Talk:Costa Concordia disaster/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Peak 80,000 hits per day

Quite a lot of traffic on this page, it reads like a very high quality article, keep up the good work. A map of the actual route would be helpful as well as the damage and final point mentioned currently .131.107.0.110 (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you; it is a good team of editors sharing their different talents,and a lot of work, on this. I hadn't taken time to see the hit rate. In reply to you, all editors here are anxious to provide a ship's route but it's impossible without the base data. The many drawings and videos of the supposed route are incorrect and inconsistent (some don't "hit" the reef and some show her last turn as starboard, some port. Time-stamps on events are also still unsure. I know we could cite anything that is published but then, to be responsible, we'd have to cite 10 different versions of the route(arrgh). I've just rewritten the paragraph about the impact and the damage and the maneouvering and that improves the readability. We have been so busy keeping current with breaking news that it is hard to concentrate on good style all the time.SteveO1951 (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
It also seems to have influenced the pageviews of the Titanic article; right now they are equally often viewed. — Soerfm (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

portals

The "death portal" really? For 6 deaths? The place would be choked with airplane crashes and Iraqi bombings if this was normal. Please remove.

"Disaster portal" this is highly subjective. That article covers things like the Haiti quake and Darfur. I think it's obvious this is not in the same class. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree on both.  Done Selery (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I had the impression that every incident leading to a loss of life would get the death portal, and every incident leading to a hull loss (we don't know yet if this is a hull loss) would get a "disaster" portal WhisperToMe (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Check the portal pages. death portal is things articles and topics surrounding death, not incidents where there was death. For disaster, I looked at Exxon Valdez, Deepwater Horizon, and Ocean Ranger, none of them have the disaster tag. Many airplane crashes do, but those are accidents with a high percentage of life lost. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, usually I coordinate the portal tags to the relevant projects. I.E. if there is a death portal tag, the page is also a part of WikiProject Death. Anyway, I think that if the death project considers this to be within its scope, then the portal tag death should remain. Same for, say, disaster management. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
So if you're the person who looks after such things, and the portal projects consider this in scope, then I guess that makes sense. I looked at similar incidents and didn't see "Death Portal", looked at their portal page and saw it covered things like "Death customs" and posted the above. Just doesn't seem like a fit. Same with Disasters portal. I look at this as a lay-reader, does "death portal" make sense. No major media that I can see is calling this a "disaster" so again, as a lay-reader, this doesn't slot in with Haiti or Bhopal. Thats all. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The BBC have been referring to the "Costa Concordia disaster" all day. Mjroots (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the disaster portal needs to be added back. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I replaced the Disasters portal and removed the Italy portal because on reflection the event is far more tangential to the latter. Selery (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I vehemently disagree with the removal of the Italy portal. Not only did the accident involve an Italian operator (Costa), but it happened in Italian waters, and the investigating authority will be the Italian authority. Everything has to do with Italy. Plsu it's a part of WikiProject Italy. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I put it back. Selery (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much :) WhisperToMe (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Why are these generic portal links placed in the article space, when they are on the talkpage? Lugnuts (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The portal links are being discussed here, but portal links always go in the article space. The links at the top of the talk page are WikiProject links. They are not the same things.
WhisperToMe (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Harbour Master's log

The Daily Telegraph has released a transcript of the Harbour Master of Giglio's log for the hours immediately following the incident. Should be plenty of good material there. Mjroots (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hard facts !     ←   ZScarpia   14:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Yep, sorry to spoil all the rumours and speculation etc, but we are starting to get some hard facts emerging now. Mjroots (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Three cheers for hard facts!--SteveO1951 (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
\o/ Selery (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hungary

There is one missing hungarian, a woman, who is still being searched for. There was another hungarian woman reported missing, but that turned out to be a tasteless prank call. I think the two cases are separate, as far as one can tell from the media reports.

The confirmed hungarian deceased, the ship's musical band member Mr. Sandor Feher abandoned life boat entry and went back to his cabin to retrieve his violin. He was found by divers with smashed head, probably something fell on him or he was thrown against something when the ship capsized. It is not yet stated if he died of injuries or drowning. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

URL or news source citation, please? Selery (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

In regards to the earlier section mentioned by Andre, can we please add the sentence regarding Schettino's explanation on how he did end up leaving the ship early? Regardless if his reason was truthful or not I think it needs to be added here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.54.18 (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Who is Andre? URL please? Selery (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Was refering to the user Andre above who started the section about Schettino "tripping" into the life boat and escaping.125.236.54.18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC).
Here is the link concerning his slip : http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10779773125.236.54.18 (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for noting this here. I've added the quote to the article. Goodvac (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
This is one of the top three matters regarding public opinion:
  1. Deviating from the course (not talked about much)
  2. Leaving the ship (fell off, or "got" off deliberately?)
  3. Not returning to the ship after being ordered Vada a bordo, cazzo ("Get back on board, dickhead!")
Are going to have an article on Francesco Schettino, or just a section in the present article on "Actions of the captain"? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

map suggestion

Could the route be placed on a map that shows the the undersea obstructions? I do not find this explicitly discussed in the above. Fotoguzzi (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Based on the charts discussions either above or in the talk page archive, there were essentially no obstructions shallower than 50 fathoms before or between the groundings. Selery (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Selery re no obstructions in the path post-impact but I encourage inquiries into finding any better chart of the specific area of Le Scole. The cited charts are the best we've found. Because this is a haven for recreational scuba divers, and they often have better seashore charts than navigators do, I hope we can find a bit more detail on that reef. At the end of the day, it matters not: the captain claimed he was 300 metres from land and the Genoa Plice divers measured the hull pieces on the seafloor as being only 92 and 96 meters, respectively. That conforms with the captain's latest assessment that "I turned too late".SteveO1951 (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. My question was perhaps simpler than the answer supplied. That is, news reports imply that the ship is perched on a shelf at the edge of an abyss. I would like to see generally the topography (bathography?) in the area. I see the timeline is much improved, so perhaps it explains how suddenly the list got to the current 80% and what factors prevented the ship from reaching (ramming?) port. Thanks for the response. Fotoguzzi (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Who the hell nominates to delete this page anyway?

