Talk:Titan submersible implosion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Title should be changed

Comment here instead: #Requested move 20 June 2023

--David Tornheim (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title be " 2023 Titanic submersible disappearance" instead of "2023 Titanic submersible incident"? Rager7 (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree it should be changed to disappearance or kerfuffle. 2A02:C7C:2D07:9B00:4D0:BBEB:A9A1:1FEA (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I too vouch for 'Titan kerfuffle'. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:1122:4FD:855C:AEEC (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely agree! Kakan spelar (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I personally believe kerfuffle is not professional enough for Wikipedia. If it is changed, I would support it being changed to "disappearance." AtomicMango80 (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Titan submersible disappearance Jim 2 Michael (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It should be changed 156.143.240.139 (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed Eoj9020 (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

See #Requested move 20 June 2023 where this is being formally discussed. Please feel free to contribute there. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Kerfuffle it should be! Nothing else is this clown theatre! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.183.3.57 (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Lawsuits

This statement (in the "Prior concerns" section) is not quite right: "OceanGate, which was suing him for allegedly disclosing confidential information, settled the lawsuit a few months later."

OceanGate didn't settle the lawsuit. It takes both parties to a lawsuit to settle it.

Perhaps something like this: "OceanGate had previously sued him for allegedly disclosing confidential information, but both parties settled both lawsuits a few months later"

Thanks 76.14.122.5 (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done The source also says " and a few months later the two parties settled." RudolfRed (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed persons in submarine

The NY times has released a list of people they know to be in the vessel,

"Five people are in the submersible: Stockton Rush, the founder and chief executive of OceanGate Expeditions, which operates the vessel; Hamish Harding, a British businessman and explorer; another British businessman, Shahzada Dawood and his son, Suleman, from one of Pakistan’s wealthiest families; and Paul-Henri Nargeolet, a French maritime expert who has been on more than 35 dives to the Titanic wreck." (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/20/us/missing-submarine-titanic-search.html) , should we add it to the wiki page? Starliftenthusiast (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Please check the page content before suggesting edits. These names are already included. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Titanium or actually steel rings ?

Deleted my own stuff as irrelevant. JB. --92.195.94.67 (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Stockton Rush should have his own page

Does anyone think he deserves his own page? 2A02:C7C:2D07:9B00:4D0:BBEB:A9A1:1FEA (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to be particularly notable, either in general or within the submersible/tourist industry. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:A5C8:50FA:2049:2767 (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, there is quite a bit on him prior to this year. I think there might be enough for at least a section on the OceanGate article. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I have started Draft:Stockton Rush. I think he will probably meet notability guidelines with the coverage. He got quite a bit of media before the disappearance, so Wikipedia:BLP1E doesn’t apply.

Thriley (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

He may have been on the sub though 156.143.240.139 (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Stockton Rush is currently a redirect and could be made into an article if he meets notability guidelines. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:BLP1E.Tvx1 21:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe that he should have his own page on the OceanGate page because he is the founder of the company Duck Dur (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Stockton Rush is being reviewed at Articles for Creation ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft was rejected for not meeting notability requirements. Probably best to stick to Super Goku V andDuck Durr's idea of adding a subsection to OceanGate. OneRandomBrit (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

A page for Stockton Rush has been created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigfatman8766 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Disagreement on date of departure from Newfoundland

Though the map states that the expedition left on 18 June, the text states it was 17 June. Anyone know the correct date? 2600:4040:9985:D300:91B5:7504:B8FA:7A0F (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The submersible was launched on the 18th, the world was alerted on the 19th, so it would make sense if the expedition left port on the 17th, as you'd normally not launch the sub late on the day you left port -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

BBC news (source) says the expedition left on June 16th 92.68.99.18 (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

yeah I agree, the map should be changed to detect this new information. Death Editor 2 (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Knightoftheswords281 Would you kindly revise your map please? Also, box should read "... where RMS Titanic sank." Davidships (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Davidships Map revised. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 18:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated Davidships (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Bogus archive url

@Significa liberdade: Please don't add bogus archive urls to our source citations. This one [1] does not support the material, including a quote, for which we need a legit source. GA-RT-22 (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@GA-RT-22: You are mistaken. The archive URL doesn't need to support any material. It just needs to be an archive of the source that exists within the ref tags. The archive URL that was added (https://web.archive.org/web/20230619190805/https://news.sky.com/story/uk-billionaire-hamish-harding-on-board-missing-titanic-submersible-family-confirms-12905616) is an archive of this URL: https://news.sky.com/story/uk-billionaire-hamish-harding-on-board-missing-titanic-submersible-family-confirms-12905616. This has nothing to do with source quality or the relevance of a source. Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Is the question here whether we need a better source or whether the source provided shouldn't be archived? As Nythar noted, the archived link is just an archive of a source, which can be helpful with rapidly changing information. Significa liberdade (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The issue was that the story at the original url supported the material, but the archived version was different and did not. It has been resolved. GA-RT-22 (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

