Talk:Titan submersible implosion: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:52, 22 June 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Titan submersible implosion article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 3 days

A news item involving Titan submersible implosion was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 June 2023.

Wikipedia

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: Newfoundland & Labrador / History Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Newfoundland and Labrador.
	This article is supported by WikiProject History of Canada.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Limnology and Oceanography Low‑importance

	Oceans portal This article is part of the WikiProject Limnology and Oceanography to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the inland waters and marine environments. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on limnology- or oceanography-related topics, as well as to ensure that limnology and oceanography articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.Limnology and OceanographyWikipedia:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyTemplate:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyLimnology and Oceanography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Transport: Maritime Low‑importance

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Maritime task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Travel and Tourism Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Date structure?

I believe instead of June 18, 2023, it should be 18 June 2023, in line with other incidents from similar pages including the sinking of the RMS Titanic itself. What do you think? KeyKing666 (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should use DD MMM YYY formatting -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, format should be DMY. Will edit as it appears we have consensus. Ng.j (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KeyKing666 and Ng.j: Based on what I have read, the reason that the Titanic articles use DMY is because the Titanic was a ship operated by a British company which allows MOS:DATETIES to take effect. In contrast, this is a "sub" that is owned and operated by a US company. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was operating out of St. John's, on a chartered Canadian ship[1]Polar Prince, so Canadian English can also apply. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 01:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had forgotten about the support ship. That works for me. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian English uses "June 18" the same as America, though. 80.11.60.74 (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian English does not use "18 June"-style dates. 80.11.60.74 (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 June 2023

It has been proposed in this section that Titan submersible implosion be renamed and moved to 2023 Titan submersible disappearance.

A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

2023 Titan submersible incident → 2023 Titan submersible disappearance – Per the discussion above, there's support amongst some editors, and personally, as the original article creator, I frankly agree that disappearance is a more straightforward name. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 05:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to OceanGate Titan Mishap. This is a "maritime mishap" which resulted in catastrophic loss of vessel and fatalities. You may further wait to mirror the language classifying this mishap in the likely ensuing U.S.C.G. Incident Investigation Report. The Titan (i.e., Cyclopes 2) is technically a class of vessel developed by Oceangate (flagship). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.236.138 (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to OceanGate Titan Disaster. I think this would be the best title to both provide context (some have suggested just "Titan" but it feels too vague to me) and remain in line with other similar articles. Icehax (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Icehax proposal as it's more precise and more concise than just "incident". I'd agree that WP:NOYEAR applies here as it would be closer to CRYSTALBALL to imply more incidents have happened in the past…mentioning the specific submarine further reduces the need for year as well. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

discussion before debris field were found

Yep, makes sense to me - methinks WP:JUSTDOIT might apply. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 06:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Incident" is the best term for an ongoing situation. We do not know what happened or what will happen. The submersible may yet be found, or some new developing information will change the context. Ng.j (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sub literally disappeared and hasn’t been located Eoj9020 (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been a few days, I wouldn't add it right now. Maybe wait a week or so as there is still an ongoing investigation. 212.250.189.37 (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah nothing has happened yet, like "oh yeah they are missing" well no shit it has only been a few days. Wait until they get found dead/alive or not found at all in a week or two. Sebbog13 (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
they will run out of air tomorrow, so I doubt they will be found alive in a week or two. Death Editor 2 (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"dead/alive or not found at all in a week or two." Sebbog13 (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been located just now Icehax (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait At least give it a few days for them to try to locate it --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Articles should be titled based on current information. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait we don't know if they'll find anything yet ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Certainly wait a few days. There are several possible outcomes, of which disappearance is only one. Davidships (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still No. It's still too early to decide. Nir007H (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Within the next few days it will become clearer what the title should be. There's no urgency to change it now. GoPats (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither: This entire conversation is backward. Regardless if the submarine has imploded or is never found or recovered with or without the passengers alive, it's likely the subject (the submarine) will never need more than a single wikipedia page with the title of "Titan Submersible" with redirects for other potential titles only and where any loss is a subheading. From a quick check of various wikipedia pages regarding maritime disasters, almost all of those involving single ships are simply written about within the article titled for the ship itself and not on their own "wreck" pages. Example, MV_Doña_Paz, which sank killing an estimated 4300+ people, MV Wilhelm Gustloff and SS General von Steuben were sunk in action thousands of deaths and again, no individual articles for their loss. The information within could also be placed in the OceanGate, Inc. page, with redirects from "Titan Submersible" and "OceanGate Titan" (or vice versa), to ensure that there is only one overarching Wikipedia page that hosts the content regarding this one-event notability situation. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it makes sense owing it's a dissaperance. Also while your at it pls can you protect the page from unverified editors? Metalhead11000 (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait If the search gets abandoned with no hopes, then we can move to disappearance. But if they found alive, there will be need in moving the article back from disappearance. Brandmeister^talk 13:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1? I agree, but it feels like there should be a better way to say this on Wikipedia. ForTheGrammar (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:ForTheGrammar, try {{Agree}}. Folly Mox (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Folly Mox: I'm not sure they meant a better way to express their endorsement. Maybe they were asking whether there could be a better way to talk about "abandoning them with no hopes" on Wikipedia. --Renerpho (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly this, we wait. Words in the Wind(talk) 21:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean... even if they're found, they still disappeared. The incident is still a disappearance, right? cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely everyone has missed that none of these titles are correct because no other submersible named Titan has ever sunk/disappeared/whatever, so "2023" is completely superfluous. It's not like the article for what it was going to see is "1912 Sinking of the Titanic". -- Kicking222 (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with @Kicking222here, there is no need for qualifiers Maximilian775 (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like having the "2023" doesn't lose us anything - it definitely doesn't make the titles incorrect - this event happened/is happening in 2023 and if anything having the year there does futureproof the article in case another submersible or submarine goes missing 94.5.218.193 (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how WP naming conventions work. If there's no need to disambiguate, don't. Kicking222 (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOYEAR: "Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. As this is a judgement call, please discuss it with other editors if there is disagreement."

