Talk:Costa Concordia disaster/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Compensation package

At Costa Concordia disaster#Passengers and personnel, there is a blockquote of the compensation package posted by Costa on its website. Steve reworded some parts of the quote, which is problematic because, well, it's a quote. I'm just noting this here because I don't have time at the moment to do anything about it. Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Goodvac, I respect your views and hard work. The prior text was not a precise quotation, though it was fairly close tracking. I did not, as I wrote it, place it in a "block quote" but I do not object to that because it is just a bulletpoint structure not necessarily implying a "quotation". I today noticed that the Costa website's content could be made more concise by moving some text to two additional bullet points. If you think that is misleading, then let me know and I will do the reversion copy edit. Alternatively, if you want to edit the paragraph to BE a cut & paste quotation from the website, I invite you to do that. Note that this is just the "offered" package to non-seriously-injured passengers; those whom Costa refers to as those who "have gone home".SteveO1951 (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I have "undone" the move of the two items into the other bullet points.SteveO1951 (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm still uneasy about the bullet points being copied almost verbatim (close-paraphrasing) from Costa's statement. I'll see what I can do. Goodvac (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but I disagree. We are not taking text from a copyrighted news source. We are taking a "press release" from Costa. Costa uses terms such as "guests", which I changed to "passengers" and I made other tweaks to have it fit into the context of our article. That's fair and I see none of the usual copyright concern as would be were this a newspaper summary of Costa's position. SteveO1951 (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Costa's statement is copyrighted nonetheless; pages don't have to be news sources to be copyrighted. I've asked our in-house copyright expert, Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs), to take a look here. Goodvac (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I read the WP copyright pages and I rejiggered our text to comply; we give the ref to the Costa page for anyone who wants the original. It would still be good to get some advice on this because that Costa webpage is going to remain important.SteveO1951 (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the fixes. As always, I appreciate your continued hard work here to ensure the article complies with policy. :) Goodvac (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There exists a tempest in a teapot over the sentence to the effect that passengers are entitled to Euros 10,000 under "treaty", "procedures" "conventions" or whatever. I am particularly exasperated by the use of to deface the article when the questioner could have come to talk, as I am here. The sentence got moved around and the ref might have become the wrong one but it is correct now. If any editor doesn't like the sentence, the read the ref and you rewrite it, keeping within copyright policy. That's what editors do. Don't push it to the next guy, just do it. WP says "Be Bold"SteveO1951 (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Maintenance templates aren't meant as a personal attack; I'm simply pointing out that it is just a totally unclear statement. It is unclear in the reference, as well. Best. Haus^Talk 23:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Haus. WP: Be Bold That translates to: Just Do It. We don't need a "flag" visible to 10,000 readers per day when you can edit the piece in 2 minutes; you are a good and thoughtful editor, so please just edit it. There's nothing to talk about. It's not an issue but it's not very clear in the source. The reported fact can support an inference that Costa is not be altruistic to have offered 11,000 Euros when some treaty requires them to pay 10,000 minimum. You can own it and that's a good thing: "...bearing in mind a detail that has come to light in the past few hours. Passengers traumatised during a cruise, for example by disembarking in liferafts at night on an island, are entitled to compensation of €10,000 each under maritime procedures." SteveO1951 (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but my wiki-energies are focused elsewhere at the moment. As it stands, the statement is now WP:V, but I have doubts whether it correctly captures the truth of the situation. Anyway, it will all come out in the wash sooner or later. Cheers. Haus^Talk 02:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The new text inserted is(was) verbatim from the source; accurate but copyright infringement. I now summarized and shortened, consistent with the matter's relevance.SteveO1951 (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Box Data Unsupported & in Error

I appreciate the work done to create the timeline in the box but it is certainly against WP policy to speculate, with very few of those times supported by the one ref given to the harbour masters log. We cannot place such unsupported times in the Article text without stringent source references to support each element. How then is it that such a timeline can be right next to the Article text? Suggest removal of all un-referenced elements until we get some government investigator's timeline or other verifiable source. If the creators have sources not already used for the Article text, please cite them and share them here. thanks.SteveO1951 (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The Box also states that 18 have died. The ref given states that 16 have died. The Article states that 17 have died. This furthers my objection that the editors placing data into the box are not using proper WP standards of verifiability, and perhaps are not reading the Article. Please clean up the box.SteveO1951 (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the infobox. The casualties count got to 18 because vandalism/misinformation slipped under the radar. Goodvac (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've corrected the "missing" number, too. I tread lightly re boxes and images etc, as my edit-tech skills are low.SteveO1951 (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Location_of_Costa_Concordia_cruise-ship_disaster_(13-1-2012).png

Does anybody else notice that the thumbnails of this image file, as shown in the article's infobox and in the file's history, are of a much older version of the file? When you click the thumbnail, you get the correct version of the file. I suspected it might have something to do with my browser's cache, but I've tried it using two different machines, two different browsers, and it's the same in both. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I purged the cache at commons, did that do the trick? Cheers. Haus^Talk 15:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks better now! I didn't know about that trick. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well played, Haus. thanks. SteveO1951 (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Other ships have wrecked off Giglio

See this interesting article: "Concordia Not the First Sunk by Treacherous Reef" from Discovery News. I'm not sure whether we should include this information in the article, because no other sources have reported this. Goodvac (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good find. I saw that article as I was writing the new environmental paragraph just now. That news article might be worth an "external source" but perhaps is not sufficently relevant for entry into the WP Article itself. Query whether the museum the news article cites has a website? SteveO1951 (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, here it is. Goodvac (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

:-)! The news article had more info than does the museum site... I think it's worth an external link for now. That museum building is wonderful. I think Tuscan tourism is going to get a boost from all of this. SteveO1951 (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussing "Lead" text

Soerfm, you made some good ce changes but the added text to the lead is unclear, at points wrong, and not supported. Your added text is: "At the moment, she is resting on a rock ledge and slowly moving toward its edge which ultimately has put an end to the search of survivors inside her. To protect the environment from oil leaking out of her tanks, a floating barrier has been layed out around her. Later attempts will be made to tighten the hull and refloat the ship." Please consider whatever sources were used and ce in light of these observations (to the extent you accept them as valid): 1. "Slowly moving toward the edge" is not supported and may not be true. Experts have said that the vessel's "movement" may be that she is collapsing. That, more than "moving toward the edge (if any) makes her dangerous. We've seen reports that the collapsing means that doors don't open and material falls on divers. Further, the gerund form of grammar is also misleading; "slowly moving" is not supported; reports are that she has moved only a few mm per day except for certain days when she "shifted" (our word, intended to be vague as to whether that was collapse or movement on the shelf) by inches/cms. 2. "To protect" is too strong, as it implies that the boom is effective, which is questionable. The text should at best be "to try to protect". 3. "Later attempts will be made to tighten the hull" is not at all clear (tighten?) and is not ref'd or supported by any source known to me. Thanks for considering this. I cannot ce it because I do not know what sources you might be using w/o having ref'd. SteveO1951 (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have copyedited the third paragraph of the lead (my "Talk" above is re the 4th). I've cause it to track more closely the later facts in the Article. In particular, note that there was not a single "harbour authority", as the old text implied. The main communication was with maritime traffic controllers in Levorno, not with authorities at the Giglio Porto. When copyediting, especially the lead, it is not sufficient to merely read the Article. One must read the refs, and other material, to avoid making inferences that are not supported by the refs. Comments? SteveO1951 (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, feel free to improve my edits, I am only trying to summarize the article. Nice work you are doing by the way! Soerfm (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikid77 made what his comment said was 31 changes, though the edit comparison shows only a few edits in the lead. That said, I editted his lead statement "the captain left within the first 6 hours of the evacuation". First, I can not discern the intent of "the first 6 hours". In the event, he left within 3 hours of the impact at Le Scole. Wikid77's sentence seems to be a useful set-up for the ensuing sentence re criminal charges (from which one can infer the captain's action re abandonment, which Wikid77 is now expressing); however, nothing in the criminal charges keys to any "6 hour" limit. I did not edit the statement that the captain "left" the ship; that "volition" is expressly controverted by the captain ("I tripped and fell") and I am therefore reluctant to have it in the lead of the Article. Wikid77, if you want to discuss, please join in here and please let us know if there exists some 30 other edits we are not seeing. Thanks. SteveO1951 (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Ship's course

A part of the section Ship's course states:

At 22:10, the vessel turned south. The vessel was then listing to starboard, initially by about 20°, coming to rest by 22:44[citation needed] at Punta del Gabbianara in about 20 meters[28] of water at an angle of heel of about 70°.