I know this has nothing to do with anything. But It annoys the piss out of me that it would be suggested. How is this not a relevant piece of history? What reason could someone possibly have for deleting this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrangeApparition2011 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Meh, same folks that say Wikipedia has the right to do things it hasn't any right to do. Same ones who say that any and all rules can be ignored when it suits a particular desire, or political agenda. Meh, idiots. Historically, I don't know if this will be looked on with awe like Titanic, Hindenburg, or some other disasters, but for the time being, it's notable enough to justify one measly page on this, a colossally overblown site. This is one page, and oddly, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of pages on here about common sex positions that have been used since the beginning of sex. A good percentage of those pages are far more in the realm of fantasy than reality, taking into account normal human flexibility and hip flexion. What I'm getting at, there are a great deal more pages of less legitimate substance than this page. South Park has how many relevant pages? Simpsons? CSI (and the spinoffs)? This one page, it can survive a few more days, at least until they stop finding dead bodies, anyways. There are still something like 40 people unaccounted for, which means there could be 40 dead. There are a lot of plane crashes listed on here with a third as many dead! Deletionists think that, unless it is material that they directly and personally wish to read, it should go. I'm betting a heavy majority of them find the unsophisticated "humor" of South Park purely hilarious. This story ran in the "Topics in the News" section for several days, but now that it's not front page, it should go? I sometimes wonder if people realize that, by and large, it is legitimate facts, like the ones on this article, that people come to Wikipedia to read. 166.249.200.13 (talk) 06:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course this will never reach the popularity of the Titanic disaster. I just hoped that fellow Wikipedians would understand that it doesn't matter if it doesn't! This is WORLD news! If we pretend that something is no longer relevant because it simmers down over time and is no longer remembered, then there goes history! There goes 90% of this site! How many people remember most missing persons cases from the 1970's or 1980's? Not many. But I have read all articles on this site for them, as well as every other decade. Why? Because Wikipedia is a great place for ALL KINDS OF INFORMATION! I like that I can come here and read up on Costa Concordia, or The Simpsons, or the disappearance of Glen and Bessie Hyde, or the Dyatlov Pass Incident! I see this kind of editing and page deletion all over Wikipedia, and it annoys me greatly. God forbid a page exist even though it's not considered "relevant" by some high and mighty Wikipedia editor. People like me (and many others who visit this site daily) still like this information. I don't read articles that I don't care about. StrangeApparition2011 (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Hard drive space is pretty cheap in these days, so there is no need to raise the notability bar too high. Otherwise the only ship featured on this site would be the Titanic, and even that only because James Cameron made a movie about it... Tupsumato (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has tried for a while. As a new editor you may wish to acquire the trick of reading the talk page history to see how old the nomination is: I think the article was very small when this was suggested. Another point is that the disaster would not have been forgotten by Wikipedia: it would just have been merged with the main ship article. Actually I do read articles I don't care about: sometimes, how do you know until you've read them? Britmax (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It states at the top of this page that the nomination occurred on January 15th. Which means not only that the disaster was still exceptionally notable, but also that it was recent (9 days ago as of this writing). I knew that before I posted this. I also did consider that they were going to merge it with the main page, but I still say that there is enough information and detail given/will be given to keep this as it's own page. Basically, instead of a trimmed down subsection in the main article, let's just keep what we have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrangeApparition2011 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The Andrea Doria used to be significant. At the time, considerable attention was paid to whether it had sunk or capsized. Fotoguzzi (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Development

I think this ought to receive some coverage. Even if we only quoted it as the captain's side of the story, it is still very significant. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Saluting

The elephant in the room here is the practice of "saluting" (see proposed new article, Near-shore salute). To be neutral, I won't come out and accuse the captain of this. But many news reports indicate that he either:

  1. Said he was ordered to do it
  2. Chose to do it on his own

In other words, that the practice was:

  1. Common, and well-known to the cruise line owners (possibly endorsed and/or ordered by them)
  2. Common, and "winked at" as (perhaps) a captain's prerogative, if not officially permitted
  3. Common, but disapproved by management

I haven't found any sources calling the practice non-existent.

Anyone want to vada a bordo with me at Near-shore salute and write about this? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Google News archives and Google Book search has no results for that exact term. A separate article may not be justified. Edison (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to move it under "Possible causes", but I think that Costa_Concordia_disaster#Possible_causes should not be under "Media Reaction". Not unless listing possible causes to the disaster is primarily a "media" function.
So I intend to move the Costa_Concordia_disaster#Possible_causes section out from under the "Reactions" heading. --Uncle Ed (talk)

Updated: Costa news release pages

Here is a listing of the Costa Cruises news release pages about the Concordia, by language. The non-English languages are posted to assist with Wikipedia work on other language Wikipedias.

There doesn't seem to be a central list (like on a Costa-dedicated corporate site) but there are various versions in different languages. The news releases are available in English, Italian, Spanish, French, German, and Portuguese. Other regions may have websites in other languages, but the accident news release pages are in English. There are various versions, with some differing information (contact phone numbers) corresponding to different regions. Some page versions do not list phone numbers. As time passes there may be a possibility that some pages won't update, or will update later than others.

English:

German:

French:

Italian:

Portuguese:

Spanish:

Non-English pages using English news releases, but can also be used as links in respective non-English Wikipedias:

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

class information from Carnvial Splendour fire

This article gives some details of the construction and layout of Carnival Splendour, a sister ship to Costa Concordia. Might be some material that can usefully be incorported into this article. Mjroots (talk) 07:27, 21 January 2012‎ (UTC)

Alarbus' unilateral migration to list-defined refs

On January 24, Alarbus (talk · contribs) unilaterally changed the citation style from the in-text defined style to the list-defined style, in violation of WP:CITEVAR. The most exasperating part of this style is that if a listed reference is not used or removed within the article, an error will display. I have changed it back to the previous style and ask Alarbus to refrain from unilateral style changes. Goodvac (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Costa-barrier.svg

While informative, this picture is not very realistic when it comes to the shape of the underwater hull — the bottom of the ship should be more flat. It would be good if this was fixed at some point. Could someone look for a photograph of the Costa Concordia or one of her sister ships at the shipyard, and perhaps contact the author of the original picture? Tupsumato (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I've asked the uploader to comment here. Goodvac (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I created the file as an SVG replica of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Costa-barrier.jpg, and unfortunately I have no information other than that supplied by the original uploader. I have alerted him to this discussion. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Here is a photograph of Costa Favolosa, a sister ship of Costa Concordia. As you can see, the hull is much more rectangular. A good example of a cruise ship hull cross section, although not from this ship, can be found here. Tupsumato (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The picture has been improved now. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
About the original image, please see: US Today Travel (click image of wreck for enlargement). I chose this image because the position of the ship in the water seemed right and it was easy to reproduce in Photoshop. I like the new version, but I can't tell if it is realistic. Soerfm (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC) (author of Costa-barrier.jpg)
The size and position of the ship in the new version are the same as in your original version, and the ship artwork is based on the source quoted (BBC News), so it's probably the best we're going to get for the moment. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks better! If you still want to improve it, there's no "blob" in the bottom as the bulbous bow does not extend below the baseline. Tupsumato (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Smit

Smit's webpage on Costa Concordia can be found here. Plenty more hard facts to add to the article. Mjroots (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Cazzo

The Italian word cazzo does not mean "damn" or "damn it" in English. "Damn" in Italian is maledetto. The precise translation of cazzo is "cock" or "dick". In the sense that De Falco used it, the closest translation to English would be "fuck" as in "get the fuck back on board"or "get back on board for fuck's sake".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

For a more academic discussion of this, which agrees with the above, see "Language and emotion on the Costa Concordia" by Bob Ladd, a guest post on Language Log, a widely read blog about linguistics. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that the slang Italian word cazzo literally means cock or dick in the vernacular, I would suggest that "Get back on board, dickhead" would be a more eloquent and perhaps accurate translation, certainly from a European English viewpoint. It scans better too. Ant501UK (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