I personally vote to omit the year. BhamBoi (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to title without the disambiguation, Titan submersible incident. I oppose the originally suggested move. --Renerpho (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Struck because I voted again below, after the discovery of debris.[reply]
Agree, Move to Titan submersible incident. Date is unnecessary, and it's looking like 'disappearance' isn't going to be required.--A bit iffy (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to cite some precedent, the Chinese balloon incidents earlier this year are titled as 2023 Chinese balloon incident. Celeron64 (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Even if they find it it will have been a disappearance. 156.143.240.139 (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Titan submersible disappearance. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree , Move to Titan Submersible Disappearance. Regardless of final outcome, the Titan did disappear. If a plane disappeared and we found the wreckage later on, it would still be a disappearance. Date is redundant as I sincerely doubt that this event will be repeated to the extent that a second page is needed. OneRandomBrit (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No Wikipedia is not news. We'll know what to call this article in a few days. Hopefully Titan submersible rescue. ~ HAL333 15:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But would support move to Titan submersible incident. ~ HAL333 01:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Titan submersible disappearance. 2023 is not needed, and it's a disappearance, so this is the proper WP:COMMONNAME for it right now. We shouldn't be pre-empting what it might be in a week or two time, but right now, it's a disappearance. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s incident too, so that’s neither here nor there.T v x1 16:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Titan submersible disappearance. As per above. Death Editor 2 (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Titan submersible incident. The year is redundant, an other potential change to the title is speculation.T v x1 16:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think its WP:TOOSOON for us to know the best title. Wait a little before moving and see what happens. With the exception that I agree 2023 is not needed in the title here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible accident or similar. Incident is too vague. Disappearance appears wrong if debris are confirmed to be from the submersible. I'll try and update my vote if WP:RS settle on a term over the next few days. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The year 2023 is redundant, and it is too soon to know if it disappeared or if it will later be found. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Titan submersible disappearance. The title should say exactly what it was. Incident is too vague. Songwaters (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet; as others have said, "incident" is fine until more is known, but "2023" should not be part of the final title in any case.--~T P W 17:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Titan (submersible) or something similar, per User:Macktheknifeau. The name of the vessel alone is concise and sufficiently unambiguous, and is consistent with how other shipwrecks are covered. pburka (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. While I do agree that it would be a better title, it'll only be one or two days until (in all likelihood) those onboard will have run out of oxygen (sorry to be grim), at which point the media coverage can give us a better sense of how to classify it. Cpotisch (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind. Move to "Titan submersible disappearance". That's quite clearly what it is now, and it's helpful that it's the only submersible disappearance ever, because we can indeed take off the 2023 and make it shorter. Cpotisch (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Titan submersible disappearance", for concision.--ERAGON (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "Titan submersible disappearance". More concise, and even if the submersible and its crew are found and rescued the fact that it disappeared in the first place is what makes it notable. PolarManne (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree: And like MtPenguinMonster said remove the 2023 from the title as well. Rager7 (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these suggestions match the common names though. As "Titanic" and "missing" seem to be present in most news media headlines, I'd support moving to something similar to Missing Titanic submersible for now. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait but removing the year is fine. Y'all are so quick. It could very likely be located within a couple days, at which point it won't be remembered as a disappearance but as a "rescue", or an "implosion" or "crash" or "disaster" or whatever once we get more information. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you are too optimistic about their chances of being found. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Titan submersible incident per above comments regarding year and time. Ved havet 🌊 (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait to see what happens before making any changes. This is Paul (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Support now we've had confirmation of its loss. This is Paul (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. It's definitely an incident, and may only be a disappearance for a bit longer. The current title harms nobody. Folly Mox (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incident. Not disappeared. It has not disappeared. Its whereabouts are simply unknown at present. I haven't seen a squirrel since two weeks ago. However, squirrels have not disappeared. The people with WP usernames who are actively debating this really need to get a grip of themselves. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:1122:4FD:855C:AEEC (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure if a person's whereabouts are completely unknown to the wider world, that means it disappeared. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We know precisely where Titan is. It hasn't disappeared. It's approximately 435 miles south of Newfoundland (Google will show you the exact spot) and somewhere between sea level and 4,000 metres below sea level. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:1122:4FD:855C:AEEC (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wow, that is the most idiotic statement I have heard in a long time! So no, you are wrong and it has disappeared because we DON'T FUCKING KNOW WHERE IT IS! Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain WP:CIVIL. NM 10:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone get this man in contact with the U.S. Coast Guard immediately, the mystery has been solved. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until it is either found, or the search abandoned -- and then follow whatever terminology reliable sources are using at that point. — The Anome (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the submersible is found or declared lost, then we can qualify it as a disappearance depending on what happens.

Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Titan submersible disappearance. Geordie (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per TulsaPoliticsFan and The Anome. It's WP:TOOSOON to predict how this search will end. When it does, a more appropriate title can be found. 〜 Askarion ✉ 02:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, or drop 'Submersible' from title: The current title seems to tell us exactly what it is: An incident, occurring in 2023, regarding the Titan submersible. The '2023' portion of the title seems to bristle some hairs, it does help differentiate from other similarly named articles, particularly the 1980 Damascus Titan missile explosion. I believe that shortening the title to 2023 Titan Incident, is the best course of action, at this moment. As many others have said, we will have more information in the coming days - with casualties expected, if any, within the next 30-35 hours, once the submersible's oxygen supply runs out. Then, we could talk about more specific, final title changes. DylanJ10000 (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and drop 2023 regardless: It has literally already disappeared. Further the incident has gained wide enough press and recognition that 2023 is no longer needed, Titan is sufficient. Changing the title also makes the article more accurate, acceptable and digestible to the general audiences which Wikipedia tailors too. Spilia4 (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - there is no rush, and if it's found in a few days then we would have to move it again which is silly. Drop 2023 when deciding on a final title. The submersible is a better disambiguation than the year, I think that should stay in. --mfb (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move, it's disappeared, not had an incident, if they don't get it, then it's a disappearance and incident. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 05:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. Disappearance has an air of finality about it. Nobody has concluded it has disappeared yet. It is currently missing. If it is found, the article will be moved again. In general, we should avoid haste at seeking to rename articles documenting a current event, requiring a maintenance tag slapped on top of a highly visited article. Finally, and with the greatest of respect to the article's original author for their efforts, the view of the original author of the article has no special standing in determining consensus - WP:OWN. Local Variable (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until it's confirmed that the Titan is lost. 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 06:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It will probably be found in time. Titanic was lost and then found again, many years later. But it looks likely that the crew of Titan will be lost? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn’t lost, they wouldn’t be looking for it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait as above, current name is fine, although agree we could drop 2023. Giant Snowman 08:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until we see how this plays out. The most prominent precedent seems to be Kursk submarine disaster. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I'd categorize this as a "disaster", regardless of how the events unfold. Kursk had a significant number of souls on board, a nuclear reactor, and was the apparatus of a State. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: Still a few days less. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant left Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

shame on you Dh75 (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, as it is an ongoing event. I'm unclear of what the precedent here would be but 'disappearance' would be correct once there was no longer an ongoing search. I concur with dropping the year in line with the other incident this year that has its own article, MT Princess Empress oil spill. JackWilfred (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Matthew Campbell (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move article to be about the submersible in all aspects (design, capabilities, and disappearance). Also, can we please ban the usage of the pointless non-description "incident" in Wikipedia page titles? Anything and everything that has ever happened is an "incident", an article shouldn't start off by being purposefully obfuscating--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea here, actually. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 03:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This prohibition should also extend to other meaningless descriptions like "tragedy" and "disaster". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I agree. 80.7.92.124 (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, they still have air supply until after June 22 this says. Give them a chance! Iljhgtn (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- the morning of June 22nd
Matthew Campbell (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, at least until friday. Also drop the 2023, as it is unnecessary Tantomile (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Titan submersible incident or Wait: Incident is what describes this best until it disappears for good. They may find the sub and it's wreck, then it would be "Wreck of...", or they are rescued and it's the same as it is now. 2023 is needless because it's the only time this kind of thing has happened. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, if it's recovered then keep, if not then move. MaxLikesStuff (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Incident" seems best for now. We don't know if it has entirely disappeared, as there may or may not be sounds coming from it at this time. Ann Teak (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait: As per other waits, we're unsure if they're able to recover the submersible or not. We're pretty much playing the waiting game until something happens. Kirbix12 (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do it. Veganoregano (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Titan submersible disappearance, removing both the 2023 over-disambiguation and using a more common title. Most current news seems to be referring to this as the "missing Titan submersible;" it seems accurate to say that the event is a disappearance, even if it is later found, and regardless of whether the crew are rescued alive or not. No strong prejudice against waiting some period of time before moving, but I'd note that a large chunk of the Wait comments don't specify how long we should wait (or use recovery of the vessel as a line, which can't ever be confirmed as a negative), nor is there any reason the article couldn't be moved again if that title is somehow rendered inaccurate. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 22:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Titan submersible disappearance. It's clear that "2023" is unnecessary (this hasn't happened with Titan before); the disappearance itself is going to remain relevant, whether it is found or remains lost. Zilch-nada (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Titan submersible disappearance. The incident is primarily a disappearance, regardless of the outcome. The search may go on for years, like Air France which wasn't found until almost 2 years later. No need to mention 2023 as there will never be another incident involving the Titan submersible. Usedbook (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NO! Wait at least a week. I'd suggest the qualifier "2023" is not needed. Keep it for now. Suggested title if located: Titan submersible incident. If not found and the recovery phase is called off, then I'd concur with a move with the title Titan submersible disappearance makes sense. Abebenjoe (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Category:Maritime incidents in 2023 - no other article there uses "disappearance". And it may or may not be found, with or without the crew alive, so it is way too soon to call it a "disappearance". If it cannot be found and the search is permanently called off, then we can revisit this move. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait per Ng.j. The original name of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster was Space Shuttle Columbia explosion.[2][3] In an early version of the article, two of the five paragraphs discussed the unlikely possibility it was a terrorist attack and precautions related to the fact that there was an Israeli aboard. None of that is mentioned in the current article--it was all removed last year. As new information comes in the best title of the article will be clear. "Incident" covers almost anything. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Titan submersible disappearance. remove 2023 per above; the submerisble has disappeared, that will not change even if it is found.Yeoutie (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the search has concluded. Christian Toney 01:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the search is ended by the authorities. If it isn't located in anyway at that point, we can reasonably conclude it's unlikely it will be located and it has 'disappeared'. If they locate it in anyway (floating on surface, submerged, on the bottom, debris field), then I'd say we leave it at incident.--The Navigators (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also support removing "2023" from the final title, regardless of what we decide on.--The Navigators (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Even if the submarine if found the submarine still disappeared, however "2023" is not needed for the new title - CatPerson987 (he/him) — Preceding undated comment added 02:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Incident encompasses disappearance here. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 03:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet: Let's see how they report on things over the next few days. 2023 probably should be removed from the title, though I don't have the policy on that memorized and I have no strong opinion either way. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Titan submersible incident per Kicking222 and Tvx1. 〜 Festucalex • talk 03:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move to the current page name? MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 04:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
Oops, yeah, the year is superfluous. Ignore this. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 04:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support “disappearance” as proposed. It is merely disappeared, and may well remain merely disappeared for decades. Change to “incident” only if reliable sources report an incident involved (eg sabotage, aliens). “Incident” implies something unusual, well beyond an accident, or a wiring or seal failure. OPPOSE dropping the year and current events cannot be presumed to have long term significance, it takes years worth of sources to demonstrate that the event is referred to with a timeless COMMONNAME. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]
Wait at least until the search ends, then rename. But the year is not needed, so remove. SethWhales^talk 05:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. We don't know if it has disappeared yet. Also, I would be in favor of putting this incident under the Oceangate Inc. page@