OceanGate Titan

Perhaps the DSV OceanGate Titan should also have an article, as well as the expedition set that this mission was part of OceanGate Titanic Expeditions, and the tour operator OceanGate Expeditions separate from OceanGate, Inc. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It should at least have a redirect, but I'm not sure of the name. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#OceanGate Titan. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Deep Energy Ship arrived for help

As a pro User of Marinetraffic i can see that the Ship Deep Energy (https://www.technipfmc.com/en/investors/archives/technip/press-releases/the-deep-energy-technip-s-new-state-of-the-art-pipelay-vessel/) arrived at the position of the Polar Prince to support the rescue. They arrived 3-4 hours ago.

https://abload.de/img/bildschirmfoto2023-06lyf2o.png https://abload.de/img/bildschirmfoto2023-0630epr.png Sanafan321 (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Found a citation from a secondary source (ie the news) and added this in. Others have now added separate vessels on scene ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Do we have an article on the Deep Energy ? or the other ships that have come to help, like the CCGS John Cabot , etc -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Lots of pretty red hulled vessels in the vicinity. Cabot, Deep Energy, Atlantic Merlin, 1959 built Polar Prince and Skandi Vinland. BidgeeBoy (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Horizon Arctic a blue hulled vessel will be there soon too -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Apparently the CCGS John Cabot (is it this one?) was part of the deepest submarine rescue ever, when it hauled up Pisces III in 1973.[2][3] -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 08:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Craft participating in rescue

The BBC has reported on what is participating in the rescue operation, near the end of the rescue operation section. Mainly it mentions that 3 C-130's are in the operation. This article specifically Mahargs (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Canada does not operate P-8 Poseidon aircraft. The Anti Sub warfare aircraft on scene is a CP-140 Aurora. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.190.110 (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Rory Golden

Rory Golden, who is reportedly onboard the submersible, reportedly wrote on Facebook that they are alive[4]. Meanwhile, in the article Rory Golden is not even listed among those onboard! Should this information be included?79.139.159.217 (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The article you linked says Golden is on board the the main ship located in the north Atlantic Ocean (I assume that refers to the Polar Prince), not on the actual submersible. Taavi (talk!) 15:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Golden reported that he is alive, as he wasn't on the sub. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Image / Map

Is it possible to convert the map that's a PNG image format into a more accessible one? Does Wikipedia have a system for maps in the info box? 92.22.127.50 (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2023

Canada does not operate P-8 Poseidon aircraft as erroneously reported. The CP-140 Aurora in in use to support the search with sono buoys. 24.143.190.110 (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -Lemonaka‎ 20:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_P-8_Poseidon#Operators 24.143.190.110 (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.canada.ca/en/air-force/services/aircraft/maritime-aviation.html 24.143.190.110 (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.boeing.com/defense/maritime-surveillance/p-8-poseidon/index.page 24.143.190.110 (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

See "Customers". 24.143.190.110 (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Nargeolet or Nageolet ?

In the "people aboard" part, there's both way written. As I don't know which is correct, I won't edit it and just inform you. 37.174.71.183 (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Significa liberdade (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• P.-H. Nargeolet seems like he is notable enough to have his own article -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Re: Reactions section

I appreciate having a section about the reactions to this event, especially considering the discussions around class, but I'm curious about the notability of some of the reactions, as well as credibility of sources. For instances, the Daily Beast is presently cited, and Wikipedia considers it a "high-end tabloid." Not exactly what I would consider a credible source. Significa liberdade (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd support removing the Belfast interviews and the tennis coach tweet. Those don't seem encyclopaedic. Folly Mox (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hours of oxygen left in the lead

I’m wondering whether it’s appropriate to include the maximum time until which the submersible should have oxygen left in the lead. Sadly we’re not sure at all whether the vessel is even still structurally sound. Tvx1 21:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is your objection? WP Ludicer (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

That this information is in the lead. Tvx1 02:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that I think that the cited figure was the estimate for the period with all occupants breathing, in other circumstances it might well be longer. Davidships (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course it should be. That's essential information. Veganoregano (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Game Controller

This is over-the-top: "It included allegations that the steering for the submarine was controlled by a $30 Logitech F710 game controller." Even U.S. Submarines use game controllers. This kind of sensationalism distracts from the likely real problems. 72.88.128.58 (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Source? Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

As can be seen here and in other sources, the military submarine used an Xbox controller to move its periscope around, and not to operate the entire submarine. The CEO of the company that designed the submarine that went missing, on the other hand, said "we run the whole thing with this game controller." Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Game controllers are reliable heavily tested pieces of precision equipment. Lots of important equipment uses them. [5][6] -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

At this point, there are a number of sources discussing the controller, which makes it fine for including in the article. (1, 2) We can also include information that various militaries uses controllers as well, given that a number of sources have also mentioned this point in connection to the Titan: 3, 4 (MREL), 5, 6, 7 --Super Goku V (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

As it was controlled by a gaming controller, we should have an image if a suitable one is available. Commons:Category:Xbox Controller may have such an image, but it's outside my area of knowledge. Mjroots (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