While "dickhead" has its charms, I suggest "fuckup" as the appropriate single English word in this context. It retains the correct "fuck" base while adding the appropriate personal insult factor. From the Urban Dictionary: "Fuckup - An extreme disappointment, someone who continually makes foolish mistakes and doesn't learn". This is the sentiment that De Falco was in fact expressing with his single Italian word. In contrast, the shade of meaning behind "dickhead" is nowhere near as insulting: "a person who is an idiot and shows it all too well". rickyjames (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Academically I find the difficulties of translating emotion and slang very interesting. But also speaking academically a dispassionate reference such as an encyclopedia is only going to say De Falco “swore” or “expressed his anger”. So I think we should let this section retire. PhaseBreak (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I see, from the indentation and the content of their responses, that Ant501UK, rickyjames, and PhaseBreak appear not to have read the expert opinion I sourced, above. The literal meaning of words does not guarantee an adequate translation, especially in matters of emotion such as swearing. Our article on Italian profanity is indicative but not comprehensive. Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. (See Identifying reliable sources: "...self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth....") And I do not understand what is meant by "an impassioned reference such as an encyclopedia". I prefer my reference sources to be as dispassionate as possible, unless they are making an impassioned plea against internet censorship. Inasmuch as the expression "Vada a bordo, cazzo!" is worthy of inclusion in this article, it deserves to be translated for the convenience of our readers. And inasmuch as it needs to be translated, we owe them a duty to provide the best translation possible. I suggest this is accomplished by consulting the expert linguist (linguist: someone who studies how language functions -- not just a speaker of multiple languages) whose piece I sourced above. I will quote from Bob Ladd, above, for those unable to click through. Dr Ladd is professor emiritus emeritus of linguistics at the University of Edinburgh (source)
I know you really want to know about those swear words. The one that comes up repeatedly in the phone call is cazzo, which is probably the most common taboo word for "penis". In its literal meaning, a good English translation is probably prick. But it's widely used for generalized swearing, to mean something like For God's sake! or Bloody hell! In one of the most quoted parts of the conversation (you can already buy a T-shirt with this phrase on it), De Falco says Vada a bordo, cazzo! In one of the English translations of the transcript, this is rendered as Go on board, (expletive)! But De Falco is not saying Go on board, you prick!, as that translation might suggest. A much more natural way to render what he says would be Get the fuck on board!
I will make the change accordingly. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
This is an extraordinary page and it is good to see how so many people are exercised by the subject. In view of the contributions by BrainyBabe and De Falco's pause before the word cazzo was uttered I withdraw my suggestion for Get back on board, dickhead! and agree that the word cazzo was a sole expletive prompted by exasperation. One observation I would add is that we can be thankful the disaster did not happen in an area near Spain, given that Spanish swearing can be shockingly graphic, with its references to excretion, parentage and sacrilege, often in bizarre permutations. But I digress. Ant501UK (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Typo corrected. PhaseBreak (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

PhaseBreak, I take it you mean "typo corrected" to refer to your change of "an impassioned" for "a dispassionate". First of all, that is not a typo. A typographical error, according to our article, is "a mistake made in ... the typing process. ...Most typos involve simple duplication, omission, transposition, or substitution of a small number of characters." Instead, you appear to have made a written version of a speech error, confusing two near antonyms. My use of "emiritus" was a genuine typo; I corrected it to "emeritus" by using strikethrough. The Wikipedia guidelines on these matters state, "It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already ... responded to your statement." I had so responded, and now that sentence of mine looks like it is challenging something that is not there. The guidelines go on to request that if you do absolutely need to make a change to your own talkpage contribution, to do so in a way that leaves your original comment comprehensible, which strikethrough does. Also, please describe the changes you make in each edit summary. BrainyBabe (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The readers come to subject articles for subject information not writing lessons. A badly written article with substance will get more readers than a well written one that is hollow. On this site that subject information is volunteered and the substantial effort to gather and produce it represents all the time the volunteers are willing to donate. Nit picking with them dissuades and drives them away, then no readers come and the writing lessons become irrelevant. Ergo it is important to keep the writing perspective smaller than the subject perspective, substantially smaller.

I’ve already had a technical article’s facts distorted by a “copy editor”, the distortion is what the public has read for a year because I can’t justify donating the time to write it again in order to correct the damage while preserving valid newer edits.

I politely said 25 lines ago that this section should retire, that still stands. It is not relevant to what will stay in the article. PhaseBreak (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

PhaseBreak, please begin your response with colons, so that the conversation threads correctly, as per these guidelines on indentation. I agree that "readers come to subject articles for subject information" and I think the article provides reasonably good information. The readers of the mainspace article are indeed unlikely to look there for writing advice, but editors who are writing and improving a global encyclopedia -- such as you and I are -- will come to the talkpages, and there the discussion of writing style (amid many other things) is highly relevant, both to provide the best service to our readers, and also to help raise the level of interaction within Wikipedia itself. As for "no readers com[ing]", I don't see any signs of WP's readership diminishing. You say "this section should retire". I take it you are referring to [media section of the article]. I disagree. If you are referring to the paragraph starting "As a protest against...", I still disagree. The force with which the harbourmaster's phrase has struck the Italian psyche has been mentioned in the British press. If we mention it, we translate it. If we translate it, we do so to the best of our ability, which means drawing on expert opinion. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest you need to listen to the audio original rather reading a transcript. The pause before "Cazzo!" is noticeable, so De Falco is definitely not referring to the captain as a dickhead or similar. Also note that the "vada a bordo" is a more polite and formal form than "get the fuck on board" would suggest. Overall, I'd go with "[Sir, ] get back on board. Fuck!" or "... , for fuck's sake.".

Who is the "I" and who is the "you" in this unsigned, unindented comment? Dr Ladd refers to the "lei" angle. Jeanne Boleyn proposed "get back on board for fuck's sake" at the beginning of this entire talkpage section. For anyone interested in the linguistics of the exchange, I refer you to our Language Reference Desk, which has an open question ("The Port Authority's Exact Words") on this now. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The "I" is an anonymous bilingual person of dual Italian/British nationality, who has coincidentally travelled on the Concordia twice, most recently late in 2011. The "you" would be "one" in more formal, older English. It is not my intention to imply that people who are not fluent in both English and Italian or who have not heard the recording of the conversation should not be commenting here. However, anyone commenting who does understand spoken Italian should listen the recording in preference to trusting any transcript. As for indentation, it would be silly if ALL comments were indented. Are you suggesting there is sort of pecking order I should be aware of in terms of who is allowed to comment at what level of indentation? 82.45.202.234 (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

BrainyBabe, there a hundreds of things that are “true” about producing this site. That doesn’t mean that there is volunteer time to obey all of them. PhaseBreak (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Volunteers are free to use their time as they wish. The point of guidelines is to make the experience of editing as smooth as possible. If all editors followed the guidelines, there would be a lot less wasted time, ambiguity, confusion, bad feelings, misunderstandings, reversions, and mess, in my experience. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The point of guidelines may be to help but the reality is that they are so big as to also be a hindrance. And while you may find they help in your experience, do understand that they do not always do so in the experience of others. More importantly recognize that they therefore should not be persistently pushed on others. PhaseBreak (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
PhaseBreak, please do not continue to propose a rogue non-standard for WP writing. As you know, I appreciate the observations you make on facts but you are wrong in challeging the WP contributors who help Articles conform to WP requirements. Yes, there "is not time" at the beginning of a current event for those with techniocal expertise about the topic, such as you and I in this case, to submit our contributions in total conformity to WP but I certainly appreciate the work of those who soon then help with formatting, footnotes, and advice re the WP Article standards. Please join me in that appreciation and cooperation.SteveO1951 (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I've listened to the recorded phone conversation, I've read the discussion and I've changed the english translation in "for fuck's sake!". While "cazzo" correctly means dick or cock in italian, in this case is used as an exclamation or an insert (Italian people often use different genitalia words in their slang and dialects to mean something amazingly good or bad). In this case, "for fuck's sake" could be a good translation, along with just "shit!" or "damnit!". I absolutely do not agree with "dickhead" since that one is widely know in italian as "testa di cazzo" referred to Schettino personally and not to the issue, like the tone and the small pause in the audio suggests. --Pascalbrax (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

