Talk:Seconds from Disaster

New series in 2011

Hi was wondering if this article needs updating as new series is due to start on National Geographic. It marks the end of the series as 2007 when it clear it has not finished. http://natgeotv.com/uk/seconds-from-disaster/about — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.152.18 (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Narrator - Stephen Bogaert

You have the narrator listed in the side box. Yet most countries have their own narrator for this series. I have never heard of this Stephen Bogaert. Perhaps he only does the original Canadian version ? The narrator box could perhaps say "Stephen Bogaert and regional variations" ? (or something more flowing than that) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.30.151.123 (talk) 06:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

?

It's spinoff

Seconds from disaster has is own spinoff. It's called Seismic Seconds. The new disasters on there are from that show.- Air transport freak

Oopsy! This was wrong. Sorry for the incovinence! - Air transport freak

Series 3

Series 3 is actually an extension of series 2. Series 3 has only recently finished filming, I believe.

Really? Is there any source for this? SchueyFan 14:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

repetition

What could be a good serie is ruined by feel of too much repetition and not enough, or any, expert interviews. "Air Crash Investigation" is a notch better atleast from this viewpoint.

you forget that "Air Crash Investigation" only does Air crashes, Seconds from disaster does more than just those, much more, also Air Crash Investigation is newer. --80.42.110.173 17:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

removing trivia section

As of now, the only item in the trivia section is about the narrator saying "seconds from disaster". This is hardly something that people wouldn't know already, as it is the show's title and therefore is probably going to be said in every episode.

Ilikefood 19:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Airdates

When the Forrestal episode ran today I went to enter the airdate. However, today was not the first run of this episode. While I was trying to enter the corect date, I collided with someone else entering today's date. No big deal, but don't be upset when I change your work. I am sure some of the other dates are wrong too. I'll try to fix them as I cathch them, but unfortunately National Geographic sometimes lists an original airdate that's wrong by a week or more. ---- Randall Bart <wiki@randallbart.com> 06:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I caught an inconguous airdate. According to Yahoo TV "Fire on Board the Star" first aired Aug 1, 2004. We have July 27, 2004, which is a Tuesday. Since all the others for 2004 are Tuesdays (except Chernobyl which is wrong), I'm leaving July 27. I'm fixing dates and titles as I catch them on the TV listings, but this is neveer going to be perfect. -- Randall Bart 05:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

For "Flood at Stava Dam", we have airfdate Oct 12, but Yahoo TV has Nov 9. I'm leaving Oct 12, because...eh--just because. -- Randall Bart 07:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need airdates. The confusion between them is, er, confusing. The last message about the Stava Dam episode showed that confusion whether it is Oct or Nov.

A message from 202.95.200.3.--202.95.200.3 13:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Alternate Titles

I have entered a bunch of alternate titles. It looks to me like the British producers title the episodes, then on rerun an American changes them. Thus "Air Crash" becomes "Plane Crash", and "Motorway" becomes "Freeway", "New York" becomes "Queens". This leaves me thinking the original title of the Kegworth episode was actually "Motorway Air Crash". Perhaps it had three titles. There's also a trend toward more provocative titles ("Runaway Train", "Killer Quake"). I suspect the lack of alternates in the first season does not mean they weren't changed, but that no one at WP ever recorded the earlier titles.

I am taking the National Geographic website as gospel here. -- Randall Bart <wiki@randallbart.com> 17:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I just turned the titles upsidedown. Now the current titles are first with prior known titles in parenthesis. I am getting titles from Yahoo! TV and NGC -- Randall Bart 21:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user just undid a bunch of my titles, which I have reverted. The user did fix two typos, which I restored. I have been checking the TV listings as they air. The Second from Disaster page at NGC is not being updated. I am taking current episode names from the National Geographic Channel Calendar. I am keeping all alternate titles, and if you delete any titles I'll probably revert your changes. If you see a current listing with a different title, feel free to add or rearrange titles.-- Randall Bart 19:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The alternate titles have gotten out of hand. We have two titles on each of the two episodes that haven't yet aired. I changed Space Shuttle Challenger to Space Shuttle Explosion. I left the old name, ... well can I really rationalize this? I've adopted the habit of leaving other titles in parens, no matter how dubious the provenance. I'm pretty sure that I saw commercials for TWA 800 and TWA Flight 800 the same week, so they've likely done it for others. I'm virtually certain Comet Air Crash, Chicago Plane Crash, and Twister have not appeared on the NGC calendar, but they follow the pattern of British and American names (though in the case of Twister the alternate is the American name). I will assume that in some commercial, in some TV listing somewhere, or is some alternate universe, all of these titles are cromulent. — Randall Bart 21:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC) I just saw it on my screen; the episode airing as I type this is titled "Space Shuttle Explosion". — Randall Bart 02:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Edited for typos