They use them, they don't operate the whole submarine with them Veganoregano (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

None of those images would be suitable, as it's a Logitech controller and not an official Xbox controller. There is one image of an F710 I can see on the commons- the lower of the two devices in this image:

--ERAGON (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

ERAGON - that image can be copied, cropped and uploaded as a new image. Mjroots (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Marine Technology Society letter to OceanGate

I tried to verify this source, and the pdf displays blank content to me. Tried to archive it through archive.org and got the same outcome. I'm not a New York Times subscriber. Can someone with a subscription verify that their site is still hosting this letter? Other sources have covered the NYT's receipt of the letter, so we may have to change the source to something else rather than linking the primary document. Folly Mox (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems fine to me. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Same. I also resaved the PDF. Try that, otherwise it may be your browser. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Starlink Usage

"Prior to losing contact, internet access was provided from SpaceX's satellite system, Starlink." I don't think Starlink can operate underwater. I believe the Starlink was being used for the support ships? Do we have confirmation that the sub itself was using Starlink while underwater? 101.98.135.42 (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely that Starlink equipment could survive the dive, unless it was contained inside the pressure vessel. The electronics would be damaged by the high pressure sea water otherwise. Putting a big moving dish inside the tiny passenger compartment seems not likely. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It is currently unclear. All that is confirmable about this is that OceanGate (...) relied on Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites to provide communications during the expedition. Personally, I would say that the sentence is likely problematic and will try to rewrite it. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I tried to improve it, but it might need more tweaking. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

UHF radio waves do not penetrate seawater beyond a few centimeters. Enough of this ridiculous nonsense. Obviously the support vessel had the Star Link connection. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:5019:F810:88E8:1F6C (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Only ultralongwave would be available beyond any freediving depths, so you'd need an antenna the size of Titanic, and not accessible to the K-band Starlink -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the support vessel's SATCOM provider is really relevant for this article. Hawkeye mitch j (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree, this info seems to be trivia and not especially relevant for this article. GoPats (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

They're just trying to use it in a vain attempt to shift the blame to someone else. 2605:8D80:4C0:49BF:A73:27BE:6C5C:7278 (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. This is irrelevant trivia. --Renerpho (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Times in "incident" section

Can it be stated what the relevant time zone is? McPhail (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I have updated the time zone information so it aligns with the time zone of the Coast Guard (i.e., EST). I'm curious if we should set a time zone for the article and simply have it stated somewhere that all time zones are XYZ. What's the general protocol on this? Significa liberdade (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The wreck is located in -3 UTC. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade: - thank you. McPhail (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Incidents like this are in local time, unless otherwise states d. Ng.j (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The CNN article that is referenced for the timeline has a major error. It states that the times are Atlantic Daylight Time (ADT) which would be correct for Halifax, Nova Scotia. However, the article mentions that ADT is 1.5 hours ahead of Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). That's incorrect. ADT is only one-hour ahead of EDT. So, if the reporter actually meant the time zone in St. John's, Newfoundland, that location is Newfoundland Daylight Time (NDT). NDT is 1.5 hours ahead of EDT or 2.5 hours behind UTC. I'm guessing the CNN author meant NDT.~~ Abebenjoe (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Implosion due to breach in the hull is the most likely scenario

See here. Count Iblis (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It's the most likely scenario according to a technology journalist. I would hesitate to add such a statement to the article without a more expert source. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It happened that i’m in the area. An hour ago (around 02:11 UTC) i heard a call from SAR vessel that there was a banging nosie detected by sonars in search area. In progress of investigation by ROV. There are numerous scenarios that might have happened but there’s still hope. 193.220.243.20 (talk) 03:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Titanic Expeditions Section - Some questions?

This section seems to heavily imply that they've done a whole bunch of these missions already. But have they? I can't find any article that suggests they've actually done dives to the Titanic before. (Not of course other dives to Titanic which seem regular, but this particular company.) Jjazz76 (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok so they did one in July 2021. How many successful dives happened before this incident? Jjazz76 (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

2023 Titan submersible incident#Prior concern describes four others besides this one. Not sure how many they've done in total, it's a good question. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

NBC says "It was on only its third trip since OceanGate Expeditions began offering trips in 2021." Not clear on how many dives in total, though. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it is a bit hard to suss out. Like how many successful dives did they make to the Titanic wreckage? Their Twitter page calls the recent trips Mission 3 and Mission 4 but not sure if each "mission" involves multiple dives: https://twitter.com/OceanGateExped

I do think editors for this article need to take anything coming from OceanGate with a real, real grain of salt. The 2018 MTS letter to OceanGate seems to call them out for using lots of corporate-speak to make things seem better/more secure/whatever than they actually are. Jjazz76 (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

There have been several previous dives over several years, starting in 2021. A draft about that is at DRAFT: OceanGate Titanic Expedition -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

On the CBS feature with David Pouge, 3 different dives are shown. It's not talked about, but clear from the different passengers in the submarine. One of these dives seem to be the same as the one featured in the BBC documentary Take Me to Titanic. KristofferR (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

