Talk:Costa Concordia disaster/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Modern cruise ship design

I wonder if we could find "second opinions" to this section. Maritime safety expert or not, for example the claim that modern cruise ships are "difficult to steer" seems pretty strange without any clarification. Tupsumato (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia article Cruise ship

I have just created a new section at Cruise_ship#Safety, but there is probably much more to say. Please add your input. Teofilo talk 00:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"...shifted the centre of gravity to the starboard side..."

This sencence is sourced to an article written in Italian, so I can not verify it. However, "shifting centre of gravity" does not seem to be likely in a passenger ship not carrying significant amounts of cargo that could shift during the turn, shifting the ship's centre of gravity and causing a list. I think it's an error in translation and the sencence should be slightly reworded if that's not exactly what happened. Tupsumato (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Its the water causing it to list ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.241.166 (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

A sharp turn to port would, indeed, cause flood water within the hull to shift to starboard, by "free surface effect", which would be consistent with the eventual list to starboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.148.253 (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. At first I thought I wouldn't have to take free surface effect into account as the compartments were "open to the sea", but in the end the holes are quite small in comparison to the volume of the compartments, and the ship was in motion. If we get good sources about the cause of the capsize, I think we should elaborate it a bit in the article. Tupsumato (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk now has discussion that the vessel may have dropped one or more anchors and that the anchor(s) had a significant effect on the vessel track and turn, especially given that the AIS track in WP shows a STARBOARD turn (earlier Article stated that it turned PORT and the port turned caused the starboard list. The article needs work to be both internally consistent (between text and graphics) and to continue to conform to emerging consensus. I have inserted a couple of cn tags to alert where needed; i don't yet want to insert a "disputed' tag.SteveO1951 (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"Electrical Fault"?

I dispute the article's statement that "Reports indicated that the ship had developed a a major electrical fault". The footnoted news report states merely: "There were reports last night that captain Schettino, had been dining with passengers when the accident happened – but the ship’s operating company, Costa Crociera, said he was on the bridge. He then discovered that the ship was four miles off course, but was unsure why. One theory is that an electrical fault had wiped out the ship’s navigational power and steering control. Captain Schettino told investigators that charts showed he was in waters deep enough to navigate. He was quoted as saying: ‘The area was safe, the water was deep enough. We struck a stretch of rock that was not marked on the charts. As far as I am concerned, we were in perfectly navigable waters.’ "

That is NOT a report "indicating" that an electric fault "had developed". Rather, it is mere speculation as to any possible basis for the captain's excuse. In fact, as we all know, the captain has said that he was intentionally only 300 meters from the coast, so there can be no remaining claim that the ship was "four miles off course but was unaware why." Think about it: Ship's bridges have an invention called "windows"; ship's officers on the bridge can SEE that they are not 4 miles from the bright lights of Giglio Porto (when indeed those lights are only 300 meters away). Absolutely incredible that the persons on the bridge thought they were 4 miles away. The electric fault claim is entirely unsubstantiated.

As written, the wiki article gives, without appropriate basis, far too much support for the idea that some electrical fault had taken place. IMHO, the captain was intentionally slipping by the coast and "cut it too close".SteveO1951 (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I think events and circumstances leading up to the event need to wait for a reliable source. The media is reporting speculation. I added a dubious tag. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate not only your dedication but also your "wiki-skill". SteveO1951 (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all the above. If an announcement was made that there was ‘an electrical fault’ (and it does seem to have been made) it appears that this was a pre-arranged tannoy call to calm the passengers rather than a statement of fact. Of course with the massive ingress of water, it wouldn’t be long before a major electrical fault did occur. Rich0908. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich0908 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no question that there was an electrical power failure after the ship hit the reef rocks. That has been in reliable sources all along. However, the captain is now claiming that there was no loss of power when the initial collision occurred, just that the reef wasn't on the charts. The indisputable fact is that the ship was intentionally sailing too close to the shore. The only question is whether it was out of the ordinary for it to do so. So I think we should take out the part about loss of control in the intro and power failure/surge/etc. in the body. Selery (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that the reference to electrical fault be moved down from its prominence at the beginning of the paragraph and that it be rewritten as follows: "Although early news reports (here give the citation)suggested that "one theory is that an electrical fault" could have been the cause of the ship's approaching so closely to the island, there has been no actual allegation that any such fault occurred prior to initial impact with the reef." I will give this issue a bit longer to be discussed and then, after reviewing any additional reported facts, I may "rewrite" the offending sentence. I know we are not here to talk about the facts of the case; I only want to make the point that the "electical fault" even if I happened prior to hitting any rock, is NOT a sufficient excuse under maritime law or practice, and so the assertion of "electrical fault" ought not be given any prominence whatsoever unless and until any assertions of fact are clear, have a credible basis, and are attributed to someone with actual knowledge or expertise. The International Maritime Organization rules require, regardless of the sophistication of navigational equipment, that the captain have a "real person" at all times "on watch" solely for hazards and other vessels in the ship's path. Reports are that on a calm, clear night no Mayday was sent and any radio communications did not mention any problem with steering or navigation equipment. My objection is certainly premised on the article's use of the past-perfect tense ("had occurred"), which grammatically means, as I read it, "had occurred prior to the initial contact with the reef". I have sailed among islands (in several oceans) on the basis of nautical charts for about 4 decades (pre-GPS!), and as a captain have taken passengers sailing(often a night) for weeks at a time among islands, some new to me. I hold certain certifications regarding navigational charts and piloting rules. So, I have a training and substantial experience of what safe practice is, especially at night. SteveO1951 (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

So far as my research shows, the "one theory" previously referred to in the article re an "electrical fault" POSSIBLY being the genesis of the event came from a very creditable expert named Malcolm Latarche, editor of the global shipping magazine IHS Fairplay Solutions. Mr. Latarche wrote that "the morning after" without much facts to go on. I think we should include that possibilty IF we can find any actual participant or witness that asserts as fact, or has some FACTUAL basis in this case to support, electrical failure as the actual genesis, and not a mere theory. Please be alert to include any such appropriate claim and source.SteveO1951 (talk) 06:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian has interviewed experts who suspect Power blackout could have caused Italian cruise disaster. Teofilo talk 16:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a great article (thanks) and it DOES cite Mr. Latarche on this point. More interestingly is the timeline it states: "Passengers had reported a power black-out and hearing a large blast shortly before the grounding, indicating the vessel could have suffered an engine room explosion, he noted." Contrast that to the current WP article's statement that the power went off after the impact. Let's certainly look for solid sources regarding that timeline. This is highly important.SteveO1951 (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• the AIS signal timeline: the ship stopped sending AIS signals between 21:37 and 21:53, and I found no reports that the ship had hit anything before 21:58. This may corroborate the Captain's version of a power failure that rendered the ship uncontrollable until they regained power at 21:53, probably setting a course to resume their route, and hitting a rock in the process. Was the rock uncharted? 217.162.73.165 (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• if there was a power failure, why weren't the passengers affected?

is it possible for the crew to disable the AIS system to cover up a dangerous route change? 217.162.73.165 (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Mystery Solved: the Captain was chatting happily on the phone with his retired superior officer at the time of impact.SteveO1951 (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I think too early to say anything, but the expert Malcolm Latarche (the editor of the global shipping magazine IHS Fairplay Solutions) said it. It already happend in November 2010, a power failure aboard Carnival Splendor along the Mexican Riviera. Again another cruise ship: Ocean Star Pacific in 2011.

