Talk:Titan submersible implosion/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Infobox image

Re this edit: The lack of a free to use image of the Titan submersible is a problem, but the use of a mock-up CGI image isn't acceptable. This is misleading the reader. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Why do you feel that a computer-generated image is unacceptable or misleading?

The caption clearly states that the image is a computer-generated rendering. Unless it was inaccurate or poorly/incompetently created, I struggle to see any issue. On the contrary, it is in my opinion an extremely well-executed artwork that perfectly resembles the real-world images of Titan that I have seen. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6C3C:5F5:C493:76FB (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The infobox image is one of the first things that people will see, and it will show up in search engine results. It shouldn't be a CGI pretend version. That's my two cents worth, but let's have some additional input.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Ianmacm. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with Ianmacm. I appreciate the intent, but this seems like a problem regardless of quality. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 22:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Dylnuge@Hammersoft@Ianmacm Thank you all for the pile-on. I asked the question, "Why do you feel that a computer-generated image is unacceptable or misleading?" and the only response is "The infobox image is one of the first things that people will see, and it will show up in search engine results. It shouldn't be a CGI pretend version."

I'm not sure that this answers the question I posed.

But in the spirit of adventure allow me to rephrase my question:

Why do you feel that a computer-generated image (clearly labelled as such) being one of the first things people will see (or showing up in search engine results) is unacceptable or misleading?

I can agree that a CG image is less preferable to an actual photograph, however an actual photograph cannot be used at the present time. Less-preferable and unacceptable are different things - there is such as a thing in life as 'a compromise'. Do you think that having no image is preferable to having a CG image (these being de facto the only choices presently available)?

I cannot see why a CG image that is labelled as such is misleading. You might argue that people will view the image (perhaps in a search engine preview) but not the caption. Sadly that is true of any online image. We know the internet contains CG images, doctored images, deepfake videos etc. There is a responsibility on content providers to correctly identify their images, and there is a responsibility on content consumers to assess the reliability and context of images.

In the worst case scenario, where an internet user views this CG image of Titan and fails to understand it is a CG image, they'll simply have viewed a CG image of Titan that looks remarkably like the actual Titan without knowing it.

If anyone fails to read the caption and assumes the CG image is a real photograph, doesn't that simply underline the fact that is a very realistic CG image that bears a striking likeness to the Titan submersible? 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6DEC:D014:ED5B:3E36 (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I do think no image is preferable than a CG image. The CG image is deeply flawed, and missing a number of characteristics of what Titan actually was. I think it's an active disservice to the reader to include the image, as the various details that are missing convey the wrong impression of Titan. Even if the CG image were better, I think I would still tend to not include it, but I would need to see such a CG image before I could draw a conclusion. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I broadly agree with this. I think if the CG image were something associated with the Titan directly I'd feel less concerned; as is it's just a user-made mockup based on the non-free photographs (unless I'm misunderstanding this?). Personally I think that if there's no free images available WP:NFCC might be met here; there's discussion on that point above (Talk:Titan submersible implosion#Image of Titan) Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 02:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

If the Titan image is flawed, it should be removed from the article altogether. Better to have the reader go and search for what it actually looked like than get an inaccurate picture. -- Veggies (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

When all is said and done Titan (modélisation sketchup - twilight render - Gimp).jpg isn't a very good CGI image anyway. It is someone's home brew based on photographs, but it isn't of good enough quality to use anywhere in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

While I appreciate the effort of Madelgarius, I concur that the CG render is too flawed to warrant its inclusion. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the CG image from the article entirely. I intend no insult to the person who created the image, but it is a poor representation of the vessel and at best is misleading. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to ping Madelgarius (who created the image and added it to the article, but hasn't participated in this discussion) so they're aware of what happened and why. The image is still used over at Titan. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. You know, when there was no freedom of panorama in Belgium, my computer-generated image of the Atomium remained online for over a year. Here, the absence of a photograph with a compatible licence prompted me to make this model. The reader is not cheated, it's clearly stated. Personally, I have no problem with that. Up to you. If it's better "nothing" than this, delete it. --Madelgarius (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Madelgarius I for one appreciate the considerable effort you put into to creating the image and I thought it was excellent. I do not understand the objections and despite asking for clarification none of those who piled-on (to advocate deletion) provided any meaningful rationale. I think the reaction was typically Wikipedian. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:9144:358:E282:BAC0 (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh yes, by some sordid alchemy, some people think that it's by destroying that we create. This is more to laugh at than to be offended by. They'll understand one day, or not. It's like matter and anti-matter, fortunately one won out over the other. Keep confidence. --Madelgarius (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't personally care if you make a thinly veiled attempt to disparage my voicing of my opinion. Others may not be as willing to accept the displayed antagonism. I strongly suggest you both read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Such antagonistic behavior does nothing to help one's argument, but rather serves to do exactly the opposite. I provided an opinion. I was asked to clarify my opinion, which I did. I felt I gave a rather clear rationale as to my opinion. Anyone is welcome to agree or disagree with it. You're not welcome to disparage me or anyone else in the process. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, I've hurt your feelings. I didn't mean to. This was not addressed to you. I was responding in general to the previous message in the PI. You took it personally and replied vehemently. Let's leave it at that, shall we? --Madelgarius (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

As I commented before, there's no impact on me. My feelings are rather immune to the words of a person I've never met and never will. However, some statements above did violate our policies. I'm just asking people to refrain from violating CIVIL and NPA in the future. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

and for my part, I'm a Wikipedian with over twelve years' experience who's never heard of you either, and who's simply answering a legitimate question. --Madelgarius (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

nothing here is severe enough to count as a policy violation, at worst, it belonged on a user talk page rather than here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Hammersoft @Madelgarius I'd like to persevere with trying to understand your concerns about the CG image. Your rationale is "The CG image is deeply flawed, and missing a number of characteristics of what Titan actually was. I think it's an active disservice to the reader to include the image, as the various details that are missing convey the wrong impression of Titan."