7:44, 8:38 and 9:44 (BBC doc) shows the different dives. KristofferR (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this draft. It seems from the draft they've only done one successful mission? Jjazz76 (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

No. The draft seems to confuse missions/expeditions with dives. 28 persons visited Titanic in 2022 on the Titan, according to court filings, and the sub has a capacity for 3 customers, so there had to be plenty of successful dives. KristofferR (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious how many successful dives there actually were before this event, and how many dives total. Can't seem the find that anywhere. Jjazz76 (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2023

There are no P8's being used. Canada does not own P8's. 2001:1970:4E16:AD00:85A6:20CD:AC04:823B (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the confusion about aircraft came from the Boston spokesperson for the United States Coast Guard at the Tuesday, 20 June 2023 press conference. He made two mistakes about the names of the aircraft. Number one, calling the P8-Poseidon Canadian, when in fact that was an American-owned and operated aircraft. The second mistake was calling the Canadian CP-140 Aurora a P3. It is based on the Lockheed P3, sharing the airframe, but a different avionics and electronics suite. Abebenjoe (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Position of dive site

The BBC here says "The Titan submersible is thought to be approximately 900 miles (1450km) east and 400 miles (643km) south of St. Johns, Newfoundland." Is this correct? Presumably this was the position of the dive site and the submersible went straight down? Should this position be added to the article? Perhaps on the map? 86.187.171.79 (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

There are some very precise co-ordinates, so maybe that's last known position i.e. the surface dive site? The only position defined in the article seems to be that for the wreck ".. around 400 nautical miles (740 km) from the coast of Newfoundland", but that gives no direction, so simply describes an arc 400 nm long. One might expect very basic information on the position of the dive site to be given, rather than relying on readers to work it out for themselves from the co-ordinates. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

That information from the BBC is nonsensical. 900 miles east of Newfoundland takes you halfway across the Atlantic to Ireland. I think they meant to say the wreck site is around 900 miles east of Massachusetts (and it's about 400 miles south of St John Newfoundland). But to give a location as distance east of one place and distance south of another is absurd.

They had also incorrectly quoted Rush as saying the journey used $1m of fuel. In fact Rush said he had used $1m worth of fuel without specifying any time period - perhaps he meant in his lifetime. I pointed out to the BBC that the Polar Prince could operate for over 100 days on $1m of fuel - and it's an 8 day trip to the Titanic site. They've removed that information. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:D8B6:15A7:35D9:3D73 (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Yes, that BBC detail seems to be rubbish. Is there another RS source that gives the position relative to the nearest point on land? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2023 (2)

Summary: I wish to post the internet reaction to this event, speculate about the affected persons, cite a news article about the security violations from OceanGate (https://techcrunch.com/2023/06/20/a-whistleblower-raised-safety-concerns-about-oceangates-submersible-in-2018-then-he-was-fired/), and speculate internet opinion of the ultra-wealthy in light of the recent orca-attacking-a-yatch event.

Changes: Add a section for News updates to talk about the OceanGate company's lack of safety standards, firing of the engineer who raised safety concerns. We also just got word that there was a lawsuit involved in the firing of the engineer, so we'll have to find records and cite that as well (https://abcnews.go.com/US/lawsuit-alleged-flaws-titanic-submersible-now-missing/story?id=100251012). Change the Reactions section to include "Internet reaction to event" section, talk about popular internet celebrities', musicians', and entertainers' opinions. Starliftenthusiast (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not confident enough to make those changes myself, but on the surface (pun intended):

- The information about Titan is relevant and could be transferred from the existing section from OceanGate Titan, while the information about the whistleblower and lawsuit is also relevant.

- Internet reaction... eh, I'm not so sure about that. It's kinda an internet celebrity's job to comment on literally everything, so I don't think that their inclusion is warranted unless covered separately in an RS.

Couruu (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

There is already discussion of the concerns over safety standards in 2023 Titan submersible incident#Prior concerns, which includes details about the fired engineer and the lawsuit. As for "Internet reaction", the reactions of celebrities and entertainers is not likely to be encyclopedically relevant. See WP:IINFO. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks guys! will find something else to suggest. Starliftenthusiast (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Path of descent

Does the submersible dive directly down to the wreck site, dropping like a stone, or does it dive at an angle and have to be steered? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It requires steering, as ocean currents will cause it to drift off course. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess if the dive site is directly over the wreck, it could circle down in a spiral. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Plane that detected the banging?

