This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I think the current news notice needs to be added to this article. I would do it myself but I am not sure where to even begin looking for the right code Magnum Serpentine ( talk) 03:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Done -- RadioFan ( talk) 04:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Ship now showing on webcams as lying on her side. It is likely that she will be declared a total loss. Mjroots ( talk) 07:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Costa have issued a statement about the loss. Suggest that if this is used, a link via the Wayback machine or similar is provided. Mjroots ( talk) 08:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Following other precendent in wikipedia, it would be prudent to start a page Shipwreck of the Costa Concordia and redirect it back to here for now. Also, if the details of the shipwreck continue to expand, the content can be pasted in there (since this article is primarily about the boat, not the accident). ChrisUK ( talk) 10:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Goodvac ( talk) 20:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Note that [2] is a news radio agency report current within the hour and quotes the Governor of Grossetto saying the missing persons count is down to 41. Selery ( talk) 21:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
"before a lifeboat drill starting in Savona and visiting Marseille, Barcelona, Palma, Tunis, and Palermo." This makes it sound as if the drill lasted the whole time the ship traveled between these locations. If that's not what you meant, reword this. 4.249.201.74 ( talk) 22:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
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) 23:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm updating at Costa Concordia disaster because with 14,200 Google News hits already and the largest cruise liner grounding in history, I believe it merits its own article and the section in this one should be reduced to WP:SUMMARY style.
Here are some updates:
Selery ( talk) 01:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
"the largest ship ever to sink." -- USA Today Selery ( talk) 02:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Um, the article says that the ship hit an Israeli submarine... Ttow1944 ( talk) 02:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The Wikepedia description of the post-rock course seems impossible ["This reef was about 800 metres (870 yd) north of the entrance to the harbour of Giglio. The vessel continued for approximately another 1,000 metres (1,100 yd) until just north of the harbour entrance. The vessel then turned in an attempt to get close to the harbour."] How can the ship be 800 yds North, then go another 1000 North and still be "just North"? Perhaps the "reef" was the one 800 yds South (not North) of the harbour? There are rocks SOUTH of the harbor that could have been the impact point. This is the "reef" circled by Repubblica on its chart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.75.214 (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Because la Republica is reporting, as confirmed by the WSJ, that the impact rock is indeed the outcrop "Le scole", which is South of Giglio Porto, I have now entered that info into to main text of the article, with both citations. I have not yet "corrected" the article's assertion that "this reef was... north of...the harbour" Steve-O — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.75.214 ( talk)
I have now removed the sentence "This reef was about 800 metres (870 yd) north of the entrance to the harbour of Giglio." It had no direct footnote and the next footnote, presumably by the same editor, cited la Repubblica, a newspaper which, as I cited, states the the "reef" was "le scole" which is south, not north, of the harbour. With respect, I let stand that editor's other statements about post-reef maneuvering, which now make more sense. Time will tell and this will all be much more certain in a day or two.
So I get that the ship ran aground, but for all intents and purposes, she sank, and is now a wreck. If she had drifted into slightly deeper water, there would be nothing left to see. I think we can compare Concordia to MS Sea Diamond and consider changing the heading from Grounding to Sinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.43.253 ( talk) 16:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
There's a chart of Giglio here: (click on "(+) Visualizza la Tavola I.I.M.") The grounding area looks like it's marked as 6 fathoms (11 meters) but navigable (white) which generally means no reefs or rocks. Does anyone know whether she ran aground where she lies, or somewhere else? Selery ( talk) 17:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused, where does it say anything about fathoms in the link you provided?
The article distinctly said the reef was 800 m north and the vessel continued for another 1 km north of the harbour. What is this nonsense about the distance being 800 "yds" and 1000 "yds"? Why are you changing the quoted distances? Since it was officially measured in metres, leave it that way, otherwise you just corrupt the data. This is just plain ignorance.
Is it really necessary to point out it was Friday the 13th so explicitly? It seems rather sensationalist to flaunt superstition in this way. 67.163.102.158 ( talk) 19:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The Italy map was removed in this edit by Goodvac ( talk · contribs). I appreciate that there is a map of the port area showing where the ship came to grief, but the map I added showed the location of the wreck in relation to Italy. Should the map be reinstated or not? What do other editors think?