Fixed a pile of typos in the episode descriptions.

USS Forrestal Fire Article

I've edited many seconds from disaster articles, and i like opinions about whether it'sbest to leave the USS Forrestal Fire article as it is because it's a US Navy accident or can i edit it in more detail, please help me out, B06Todd

WP:BOLD — Randall Bart 21:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture Gallery

Why not add a picture gallery? There's a website I found from Redvision which does the CGI images for seasons 2 & 3.

--202.95.200.12 11:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, here's the website: Seconds from Disaster: Season 2 Seconds from Disaster: Season 3 - Episodes 7-19 Seconds from Disaster: Season 3 - Episodes 1-6

--202.95.200.12 11:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone agree? Oh well, I'll continue but I need to know how to insert images first. Can someone tell me how to do it?

--202.95.200.12 02:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Titanic (Sinking of the Titanic)

I have watched Seconds From Disaster: Titanic and found out that the ship sank intact. This was very different from the illustrations of National Geographic books and magazines because those books and magazines illustrated the ship breaking apart, not sinking intact as shown in the program. In my opinion, I found it inaccurate. Was this episode made after Dr. Robert Ballard discovered the wreck, or before? Has anyone observed the differences I stated?UrielSoriano 21:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The ship did break in two while sinking. It's already been confirmed. I don't know why that episode showed the ship sinking intact and diagnally. That's how it sank in most of the earlier movies, but the 1997 movie showed the ship sinking in the correct way based on eyewitness accounts. The Legendary Ranger 12:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Episode synopses

There is a problem with the episode synopses in this article: most of them use the dramatic/sensational tone used in the T.V. program instead of the encyclopedic tone used by Wikipedia. A few examples include sentences such as “Then the worst is revealed,” “Today should be no different,” “…leaving 155 people to die horribly.” These (and many other) episode descriptions seem to violate WP:TONE and Wikipedia:Words to avoid .

I suggest we fix the problem in one of two ways: We can eliminate the episode synopses completely, since there is a link to the article of each disaster, or we can rewrite the synopsis in a businesslike, formal tone. Many other T.V. episode lists include synopses, but the episode title and link might be sufficient for this series. I am willing to do the work for either of these solutions, but I would like other editor’s opinions on which would be better/preferred. – jaksmata 20:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the episodes should be removed from the main article and given their own separate one, eg. List of Seconds From Disaster episodes. This certainly wouldn't be the first time a TV show had a separate page for its episode guide. Adzma 02:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also support the creation of a separate page for the episode list, because the series, now out of production, produced 45 episodes over three seasons, which clearly seems sufficient to warrant a separate page. I recently did the same thing for a similar program, Mayday/Air Crash Investigation, splitting off the episode synopses into the List of Mayday episodes article.

As to your content objection, I wholeheartedly agree, and have noticed a similar problem on the List of Mayday episodes, Critical Situation, and Seismic Seconds articles. All of them are sensationalist, sound like television marketing, and use extremely unencyclopaedic content (excessive use of POV wording, melodramatic language, and rhetorical questions, among other things). Blueprint for Disaster seems to strike the sort of tone for which we should strive in such articles. 07:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Since there were no objections to what I proposed, it's done (I've deleted the redundant content). BTW, I have no objection to moving the list of episodes to List of Seconds From Disaster episodes. – jaksmata 18:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if it's too late, but I do object to them. The Legendary Ranger 00:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