And it has been changed back, not by me, to Dr Ladd's preferred translation, "Get the fuck on board!" We need to stick with the highest standard we have. I contend that that is the essay-length discussion by the professor of linguistics. By all means, please source other expert opinion. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I see the article is using the incorrect dammit for cazzo when numerous translations have said the closest English translation is for fuck's sake. Dammit in Italian would be rendered as maledetto or maledizione. Cazzo is a much styroner sxpletive than dammit.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, unless we're really worried about readers who follow a link from Vada a bordo, cazzo then it's not a big deal. But as someone who spent 5 years in the army and is therefore qualified to "swear like a trooper" I gotta go with "Get the fuck back on board" as my number one choice. I listened to the Italian-language conversation, and that translation seemed to convey the emotion better than "Get back on board, dammit!"
Second best is "Get back on board, dickhead." But either one is a good English translation of what a fluent Italian speaker, who is in a military-type organization, would say in an emergency situation of this sort. --Uncle Ed (talk) 06:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
"Dickhead" translated into Italian is testo di cazzo not just cazzo by itself. A good example of the context in which vada a bordo, cazzo was used would be the dialogue in the film In the Name of the Father (starring Daniel Day Lewis). At the beginning of the film, the protagonist Gerry Conlon is up on a roof in Belfast robbing slates and tossing them down into an empty pram. Conlon's friend (worried that the locsl IRA might catch them and give them a kneecapping) shouts to Conlon: "Gerry, get down, for fuck's sake!"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Translate as literally 'cazzo' or 'expletive': After thinking about this for several days, I have decided the proper translation should be, "Get on board, cazzo [or expletive]!" with no attempt to mind-read the coastal officer's intention of what he would have said in American English or British English or Indian English or Swiss English (etc.), if he had spoken those languages instead. As a reverse analogy, if someone had said, "Quit it, bull!" then I would think the word "bull" should not be translated into "el toro" or "damn it" or the equivalent of "male bovine" or "cattle feces" or "for defecation's sake" or any such attempt to read the speaker's mind. Instead, the word "bull" should be left in the translation, or replaced with "[expletive] (with an explanatory footnote of why "bull" cannot be translated to a specific word in that case). Similarly, the single word "cazzo" should be left untranslated or replaced with "[expletive]". If there had been a longer phrase including the word "cazzo" then perhaps a more specific translation could have been made. However, to claim a coastal officer in Italy actually said the equivalent of "the f*ck" when he said "cazzo" or "bull" would just be putting words in someone else's mouth. This is not just an issue of translating Italian language alone, but instead, there is also the issue of translating into appropriate vulgar English, depending on regional dialects. The most appropriate wording is just simply: cazzo or expletive, with no attempt to slant the meaning. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The current plight of the Costa Concordia raises a comment made by Churchill. After his retirement he was cruising the Mediterranean on an Italian cruise liner and some Italian journalists asked why an ex British Prime Minister should chose an Italian ship. “There are three things I like about being on an Italian cruise ship” said Churchill. “First their cuisine is unsurpassed. Second their service is superb. And then, in time of emergency, there is none of this nonsense about women and children first”.--213.214.12.102 (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
At the end of the day, of course, we have to go with what the sources say. Having said that, I've read that, in the original Italian, there was a pause before the word cazzo, so I've wondered whether a better translation would be, using punctuation to make the pause apparent, "Get back on board! For fuck's sake!" or, "Get back on board ... for fuck's sake!"     ←   ZScarpia   12:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikid77, what you propose is not a standard translation technique. ZScarpia, have you read the views of the expert, sourced above? Anon, please could you limit contributions to those that help advance the discussion. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Summary from AP

Here is a good applet from the Associated Press that provides a clear summary of the incident and everything surrounding it, but I'm not sure if it's any use. Goodvac (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Goodvac, for being on the alert BUT that AP page is a disservice to humanity. It's all wrong. It shows the ship approaching from a direction south southwest, which we know is wrong in that the AIS track shows the ship approaching from roughly east-southeast. And the AP piece shows the vessel moving directly to Punta Gabbarana (sp?) without ever having gone north of that grounding point or having made any turnabout prior to grounding. AP ought be ashamed.SteveO1951 (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Wow you feel very strongly about this.
I'm not familiar with the exact route of the ship, so sorry for bringing up something containing inaccuracies. Goodvac (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Please don't be sorry. You bring up many good ideas and do great work, both here and in the Article. My dismissive tone was aimed purely at the AP article, not you. --SteveO1951 (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Steve. :) Goodvac (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Goodvac, Selery, etc, what do you think of including info from this summary. http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/20/graphic-the-final-moments-of-the-costa-concordia/ It seems credible at least as to higher-level facts such as that the ship lost propulsive power immediately after hitting the reef.SteveO1951 (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