<shortened link to avoid width overrun>

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9015103/Cruise-disaster-what-could-have-caused-the-accident.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.182.3.74 (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but, in this case, that early speculation has not panned out. All sources (including the Captain) now confirm that no power failure occurred prior to impact.SteveO1951 (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Decent timeline

[1] has a very nice timelime from a reliable Seattle-based news source. Should we adapt it? Selery (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Great find! According to this copy, AFP wrote the article, so that's even better. Goodvac (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

AFP is not, of course, a primary source and it does not state the basis for the timeline. It might be approximately right, but it might contain a lot of guesswork or reliance on hearsay or general comments. I think that, at best, it can be included as a "reference" without entering any of that into the article text. I, personally, don't think it is worthy of being a reference because it has no attribution other than any credibility of AFP itself.SteveO1951 (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am unsure if National Post/AFP's "10:20 pm: The coastguard launches rescue operations" fits well with The Australian's "first call to the coastguard at 10.43pm" (citing AP, AFP, THE TIMES). Does it mean the coastguard launched operations before being called ? Teofilo talk 14:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no way to know at this point, but excellent sourcing! Selery (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Alle 22.10 l'equipaggio comunica alla capitaneria di porto di avere un problema al generatore ma non parla di urti o secche. L'allarme vero e proprio scatta alle 22.30, molto in ritardo(La Reppublica) translates as At 22.10 the crew communicates the harbor master to have a problem with the event but does not speak of shock or shoal. The real alarm was triggered at 22.30, very late Teofilo talk 15:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Timeline in Sueddeutsche Zeitung which is more consistent with the AIS data, IMHO. Teofilo talk 15:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Am I reading that correctly, that it is already based on black box recorder data? (My German sucks.) Selery (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

no, they say the timeline has been reconstructed form several sources that appear reliable for the SZ. They say the ship stopped sending AIS signals between 21:37 and 21:53. They mentioned the black box when quoting La Republica which reported that the black box had recorded the ship had hit a rock. So it seems La Republica has access to some black box data. 217.162.73.165 (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

A couple more timelines and diagrams: [2], [3]. Goodvac (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The timelines do not fit the AIS data. Some timelines say the impact happened at 20:30 or 20:31 GMT. BUT: at this time, the ship was still kilometers away from the island, as shown in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8ZrIpsjwHA But passengers said they heard a bang and some minutes later, the power went off, which would coincide with the AIS transmissions stopping at 20:37. And at 20:53, the CC was already north of Giglio Porto. There is something very strange here... It looks as if the coordinates do not match the ship's actual position at the time. So what happened first: collision or power failure? 217.162.73.165 (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the chance that the AIS transmitter was intentionally disabled for the "cruise-by"? Selery (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Italian news site timeline suggesting just that. Selery (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• indeed - this Italian newspaper has a version of the timeline that appears very credible. According to this Italian newspaper timeline, they figured at 20:07 GMT that they are approaching the island too fast and were too near to make the turn safely. Then, by magic, the AIS transmissions stopped at 20:37, before impact at 20:45. I guess the captain was called to the bridge at about 20:30 (whisper in the ear after which he ran from the dining room) and tried to avert the disaster (and to cover it up). It looks like the guy in charge of the bridge f*cked up and failed to slow down and make the turn in time (speculation). Interesting also to note that the ship sped up between 20:33 (14.5 knots) and 20:37 (15.3 knots). What were they thinking? Is it a case of bad input into the autopilot? 217.162.73.165 (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Avoid conspiracy theories, AIS is part of the radar equipment and radar’s use is required. Besides who would run in the dark without radar. PhaseBreak (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, but there is no AIS data between 20:37 and 20:53. It's not just Marinetraffic that lacks the data, nobody has it. If you are knowledgable about AIS, could you please tell if AIS blackouts of 16 minutes are frequent in the Mediterranean Sea?

From previous transmissions, it appears that AIS data is transmitted every 2 or 3 minutes, so if we situate the impact at Le Scole to 20:45 at earliest, the AIS system skipped 2 or 3 transmissions in a row. How likely is that, and how likely is it that it occurs just before the ship was thought by its captain to perform a close shave of Le Scole? 217.162.73.165 (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a long piece titled “Automatic Identification System”. It indicates a transmit rate of every few seconds for the use of nearby ships. However as I inferred in an expired comment, our problem is that the shoreside Internet receivers are not continuously relayed, there is too much data. MarineTraffic.com outlines their volunteer collection system and multiple minute update spacing fits my experience with them as do irregularities in that spacing (distant shore reception fades in and out?). I was unable to identify which MarineTraffic station captured our info and thus its distance. PhaseBreak (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• what is the turn radius of the CC at 15 - 16 knots? 217.162.73.165 (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

La Repubblica’s humanly relayed collision time of 21:42 CST doesn’t fit well with MarineTraffic.com’s electronically relayed position and speed at 20:37 GMT. Traveling the 5 minutes at the transcribed 15.5 knots covers 2.4 km and would leave the ship still 1.3 km from La Scole. If the reported times have been rounded, consider that the 3.7 km total distance takes 7.75 minutes, that’s tight for any rounding to allow for. I think we’re looking for a time closer to 21:45 CST or later. PhaseBreak (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Teofilo and I disagree on the Article's stated timeline for the initial impact. The new timeline shown in the graphic is 12:45. which I understand to be the new time as determined by some authorities. I inserted 21:45 and #Teofilo undid my change, citing a news article of 17 january. The Article must be internally consistent; if th newly inserted timeline says the reef was hit at 21:45, then the Article text will say the same. A 4-day-old newspaper is no longere credible on this point. I will change it back to 21:45. Please discuss to avoid confusion and waste of effort.SteveO1951 (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

New course map?

From Czech Wikipeda (note: northernmost extent thought to be inaccurate; see discussion of video in other section below)

cs.wikipedia.org has a map with some interesting AIS data-points that some sources don't show. RS ? Seems to be a loss of data in-between, though. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

+1 from me.--Andylong (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/default.aspx?zoom=9&oldmmsi=247158500&olddate=1/13/2012 9:02:00 PM

insert full link (with space and PM) to internet explorer, make the map zoom, zoom (+), several times, position the mouse pointer over the arrow ships, shows "?" wait 2 seconds, displays the date, time, speed, course, GPS is shown bottom left, at maximum zoom position error smaller 5 m. --W.Rebel (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

As you can tell by the straight lines and abrupt turns, that AIS data is very low resolution in time, and is missing an extraordinarily long period beyond that. It's interesting, but not reliable for self-evident reasons and the WP:PRIMARY source policy. Selery (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The critical trajectory is not full, but dashed. The full trajectory is known, the approximate dashed. to be known as critical path, draw it too full. --W.Rebel (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the map made by Lloyd's List, which compares the route to that of the previous cruise's route. This issue will end when some scuba diver goes to le Scole and photographs the big scratch marks [smile]SteveO1951 (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a newspaper article, or any source, confirming that the grounding occurred at 21:58 UTC ? Teofilo talk 20:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, check: [4] Altro cadavere sulla Concordia, sei le vittime Errore umano, procedure non rispettate. A classic problem of mass media. Source Maritime Authority would be better. You have a link? No problem to adjust/modify. --W.Rebel (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

