Jump to content

Talk:SS El Faro

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 77.86.117.208 (talk) at 15:27, 10 April 2018 (→‎Rescue Controversy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Steam ship

Let's be clear: steam ships without sails, do not "sail." Saying they sailed is both incorrect and unencyclopedic. The Dissident Aggressor 02:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be CLEARER! Most Merchant Mariners I've encountered among the ranks of seamen working for American Flag vessels, and belonging to American Merchant Mariner Unions, have for decades referred to the trade as "Sailing." It's been the terminology, regardless of steam engine or diesel motor propulsion. Marc S. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a general encyclopedia, not a maritime industry encylopedia. I'm not gonna revert, but as a mariner I think trying to stick the verb "steam" in there looks more like an editor is just trying to show off instead of communicate in a clear way. It is obvious that the ship was not using wind propulsion, so that is not going to be confused. The verb "sail" is a universally-understood general term for when a ship of any kind travels. The infobox and article make it clear what form of propulsion she has, so it's not necessary to specify that MV Wiki Glory motors, SS Wiki Patriot steams, and the sailing vessel Wiki Pioneer sails. 81.85.69.212 (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Steam" is probably the only alternative to "sail" when it comes to describing a ship moving across water in general text. I think in this article it works well as El Faro was in fact a turbine-driven steam ship, so there's no need to revert, but generally I'm reluctant to use the verb for motor vessels because they, obviously, do not run on steam. However, I don't really know of any alternative to "sail". "The ship motored across the sea"? "Smoked"? "Internally combusted"? Tupsumato (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. Let's change it back to "sail" The Dissident Aggressor 18:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, neither steamships nor motor vessels run on steam. They run on coffee. ;) 81.85.69.212 (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A steam engine does not have internal combustion, but they still have to burn fuel oil to heat boilers to make the steam.206.192.35.125 (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Sailed is fine, and steamed is probably fine here as well. However, if we really wanted to show off we would use hove instead of steamed or sailed. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to communicate it, is to say the Vessel "was underway" at "X knots" and "heading X degrees." Marc S. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I spent thirty years in the U.S. Navy on a number of ships. We always "sailed" from port.Oldbubblehead (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In case any other pedants swing by later and want to stir this up again, let me just re-emphasise that _all_ motor vessels both sail and steam. (Simultaneously, in fact.) At sea, "to sail" and "to steam" are both synonyms for "to go"; this is formal as well as informal usage. That neither term is an accurate reflection of their propulsive technology is utterly and entirely beside the point. While we're at it, it's been a few weeks since any of them had steering oars either, but they all still have a starboard rail. Laodah 00:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FUTURE Emergency Response Capability

The second guessing and speculation might save some mariners in the future. It could be beneficial, and vital, for the Coast Guard And the Navy to implement some sort of Maritime rescue team at the military base Guantanamo, Cuba. Perhaps a Guantanamo based rescue team might have saved that crew. Marc S. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image in infobox

I noticed someone had uploaded a non-free photograph from the shipping company's press kit. I propose replacing this by a free alternative by contacting the photographers at ShipSpotting and asking if someone could release one of the 19 photographs there under a Creative Commons license. Tupsumato (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the phrase "Press Kit" infer an intention to freely distribute for mass exploitation? Marc S. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In principle yes, but a photograph published under Creative Commons (or equivalent free) license is preferred in Wikipedia. Tupsumato (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which means that if a free image is available, it must be used. A fair-use image is fine here in the absence of a free-use image as it is now impossible for someone to take an image of the vessel afloat and licence it for free use. Mjroots (talk) 06:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask around at some point. Tupsumato (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add year, within first mention of each date, within each paragraph.

Please add at least one mention of the year within the beginning sentence of each paragraph when citing dates. For example, if somebody ten years from now were to scan over the current SS El Faro article, they would have no idea what year the hurricane occurred unless they looked elsewhere within the article. Matter of fact, several paragraphs have no mention of the year within the dates cited.

If I'm not mistaken from my high school English classes:

  • When using acronyms or abbreviations, always first initially define the acronym before usage throughout an article or story.
  • Same with the above, full dates should also likely be initially stated. Since current news Wikipedia articles rely heavily upon years changing throughout an article, I think it would be extremely appropriate to state the year alongside the date, at least once within each paragraph.

roger (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lede clearly mentions the hurricane and sinking were in 2015, and this is reiterated at the start of the "Sinking" section appropriately: On September 30, 2015, at 2:00 a.m., El Faro left Jacksonville, Florida for San Juan, Puerto Rico... Unless another year is mentioned, it's assumed all events thereafter are in 2015. It's standard writing practice and addition of years in every paragraph would create unnecessary redundancy. All other mentions of years follow this same method: mention the year at the first usage of it and dates thereafter within said year are shown with just month/day. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue Controversy

El Faro is in the news regarding the U.S. Coast Guard's failure to acknowledge that El Faro was in extremis.Oldbubblehead (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPV? The article clear levels blame on the master based on the say of the Coast Guard. This news feature paints a much more nuanced picture and make a strong case he was placed in a near impossible situation and let down at every turn. 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/04/inside-el-faro-the-worst-us-maritime-disaster-in-decades

Restoring a section

This comment was previously deleted without reason. I've edited it slightly for form:

  • I would like to note that the Title of the article is incorrect and should be changed. The "El Faro" was not a steamship (SS), but a motor vessel (M/V). A more appropriate title for this article would be "M/V El Faro," or "El Faro (ship)." In the maritime industry, including any US Coast Guard or American Bureau of Shipping database, the designation "SS" is only assigned to steamships, whereas motored vessel are designated "M/V." Other designations include "M/Y" (motor yacht), "USS" (united states ship), "HMS" (His/Her Majesty's Ship), "RMS" (Royal Mail Steamer), "SV" (Sailing Vessel), "SY" (Sailing Yacht), "R/V" (Research Vessel), etc. See Ship_prefix.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.131.164 (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's wrong please state that below here. Or make whatever other comments are appropriate. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SS El Faro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SS_El_Faro&oldid=835754304"