"Shipwreck" section and reconstruction video

This Talk Section is intended to supersede the "Le Scole" Talk section, which has reached a final point of active discussion. The Le Scole matter is in the Shipwreck section of the Article and that Shipwreck section needs its own area for discussion. The title of this Talk section will make it easy for editors to find all discussions about that Article section.SteveO1951 (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I want to ask about the very much related and fascinating .WMV format screencast video which someone added to the external videos in the evacuation/rescue section, and which is the most detailed representation of the ship's last hours afloat I've seen yet. Does anyone know its source? The filename suggests a Netherlands news agency. The turn at the northernmost point looks particularly incredible to me. Is that kind of maneuver even possible? Selery (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I guess this conversation belongs in #ship's track. It certainly is a good show re granularity of movement and ship's angle. Unfortunately, we have no idea if it is any better than any of the many "how it happened" videos out there. WP entries don't need to be true, just published, but in addition to attribution, I'd like to wait until we get the black box data and then we'll have a good source. Note that this video has the ship turn to starboard at its furthest north, whereas most other videos have it turn to port. Note also that we still don't have any footnotes for the narrative that Rich0908 inferred days ago.SteveO1951 (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Amazonaws.com seems to be a hosting service. The window heading is “Untitled - Bert - Qastor”. Qastor is a pilot’s harbour navigation & chart program offered by a Dutch company, “Quality Positioning Services” (QPS). One of the founders is Bert Jeeninga. As asked is the file his interpretation or did he get hold of the data? The turn in his visualization is plausible with bow and stern thrusters. PhaseBreak (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, days ago I researched whether she had thrusters but could not "see" or find reference to any.SteveO1951 (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The Article states, without any footnote, that the northern turn caused the ship to list to starboard. That implies that she turned to port. This is a major flaw in the Dutch video. Most videos still show a track far from Le Scole. Videos are all fluff until we get serious facts.SteveO1951 (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Bow thrusters seem to be universal but sorry, I didn’t mean the ability of stern thrusters to facilitate that maneuver to mean that Concordia actually has them, besides we still don’t know if the video is real. And in that regard I checked the vessel “Aegiuum” shown coming out of the port, it’s not on Google and not in MarineTraffic’s database which as we know saw the area that night. The word is however connected with some past geography in the area. ` But I just went to QPS’s site and find you have given us pay dirt!! They describe their WMV and PDF as being based on recorded AIS data. http://www.qps.nl/display/qastor/2012/01/17/20120117_stranding PhaseBreak (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Good research! It seems good that it is posted, especially given that we have had then "original research" course description in the article for a week without anyone being able to replace that with a good published description. The new video conflicts with the Article's statement that she listed to starboard because the water sloshed to starboard during a hard PORT turn. Hmmmmm. And this is an example of why it is good to state (for a while) the source in the Article and not just rely on the footnote. Whether we say "Dutch" firm reconstructed will be argued by some (guaranteed) but for now we have more important things to work onSteveO1951 (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This discussion "belongs" in #New Course Map but we don't want to fracture all our conversations. How do we combine the two?SteveO1951 (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn’t catch the concern over “Dutch” firm, what am I missing? As far as grouping, I was thinking of rearranging the order of the sections late at night. Then it would be easier to consolidated similar discussions and beat down the duplicate and expired material. PhaseBreak (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
"Reordering the sections"? I'm not sure what that means, PhaseBreak. I like your ideas and I take to heart your cautions (you were the first editor to suggest that the ship had been moving westerly just before the impact - I bought into that and it soon appeared you were right). Do you mean to rearrange the sections in the Article, keeping each section "as is". Brave fellow. I rearranged a bunch of things within a section (shipwreck) and it reads much better and more concise and orderly, but I think I stepped on some toes because I mistakenly mixed up some formatting or some such. My skill is in maritime navigation, not WP coding, so I am grateful to those who know WP formatting and processes. As to "Dutch", I am fine with it, for a while. Some editors think we need to be bare bones and never interlinate any "unnecessary" facts, like "Dutch". I think interlinated sources are useful as facts are emerging, and no clear consensus yet, as in the matter of the ship's track "post Le Scole". I also know that within a week all those interlinations will have served out their usefulness.SteveO1951 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC).
Thank you! I just meant rearranging the talk sections by moving each one intact above or below the others until similar ones were neighbours. And my skills are engineering too, not losing time wading through the formatting limits of guidelines. PhaseBreak (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Now, now. Be civil to the formatters. They are dedicated and provide valuable service. Yes these Talk sections don't relate well to the Article sections so it is hard to find to appropriate place to talk about what is going on in a given section of the article. For example, we have a #ship-track section in Talk but everyone discusses the track in the "Shipwreck" section. Very odd, that. Apparently, you and I are not the ones to know the tradition on how to clean up the Talk section. Please, HELLO THERE, anyone with some Wiki skills and tradition (and we DO respect your talent and dedication) how do we make these Talk sections relate to the Article sections? Please respond, else I shall be constrained to loose PhaseBreak upon you! Thanks.SteveO1951 (talk)
Perhaps you should ask at the Wikipedia:Village pump (or Wikipedia:Help desk ?). Teofilo talk 05:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note that QPS have used interpolation to fill in some of the position gaps of the original movie. Note 'rotation' data is absent, so direction of the turn-on-the-spot may be a guess. Also looks like there's a version with collision alarms generated during the reconstruction. Is AIS transmission line-of-sight - would it have been cut by an intervening hill ? Do the black ⊗ markings above the waterline warn tugs of side-thrusters below ? There seem to be grilles visible in front of the exposed stabiliser fin, which corresponds to a black Cricket bat painted above the waterline. --195.137.93.171 (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the QPS detail is amazing, if true, and I wonder about it being able to show the angle of the ship from hard data. It also shows a starboard turn, which is not a 'fact' I see published elsewhere. Because the QPS showed the ship going so far north, and because I believe (can't say) that's based on hard data, I removed from the text the earlier "original research" that had said that the ship had gone north "1,000 metres" from the impact point. The text still has too much original research regarding the post-impact track.SteveO1951 (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Having been on the ship for two cruises, I'd say it almost certainly has multiple side thrusters. I've never seen it tugged, only take on pilots on approach to various ports. I'm pretty sure the markings correspond directly to the positions of the thrusters, as speculated above.139.149.31.232 (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean that he admitted turning off the course alarm system in violation of the rules? "ho ritardato l'allarme Il giallo della strumentazione fuori uso"? http://www.corriere.it/cronache/12_gennaio_22/sarzanini-verbali-schettino_3bcfca5a-44cb-11e1-b12c-223272f476c4.shtml SteveO1951 (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Editor AnomieBOT has inserted a [why?] tag into the text that the captain admitted to turning off the alarm system. That insertion is not appropriate. An editor's curiosity about "secondary causes", or any other facts, is not a cause to "discuss" that in the article text. AnomieBOT should have come here to Talk. There are no reported sources as to why but one might surmize that he turned it off so that it didn't blast in his ears for an hour. AnomieBOT is free to seek some source but not to deface the article when the article states relevant facts that have been reported. To help foster proper discussion, I have come here before I, fairly soon, delete the [why?] tag.SteveO1951 (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

My own appology to AnomieBOT. It was not the bot but rather editor Rms125a@hotmail.com who has inserted the [why?] in the article rather than come to Talk with a research request. The bot merely dated Rms125a@hotmail.com's insertion, which insertion I have removed.SteveO1951 (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Because the head of the coast guard has now stated that the "turn" to the south might have been solely the drifting of the ship, not any result of steering, and because all reports say she had no propulsive power, I have "neutralized" all references that the direction of travel was "toward the harbour", as that implies control and volition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveO1951 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"Possible Causes" Section

Not, so far as I can see, currently given in the article as a possible cause for the collision is that the captain left it too late to execute the turn which headed the ship along the coast of Giglio. This Telegraph article quotes the captain as having said: "I was navigating by sight because I knew the depths well and I had done this manoeuvre three or four times. But this time I ordered the turn too late and I ended up in water that was too shallow." Higher up, the (newspaper) article states that the reef was well marked. There is an ambiguity there which would perhaps be worth looking into, well marked meaning that the reef could have been marked by buoys as well as being shown clearly on charts. If the reef was marked by buoys, it would compound the culpability for the collision.     ←   ZScarpia   16:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC) (Clarified that it is the Telegraph article that says the reef is well marked: 20:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC))