To help us, and readers, with this sequence, I have just now deleted "my" entire paragraph re "proof" of Le Scole and moved all the essential data on that into the paragraph with time-statements and post-impact ship movements. It reads much better now. Anybody have a comment?SteveO1951 (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Now also svg. Please add notes on both images so we can fix the errors.--RicHard-59 (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the position for 20:42 UTC on File:Costa Concordia map 13-1-2012.svg and File:Costa Concordia map 13-1-2012.png are wrong. Most Italian media say that 20:42 UTC (21:42) local time is the time for the hit with the Le Scole rock. Teofilo talk 00:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Both the ‘Decent timeline’ and ‘File:Location of Costa Concordia’ sections are saying 21:45 CET for the collision. This agrees with the playback in the upper right data window in the route reconstruction video. PhaseBreak (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

If it is consistent with the so-called "route reconstruction video" (created by whom and published by whom?), that "route reconstruction video" must be wrong too. Teofilo talk 14:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Article now has internal inconsistencies re post-impact route. I understand that the new graphic is based on the (credible source?) AIS data and I have read that the coast guard has set the time of impact as being "45" minutes after the hour. I am happy that we have removed earlier text re the webcam time etc. My immediate residual concern is that the Article text needs revision to reflect the new consensus about the track. For example, the Article has an editor-self-inferred sentence "After impact, the vessel continued north for approximately another 1,000 metres (3,300 ft) to just north of the harbour entrance. The vessel then turned in an attempt to get close to the harbour." That is no longer consensus as to distance and does not specify a starboard turn or discuss why she listed to starboard. Please, those who are expert in the discussion of the track, conform the Article text.SteveO1951 (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Timeline

I added this to the External links, but it's full of tidbits which can probably be incorporated into the text. Selery (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, full of errors. Please take it down. The impact time is off by 15 minutes. it has the ship then turn to port, not to starboard as the Article graphic shows. It is cute but very useless.SteveO1951 (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for proofreading it. Selery (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Passengers Section

Can we convert this paragraph into table? It's almost unreadable as it's currently formatted. agentlame (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what the Dutch Wikipedia did if you want to try using their table as a template. But it seems like a waste of horizontal space for information that people didn't seem to mind missing when it was deleted for more than half a day yesterday. Selery (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that is a lot of vertical space. Still, I think the information is valuable, so I don't see the harm in keeping it. I'll take a swing at turning it into a table, and see what people think from there. agentlame (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Very nice work on that table. Thanks.SteveO1951 (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Crew

I've expanded the sections pertaining to the crew and personnel a bit more (excluding the captain, second-in-command, and higher ranking (Italian?) officers). Not a lot of info at all as the media seem adamant on taking only passenger testimony and then treating it as gospel. Please check for NPOV, grammar, etc. though. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If you mean that you added the statements by a union boss and by a company boss praising the crew, those ought be removed immediately. They are not facts or information about the event. They are biased spin.SteveO1951 (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

And how do you determine that? Are the passenger stories all that is reliable then? Once the black box details come to light, we can deliberate more. Until then, something needs to balance everything else on the article about passengers' accounts being the only one being given weight.

Furthermore is the Titanic comparison even relevant? All of this stinks of sensationalistic journalism. More than 99% of the ship's crew and passengers survived here. Comparing it to Titanic is irresponsibly idiotic.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The only comparison the the Titanic is that both events happen in a year ending in "12". The loss of MS Sea Diamond is probably a much better comparison. Let's keep the Titanic references down to direct quotes from passengers only. Mjroots (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed it per WP:UNDUE.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 07:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not undue weight at all - and to say "the only comparison to the Titanic is that both events happen in a year ending in 12" is ridiculous hyperbole. The fact is, many passengers thought of the Titanic, and said so. But more importantly for our purposes, comparisons were made and reported in the media, right down to "My Heart Will Go On" being played just before the crash. The comparison included is a significant one that has received attention in mainstream sources, such as the Herald Sun's "Manners went down with the ship. The captain didn’t" and the Daily Mail's Whatever happened to women and children first?

Here in Italy the disaster is being compared to the Titanic.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said earlier, passengers who referred to "the Titanic" would only be able to relate to this Titanic and would not be able to relate to this Titanic. We should keep that in mind. Mjroots (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Well, the three columnists in question were clearly referring to the latter. StAnselm (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

And that doesn't strike you as undue? The fact that a single article by a single columnist is the only one being given weight here is itself suspect. The article itself has a lot of quotes about percentages of women surviving in the Titanic (which can be checked in our article on RMS Titanic, and illustrates that he is in fact conflating fact with fiction), but he fails to mention why he does so. As far as we know, there is no such disparity among the number of men, women, and children who survived in Costa Concordia. Almost all of them survived. And it's from the Daily Mail, not exactly the bastion of responsible non-tabloid-ish journalism isn't it?

If User:Speciate can remove opinions from people with no direct knowledge of the events, why do we keep this being from someone with demonstrably no knowledge of both this event and that of the RMS Titanic? It is not factual. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "a single article by a single columnist". There are three columnists listed, all of them notable - which makes it different to other situations of people giving opinions. StAnselm (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously WP:UNDUE is an important guideline, especially with articles like this, where there is a lot of interest, and new things come to light on a daily basis. We need to exercise editorial judgement, and talk about it to achieve a consensus. I think it has what it deserves - three lines. StAnselm (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry hadn't checked the new version. When I removed it previously, it only mentioned one article. But again I question the reliability of the sources including why exactly are they comparing it to RMS Titanic. And why does it include allegations which simply haven't been proven yet? -- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's an opinion from notable commentators. It's an opinion not everyone agrees with, of course - see here. But it's a notable opinion - the BBC has responded to the suggestion that "women and children were not given priority for lifeboats." So as far as the media section is concerned, it doesn't really matter what happened or not - we report what was discussed. StAnselm (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Again I ask why? Is the lack of a "women and children first" policy proven? Were there more women and children casualties in Costa Concordia than in Titanic? No. Is there any factual basis at all as to why the author made that comparison? Or is it just drama? I can understand the comparison with Captain Smith, as after all Smith stayed with the ship and died as a result. I can even understand comparisons with the size of the two ships and the dates.

But on effect of gender and age on the survivors? The comparison is simply baseless. Repeating it here will be parroting sensationalism, regardless of whether it came from notable commentators. Notability is not inheritable. And that's something we should exercise judgement upon per WP:UNDUE (Quote:An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.) By highlighting it prominently here, you are giving the impression that it is merited. Especially since no counter-opinion has been given.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Some more input on this issue from other people would be helpful. StAnselm (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I won't touch it again though. I'll leave it to others to decide.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Titanic section: The only similarity between this event and Titanic is that both ships struck something that created an opening in the hull and it was the captains fault. However, this is not even mentioned. Instead you can read:

