Wikipedia

Talk:Costa Concordia disaster/Archive 5

< Talk:Costa Concordia disaster
Latest comment: 6 years ago by 2601:249:E00:8B1F:1D5A:A916:DAA:5F01 in topic The last two sentences of the first paragraph aren't introduction material.
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

IMO to strengthen safety rules

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The IMO is to make the servicing of lifeboats mandatory on passenger vessels in the wake of the disaster. Mjroots (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in gash length

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Three different lengths are given for the gash caused by the collision, and none match the single BBC source:

  • Costa Concordia disaster has both "36.5-metre tear (120 ft)" and "50-metre (160 ft) gash in the ship's port side below the water line.[21]"; ref 21 is this BBC page that has "48.8m (160ft) wide"
  • Costa Concordia has both "50 m (160 ft) gash" and "53-metre (174 ft) long gash", both unsourced (update: [1] has "damage length of 53 metres (from frame 52 to 125)")

The BBC itself may not be reliable in any case, but we could at least use a single figure. The Italian websites generally quote 70 metres, apparently sourced from this Italian Ministry of the Interior document. -84user (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC) (updated to add source for 53 m -84user (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC))

May be apples and pears here. The area "damaged" is no doubt more extensive than the "gash" or "tear" (whatever the latter means). Davidships (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Layout - images

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've been trying to improve the 'salvage' section but have reached my incompetence zone with the four images showing "Principles of righting and refloating of Costa Concordia", where the commentary needs to be associated more clearly with each image (perhaps the images across the page but more widely spaced. Hopefully someone can help with this. Davidships (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it, though I didn't notice you asked for help until after I fixed it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks GD for that (and sorting the other strange error) Davidships (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Size of operation

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The article asserts that the salvage operation is expected to be "the biggest operation of its kind". This was followed by a parenthetical which gave the cruise ship's displacement, which I have now removed. We don't know what is meant by "biggest operation", and don't really have a basis for measuring that by the ship's displacement, especially as gross tonnage, not displacement, is the proper measure of size for passenger ships-- something that the media do not understand. Perhaps this was the largest operation measured by the ship's gross tonnage, or by the amount of resources mobilized to conduct the operation, or by cost, or even the largest parbuckling operation ever. But it is not the largest passenger ship measured by displacement ever to be salvaged-- SS Europa, which had the indignity of sinking twice-- had a larger displacement. And if the question is which is the largest salvage operation in history, what about the salvage of the scuttled German fleet at Scapa Flow?

If we are going to make an assertion about size, perhaps we should just follow the BBC, which calls the operation "one of the biggest maritime salvage operations in history", Costa Concordia wreck refloated, BBC, 14 July 2014, and leave out mentions of ship size. Kablammo (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It would seem that.SS Normandie at 71,000 tons displacement was bigger than either Europa (55k) or Costa Concordia (51k), although Concordia is much bigger than either in volume (gross tonnage). In complexity, which is reflected by the cost, CC must be worse as the other two sank in comparatively shallow water, whereas CC could easily have disappeared into the depths. (All concerned must be mighty relieved to have got it floating. Hats off to them!) But someone would need to do inflation calculations to be sure so I agree that 'one of the biggest' is safer, though quotes for 'most expensive' are two a penny. Chris55 (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks-- I forgot about Normandie/Layfayette. It displaced more; Concordia was larger (gross tonnage), although not heavier. Concordia was parbuckled, while Normandie was not. But the "biggest" used in some sources appears to refer to the salvage operation, not the size of the vessel, and that also begs the question. Kablammo (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Larger salvage operations were conducted at Scapa Flow after World War I;[2][3] during World War II large operations were conducted at Pearl Harbor,[4] the Layfayette/Normandie in New York,[5] and Cherbourg;[6] there were large salvage operations in Suez after the 1956 and 1967 wars.[7][8] Larger ships have been salvaged,[9] and in real terms, the attempted salvage by the CIA of a Soviet submarine in the Pacific was more expensive.[10] So we should not repeat the claim that this is the largest ship ever salvaged, or the largest operation. Kablammo (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
"One of the biggest" is appropriate. For "most expensive", we'd need a good source. Anyway, the full bill won't be in until dismantling is complete. Current tracking of the ship is available now that it's moving, if anybody cares.[11]. ("Status: Restricted Manoeuvrability. Destination: GENOVA. ETA: 2014-07-27 12:00 (UTC). Speed: 2.4kn.) John Nagle (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
With Kablammo having drawn attention to Project Azorian's reputed inflation-adjusted $3.8bn cost, Costa Concordia's current cost of $1.2bn doesn't look at all likely to rank "most expensive". Chris55 (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Name of dead sub

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why is it written that the name of the sub was not released? His name was Franco Moreno. Italian press is full or dedicated articles [12], [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.37.166.247 (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

New lede

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can't see how the new lede is an improvement. It leaves out the actual cause of the accident - the captain wanting to give a near-shore salute to the islanders, claiming that he knew the local sea-bed well enough to deviate from the set route. Valetude (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Costa Concordia disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Number of deaths

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is it 32 or 33? The article is inconsistent. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Red reference URL errors

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Can somebody with more expertise help with the multiple citation errors for three references? I attempted to fix this myself but had to cancel because I was only making it worse. Blue Riband► 00:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Costa Concordia disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Blue Riband► 22:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 99 external links on Costa Concordia disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Lead section

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. I've noticed the lead section is a few paragraphs longer than our standard 3-4 paragraph length per WP:LEAD, so some trimming is to be needed. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Some thoughts becoming true without asking: [14] [15] [16] EDIT: [17] --Mopskatze (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Costa Concordia disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Costa Concordia disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It did not capsize.