Most sources are saying the banging was detected by a Canadian P-3 Orion, what is the verification for it being a CP-140? Or is it just being called a P-3 in the media because of the airframe? Wasianpower (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Technically it is a P-3, but it is more specifically a CP-140 which more media outlets are correcting. Part of this is that the US media tends to use their own military designations. The other is that the media tends to get many military subjects incorrect. Ng.j (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the confusion about aircraft came from the Boston spokesperson for the United States Coast Guard at the Tuesday, 20 June 2023 press conference. He made two mistakes about the names of the aircraft. Number one, calling the P8-Poseidon Canadian, when in fact that was an American-owned and operated aircraft. The second mistake was calling the Canadian CP-140 Aurora a P3. It is based on the Lockheed P3, sharing the airframe, but a different avionics and electronics suite. Abebenjoe (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Iron Lung connection

I cannot tell if this is appropriate or not, but on media online (especially Twitter and Tumblr), people are connecting the incident to the Indie Game "Iron Lung", both about a small claustrophobic submarine stuck in an ocean. Is this notable? QwertyPc Game17 (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

no isn't. Death Editor 2 (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Not at all. Parelance (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

To expand a bit more fully on what others are saying, no. Unless it is reported in reliable sources that the internet reaction has drawn that connection, we should generally ignore it - Twitter and Tumblr are not reliable sources in general. Couruu (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Understood, thank you for the explanation! QwertyPc Game17 (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Page editing should be locked

With a situation like this, constant updates from users means misinformation or vandalism is possible. The page should be protected, allowing only authorised editors to make changes. RhapsodyWIK (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protection is enough in my opinion. Death Editor 2 (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, full-protection is only reserved for major content disputes and edit-wars. This page is highly watched right now by wikipedians and most vandalism is mitigated by semi-protection. The next step would be extended protection. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

CEO said he didn't want to hire "50-year-old white guys"

"When I started the business, one of the things you'll find, there are other sub operators out there but they typically have gentleman who are ex-military submariners and you'll see a whole bunch of 50-year-old white guys. I wanted our team to be younger, to be inspirational and I'm not going to inspire a 16-year-old to go pursue marine technology but a 25-year-old you know who's a sub pilot or a platform operator or one of our techs can be inspirational. So we've really tried to to get very intelligent, motivated, younger individuals involved because we're doing things that are completely new."

Sources:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dka29FSZac

https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=63826

https://www.mrctv.org/blog/oceangate-ceo-hiring-crew-didnt-want-hire-50-year-old-white-guys-theyre-not-inspirational

These might not be the most reliable sources, but I wanted to raise the issue of this quote, and hope that better, more reliable sources become available.

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

This isn't relevant to the rescue. Like at all. Gots2bkidding (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

This, like the bulk of your other contributions and "just asking questions" talk page posts, sure strikes me as WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:3D3A:A733:2B6A:33A3 (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. SquirrelHill1971's contributions seem to include a lot of right-wing talking points, making me wonder if they are actually here to improve the encyclopedia, or just here to make WP:TENDENTIOUS edits. — The Anome (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Guys, if there is an issue, WP:ANI is available to use. Mjroots (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

This could be relevant to the article if discriminatory hiring practices limited the talent pool of the company, and that had some effect in the decisions taken that could have led to this disaster. Personnel decisions can be as important as engineering decisions (and extensive coverage on the latter is being included in the article). Human errors are the causes or contributing factors to many disasters. So it is potentially topically relevant. The threshhold for inclusion is having reliable sources, probably beyond what was listed above. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The only sources focusing on this are tabloids and right-wing websites. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Communications During the Expedition

Snopes, a source that is considered “generally reliable” by Wikipedia, claimed that it was true that Titan, the submersible that went missing in June 2023 on a Titanic wreckage exploration, used Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites to provide communications during the expedition. 2600:1001:B129:783A:E5B2:8B0:306A:AEE1 (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

See #Starlink Usage above. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Bathyscaphe?

Is the Titan a Bathyscaphe? Uwappa (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

No. Tvx1 05:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Presumed deaths

When the oxygen supply supposedly runs out, should we presume all people aboard the Titan to be deceased (if they don't get rescued before then?) Pyraminxsolver (talk) 07:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

No. We follow what reliable sources say, and what they will likely say is that the crew are presumed dead. That will then be added to this page. As for the 3 articles of individuals onboard, I don’t know. This will be decided on their respective talk pages. Asperthrow (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

OceanGate: "We now believe that our CEO Stockton Rush, Shahzada Dawood and his son Suleman Dawood, Hamish Harding, and Paul-Henri Nargeolet, have sadly been lost." Which BBC is interpreting as dead in their headlines.

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

EddieColdrick (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Images

File:Ocean Gate 2.jpg

File:Ocean Gate 3.jpg

ZOKIDINuz (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

You've shown the toilet as being at the same end as the porthole window. I think it's at the other end of the passenger tube?