• When the Costa Concordia was christened by supermodel Eva Herzigová on 7 July 2006, the champagne bottle did not break against the side of the ship — an omen of bad luck amongst seafarers. (Titanic was not christened)
• On 22 November 2008, the ship suffered damage to her bow when high winds over the Sicilian city of Palermo pushed the ship against its dock. (irrelevant for Titanic and repeated by the way in later section)
• The ship began sinking on Friday the 13th. (Titanic sank Sunday 14 - Monday 15)
• It has been claimed that the theme from the 1997 film Titanic was playing in a restaurant as the ship went down. (This song was not played onboard the Titanic and even if it was it is not very interesting)
• Survivor Valentina Capuano is a granddaughter of a woman who survived the Titanic tragedy 100 years earlier. Capuano said she was "dumbstruck" that history was repeating itself. (More like a curiosity than a similarity)
• Rich Lowry, writing for the New York Post, compared Captain Schettino's actions unfavourably with those of Edward Smith, captain of the RMS Titanic. Lowry suggests that when the Titanic sank, it was "women and children first", but this chivalry was less noticeable aboard the Costa Concordia.[124] A. N. Wilson, writing for the Daily Mail, and Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun expressed similar sentiments. (They both went down with the ship, Schettino even stayed half an hour on it after it was wrecked. He saved most of the passengers, Smith only one third) Soerfm (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Passenger & Crew Count

I strongly suspect that the current count is confusing crew/personnel with passengers. Previously 103 Indians were listed as passengers based on an article about 103 being rescued. Turns out only one Indian national is a passenger, the rest (totalling 202), are crewmen/personnel. That's the problem with WP:SYNTHESIS I guess, we're getting our numbers from various sources, some of them using "passenger" a bit too broadly.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hungarian Violinist [Sandor Feher] who performed on the Costa Concordia has been identified among the victims. Is this the "one crewman" killed mentioned in the article, or are entertainers not considered crewmen?--161.67.208.9 (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

They are apparently considered crewmen. One of the missing "crew" in news sources, is a waiter.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Dividing the numbers will be troublesome because there is a grey area between crew and passengers. Not all who work on board are “signed on crew” which has a contractual significance and represents responsibility to the ship whether directly employed or provided by a partner firm (casino, shop). There are also some aboard on business who are carried like a passenger even though they may not have a paid ticket (tourism sales people from the next country). Then one line I know has a chalkboard on the bridge with a passenger/crew count, this is good because for a variety of reasons the precise count changes every few ports. But after I while I figured out that it was for evacuation purposes, the division was only based on which accommodation the people were in. Drop-in lecturers were routinely placed in spare passenger cabins as were visiting tradesmen and staff on training programs. PhaseBreak (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

True. *sigh* Maybe we should just merge all of them as "passengers"? -- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The passenger count listed in the infobox, 3,229, is not in the citation given. The citation says 'approximately 3200 passengers'. 3229 is not mentioned anywhere on the page. -Graptor 74.215.0.7 (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

AFD on captain's article

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Schettino is underway, discussing the whether this biographical article on the captain meets guideliens. Editors here might want to weigh in.--RadioFan (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sándor Fehér, an article on an entertainer who died on the ship, has recently been created. Given the above, and its more marginal claim to meet guidelines, should this be redirected/deleted? Benea (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

fr:Naufrage du Costa Concordia

hello,

There is a news interwiki fr.wikipedia. Can you replace? Thanks.--86.215.83.103 (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Article length

Please take care not to add excess verbiage or detail to the article, as it is growing overlong. For example, specifying exactly which day who said what may not be useful. Naming the spokespeople from various organizations, or other minor officials, is not useful (but De Falco should be kept, since he has become a household word in Italy). Speciate (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, except that such qualifiers may be important for a couple of days and then need to be cleaned up. A second reason is for copyright law; when we post based on one new source, we cannot paraphrase well because we don't know the facts, just that first report. Once I get multiple sources, I remove the inline attribution even though I don't cite other sources. I removed many sentences and qualifiers from the Shipwreck section yesterday. I suggest that we not rip atrtributions out until they are 'over-ripe' then hack awaySteveO1951 (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

For example, the paragraph on how Le Scole reef was proven to be the impact point was important for a couple of days until the fact was no longer disputed. So, I just deleted that paragraph and moved only the core facts into the paragraph on ship's track and timeline. Kept all the references.SteveO1951 (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

These problems are the result of using primary sources to try and build an article. News organizations report that other news organizations reported such-and-so for two reasons; first, they are paying homage to whoever got the scoop, and secondly they are covering their ass if the report turns out to by erroneous. On Wikipedia, we should only state the consensus as arrived at by multiple secondary sources, obviating the need for such language. Speciate (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Consensus is fine as a standard for a mature event. This is not. Consensus on day one was "Ship sank/foundered/ran-aground/capsized/and-or listed (remember that we could not reach "consensus" on that so we cannot even write that?). People died. Captain arrested." Is that what you would have us write on day one? Neither are we relying too much on primary sources. Much of the quotations for passengers, and Facebook postings re the sail-past were in the Article for a brief time and have been taken down. In contrast, some "primary" sources are always the best. Are you arguing that we ought not link to (a translation of) the magistrate's statement of the charges levied on the Captain? Is that too "primary"?SteveO1951 (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I am suggesting that it is unnecessary and increases the workload on the readers to to say, "CNN reported..." when Wikipedia provides a reference system that gives CNN the proper credit. I am suggesting that text like, Julian Bray, travel broadcaster and writer, reported: "Twelve hours later, a dozen passengers remain unaccounted for and many lifeboats (capacity 150 each) were not deployed due to the initial list and the subsequent rolling over of the vessel onto her side. Others were evacuated and taken to shelter on the island. The crew remained aboard and the shipping line initially insisted there was no danger of sinking" is horrendous. If it was Julian Bray who put that it the article, then he was taking advantage of this tragedy to do some self promotion, and if it was not him, it makes him look bad. Speciate (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Speciate, for being specific; my argument was (and is) against the generality of your previous comment. Although I agree fully with the specific instance you now argue against re Julian Bray, and may agree that the CNN inline reference may not be needed if the matter is now more generally reported and has no copyright issues re the text, you had not made those points before. Your position above to which I replied begain with a topic sentence as follows: "These problems are the result of using primary sources to try and build an article." I have not argued that any "newspaper" or "channel" be cited in line; my arguments have been to allow (not automatically delete), at least initially as facts are in flux, for inline attribution to, e.g., a magistrate, or to the captain, or to the cruise line CEO etc.; those can be part of the story/history and indicate the level of credibility; they are not mere "credits", as are your most recent examples. Edit where needed, (just so you know, I hate all the movie reviews inline attributed to critic Robert Ebert!) especially as a citation ages, but it is not appropriate to rip out every inline reference as a matter of dogma.SteveO1951 (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Angle of the ship in the first photo

It says it is 80 degrees, but I don't think that is an accurate guess. I'd say it was more about 65 degrees instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.85.32 (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Check the head-on pics in the slideshows in the external links with a protractor. Someone else said 80. I'm going to guess 70. Selery (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

...such as this one. Who has a protractor handy? Selery (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My protractor on the referenced picture says 70 degrees, but I think using a protractor is called "original research."

71.175.132.91 (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

We should avoid using protractors on photos and deciding the angles based on that.[5] If we think the sources are wrong we can start by attributing the info to them, and if we can find other sources we can report those too.   Will Beback  talk  01:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

How about we show the reporter’s words, which may be as little as some bystander’s eyeball check, then show a photo with a graduated measuring device aligned on it. The readers can decide which method gives WP more credibility. Okay, maybe you’re just trying to be sure but I spent a career in engineering, this is junior high school stuff. PhaseBreak (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

[6] says 80, but I think using a protractor on an image is well within WP:CALC. So I say 70 degrees. Selery (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Angle varies with time - the far infra-red (thermal imaging) helicopter video, distant view shows the bulbous nose and entire engine-compartment (almost the whole flattish bottom midships !) - could well be beyond 90 degrees roll. She didn't just roll, she's steadily going from stern-down to bow-down, as well. Beware: I think the video may be edited out of sequence - distant IR view was taken before the close shots - judging by the 'yaw', the number of hot bodies and the cooling of the chimney.