Both maps are worth including with the focus being on the one which shows the site in relation to Italy.-- RadioFan ( talk) 21:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Industry experts believe Costa will only be insured for 500 million dollars, which isn't enough to rebuild her. Total Loss?. -- Yankeesman312 ( talk) 17:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I posted a proposal on the use of Template:Current related with an example taken from this article. Comments welcome. DarTar ( talk) 17:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Why are there entries for draft and draught in the specs column? Are they not the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.168.160 ( talk) 02:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Who is going to do the technical investigation into the accident?
http://www.amem.at/pdf/AMEM_Marine_Accidents.pdf says it would be the "Commissione Centrale di Indagine sui Sinistri Marittimi" CCISM - At www.guardiacostiera.it Is this true?
We need to have a Wikipedia article on the authority who will do the technical investigation WhisperToMe ( talk) 18:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The 51k tons of displacement in the data table looks excessive to me. Wasn't the 250 meter long Bismarck circa 50k tons, clad in 33cm thick Wotan armour and wide as a pregnant hippo, with four massive and a dozen smaller gun turrets on top? There the windguards were probably thicker than the hull plating of the Costa. What could displace 51k tons of water on Costa, when the pre-fabricated cabins are mostly made of plaster and light metal frame and most of the interior space is indeed the empty space of atriums?
BTW, it would be interesting to know if a sturdier north atlantic ship, like the QE2 could have survived the same rock-scraping event? Reportedly the QE2 hull plating is 28mm steel, app. double of what's usual on Med-sea and Caribbean giant cruise ships. 82.131.210.163 ( talk) 12:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Marine Traffic site using AIS information reports that the ship was going at approximate 15.5knots. [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.151.21 ( talk) 00:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
There's a little flurry of activity turning descriptions of the ship's amenities into past tense, e.g. changing "has four swimming pools" to "had four swimming pools". I don't think this is appropriate yet. HiLo48 ( talk) 02:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
STOP WITH THE PAST TENSE SHE WAS NOT DELCARED A TOTAL LOSS YET! -- Yankeesman312 ( talk) 19:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Only present tense is appropriate. It still "has 1,500 cabins"! At some point it will be wrecked, at which point the tense should change. Don't go thinking anyone will salvage this boat by the way. It can't be "towed to dry dock and fixed". The superstructure is beyond repair. Even if it were possible no-one wants to cruise the med on a shipwreck! 94.101.120.73 ( talk) 21:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
This section has been removed twice now. As far as I can tell, the section is relevant, and three of the vessels mentioned are of direct relevance to this loss. I'm not sure that Express Samina is relevant, but will open that one up to discussion. If any editor has any strong opinions on those ships listed, or feels that there are better candidates for inclusion, please say so. The section should be kept as short as possible (say 4 max) as we can't list every shipwreck here. Mjroots ( talk) 08:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Did his ship have a proper citadel? A fully enclosed, thickly armoured box, that includes all critical machinery, bilge pumps, the central control room, comms, fuel for at least a few days, enough personnel to do drainage work, etc.?
If yes, was the citadel breached in the collision? I think it is rule that a ship must float for at least 24 hours if the citadel is intact, no matter how much the other spaces are flooded. 82.131.210.163 ( talk) 12:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
This was a 21st century ship, it is all about technology, but this is not technology of mass consumers. An expert of big modern ship should tell what kind of technology and systems are installed to prevent navigation accidents. Sonar (for detecting other ships or obstacles at the sea level), ECDIS (for submerged obstacles too?), AIS (transponder) (just telling the positin of the ship), GPS for knowing the position). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.80.201.13 ( talk) 19:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rvongher Selery ( talk) 21:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
It's highly relevant that the ship was holed. Water flowed in through the hole and due to the layout of bulkheads caused the ship to list to the opposite side.
(This para, and a few other additions, inserted later) Quoted text here is from an edit summary justifying deletion of "holed" from the article: 16:55, 22 January 2012 Steves615 "The problem with 'holed" is that it does not have meaning to non-British readers and only a handful of UK news articles describe the vessel as such. Hull damage can be inferred by listing/sinking after the grounding"
Are you sure, it seems obvious that "holed" means having a hole made in it? I've checked a few non-British dictionaries (all US I'm afraid, no others in my normal reference places). Hole as a verb appears in American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and Webster's 4th. Examples of non-British use: [6] [7] [8]. A Wikipedia article on a US warship stated that "One Japanese cruiser ... was holed twice".