Could you expand on what characteristics you think are missing from the CG image and how you think the image conveys the wrong impression of Titan please?

What I see is a CG image of a submersible, with landing legs, a viewing window, thrusters and what I take to be a camera or light mounted at the front of the roof. I get a sense of it being underwater (greeny blue seawater, some little bubbles rising up in the water column) and seeing it underwater further reinforces my assumption that I'm looking at a submersible. It's got the name OceanGate on it. I take an active interest in current affairs, and I immediately associate that name with the Titan submersible that disappeared recently.

What do you see when you look at the CG image? 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:C124:1C14:EFDC:8213 (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

In general, I think that images should be first-order derivatives of the thing they're trying to illustrate (i.e. the reference used to make them should be the thing itself). I realize there's nuance here—even a photograph can be misrepresentative, and a drawing based on a photograph might be perfectly accurate—but I think it's a good rule-of-thumb for avoiding the errors that get introduced when copying things. My concern is not just that it's "not real" but that the 3D model is based on non-free photographs instead of the artist's observation of the Titan (@Madelgarius, correct me if I'm misunderstanding here).

In specific, I see a handful of oddities and inaccuracies when comparing to photographs taken from a similar angle (such as [1]). The tail cone appears to have an entirely different taper and comes off at an angle which seems inaccurate to the photographs I've looked at. The nose cone appears elongated in proportion to how it looks in photographs, and there does not appear to be a window on the nose. There are several issues with how the instruments and cabling on the side appear. I'm not clear what the thing sticking up towards the front of the ship is supposed to be and see nothing like it in photographs. There is no visible riveting. In general, it does not appear that the three sections of the ship quite fit together.

I realize these may seem like "nitpicks," but with all that put together I'm unclear how the free photograph of the Cyclops 1 we have (File:Cyclops_1_Submersible.jpg) isn't more suitable if all we're going for is a vague impression of the Titan. Sure, that photograph is of a different vessel that doesn't look the same as the Titan...but that also applies to this 3D model. I appreciate the work Madelgarius put into this, and my reason for giving a rule-of-thumb response was to preempt the need for detailed criticism of the art, but it's been requested, so here we are.

I would add I am also unclear on how copyright law applies here, but I suspect that using a clear reproduction of the OceanGate logo without permission is not OK. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 19:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Dylnuge Many thanks for this Dylnuge. I understand the points you've made and I see where you are coming from.

The only thing I'd disagree with is that I'd say the image does include the window in the front bell-end: I certainly get a clear sense of that from the image - do another bell-end check and see if you can find the aperture.

Actually, there's a second thing: if the image has been created based on looking at photos, is that really an issue? @Madelgarius' artwork surely has got to be his own copyright whether he created it based on photographs in the public domain or from first-hand sight of the subject? My thinking this is WP:OR I know. But it's an original creation based on his own neurons, although I don't have any sources to back that up.

So anyway, it's gone now [the image] and will never return.

Hopefully Jimmy Wales' highly-paid boffins at WMF - the folks who actually write the articles - can eventually negotiate a licence deal with OceanGate to use one of the myriad public domain images that are everywhere on the internet. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:BC94:2BB6:6B9B:E2F3 (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello everyone, the model was fine-tuned again yesterday. It remains an evocation, the general idea and objective being to give an idea of what the Titan submersible was like. When someone talks to me about a submarine, I archetypically imagine a u-boat or a batyschaphe like Jacques-Yves Cousteau's but not this kind of craft. Nine language versions of Wikimedia projects have adopted this illustration "for want of anything better" for the time being, and it's exactly this spirit that inspired me to create this computer-generated image, which I have no problem with as long as it's clearly stated. That won't be the case here. Case closed. --Madelgarius (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I like it even better now!

However, I was alarmed to read that you'd used your imagination :(

Unless you have sources you can cite to back up your imagination it sounds like a red-flag case of WP:OR. I imagine that's the case anyway. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:9FD:E604:D362:DC3A (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• @Madelgarius: I appreciate your hard work on this image but I think the fact that it is a photorealistic CGI render will always present an issue. Readers will think it is a real image, even if the caption says otherwise. For what it's worth, I share the concerns of other editors with using this image, no matter how accurate, and oppose its use on Wikipedia. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 19:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Wilhelm Gustloff

There was a worse tragedy than the Titanic where 9000 lives were lost. Read about Wilhelm Gustloff. 2A02:AA1:1021:B741:1:0:BE36:46ED (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

How is that relevant to this article? 97.113.8.72 (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

ENGVAR (again!)