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Dropping anchor ?

The AIS navigation data shows some strange behaviour - see above sections discussing capabilities of 'bow thrusters' and 'stern thrusters' above. There is another possibility that comes from the Captain himself via his legal spokesperson - dropping anchor! (Given his other 'accidentally tripping and falling into a lifeboat' (with colleague(s)?) statements, that would require explicit attribution and not be a 'reliable source'!) It would presumably be unconventional (unprecedented ?) to attempt a 'handbrake turn' on a vessel that size, but feasibly the only recourse possible with loss of power or control circuitry - release a drum-brake on the anchor-winch and let gravity and momentum (not to mention luck) do the rest. It could explain the reversal from listing-to-port to listing-to-starboard and passenger reports of being thrown around. Bow-anchor would cause 180 degree rotation to point south. The weight of the chain sinking after being stretched (catenary elasticity) would reverse the direction of travel. The effect seems to have been to prevent a total sinking, which is surely notable. I wouldn't be surprised to see divers' photos of anchor + chain, but it may be directly under the wreck, or otherwise in a danger zone. I'll try to find some sources ... --195.137.93.171 (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• [7] Wow! IT's huge. Shows two chains hanging down from the elevated shaft, and a huge pile of chain visible to the left. Almost looks like it snapped and pinged-back ! Sea-floor looks smooth like sand/mud.

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Judging by how vertical the anchor in the second photograph is, at least one of the anchors must have been dropped when the ship was stationary. The flukes obviously haven't dug-in at all.     ←   ZScarpia   14:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I should have said 'click the right-arrow' for more photos - not obvious it's a gallery.

Anchor pictures imply those sticking-up 'wings' (flukes - thanks for the jargon) should be sticking down. Presumably they can pivot either side of the shaft (shank?) so that the anchor can't be upside-down. It all does look like a vertical drop, when stationary.

A later photograph in that gallery seems to show a chain curving over an underwater right-angle in the hull (horizontal 'side' to vertical 'bottom') - must be the port forward anchor chain ? I hadn't noticed empty port stowage - will keep my eyes open. It follows the 'fall line' ie as vertical as the hull allows.

[Anchor#Anchoring_techniques] suggests motion of the vessel is required to dig-in or set the anchor.

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• [8] shows the other end of the chain, hanging near-vertically down from the starboard bow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.93.171 (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• [9] The captain also reportedly admitted to the court that he lied at one point when he assured officials that he had dropped anchor shortly after the Costa Concordia slammed into a rock to stabilize the luxury liner.

However a video by the Guardia di Finanza who arrived onsite 10 minutes after the disaster clearly shows that the anchor had not been lowered. Schettino admitted Tuesday that he lied about the anchor, the newspaper reported.

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone find a better picture showing the anchor just after she stopped ?

[10] shows pre-wreck anchor in 'stowed position'. Note also the visible "It'll buff out" repair below 'CORDIA' and forward portholes, following her previous incident! There is video of welding + photo of painting on the web somewhere.

this shows a vertical shadow and white line crossing the waterline below the anchor stowage.

this shows coastguard (maybe not ?) inspecting the old damage. Behind the CG boat you can see a shadow inclined aft of vertical, implying the ship my have moved forwards.

The two photos seem to have been taken within a minute or so, by the same camera. (Smear or droplet on lens near bow/waterline intersection).

I distrust the abcnews report above denying the anchor had been dropped. Maybe the 'captain admitted lie' is questionable, too !

I believe we can also see crew on the lowermost two open decks - maybe 'crew beach' referred-to by Rose Metcalf (UK dancer) for 'Customer Services' Briefing, and lower deck (mast & bell) for technical/engineering/sailors briefing.

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Criminal Process

The top intro paragraph is problematic in that it says "sailing much closer to the shore than permitted". First issue: permitted by whom or what? Law? The cruise line? IMO regs? The ship's computer? Second issue: The Captain has not been charged with sailing too close to the shore. The first arrest count is that he was sailing too fast for conditions, "too fast to be able to react". We have a great source for this. la Repubblica has translated the magistrate's ruling on house arrest. http://download.repubblica.it/pdf/2012/traduzione_ordinanza_grosseto.pdfI am no expert in this but I made the cleanup. Because my change will be in the top paragraph, I will not there list all three charges or the charges against the First Officer.SteveO1951 (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The vessel was "sailing much closer to the shore than permitted". According to the company, the Costa Concordia was supposed to pass the reef at a distance no closer than eight kilometers. The chart they showed supported this. Perhaps the sentence should be changed to say "sailing much closer to the shore than permitted by Costa Cruises". Wayne (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I think you are correct on interpretation but, because the sentence is stating the charges on which the officers were being held, I had already edited that by substituting the Le Rupubblica translation of the magistrate's actual "court order" regarding the basis. We soon have an entire paragraph about Costa-computer-control matters. Please if you have any expertise in this criminal law area, continue to research and contribute.SteveO1951 (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

My reading is that it was not that the ship was supposed to be specifically navigating round the reef, but that, if the ship's course had stuck to the passage plan, rather than diverting to pass close to Giglio, the ship would have passed 8km away.     ←   ZScarpia   14:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The Article states, with cite to the chart, that LLoyd's List published a comparison of the Jan 6 cruise vs the Jan 13 cruise. Presumably, the Jan 6 was the computerized, authorized track. I is very far at all times from Giglio.SteveO1951 (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Italian Coast Guard

Okay, would anyone mind finding a page at guardiacostiera.it which explicitly says "we are responsible for investigating nautical accidents and incidents occurring in Italian waters"? If so I would like to cite that and add the Italian Coast Guard to the template listing bodies that investigate nautical accidents and incidents

The coast guard site is at http://www.guardiacostiera.it/ WhisperToMe (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Somebody found proof, so now Corps of the Port Captaincies – Coast Guard says it WhisperToMe (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Schettino tripped and fell into a life raft

This detail is valid and needs to be added to explain Schettino's side of the story from this one sided article and that is he deserving of credit for being a hero for steering them to safety closer to the shore and that he wasn't fleeing the ship as the chaotic enviroment was sure to make him trip and fall.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10779773 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10779982 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreBishopGOAT (talk • contribs) 09:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source? Weren't one or two other senior officers (Dimitri Christidis, Silvia Coronia) in the lifeboat with him ? Doesn't seem accidental. Given that the deputy mayor of the island brought the first lifeboat back to the ship and boarded it himself, how hard would it have been to do likewise ? Maybe this should be moved up the talk page - Search for 'tripped' ?--195.137.93.171 (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Do these contents constitute original research?

