to escape also has his own article, just as the rifle he shot the president with and his numerous friends and acquaintances: (Ella German, Marina Oswald Porter, Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, George de Mohrenschildt, etc), but yeah, I totally agree with your sentiment. At this point his section is both small and outdated, I think he was buried half a week ago already. Openlydialectic (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Quite likely the relevant part of WP:ONEEVENT for those individuals is "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." Whether wisely or otherwise, the Kennedy assassination has spawned a vast amount of writing and speculation and other kinds of coverage over several decades, in a way that is not (or at least not yet) true of the present incident, so arguments based on treating the two events as somehow equivalent do not seem very persuasive.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I should note that the JFK assassination has inspired books, films, documentaries, television shows, songs, conspiracy theories, and an innumerable amount of references in popular culture. I think the comparison to Saman Kunan does not hold water (no pun intended). Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I think this is where WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." Bus stop (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Ehh, he is not my friend or an acquaintance. I've never even been to the South-East Asia in general. Surely you meant to say he does not pass the notability guidelines, but maybe you can provide some arguments for your thinking? As I said in the statement, the two British divers who found the kids did pass the guidelines and got 2 articles written about them, just as the cave itself. Openlydialectic (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:ONEEVENT applies; I don't think this person is notable outside of the rescue event. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mikeblas: please see the Vanrichs' comment and my reply above about the ONEEVENT rule. Openlydialectic (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Openlydialectic: I think the discussion here is about Saman Kunan, not the caves or the other divers. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not necessary. I have no opinion about using his photo. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTMEMORIAL Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The romanization of Thai names

The boys' names are currently romanized in accordance with this BBC article. I would like to point out that the g in Duganpet Promtep (ดวงเพชร พรมเทพ), the r in Nattawut Takamrong (ณัฐวุฒิ ทาคำทรง), and the e in Mongkol Booneiam (มงคล บุญเปี่ยม) are very clearly typos. (In the very same article, the BBC states that the surname of Mongkol Booneiam's father is Boonpiem!)

More generally, I would like to point out that these BBC spellings are in no way official; other sources often have entirely different spellings. (For example, The Guardian has Pipat Bodhi in place of Pipat Pho.) In my opinion, we should ditch these BBC spellings and romanize the boys' names in accordance with the Royal Thai General System of Transcription.

Name	RTGS	Age
ชนินทร์ วิบูลย์รุ่งเรือง	Chanin Wibunrungrueang	11
ภาณุมาศ แสงดี	Phanumat Saengdi	13
ดวงเพชร พรมเทพ	Duangphet Phromthep	13
สมพงศ์ ใจวงศ์	Somphong Chaiwong	13
มงคล บุญเปี่ยม	Mongkhon Bunpiam	13
ณัฐวุฒิ ทาคำทรง	Natthawut Thakhamsong	14
เอกรัตน์ วงค์สุขจันทร์	Ekkarat Wongsukchan	14
อดุลย์ สามออน	Adun Sam-on	14
ประจักษ์ สุธรรม	Prachak Sutham	15
พิพัฒน์ โพธิ	Phiphat Phothi	15
พรชัย คำหลวง	Phonchai Khamluang	16
พีรภัทร สมเพียงใจ	Phiraphat Somphiangchai	17
เอกพล จันทะวงษ์	Ekkaphon Chanthawong	25

Khiikiat (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC).