This new Possible Causes section has far too many speculations (long since abandoned) that do not apply in this incident. Please trim it or rip it. The matter is covered in Shipwreck and any edits should go there, not in a separate section riddled with old theories. Also, I am not aware that any part of the Article says that the reef is "well marked"; it states that it is charted, which is different. Marked means that there is an "aid to navigation" visible to the eye on or near a hazard. The charts show no aids to navigation and none has been alleged by any published source.SteveO1951 (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
[1] What is the dotted circle south of the red push-pin - a marker-buoy ?
Google Images [nautical chart symbols] suggests 'obstruction, depth unknown' !
That's a very indistinct marking for a rather important feature ! I could almost forgive the captain for overlooking it and claiming a 'rock not marked on the chart' ! It's probably not there now anyway.
Anyone wanting to learn how to read a nautical chart should start with NOAA Chart 1, which is not a chart at all but rather defines all the features of a chart and what they mean. http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/mcd/chartno1.htm That said, I can help by telling you that the little dotted circle is an indication that the water at that spot is shallower than surrounding water but is not a rock. And finally, none of this matters: if you read the Article, and the footnotes about the impact point, you can find that police divers photographed the point of impact, a subsurface rock, within Le Scole reef, known as Scole Piccola. It has nothing to do with the circle of shallower water. I hope this helps.SteveO1951 (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - it's 35 years since I was a Sea Scout ! Looks like it would have been blue inside if it were a 'danger line'. They may not have been expecting the Concordia when risk assessing it, though ! I did see an impressive photo of a serpentine steel strip yesterday, but I didn't see its location. I'm sure the rock embedded in the hull must have left some useful traces, too.--195.137.93.171 (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Some charts list depth at that obstruction as 9.8 (metres). (Ignore the route!). That's plenty : draught = 8.2m! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, draught 8.2m + squat effect = draught <9.8m = shipwreck (just a theory, but plausible). Mjroots (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The measurements I wrote into the Article re depth of the impact point, and the measurements I wrote re the strips being 92 and 96 metres from shore, were taken directly from the cited news source as being measurements taken by divers from the Genoa Police department, who also took the photographs later published. I cannot be sure whether they meant that the top of the rock was at that depth; perhaps the rock was exposed. And as to the vessel's draft, she was already in a hard-a-starboard turn when she hit, which would have lowered the port side from tthe normal draft. I was careful tot to infer too much and so stayed very close to the text of the published article.--SteveO1951 (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
While I'm here, people claim the final southward leg may have been drifting with the current. Watch the Webcam Timelapse Video. Note the tendency for vessels with no wake to drift north all day - the Mediterranean is not significantly tidal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.93.171 (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The point I was making is that the captain himself was quoted as saying that he left the turn too late and ended up in shallow water, which seems like an important point which I can't see currently mentioned in the article. So, it was an error which the captain himself supposedly admitted, not speculation.     ←   ZScarpia   20:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The Article states the best possible evidence for where "the captain ended up" and that is that the divers photographed huge strips of ship's hull at Scole Piccola (see my post above explaining about nautical charts). Yes, the captain says "I turned too late" but he never used the words "into shallow water" or the Italian equivalent. Some editors argue that we ought not put in what the captain "said" or what the company "said" but rather only put in what happened according to consensus publications. As is, the Article does presently give some names to statements, because that is part of the story. Later, a year from now, I believe the article will not have all this detail about who said what but rather will state that the captain was sailing without the computer navigation system and failed to turn in time and struck the reef.SteveO1951 (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I found the longer quotation and put it in. "Someday" all this detail will not be necessary but so long as this section has outdated, misleading, "not well written" (I am trying to be polite) statements on Possible Causes, then I will continue to have to counterbalance that by the great mass of current, undisputed published evidence that there is only one cause - the Captain erred in steering the route he intended.SteveO1951 (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have disputed this section of the Article because, at least, it twice uses the words "not yet" in respect of surmized causes not having been ruled out. Although those old sources might have used those words (as of the publication date), it is highly misleading to have them in the Article text after the facts are much more clear. The captain has admitted that he was sailing solely by sight and turned too late. End of story. There was no other cause for the initial impact and no current publication or source is saying that any other cause exists. Also this section asserts misleadingly that the ship "went slightly closer to Giglio" on 14 August; well, in a certain sense that cannot be true (!) and the ship did not on that day go closer to Le Scole but rather went close to a cliff (Punta Gabbianara) having no extending reef, and it was in daylight and the ship was then using its computer controlled steering. This is bad, outdated, misleading text.SteveO1951 (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC) And BTW, the fact that she sailed close on 14 august is entirely irrelevant to the cause of this incident. It may be true but it is misleading as stated by this old story.SteveO1951 (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It was unfortunate that I used the subsection title that I used here, which I did because it was the title of the section of the article that looked most relevant to the information that I thought was worthwhile including. I think, too, that it's time to move on beyond talking about possible causes. Sources have supplied reasons why the ship was where it was and we know what it hit. Perhaps the greatest unknown now is what the watch crew were up to.     ←   ZScarpia   13:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
ZScarpia, its not unfortunate that you named this Talk section after the Article section. It's important. I don't like the "Possible Causes" section at all. I have posted in Talk and on Nanobliss' user page some supportive but clear comments, asking for discretion. He seems to be a Newbie and we welcome that but I am trying to lead him to post here in Talk and so your section here is important. Philosophers and lawyers have complex language to discuss the endless levels of "causation" and so of course, for every event, there is no one "cause". If the captain "turned too late", perhaps it was because he was not on the bridge, because he was having wine at dinner, because he has a drinking problem, because he has some personal problems, because ... because... because... We can write a 1000 pages of "Possible Causes" but what has been placed in the Article are just "possible causes" for any cruise ship and mentioning causes for other grounding, or potential grounding, events. Nanobliss changed some of the most aggregious text but I still don't think the topic deserves the misleading and expansive treatments it has. That general exposition does not belong in this Article. It ought, at least, be removed to a separate article about cruise ship groundings.SteveO1951 (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of us may have strong feelings about this. I'm a former military man, so I have ideas about safety and responsibility. I'll try to be sufficiently dispassionate here, so as not to violate NPOV, but:

  • There is an issue about the captain's (alleged?) decision to bring the ship close to the place where the ship hit the rock.
  • Leaving aside questions about the source of the order (captain was told to do this by on-shore superiors? Decided on his own, as homage to a crew member or a favor to a local small-town mayor?) ...
  • The point is that the decision seems to have been the proximate cause of the disaster.

If there's agreement on the part of us contributors, then perhaps we can move up the near-shore salute aspect. Perhaps something like this:

After this, we might address the issue of whether it was authorized, introducing such ideas as:

  1. The captain said he was ordered to do it (that's one report I read, but I forget to keep the source)
  2. The captain said he chose to do it
    • Then we have to write about the "discretion" issue: do ship captains frequently do this? Is it tolerated, frowned on, or what?
  3. The captain denied doing it in this case (not sure this applies, since he said, "I had done this manoeuvre three or four times. But this time I ordered the turn too late ..."

Anyone want to help with this? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Info is coming out to answer your questions. "Executives were told there were problems on board fully 68 minutes before the order to abandon ship was given but Captain Francesco Schettino does not appear to have been urged to announce the emergency straight away." http://www.corriere.it/english/12_gennaio_19/costa-under-investigation_e236cbae-429c-11e1-8207-8bde7a1445db.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveO1951 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
A possible problem with the argument made in the article is that the authority for ordering an evacuation was probably solely the captain's.     ←   ZScarpia   13:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Any "causes" section should be based in recent, detailed investigation tracks such as is reported here http://www.corriere.it/english/12_gennaio_24/costa-concordia_c0f1d44e-4692-11e1-90ee-63dee1b6b376.shtml I encourage that. And then we ought remove all of the pure guesswork reported early. We've written in the "proximate cause" for the initial impact, as editor Ed Poor calls it, and there is going to be room, as stated in the Corriere news article, for other inquiries into causation for delay, and bad training, and other factors that exacerbated the effect of the initial hit. I am fine with that. What I object to is the lack of editorial discretion in including "causes" that have no basis other than early speculation, such as the Article's discussion of ships that have hit uncharted reefs, or had power outages as initial trouble. We might just as well discuss as "possible causes" that the ship did not hit another ship, as with the Andrea Doria and the Republic; or write that it "could have" struck a whale or been caught by a water spout or squall, or been bombed by terrorists, or rusted apart, then "dutifully" writing that none of those has "as yet" been disproven. I hope that real facts about real (and curent)inquiries into the various levels of causes will replace this "Possible Causes" curent low-quality, distracting content.SteveO1951 (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The English-Language translations that Corriere della Sera newspaper does are GREAT daily sources for cuurrent, credible info. Visit it to mine for good info for sections you are editing. here's today's http://www.corriere.it/english/12_gennaio_19/costa-under-investigation_e236cbae-429c-11e1-8207-8bde7a1445db.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveO1951 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I found the following article, Crew Mutinied on Behalf of Passengers, interesting for the detail about the location of the chief-steward's parents' home, the phonecalls made to and by Captain Palombo and timings.     ←   ZScarpia   13:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we use and cite that article for much of the detail as to the impact point. I enjoy some of the irony that the m'aitre d's house is that closest to the reef but it's tangential at best. As is the interesting story that one of the survivors is a granddaughter of a Titanic survivor.SteveO1951 (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course, the location of the house may be a reason why the ship was so close in shore at that point of the island. Unfortunately, from the point of view of writing the article, though, that isn't a question that any of the sources, at least, any of the ones that I have read, have asked.     ←   ZScarpia   01:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
We can insert whatever has been published, but discretion and balance is called for. For example, we know that although the Article correctly has the captain on the phone with Colombo at the time of impact, we leave out the part where Colombo responds "but I'm not on the island!". It's an interesting minor fact but not relevant to the scope of the article. In fact, Colombo has said of Schettino "