• A) "At 22:10, the vessel turned south" (unsourced) diff (added on 22 January)
• B) "The ship's port side hit a reef on Giglio at 21:45" (unsourced) instead of 21:42 sourced by Repubblica edited on 21 January (diff)-reverted (diff)-unreverted (diff)
• C) The vessel trajectory and timings added on the 01:08, 21 January 2012 version of File:Location of Costa Concordia cruise-ship disaster (13-1-2012).png and later versions
• D) Parameter |data11= of infobox, constituted by collapsible list with the following unsourced timings:
  • 21:45: collision
  • 22:10: ship turns around, listing begins
  • 22:50: evacuation starts
  • 23:00: capsizing
• Do the above contents constitute an infringement of Wikipedia:No original research policy? Teofilo talk 14:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think this is related to original research but to the policies of reliable sources and verifiability. La Repubblica is a reliable source. Removing a time supported by a reliable source and substituting another chronology with a citation needed tag is highly unusual to say the least. This edit should be reverted as unsupportable, based however on the assumption that the 21:42 time is covered in the citation by La Repubblica. I could not find the claimed 21:42 time when I last checked the link. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It is true that the Reppublica link is now broken. Alternatively, the 21:42 impact time can be sourced by the following: "Risulta che l'impatto sia avvenuto alle 21,42 e l'ordine di abbandono nave sia stato dato poco prima delle 23". E' quanto ha precisato il procuratore capo di Grosseto, Francesco Verusio."Giglio: aperti varchi nello scafo Il prefetto: "29 dispersi, 6 italiani"". AGI. 17 January 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2012. So it is based on what the chief prosecutor said. See also: The recording, broadcast for the first time today by Sky Italia, was made at 10.12pm on Friday – 30 minutes after the collision at 9.42pm Nick Squires; et al. "Costa Concordia: new audio recording of officer reporting 'black-out' (The Telegraph, 19th January, 2012)". Retrieved 2012-01-22. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help). Teofilo talk 19:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Teofilo. In this case the 21:45 fact is wrong and should be removed from the article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done, diff. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk page sub-sectioning prevents automatic archiving

To whomever added level 2 general section headings here and demoted usual talk page sections to level 3 headers: You have broken the automatic archiving of stale sections on this very large talk page. Does anyone know if converting to levels 1 and 2 from levels 2 and 3 is compatible with MiszaBot? I think that will work but I'm not going to do it, to give the chance to whomever did this in the first place and wait for comments. Selery (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I took out the supersection headers; not clear what the point of that was.

—WWoods (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Daily Mail 'comparing disaster to Titanic'? (all Titanic topics here)

Having read the article, the Daily Mail does not report it as such, it just uses quotes from passengers it has interviewed who say they felt there was a similarity to the Titanic.

I see but that was their opinion, and not fact. None of these passengers could have possibly traveled on the Titanic, so for us to accept their comparison to it, is just ludicrous.--Subman758 (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think they meant the film, not the actual ship. Many of the passengers would have seen that, and thus be able to make the comparison. Mjroots (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Another article with comparisons to Titanic. Goodvac (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• And another. At this point the semantics regarding whether the passengers were actually on Titanic are irrelevant as comparisons to the Titanic have become part of the media narrative. And anyway, the circumstances on board Titanic have been part of the widely available public record for nearly a century, so one does not have to have been on board Titanic to have an idea of what it might have been like, and as noted, anyone unaware will have been influenced by the Cameron film which, while elements of crew behavior have been criticised as being fictionalized, is known for its accuracy of depicting the sinking itself. 68.146.72.113 (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I would support inclusion as a sentence in the accident part, but oppose a whol section as non-notable/opinion.(Lihaas (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)).

From my understanding Wikipedia also covers opinions too. We do have to weigh which ones are important and which ones are not... WhisperToMe (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's all obviously sensationalism and should be removed completely. This is like comparing the killing of bin Laden to Rambo while treating the movie as factual.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 03:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the question is, who made the statements? If the media did, then it may be obvious sensationalism to drive profits. If the passengers said it, then surely there will be a source clarifying why the passengers said it, i.e. Titanic being their frame of reference. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that comparing this accident with the Titanic is not an especially valid point and this material does not deserve its own section.XantheTerra (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Do we really need an entire subsection dedicated to discussing similarities to the Titanic, in which no real similarities are actually listed. As is, the section contains bullet points to discuss similarities, and yet almost none of them are "similar." This section mentions a botched Christening (the Titanic was not Christened at all), bow damage suffered before the accident (did not happen to the Titanic), a Friday the 13th sinking (Titanic was on Sunday/Monday the 14th/15th), and anecdotal, after-the-fact accounts of how a song from the Titanic movie was playing at the time of the incident. There's also a mention of the cowardice of this ship's captain, in staunch contrast to E.J. Smith, who went down with the ship. And any references the passengers make is really trivial, at best. Titanic is the most famous ship disaster in world history. It's the only frame of reference that's going to come to anyone's mind immediately, but it doesn't make them similar in any noteworthy way. Basically, this "Titanic Comparison" subsection conclusively proves that the two have nothing in common other than they were ships that had bad things happen to them. Outside of that, they have roughly nothing in common. I'd suggest deleting the section entirely, or at the very least moving its bullet-point information into more relevant parts of the article. President David Palmer

I've pointed this out earlier, but my removal of the section was reverted twice already supposedly because the journalists in question are notable. I still believe it's sensationalism and bad journalism. At most it should be given one sentence for the simple fact that they are nothing alike. Can we !vote on this perhaps?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 07:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm ENTIRELY suspicious of the christening thing to begin with. The same legend about the bottle failing to break went around about the Titanic and is possibly still believed to be true (despite knowledge that it was not christened, as mentioned). So I'm suspicious that this was simply a legend that was reborn to give the media something to talk about. I know that a reference was sourced, but we all know that the media is never inaccurate (sarcasm).StrangeApparition2011 (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep the Titanic section and delete the luck section. They should not have been joined together - I have now separated them. StAnselm (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete the luck section, Reword and shorten the Titanic section to be less detailed in accordance with its actual significance overall, e.g. "Some journalists compared the sinking to the RMS Titanic" or something along those lines. It's not like they're all even coherent about their reasons for comparing the two anyway.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 09:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Even the Titanic "comparisons" that remain are, in fact, contrasts. Just because something is a maritime disaster of some sort or another doesn't mean it's comparable. The Titanic frame of reference is entirely because of Titanic's notoriety, not because of actual similarity, regardless of what some "journalists" write. Do we need to create "Titanic Comparison" subsections for the Andrea Doria, Herald of Free Enterprise, Empress of Ireland, and MS Sea Diamond, as well? Because I'm sure more than enough journalistic comparisons or minute details could tie those together, too. It's just, as you suggested, ridiculous sensationalism at its worst. I mean, this ship didn't even SINK yet. President David Palmer

Every passenger shipwreck that has occurred since the Titanic has been compared to it. --76.115.67.114 (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

OK um I don't know how to make a new section so I have just stuck this at the bottom of the article But, what I want to say, is that I think something should be put in the 'Titanic reference' or whatsitcalled section, saying that not everybody agrees with the Titanic comparison. A lot of people at my school have been quite offended by it because far more people died in the Titanic and in the Titanic the lower class people were locked below decks and fired at while the upper class people escaped. Titanic was a far worse disaster. I don't know what I would attribute the source to though. 'General opinion of people I know'? Haha. I'm not very used to Wikipedia rules and stuff so somebody else should probably know that better than I do... ~Accalia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.254.9 (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Updates?