Look, Matt, you cannot cavalierly do this. The "discussion" about that topic is in Archive 4 (see above) and you chose not to present your arguments for American English, whereas I clearly stated my arguments for Canadian English — which was the original ENGVAR. The question was settled as nobody offered any counterarguments. By the way, you seem to be fixated on the spelling of one word in particular. Why is that? Kelisi (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't see that archived discussion and didn't even know it existed. I do now see that you reverted my original edits manually so I didn't even get notified that you had reverted me. As for the original "discussion" (to borrow your own scare quotes), there were exactly three parties to it including yourself. Maybe nobody offered any counterarguments because nobody else knew it was up for debate? As for which words to change, I'm happy to change any others that come to my attention; I just fixed the one that I noticed. Lastly, the accusation of being "cavalier" is ad hominem and unnecessary. A neutral interpretation would be that I'm "being bold", which is encouraged. But anyway I'm happy to have an actual, substantive discussion, too. Being that the Titan was a US-made vessel, belonging to a US company, and with a US skipper, I think it's reasonable that US English would be used in the article. Matt Gies (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Note also that I received a Thank for the edit you're calling cavalier--so that's another vote in favor of US English on this article. Matt Gies (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to recapitulate, here is the whole "discussion" (I used the quotes because a one-sided discussion isn't really a discussion; I don't know how quotes can be scary) fetched from the archive:

Don't edit war over WP:ENGVAR

Please discuss this on the talk page rather than edit warring about it, please. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Original ENGVAR was Canadian English. This is perfectly justified on several grounds:

• The mother ship MV Polar Prince was Canadian;
• The expedition set out from a Canadian port (St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador);
• The nearest shore (Shingle Head, 600 km) was Canadian;
  • (The next nearest territory, by the way, was French — Saint Pierre and Miquelon);
• The investigations will largely focus on the Polar Prince, as it is Canadian-flagged and currently berthed at its home port, St. John's;
• Any investigation done at the Titanic site will, of course, be nearer Canada than any other country.

Given this, I cannot see any justification for peremptorily changing the ENGVAR to American English.Kelisi (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to note, this discussion is related to 'Date structure?' in Archive 1 and 'Date format' above. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I wasn't notified about any discussion either. Nonetheless, I found ScottishFinnishRadish's message.

It matters very little that Titan was an American submersible. There are plenty of articles about American-made aircraft crashing, some in international waters, but that doesn't mean that the article's spelling follows the US standard — even if the captain happened to be American; if the aircraft belonged to an airline from a Commonwealth country, the article generally uses Commonwealth spelling. Furthermore, of the five people who died in this incident, three were British — and they, too, used Commonwealth spelling. And by the way, the captain of the submersible's mother ship, MV Polar Prince, was Canadian. He ran a real ship (a good, solid vessel — icebreakers usually are), not a flimsy pod run through a game controller. The wreckage – along with any remains that are found – is being brought to Saint John's, not Boston or New York. Even the US Coast Guard – which is involved – is deferring to Canadian authorities on this point, since it was an expedition by a Canadian ship out of a Canadian port. The British and French are involved in investigating the incident, too.

Bear in mind, too, that this article is not about Titan or Stockton Rush (each has its or his own article — and I won't kick up any fuss about those being in American English), but rather about an incident that happened off Canada's coast. That was 600 km away, whereas the nearest US shore (West Quoddy Head, Maine) was more than 1,400 km away (well over twice as far). Even Saint Pierre and Miquelon are much nearer (750 km). This, I think, is a key point.

So, what are your points beyond the ones that you have mentioned? Kelisi (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

"if the aircraft belonged to an airline from a Commonwealth country"... This is your own analogy and I think it applies against your own argument--the "airline" here (company selling tickets) is OceanGate, a company headquartered in Everett, Washington, USA. Matt Gies (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I still maintain that the key point is that the article is about an incident, not a submersible. That has its own article. Kelisi (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

That was me that did the thanking for Matt's change to American English. There are clearly good arguments on both sides, and this one may be down to the wording of the policies in the WP:MOS regarding this (which I haven't read in a while). As a fan of a lot of Canadian comedians and actors, I love the way Canadian English sounds, but I found the handful of Britishisms like "carbon-fibre" quite jarring when reading the article, since Canadian English mostly matches American English. I'm also a fan of British English, and had the whole article truly been in Commonwealth English, I wouldn't have been so jarred. From my perspective (albeit as a biased American), the topic is U.S.-centric. The heart of the story is clearly the Titan and its purveyors, not the territorial waters or ports. --Dan Harkless (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment I think it's worth noting this is a particularly difficult case for determining the proper WP:ENGVAR. We have an American sub, an American victim, an American company, a Canadian support ship, a Canadian port, the proximity to Canada, and to top it off we have British victims. We really have up to three 'implicated dialects' which is unusual. Although, worth noting MOS:RETAIN seems to favor retaining the original VAR to minimize edit warring. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes (tweaking after edit conflist). I am somewhat underwhelmed by the catalogue of clear-as-day justifications bulleted at the start of this section. This article is indeed centred on one thing - the destruction of the ultimately American-owned and maybe Bahamian-operated unregistered submersible Titan in international waters, where it had been taken by the Canadian ship Polar Prince under charter to OceanGate. So the article covers, after appropriate background, the unfolding incident itself, the discovery and recovery of Titan and, mostly to come, the investigations of the incident (which I do not believe should or will largely focus on the ship, which also has its own page). The little patch of the Atlantic concerned is far from any coast and normal national territorial jurisdiction; though it is firmly within the internationally agreed U.S. Maritime Search & Rescue Region, which is why the S&R operation in relation to this incident was co-ordinated in Boston.