I see that citation 28 applies to "20 meters", but the other details need to be sourced. If no one can find a citation for 22:44, I think it should be removed. Since I'm not quite familiar about the shipwreck details, I'm leaving it for someone more knowledgeable (e.g., Steve) to source. Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Goodvac. I suggest you first turn your editing knife to the "timeline" in the box. I have, in Talk, asked where all of that came from and why it has no cited source for much of it. That's where the "22:10" and "turned south" and "22:14" comes from. I assume that much of this timeline info comes from AIS data but not AIS-data-expert has come to the fore to confirm. There are plenty of sources that she was, at least after the turn, listing starboard. We know she "turned" (passively, we think but we're dodging that issue) because her bow is still pointed south and hundreds of sources say she turned. SteveO1951 (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll examine the timeline. Just noting here for now: it was added in these edits by Selery (talk · contribs), who I am inclined to trust about accurate representation of sources, so perhaps someone else added the unsourced parts, but I don't know for sure what happened. Goodvac (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we could do with better info but we have amassed the best we can find. Our reaction to date has been to be conservative on some detail; the Article has only very basic info re the post-impact track, none of which is (on the terms we state) controversial. I think it is good enough to stand. The grounding time we give is "by" the time stated in the Harbour Master's log, so that's fair and we could ref that rather than rely on the same ref in the box timeline. Next time I see some reference to the fact she turned, I will slip it in, though it is not on my short list of needed improvements. :) SteveO1951 (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I finally got around to checking the timeline, and it's not bad. There are only three statement not verified by the Harbour master's log: 21:42 (initial collision—shouldn't be hard to source), 22:10 (Ship turns around; listing begins), and 22:50 (Evacuation begins). Goodvac (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Goodvac. Those are 3 highly problematic times. The collision is given as 21:42 but also as 21:45, hence the dual reporting in the article. "The turn" is an issue (when? where? under power or just drifting? port or starboard? What does raw AIS data show?) "Evacuation" as timed from what point (crew dons jackets? passengers don? first lifeboat loaded? lifeboat lowered? Abandon ship alarm?) You'll have to be specific. Don't run ragged; we have a very good article and soon we will have sources that will allow, and require, a major copy edit and rewrite. SteveO1951 (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I reckon we ought to just remove them from the timeline. Once the data from the VDR is analyzed and released, we should have some more concrete facts and times. Goodvac (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

And done. Goodvac (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps state 32 feared dead

I think the talk of "17 known dead" gives a misleading impression of only a "dozen or so deaths", so I propose changing the wording as:

• From: "17 known dead..."
• To:    "Reportedly, 32 people are feared dead (17 confirmed, 15 missing)"

Stating the total of 32 seems like a more realistic impression of the fatalities, unless there is some guideline which states to avoid such totals in shipwreck articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The WP guideline is clear. We cannot make the change until we cite that to a credible source, taking into account any controversy or lack of consensus on the matter. It is not for us to determine when we think the missing are "presumed dead". I assume this is a legal matter for the Italian courts and am not familiar with the workings on that point. Let's be alert to any credible sources.SteveO1951 (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The missing have been presumed dead for a while. See [1], [2], and [3]. Goodvac (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Presumed" by whom? The cited sources do not say. Edit if you wish. I would remain conservative until a published source gives some "attributed" statement to that effect (Coast Guard, Prosecutor, Minister etc.). What assumptions, or none, did the newspaper editors use when adding "presumed dead"? That said, I won't object as we have other more weighty matters on which to be conservative.SteveO1951 (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Story

The beginning of this story is wriiten like a story — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sollows2 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This article documents what happened, so it will sound like a story, and there's nothing wrong with that. What's your point? Goodvac (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Just didnt sound right — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sollows2 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Sollows2. Thanks for having the confidence to come to Talk to express your ideas. In future, please type the signature code (~~~~) at the end of your posts. This will let us know it is you posting. You might want to start with WP:About to learn more about WP and how Articles are created and edited.SteveO1951 (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Need editors re insurance aspects

The Article is weak at the points mentioning insurance. For example, at one point it mentions that the "insurance excess" is $30,000,000. The ref is no more precise. "Excess Lines" as a branch of insurance industry does not mean "in excess" of any amount, it just means not the usual "life, home, car" industry. And the ship itself is covered by about $500 million of coverage. Overall insurance losses, including for liability and clean up, are being estimated now at $1,000 million (in American English, "a billion"). Our references about insurance are also outdated and better numbers have been published. So, I'm asking any editor that is expert, or even "capable", in marine insurance to please take a look and improve the article.SteveO1951 (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There is some info about the insurance at [4], but Lloyd's List is behind a paywall. I will see if I can get access to this.
We also need a section about the lawsuits that have arisen as a result of this.

• Florida lawsuit: [5] [6] [7]
• some others that I can't find at the moment

Goodvac (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am well qualified to address the American lawsuit aspects and I think we have the bare coverage it deserves (which isn't much). I will see that we keep up with the core litigation facts relevant to the Article.SteveO1951 (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Another timeline

Here's another timeline: "What Really Happened" (image) from National Post. I'm not sure how much of this is speculation, but some of it is insightful. For example, "The Concordia turned right, back out toward open water. In order to slow it down normally, the ship would reverse engines, but with no power at this point, the captain applied the hard right rudder." But it's best to wait for the VDR. Goodvac (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I asked the same question a few weeks ago; that Talk section is now in Archives 2. I have the same thoughts as you. It is GREAT stuff but it is, at root, the speculations of one Mr. Henry S. Wood III. In quotation, Mr. Wood even says "I suspect" at times and the article lays out "facts" that one presumes are taken from Mr. Wood, without the benefit of our having his qualifying, precise statements. (e.g. 'Concordia, probably pushed by the current and the docking thrusters, moved toward land') It seems he is using AIS data and other data (or guesses) not specified. How does he know the rudder positions? how does he know the bow thruster usage? Did he research the current at that place and time? I personally "suspect" that he could well be right and it makes a good story that we will eventually need to tell. Were I to add my own speculation, the "hard turn to slow down" theory "will not hold water" in that no data we have show a "hard turn" to port or starboard until the ship was moving at less than one knot speed, at the time and place of the famous "turn" south; if there were "current", as Mr. Wood surmizes and as well might have been, then the current (and not bow thrusters or rudder) could have caused the turn. (I will avoid here my own opinions of the effect of rudders in slow current, in contrast to the effect of the hull shape and "dragging" propellers). However, as to rudders having an effect, we also have the one simple statement from the court on 14 January stating that the ship moved "by inertia and rudders alone"; we can therefore "guess" that the captain's interogation statements had him saying something about moving rudders. Perhaps he did, and perhaps rudders had some effect when the ship speed was closer to 15k than to 1k, but we ought not infer that that had the effect of substantially turning the ship once it had slowed. At the end of the day, the Post article is usable under WP:RS but editor discretion is also required. The Post article is the one and only source we have that states all of those "facts", "suspicions" and "probably"s, and does so without mentioning a source other than Mr. Wood, the owner of a safety advisory school. In the ensuing 3-4 weeks after the Post article, no supporting facts have come to light from any source whatsoever. With all due respect to the Post and Mr. Wood, that is thin ice for use to skate upon. It could be used with significant qualification in the Article text but I oppose the use of its "facts" in any timeline.SteveO1951 (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Shipwreck