Is there any new information about the vessels rate of shift? The first I noted the statement within the article was sometime early on the 21st, mentioning the vessel was shifting or moving at a rate .59inch an hour. Even if it's only moving 1/2" an hour, the vessel should have moved 15" in the span of thirty hours. At .59, providing it could hold up that pace, nearly 18". For a vessel so large, that much motion isn't good, especially when the ship is aground. Are than any updates available? I'm also curious just how much ledge that big lady is sitting on. I looked for the data, but I am not skilled at Data Mining and Excavation. 166.249.198.37 (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is unrealistic to expect a single figure. Her motion is largely intermittent and unpredictable. She is rotating about two axes at least, as well as occasionally moving. She may also be bending and twisting - photos of the railing in contact with the sea-bed show curvature, and interior photos show buckling. There is a great weight applied between an irregular surface, and a skin only designed to resist uniformly-distributed pressure. Contact points will have extreme pressure, causing bending and rupture. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Shelf Looks like height/depth axis is greatly magnified. I don't find that useful. I've seen another graphic that looks like a flight of steps! Try Google Earth ? It does depth... --195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That image helps a great deal to visualize what was going on. I read in this article (might have been the ship article itself before the split) that the ship could fall into 230+ feet of water, like the ship had come to rest at the edge of a table with nothing below but fish and a long drop. Can't believe hardly any of what you read. ;) Mighty big ship, but as she lays, with most of the damage above or near waterline, the hole could well be patched by a welder with less training than I have, then with some labor, re-floated. If it were to drop any distance below water, the costs to repair, re-float, and recover increase (I have heard that, as a general rule, every ten feet blow water doubles the cost to repair. At waterline, it might be a hundred grand, ten feet under, two hundred, twenty, four hundred. So on and so forth. Much beyond fifty feet and the cost, and talent required, become prohibitively expensive.) Though it's off topic, if she can't be moved, she's sitting in a very tight spot as the port goes. One thing no port needs is some big obstruction at the head of a port. She'll have to go, even if it's by the blowtorch in pieces. Meh, conjecture. What I wouldn't give to be in the vessel recovery business, or even better, the scrap industry!

The article, as it is written, is a very good one, with only minor issues I take exception to. I think it just needs filling out a little, given some historic reference aside from Titanic. Titanic was a serious disaster, but hardly relevant. Titanic went down in hundreds of feet of water, while five hundred and fifty miles from dry ground. Costa on the other hand is in shallow water (for now) and is close enough to land that, given fair weather and reasonable health, plus knowing how, a person could swim from ship to land in minutes. I suspect that's how many of the compliment made it to dry ground. What I envision is something like a paragraph like "In comparison to the ________ that grounded under similar circumstances, the Costa Concordia lost only ___% of her complement, whereas the ______ vessel lost ___%." I think that the article needs only minor retouches to make it a viable candidate for "good article" and only a bit more to make it good enough to feature. Everyone involved in researching and writing, you've done quite well. 166.249.198.86 (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. GA/FA is something to consider in the future, but at the moment we can't even consider that because the article isn't stable, due to the event still being current. That's not to say that we shouln't continue to write to the best of our abilities, and ensure everything is fully referenced. Doing so will benefit the process in the months ahead. It really is a pity that the article has had to be semi-protected as some IP editors do have constructive contributions to make here. Mjroots (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mj, I appreciate the words. I'm semi-new to the process and only truly have time to make suggestions, as I don't have time to fully invest myself into the editing process. I do agree, I have seen some pretty ignorant comments and edits made by "my own kind", as if the editing people would fail to notice a page that was two megs being reduced to a 2kb file, especially when that page is basically hotbutton. I remain anonymous since a few words is all I have time for. I try to be constructive unless given reason not to be. This site has no way to give me that reason. 166.249.198.86 (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Twitter?

This seems one of largest mishaps to happen in recent times not to be reported live via Twitter. Were there wireless facilities on board the ship or in the town where the ship finally ended up? Fotoguzzi (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We know that cellular service was working at the time of the accident, but apparently the passengers may have had the good sense to prepare to evacuate instead of tweet. Selery (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Rename

"Costa Concordia disaster" is highly POV. 4200 people were rescued. Suggest "2012 Costa Concordia sinking" or just merge back into the article. Either way, this title sucks. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. How about Costa Concordia shipwreck or Costa Concordia wreck? -- Update: Since that "shipwreck" redirect existed to the main article's specific section before this article was created, it's the obvious choice. When it is renamed, don't forget the DISPLAYTITLE at the top. Selery (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I'll check back in 12 hours or so, and unless there are good reasons against a rename, I'll change the title. A "good reason" would explain why this is supposedly a disaster, but a random traffic accident with three dead is neither a disaster nor meriting a Wikipedia article. — Felixkasza (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It's on the front page and has thousands of Google News hits. Selery (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

ditto Whereas Sinking of the RMS Titanic clearly merited its own article, unless scores are subsequently found dead or some serious consequences develop, this doesn't.-Kiwipat (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If you think so, you should probably ask at WP:AFD, but please don't interfere with a pending noncontroversial rename. Selery (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is not on the front page. Costa Concordia is. Kiwipat is absolutely right. This page was created in a premature rush without due thought which was why I nominated for speedy deletion. The issues have not improved. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. This article is at the size where a standalone one is appropriate and desirable. Having this much information squeezed into the main article about the ship would be undue coverage of this accident in relation to the ship itself. See WP:WHENSPLIT. Goodvac (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

14,200+ Google News hits, and NPR is saying it's the largest cruise liner grounding in history. That's worth an article. Selery (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this should be renamed; 'sinking' seems wrong because it's in rather shallow water, so 'wreck' or 'shipwreck'. Alarbus (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

How about simply "grounding"? While the ship would have sunk had it not been driven aground (for the second time), I wouldn't call what happened "sinking" since the ship is in rather shallow water (i.e. I agree with you). However, as for "wreck" and "shipwreck", while I am aware that the words also refer to the incident, I would rather use them to describe the ship itself instead of not what happened. If the Costa Concordia is left where she lays, then it would be a (ship)wreck... Tupsumato (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Grounding suggests she can just be pulled off a sandbar. No, she sank, just in shallow water. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the correct term "partial sinking"? --Efti (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I think, once the initial hysteria surrounding this incident ends, this page needs to be moved. Costa Concordia disaster is a POV name which doesn't accurately describe what has happened. I would suggest either Wrecking of the Costa Concordia or Grounding of the Costa Concordia. Adam4267 (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS means other titles are irrelevant. That said to move to shipwreck is fine, but there is nothing wrong with calling this a disaster. Its obviously not sucnk yet so sinking would be deceptive.Lihaas (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a simple traffic accident. The loss of a ~$500 million vessel with 4,000+ onboard at the time is big news. Not sure what the best name is though. Disaster is a bit ambiguous and maybe a bit biased. Wrecking or shipwreck sounds better than sinking, as it didn't fully sink due to the depth. Agree with above comments, grounding sounds like it can be towed off something and the ship will be OK. The cruise industry will be pointing to the incident for decades to come. It deserves its own page.--Varaldarade (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand how its "biased" to consider this a disaster. Lives have been lost and a multi-million dollar ship seriously damaged. The word "bias" suggests that the text in general has a subjective POV; that the term "disaster" implies that this incident is "bad". Well, how on earth can this possibly be construed as "good"? Biased or no, it's the appropriate perspective on what has happened. theBOBbobato (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Disaster implies a measure of how bad it was. Seems like the facts should speak for themselves. Over 300,000 people died in the Haitian Earthquake but the article is called "2010 Haiti Earthquake" Not "2010 Haiti Disaster" or "2010 Haiti Epic Disaster" - which it is if this sinking was a disaster. The name should be reflective of the nature of the incident. Incident might be a better word until the nautical community starts using a single name to refer to this. What about "Costa Concordia Wrecking"? Most people seem to agree the ship is wrecked. Even if it can be salvaged (unlikely) and spends 2 years in dry dock - it is currently wrecked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varaldarade (talk • contribs) 21:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Withdrawn. If anyone thinks that a rename to shipwreck or another name can gather consensus, a new RM request can be made. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Costa Concordia disaster → Costa Concordia shipwreck – With no more than 20 deaths possible at this point, it's hardly a disaster. Consensus seems to be with "shipwreck". Selery (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Nominator wishes to withdraw this request. While it appears at first glance there is consensus for a move, closer inspection shows no consensus regarding the destination name whatsoever. More importantly, per WP:NC "Costa Concordia disaster" has 3,170,000 Google hits at present, while "Costa Concordia shipwreck" has only 123,000. Clearly the "disaster" name has permanently crystallized as the common name of this event. Selery (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Move "Disaster" is not appropriate for this article yet. If more deaths are reported, then it would be right to rename it to "disaster", which is also POV. -- Luke (Talk) 15:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy Move "Disaster" is POV. This is on the main page and should get moved ASAP. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Propose "Costa Concordia grounding incident" per below. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Move "Disaster" is definitely too much, but I would prefer "grounding" or something similar over "shipwreck" as the latter may also refer to the wrecked ship itself in addition to the incident. Tupsumato (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Move "Disaster" is too much. I think also that "shipwreck" is too much. I like "grounding" or "incident" myself. However, I'm sure the authorities have a proper name for it, and we should go with that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