Who would want to take a poo in front of a window looking at the wreck of the Titanic? Besides, anything (whales, sharks, jellyfish, monsters) could be watching. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:2D8E:F1C7:A43C:4B5D (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

At 3:19 in the video on this article, you can see that the toilet is indeed at the porthole side of the capsule. XgXFd9ct (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

You're quite correct. There's an image elsewhere showing it on the hinged end of the sub where the porthole is: it looks like it doubles up as a seat for whoever is observing out the window. It seems rather disrespectful for someone to take a dump while looking onto the graveyard of 1,500 drowned souls. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:2D8E:F1C7:A43C:4B5D (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Time of oxygen loss

The submarine lost oxygen at approximately 7:08 EST according to what the Coast Guard told the New York Post.[7] Should we add this info? And if so, what time zone should we use? Aquaticsans (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd say use the time zone where is was last seen 2603:7081:5C00:A4E:91E7:91A0:8713:AF50 (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:OR. Don't say that until the sources say that. Couruu (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I put a source right there. Aquaticsans (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but first the NYP is not a reliable source (WP:NYPOST) and second it claims the "sub will lose oxygen", not "the sub lost oxygen". It's impossible to know whether the sub did indeed oxygen (besides, it's irrelevant now as the sub was a bit too exploded to have oxygen) Couruu (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

June 23

If the craft is not found by June 23, should we replace “missing” with “presumed dead”? RidgelantRL (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

See similar question just above on this page. If the sources start using that term, so should we, but not otherwise. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. We will use the term that is common to the most secondary sources, once they start doing it. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The crew are now presumed dead, according the the company that operated the submersible. Redacted II (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, that would be considered as a primary source, though. Shouldn't we wait until several reliable secondary sources say the same? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The company itself isn't a great source, but the reports from the Coast Guard and various news organizations seem to be solid. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The question was: "Are the crew presumed dead". Primary or secondary doesn't matter in this regard.

Besides, as 199.208.172.35 mentioned, there are several other sources that declare them dead. Redacted II (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

True, I agree. However, it looks like the article already mentions that OceanGate issued a statement regarding the death of the people aboard. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

They certainly did. Seems there's a related discussion happening here, further down the page, about how to incorporate that information. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Stockton Rush article?

I started a draft for Stockton Rush. I’m not sure if he warranted an article before the disappearance, but with all the coverage that is likely to change. Thriley (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal says here that he was "Born into a wealthy San Francisco family..." But that source is subscription only. Daily Mail says here he's 61, but does not give any date of birth. And that source is not usable. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Apparently his wife the the great grandchild of Titanic passengers, and his failure to become an astronaut lead to his deep sea venture -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Stockton Rush is being reviewed at Articles for Creation ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Possible update on expected amount of oxygen left

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/titanic-submarine-oxygen-missing-hamish-harding-b2362246.html Experts suggest that near-freezing temperatures could keep them alive longer than predicted. It'salwaysyou (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

French translator?

If anyone here has good French translation skills it would be great to translate the L'Atalante article from the French Wikipedia as it seems noteworthy. AusLondonder (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I started a draft here: Draft:French ship Atalante (1989).

Thriley (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Rename the arrival from incident to accident

I believe that it should be renamed from incident to accident because the 96 hours of oxygen should have ran out by now and a news outlets have claimed that a debris field has been found by a French ROV near the wreck which is presumed the submarine which has imploded Duck Dur (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

We shouldn't rename it unless/until that is confirmed. This is Paul (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Quite so. In addition, it would be a presumption to call it an accident. I'm not suggesting for a moment anyone acted deliberately to wreck the sub, however that is a possibility until we know otherwise. This is an encyclopaedia: that means stating facts and not making any assumptions. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I would wait to see what RS say first. As far as I know, it has not yet been confirmed that the debris is from the Titan. Gust Justice (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Good point but if it was a debris field from the Titanic they should say so Duck Dur (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

We already have a discussion about the page name: #Requested move 20 June 2023. Please contribute there instead of starting a new thread. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

You'll get the answer to that in roughly 3 hours. Tweedle (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2023

"The wreck lies at a depth of about 3,810 metres (12,500 feet; 2,080 fathoms" meters and feet depth are interverted. Fix with values from the Titanic entry.

"a wreck that lies over 12,000 feet (3,700 m) below the surface" Arthurski (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This article uses Canadian English and so meters should be used as the primary unit. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

*Ahem*... metres – bradv 16:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2023 (2)

A "debris field" was found near the titanic which has been confirmed to be that of the Titan submersible.The submersible has possibly imploded. 41.114.151.101 (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

 Already done The debris is mentioned under 22 June in the timeline. If there is a specific change you want reply with "please change X to Y" form, and provide a reliable source. Also see section above this one. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2023 (3)

In the "Timeline of operations" subheading, non-UTC times should be removed as they are ambiguous.

For example "A press conference has been scheduled for 4:30 p.m. (19:00 UTC)." 4:30 p.m. where? The press conference is taking place in Boston, which is EDT, and scheduled for 3 PM EDT. It's unclear where the reference to 4:30 even comes from. Ewleonardspock (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

it's 4:30pm local time (Newfoundland Time), where the expedition set off from. Newfoundland time is 1 hour 30 minutes ahead of the east coast Tantomile (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per MOS:TIMEZONE Tantomile (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding June 21st to the timeline

When should we add June 21st to the timeline, as a huge part of the day is on June 20th. Redyr iksachli (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Probably after 00:00 UTC 22 June 2023. Most news sources would have already filed reports on the day's events by then, which is nighttime in the search zone. Abebenjoe (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2023 (3)

In the "Timeline of operations" subheading, non-UTC times should be removed as they are ambiguous.

