Talk:MV Sirius Star/Archive 1

Ships "it" or "she"?

A quick scan of the MOS didn't say what the standard here was. Which should be used? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It, yarr. Potatoswatter (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

AHS Centaur is an FA that use's the feminine pronouns. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Pronouns – either "it" or "she" is acceptable, so long as the choice is used consistently throughout the article. Tonyrex (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Generally, the rough consensus (as I believe it to be, anyways) is to use which of the gendered or neuter pronouns was used first. So, since Potatoswatter first used "it", the article should retain "it" throughout the article. Argh. Parsecboy (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

MV Sirius Star, Sirius Star or VLCC Sirius Star

Spencer has observed that the designation for Sirius Star as a merchant vessel is probably incorrect. But we don't generally add VLCC to a ships name (see for example Exxon Valdez). So what should we do here? JoshuaZ (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've always seen MV/MS as motor vessel/ship, not merchant ship, which seems quite appropriate to this ship. Parsecboy (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what ship prefix says, but no reference. The launch press release and today's press release at Vela's website don't use any prefix. What is the significance of the prefix? Many articles lack them; Russian vessels stand out at a glance. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). Our convention is to use prefixes when they exist, hence RMS Titanic, not just Titanic, even though the ship is not normally referred to with its prefix. Parsecboy (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't say to use a prefix whenever possible. It says not to use a prefix when the title is unambiguous and the most common name. The RMS Titanic was "best known" by that name. The same cannot be said of the Sirius Star, which has not been prefixed "MV" in any of numerous AP articles. The MV Faina, in comparable articles, was. Both of these cases can be easily verified with Google: "MV Faina" pirate gets more hits than Faina pirate. Potatoswatter (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There are actually quite a few news reports, including several from the AP, that use the prefix. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It is about 25% as common by Google News hits. The gap was wider when I used regular Google yesterday, but I think the point stands. Potatoswatter (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That may be the case that the undisambiguated name is more prevalent in the media, but that is not our only consideration. We also need to remember that Sirius Star needs disambiguation from Sirius, which might commonly be searched under the term "Sirius star". Adding MV is an easy, clean and correct way to disambiguate it (compared to "Sirius Star (oil tanker)/(VLCC)/(whatever)", none of which looks as nice as a standard ship prefix), and it fits with the naming conventions. Additionally, Sirius Star should be probably be redirected to Sirius (disambiguation), or at least a hatnote added to this page a la "Sirius Star redirects here, for the blah blah blah...". Parsecboy (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"We?" I love it when people think of new possible queries/misspellings to justify title contrivance, once WP:MOS arguments are refuted… My final thought here is, most people don't know what MV stands for, Wikipedia can't say for sure what the significance of the prefix is, and there is no evidence anyone applied that prefix to this ship before you. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "we", this is a wiki, a collaborative project. It's not a contrived title, it is in accordance with established naming conventions, and moreover, is correct. The significance is "MV" is the equal to "HMS", "RMS", or "USS". It's a standardized ship prefix, not something I made up. There's plenty of evidence of usage outside of little old me, I'm not sure where you got the idea that there isn't. Parsecboy (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Speak for yourself. You aren't WP. 2. Naming convention says nothing about preferring the use of a prefix. 