May I suggest that the first paragraph of `Ship's course` be moved to the `Shipwreck` paragraph? This would seem to be a logical breaking point. The first sentence of `Ship's course` would then be: "Without propulsive power..." O.T. I'm not sure why the bullet point timeline had to die. Cite the sources you have, and if parts are contradictory or controversial, throw those out for a while. Fotoguzzi (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that the two can be combined. Perhaps the holdback is the off-topic sentence re how many were aboard. Could use some thought. O.T., the timeline is still there... just click the "show" word to the right of the word "Timeline" in the box.SteveO1951 (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

and Done. SteveO1951 (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Civil Protection Authority or Civil Defence Ministry

I concede that we are at the mercy of translators in the media but it seems to me that our references to Civil Protection Authority and Civil Defence [Whatever] are really references to the same agency, which by any name would smell as sweet. Perhaps someone with an inclination can determine which is best to use and then clean up the article to make it consistent. :) SteveO1951 (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, can't find "Civil Defence" anywhere except in a translated source from AGI.

"Protezione Civile" (and its actual chief Franco Gabrielli) should be the only needed term in this case. The best translation is probably "Civil Protection Authority/Agency"...

"Civil Defense" (Difesa Civile) does exist, even if it's not a separate authority/Agency with a chief executive. It's directly operated by Internal Affairs Ministry.

While Civil Protection deals with natural and human disasters, Civil Defense should in general ensure economy, productivity, logistic and welfare for state affairs as a whole.

In other countries there's no such distinction, whence probably the use of both terms here and there. --193.111.70.3 (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

More on Company Names: Paquet Cruises = Costa Cruises?

The Costa Allegra is listed on the Costa Cruises website as being one of Costa Cruises' ships. We see, on WP and other sources, that Costa Allegra is "being run" by Paquet Cruises, but we also see that "Paquet Cruises" is a brand owned by Costa Cruises since 1996. http://seatravel.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/the-return-of-paquet-cruises/ This issue arises in our recent addition to this WP Article concerning a fire on board the ship. It seems clear that Costa Cruises owns the ship and I believe that, legally, Costa Cruises is the "operator", even if it operates the ship under a different brand name (that is not a different company). To be conservative, I now have this Article simply stating that the ship is "owned" by Costa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveO1951 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussing New/Good Sources to explore

BBC 4

Did everyone catch the BBC 4 documentary? It's very well done, supplying much "video" and avoiding sensationalism and speculation. For non-UK editors, it is currently available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ncbuHnua6c&feature=related. We've done well on our Article - nothing in the vid is contra. I would mention only that it gives a good sense of the timing and ever-increasing amount of list. Is it "WP-cricket" to place the vid as an "external source"? SteveO1951 (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I just finished watching that; thanks for the link. Here is some info from the documentary that might be worth adding to the article:

• believed to have breached 3 compartments
• water broke into the public decks
• 10:48 – runs aground after ship turns around
• 10:58 – abandon ship announcement
• coast guard on mainland rush to helicopters; estimated flying time: 50 min
• lifeboats designed to launch with 20 degrees; more is problematic
• many were unusable

Also, I think that it would be good as an external link because the passenger and crew testimony, as well as the video and audio recordings, is illuminating and offers a view vastly different from that provided by any text. Goodvac (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I respect your editing skills and discretion. Query whether the documentary is copyrighted material (one would think so, as BBC does have access-permission agreements differing by country). If copyrighted, linking to any hosting-source (YouTube) is contra to WP:Copyright. That said, we can nevertheless use any particular "facts", though WP would not have us doing our own "research", as in list timing and degree. I know you "cover" the timeline box and so you might want to revise some times. Add other info as you determine relevant and "verifiable"; WP:RS allows use of video as a source but care must be taken re "non-language" facts. SteveO1951 (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I'll be adding anything in relation to the list because it's complicated, and I don't want to add incorrect information. But the info I listed above, I will add sometime soon.
You're right, we can't link to those YouTube videos since the BBC documentary is copyrighted, but we can link to the BBC page for the video. Goodvac (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Too bad that the vid is available online for only a few more weeks even to UK residents. Still, it a valid reference for WP purposes. We can assume a continuing emergence of new documentaries. Thanks, I like working with you.SteveO1951 (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, you're a pleasure to work with too. :)
The BBC video is available only for a few more weeks? So it doesn't stay there? Goodvac (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI - Channel 4 has nothing to do with the BBC ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Try Here SteveO1951 (talk) 03:25, Today (UTC+0)

Maritime Matters

I have found this http://maritimematters.com/2012/01/a-short-history-of-the-costa-concordia/ and it seems to be a gold mine for some statements of summary info we need. See what you might use from it.SteveO1951 (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, it looks very extensive, certainly going to be useful. Goodvac (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Discovery

Cruise Ship Disaster: Inside The Concordia from the Discovery Channel will be airing this Sunday. I think by then this page will have the online version. Goodvac (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Goodvac, what country are you in? Discovery Channel in the UK has got some crap about UFOs and the Nazis on Sunday 19th at 10pm. Mjroots (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Haha, that sucks. I'm in the US, but I won't be watching it on TV since I'll probably use the link above. I wonder if that page works for everyone, regardless of location. If so, maybe you could tune in there.
But I just did a search for the title of the documentary and found [8], which says the same documentary "premier[s] on March 25th at 20.55 CAT", so I'm a bit confused.
Here is a more specific schedule (probably for the US)—looks like it's broadcasting multiple times. Goodvac (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

My reckoning is that it will be shown on Discovery Channel in the UK at some point. Will try and see if I can watch on the player, but am not holding out much hope. Mjroots (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The "BBC" documentary ia being sold into many international markets, and in some is being "repurposed", meaning that, for example, the interviews are swithced out to include those from passengers from the country of broadcast. here are some of the countries. I think the Discovery show is not related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveO1951 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The upcoming National Geographic documentary is one of the films that are adapted from the BBC documentary. Goodvac (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

For those in the UK, the programme is airing on Nat Geo this Sunday at 8pm. Mjroots (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI: the link above doesn't work, so I don't know what it was. But you can watch it through the links listed at [9] and [10]. This worked for me. Goodvac (talk) 05:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This documentary gives some good insight into the list and the route of the ship, though both are complicated. Goodvac (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Some notes from that documentary:

• 7:00 pm: departs from port
• 4,229 people on board
• need at least 26 ft. depth of water to stay afloat
• Schettino - Captain of Concordia for 6 yrs
• 15 knots at collision: safe speed for at sea, but not near shore; couldn't turn to avoid crash b/c of speed
• divided into water tight compartments
  • law: must stay afloat even if 2 compartments fill up
• salt water hit electrical control panels - lose power
• engines shut down, speed decreases (16 knots -> 0)
• emergency lighting starts
• winds push Concordia to the shore; lists to the right
• 26 lifeboats in all
• one passenger reported that there was complete darkness in the lifeboats
• lifeboats must be deployed before 20 degrees
• some lifeboats went back for more people
  • later tilt prevents them from going back
• helicopter dispatched by Coast Guard struggles to identify where Concordia is; then sees it aground
• law: 30 min for all passengers to evacuate after abandon ship notice