keep or accomodate with moev to ]ship]wreckLihaas (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Move to Shipwreck. The ship is indeed wrecked. 'Incident' is much too sterile. Reywas92^Talk 20:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Move to Capsizing. It's not a disaster (except perhaps for the Italian cruise ship industry). Also the word capsizing fits better than other terms in my opinion (and it's what's used on the Wikipedia main page).--A bit iffy (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• Move, it's very wrecked. Alarbus (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest waiting until rescues and recovery is complete. There is significant concern that the ship's nearly full fuel tanks may leak, which WOULD be a disaster for the region. If the fuel is safely contained and removed, perhaps debacle would be a more correct term. Or "grounding and subsequent loss".Wzrd1 (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Move to shipwreck or more simply, to accident. But please, let's not talk about an incident for an event in which at least 5 people died. I'd find incident even more POV than disaster. Cochonfou (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC).
• Keep at disaster. I don't know where this idea came about that the word is POV; that seems to be based on editorial opinion. The word is widely used for broad, catastrophic events, and the definitions given at disaster and w:disaster include large-scale destruction, not just loss of life. The IMO, in its primary document Surviving disaster -- life-saving at sea, uses disaster in such a way that it incorporates any event in which abandonment of the vessel becomes necessary. I would argue, then, that disaster is not only the technically correct word, it is also the best or ideal word for our purposes, as it obviates any debate over the definition of sinking, grounding, wreck, and so forth. --Dhartung | Talk 11:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment except that a "disaster" is a qualitative observation, making it utterly and absolutely the wrong word to use. There isn't a single "Airline Flight xxx disaster", the Deepwater Horizon oil spill isn't named a disaster either, and the MV Sea Diamond didn't even get a separate article. The only question I have is why the move hasn't taken place already. We can move it again later if need be, but we have to get rid of "disaster" and now.--76.18.43.253 (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note Hindenburg disaster or the Space Shuttle disasters, though. Cochonfou (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Disaster is only qualitative in the colloquial sense. (Conversely, so is incident minimizing.) There is nothing wrong with it as an encyclopedic term. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (or doesn't) isn't much of an argument, and anyway, airplane flights are more precisely designated by their flight numbers, which the media have also gravitated toward. Cruise ship outings may well be designated thus internally, but it hasn't become a way to identify these (rare) incidents (most of which don't result in a loss of the vehicle). To continue the analogy, police departments had long used the term accident for motor vehicle collisions, but have gravitated toward collision or crash instead, likely for sensitivity toward victims rather than anything technical about the word. These words have been used this way for decades and had perfectly understandable neutral meanings. Disaster is being used by the media today for this event: WaPo Reuters BusinessWeek CBS (I could go on). If you can somehow decide on the one precise description that will be widely acceptable, I'm not going to object further, but it seems that there isn't any agreement between grounding, sinking, wrecking, and (most recently) capsizing, even if a case could be made for each individually. Disaster is a generic term which encompasses all these outcomes, not some hand-wavey hyperventilation about the event's scale. --Dhartung | Talk 19:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

So I'm not arguing for deletion, just for a little WP:CONSISTENCY. Seeing that no other major marine incident had the term "disaster" in it's title, it seems totally illogical and out of place to have it here. So you found some news sources calling it a disaster, I found some that don't CTV ABC Time. Drop the word incident, I don't care; grounding, floundering, sinking are all more accurate and dispassionate than "disaster". --76.18.43.253 (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment there seems to be a strong consensus for moving. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Prior to my bringing primary sources to the fray, yes. Note that the official US agency that would have responsibility for an event of this type is the US Coast Guard, and they routinely use the word "ship disaster" for things that did not involve loss of life or even the permanent loss of the vessel: 1 2 3. The last is a cruise ship which was 100% safely evacuated, to again underline the irrelevancy of any loss of life. --Dhartung | Talk 19:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Move to shipwreck or similar. Ericoides (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Move. Shipwreck is fine. Disaster is hyperbolic unless star alignments are being discussed.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Move Titanic was a disaster. This is a shipwreck near land with only 2 % injured, dead or missing. Tragic certainly, but hardly worthy of the name. Peter ^Isotalo 23:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Move to accident as the only NPOV option suggested so far. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep at disaster. This event has caused between 11 and 34 deaths and the probable total loss of a $500 000 000 ship. This meets a reasonable definition of a disaster. 86.7.30.217 (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC) (typos corrected 05:17 19 January 2012 (UTC))
• Move, the ship was wrecked, 0.5% loss of life is not a disaster. Speciate (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Move, the article is about a shipwreck therefore its title needs to reflect this.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Move to shipwreck; the people arguing in this very discussion over whether this qualifies as a disaster goes to show how POV that word is.Deadlyhair (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Really depends on what sources are calling it. Love Parade stampede was moved to Love Parade disaster but reverted back, the reason citing Google hits suggesting that it was more commonly referred to as a stampede. I agree shipwreck is probably a little more precise than disaster, but it all depends. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep at disaster; It is what the accident and it's immediate aftermath have generally become known as. Apart from that the (relatively heavy) loss of life and large number of serious injuries incurred, along with the total constuctive loss of a practically new, multimillion dollar vessel (leaving aside for the moment the potential for a follow on environmental disaster) definitely fits the discription of disaster better than any of the proposed alternatives. To change it now would also cause totally unnecessary confusion, not to mention that it might give the impression that contributers are trying to downplay the seriousness of the disaster and it's ongoing fallout, human and otherwise. 86.41.218.254 (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep as is. Looks like a disaster to me. Lugnuts (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Move "shopwreck" or "grounding" would be better. Which of these will ultimately prove most appropriate depends on what the salvage contractors manage, which we cannot predict. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.