Wikepediathefreeencyclopedia1 (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Titan submersible incident, since "incident" better covers all aspects of both the initiating event (the disappearance) and the resulting ones (search and rescue, governmental responses, company response, etc.). Beginning (talk) 06:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Disappearance of Titan. See Disappearance of ARA San Juan, a submarine. "Incident" is misleading (what was the "incident" here?). Year is not needed. WikiHannibal (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Disappearance of Titan. As per WikiHannibal, see Disappearance of ARA San Juan. Don't need "Incident" and very unlikely to ever need year. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. WP always rushes to do this. Geez. If the Titanic went down today, the article would have been changed to Titanic: Incident, Titanic: Sinking, etc. Hour by hour. Once the smoke clears, the "incident" (regardless of its outcome) should just be a section at the overall article Titan since there is so much more information coming to light about the backstory than just this current tragedy. This morning I came to WP and typed in "Titan". It took me forever to find this article because of all the attached description. KISS. Maineartists (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Disappearance of Titan. I am uncertain about needing the year; but WP has always mixed up Disappearance, Disaster, Tragedy, and Incident in my opinion. Right now, the issue is that the Titan submersible has disappeared; it has not been found. The search is on-going for a missing vehicle and its occupants. While it might be very likely the occupants are now deceased, we can't state this fact — and call it a disaster or tragedy — until we find trace evidence of the submersible or the potential remains of the occupants. JenM5595 (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drop "2023" from the title as it doesn't seem to be disambiguating anything, neutral regarding everything else. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Disappearance of Titan - As far as we know the submersible wasn't involved in any sort of accident .... it simply disappeared so "disappearance" would be more correct. I live in hope that all those on board are still alive. –Davey2010^Talk 13:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Matthew Campbell (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. Still actively being searched for, so as of now it doesn't seem sensible to say that it's gone. JoelJSK (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move – it has disappeared. Even if it gets found soon, it still will have disappeared. – bradv 14:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It will have disappeared, yes; however, as people have said, once we know more we will know whether it was a crash, implosion, etc., which should take precedence over whether it has disappeared. Nonovix (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change to 2023 Titan submersible situation. That way whatever the outcome, the actual impact of this accident is still the same without too much deviation from what it is. We don't know what's happened other than they have disappeared and banging metallic noises have been heard. Too much gobbledy gook info spewing out of the media. Koplimek (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to change it to a tragedy/accident maybe after the press conf, they have found debris in the field if it is confirmed as belonging to the Sub then it could be classed as that. 212.250.189.37 (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not suggesting whatever has happened to Titan was deliberate, but that is a possibility. Therefore, until we know otherwise it would be unencyclopedic to use the word "accident". In addition, if the Titan has failed due to negligence or poor engineering it might not be appropriate to call that an "accident" either. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who or what would have an interest in Sabotaging The Titan? Death Editor 2 (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect, but I sense you would (given the opportunity). That aside, my point (clearly made) is that it cannot be assumed to be an accident. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was an accident, stop fooling around. Death Editor 2 (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You sound adamant? Exactly what a saboteur would say to throw police off the scent :) 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move: whether or not found, it's still a disappearance. 'Incident' or 'situation' is vague and unhelpful. $ɱ$ (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You say whether it's found or not it should be termed a disappearance? When it is found wouldn't that have to be changed to 'former disappearance'? 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it? It would still have disappeared. For example, one can still speak of the "disappearance of Agatha Christie". Of course, we would only continue to call it a disappearance if it were to reappear safely (as Christie did). As that now seems not to be the case, we would move on to titles like "wreck of ..." or "implosion of ...". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incident is a better term as especially in regards to deep sea incidents recovery is usually not viable whether the submarine reappears or not is irrelevant 99.224.199.140 (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Titan submersible disappearance. So far this is a disappearance rather than an incident. The year is also irrelevant. Grahaml35 (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion after debris were found