For example "A press conference has been scheduled for 4:30 p.m. (19:00 UTC)." 4:30 p.m. where? The press conference is taking place in Boston, which is EDT, and scheduled for 3 PM EDT. It's unclear where the reference to 4:30 even comes from. Ewleonardspock (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

it's 4:30pm local time (Newfoundland Time), where the expedition set off from. Newfoundland time is 1 hour 30 minutes ahead of the east coast Tantomile (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per MOS:TIMEZONE Tantomile (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Under “incident” section

Currently, the paragraph before the list of souls onboard in the “incident” section of the article considers all possible outcomes with equal weight. Now that news is rolling out that an implosion was almost definitely the case, should it be changed to reflect that? Fibbage (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2023 (4)

June 22nd it specifies the titan itself was found on the sea floor, however it is only specified the 5 parts of the ship were found, not the entire submersible HexDev (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

James Cameron on board?

Film director James Cameron is listed as being on board the Titan 212.98.214.199 (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Where? Nythar (💬-🍀) 19:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Did you confuse archival news material about James Cameron and his trips down to Titanic with the OceanGate Titan dive? -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, he apparently made a comment comparing the Titan disaster to that of the Titanic itself (according to CNN’s Titan updates). So he is very much alive. Fibbage (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Question

In the start line it says the Submarine "Went missing", should we change that to "Crashed"? Lucasoliveira653 (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the submersible "crashed." It imploded. Nythar (💬-🍀) 19:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Change to ‘Titanic Submersible Disaster

I feel as thorough this is a fitting name in light of what we have recently found out. 23gaydosg (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@23gaydosg, there is a discussion about this already in progress on this page. See here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

There should be mention of the book Futility by Morgan Robertson 🚢

Futility by Morgan Robertson was published in 1898 and it It features a ocean liner named Titan that sinks in the North Atlantic Ocean after striking an iceberg. The novel has similarities to the Titanic and its sinking 14 years later. Now 125 years later this shit happens. Vicenzotb (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Have any reliable sources mentioned it in connection to this particular sinking (as opposed to the Titanic)? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It appears that most of the “similarities”, including the ship’s name, were only added in a 1912 re-edition of the book after the Titanic disaster. Tvx1 20:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

"presumed jumpscare by Freddy Fazbear"

What? 208.90.178.140 (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism removed here. Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Remove "2023" from title

Duplicate : See § Requested move 20 June 2023. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a tendency to put "year" at the start of article titles (wp:recentism) when it's clear that a title without the year modifier "i.e. "Titan Submersible Disappearance" or "Titan Submersible Incident" would be unambiguously describing the event. I move that an admin remove the year from title and not go through lengthy move process to do so. Colipon+(Talk) 20:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Should just open a move discussion to determine the name of the article, as it is now a sinking and implosion -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

One is already open, above. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmm... that discussion had been closed when I commented. It seems to have reopened -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

An IP closed it improperly and was reverted. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The name be changed to: Oceangate submersible Titan Implosion

Ultimateyeetus (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: see the requested move discussion above. Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Change “Assets involved” section title to “Vessels and equipment involved”

I propose changing the naming of that section of the article from “Assets involved “, to “Vessels and equipment involved”, or something the like that is more descriptive. “Assets” is too generic and also probably jargon specific to some government bodies. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Is an aircraft a "vessel"? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Change title from "2023 Titan submersible incident" to "Titan submersible incident"

Considering that no OceanGate submersibles have gone missing in the past, it is irrelevant to include "2023" in the title Grave8890 (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I personally agree. There is a wider discussion about renaming #Requested move 20 June 2023, feel free to contribute there. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

A move discussion is already in progress above. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Your comment is a non-sequitur. The title does not reference OceanGate therefore your assertion, that no OceanGate submersibles having previously gone missing makes the inclusion of 2023 irrelevant, makes no sense.

Did you mean to say something along the lines of, 'considering no submersibles called Titan have previously gone missing, it is irrelevant to include '2023?

If so, what evidence have you to support your claim that no submersibles called Titan have gone missing before this week? 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, please consolidate title discussion to #Requested move 20 June 2023. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

No, I did indeed mean to that no OceanGate submersibles have previously gone missing. I was indeed referring to the Titan submersible, but despite not including the name of the submersible, anyone with common sense would have known that I was referring to the OceanGate Titan, and not some other submersible named Titan.

And as for my evidence that this is the only submersible named Titan that has gone missing, it would take ages to find a submersible of the same name that has gone missing, due to the mass coverage of the OceanGate titan and the little chance of another Titan that has also gone missing existing. Grave8890 (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I wish you had proof-read your last remarks: there's typos, then there's gobbledegook (no bad faith intended). However I thank you for acknowledging that it is possible (i.e. "little chance") that a different submersible named Titan has previously gone missing.