All that said, while the incident does have ties with both US and CA, I dont find either overwhelming per WP:ENGVAR and, in the absence of consensus, it agree that it might be more appropriate to apply MOS:RETAIN, based on the article as it was by, say 20 June - my knowledge of CA-US differences isn't good enough to assess that. Davidships (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Discovery of “presumed human remains”

According to CNN, the Coast Guard has found presumed human remains on the sea floor. Should this be added to the investigation section, or should we wait until they’ve confirmed it as such? Fibbage (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The New York Times is reporting Debris and Presumed Human Remains From Lost Titan Are Recovered. According to the Washington Post, however, Possible human remains recovered from Titan wreckage, Coast Guard says. Ann Teak (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

It's unclear if the human remains were directly "on the sea floor" or were inside the remains of the vessel. We still don't know where it was when it imploded? But I see the first source, from USCG, says: "United States medical professionals will conduct a formal analysis of presumed human remains that have been carefully recovered within the wreckage at the site of the incident." 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

USCG saying that the presumed human remains were recovered within the wreckage tends to make it not unclear if the human remains (presumed) were "on the sea floor" or were inside the remains of the vessel. We not only do not know where it was when it imploded, we also do not know that it even imploded. Unless we can cite other sources who say the same thing as the original source (USCG) and are based exclusively on the original source it is impossible to conclude that the presumed human remains were found in the wreckage or on the sea floor. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:E8CE:D8A3:5177:DDA3 (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

We know the wreckage was found on the sea floor. (How could that have been otherwise, unless buoyant components had been found on the surface?) Even if the submersible was not on the sea floor when it imploded, it seems unlikely that the passengers' bodies would have escaped, or moved far from, the remains of the vessel. But I suppose it is possible. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Unless they were very close to the bottom, the debris field is going to be a wide one, and hard to thoroughly investigate. It reads like they found remains within the bits of wreckage which were easily locatable (the big, heavy stuff which mostly stayed in one piece and fell in the same area, not far from Titanic). Maybe we'll get further updates with specifics. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Errrm, how close is very close? Not even sure who might decide that. But how many separate pieces were there? Did any pieces drift as they fell? Was there any fragmentation (this was an implosion, not an explosion)? We currently don't know answers to any of these questions. Perhaps nobody does. Presumably the human remains will need to be formally identified. 86.187.227.40 (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

"Within the same layer of the water column" was my rough idea. I don't think there's any question that some, probably all, pieces drifted to some degree as they fell, or that there was fragmentation of the more fragmentable parts. Formal identification seems to be in progress. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Carbon fiber is ~150% the density of seawater. Human bodies are 105%-95% the density of sea water. They will therefore be correspondingly far away in the direction of flow from the debris field of metal parts. --Virtualiter (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see. What's your source for this handy piece of analysis? Perhaps you can tell us how far away the bodies were from the "metal parts"? Or did you mean carbon fibre parts? Thanks. 86.187.224.167 (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It depends on the current and the height above ground. --Virtualiter (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

"Titanic Five" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Titanic Five has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 21 § Titanic Five until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2023

In this section: As far as I can tell, Rutledge's pronouns are she/her/etc., so He asserted there is a need for individuals to rethink the way in which they use social media. -> She asserted there is a need for individuals to rethink the way in which they use social media. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

In the section concerning Rutledge, the article reads that she "opined" one thing and "asserted" another. The use of "opined" and "asserted" is flowery WP:WeaselWords. It smells like an editor is trying to impress us with their vocabulary - would you agree? Perhaps "would you concur?" would be more in keeping with the context. The article should simply say that Rutledge "said", "stated" or "claimed". Wikipedia is what it is and peppering it with fancy words like "opined" and "asserted" simply makes it even more ludicrous. 2A00:23EE:1508:2376:D33:38A4:8C3:FA82 (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image proposition

3D model improved (SketchUp - Twilight render - Gimp)

--Madelgarius (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

other version in a hangar (SketchUp - Twilight render - Gimp)

--Madelgarius (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I dunno if this will address the previous objections, but for what it's worth, I don't object. I'd ping the folks who objected previously, but I'm not sure if that's allowed. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It's too dark and still runs into the problem that it is a CGI rendering rather than a real photo.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with using a CGI or other artwork if it helps identify what the article is about and gives an impression of what the sub may have looked like. If a real photo is not possible surely we need to find a reasonable alternative. The article just looks 'strange' without an identifying image of any type and I initially thought I was in the wrong place. I am new to Wikipedia so not up on policies - where does it say CGI/artwork is not allowed to be used? And it must be a 'real' photo? Thanks. Xavian569 (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

"it's too dark"...lol. Is that really a valid objection? There is no penetration of sunlight into seawater much below 200m. How about this image instead? Caption it

"Titan submersible pictured at 3,000m. Picture credit IanMacM"