3. HMS, RMS, USS are part of the name, given when the ship is named by a navy. Vela explicitly did not use a prefix when naming this ship. I checked before creating the article, and hence linking to Vela in the initial revision. 4. Further evidence of people following Vela and not using MV far outweighs using MV. It might not be your unique creation, but still has the "significance" of something made up, not correct or established. Also, I notice you haven't contributed anything to the article, only making a controversial and wrongly justified rename and arguing on the talk page. Remarkable given how easy real contribution is here. Potatoswatter (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Seriously, you need to relax. You seem to be getting far too upset over something that's pretty minor. Also, what are you talking about in regards to the MOS? WP:NC-S hasn't been edited in over a month (and my last edit to it was to correct a redirect, not remove anything). You are attacking me totally without base, and you need to stop; if you want to be reported to WP:AN/I for incivility, keep pushing it. No, "MV" is not "made up", it is a standard practice. Why don't you post your thoughts at WP:Ships, where there are quite a few experts on commercial shipping. You don't own this article, and making substantial edits to it are not a prerequisite for anything. Parsecboy (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, didn't see this unindented comment. I just retracted the "scummy" remark, just was a bit jumpy seeing your edits there. I'm trying to figure out if your arguments are spurious or not. You seem to have an interest, and you changed from "per MOS" to "for astronomy queries" to "MV is simply more official." This takes a lot of time, but if we've got all the arguments on both sides I'm prolly going to do a controversial move poll. Potatoswatter (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd appreciate it if you struck the false allegation above (nevermind, didn't see that you already removed them). Of course I'm biased, but I feel my arguments are completely valid. It's very common practice on Wikipedia to use prefixes when they are available (instead of making them up, as with "DKM", "HIJMS", etc.), see 1, 2, 3, 4. There are hundreds of articles that use the "MS/MV" prefix; it is a pretty standard ship prefix. No, it's not technically part of the ship's name, but neither is USS or HMS part of the name of an American or British warship (for example, the prefix is usually used for the first mention of the ship, and then the plain name afterwards). If you want to propose a move request at WP:RM, that's fine. An interesting note: it seems MV is gaining traction in Google News: 2,283 for "MV Sirius Star" oil tanker, and 2,955 for "Sirius Star" oil tanker -"MV Sirius Star". Parsecboy (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The "gaining traction" part is exactly what worries me, because I suspect this article is a significant source of information and naming the ship as such here results in positive feedback, aka "wikiality." Perusing some maritime blogs/forums, I see instances where the prefix is always omitted too. Perhaps more to the point, Vela never uses prefixes and seems to make a point about being poetic. They're certainly proud and not sloppy about anything, so it doesn't seem right to introduce a prefix without an official precedent. You make convincing arguments that there should be official precedents and that it's a valid way to refer to the ship (which I wouldn't dispute) but "USS Enterprise" is a more proper name than simply "(The) Enterprise" whereas the Vela website does not give any impression, in some quite formal pieces of writing, that "MV Sirius Star" is really the formal proper name. Potatoswatter (talk) 06:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether we can know if it's this article that's causing the upsurge in "MV". Another possibility is that the AP is using it, and many news outlets simply copy AP articles. To return to my earlier point about disambiguation, there really needs to be some sort of classifier to differentiate between this article and the star. As an IP pointed out while redirecting Sirius Star to the star, 1 there may be some recentism at play here. Yes, right now, the ship is in the news enough that many if not most people searching "Sirius star" will expect to find the ship, not the star. But what about in a month or two, when the ransom's been paid and the ship released?