Goodvac (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The wind did it? Hmmm... Fortunate wind to have been blowing directly toward the one narrow rock ledge within 20Km! perhaps so. It is interesting to see the theories come out. Thanks for some great work and reporting... SteveO1951 (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Financial Times

Here (Google cache since Financial Times articles become subscription-only after some time) is a great article with a pretty good overview of the incident. This and this also present new info. Goodvac (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Good find, Goodvac. The most interesting point, apart from a keen sense that the author is reading WP, is the he says that the vessel was adrift and that the wind turned it around and pushed it back toward land; we should can add that now but perhaps can wait until details from Saturday's hearing are released. I saw and added to our article a small update to the new sail past regulation. For some reason the "cite" tab on the edit utility doesn't always work for me (and at present the tab does not appear at all). So, thanks for all your work to expand refs. I have also had 5 eye surgeries recently, so I tend to make typos and I appreciate everyone's patience with me on that score.SteveO1951 (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I actually haven't read the article yet, and now that the direct url is subscription-only and the archiveurl didn't even capture the text, I sadly can't. I'll have to wait perhaps a day for NewsBank to add it to their database. Google cache saves the day.
Wow, five eye surgeries, that's a lot to go through. I wish you a full recovery! Goodvac (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Miscellany

Goodvac, you reported that you did not see a statement re miscarriage in the "Costa Concordia Statement". The problem is that the "Statement" ref points to the "USA" version. The alternate "EU" version has the more current statement and I did not realise that the Yanks had a different version. The EU statement is at http://www.costacruise.com/B2C/EU/Info/concordia_statement.htm We need to be careful which to ref, or check both.SteveO1951 (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, apologies, I didn't realize you meant to source the EU version. Since the EU version contains everything in the USA version and is more current, I've changed the reference to the EU version. Goodvac (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"who knew?" Thanks :) SteveO1951 (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Captain Cocaine? This report will start the rumour mill grinding. I prefer to not include info like this unless/until we get the confirmed test and some statement about how it, if at all, relates to the event. I assume another editor will add this by nightfall, and perhaps that is not all bad; please do be NPOV about it. SteveO1951 (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Goodvac (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Engine power at 21:05

Can someone with an understanding of these sorts of cruise ships please explain how the vessel had sufficient power to turn 180 degrees about 21:05? Weltoners (talk) 06:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Bow thruster? Tupsumato (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The hearing set for 3 March is to release the VDR data and only them will we have some hard info on the vessel between reef and grounding. The ship is deisel-electric and so generators, not the engines directly, power the propellers. Engine room crew say they left when the water was at their waists. Cabin room power was lost. We are left to infer that some back-up, reserve generator was powering the essential lighting and systems, but that it could not power the screws. Did she "turn" or did she merely slow in momentum and drift back with the current? What was the current? Could bow thrusters has been some auxilliary help as she drifted? No sources, credible or not, have addressed these questions. The Article is careful in NPOV to say that they captain thinks he's a hero for steering the ship the the ledge and that the prosecutor says that grounding there might not have been a result of any attempts to steer the ship. Let's hope that within a week we can resolve some of this. SteveO1951 (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There is an emergency generator next to the bridge. Its primary function is to keep the lights on and give power to radio devices. It is a relatively small unit but maybe there is a connection to the bow thrusters so that the skipper could still manoeuvre the ship a bit. This is a pure guess. --Gwafton (talk) 08:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's a document which describes the diesel-electric system on the Costa Victoria. On the Victoria, there are six separate generator sets. Division of the sets into separate compartments would mean the potential for maintaining at least some power generation in the event of flooding so long as not all the compartments were flooded. Here's a general article on diesel-electric propulsion. Something interesting is the diagram showing a conventional diesel-electric installation, which has the generator sets compartmentalised along either side of a ship rather than gathered on the centre-line.     ←   ZScarpia   17:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of threads at the boatdesign.net forum where the Costa Concordia is being discussed. These include:

• Last voyage of the Costa Concordia: An open thread where where anything relating to the accident can be discussed.
• Costa Concordia, 80 deg list, really scary !!: A thread which is supposed to be devoted to stability, but occasionally wanders off topic.
• Simulating Costa Concordia: Discussion of how the ship may have flooded and become unstable.

A contributor has been working on an internal structure diagram which may be of interest to editors here. It shows the positions of the main generator sets, which were apparently divided into sets of three in two separate compartments which were at a point aft level with where the gash was made, leading to them both flooding, unfortunately. An auxiliary generator is mentioned in the discussion, but I haven't figured out yet where it was located. Presumably that was used to power the thrusters.     ←   ZScarpia   01:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC) (00:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC): expanded comment)

Both the thrusters and the propulsion motors were powered by the main generators, which provide power for all shipboard consumers. There is probably a small "harbour generator" for low load, as well as emergency generators, but they are very likely not big enough to provide power for the thrusters. Tupsumato (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. So, it took longer for the most forward of the engine compartments to flood, giving the power required to run the bow thrusters. Contributors in the boatdesign.net forum are saying that it took ten minutes for that compartment to flood, though, given that the National Post article claims that there was a 20 minute gap between hitting the reef and performing the turn, some of the figures must be wrong. One contributor is saying that the night-time photographs show that the port rudder and propeller had been knocked off, which, if true, would obviously have meant that the thrusters played a greater part in turning the ship.     ←   ZScarpia   05:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

(YouTube: Costa Concordia Bridge video Part 1 with english subtitles) Just in case nobody's posted a link to it yet, here's a news report showing an informative video taken on the Concordia's bridge after the grounding.     ←   ZScarpia   19:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, in case a link hasn't already been posted, a reconstruction of the accident, narrated by John Konrad of gcaptain.com, made on 19 January (John Konrad's reconstruction was used in creating the National Post's diagram) [... and I see it's being reported that Ms. Cemortan was in the first lifeboat with all her bags, passport, and documents].     ←   ZScarpia   21:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

A Maritime Disaster that Was Waiting to Happen: A 3-page Der Spiegel article which may not have been referred to already. One section, from the third page, which I find interesting concerns the purported mutiny by officers: "At about 10:30 p.m., the officers mutinied on the bridge of the capsizing Concordia. Apparently only one officer, a Greek, was still on Schettino's side. The others decided that Roberto Bosio, a captain from Liguria and who was on board as a guest, would assume command of the ship. Bosio, anxious to begin the evacuation immediately, started issuing orders." It'll be interesting to hear what the inquiry has to say about the digital charts that the Concordia was using.     ←   ZScarpia   06:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Two new articles in the British press:

• The Telegraph, 01 March 2012, Costa Concordia cruise ship "was hotbed of sexual harassment."
• The Guardian, 03 March 2012, Costa Concordia captain "ordered crew to lie to coastguards."