If it's indeed a British-only term, I didn't know that and thought it was general maritime usage; what terms are used in other English-speaking areas? This point in no way justifies deleting the fact; it should be worded more appropriately. I can't do it as I don't know usage everywhere.
So what? It was holed, there are respectable references. As it happens there are non-British ones; I will add one. There are also pictures of a massive hole.
We're speaking of holing letting water in, not hull damage in general. That it can be inferred is not true: if a vessel capsizes, water may enter through apertures above the waterline (even without capsizing this can happen, but it's doubtful that water would have entered through gunports or portholes in this case!) Plausible scenario: ship grounds without damage, capsizes to lie on its side, water enters, ship is flooded and set to sink if water becomes deeper (tide, or slip into deeper water).
The hole is also relevant as the captain didn't tell the passengers about it (though the article doesn't mention this).
Pol098 ( talk) 00:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I assure you it is a UK thing. And by UK I mean UK, Australia, and New Zealand. Citing The Telegraph, a British news source, only proves that point.
The fact that a term is in a dictionary does not mean it universally appears in common usage. "Lorry" appears in the Merriam Webster dictionary, and I'm sure I could find an American article written about a lorry somewhere.
Besides the fact that most readers not from the UK/NZ/AUS look at the term "was holed" and are puzzled by exactly what it means, a primary reason for eliminating the phrase is brevity of the intro paragraph, and style. "Ran aground, was holed, and capsized" is a little more awkward than simply "ran aground and capsized", which by the way was the original wording of that passage. You are technically correct in adding that term, but there are many details of the crash that are also highly relevant that have been left out of that summary paragraph. Your argument is that "respectable news sources stated that xyz event occurred during this incident, therefore I'm justified putting the fact into this opening paragraph." There are a lot of details omitted from that paragraph for the sake of brevity. I could say, "the captain was seen drinking at the bar earlier in the evening, bullocksed the turn, the ship ran aground, hitting a rock, was holed, water filled the ship, and then capsized", though "ran aground and capsized" is not incorrect, and in the spirit of an introductory paragraph which only briefly touches on the accident, referring readers to the full costa concordia disaster article for further info, I think it does the job.
Finally, that term appears nowhere in the Costa Concordia Disaster article itself. The intro paragraph for that article simply says "partially sank... after hitting a reef... and running aground". I don't think anyone reading that article would be confused as to why the ship started sinking after hitting a reef.
The original wording of that article did not include the term ",was holed,". I realize that you saw an opportunity where a particular term you know seems to fit in well, but the wording as it had been written is not incorrect from a technical standpoint, and that term is not universally known so it might in fact muddy the idea of exactly what happened in peoples' minds rather than clarify it. Steves615 ( talk) 01:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
My assurance comes as a human being living in the United States who has never heard that usage in my life. That term confused me when I read it, and I'm sure many others were as well. The facts that support me are your inability to find any substantial references that use that term outside of the- what do you want to call it? British Empire? Have a field day picking my definition apart but the fact is you all share a common cultural and linguistic origin, I'm not going to spend the time here coming up with the perfect term to describe that sphere of linguistic influence.
The references you list are really stretches. You find one NYT article from some unknown time written by an unknown news agency as proof that it is somehow used commonly in this country. I can show you tens of thousands of articles on the concordia that never once use the term holed, and I'll show you a couple dozen of "British Empire" (again, whatever term you want to use)articles, that do include the term holed. A Reuters article which includes the term is not a sign that it is universally known, as that could have simply been submitted by a British news agency, with many of the people reading the article puzzled by just exactly what they mean by the term holed means. I also enjoy when people start making statements along the lines of "that line of reasoning is simply not.... elementary logic dictates..." etc. That often means their basic argument is running out of steam. If you can't figure it out I will spell it out for you- since your argument is that it is a term used outside of the "British Empire", you are not doing anything to prove that point by listing a British source. If you were able to list a number of sources from American for example, that used the term holed, that would be a smoking gun to prove that holed is in fact used universally outside of "british empire" circles, and that I am wrong. I really hope you were just sparring and didn't fail to realize that basic fact. I understand that it is a common term for you and you cannot probably imagine how someone wouldn't know what it means, but that really is the case. There's going to be a large contingent of people reading this article who stop and say huh? and they might figure out what it means, or they might not, and keep slogging through the article.