[2]https://img.freepik.com/free-icon/rectangle_318-262257.jpg?size=626&ext=jpg 2A00:23EE:2168:CEFD:4DD7:ECDD:563C:1C9E (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

No. The CGI image is not an appropriate representation of the real thing. This practice is completely contradictory to how we handle this at other articles. We never upload CGI images of formerly existant people, events, structures, or vehicles. We always upload low-resolution copyrighted images, and that is what should be done here. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 20:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Nope. No scale, too dark, and, more importantly, there are better free alternatives and, if there weren't, a clear fair-use image would still be superior to this CGI illustration. -- Veggies (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I remain opposed for the same reasons I was in the previous discussion. If @Veggies is correct that there are free alternatives here, we should use one of those, but I believe the current lack of a photo of the Titan is because there aren't any known free photographs. I think that the appropriate choice here is to use a non-free photograph that complies with WP:NFCC. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

No, sorry. Agree with others about quality, and also add on (not intentional) misrepresentation. There are still a number of things missing from this representation that make it appear other than what it was. Such representations detract from an understanding of the submersible, not enhance. Even if it was a perfect CGI rendering, I still disagree with using it per others above. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

We shouldn't be in the business of using CGI / AI to make "free" photos. As TarkusAB notes, if we set a precedent here, what's to stop Wiki editors from going to other articles with "non-free" photos (people, buidlings, vehicles, etc...), and making their own CGI / AI rendered images to claim that a "free" image for the article is now available?Canuck^{89 (Chat with me) or visit my user page} 19:21, July 16, 2023 (UTC)

Concur. I don't think this is what WP:FREER had in mind. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm against this, but not due to the CGI (we do have CGI images of other vehicles, like the Leonardo's fighting vehicle), but because of the use of the OceanGate logo. I'm not sure if it would be permissible in this context. I could be wrong though. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

DNFTT.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I could be wrong, but I reckon @Madelgarius could remove the Ocean Gate logo from the image. In this case, according to the last post, @AquilaFasciata for one will be happy to use the image. 2A00:23EE:1508:2376:A9DC:5314:DD19:7EC3 (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC) DylanW The use of the logo is de minimis to the entire image and is no particular consequence. The image itself is the problem, and won't be used per the heavy opposition here. I appreciate Madelgarius' work, but it won't be accepted here. It is in use on innumerable other WMF projects. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC) @AquilaFasciata's prima facie solum obiectio nunc is to the logo - they de facto find the CGI valde gratum. When you say "it won't be accepted here" do you mean you won't accept it or Wikipedia has deemed it non gratum ad futurum infinitum? Ad utilitatem @Madelgarius, is this Wikipedia's ultima sententia: is it in facto to state that you/Wikipedia will not so much as consider any revised sui generis images ad futurum in omni re? I gratias agimus tibi domine propter consilium bonum tuum, et ero servus tuus obediens in eternum. 2A00:23EE:1508:2376:B9DD:6A00:43A6:3870 (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Please read the objections to the image above. There is no consensus to include the image. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC) You are not a consensus. No matter how much you think you are. 2A00:23EE:1508:2376:B9DD:6A00:43A6:3870 (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC) I never said I was. Please read above. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC) I already read the above. You read the above. I won't be de minimised by you. IP 199.208.172.35 is in favour, AquilaFasciata is in favour, I am in favour, Dylnuge is in favour, Madelgarius is in favour, AkeenaMata, Gash_oven is in favour, Lick-Rocks is in favour - there is a consensus, a majority consensus. 2A00:23EE:1508:2376:B9DD:6A00:43A6:3870 (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC) I'm going to exit the conversation for what should be obvious reasons. I'll leave you with this. De minimis is a concept in understanding copyright and the use of photographs or images of things that are copyrighted. Please see De minimis#Copyright. In the applicability of that to this case, the logo is not the focus of the image nor a significant part of the image. If this were an actual photograph of the submersible, we wouldn't have concern about using the image under a free license because the logo is inconsequential to the overall image. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Blah blah blah. If the logo is absent there is no issue. The logo can be easily removed. Admit that. What is your problem with Belgian national Madelgarius exactly? 2A00:23EE:1508:2376:B9DD:6A00:43A6:3870 (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I've been watching this article since its creation as well as this talk page, and want to weigh in on this matter of the CGI image. Firstly, I want to thank Madelgarius for the time and effort put into creating the image - it's beautiful. Secondly, I do not think that Wikipedia is the proper venue for the image and I object to its use in the article. I agree with TarkusAB, Veggies, Dylnuge and Hammersoft that it's inappropriate use this CGI image in an article that concerns living persons or in this case their recent death. If there is a free image available in the future, or an actual photograph (non-free) that is within fair-use specifications, that would be fine. And I agree that We shouldn't be in the business of using CGI / AI to make "free" photos as it sets a dangerous precedent as Canuckian89 and others state. While it is true that there is a CGI image of a visionary vehicle by Leonardo, the obvious difference is that that vehicle was fantasy/art/creativity whereas this is reality; a real event where people died. A free or fair-use image will be available in time, there is no need to force a solution. Netherzone (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@all. Thank you all for your opinions. Ever since the world began, our species has used whatever was within its reach to say things about itself. Ochre, iron oxide and charcoal to tell the story of hunting expeditions. For centuries we have painted portraits of our illustrious characters, we have made engravings and we still do. Just think of those court scenes captured in watercolour. The aim is always the same: to illustrate, to say things. The objective here is no different and the technique used is that of the present day and should not shock ab nihilo leading to definitive sentences: no CGI here. The amalgam is even made with AI, as if to confirm the rightness of a cautious eviction. This should not be. It is likely that a few opinions expressed in this way outweigh the hundreds of thousands of people who have seen, are seeing and will see this illustration on other wikimedia projects without the slightest outcry. However, I bow to the decision that seems to be taking shape here, even if I think it is tainted by ready-made opinions on the fringes of a dogmatic stance that by definition lacks nuance and carefully sidesteps the question of intention with regard to what we create this encyclopedia for every day. Kind regards, --Madelgarius (talk) 07:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Misleading Wording