Please consolidate further discussion as previously directed #Requested move 20 June 2023. Thank you. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Category

Category:United States submarine accidents should be added. 86.187.226.153 (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: That category appears to be tied to Category:Submarines of the United States Navy. Given that this isn't part of the US Navy, adding that would be a problem. Perhaps in the future, there will be a Category called "Private submarine accidents" that would be appropriate for this article. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Just pointing out that the category also includes Johnson Sea Link accident - though maybe it shouldn't. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That it does. Maybe I have this backwards. One sec. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The Johnson Sea Link Accident should certainly be included, by virtue of it being the only recorded near-fatality of an ichthyologist in a marine environment in the current era. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Yep, I had this backwards in my head somehow. I have added the category. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Date structure?

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

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

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

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

It was operating out of St. John's, on a chartered Canadian ship[8]Polar Prince, so Canadian English can also apply. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 01:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Ah, so we likely still have a problem. @KeyKing666 and Ng.j: Do you might if I fix the date or is there another reason not to change? --Super Goku V (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind. Should have doublechecked DATETIES again to confirm the claim before pinging. Sorry for the trouble. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Official Canadian English is day, month, year. Look at your legal contracts for instance. Abebenjoe (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

More or less true. Wikipedia's definition of Canadian English seems to accept either. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Yes it does, look at your legal contracts, signed at (Location), this day of (number of day), (month), (year). Abebenjoe (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

disagreed. the sub was from the us and us english uses MM/DD/YYYY format -jakeyounglol (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

list-talk}}

Mapframe

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

That it’s poorly framed is only just your opinion. In infobox is also intended to summarise an article. Where newfoundland, or more generally the incident site is situated should be conveyed in the body of the article and not firstly by the infobox. Your map is just an unexplained point on a large body of water. The map you keep replacing is actually informative through included text, which defeat the inconveniences its static nature could have. Tvx1 01:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

class=notpageimage|

"North America" option

class=notpageimage|

"North Atlantic" option

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

Oh, true:

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

Unnecessary Enterprisey (talk!) 05:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Very nice. Use a typo against someone. Your map coveys nothing. It’s not an improvement in any way. The current map summarizes the origin, the path and location of mishap of the expedition. And all we have to do to make it MOS compliant is to make sure that the crucial information is repeated in the caption and that the text is also presented with alt parameters. Als no text is “presented as an image” here. There is an image with some explenatory text.Tvx1 04:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Please assume good faith towards fellow editors. I apologise for causing offense, but I can't reasonably have known it was a typo in the first place. Do be mindful that changing the wording of other editors' replies like you did to mine is not kosher either, per WP:TPO. Back on topic, there isn't really any point in having the text in the image if the text is going to be in the caption anyway, no?. — AFC Vixen 🦊 05:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Yeah, that was on obvious mistake. I meant to fix my own post. And I don’t think I accused you of bad faith anywere. And I never said the text in the caption should be identical to the text in the image.Tvx1 19:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC) You accused me of "using a typo against someone". — AFC Vixen 🦊 19:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC) And that’s bad faith according to you???? That comment intended to deal with low class.Tvx1 10:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC) @Tvx1: It sounds like bad faith to me. Are you saying you assumed the original comment was "low class"? Please don't do that. --Renerpho (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC) No just that one sentence. So I have to accept anything that’s thrown against me, but replying to that in anyway is utterly unacceptable?? Tvx1 22:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC) The problem was that you immediately assumed I was throwing anything against you in the first place. I was merely making a counterargument. — AFC Vixen 🦊 00:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

I honestly do not so see an improvement in your change. Now there’s just an uninformative map of dismal quality with a marker which is horrible off scale. The previous map actuall showed an informative visual summary of the subject of this article.Tvx1 19:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• I like the latter two options proposed above. ~ HAL333 16:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  OMG how do i turn off notifications for this one thread. i like having notifications of things i have commented on, but this one had 27 notifications since my last simple comment???!!!! Iljhgtn (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  There should be an "unsubscribe" button at the top of the section, and you can adjust notifications settings in your preferences. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  okay i just clicked unsubscribe, thanks. i hope my commenting in reply to thank you does not now resubscribe me. hahaha Iljhgtn (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Time zone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found 3 more sources:

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

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

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

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

Search-and-rescue - Hyphens or not

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, because it's a large project with many contributors and it does no good to get bogged down in matters of style. That means agreeing upon standards so that there is no room for debate, therefore minimizing the potential for edit-warring. The Wikipedia manual of style does cover this particular issue, as Synpath has pointed out. WP Ludicer (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

See MOS:HYPHEN, specifically #3; compound modifiers. If "search and rescue" is being used to describe a noun use hyphens (e.g. search-and-rescue efforts or search-and-rescue mission). Hyphens wouldn't be needed when not used as a modifier (e.g. Search and rescue was hampered by low visibility weather conditions, which cleared the next day.). Of course, this is subtle and context will probably do most of the disambiguation for you if it comes up. ― Synpath 18:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C'etait la vie. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 19:07, 5, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

WSJ report

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

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

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

Change title to 'Titan Submarine expedition' 2023.

Change title to "Titan submarine expedition 2023".

Wendy W Miss X 98.123.126.45 (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The title is already being discussed. See here near the top of the page. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 02:5