While neither of us is incorrect (in the sense that using or not using the MV prefix is a valid way to refer to the ship), it seems that we both have our preferences, and it seems unlikely that either of us will convince the other. Perhaps it's time get some other opinions? Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur. As the topic is germane to many, many ship articles, I recommend the discussion be moved to WT:SHIPS. Cheers. Haus^Talk 13:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The page move comment was "per WP:SHIPS" but I didn't find anything at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines about prefixes, indeed one of their examples has none. Could someone point that out? I tend to prefer trimming titles myself. Potatoswatter (talk) 01:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The prefix would be MV or MT for motor vessel or motor tanker, however the prefix need not be used after the first sentence. Tangentially, it is correct to say that the MV Sirius Star is a merchant vessel. Haus^Talk 02:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Issue brought up again by an anon

An anon has been editing the article today, changing it from MV Sirius Star to instead be VLCC Sirius Star. I've reverted this back for two reasons: based on the above discussion, it appears that consensus supports leaving the article as MV Sirius Star; and also because the entry for VLCC seems to make clear that the correct use of the term would be in the structure: "MV Sirius Star, a VLCC oil tanker". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Travel time/distance?

There's a source which claims the pirates must have travelled for "three or four days". First question; if they had to travel so far, how did they know the ship was there? over such a large area, you'd have to be pretty *damn* lucky to just bump into a single ship. Second, three or four days itself - say you're in a trawler or some such doing say 15 knots. That's 17mph. Say you travel day and night for three days - that's 72 hours. 72 hours at 17 mph is 1,224 miles...which would put them roughly in the Ukraine somewhere! Toby Douglass (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be really nice to have some better sources on the US navy statements. The trip out is estimated as going too slow and the trip back too fast. In any case, they must have had good intelligence to find any size ship in the middle of nowhere, so it seems moot how long they were sailing. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Al jazeera mentions the pirates are supposed to have fast boats, i guess thats from another navy statement, perhaps they reckon they escaped some blockade? as i understand it the gulf of aden is patrolled rather intensively by now. Perhaps there is a gps system that tracks ships like sirius, otherways i would guess they just angulated it from its radiotransmissions. Maybe someone left a phone on board in saudi arabia to. It used to be fisherman guided the subs and marines a lot, so not impossible is they just asked about. These ships also tend to use corridors, you wouldn't have to patrol all the sea to sight them usually.80.57.67.243 (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Perhaps there is a gps system that tracks ships like sirius"

Yes, there are several systems in existence today that would facilitate tracking a ship, one very established system (which is also mandatory in some areas) being AIS ("Automatic Identification System") which is basically a GPS-based transponder system that transmits a ship's GPS position via VHF, so that a ship's current position, as well as its course and speed can be easily obtained, including various other relevant voyage information such as for example the destination of a ship, the number of crew on board, type of cargo, draught etc. See AIS for more details. In fact, you only need an AIS device (which you can obtain very cheaply without any restrictions whatsoever, these devices are for example also available for non-commercial purposes such as private yachting/sailing) in order to be able to view this information easily. So, while it can be really assumed with 100% certainty that the affected ship does have AIS equipment on board and that having this enabled would in fact have facilitated possible perpetrators to intercept a ship, it is not known whether AIS was running in the hours directly before the incident, in fact crews are often advised not to enable devices in potentially dangerous waters. HTH --Parallelized (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - I was about to mention that no ship in those seas would have such a system turned on! Toby Douglass (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Formatting problem caused by wikinews template

The article has formating problems that disappear when the wikinews template is removed. If you remove {{wikinews|Pirates capture Saudi oil tanker‎}} from the article, the text in the highjacking section doesn't have a big gap, as it does not using internet explorer. Is there a way to fix this? Thanks. (I've also put a notice at Template talk:Wikinews. Ann arbor street (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you guys are fast!

I saw this article yesterday and it was a stub at best. Impressive how fast this was pulled together.

--198.199.189.5 (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Time

Anyone find the GMT for the seizure? Joshdboz (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Largest ship?

It says this in the article "becoming the largest ship to date to be captured through piracy in any form.[5]", giving this "http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7736472.stm" as proof. But the link given doesn't say it's the largest captured through piracy in any form, instead the link says "It is the biggest ship to have been taken by SOMALI PIRATES so far.", so either someone should find a link which shows it's the largest ship captured by pirates, or the article should be changed -OOPSIE- (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It's true that the article cited doesn't support the claim. Instead of removing the claim, which may well be correct, I added {{failed verification}} for the time being. Cheers. Haus^Talk 04:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Replaced failed verification tag with AFP article that includes this text: The Sirius Star, the size of three soccer fields and three times the weight of a US aircraft carrier, is the largest ship ever seized by pirates and the hijacking was the farthest out to sea that Somali bandits struck. Switzpaw (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ransom

I added the report on ransom demand and the serious detention to our 19 Filipinos. Here: The Times reported that ransom had been demanded by the Somali pirates. Farah Abd Jameh on Al-Jazeera TV stated: "Negotiators are located on board the ship and on land. Once they have agreed on the ransom, it will be taken in cash to the oil tanker. We assure the safety of the ship that carries the ransom. We will mechanically count the money and we have machines that can detect fake money."Somali pirates demand ransom for Sirius Star Meanwhile, Xinhua wrote that the Philippines Foreign Affairs Department announced 19 Filipino seamen were among the 26 crew of MV Sirius Stara Saudi supertanker seized by pirates on Somalian waters.Philippines confirms 19 sailors on hijacked Saudi supertanker on Somalian waters Would anyone review these please, Thanks.--Laa Careon (talk) 11:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't the Saudi, US and other Navies just sink the pirate ship that did this? They are armed hostage takers it is legitimate to use deadly force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.87.1.204 (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point, there doesn't seem to be any info about the ship they used for interception. Most likely they're playing innocent at a random different port. The official reports say all pirates are good at disguise. Potatoswatter (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

See INS Tabar (F44) Mjroots (talk) 07:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

:v) Hopefully when the US navy has as much experience we'll hear such stories from them too. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wait until the pirates pick a Yank flagged ship to attack! Mjroots (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting reports?