    ←   ZScarpia   03:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Control of ship movement

Has anyone found sources about controlling the movement of the ship, such as "bow thrusters" or some other? The 17-Jan-2012 court document notes that the captain explained the movements in detail, but the document does not reveal, how the ship was steered onto the ledge, to keep the ship afloat and prevent drowning the last passengers onboard and from losing the ship deep underwater. It seems as though the starboard (right-side) stabilizer fin has been retracted (or perhaps not?), but the port-side stabilizer is visible as extended. When did the ship drop anchor to drag along the seabed? -Wikid77 (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You raise good points and I hope you will adopt them as particular matters for you to continue to research. We have discussed "bow thrusters" here in Talk, with some excellent "personal experience" input but no published sources. Neither do we have sources as to whether the "auxilliary power" of the vessel would have encompassed ability to power thrusters, if any. The captain, and some others, say he's a hero for having steered the ship to the ledge, yet the court says that the ship "shifted position by inertia and rudders" alone. One source for the prosecutor says that it is not certain that the grounding was due to the efforts of the captain. Therefore, we have walked a fine line in our own Article, using at places the passive voice to avoid implications of volition and capability. Note that temporal problems exist, especially regarding the anchors. During the event, the captain did tell authorities that he had dropped anchors, yet later (perhaps after grounding) recordings pick up the sound of dropping anchors and the captain later admitted to not having dropped them earlier. This temporal issue arises, for example, in the court record that we use as to the "inertia and rudders" point; the same court record says that the anchor was dropped; so, we must take care when citing "old" sources, even if "old" means merely days old. We have similar temporal problems regarding the direction and degree of list, which perhaps the "black box" data will show. It "seems to me" that she did list to port continually at first, though people could still walk; sources are unclear as to when this became a starboard list (with many early sources saying it was a result of a turn under power and to port). Well, that assumes that the ship had motive power and that she did turn to port, both of which cannot be sourced. We also have the problem that the captain lied about several points (having presumably been responsible for early reports that the matter was a reparable generator problem, having been the last to have left the ship etc.) For this reason, and more, I have tried to keep current our statements of the dates on which further court, or parliamentary, hearings are scheduled to enhance the record. I note the excellent BBC 4 documentary helped me "experience" the listing sequence and yet that same programme had the ship continually under motive power and ascribed the grounding to the ship having been steered to that point under power. At the end of the day, we are left with the challenge of being careful editors, writing what can be sourced and being cautious (under WP policy) as to any inferences and "controverted" matters. I appreciate all editors, "old and new" who participate in that effort.SteveO1951 (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Previously (in talk archive) I looked into deployment of anchors - night shots and diver-footage show anchor chains paid-out vertically, leaving piles of chain on the flat sea-bed. No sign of dragging, let alone digging-in. La Repubblica hosts video from 'La Guardia Finanza' (?) which seems to show a rescue craft with spotlight responding to noise of settling hull at 23:54:48 (according to video time-stamp which is ~1 hour ahead), moving to the bow, showing the port anchor stowed at 23:55:48 and the starboard one stowed at 23:55:58 then actually dropping at 23:57:00 ! The footage from the bridge reveals interesting discussion about motors 1-2-3-4-5-6, turning on the spot and moving to shallower water before anchoring. My understanding of Italian (+ even Neapolitan !) language is inadequate. The Giglio News Webcam footage from the next day has been composited into a timelapse showing vessels drifting North and powering back South, suggesting CC must have powered South.--195.137.93.171 (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for being one of what seems to be few people on Earth trying to determine these basic facts. The Anchor situation had been reported early and, apart from being yet another lie in the moment by the captain, doesn't seem to have current (no pun) relevance. Your attempt at the bridge conversation is more instructive. Perhaps you can explore getting a translation by using WP:Translation. One can only assume that everyone who KNOWS about ship power and steering attempts is not now talking publically, pending the administrative hearing next month.SteveO1951 (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that some of the passengers said that they heard anchor chains rattling out and then being wound in again just after the collision. In one of the simulations, the narrator says that it looks as though the Concordia was steered into the harbour bay after hitting the reef, then steered out again when it was realised that she was making too much way to stop. So, it is possible that the anchors may have been partially lowered after the collision with the intention of using them to stop the ship and swing it round, but that there was a change of mind.     ←   ZScarpia   02:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I need to be careful because the "facts" I state here are from memory of many weeks ago. The Captain was asked whether he had used the anchors as drags to steer the ship. He said, essentially, "yes". Then investigators noticed the sound of the anchors dropping AFTER the final grounding, indicating that the anchors could not have been dropped before that time. The anchor chains were seen to be piled up on the seabed, not dragged to that spot. Then, later in mid January..."The captain also reportedly admitted to the court that he lied at one point when he assured officials that he had dropped anchor shortly after the Costa Concordia slammed into a rock to stabilize the luxury liner." http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-captain-claimed-tripped-lifeboat-report/story?id=15386279 SteveO1951 (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's my understanding too. I just wanted to point out a conjunction of two things that I noticed, that one commentator suggested that after hitting the reef, based on the track of the ship, the immediate thought had been to head directly into harbour bay and use the anchors to slow and swing the ship round and that some passengers were reported to have heard the anchor chains going out after the ship hit the reef and then being wound back in again. The commentator said that it looked as though it had been realised that the ship had too much way on to pull off that manoeuvre, so the ship had been steered out of the bay to perform the 180 degree turn. There's a possibity, then, that the anchors were at least partially dropped, then lifted again, then dropped when the ship finally ran aground. Given the depth of the water they were in immediately after hitting the reef, they would have had to have run out a lot of chain before the anchors touched bottom, though. It doesn't make much difference though. Hopefully, we'll find out what actually happened soon.     ←   ZScarpia   05:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

'Alleged' actions and events

My concern relates to the contents of this article clearly making statements that lay blame through describing actions on the part of individuals or parties. As the whole matter is sub judice is it encumbant on wikipedia and its editors to clearly indicate that any actions which could be considered injurous or damaging to third parties be denoted as "alleged"? How are potential or what may prove to be defamatory statements handled under wiki policy? Without the qualifier of 'alleged' is wiki open to a suit through publishing diect claims of injury and or damage. I dont know because I am new to wiki, but the article does seem to read that many people are guilty of this or that, with no presumption of innocence. Benyoch (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benyoch (talk • contribs)

Just in case you haven't come across it yet, here's the page describing the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP) policy. There's a noticeboard for raising BLP issues here.     ←   ZScarpia   23:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what Benyodh thinks is libelous or biased in the Article. What statements ought we qualify as "alleged"? We need some specifics to consider. I think we've done a good job in being neutral and keeping to the narrow topic of this "disaster".SteveO1951 (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Discrepancy between prose and table

The prose in the passengers and personnel section says that 25 are known to have died with 7 missing. The table gives the figures as 24 and 8. I don't have time now to check all the sources to try and work out which is right. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the table hasn't been updated. I'll try to check this out later. Goodvac (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I've commented out the table since there is not yet sufficient information to update it. Goodvac (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Down to two missing, but 13 bodies as yet unidentified

Fuel oil recovery will be finished Friday. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17472345 70.59.28.93 (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've updated the article. Goodvac (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Coastgurad conversation transcript

On 17 January 2012 The Guardian provided a translated transcript of the conversation between Captain Francesco Schettino of the Costa Concordia and Captain Gregorio de Falco of the Italian coastguard in Livorno: [11]. Could this all, or in part, be usefully added to the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Why did the ship sink?