The article says, "Crews from the Northeast Sector of the United States Coast Guard, based in Boston, launched search missions 900 nautical miles (1,700 km) from the shore of Cape Cod, Massachusetts." First, Coast Guard assets based as far south as Elizabeth City, North Carolina participated in search and rescue efforts. Second, the Coast Guard has districts (which oversee an entire state or multiple states) and sectors (which oversee a much smaller area). For instance, District 7 is responsible for South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands whereas Florida has three sectors (Miami, Jacksonville, and St. Petersburg). Therefore, the use of the term "Northeast Sector" is misleading. Districts 1 and 5, several sectors, and two air stations launched search and rescue resources. As air stations fall under the command of disticts - not sectors - and air stations responded, it would be more efficient to simply say, "Crews and assets from Coast Guard Districts 1 and 5 launched search missions 900 nautical miles (1,700 km) from the shore of Cape Cod, Massachusetts."

The second time "Northeast Sector" is used, it is clearly referring to the press conference held by Rear Admiral John W. Mauger, the First District (i.e., District 1) Commander.

98.166.156.165 (talk) 10:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Partially implemented – I removed the specific reference to the Northeast sector on the first mention, however I didn't include the specific districts due to both WP:WEIGHT and the lack of sources I could find specifically stating who was involved with the search.

The second time it is used, the level of detail I understand you want added is dipping into WP:JARGON territory a little bit, as very few people are remotely familiar with the specific teams that were responsible for the search. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you.

Coast Guard confirmation that Air Station Elizabeth City was involved:

https://twitter.com/USCGNortheast/status/1670962177623175169

See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_Guard_Air_Station_Elizabeth_City - Under site information: "Controlled by Fifth District."

While I certainly agree the organization is somewhat convoluted, it is no more "jargon" than spelling out the various levels of government of the United States in the Legislative Branch. You simply need a cursory understanding of who reports to whom. 98.166.156.165 (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

"Internet memes introduced in 2023"

How exactly does this qualify as a meme? 87.114.4.172 (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed: I've removed this now. There were memes about the incident, but the incident itself is not a meme. GnocchiFan (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@GnocchiFan: I have reverted your edit due to the fact that there are sourced memes about the implosion. It does not matter that the incident was not intended to be a meme, only that a meme was popularized in connection with the incident. For example, the Ever Given getting stuck in the Suez Canal led to memes being created and is part of the 2021 category despite the article being primarily about the obstruction. It does not matter if the memes are humorous or distasteful, the two things that matter are that it can be proven that there were memes made of the incident and that they were reported in notable sources. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

“Disaster tourism”

I think “extreme tourism” or “adventure tourism” is a more accurate descriptor. The Titanic has legitimate value as an ecological site and as a historical site in its own right, beyond it just being part of a terrible disaster. Obviously the disaster aspect is a big part of why people are drawn to it, but I think it’s such a famous cultural icon at this point that “disaster tourism” is a bit too narrow to describe the reasons that people might want to see it. Plus I think the extreme aspect of going 4000m underwater in a sub was supposed to be a big part of the appeal and they really marketed the “scientific adventure” aspect of it. So I think adventure tourism or extreme tourism are better terms to encompass the experience that Oceangate was trying to sell. 104.142.126.219 (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

If it helps, we have disaster tourism, extreme tourism and adventure travel. Davidships (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Dark tourism might also apply per The Atlantic --Super Goku V (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Going to 4,000m in a submersible would certainly be an extreme adventure. But you cannot overlook the fact that Titan was not simply taking tourists to extreme ocean depths. They were specifically headed for a graveyard with around 1,500 souls. Also, it is by no means a trivial thing to point out that the youngest tourist onboard Titan had taken his Rubik's Cube with him for the purpose of solving it while overlooking a mass graveyard. The idea of doing this is at best childish and at worst offensive. If tomorrow, someone was to propose taking overly-wealthy tourists to visit the wreckage of Titan (the submersible) I suspect very few people would argue with calling that "disaster tourism". Does the passage of time (111 years in the case of Titanic) make this kind of voyeurism any less unpalatable? I think not. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6C3C:5F5:C493:76FB (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Without comment on the larger issue of how to describe the voyage, the fact that a passenger packed a Rubik's Cube is, in the context of this article, deeply trivial. Folly Mox (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

A passenger did not merely "pack a Rubik's Cube". Listen to or read the transcript of the interview his mother gave BBC. He took it with the express intention of solving it at the Titanic's wreck site.