No. Incident is the right word. Debris have been found and identified so the sub has not "disappeared" but rather imploded in a million pieces. I think this news alone should close this discussion outright. Icehax (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree: It's no longer a "disappearance", and "disaster" seems a bit much for a loss of this magnitude. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concur: I agree that incident is the correct word to use here. The current title is clear. DynCoder (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. "Titan Submersible Implosion" would be a better name for the article. CatPerson987 (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change to 2023 Titan Disaster, in accordance with Wikipedia precedent. Redacted II (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concur: This title fits the bill perfectly, especially when compared to other catastrophic events, such as the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster or Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Alternatively, I believe that OceanGate Titan Disaster is a sound title. DylanJ10000 (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Space Shuttle Challenger disaster or Space Shuttle Columbia disaster! DylanJ10000 (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Icehax here. The sub imploded and took 5 lives, meaning its probably enough to be call an incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Typicalglazed (talk • contribs) 18:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Titan submersible disappearance. All five passengers are believed to be dead. CitationIsNeeded ツ 19:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Titan Submersible loss 80.7.168.14 (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Implosion of the Titan submersible per Coast Guard statement. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Tamzin KoP152 (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implosion of the Titan submersible or Titan submersible implosion would be best. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose and I suggest close the discussion now. The company and media outlets says they believe the sub is now destroyed. SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Tamzin, sources will be published soon, if not already published. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concurring with Tamzin. - L'Mainerque - (r/talkpage) - 19:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Oceangate Titan Disaster: It has been confirmed that the pressure chamber on the vessel exploded, instantaneously killing everyone aboard. Debris from the vessel has also been located and identified. DylanJ10000 (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this, but with a lower-case "d" in "disaster". Useight's Public Sock (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to OceanGate Titan Implosion: I disagree, sort of. While disaster is not an incorrect label, calling it an implosion is more informative. Grave8890 (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I move to close this discussion and reopen a new one. Schierbecker (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Schierbecker Tantomile (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is possible as this one isn't 7 days old yet. Furthermore you can just suggest a new title here and whoever closes the discussion in a few days will take it into consideration. Icehax (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion does not have to take full 7 days. In addition, the discovery of the debris field meaning the vessel had imploded means that the request move discussion has been contaminated. I believe it might be better to restart a fresh discussion. SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's necessary. I've put a subheading up for comments after we learned debris had been found; I think the closer should be able to use common sense and weigh !votes before and after that point. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've also just struck my old vote and posted a new one below. Effectively, this is a new discussion. --Renerpho (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that (prior to the last few comments) I've reverted a close by 90.254.6.237 that seemed to ignore all recent developments in this dicussion. Per WP:NACD, IPs cannot close RMs. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, there are a lot of possible titles that have been suggested so closing it right now is not the best idea. Icehax (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I collapsed the discussion as they are no longer relevant. SYSS Mouse (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No they found the wreckage so moot point Lime save 19:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Close early and start again: It is clear from recent developments that the vessel is no more and that significant parts of the original discussion no longer applies as initial written. Starting over will give participants a clean break to suggest different names with less confusion. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amended as the discussion above has been collapsed instead, which works for me. (It does give the benefit that the closer can review prior comments that have not been superseded by comments in this subsection.) --Super Goku V (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Titan submersible implosion. The sub violently collapsed onto itself, so frankly the word "implosion" would be a better fit for this. - pivotman319 (📫) 19:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this or "disaster," with a preference for implosion. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 20:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, or Titan submersible destruction. -- ElLutzo (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with either of the suggestions OneRandomBrit (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Titan in italics. Significa liberdade (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. That seems the best choice considering what we know now. Gawaon (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Loss of the submerisble Titan or Loss of the OceanGate Titan are also possibilities. Somehow disaster seems off for an incident of this size craft and crew. I'd support quick close and open new discussion with voting among the more popular suggestions consistent with the news. Chris vLS (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to 2023 Titan submersible implosion It's clearly imploded or suffered severe damage causing it to appear imploded. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 19:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove 2023 -- There's no need to distinguish between the 2023 Titan submersible implosion and some other Titan submersible implosion. Significa liberdade (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Parham wiki (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just remove "2023" - I don't really have a strong opinion on whether we call it "implosion" or "disaster" but there is absolutely no need to include the year [2023] in the title. Colipon+(Talk) 20:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Parham wiki (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Renaming of this article should not include the cause, because an investigation will follow to determine the sequences of events to this disaster. Therefore, the article name needs to be generic. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 20:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Titan submersible implosion per Coast Guard statement. 2023 is unnecessary. Glman99 (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just remove "2023", and keep the word "incident". I second what User:KyuuA4 has said two lines above. We should be careful implying any kind of cause, even if the media have discussed it, and just referring to it as an incident is the safe approach. Please note that the US coast guard, in their press release an hour ago, said that the discoveries are consistent with a catastrophic loss. They are not saying "we have found proof of an implosion, case closed", even though that's the obvious conclusion. --Renerpho (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Titan submersible implosion. Year is not needed, and "implosion" is magnitudes more descriptive then "disaster" or "incident" DarkSide830 (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, Titan submersible disaster would seem to be appropriate now. Ann Teak (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Implosion of Titan - reads better this way round (rather than "Titan implosion"), and I can't think of any other famous implosions of Titans, so "submersible" seems unnecessary. 2A00:23C4:6B13:D801:243A:5816:555B:30FD (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Submersible helps define context, you might not have heard of other Titans imploding but to the outside eye you wouldn't have a clear understanding of what the article might entail. I would keep the title almost as is and just remove 2023 since this is an ongoing event and we don't even have a preliminary report yet. What is certain is that this was not a disappearance. Icehax (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As @Icehax stated, it's best to include "submersible" for outsider context. Secondly, it's best to be concise for article titles, which means removing prepositions if possible. Titan implosion is grammatically sound. Significa liberdade (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to OceanGate Titan disaster; "OceanGate Titan" sounds nicer than "Titan submersible", and including the word disaster would be consistant with other incidents, such as Costa Concordia disaster and Hindenburg disaster. Liljimbo (talk) 20:35, June 22, 2023 (UTC)
Move to either Titan submersible implosion or Titan submersible disaster. I'm not sure how the company's name could fit in any of these titles to be honest, and we should only leave it at that. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There have been similar instances in the past where the name of the company has remained in the title. I personally think it's an integral part of the vessel's name. For reference see the Costa Concordia disaster Icehax (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the case you're referencing, the company name was Costa Cruises, and the name of the ship was Costa Concordia. This is not an instance of keeping the company name in the Wiki title but rather an instance of a company naming a ship after the company. Significa liberdade (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say keep the company name out of the title. Looking at past disasters, there's no precedent to include the company name. ETA: See List of submarine incidents since 2000. Significa liberdade (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Titan submersible disaster, like the title of the Kursk submarine disaster article. Emkut7 (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the suggestion to move to Titan submersible implosion or Titan submersible disaster. As Significa liberdade pointed out, in the Costa Concordia case, the name of the ship was Costa Concordia, not Concordia, but this submersible was named Titan, not OceanGate Titan. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer Titan submersible implosion: it's more descriptive and straightforward than "disaster". I also prefer "Titan submersible" over "OceanGate Titan", as it's more descriptive, and the company name isn't part of the craft's name. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually move this page to the 2023 Titan submersible sinking not implosion. This vessel sank as a result of compressive implosion. The term implosion has a broad meaning including the intentional inward demolition of buildings through explosives, nuclear detonation and other meanings, that may confuse the common reader. Most subs that sink in deep water implode after they reach a certain depth anyway. In summary, this vessel sank as a result of a kinetic implosion and not a detonative implosion, so I propose moving it to sinking or keeping it at incident. Words in the Wind(talk) 21:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think incidindent still fits the bill. all the other words: "implosion", "disaster", etc, are not used uniformly across media outlets coverage of this "incident"... it is clearly tragic, and a disaster, but I think the current title should just hold. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an authoritative source to support your assertion that "most subs that sink in deep water implode after they reach a certain depth"?

Further, do you have a source to support your assertion that there was not any kind of explosion (detonation) on board Titan that triggered an implosion? Primie facie, a pressure vessel containing oxygen cylinders and Heath-Robinson electrical systems powered by lead-acid batteries sounds like a recipe for explosions. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would mean making assumptions on the mechanism of incident since we currently have no official preliminary nor final reports, which is a big no-no in my books. It's better to use the more general terms for now such as incident or disaster, it could always be updated later without a discussion when a proper report comes out. Icehax (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incident works for now i argue Iljhgtn (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, "accident" would be a better word in my opinion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would refrain from using "accident" as that tends to imply an error was made (and that someone is at fault). Again, we don't know why the vessel imploded (at least not yet). Perhaps sticking with "incident" is the best course for now. Significa liberdade (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Titan submersible disaster in line with other submarine losses such as Kursk submarine disaster. [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 21:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Titan submersible incident Until there is a definitive report from a government agency that details the mechanism of failure for the craft, I say referring to it as an "incident" in the title is entirely appropriate. It is purposefully vague enough to not rule out any other possibilities even though evidence currently suggests implosion as the most likely scenario. Discussion of moving the page should only be revived once an official report is released in my opinion. As for the year, I agree that the page should be moved to Titan submersible incident specifically, and neither "sinking" nor "implosion" for the reason I listed above -- we don't know for sure what happened until an official report is released. I am not necessarily opposed to "disaster" either. Red Card For You (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes, these are my thoughts too Iljhgtn (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree with you, this would be the most sensible choice for now. Also everybody has a slightly different idea for the title so i think going with the most general option might be best. I suggested OceanGate Titan disaster but your version works as well. Icehax (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Significa liberdade (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2023 Titanic Submersible Sinking like a normal person would. That's after most people calling it a submarine. WorkingOnTheRailroad (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

but most do not even call this a submarine, they are calling it a submersible Iljhgtn (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding sinking would presupposes a known mechanism of failure which we currently do not have. Until we have at least a preliminary report i wouldn't use such specific vocabulary. Icehax (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support "Titan submersible implosion" or "incident", per above, and per Coast Guard statement. Best to be succinct and detailed about the event itself, whilst mourning the lives lost. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would support either Titan submersible accident or Titan submersible implosion. Both seem natural and a good description of the event. Incident doesn't seem proper for an event that caused the deaths of all 5 people in the submersible. We should also keep in mind WP:DISASTER, the word "disaster" shouldn't be used unless it is more severe than other events of the same type and there is significant usage of the word. This event doesn't seem too extraordinary compared to others. There has only been one Titan accident before so the year isn't that necessary. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 22:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. They found debris, so it's not a disappearance anymore. Christian Toney 22:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Titan submersible implosion. ~ HAL333 22:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Titan submersible disaster or Titan submersible incident or Titan submersible accident or Titan submersible sinking. The former is most consistent with similar articles from what I can tell. Calling it an implosion is too specific and unnatural for the title (Space Shuttle Challenger disintegration is still red as of now). We should specify that we are discussing the titan sub and not one of the many other vessels called Titan, but including the year is probably unnecessary and reduces conciseness. Calling the sub "OceanGate Titan" would also distinguish it but that's not part of its official name, so it's not consistent with other articles and could be confusing to readers. The word "incident" is rather vague, but we still don't know what exactly led to the implosion. "Accident" conversely might imply we know more than we do about the causes, but it's used broadly to describe many marine incidents. "Sinking" might be a reasonable middle ground but it just sounds weird to me; I might be prejudiced against gerunds. I think "disaster" is best, but any of the above would be OK, maybe depending on what reliable sources call it after today. Definitely not "implosion" though. —Rutebega (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree They found two piles of debris. It imploded