Based on modern shipbuilding, I think two things should not have happened: (1) The ship should not have sunk, (2) The ship should not have listed while sinking. For #1, the watertight compartments should have kept the ship afloat. For #2, modern ships are designed to sink without listing, so that the lifeboats can all be launched. Why didn't the Concordia's watertight compartments prevent it from sinking? And why wasn't the listing correctable as the ship sank? I hope this article can some day explain these basic points. Otherwise, we have learned nothing since Titanic. --Westwind273 (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it is difficult to understand what happened to C.C. and why. For example, this 185 meter long ship survived a 60 meter long gash in 1997: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Sylvania 87.97.98.94 (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, modern cruise ships are designed to stay afloat with one or two watertight compartments flooded. It is quite likely that in this case three or more compartments flooded. Also, I recall reading somewhere that the watertight doors were not closed properly in time. As for asymmetric flooding, I have no idea - I've been wondering the same. Anyway, the accident investigation report will likely explain why this happened, so we can add the details to this article once it is published. Tupsumato (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Could it be that the water was too shallow in combination with the damage? 50.115.184.189 (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Scrapping of the wreck

Article today says that the ship WILL be broken up for scrap (after refloating and towing to port). That is contradictory to this wiki. http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/refloat-of-concordia-wreck-to-be-biggest-in-history-20120521-1yzzd.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.97.245.84 (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Then why don't you update the article if you have a reference? Tupsumato (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the one line that refers to the scrapping smells of a made up assumption used to fill the article to me. If I were to put it into the article I'd need more than that. Britmax (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

True. Although scrapping has been mentioned in most articles about the salvage operation, we don't know for sure until the ship is officially declared CTL and the scrapping process begins. Tupsumato (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

My take is that scrapping (or demolition, or the like) should not be stated -- until an authoritative source from Coasta Grociere or Costa Cruises or the salvage contractors be found and referenced. Given the hype and apparent guesswork of the media, and resulting OR/speculative edits by some WPers, I dont think we can rely on media speculation, and need to revert any such edits. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Any one line addition to a report looks like lazy journalism. As you say, we need more than that before we know that the ship is to be scrapped. My bet is that the owners won't know themselves before they move it to a safer position and undertake a survey. Britmax (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

number of deaths

Someone got confused and wrote this article as if there were 34 deaths, by adding "32 dead" + "2 missing". In reality, the "32 dead" count *includes* the 2 missing. I've clarified that by stating "30 bodies found" + "2 missing, presumed dead". Please be on alert if the 34 figure creeps back in. Benwing (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Italian legal proceeedings

Can anyone advise online source, in English, that best keeps up with the legal proceedings in Italy? Benyoch (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess you could find this [12] interesting LNCSRG (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Survivor Valentina Capuano

I made this edit, since I found out Valentina Capuano actually is

1. nephew of a
2. man who
3. died in the Titanic tragedy

instead of what there was written. Does anyone know more? Thanks, --82.50.16.73 (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you can find the wholestory here:[13] LNCSRG (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Needs ongoing updates

Both the refloating operation and the legal processes are in a state of continuous development. Many of the current references need to be re-edited into the past tense, but I am sure that many others have become redundant anyway. 109.157.20.61 (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Partially sank

Someone changed "partially sank" to "became the largest passenger ship ever to sink" and I've reverted. This has been discussed before:

• Talk:Costa_Concordia_disaster/Archive_1#.22largest_passenger_ship_ever_to_sink.22
• Talk:Costa_Concordia#Grounding_vs_Sinking_vs_Wreck_vs_Foundered

I suggest we leave this as-is unless something new has been discovered. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. LNCSRG (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Break-out salvage from disaster?

This article has become excessively long and shortly there will undoubtedly be another round of expansion as the salvage operation moves to righting the ship, floating it away and dismantling the hull (unless, of course, some other group offers to buy it in the meantime). It seems that it would make sense to break-out the salvage operation and, possibly, the litigation issues to separate pages (all linked of course) to make the subject more manageable.
Enquire (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The article is quite long and looks likely to grow. I would have said that dividing it in the manner you suggest would be a good idea. Britmax (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

We should discuss the criteria for breaking out new article(s) ... I can see this cleaving into two, maybe three or more defined pages (all inter-linked), per:

• accident & initial rescue
• recovery & salvage operations
• legal and political fall-out

Probably the first and third part remain together because they are more tangled, but the recovery and salvage operation probably will make sense as a separate page. I have not done this before, and understand that there could be concern of a loss of tracking on contribution histories for material moved to new page. Anyway, we need to establish consensus first.

Enquire (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

In answer to the suggestion about splitting this into multiple articles, I don't think it would achieve anything. It is hard to see any sub-categories that people would want to visit specifically, away from the context of the main topic. It is possible that the article is a little too long, but some of the details could reasonably be deleted in due course. 86.164.55.251 (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, this proposal is to split the recovery operations out of the accident article. Since the recovery operations will continue to grow as the salvage proceeds, and it is irrelevant to the accident itself, this would help greatly to deal with the page bloat.

Enquire (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Citation sorting and sifting

There are now close to 300 citations, some of these are now dead-links, many others contain mainly repetitive information. Clearly some of the citations are more noteworthy than others. With the salvage operation moving closer to the point that they attempt to right the wreck and re-float it, there will be another expansion of the list of citations. I am tempted to tabulate the citations and rank them based on quality & quantity of information and put in historical context as well as key issues raised in them with a view to pare down the number of citations that add little or no new information and to archive more significant articles (that have not already been archived). Is there a formal process to do sifting and sorting of citations? Comments?
Enquire (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC) It is strange. I try to link to my intact stability work about the M/S Estonia accident 1994 and Wikipedia censors it at once. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chalmers1.htm Same thing with my structural analysis work of the 911 steel skyscraper top down collapses. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm . Impossible to get it on Wikipedia. And same with the Costa Concordia inscidents. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/news8.htm . If I try to explain that nobody died due to the hull contact Jan 13, 2012, people get upset. When I explain that people drowned Jan. 14, 2012, due to an open watertight door that somebody, not the Master, left open, they get crazy. Strange place, this Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.201.189.254 (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Timeline

The timeline has "02:29: 3 naggers hanging from ship's prow". What does this mean? Going to bed now. Britmax (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This item has been deleted by User:Britmax (...as content of dubious value). I did look into it, it seems to come from The Telegraph's translation of the Harbour Master's log, per:

• 02.29 Three people reported hanging from the prow of the ship.

No idea how people became transliterated as naggers ... unless, perhaps, passengers are sometimes referred to disparagingly by crew as naggers ... or maybe Italian slang direct from the log? See:

• Costa Concordia: Harbour master's log shows how the disaster unfolded (2012-01-21)
  

Enquire (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Auxiliary propulsion

Most large ships have auxiliary propulsion that allows them to be docked without the need for tugboats. For docking operations main propulsion is shut down and auxiliary thrusters are used to maneuver the ship sideways against a pier. This would explain how the captain could claim that he maneuvered the ship onto the shoreline where it now lies. If the Concordia had auxiliary or emergency electrical power, it would also have had some maneuvering capability. It hardly seems likely that a lucky combination of winds and tides placed the ship onshore. Grounding the ship is what saved so many lives and the article should reflect this. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether the ship had auxiliary propulsion would have depended on the effects of flooding. Without propulsion, the ship would have gone where the combined effects of wind and tide took her. If they'd both been acting to take the ship back towards the island, that's where she would have gone. The grounding didn't save lives. It caused the ship to list right over on her side and make half the lifeboats unusable.     ←   ZScarpia   13:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Cause of 180 turn of ship at about 21:10 UTC

As presented, the article suggests that the abrupt turning of the ship at 21:10 UTC (22:10 local time) through approximately 180 degrees was due to a shift of wind and tides (Italian Coast Guard), while Captain Schettino claimed it was due to manoeuvre by him. It seems unlikely that the ship could turn through 180 degrees due solely to changes in wind and tides. On the other hand, at that time, the ship had no power and Captain Schettino has said various instruments were not functioning. However, by now (surely) we have access to more recent data, such as from the black box data and so we should have more clarity on how this turn was accomplished and, if Captain Schettino did indeed manage to berth the ship on the rock ledge, as he claimed. Maybe this will only come out from the formal inquiry, but likely there is a more detailed discussion of this issue out there, somewhere. Comments?
Enquire (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Delays in clean-up operation

Hi - I've just noticed that the operation's completion has been delayed until about September 2013, which contradicts this: "The wreck-removal and clean-up operation has been delineated by Costa's Cristiano De Musso, Head of Corporate Communications, according to the following plan:[151] 31 July 2012 Site inspections of the ship and its position. 1–31 August 2012 Securing of the wreck to ensure on-going safety and stability. 1 September – 15 November 2012 Installation of caissons on left side of vessel and construction of submarine platforms. 1 December 2012 Rotation of the wreck begins with the installation of boxes on its right side. 15 January 2013 Ship to be up-righted above waterline. 31 January 2013 Ship delivered to an Italian port for processing according to regulations. 30 April 2013 Cleaning and replanting of marine flora expected to be completed."