Why frame this fact and my TALK contribution in "the context of this article"? I didn't propose including it in the article. It's merely a fact that contradicts any notion that this passenger took this trip for any useful purpose.

The OP took issue with the use of a phrase like "disaster tourism", saying that there are many legitimate reasons for visiting the Titanic graveyard. That's true. But this passenger went there with the express intention of solving a puzzle. Let's not anyone pretend therefore that he went there to do anything useful or befitting the 1,500 souls who died.

And please stop dismissing people's considered comments with one or two throwaway remarks, or bringing "context" into play without first properly understanding the specific/immediate context and the focus of a particular discussion. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6C3C:5F5:C493:76FB (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Given that the goal of the talk page is to improve the article, I do not see a problem with focusing on the context of the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

2A00, I'm sorry I made you feel dismissed. You are correct that I did misunderstand the immediate context of the discussion, which I misread as having to do with information present in the article (the typical context of talk page discussions). My apologies. Folly Mox (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll assume you're not being disingenuous.

Is 'information present in the article' really the typical context of talk page discussions? Sometimes it is, often it is not. People introduce topics or information in talk that is sometimes relevant for inclusion in the article, is sometimes irrelevant, is sometimes incorrect, or is sometimes totally off-topic.

If someone contributes something in talk that is (objectively or subjectively) incorrect or inaccurate, other contributors might wish to (or feel compelled to) present evidence or opinion to counter the OP.

In this instance the OP is arguing against the use of the term 'disaster tourism' on the basis that there are lots of legitimate/beneficial reasons for expeditions to the Titanic wreck. That is almost certainly true: however in the case of Suleman Dawood, his taking a Rubik's Cube is a rather clear indication that he didn't undertake this expedition to contribute anything useful to science or society.

To reiterate my point, which I shouldn't have to do, I never suggested there should be any mention of cubes in the article. I only mentioned it (in talk) to dispel the notion that (in the case of one passenger at least) there was ever intention to further science during his trip. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:B129:C1C5:EA8C:6D47 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

To be brief, the intent of talk pages is listed at the top of the article's talk page. Those who ignore that message can be reverted when needed.

Regarding the discussion, I am going to ignore the passengers for a moment. According to how we define disaster tourism, I am not sure if it applies to the article. "Disaster tourism is the practice of visiting locations at which an environmental disaster, either natural or human-made, has occurred." If that is true, then this isn't disaster tourism as the sinking of the Titanic isn't regarded as an environmental disaster. (If that is false, then the disaster tourism article needs fixing.) Back to the passengers, I would limit it to saying that those outside of Rush and Nargeolet did not participate in the dive for scientific reasons and end it there. That should cover the tourism part in my opinion. Do you have any opinions on potentially using extreme tourism, adventure travel, or dark tourism? --Super Goku V (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It is my recollection, probably from one or both of the broadcast dive videos, that paying guests were briefed on tasks to be undertaken in connection with the mapping project, assessing the preocess of deterioration of the Titanic wreck. In other words, the motives and activities of all those on board will have been to some degree mixed. Davidships (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Some definitions I found:

Limited to environmental disasters

• Disaster tourism is the act of visiting locations that have been subjected to man-made or natural environmental disasters. [...] Disaster tourism is considered a sub-sector of dark tourism and although scholars have in the past have reflected on the form of tourism, it has yet to receive much seperate [sic] academic attention. With this said, there does not appear to be any standardised definition of the term 'disaster tourism'.[3]
• Though similar [to dark tourism], disaster tourism involves visiting locations where an environmental disaster, either natural or man-made, has taken place. Generally, this involves visiting the sites of volcanic eruptions or floods, but the Chernobyl nuclear disaster also fits into this category.[4]

Not limited to environmental disasters

• Disaster tourism is the circulation of people to disaster-affected places to visually consume trauma, devastation, and catastrophe. Examples of disaster tourism include the use of guided tours to concentration camps in Germany, the World Trade Center in New York City, flooded neighborhoods in New Orleans, and war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. Disaster tourism also implies intent and purpose on the part of the traveling consumer. The regular tourist travels to disaster sites for the purpose of learning and gaining knowledge and information. A disaster tourist, in contrast, is seeking some sort of emotional thrill or “pleasure” and is not interested in learning, education, or gaining wisdom per se.[5]
• The ethics of disaster tourism: What is the right thing to do? [...] Not long after the [grounding of the Costa Concordia], which killed at least 17 people (15 are still missing), islanders said people came to Giglio to gawk and not because of their affection for Giglio, one of seven islets in the Tuscan Archipelago.[6]

So IMO it's not completely inappropriate to call the Titan excursion a form of disaster tourism. It is clearly an example of dark tourism and extreme tourism (the two are not mutually exclusive). The Wikipedia article on adventure travel lists extreme tourism as one of the types, so it arguably applies here as well. Finally, the extreme tourism article lists the Titanic wreckage as a destination. Xan747 (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha. I will try to look into the passenger part, but at least the descriptors part has been cleared up. Thank you for the sources regarding disaster tourism. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

A bit of a late reply, but I was unable to find much of anything regarding the work done by the passengers with Quinnipiac University being the best source regarding the title of the passengers. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It would seem that the Wikipedia article on Disaster Tourism needs fixing. The notion of it being restricted to environmental disasters is nebulous, and no sources are given to support this nebulous assertion. Furthermore, the article cites the Hindenburg disaster as an example of Disaster Tourism: that was not an environmental disaster.