Matthew Campbell (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say it didn't implode? We decide article titles based on this policy, which specifies that they should be, among other things, natural. As I pointed out, we don't have articles called "Space Shuttle Challenger disintegration" or "Hindenburg rapid exothermic oxidation" even though that is what happened to those craft. —Rutebega (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
😂 I'm just stupid. But I think it should be "Implosion of Titan Submersible". It wasn't a disaster. A disaster is like Chernobyl. Only 5 people died. A disaster is 50+ Matthew Campbell (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No 20+ Matthew Campbell (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the reliable sources calling this a "disaster"? Macktheknifeau (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph does use the wording 'Titan submersible disaster' in the headline to refer to the situation. However, I am currently unsure if there is enough reliable sources to have that be the article name. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been fighting for decades to have the Hindenburg disaster relabelled as the "Hindenburg-rapid-exothermic-oxidation-and-succumbence-to-downward acceleration-due-to-the-force-of-gravity-event". Please DM me and let's work together to make this happen. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The article page should simply be named "Titan submersible" or "OceanGate Titan" with all content regarding the submarine on this one page. It doesn't need "incident" or "implosion" or "disaster" on the end as anything but redirects if required. The vast majority of ship sinkings on wikipedia have their article names solely as the name of the ship and only when a vessel itself and the the sinking event are both significantly notable to the point that splitting content over a "Ship" and "Ship Sinking" page does such a split page be required. There is no such justification here, there is no reason to split the content between an article regarding the submarine and the sinking. It also handily avoids the inevitable complaining from people who think it should or should not be suffixed with "incident" or "implosion" or "sinking" or "disaster" or "disappearance" or "loss". Macktheknifeau (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Disagree People should know right away what happened. I do think that the Titan should have its own Wikipedia page.

Matthew Campbell (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your use of all-bold text is duly noted Matthew. Thank you for your forthrightness. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:BLP1E Icehax (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this as well. I had assumed that certain naval ships had their own notability guideline dictating they have their own article anyway, ~~but there isn't one that I can find~~. The other argument would be that when dealing with people, we typically cover the notable event rather than the person involved. This isn't about a person however, the sub would certainly meet the GNG, and I can't think of any other reason it can't have its own article. I would also support a move to Titan (submersible), though I won't strike my comment above since I think those options are also reasonable. —Rutebega (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you search for the Titan specifically you won't find basically any sources talking about it specifically (OceanGate had other subs as well), so i don't believe it would meet the notability guidelines. It might not be a person but WP:BLP1E still applies i think. Icehax (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i went and looked around and found this: Wikipedia:Notability (vehicles) which says this specifically about individual (unique) vehicles:

"When possible, a vehicle that is only notable for participation in a single event that was not specifically modified for the purpose of the event should be covered in the article about the event, not in a separate article."

So i would argue we dont need a separate article for the Titan. Icehax (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't assume that 1E applies to any subject notable for a single event, but I missed that essay which does seem to apply it to vehicles. It isn't a guideline but it's longstanding and doesn't appear to have generated controversy, so I'm reversing my support. —Rutebega (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to implosion of the submersible Titan. Much clearer, and eliminates useless year from the title. Neutrality^talk 23:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2023 implosion of Titan Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i do not like how that sounds.. if someone were googling it, i do not think they would google "implosion of the submersible Titan" Iljhgtn (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
maybe "Titan submersible accident" ? Has anyone suggested that Iljhgtn (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i do agree that the year is uselss though and does not need to stick around Iljhgtn (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Titan submersible implosion (or if really need be Titan submersible disaster) as per those above and per sources which now state it imploded, May Shahzada Dawood, Suleman Dawood, Hamish Harding, Paul-Henri Nargeolet and Stockton Rush all rest in peace, My sincere condolences to friends and family at this sad time. Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 23:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inventors killed by their own invention

IF they die/are already dead, could we hypothetically add the Inventors killed by their own invention category? Death Editor 2 (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know if the CEO is actually the inventor of the Titan, or just the concept of a submersible company? If he didn't have significant hand in creating the Titan, like engineering or blueprinting at least, I personally would not call him the inventor. UnapolMaker (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or is he just a person who was hired to be CEO of the company?.T v x1 21:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It said that he was the founder of the company as well as the CEO. Death Editor 2 (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to a profile in the Smithsonian, I think the Titan is Rush's brainchild,^[1] which I think would make him eligible for the category.Significa liberdade (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it can be added if/when they die, got it. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not here, but if someone writes the Stockton Rush article it may be includable there. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now, it's my understanding that it does not require one to have a wikipedia article on their own, since both Michael Dacre and Henry Smolinski are listed. Death Editor 2 (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In those cases the category went on the redirect page for the person's name, not the other article itself. So to be analogous to those case, you'd put the category on Stockton Rush and not here. It's pretty clear from the categories wording Inventors killed by their own invention. The category is for a subcategory of inventors specifically and should include people, not things or incidents. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah fair enough. Death Editor 2 (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it’s a big leap to say he invented a deep-diving submersible. In reality, he merely designed this particular type of that vessel. T v x1 22:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Hughes didn't invent the idea of Rockets but yet due to creating his OWN rockets he is classified under the category inventors killed by their own invention. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that explicitly discusses the loss of Titan in this context (the inventor being killed by his own invention)? If so then you can include it in the list. If not then that would be user-generated content, which does not belong on Wikipedia. A source that merely states that it is their invention is not sufficient, unless it puts that into relation with the incident. --Renerpho (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a better conversation for Talk:Stockton Rush and/or Talk:List of inventors killed by their own invention, though the category has been added to the Rush bio and he's been added to the list article already. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Magazine, Smithsonian; Perrottet, Tony. "A Deep Dive Into the Plans to Take Tourists to the 'Titanic'". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 2023-06-20.

Mapframe

@Tvx1, Daniel Maak, and Veggies: In my opinion, an interactive map is superior to a static, poorly framed map only useful to those familiar with where Newfoundland is. — AFC Vixen 🦊 00:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That it’s poorly framed is only just your opinion. In infobox is also intended to summarise an article. Where newfoundland, or more generally the incident site is situated should be conveyed in the body of the article and not firstly by the infobox. Your map is just an unexplained point on a large body of water. The map you keep replacing is actually informative through included text, which defeat the inconveniences its static nature could have. T v x1 01:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current map is also "just an explained point on a large body of water", so I don't understand what your point is. Ironic to your point about conveying things in the article body, the text in the image should be conveyed in the article body or infobox, and should not be presented as an image, per MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. — AFC Vixen 🦊 02:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of options we could use that are a little more zoomed out if we wanted. I'm no SVG whiz or I'd make a map that was a bit more zoomed in than the top option, capturing just eastern Canada and Northeast US. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

class=notpageimage|

"North America" option

class=notpageimage|

"North Atlantic" option

You can much more simply just set {{Infobox mapframe}} to |zoom=2 instead of |zoom=3. — AFC Vixen 🦊 04:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, true:

GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. Use a typo against someone. Your map coveys nothing. It’s not an improvement in any way. The current map summarizes the origin, the path and location of mishap of the expedition. And all we have to do to make it MOS compliant is to make sure that the crucial information is repeated in the caption and that the text is also presented with alt parameters. Als no text is “presented as an image” here. There is an image with some explenatory text.T v x1 04:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith towards fellow editors. I apologise for causing offense, but I can't reasonably have known it was a typo in the first place. Do be mindful that changing the wording of other editors' replies like you did to mine is not kosher either, per WP:TPO. Back on topic, there isn't really any point in having the text in the image if the text is going to be in the caption anyway, no?. — AFC Vixen 🦊 05:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was on obvious mistake. I meant to fix my own post. And I don’t think I accused you of bad faith anywere. And I never said the text in the caption should be identical to the text in the image.T v x1 19:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You accused me of "using a typo against someone". — AFC Vixen 🦊 19:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And that’s bad faith according to you???? That comment intended to deal with low class.T v x1 10:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1: It sounds like bad faith to me. Are you saying you assumed the original comment was "low class"? Please don't do that. --Renerpho (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No just that one sentence. So I have to accept anything that’s thrown against me, but replying to that in anyway is utterly unacceptable?? T v x1 22:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honest opinion: the plain blue MS-Paint map that was initially used when the article was beginning to form was poorly made. Shit even. The map currently used now should've been used at the very beginning, or your creation should have been formed to fit Wikipedia's style instead of it's ugly seasickness. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a zoomable map is best and, having looked at the alternatives suggested, agree that this should start with a big picture view of the North Atlantic. I have accordingly updated the infobox to use {{infobox mapframe}} with zoom=2 as suggested by GW. The previous static map was unsatisfactory, as discussed. For another thing, that map mentions France and so may completely mislead people who are not familiar with this geography. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly do not so see an improvement in your change. Now there’s just an uninformative map of dismal quality with a marker which is horrible off scale. The previous map actuall showed an informative visual summary of the subject of this article.T v x1 19:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like the latter two options proposed above. ~ HAL333 16:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OMG how do i turn off notifications for this one thread. i like having notifications of things i have commented on, but this one had 27 notifications since my last simple comment???!!!! Iljhgtn (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There should be an "unsubscribe" button at the top of the section, and you can adjust notifications settings in your preferences. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
okay i just clicked unsubscribe, thanks. i hope my commenting in reply to thank you does not now resubscribe me. hahaha Iljhgtn (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate precision

Why are the coordinates at the top so precise? It gives a false sense of precision. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's the location of the dive site, and the wreck of the Titanic. (ie. the mission goal for the expedition) -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does that correspond to "approximately 900 mi (1,450 km) east and 400 mi (643.7 km) (643km) south of St. Johns, Newfoundland", as BBC have said (except it looks like they have used miles instead of nautical miles)? Should this be added somewhere? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This information from the BBC is obviously incorrect. 900 miles east of Newfoundland is halfway across the Atlantic to Ireland. The wreck is more like 9 or 90 miles east of Newfoundland (and around 400 miles south). 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:D8B6:15A7:35D9:3D73 (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 90 nmi might be more plausible. Wreck of the Titanic says "... 370 nmi (690 km) south-southeast of Newfoundland". So that might be better and simpler. If that's where the dive site is or was. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My suspicion is that the BBC saw reports that the USCG was conducting operations 900 nmi from Cape Cod, and confused that with the reporting around the expedition leaving from Newfoundland. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've since seen on Reuters website (from where BBC lifted the story) they've given the position of the Titanic wreck as around 900 miles east of Cape Cod, and 400 miles south of St Johns.

The BBC have edited it (for clarity no doubt) and removed the reference to Cape Cod: putting both measurements relative to St Johns (and putting the wreck equidistant between Newfoundland and Ireland).

I flagged it up with BBC three hours ago but the story is unaltered. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:1C76:BBE4:82F1:A241 (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:COORDINATES for additional details on how we display them. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Goku V: That guideline says "Avoid excessive precision (0.0001° is <11 m, 1″ is <31 m)." Currently it's specified to the arc second, which is pretty exact. My point is that we could just specify it to within the arc minute, or whatever level of significant figures we think is accurate enough.

I'm not sure what that precise point is supposed to be (it's not discussed in the infobox or elsewhere in the article). Is it the last point of contact before it disappeared, or something like that? Where did the arc seconds come from, anyway? Did someone make them up or were they actually mentioned in a report? I notice that the longitude exactly matches what is given in the Titanic article, which makes me think someone might have just taken that and offset the latitude by an estimate of how far they were from their goal. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the dive site not be directly over the position of the wreck? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. The difference between the currently provided latitudes is about half a (statute) mile by my estimates. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed, but I am currently unsure if it needs modification to reduce the precision at this time. But sure, we can choose to modify it if it is too much. In any case, I think that the coordinated were copied over from the Titanic article exactly given that was their intended destination. I did fix the latitude issue as there were two competing templates for some reason wit different numbers, so I synchronized them. (It seems that someone determined which one wasn't needed and removed it.) --Super Goku V (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They've found debris 500 metres (1,600 ft) off the bow of the Titanic, so we have a location now, just a little off the Titanic. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time zone

The article uses Atlantic Daylight Time, as used by the CNN source, but the source is incorrect. The source says that ADT is 1.5 hours ahead of EDT, but that's actually the Newfoundland Time Zone. Atlantic time is 1 hour ahead of Eastern time. I suspect that CNN is using Newfoundland time and has misidentified it as Atlantic time, but we would need a separate source to confirm this. – bradv 18:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian also gives a timeline, but its times do not match what CNN is saying, in either time zone. For example, the Guardian says the sub began its descent at 7 ET, CNN says 9 AT. CNN says they lost communication at 11:47 AT, the Guardian says 8:45 ET (which would be 9:45 AT, or 10:15 NT). – bradv 18:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I found that so confusing. I am assuming the CNN reporter meant NDT. ADT would be for Halifax, Nova Scotia. But that would only make sense if they were coordinating this operation, but they are not, St. John's, Newfoundland is. So, the local time should be in NDT. I'll see if a Canadian Newspaper has it. Abebenjoe (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv probably The Guardian is using Standard Time instead of Daylight Time in their report. If that is the case, then indeed, EST would be 2.5 hours behind NDT, or five hours behind UTC. With that confirmation, we can conclude the CNN time is definitely in the NDT timezone. Abebenjoe (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian is using standard time, so let's calculate this from GMT instead. NDT is UTC-2:30. According to the Guardian, the dive began at 9:30 am local time, and contact was lost at 11:15 am local time. (Total elapsed time: 1 hour and 45 minutes).

But according to CNN, the dive began at 9 am, and contact was lost at 11:47 am. (Total elapsed time: 2 hours and 45 minutes). So maybe CNN is using ADT and not NDT?

Or maybe there's a simpler explanation: CNN screwed this up (that's obvious: ADT is not 1.5 hours ahead of EDT), and the Guardian copied them and screwed it up some more (which is also obvious: ET is not currently GMT-5).

I think we need to take the times out of the article, unless we can find something direct from horse's mouth. – bradv 21:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found 3 more sources:

ABC News says the dive began at 8 am ET (9:30 NDT), and lost contact 1 hour and 45 minutes later. This agrees with the Guardian timeline.
The Independent says the same thing, if we assume that they meant EDT rather than EST. (Thie is an understandable error for British sources, as they use the "S" to indicate summer time rather than daylight time.)
Reuters says 8 am ET for the dive and 9:45 for lost contact.

All three of these sources, and the Guardian, are better than the CNN source we are using now. – bradv 21:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! It should be changed. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv agree. The article is now using a better source. I also added UTC times because Newfoundland Time is confusing (when a program is broadcast the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) TV or Radio, they say "10 o'clock local time, 10:30 in Newfoundland.") Abebenjoe (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Search-and-rescue - Hyphens or not

It appears the standard is to write search and rescue without the hyphens, but throughout the article the phrase is hyphenated. Is there a reason to keep it in the hyphenated form? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does it fucking matter Veganoregano (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be nice, OK? WP:TPNO. Significa liberdade (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping a consistent and encyclopedic style matters for an encyclopedia. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 03:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes 〜 Festucalex • talk 03:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I've added hyphens where they're missing just for consistency's sake. I'm not sure which is correct. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Search and rescue is correct. It is commonly abbreviated as SAR. For more info, please refer to Search and rescue. Hyphens are not necessary. Ng.j (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:HYPHEN, specifically #3; compound modifiers. If "search and rescue" is being used to describe a noun use hyphens (e.g. search-and-rescue efforts or search-and-rescue mission). Hyphens wouldn't be needed when not used as a modifier (e.g. Search and rescue was hampered by low visibility weather conditions, which cleared the next day.). Of course, this is subtle and context will probably do most of the disambiguation for you if it comes up. ― Synpath 18:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed clarification of location of dive site

Propose to change:

"The ship arrived at the dive site on 17 June, and the dive operation began the following day on Sunday.."

to:

"The ship arrived at the dive site on 17 June, approximately 370 nmi (690 km; 430 mi) south-southeast of Newfoundland, and the dive operation began the following day on Sunday..".