Here's the info I have (from http://news.discovery.com/human/two-missing-bodies-likely-found-on-costa-concordia-130115.htm)

"[Franco Gabrielli, the head of Italy’s civil protection agency] announced that the 950-foot-long, 116-foot-wide, 114,500-ton carcass of the Costa Concordia will be refloated and towed from Giglio’s waters no earlier than September.

Originally, officials said they hoped to tow the ship away and break it up by early 2013.

The cost of the operation has also risen from the $400 million originally estimated to $530 million."

Is there some way to tidy this up? Thanks!70.66.253.198 (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Investigation report

The MIT has released its report in English. Mjroots (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Funny to see that the report uses these two Wikipedia images:

page 13 (older version)

page 68

Soerfm (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Diagram deleted in error

I just applied some necessary pruning of the sections on environment and salvage. In doing so, I've managed to delete your diagram of the wreck on the seabed, and I'm not sure how to re-insert this. Sorry, all. Valetude (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done You just need to go back in history until you find it, and then copy the particulars and paste anew. user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 16:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: why are authorities afraid of ...

41.54.81.170 posted this comment on 9 May 2012 (view all feedback).

why are authorities afraid of a posible environmental disaster in the aftermath of the shipwreck

Any thoughts?

Because of the danger of an oil spill. (The article covers this.) Defueling was completed on 24 March 2012. Valetude (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess oil spill was the main concern. Other than that, there's not much in a modern passenger ship that is directly hazardous to the environment. However, if the wreck was left in place and it eventually broke up by itself, it would deposit an awfully lot of "garbage" to the sea. Tupsumato (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It may be interesting in this context to find out whether studies have been done into the effects of the deteriorating SS America on the environment. Britmax (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Could be interesting, but I'm not sure how comparable it is. There's a vast difference in materials used in old and new ships. Had Costa Concordia allowed to break up on the shore, there would have been a lot of plastic floating around, for example. In case of American Star, wood rotted away and mild steel was reduced to rust relatively quickly. Still, I've seen pictures of various litter on that remote shore. Tupsumato (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: I'd like to see more details...

86.168.71.77 posted this comment on 29 December 2012 (view all feedback).

I'd like to see more details on the project planned to raise the ship and float it to Sicily.

Any thoughts?

There is a schedule of tasks detailed in the article. Whether it will be Sicily or mainland Italy is not certain. But in any case, the whole project is in danger because the hull is slowly compressing and distorting under its own weight, and the vessel may not be able to float when it's been uprighted. Valetude (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Rank of CPT. De Falco

Hello everybody,

this is my first contribution here, and I am a non-native english speaker, so I apologise for any mistake.

I don't know if anybody cares, but the real rank of Officer De Falco - in English - is Commander. He is a Frigate Captain in the Italian Cost Guard. This rank is, usually, equivalent to the Commonwealth/US Navy rank of Commander (see Frigate_captain). Calling him "captain" is misleading, because many countries have three ranks for Senior Officers including the term "captain:

Captain of sea and war
Corvette captain
Frigate captain

Hope this helps. It is just a punctualization, just saying.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewjoewinnazzee (talk • contribs) 18:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Vada a bordo, cazzo!

I'm not a fluent Italian speaker, but it seems to me that this phrase translates almost literally as 'Get back on board, dickhead!', at least in British English. It's exactly what an exasperated and angry British coastguard might say under similar circumstances. The translations at present in the article are unnecessarily idiomatic. --Ef80 (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

"Cazzo" is not used to refer to a person, but as a general expletive like "fuck" in English. (see Italian profanity). -- Seelefant (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. --Ef80 (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Navigating the Press Kit wickets

All -

If someone smarter than me knows how to navigate the Press Kit/Free Use wickets, outstanding artwork is available here in the "Parbuckling Project renders" link, as provided by the Project Parbuckle press kit. I know that Commons does not accept press releases, but Wikipedia seems to do so. Use of Template:Non-free_promotional seems to be required, and I don't the requisite steps. There are details in the renderings not yet captured here, such as the grout pads and chains around the hull. ...best user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 21:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I've emailed for permission for use. user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 14:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Current event

The salvage operation is still going on (the ship is upright as of now but the search for the two missing passengers and the investigation is still going on). The user The Magnificent Clean-keeper removed the current template without any discussion. I think current template is required for the salvage section and will be helpful for the people reading the section and not aware of the current event.Anu Raj (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Current event templates for usage of the template.TMCk (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Time of evacuation command in diagram

The text says that evacuation was ordered at 22:50 and gives a source, but File:Costa Concordia map 13-1-2012.svg, also included in the article, states that there was an evacuation command at around 21:20 UTC, which would be 22:20 local time - this probably should be clarified. -- Seelefant (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

According to the diagram, evacuation was commanded at 21:10 (UTC). On the other hand, according to the MIT investigation the order was given 22:54 (21:54 UTC) but evacuation may have started earlier:

Close up of diagram

“ 22:54...Through the "Publ address system" is communicated the "Abandon ship order"...[based on voice data recorder]

22:55...the ship is launching the lifeboats...(in fact, the operation is already in place for some time as...there are already three lifeboats in the water ).

” — Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport

I tend to believe the latter. By the way, the diagram does not give the time of grounding; the investigation puts it at 22:00 UTC, 10 minutes after start of evacuation:

“ The ship turned starboard by herself and finally grounded (due to favourable wind and current) at the Giglio Island at around 23.00... ” — Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport

Soerfm (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: It would be useful to have a...

198.151.130.38 posted this comment on 13 April 2012 (view all feedback).

It would be useful to have a page or set of pages comparing the more notable shipwrecks, such as Titanic and Andrea Doria.

Any thoughts on this?

ღ Wahula (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Like the List of maritime disasters? Mjroots (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Dead point

I could not find the solution for this: once the rolling passes its dead point (c.o.g. above point of support), how is the motion controlled? Without counterforce, the ship would gain momentum and bounce on the false floor, dissipating an enourmous energy and possibly rolling over the border, downwards. Anyway, no one would want this motion to be uncontrolled ("once over the top, let it bouce"). The only counterforce I can think of would be the bouyancy of the (empty) supports. Anyone information? -DePiep (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I would think the flat hull requires the cog to go beyond the edge, and that the landing velocity is throttled back. user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 21:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

If you watched the live streaming broadcast of the parbuckling, this was explained in the press conferences. As soon as the ship rolled past the tipping point, about 24° from its initial position, and the port sponsons started supporting the weight of the ship, valves were opened to allow more water to flow into the sponsons and the cable winches were no longer being used to roll the ship. The roll rate was controlled with a high degree of precision by regulating the rate at which air escaped from the sponsons and water was allowed to enter. — Quicksilver^{T @} 17:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Article split

It's at 160K now and WP:SPLIT recommends anywhere from 60K - 100K should be split. Ideas?--v/r - TP 14:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not 160K of "readable prose" — I copy-pasted the article to Word, which gives a word count of about 8,500. Large portion of the raw size comes from inline citations.