Commodore Palombo, the ship’s former skipper, described Schettino as a daredevil. He said: “I’ve always had my reservations about Schettino. It’s true that he was my second in command, but he was too exuberant. He was a daredevil. More than once I had to put him in his place.” That, too, is interesting but, in jursprudential terms, merely character evidence and not tied to THIS matter by someone who has real knowledge of the facts of THIS matter. So, it's not used. We can all bear in mind these things in case they do become more relevant. SteveO1951 (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Editor Albertowiki has added a few paragraphs to the Article. I suspect he is italian, as the English he uses is not "native" and he cites an italian language source. It's good for us to have the participattion of Italian speaking editors but I question whether some of the new material is at all accurate. I particularly note that the info about the captain having dropped one or more anchors was later admitted by the captain as being his lie. In any case, the overall style of the new material would need exptensive cleanup. Is it WP policy to cite Italian language sources for English language articles?SteveO1951 (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link: WP:NOENG. Cheers. HausTalk 21:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Haus. The new material's style was conversational, speculative etc, so I needed to remove it. I took the essential point, that we now have a clear disagreement from people "in high places" whether the captain did indeed steer the ship to the final grounding point. I put it in "Shipwreck", where we lay out reported track of the vessel and her condition before final grounding. I had been on the watch for something like this because we've already stated that the vessel had no propulsive power, so one could infer that the Captain is over-optimistic in saying the he did, or even could, steer the ship to that precise spot. Perhaps he did but I did not want to address that point until, as now, we have at least some sources "joined" on the issue. Because I cannot translate the Italian in the news article, I had to cut the part about anchors until someone can help translate (or we find an English news source for this).SteveO1951 (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

TITANIC comparison

On Russhian Wikipedia admins do not allow me to add Titanic comparision on pages about Costa Concordia. They say that there are no Autorised Sources between Titaniс and Concordia.... Why?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.43.185.15 (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a subject for discussion among the ru wiki community. If you can find quality Russian sources, say so there. But even then, the consensus might be that it's not worthy material for inclusion in the article. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of balance, and clarity, I have added a sentence (with cite) that there is no law "requiring" discrimination against men in favor of women and children. For all I know, a "women and children first" policy is probably illegal, but I'm not an E.U. human rights expert, so I cannot comment beyond the citation I used. I prefer that this entire discussion of any supposed priority or comparison be deleted as being irrelevant and far too vast a topic to be given imbalanced prominence in a few sentences.SteveO1951 (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is an article that discusses the idea vis-a-vis SOLAS. Cheers. HausTalk 22:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks,#Haus for a great reference. Rather than overburden the Article with more text, I have changed the reference to yours, which is more expansive on this point.SteveO1951 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Port list; starboard list

Has there been any responsible speculation on how the port list became a starboard list, apparently after the 180-degree turn? Fotoguzzi (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no responsible reporting (none I have found) that she did list to port. At impact, she tilted hard to port from the impact, but that is not a "list". We don't have much good reporting as to the ship between collision and grounding. I believe that the ship might have been entirely adrift (no propulsive power) and that she drifted to the grounding spot. We have to wait and see. For now, the Article merely (and carefully) says "the ship turned toward the harbour". Perhaps even that is too much.SteveO1951 (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Curious: intuitively, you'd expect the port-side collision with the rock to have caused the ship to have tilted to starboard initially, if anything, rather than port. It would be interesting to know how the hull was constructed in terms of the arrangement of metal sheets in order to get some idea how the water flooding in might have affected the ship's stability and degree of heel. Obviously, with such a square-shaped hull, the water would have the potential to very seriously affect the ship's stability if it could flow relatively freely and in large quantities. I'm off to do some ship construction research.     ←   ZScarpia   13:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the discussion. I have heard that these ships are very tall compared with their draft. I also assume that "computers" try to keep the ship on an even keel during any turn, such as the captain turning to the right (which he did "too late"). However, I then imagine the very lowest part of the ship hitting a rock during a turn, just as might a automobile hitting against a curb when taking a right turn far too wide. That would cause the auto to "tilt to the left", given the angular momentum of the mass and the off-center point of resistance (curb). So, I imagine the first effect was a tilt left. You add, I infer, that then the rock might lift up the left side of the ship. To compare again to the motorist, this is what would happen were the auto to "ride up" over the curb in its left side wheels. I see that as possible. We cannot know without massive engineering computer simulations taking into account parameter values we do not know, including speed, turn radius, rock-ship interaction etc. We have only two possible sources: the black boxes and clearly expressed witness statements. As of now, we have neither. I am as of now MUCH more interested to find any credible info re (1) whether the ship did indeed lose all propulsive power (she certainly was slowing down continually), (2) whether the ship then turned left and/or right in an attempt to slow its forward momentum, (3) how did it "turn around" (was this simply a factor of drifting with the current or was it from bow thrusters or was it the last use of the rudder?) (4) was anyone still attempting to steer her onto the ledge or was that just pure luck (if a ship is drifting with current the rudder has very little effect), (5) what was the vector (strength and set) of any current. We KNOW that dishes and furniture were flying during SOME early tilting but precisely when and in precisely what direction (port/starboard) is not yet known. I wonder why no black box info has been released. Is the prosecutor hiding things? Is this politics? Or just a careful prosecutor? We know that Italy has refused to give the IMO data on the fatal event 2-3 years ago. We might never learn.SteveO1951 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm ... if the ship was still turning when it hit the rock, they really did leave it late until starting the turn (assuming that they weren't performing a second turn or one back out to sea). Since writing my comment, I've looked again at the photographs (you can see into the machinery spaces through the gap) and read the quotes below about how the water flooded compartments. Through a gap that long and exposing the interior of the ship, huge amounts of water must have been flooding into the ship at a very fast rate and been able to flow from one side of the ship fairly freely.     ←   ZScarpia   13:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The preliminary inquiry transcript (gcaptain.com/grave-imprudence-and-incompetence-transcript-of-the-preliminary-court-inquiry-into-costa-concordia-disaster/?37904) has some good information in it. Not sure how to get around the fact that gcaptain.com is on the external link black-list. HausTalk 23:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
The bad news is that the Italian government has in the past, and continuing, refused its obligation to turn over reports on Costa to the IMO. The good news is that the Paris prosecutor doesn't trust the Italians and so is conducting its own inquiry. The US courts, if they agree to conduct a trial, will be a gold mine of info. This might all take years. Til then, we need to stick to Wiki policies. "The Movie" might be in the cinemas before the official report is out.SteveO1951 (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Although in modern cruise ships the stabilizers are probably used to minimize the heel during the turn, by default there are no "computers" trying to keep the ship on an even keel during a turn. Even those high floating blocks of flats are stable enough to survive violent maneouvres at high speeds without capsizing, although in extreme cases the heeling will be uncomfortable for the passengers and may result in injuries.
I have had a number of theories over the weeks, but since I haven't been able to follow the news closely enough, they are probably not correct as I'm missing some of the recent facts. However, I don't think the forces from the collision with the reef caused any noticeable change in the ship's attitude - I'm quite sure the local structures are not strong enough to transfer the loads before failing. Tupsumato (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You, Haus and Zscarpia, remind me that we can go to core info http://download.repubblica.it/pdf/2012/traduzione_ordinanza_grosseto.pdf and cite that for some detail, even though its hard to know how to "balance" the Article with such prelimary info it is "official", at least. I'll take a look. SteveO1951 (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The salient parts of the translation include "The impact with the reef caused the springing of a leak, with the water flooding the engine rooms and causing the electrical system of the engines to fail, leading to the blackout within the ship, which first veered on the port side, then began to ship water and list on the opposite side... and the flow of water into five compartments of the ship’s engine room. (Later) he ordered to drop the anchors and the ship, progressively increasing the tilt starboard, ran aground in the proximity of the coast of the island." I think prefacing that kind of info with something like "According to the preliminary court hearing..." would suffice to explain it. Cheers. HausTalk 02:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