In any event, is the Disaster Tourism article authoritative or well-written? Doubtful. Look at the section on Hindenburg as a single example: it reads "burst into flame" instead of "burst into flames", and contains a glaring non-sequitur in stating that because the cause was unknown and 37 people died, it became one of the biggest news stories of its time. What has the cause of the fire got to do with the importance of the news story? Did news editors ask, on 11 September 2001, "do we know why the twin towers collapsed?", and when the answer came back "because two jetliners hit them" did they dismiss the story as unimportant? It's simple nonsense.

Paying vast sums of money to visit the Titanic graveyard is obnoxious disaster tourism. Put it to a vote. Definitely don't rely on a poorly written and contradictory Wikipedia article. Not even Wikipedia cites Wikipedia as an authoritative source. 2A00:23EE:2168:CEFD:4DD7:ECDD:563C:1C9E (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Photo credit

My image is currently being used (the underwater image of the Titan submersible shown at the top) without proper photographer credit : Becky Kagan Schott 2600:4040:7C4D:8F00:A02D:5AE7:79EA:B60E (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Becky Kagan Schott, I think WP & Commons would need more information to verify that you were in fact the photographer. The file states that the author or copyright owner is OceanGate. It's a non-free file, uploaded by another editor. I'm pretty sure if you want credit you would have to confirm your identity with WP:VRT. Was the image ever published with your name associated with it?

If I'm incorrect, and another editor who is more fluent in image licensing please feel free to offer feedback. Netherzone (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

See File:Titan_submersible.jpg#metadata for: Author Becky Schott; OceanGate. Uwappa (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I changed the image caption. Please comment if there are objections or the caption is not in MOS compliance. Netherzone (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the credit from the image caption, per MOS:CREDITS. The information should be on the image page, not the article page. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2023

The "OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush, who died aboard Titan, in 2015" should be changed to "OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush, who died aboard Titan, in 2023" Ccardboard (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: It is referring to the date of the photo not the date he died. RudolfRed (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

If there is confusion, then maybe something like "OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush, who died aboard Titan. (pictured in 2015)" or "OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush, (seen here in 2015) who died aboard Titan" would work better. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2023

change the year of death to 2023. Mattwin1999 (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I've changed the image caption to "pictured in 2015 " as suggested above, since this is leading to confusion.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

In the 'Oceangate' section near the top it currently reads, "Since 2010, it has transported paying customers.." Instead of using the present perfect continuous tense, it is more appropriate/correct to use the past perfect tense, i.e. "From 2010 until the loss of the Titan submersible, Oceangate transported paying customers..." Oceangate have suspended all operations. Coupled with the circumstances of the Titan's loss and the death of Rush, it seems very unlikely they'll operate again. In any event, until or unless they do resume operations, it is better to edit this text to convey the fact that they presently do not operate. 2A00:23EE:1C28:3BCE:81D0:3A56:D9F4:AD76 (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. This is consistent with the tense used in the article OceanGate. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Needs Photo Of Titan

Can you add a photo of the Titan submersible in the infobox below "Titan submersible implosion" so we know what exactly imploded. 86.17.54.133 (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Per [7], the image of the Titan submarine cannot be used in this article. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 12:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Why cant you use a picture of the submarine? surely there is a non-copyrighted one. Dappy373 (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

See § Image of Titan and see WP:NFCC which is cited in that discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of previous discussion about this, see the talk page archive. It would need to be a free to use photo, not a copyrighted one or a pretend CGI version.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Energy and Kinetics

There needs to be a discussion of the energy and kinetics of the implosion. I could easily provide one, but it might constitute Original Research. We don't know the exact depth of the implosion, but: Depth at bottom - 12,500 ft. Pressure at bottom - approx. 375 atmospheres, 5,500 psi. Volume inside pressure hull - approx. 284 cu. ft. Energy liberated - approx. 225,000,000 ft lbs, or the potential energy represented by a Boeing 727 at 1,000 ft. elevation. Water at that depth is compressed about 1 1/2%, so the implosion would have been almost instantaneous.

Does anyone know a published source for this? Martino3 (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Biased point of view - social media

Describing social media chatter as merely negative seeks to blame the public for the follies of a rich man who created an international disaster that was entirely foreseeable and preventable. Noting the tax dollars used to fish these men out of the ocean so that laws can be enacted to prevent further people from engaging in the same behavior, the public had no where to go with it but to notice that only a fool would launch themselves to the bottom of the ocean in an experimental craft of such ill repute. No on is to blame for the disaster but the company and the men involved. The public has the right to comment on what happened and furthermore to notice that the company was still claiming these men were alive when Naval experts, engineers and anyone with common sense correctly deduced these men died upon an obvious implosion, because you know, physics. The public has the right to question why their military is falsely claiming this is a rescue mission when it was clearly a salvage operation and to what extent the US Military has the legal obligation to tell the public about civilian maritime disasters in real time. 2604:2D80:A48F:300:A184:9338:EB1B:E701 (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Tend to agree with your sentiments. But WP is tied to using "reliable sources" and cannot use "the public" in the form of social media. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)