Anyway, if we have to split, I'd recommend moving the salvage operation to a separate article like Costa Concordia salvage. After all, that's where most of the new content will go in the future. Tupsumato (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The DYK check tool puts it at 47019 characters. Each character takes two bytes. So we have 94K worth of readable prose. Still well within and even approaching the top of WP:SPLIT recommendations.--v/r - TP 21:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for correction. I guess split is in place. How about setting up a vote? Tupsumato (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The article is very long, however (at least in terms of screen size), more than 1/2 of it is from references. According to WP:SPLIT and WP:LENGTH, the readable prose size of an article shouldn't exceed 50 kb of text or 10,000 words. I did a quick prose word count and it came in at around 8,000 words. The salvage & wreck sections may warrant their own dedicated articles, but I think a more prudent way of dealing with the size is making the citations more efficient. By that I mean cutting out references which cover material already cited by another reference and using each reference to its fullest capacity (if a news article has 5 facts in it, use that one ref for each of those 5 facts instead of 5 different refs). Should help at least. Coinmanj (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The technical reason for splitting Wikipedia articles is due to some older browsers not being able to handle large articles in edit mode, but even those older browsers don't have problems displaying HTML pages many times the size that they can edit. — Quicksilver^{T @} 17:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

GA?

This article seems close to a GA level; if there's an editor interesting in addressing GA review, I'd recommend nominating this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd say wait until the ships has been refloated and towed away. Agree it is probably close, but with recent events it will fail the stability test atm. Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no way this article qualifies for GA. After the recent parbuckling of the wreck earlier this week, I read this article for the first time. In an admittedly non-thorough fashion I saw several things mentioned that lead me to look at the citations. I estimate that I looked to the citations for about 12 things said in the article. 8 of them were no longer valid. When an article has greater than 50% bogus citations it should be deleted, not promoted to GA status. I predict by the time the Costa Concordia is towed to the scrapyard next year this article will be a quarter of its present size. I intend to come back the day after it's towed out of there and flag every bad citation with "citation needed". The article on its surface is very good; it's well written for the most part. But if 250+ citations are mostly incorrect or invalid, then changes need to happen. JeffTracy (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Mind giving some examples just to let us know what kind of issues to look for? Tupsumato (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. In the Situation on Deck section there's this: "One half-hour before the abandon ship order, one crew member was videoed telling passengers at a muster station, 'We have solved the problems we had and invite everyone to return to their cabins.'" The citation is #33. The article cited is from an Italian news site, which in and of itself is fine, but the translation of the article into English contains no mention of any video (the first use of #33 is appropriate; the second one, the one I'm talking about, is not).

In the Evacuation section there is, "A passenger's video recorded at 22:20 showed panicked passengers in life jackets being told by a crew member that 'everything is under control' and that they should return to their cabins." Citations #54 and #55 are given for this. #54 goes to "The Sun" website (a UK tabloid) that requires one to "join" before being shown the requested information. I'm not signing up for a membership at a sleazy website (proven criminals) just to look at a citation. In my opinion that citation should be removed. #55 links to a BBC report on the same video. The video itself, however, is not linked in the report. The video can be found at another Italian website. Perhaps the BBC report and the link to the actual video would be more appropriate citations, although, neither supports the claim that the passenger video was made "at 22:20". To sum up, I do not consider #33b and #54 to be valid citations.

The text of the article says, "the order to evacuate the ship was not given until 22:50". That does not match the graphic (Route leading to collision ending in grounding) at the end of the Situation on Deck section. The graphic shows the "evacuation order" being given at 21:10 UTC, which would have been 22:10 local time. There's a 40 minute discrepancy there. Citation #60 used to back up the 22:50 time is an article at the CSM website. Indeed, it says, "Only at 10:50 p.m. did Schettino finally give the order to evacuate." I believe the CSM's reporting is wrong. Indeed, tracing the source of the graphic leads to a "cruise ship lawyers" blog where it's stated that, "10:10 p.m.: 'Abandon Ship' signal is given: Seven short whistles and one long."

There are more instances of problems with the writeup and the citations. I can go on if you want, but is there any need to point out further problems after it's been established that even the most basic timeline of critical events in the disaster is wrong? I have heard talk of an official (or at least a semi-offical) accident report that has not been released yet. I would stronly suggest that this article needs to be vetted against that final investigative report whenever it is finally published. The article is well written and organized. It gives a very good outline of what happened. Nevertheless, it has so many problems with the citations and, in spots, even the basic facts, that IMO it remains technically a "bad article". JeffTracy (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It appears that there's still much to do. Tupsumato (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing many more citations I think I am willing to back off my claim that "most" of the citations are incorrect. I believe #34 does not support that Schettino admitted to turning off an alarm system. #97 says the port was closed with a 1-mile no-sail zone around the wreck. That was only temporary but the article text makes it seem like the port is still closed. #104 says additional bodies were found between the wreck and the seabed, but the article text says "inside the hull". #109 is a dead link. #110 is a press release from an American company that HOPED to get a contract for their oil cleanup equipment. No evidence exists that they ever got the job or that their products were ever used in the salvage operation. The citation is a press relase for publicity, not a news article. #113 is misplaced; where it is referenced in the article text is incorrect. Later on in the paragraph the citation is appropriate for what is being discussed.

I think I was just unlucky enough to have the first few citations I clicked through to be bad ones when I first read this article. Other than the ones I pointed out, most do in fact seem to be good citations of reputable source references. I do hope that this ultimately does become a GA, and it has the potential to be that. The Italians are dragging their feet on releasing their final report, however, so it may be some time until it is finally published. We may have to wait until after the Schettino trial to get it. JeffTracy (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

JT, thanks for your feedback. I'm sure that there are plenty of willing hands ready to polish the article once a GA review has been done. As you've pointed out, there's still the refloating and scrapping of the ship, the investigation report and the trial of her captain to come. Still, there's no rush to get GA before the article incorporates all these thngs. Mjroots (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Every time I visit the article I find glaring errors in style, grammar, syntax, punctuation, layout, etc. It's not a "Good Article" yet, in my estimation. — Quicksilver^{T @} 17:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Detailed timelines redundant

The day-by-day account of the fuel extraction was of topical interest at the time, because there was a big risk of a disastrous spill. That timeline is no longer of interest, and that section should just be summarised. Valetude (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Identity of remains found since uprighting

For the record, some Italian news sources are today reporting that the body found this week is not that of the missing Indian crew man but of a woman (see source1, source2, as well as his brother's Facebook page). The DNA results of the "bones" found earlier have not been officially released yet and I suspect they may not be human. I have tried to keep the article updated but am now wondering if I should just hold back on further editing in this regard until we have official DNA confirmation. HelenOnline 12:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Current operation

'...the ship will stay on a platform while further inspections are made and the starboard sponsons are attached. It will then will be re-floated and towed to an Italian port to be scrapped, probably in 2014.'

A few details of this lengthy operation might strengthen the story. Valetude (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe that it may now be scrapped in a port beyond Italy. Details? Valetude (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

did any passenger call 112?

When they had cell coverage there must have been passengers that called 112 or 911, right?--78.48.6.44 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"... the harbour authorities were alerted by worried passengers ..." —Tamfang (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Salvage operation update

The crane barge Conquest MB1 has arrived at Giglio for the operation to install the port sponsons. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)