This matches the position given in Wreck of the Titanic. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t whether it dove precisely above the wreck, so no this shouldn’t be added. T v x1 10:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so maybe we must have a source, even if we use the word "approximately". But what are the "highly accurate" co-ordinates and the map position meant to be telling us... just where the wreck is? where the submersible is now? (if only) where the incident began? The map caption says: "Location of the wreck of the Titanic, where the Titan was diving." We don't even know if it got to the wreck. I'm just saying that the map point could also be described in nautical miles from somewhere. Thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree change proposed. The position suggested is qualified "approximately", as well as the Titanic position being apparently rounded to the nearest 10nmi etc. It is perfectly valid to point readers to the relevant area of the ocean. Davidships (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reworked SVG map

I wanted to improve the original SVG map a bit, since – like the discussion remarked – it was lacking in displaying the scale of the operation. But the work took so long I apparently came a bit late to the party, and the infobox map has now been replaced with an interactive map, which is arguably more useful. But I'll link the map in case someone wants to use it, or rework it or offer feedback.

It's not really infobox-legible at this stage, but I'm trying to strike a balance between informativity and legibility. —Nelg (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is much better than the current mapframe. Interactivity is good, but it should never trump legibility and informativity. The priority should be a summary of the article.T v x1 10:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:2023 Titan submersible incident map.svg has more useful information that the zoomable map, even at the highest levels of zoom. I just swapped them; let's see if it sticks. Moscow Mule (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could the text size in the red label be increased? It's minuscule in the infobox. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Submersible destroyed" in infobox; parts of submersible debris found

This seems very premature and has been contested twice already. What are the specific sources you're referring to in your edit summary, DanDeMedicMan? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2 parts of the sub were found so it is highly likely it is destroyed (bbc confirmed) St1vaida (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link? Is this about the Sky News report mentioned in the edit summary referred to above? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was revealed on air on the bbc St1vaida (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BBC News Online live feed. Mjroots (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now on both BBC and Guardian live feeds. Still not official, of course (Guardian: "These claims have not been confirmed".) Sky is here. Moscow Mule (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Coast Guard press conference may give that official confirmation. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it will. The bigger question is how this article should handle "one bloke talking to Sky News" for the next hour and a bit. I'd be inclined to remove if from the infobox until then, but it'd only get put back. Moscow Mule (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I also agree that the edit warring will simply continue. Not sure if it's worth upping the protection level. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-65967464 Duck Dur (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sources are being cautious by saying "a friend of the passengers" (who does not seem to be a part of the search operation, and is himself receiving the information at least thirdhand from the Explorers Club, who got it from unclear sources). That is a far cry from us putting "submersible destroyed" in wikivoice in the infobox. Presumably more information will be available from a far more reliable source in ~40 minutes with the press conference. We should prioritize being accurate over being up-to-the-millisecond with every headline.

I've stuck a link to this discussion in a hidden comment, hopefully that might mitigate edit warring. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The landing frame and a rear cover allegedly included in the "debris field" found in the search for the Titan sub could have been from a previous Titan dive... the message that the club’s president, Richard Garriot, sent to others in a group was misrepresented." Guardian Live @ 19.40 BST. So those calling for caution are vindicated. OK, overtaken by events minutes later. But it may say something about the Explorers Club's reaction to one guy spilling the beans from a WhatsApp group on TV. Moscow Mule (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now folks are switching things to past tense and suchlike based on CNN and Ocean Gate reports. C'est la vie. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C'etait la vie. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OceanGate statement

I'm having trouble finding the original statement, but according to CNN (https://www.cnn.com/americas/live-news/titanic-missing-sub-oceangate-06-22-23/index.html), OceanGate has made a statement indicating they believe the crew members aboard the Titan have "sadly been lost." It seems we're reaching the time of making updates to the page to reflect these statements, as well as those I'm sure are coming soon. Significa liberdade (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i found the same thing, seems that their website is down, so i guess we will have to use the CNN link for now Tantomile (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I would probably add this statement to thee article somewhere. This will be covered by the media. The article should then be updated to reflect what is then said. Gust Justice (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

quick update, https://www.cnn.com/americas/live-news/titanic-missing-sub-oceangate-06-22-23/h_4600cd3013726aee0de8a25c03fd5647. Debris was "consistent with catastrophic loss of the pressure chamber," Tantomile (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BBC is also doing live coverage, taking quotes from the press conference:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-65967464

EddieColdrick (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When was the statement issued? There's some lack of clarity in the article at the moment over whether they issued the statement based on their assumptions from the amount of oxygen available to the sub, vs. after the Coast Guard discovered the debris suggesting the vessel had imploded. Not the most important thing, but we should avoid implying one way or the other if the timing isn't clear. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of social media effect in Reactions section

Hi all, at one point there was a blurb about the social media impact/effect that the incident had (with sources): "The submersible's disappearance, build and the search and rescue efforts were widely discussed on social media and the internet. While some of the comments and critiques were viewed as in bad taste, it also brought a renewed interest into the Titanic with the subreddit for the Titanic seeing about a 9.5% increase in activity in the first 48 hours of the submersible's disappearance." it was then parsed down before eventually being fully removed. I have seen multiple articles about the disaster and social media, as well as its contrasting coverage/discussion to recent other disasters. Should it be re-added in any capacity or left out? Leaky.Solar (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A 9.5% increase in the activity of a single subreddit would be quite trivial to mention. Perhaps once edited it could be re-added. Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As we create Wikipedia articles for events, it's important to think about the encyclopedic value the information is bringing. For instance, we might imagine what someone looking at this page in 10 years might find relevant to understand what happened or what might be included in a printed encyclopedia. I'm not saying the social media aspect isn't noteworthy, just that we need to think about how important each bit of information is as Wikipedia isn't a repository of all available information. Significa liberdade (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree entirely. Very occasionally, some aspect of social (or indeed, any kind of) media activity is a significant part of the events/story in itself (eg built groundswell for social or political change, or provoked racist attacks, for example). Or I suppose if Facebook went down due to bandwidth restriction. Nothing of substance here that I can see. Davidships (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shahzada Dawood "billionaire"

According to the Financial Express source linked in the article his networth is 136.73 millions USD. How is he a billionaire? KomradeRice (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources seem to be accurate at all and financial express doesn't say how they got the figure. Krynh (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assets Status

Do y'all think we still need to have the status of if assets have arrived on site or are en route still on the page? After today, it's kinda pointless for someone to know, and per CNN (https://www.cnn.com/americas/live-news/titanic-missing-sub-oceangate-06-22-23/h_37ae012fe3ebf25ccd705808e2772ca4), the assets are demobilizing. Tantomile (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The assets are to start demobilizing in 24 hours. In any case, if someone wants to turn the table into prose, then I would be okay with that. But removing the information without keeping any mention in text would be disappointing. I believe that readers would want to know what ships responded when an incident occurs. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to phrase it, but it may be worthwhile for people to know not just the sheer number of assets deployed but also when they arrived on the scene (or didn't arrive). As the person who moved everything to the table, I'd be fine with it being rewritten as prose; I just find tables easier to understand at times to clearly showcase information. Significa liberdade (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SGV that it should not be removed until prosified. Some of the detail will no doubt get dropped in that process, but additional material, particularly about what those assets brought or were bringing to bear would be welcome. Worth noting something of what the Admiral said about the extraordinary international response. Although he mentioned 24 hours, I thank that he also said that some things would stop sooner, instancing those specialist medical facilities already there. Davidships (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it from prose to a list in this edit, if the previous prose would be useful. However, I think that it would probably be better be presented as prose in its own section rather than scattered throughout the timeline when it was announced that various assets would be joining the search. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there two maps?