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Costa Concordia did not turn anywhere near upside down. It hit rocks and partially sank, heeling over at a steep angle. If you're writing about watercraft incidents, please use correct terminology. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/capsize Bizzybody (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Further information on why some people died?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could the people who have worked on this article please add some information on why some people died? Are there any known facts about this? Is it because they were near the place where the rock rammed the ship and made a hole into it? Were they intoxicated or otherwise incapacitated and that's why they didn't evacuate the ship? E.g. that Korean couple that was found alive later: do we know anything about why they didn't leave their cabin in time? Did they perhaps not understand the English announcements? If anyone knows about this, please add it to the article. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Costa Concordia disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Costa Concordia disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Intro

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The lede places in its second sentence very finite information about the number of people, and where remains were found relative to very finite salvage operations. Is it just me, or is this way too specific for an introduction to the subject of the article? 842U (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph 1: I do not think that this is too specific. 32 people did perish during this event. However, 4229 people were saved by the mitigating actions of the crew at the behest of Capt Schettino AFTER the first grounding of the vessel at 21:45 (this time might be edited for accuracy in the background section, as it is verified by the time hacks from the audio recording of the bridge during the investigation). Perhaps the 4229 people SAVED is as important of a fact to share as the 32 lost.

After the first grounding at Le Scole, the generator spaces became flooded quickly and this caused the vessel to become a "black ship". In the instance of a collision, Costa Cruises procedures required (at the time of the event) more than 70 minutes (in optimum circumstances) of activity and tasks BEFORE an evacuation announcement is made. Getting the passengers off of the vessel is the 10th step in those procedures not the first. Additionally, because of the reports that Schettino was receiving from below decks and because of the manner in which the vessel was behaving, Schettino originally thought that the port thruster had struck the rocks at Le Scole and was damaged, not that the generator compartments were being flooded from the port side. It was not until 51 minutes AFTER the first grounding that Schettino finally understood what was flooded. This was 15 minutes AFTER he was expected to begin evacuation efforts (by Italian Maritime standards). NOTE: All of this information is gleaned from interviews conducted and survey data collated by Nippin Anand of Novellus Solutions Ltd.

Intro Paragraph 2: This paragraph contains one inaccuracy by omission and another inaccuracy outright.

Inaccuracy by omission: "Schettino, who left the ship prematurely." While it is true that Schettino left the vessel while people were still on the CC and before it settled into it's final position, that he "left the ship prematurely" requires a more accurate explanation. Video evidence from the vessel showed Schettino spending >2 hours on the starboard evacuation deck working to get as many passengers into lifeboats as possible. When the last working life boat (~10% of the life boat davits did not operate correctly when activated) was deployed on the starboard side, it became caught between its launch davit and the listing CC. At this same moment, Capt Schettino was the LAST person on the starboard evacuation deck and he could not climb to the port evacuation deck where 80-90 people were stranded (but high and dry and out of relative danger). Capt Schettino saw that the life boat which was OVERLOADED with ~300 passengers was stuck and decided to leap from the CC to the life boat to guide the boat driver to get the life boat out of further danger from the top of the life boat (where there are no hand holds or anything to secure the Capt). Again, this was all captured on video from the starboard evac deck. The ship was beginning to list further which risked crushing the life boat. As Capt Schettino was unhooking the life boat from its davit lines and getting those lines out of the way of progress, furniture began to tumble out of the vessel and around the Capt and the life boat on which he was standing. This activity occurred between 00:30-00:45. So,while the Captain DID leave the ship prematurely, he did so because he had evacuated everyone that he could physically evacuate AND because he needed to board the life boat at his own peril to save it and its passengers from certain peril.

Inaccuracy outright: "About 300 passengers were left on board, most of whom were rescued by helicopter or motorboats in the area." The "300 passengers" came from Schettino's investigation statement regarding how many passengers were on the life boat he leapt to save. The number of passengers that were actually left on board were the 32 who perished plus the 87 who were evacuated from the port evac deck by helicopter AFTER 00:30 (a fact confirmed by Italian Maritime helicopter evacuation records).

I am working with some others to obtain the proper citations for the documents and data sources identified here, but I thought it importaant to begin the discussion before actually editing the page.

GrantAdamCole (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2019 (CST or GMT +6)

The last two sentences of the first paragraph aren't introduction material.

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

These need to be moved to the search for remains section. The first paragraph should be reserved for general information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:E00:8B1F:1D5A:A916:DAA:5F01 (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Costa_Concordia_disaster/Archive_5&oldid=1237640390"