On strike

Wikimood
[purge] [edit]

I have discovered today that the edit section links in this article have been changed into long urls which collect personal information. I have started a strike to protest against the collection of personal information through edit links. I won't edit articles with such URLs. Teofilo talk 17:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? For me, the edit link for the first section is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Costa_Concordia_disaster&action=edit&section=1, but maybe I don't see the extra parameters you apparently have because I disabled the Article Feedback Tool. Goodvac (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
To me the edit section link is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Costa_Concordia_disaster&action=edit&section=1&articleFeedbackv5_click_tracking=1&articleFeedbackv5_ct_token=Jztn6hK3E5mvFp878aCoYw8apdM9bmXBG1&articleFeedbackv5_ct_event=ext.articleFeedbackv5%400-option2-section_edit_link Teofilo talk 13:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Then disable the Article Feedback Tool (by checking "Don't show the Article feedback widget on pages" under Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering), like I did, and you'll be fine. :) Goodvac (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"oxygen [sic] tanks"

In this edit, SteveO1951 (talk · contribs) added [sic] to this quote: "We go down for 50 minutes at a time, with three oxygen [sic] tanks strapped to us, and leave one or two along the way in case we start to run out of air. If we're not back in that time, our back-up races to find us". Why is "sic" necessary? It seems perfectly correct to call them "oxygen tanks", unless there's a technicality I'm unaware of. Goodvac (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess the point is that the tanks are not filled with pure oxygen, but because it's a citation, it can not be changed to "air tanks" or something like that. Tupsumato (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Gents, "oxygen" tank is a common error when speaking about SCUBA diving. I am a PADI-certified rescue diver myself so I "know whereof I speak" and I see this error frequently. Pure "oxygen" would be deadly and is never used. See Decompression sickness and Decompression diving. The ref source is presumably an English translation of a statement by an Italian-speaking diver, so we cannot know whether the translation, or alternatively the diver, is in error, but one (or both) of them is. I let this error go for a long time and if good editors like you tell me the "sic" is too pedantic, we can remove it. We could also "complicate it" to explain it. In summary, at depths such as this wreck, normal compressed air would be used; at greater depths (perhaps 3 times or more the "20 metre" max of the Costa wreck) professional/military divers sometimes use "other than normal" gas mixtures to help prevent Decompression sickness but that injury is not a factor at shallow depths for 50 minutes dive duration, depending also in part on the frequency of dives. "Oxygen" is never used. SteveO1951 (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I think it's okay to leave the "sic" there, though the average reader without technical knowledge (like me :) wouldn't understand why it's there. Goodvac (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Updated 2: Costa news release pages

Senate hearing audio:

Here is a listing of the Costa Cruises news release pages about the Concordia, by language. The non-English languages are posted to assist with Wikipedia work on other language Wikipedias.

There doesn't seem to be a central list (like on a Costa-dedicated corporate site) but there are various versions in different languages. The news releases are available in English, Italian, Spanish, French, German, and Portuguese. Other regions may have websites in other languages, but the accident news release pages are in English. There are various versions, with some differing information (contact phone numbers) corresponding to different regions. Some page versions do not list phone numbers. As time passes there may be a possibility that some pages won't update, or will update later than others.

English:

German:

French:

Italian:

Portuguese:

Spanish:

Non-English pages using English news releases, but can also be used as links in respective non-English Wikipedias:

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

it:Naufragio della Costa Concordia

The folks over at the Italian Wikipedia have put together it:Naufragio della Costa Concordia, which has some good info we don't have. Perhaps we should look at their citations to expand our article. Goodvac (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea, but we need a good bilingual editor. Teofilo is still on strike, though you and I are trying to be supportive of him. "Alberto" has been trying to make changes to our Article but he is not a native English speaker and he doesn't understand Wiki style. I've been trying to contact him to see if he is an Italian who can help use with content translations. Italy is freezing and has another sex scandal, so the news is not focused on Costa just now.SteveO1951 (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, it:Naufragio della Costa Concordia is consistent with our Article's statements but is less detailed. Ours will be (properly) less detailed when the news has more certainty and so can remove some of our "maybe this / maybe that" structure and can reduce our "Captain at first said..." entries. I don't think we are able yet to do that major copy edit. I particularly like that the Italian WP article does not pretend to know the vessel track between Le Scole and the grounding point (see the Italian language graphic in it:Naufragio della Costa Concordia, which I prefer to our speculative graghic). Also of note, the Italian article has no timeline; our timeline has no references and seems speculative at many points; for example, it gives a time for the final grounding but our Article text still has the "citation needed" tag for that time. Who "created" the timeline box and from what sources?SteveO1951 (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I see that today editor Soerfm has removed the "Timeline" box. No regrets from me re that action.SteveO1951 (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Corporate Names

I have edited the Article for a needed clarification as to the ownership of Costa Cruises. It is not owned by "Carnival Group" as there exists no such entity or group. Please do not use "Carnival Group" as a proper noun; I saw "Carnival Group" in the Article as a WP link but that link redirects to a differently titled Article, as I explain below.

As WP would have me say, I am an expert in this field, having been for decades a corporate financial solicitor in both the British Commonwealth (the then-British-Crown-Colony of Hong Kong) and on "Wall Street". To prevent overburdening the Article, I have entered this material "late" in the Article but it must be stated and I have done so as concisely as I believe can be done, with citation to Carnival Corporation & plc (which is also an unfortunately vague Article title) and to the Carnival plc website.

I grant that WP is not a "reference" work to explain corporate structures but we do need to assure that our Article text is not materially misleading. In summary, Costa Cruises is jointly owned by Carnival Corporation (a Panamanian corporation listed on the NYSE and headquartered in Miami, Florida) and by Carnival plc, a Southampton-headquartered company listed on the LSE. The Corporation owns about 2/3 of each subsidiary and the plc owns the other 1/3. Carnival Corporation and Carnival plc have different stockholders and different stock prices and financial results. Accordingly, it is not correct to say that "Carnival Corporation" owns Costa Cruises. Neither is it correct to refer to a share price for Carnival Corporation and thereby invite the reader to infer that Carnival Corporation's share price is that of "the" owner of Costa Cruises. It is true that the chairman of Carnival Corporation owns about 40% of its stock, and that means that he gets quoted in the press, as is set forth in the Article.SteveO1951 (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Costa_Concordia_disaster/Archive_3&oldid=1073161953"