We don't need two separate maps for this one incident. Pick one. -- Veggies (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

500km
300miles

See discussion at Talk:2023 Titan submersible incident#Mapframe and Talk:2023 Titan submersible incident#Reworked SVG map. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for proving my point. Two maps, two discussions. We need to stop talking past each other and pick which one of these maps should remain. -- Veggies (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the OSM Location Map (with a descriptor for the two markers), because the text on the SVG is far too small to read at infobox size. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - the OSM is superior. The isobath lines/shading on the SVG is an unnecessary distraction and the text, as GuerillaWelfare says, is too small to be useful. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The OSM presentation much preferred as uncluttered by irrelevant info. It might on that basis prove possible to shift coverage towards the west, and reduce the scale a bit, to include Boston, the location of the Search & Rescue/Recovery management. It would be interesting to see whether that is feasible or not. Davidships (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eminently diplomatic. I too am intrigued to see if someone with advanced IT/cartographic skills and a restricted social-life can reduce the scale and move the map's focus somewhat westward in a Bostonly direction. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and also ouch. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a digital band-aid :) 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

?? - Davidships (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree that OSM map is superior in anyway. On the contrary it’s utterly minimalistic. The perceived “too small” text on the other is something that can easily be fixed.T v x1 22:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What information is missing from the OSM map that you think ought to be conveyed? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with minimalistic? IKEA have traded extremely successfully on that model for 40 years. You must have owned a LACK table or had a friend who did surely?

As to fixing the perceived "too small" text: perception is reality...dismissing another human being's perception is simply a ghastly thing to even contemplate in today's world. Rather than castigate your fellow man/woman who may be disabled by presbyopia, why not instead just quietly (and easily, to use your very own words) fix that "too small" text for the greater good?

I hardly need remind you that today, mankind is reeling from the news that 5 extremely brave explorers lost their lives in the cruelest possible way, roughly 3 miles underwater in the chilling North Atlantic (about 370 nautical miles south-south-east of Newfoundland). Nobody, least of all the visually-challenged, needs more shite on their plate today of all days. Please try to assume good faith at all times and be a better WP:Editor. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated reaction

The last paragraph of the reactions section contains statements made before the wreck of Titan was found. I am not sure whether the best course is to remove the comments or clarify when they were made, so noting the issue here. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to remove it. I'm not really sure what it adds to the article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps 2 subsections, one for before and one for after the debris was found? OneRandomBrit (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DSV or just submersible

Should we change the initial description to deep submergence vehicle instead of just submersible ?

-- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. The fact that it imploded strongly implies that it was not a deep submergence vehicle. It was merely a poorly-constructed and non-approved tube that sank like a stone and was crushed like a Coke can. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. Just.... damn. Brusque, but accurate. -- Veggies (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it relevant to point out the modification to the controller is 3d printed joystick extenders?

Hello,

As someone that owns and operates 3d printers for work and pleasure, I noticed that the Logitech controller seen in the videos has 3d printed joystick extenders added to the joystick. This increase in height allows for more precise control and are commonly used in certain video games for a competitive advantage.

The controller is repeatedly being reported as a "modified controller" as well as a "PlayStation controller" while the only discernable modification is the addition of two 3d printed joystick extenders. Should this be included in the article? It could have been a unique design but I am checking all known .STL repositories for a match. ZANZIBARLAND (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"nose cone"

Paul Hankins during the live press conference referred to Titan's "nose cone". Other discussions have referred to its "tail cone". All images and drawings show Titan having a tail assembly attached to the outside of the pressure hull, and no nose cone.

I have not found anyone making a citeable correction to Hankin's statement, and lots of articles quoting him saying "nose cone". Because of this, it looks like it would be OR to make any correction to this.

Does this sum up the current situation? NapoliRoma (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Government knew of certain death but tried to hide it, failed to do so anyhow

"The [appropriate agency] of the U.S. government were aware the sub imploded at [date time] but chose not share this information with the public over fears of leaking their submarine detection capabilities. This cover-up came to light on [date time], after search and rescue had failed and the projected maximum survival of the sub was exceeded"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-navy-detected-titan-sub-implosion-days-ago-6844cb12 85.147.66.47 (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is an extremely skewed interpretation of that WSJ article, but the source is useful anyhow. Looks like it's already been incorporated in an appropriately neutral fashion at 2023 Titan submersible incident#Timeline of events. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ report

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the timeline of events, "According to a report in the Wall Street Journal,..." may be true, but is not necessary. This information has been reported elsewhere, and according to the Guardian, was first reported by Associated Press.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/jun/22/titanic-sub-live-updates-search-titan-missing-submarine-submersible-rescue-us-coast-guard-latest-news 76.14.122.5 (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[:1-1] Magazine, Smithsonian; Perrottet, Tony. "A Deep Dive Into the Plans to Take Tourists to the 'Titanic'". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 2023-06-20.

[1]

@@ Line 310: / Line 310: @@
 *::Your use of all-bold text is duly noted Matthew. Thank you for your forthrightness. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D|2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D]] ([[User talk:2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D|talk]]) 22:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 *::[[Wikipedia:BLP1E]] [[User:Icehax|Icehax]] ([[User talk:Icehax|talk]]) 23:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
-*:I thought about this as well. I had assumed that certain naval ships had their own notability guideline dictating they have their own article anyway, but there isn't one that I can find. The other argument would be that when dealing with people, we typically [[WP:1E|cover the notable event rather than the person involved]]. This isn't about a person however, the sub would certainly meet the GNG, and I can't think of any other reason it can't have its own article. I would also support a '''move to [[Titan (submersible)]]''', though I won't strike my comment above since I think those options are also reasonable. —[[User:Rutebega|<span style="color:#712F47;">Rutebega</span>]]&nbsp;([[User_talk:Rutebega|<span style="color:#988B19;">talk</span>]]) 23:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
+*:I thought about this as well. I had assumed that certain naval ships had their own notability guideline dictating they have their own article anyway, <del>but there isn't one that I can find</del>. The other argument would be that when dealing with people, we typically [[WP:1E|cover the notable event rather than the person involved]]. This isn't about a person however, the sub would certainly meet the GNG, <del>and I can't think of any other reason it can't have its own article. I would also support a '''move to [[Titan (submersible)]]'''</del>, though I won't strike my comment above since I think those options are also reasonable. —[[User:Rutebega|<span style="color:#712F47;">Rutebega</span>]]&nbsp;([[User_talk:Rutebega|<span style="color:#988B19;">talk</span>]]) 23:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 *::If you search for the Titan specifically you won't find basically any sources talking about it specifically (OceanGate had other subs as well), so i don't believe it would meet the notability guidelines. It might not be a person but WP:BLP1E still applies i think. [[User:Icehax|Icehax]] ([[User talk:Icehax|talk]]) 23:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 *::i went and looked around and found this: [[Wikipedia:Notability (vehicles)]] which says this specifically about individual (unique) vehicles:
 *::"When possible, a vehicle that is only notable for participation in a single event that was not specifically modified for the purpose of the event should be covered in the article about the event, not in a separate article."
 *::So i would argue we dont need a separate article for the Titan. [[User:Icehax|Icehax]] ([[User talk:Icehax|talk]]) 23:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
+*:::I wouldn't assume that 1E applies to ''any'' subject notable for a single event, but I missed that essay which does seem to apply it to vehicles. It isn't a guideline but it's longstanding and doesn't appear to have generated controversy, so I'm reversing my support. —[[User:Rutebega|<span style="color:#712F47;">Rutebega</span>]]&nbsp;([[User_talk:Rutebega|<span style="color:#988B19;">talk</span>]]) 23:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 *'''Move''' to '''[[implosion of the submersible Titan|implosion of the submersible ''Titan'']]'''. Much clearer, and eliminates useless year from the title. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 23:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 *:2023 implosion of ''Titan'' [[User:Pyraminxsolver|Pyraminxsolver]] ([[User talk:Pyraminxsolver|talk]]) 23:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)