However, I have no objection to moving the list of episodes to another article. The Legendary Ranger 12:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain? Do you object to the removal only, or do you also object to the alternative of rewording? The stuff you added back is terrible writing (for reasons I've explained above). If it stays, it will need to be redone - are you willing to help? – jaksmata 17:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will try my best to rewrite it, but it is going to take some time, so please be patient. The Legendary Ranger 22:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll help too, but I won't have time to do much editing until next week. – jaksmata 02:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Titanic (continuation)

This episode was the most inaccurate episode I've ever watched. I have said this because I was totally wondering WHY IN THE WORLD DID THEY STILL INSIST ON THE "SINKING INTACT THEORY" DESPITE THE CONFIRMATION OF THE SHIP BREAKING IN TWO BY THOROUGH RESEARCH AND THE DISCOVERY OF THE WRECK ITSELF THAT CONFIRMED THE "BREAKING APART" THEORY?!

Even so the narrator said, "Advanced computer simulation will take us to where no camera can go...into the heart of the disaster zone," but what good will it be when the disaster was portrayed INACCURATELY because of the creator's insistence or whatever it is?!?!

The program Hollywood Science (Still from National Geographic) episode "Disasters of the Sea" also believed that the ship broke in two.

Also, the program INACCURATELY portrayed the ship's collision with the iceberg. It was already very close when the ship finally turned to port. James Cameron's "Titanic" shows this, and Hollywood Science also believed in the depiction's accuracy.UrielSoriano 12:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that episode was pretty cheap, but what can I say. I don't think it really mattered to Seconds from Disaster that the ship broke in half. All they cared about is what happened when the ship collided with the iceberg. Before it was discovered in 1985, most people thought the ship sank in one piece, despite some survivors saying the ship split in two, but it wasn't until the wreck was discovered that this was finally confirmed. The 1997 movie was the most accurate in terms of how the ship sank. The Legendary Ranger 16:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that episode primarily concentrate on the metallurgical cause of the sinking, and no matter how the ship sank, it just did. But I do suggest putting this fact onto the episode summary. Nezard (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Helios flight 522

This episode doesn't appear to be in the list. I can't add it though as I don't know any of the details. Can someone who knows more about this add it? Immibis (talk) 07:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ignore that comment, I confused this program with Mayday. Immibis (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

1) Disasters don't just happen the're a chain of critical events unravel the faitful desicions in the final sceonds from disaster.

2) Disasters don't just happen the're a chain of critical events unravel the clues in the final sceonds from disaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.113.17 (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Best use of "Nature of disaster" column?

I have noticed that, in this article, the column "Nature of disaster" often indicates the resumed causes of the disaster, instead of the nature of it, although sometimes it actually indicates the nature. For example, it reads:

• pilot error, pilot attempted to take off in limited visibility without ensuring that the runway was clear instead of planes collision;
• metal fatigue instead of train crash;
• signal passed at danger instead of trains collision;
• construction error, load miscalculation, column failure instead of structural failure.

Yet on others it reads correctly, for example, terrorist attacks, or act of war, or nuclear disaster, or mountain climbing disaster. What I mean, is that the cause and the nature are all "jumbled together" in what is supposed to be only the nature. I suggest this is all uniformized for the nature of the disaster (not to mention it'll occupy less space). If no one replies within some days, I'll change it myself. Thank you! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Wanna talk?} _{See my} efforts? 22:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Qantasplanes (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It is now changed. If anyone objects... you're still in time, I guess... -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Wanna talk?} _{See my} efforts? 19:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

What about hiding the causes?

Hello, people! I was wondering this... Call me stupid, but I like to watch Seconds From Disaster documentaries without knowing, at first, the cause of the disaster I'm going to watch, so the result of the investigation can be a surprise for me, but this list of episodes often includes the causes of the disasters, so it kinda breaks that suspense... You get me? I think maybe we should not tell here the causes of the disasters, so people can get a look into the list of episodes, without knowing, at first, the cause. If they do wanna know them without watching the show, they can always check out the Wikipedia page about it. So, what do you folks think? Should we? -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Wanna talk?} _{See my} efforts? 17:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, never mind, folks. I've already received an answer here. Thanks, anyway! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Wanna talk?} _{See my} efforts? 21:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Season 7

According to this new episodes will air from 10th December possibly confirming a Season 7, are there any other sources for a new season, as this could be left over from the previous season. Yoshi58724 (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)