This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
A news item involving Costa Concordia was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 January 2012.
The article still refers to the ship in the present tense (Costa Concordia IS a Concordia-class cruise ship, etc). As the ship is beyond economic repair and will be scrapped when it's salvaged, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say WAS instead? Her useful service life has been cut short and she'll never serve as an active ship again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.125.253 (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Until the ship has been declared constructive total loss by a reliable source, we will stick to the present tense. Also, in my opinion, Costa Concordia is still a ship, albeit a wrecked one. Tupsumato (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The ship is currently being partially cut-up to allow recover of the wreckage, and scrapping is planned to begin in a few months. There is no chance of a salvage and rebuilding. "was" should be used. --Jollyroger (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Past tense should be used. This is very clear and any other opinion is biased. Furthermore, the article suffers from an alternation of past and present tense. "Is" and "was" alternate in the text. This is really annoying. Let's face it, the ship is gone and it's a pity but its gone and it took a great deal of good luck that winds brought it to shallow waters. Please correct the text. I tried in the past only to see my corrections reversed so I gave up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfrantzol (talk • contribs) 15:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most people commenting seem to agree that the article should be in the past tense, so I have edited it. It is now consistent in its use of the past tense.DT79 (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked the webcam, the ship was still there. However, if the majority think that the ship has ceased to exist as a ship, then I guess changing to past tense is okay. I still don't agree with it, though. Tupsumato (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a ship until they cut it up substantially. Wherever they do it. Until then, present tense please. Britmax (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would the supporters of past tense above reread their own posts to see how often they concede that the events they describe have not happened yet? Britmax (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a shipwreck. A shipwreck is essentially a ship still in existence, but in a wrecked form and no longer being used as a ship. If the vessel is broken up, then the ship no longer is anything, and "was" would be appropriate to be used throughout. — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 21:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Patience. Right now, the ship is under tow, flying the Italian flag, about 25km outside of Genoa harbor, and listed as a vessel with "restricted maneuverability".[1] Tomorrow or Monday it should be in a dry dock. Shortly afterwards the flag will come down, the AIS transmitter which reports position will be turned off, and it will cease to be of navigational interest. (Press interest, however, is likely. Expect photos.) Give this issue a week. John Nagle (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's now tied to a breakwater in Genoa for preliminary scrapping. "Was" is probably OK now. There's no formal decommissioning for a cruise ship. John Nagle (talk) 06:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Minor update - what's left of the ship was towed 10 miles to a different dock for further scrapping. Article updated, using the phrase "hulk". John Nagle (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Scrapping of the hulk is in its final phase. The remnants of the hulk were towed to a dry dock a few months back, and in the dry dock, the remaining steel is being cut up for scrap. Pictures: [2]. John Nagle (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "There may have been other people not listed on board". Was this ever proven? Hack (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a docu yesterday where they said the girlfriend of the ship's master Francesco Schettino was on the ship but not on the passenger list. From Schettino's page: "Present with him on the bridge during the collision was 26-year-old Moldovan dancer Domnica Cemortan, who has admitted she had been having an extramarital affair with Schettino." 2001:8003:A070:7F00:7D08:2826:D9A0:8CBB (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shorten this section: 2012 grounding and partial sinking[edit]
I would recommend to the people who have worked on this article that they should shorten the section "2012 grounding and partial sinking" as there is a separate Wikipedia article on it. I would shorten it to just one paragraph and move any content (and some images) to the separate article on this topic so that there is less dublication. It is called Costa Concordia disaster.EMsmile (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd object to the removal of the image of the capsized vessel. It really has to stay. Neutral on reduction of text, but what is there isn't vastly excessive. Mjroots (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I have kept the image (and also added it to the lead of the separate article). I've moved the image of the map. I've moved some content that I find too detailed here, given that there is a separate article. I think from the section called "salvage" further content ought to be moved to the separate article as it is directly related to the disaster article not to the article about the ship (without the sinking there would have been no need for salvage). There is a great deal of content about the salvage in the disaster article (see Costa Concordia disaster) - no need to repeat too much from that here. - When I first came to this page, I wanted to know about the disaster but it took me a while to realise that there is a separate article on that, as so much about the sinking was included here even though this was meant to be an article about the ship in general, not about the disaster in particular. Hence my desire to shorten and move. - Apart from that, thanks to all previous editors for doing on awesome job on these two articles! EMsmile (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