I notice that some news sources [1][2] say Eyl is the port where Sirius Star is anchored, while other sources [3][4][5] say Harardhere is the anchored port. Which one is right?—Chris! _ct 20:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I read through all four and am not sure. I noticed that (1) and (2) used wording like "thought to be" and "nearing" with respect the Eyl anchorage, so I'd lean towards Harardhere being the actual location. Haus^Talk 22:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The reports that say Eyl are earlier and seem to reflect speculative comments from the US Navy, made Monday before it could have actually gotten there. Harardhere is given after the boat "got there." Potatoswatter (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the article should be updated then.—Chris! _ct 01:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thx, I was busy & had to go just then :v) . Potatoswatter (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Notes, references, and bibliography sections

It's common amongst FA-class WP:SHIPS articles for the article's endmatter to have separate sections for notes, references, and bibliography such as exists in the recently promoted article SS Mauna Loa. Does anyone have any objection to my changing the article to such a format? Cheer. Haus^Talk 23:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Since ships are nice to "sit down" while reading about, a bibliography would be nice, but what books would be relevant? Also, at the present stage of this article's development, I think encouraging the use of footnotes would be a stylistic disaster. Let's keep this linearly readable and focus on having well sourced facts. Potatoswatter (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Since I see you have a background in CS, perhaps I can restate my suggestion in IS terms. Consider the article oil tanker. The complexity of {{cite}} templates is isolated in the bibliography section regardless of whether a given source is a book, magazine, web article, or whatnot. This is a common approach taken in quality articles. One major benefit from this approach is that contents of <ref>....</ref> groups can often be plain text, such as <ref name="Jones">Jones, 2006, ''Pirates attack big ship''.</ref>. This approach provides gains in editing efficiency by grouping like items and isolating the nuts and bolts of cite template content from the meat of the article. It also makes a "define once-use many times" approach much more natural to non-experts. Does this make more sense?

Not having a burning desire to add a textual footnote at this point, the suggestion of a notes section is more by way of preparing for the article's future increases in depth and breadth. Cheers. Haus^Talk 02:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

2 British, 19 Filipino

The world is awaiting so much on this. I added the most recent major admission of families on 2 British and official Philippines 19 Filipinos hostaged, amid tight lipped ransom negotiations.Somali pirates now hold 134 Filipino seafarers hostageTwo of pirates' hostages named as negotiations continuePhilippines confirms 19 sailors on hijacked Saudi supertanker on Somalian waters Any further adds or modification on this? Thanks.--Laa Careon (talk) 08:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

category:Somalia

I have twice added Somalia as a category for this article and has been twice reverted. Can someone tell me why? --GPPande talk! 09:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Somalia is a head category. Suggest something like "Crime in Somalia" or "Hijackings in Somalia" would be more descriptive. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Just checked the Piracy category, there is a Piracy in Nigeria category, so I'm going to be bold and create "Piracy in Somalia". Mjroots (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --GPPande talk! 09:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Piracy in Nigeria is an article, not a category! Never mind, it's done now, and populated with other articles which fit in the category. Mjroots (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Firefight near the ship/ship damaged?

I recall watching some generic mainstream news report late last night(probably CNN), I think around 11pm Eastern and recall a short 'breaking news' bit about how what I think I recall being this ship was attacked by an Indian Navy vessel, and the MV was apparently heavily damaged in the engagement.

Is this the ship they were reffering to? Additionally, if not; what ship would that be? 75.149.203.222 (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be so. From 1, it seems that an Indian Navy frigate destroyed a pirate mother-ship. The Telegraph indicates that the pirates actually attacked the frigate 2. Parsecboy (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to follow up, "the frigate" = INS Tabar (F44). Cheers. Haus^Talk 14:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

True, its one of such incident which recently occurred. (India praised for sinking pirates ) --GPPande talk! 14:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Added stuff

The ship is worth app. 148 mill and the ship 100 mill. how do we know this? i added cit needed and switch 148 to 150. Albertgenii12 (talk) 11:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Picture caption is wrong

I believe the picture showing the MV Sirius Star states that the ship is still anchored there. Wasn't it released 2 years ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transkar (talk • contribs) 20:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)