Talk:Mariner Energy

Reference Formatting

The article at this point appears to be well referenced; however, we need to keep the reference format consistent. Many of the references are formatted differently (i.e., different date/time styles, varying "Retrieved on" wording, etc.). Otherwise, the "References" section will become difficult to read, diminishing its utility. Adams kevin (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets let it settle a bit, too much information is being added to fast. We got tools around here that can help with fixiing that but there is no point while the article is sifting so much. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for an Separate article for Explosion yet.

I have Redirected them here for now. As frankly we dont know yet wether it requires an article yet. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it is too early to redirect an article that is barely three hrs old when you decided to simply merge it without any discussion. It seems that some veteren wikipedia editors have a tendency to their own version of WP:CRYSTAL when current events are being played out. Give it a week to see what the facts are. I was already pondering into a merge of the ships article (to be created) when you started doing this. --Hourick (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When a content fork exist, we merge it back the Article until it is either spun out or has a formal split. your argument of current event is why we have wikinews. 23:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

But in my case I was going to at least wait a week before doing it. By your logic, all articles would simply be created on wikinews; why bother creating any articles at all if that is going to be the case why create any articles that are featured on the news like the BP oil spill (nom for deletion), the chilean mining accident (speed del nom), several aircraft disasters (most nom`ed for del), etc. While you're at it, nominate the titanic sinking. --Hourick (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Idealy yes wikinews is where alot of the breaking stories need to be unless its something utterly spectacular inherently and obviously notable such as the Titanic. It is covered here, and honestly within a few weeks we may reduce it down to a sentence on the the explosion. Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My main issue is the fact that you unilaterally decide to take it upon yourself to make the decision to do so without discussing it. Let it play itself out for a week or so, make the recommendation, and let a consensus build up as to what the fate will be. That is what Wikipedia is all about. It's not about a single user "thinks" where things should be. --Hourick (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I, too, was surprised to see that my edits at the original "oil rig explosion" article were gone, then merged with this article, by what appeared to be fiat. The proper way to handle this kind of situation is to add WP:MERGE tags to the top of the article and invite discussion on the matter. Adams kevin (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

Mild oppose to merger: The article is about an oil rig, now made quite notable due to the latest incident. This article is about the company which owns the rig. Both topics deserves individual articles up to some level. Info about the explosion, can be (and already are) included in a section in the rig article. We have articles of every single Avatar character; I don't see the problem in keeping something so notable. ;) But again, thats my view, consensus is consensus. ;) Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 14:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your arriving a little late to a conversation, Hourick and I were talking about one soley on the explosion. The Vermilion 380 is perfectly fine as is to me. The explosion does not warrant an article in my opinion but one on the rig itself makes the most sense Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 16:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naw its ok i have Clarified the distinction between the two discussions. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support merger - no need for a whole article on an oil rig when this article on the company is so limited anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Let's see how the goverment investigation gose over the next month or so. It may turn out to be a major political event like Pipa Alfa was in the UK 20 or so years ago.--82.11.94.45 (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

167 men died in the Piper Alpha disaster, no one was killed in this one and it does not appear to be causing significant environmental damage like the recent horizon rig explosion did. There is no need for two articles, when the article on the company clearly has plenty of space to contain details of this incident. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It could be possible that in future there will be enough information for the separate article. However, right now both articles are very short and have significant overlapping. So, merge for now and split if there will be enough information for two separate articles. Beagel (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe that a consolidation of the original article should be done, if for anything, just to keep the information in one place and THEN put into the ship's article once that information is put in. The journey of this article was totally unnecessary in my opinion. --Hourick (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge Minor incident+slow news day+Distance to Deep Water Horizon does not A wikipedia article make. Personally now we could probably shrink the portion here down to a sentence or two to prevent WP:UNDUE Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Now, Fork Later While I was (and still am) opposed to this topic's "merge-by-fiat," for the simple reason that there wasn't any prior discussion or consensus on the matter, I believe that forks should be handled with the same care and courtesy. Beagel has the right idea, given the way things are at present. Let's let the info settle down for a bit, and see where things go. If Mariner Energy becomes notable for other reasons, and the oil platform explosion generates enough info to stand on its own, we should fork. If not, then no (additional) harm done. Adams kevin (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vermillion 380

Vermillion 380 is an oil field. If we talk about explosion, it was Vermillion 380 platform which exploded. Beagel (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]