As long as the preferred spelling is linked to a reliable source. WWGB (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It is ok, in my opinion to have 2 or even 3 spellings. Might add their nicknames, too, because most of them have only 1 spelling. Vanrich (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Transcriptions of Thai person's names are extremely haphazard in general. Guidelines in WP are to use the transcription as used by the person first, otherwise if known, the spelling on their identity card (but I understand several of them are undocumented). If both these are unknown then use RTGS. Spellings in foreign documents (and especially the press) can be completely ignored and cannot be used as source. Sourcing for RTGS is the Thai spelling plus the official RTGS rules. −Woodstone (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for User Khiikiat. I think this is a great improvement on what we had till now. Actual Thai names is the way to go. Although we may need more expert Thai inputs on this, it can be incorporated for now on our main page. werldwayd (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Before, the article had nicknames, like Titan. They were removed because some editor thought they were just nicknames. Now, we have proof that the kids use it themselves. In Wikipedia, we use "Bill Clinton" and "Jimmy Carter", not William J. Clinton or James E. Carter. Therfore, the separate column should be added with nicknames. See this BBC video where each boy introduces himself by his nickname only. Please discuss any opposition. I will wait and not insert it pending a discussion or adequate time lapse. Vanrich (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe some genius removed their nicknames. My vote is - go for it. Put the nickname back in. SlightSmile 19:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and put the nicknames back in. SlightSmile 23:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I had added the Thai and RTGS names given by the (not so lazy) user Khiikiat in the table, but the Thai names were reverted. Can WWGB point me to the guideline where authentic names in non-latin scripts are disallowed? In my view original names are always of added value. −Woodstone (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The guideline MOS:FORLANG provides that "if the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence". Since the subject of the article is the cave rescue, a Thai language equivalent of that title is permitted. Other than that, there is no guideline for or against the inclusion of other Thai language names of people or places. I would argue that there is absolutely no benefit to the English language Wikipedia of including names in Thai script that are meaningless to English readers. In the absence of relevant policy or guideline, there will need to be consensus to include such foreign language names in the article. This section is not the place for such discussion, as it relates to the romanization of Thai names, not the inclusion of Thai script. WWGB (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

That same guideline also contains "Relevant foreign-language names, such as in an article on a person who does not themselves write their name in English, are encouraged.". −Woodstone (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

RTGS is always an approximation. The individuals should have their names in the language they write their names in, meaning in Thai script. User Khiikiat's input is greatly commendable. The Latinized RTGS is just a guideline of how we can pronounce them albeit approximately. Keep the Thai name and the RTGS name. The nicknames are also relevant if they officially use them as football players. So add those too. werldwayd (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Woodstone's quote above is taken from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Usage in first sentence. It refers to "an article on a person". As the article in question is about an event, and the guideline is about the first sentence in the lead of an article, the quote has no relevance here. Again, there is no benefit to English language readers from including names in Thai script. WWGB (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Name of article

Is there any sentiment to rename this "2018 Thailand cave rescue" or something similar? I think naming conventions lean toward a more readily recognizable name. Coretheapple (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

See the top of Talk:Tham Luang cave rescue/Archive 2. MPS1992 (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually Tham means "cave" and luang means "great". So the title is now "great cave cave rescue". Any suggestions how to avoid this ugly redundancy? −Woodstone (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm new at this and I don't know how to "support" on that page, but I strongly support this idea. It's the first thing I thought when I saw this page; I hope that we never need to have more rescues, but realistically this page should be called "2018 Tham Luang cave rescue". Ikjbagl (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Some will try to argue that because the naming convention has been previously ignored by editors who didn't know of its existence, it no longer applies. Firebrace (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

There has been very extensive discussion on a name change and the clear consensus was that it remain as is. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Eleventh rescue

I'm interested to see that event in the article. Where did he backtrack to in order to find the guide rope back? A second diver swimming behind as was originally planned but later deemed too redundant might have solved that without losing 90 minutes. SlightSmile 10:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

More Details Emerging on Rescue

To Whom It May Concern: The most recent interview with one of the British divers who discovered the 12 boys and their coach has revealed new details about the operation and which ought to be incorporated in this article. See Rick Stanton gives incredible account of Thai cave rescue.Davidbena (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I think the significant fact is that all of the children were unconscious while being rescued and so do not remember anything about it. Have added that link to the video in External links. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

To Whom it May Concern: This https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44876108 teaches us new things.
1. The boys did not go in the cave for birthday celebration.
2. The boys tried to dig out of the cave
3. The order of rescue was decided by the boys volunteering by raising their hand, not because they were the weakest or the strongest. Thai Cave Person (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)