If this same discussion were happening around the word pram, what would it take to convince you that there are a lot of English speakers out there who would have no idea what pram means? Did you even know that already or did you think everyone knew what a pram was? If I found 10,000 British articles on prams, 50,000 American articles on baby carriages, and you found 2 articles from America newspapers that included the word "pram", would you then use that as proof that all Americans know what a pram is? That is really the argument we're having here.
From what I know of it now, holed might be a very apt word to describe what happened. You just have to realize that not everyone knows what it means. It may be technically correct, but so is the current statement without the word holed, and it doesn't introduce the potential for confusion depending on what part of the world you're from. Steves615 ( talk) 05:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I've mentioned the hole being torn in the hull in universally understandable, "Americanized" terms. Hopefully this will be enough for everyone that wanted the hole mentioned, and we can just move on. Steves615 ( talk) 05:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
site:www.history.navy.mil "holed"
elicits over 100 uses of "holed". I remind you of your words: "If you were able to list a number of sources from American for example, that used the term holed, that would be a smoking gun to prove that holed is in fact used universally outside of "british empire" circles, and that I am wrong". The "fact" that the ship was holed (or had an aperture forcibly and unwantedly created in its hull due to impact with geological material of significant hardness concealed below water level but above the draught of the ship, or whatever wording) is highly significant; the holing, followed by displacement of water that entered through the bulkhead system, caused heeling (look up heeling if you don't know what it means) first in the direction of the hole, then heeling to the point of capsize in the opposite direction.Might be good to add more detail on the propulsion system. It's apparently diesel-electric, with two motors of either 21 or 34 MW each, but I'm having trouble finding a good source. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 21:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I've added this information. I thought it would be interesting because some of the initial reports blamed the disaster on loss of propulsion, but more recent reports seem to be pointing to navigational errors. Still I think it's a good addition. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 15:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I provided some additional details, such as engine type, but the edit got lost in the process. If someone wants to re-add them, feel free to do that. Tupsumato ( talk) 05:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
There was recently a long discussion about the word "holed" in the text; to sum it up, one editor objected to it, others thought it OK; the outcome was that acceptable (and arguably better) alternative wording was found.
I start a second section so nobody has to read through the discussion of whether the word is appropriate or not. The issue now is that "Holed by rock in 2012" has been replaced by "Sinking 2012". This heading is obviously a cause of trouble; it's been through several headings since the initial "2012 grounding" - [text added later:] I had looked them all up but managed to delete them while editing this paragraph.
Now I don't think it's right to say that the ship is at the moment sunken. It may be technically correct (I'm not sure) as it's holed and rested on the bottom, but to someone scanning headings it looks as if it's down deep. I would say that the correct description (too long for a heading) is that it struck a rock, had a huge gash torn, sailed to shallow water, grounded deliberately, and came to rest on the bottom, capsized, mostly out of the water, in shallow water. I have no particular fondness for the word "holed" but can't think of anything better for a section heading. So I propose (and will implement) "Holed and grounded 2012" ("January" is unnecessary for an encyclopaedia article). This is accurate and short. If anyone can find a better word than holed, great, but it does need to be accurate. "Damaged and grounded 2012" is correct but vague. "Holed, flooded, and grounded 2012" is a fairly complete description, a bit long.
By the way, "Grounded 2012" was used when news reports said she had grounded, but it later became clear that the cause of the disaster was holing, not grounding. We could say "Grounded 2012" as the current situation can be so described, but it's not the cause. I suggest that the ultimate heading should be either "Holed and scrapped 2012" or "Holed and sunk 2012" (or "Sunk 2012"), but it's a little premature to choose.
Pol098 ( talk) 07:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
site:www.history.navy.mil "holed"
). Here's an extra sourced example:
"Characteristics of Ice Breakers: ... Hull divided by bulkheads into a series of watertight compartments in case it is holed.". I don't insist on the word, but I can't find a short accurate alternative. It's all very well to use a description of "something that makes the holes" instead; that was done in body text, but fit that in a section heading! Maybe "Hit rocks 2012"? "On rocks 2012"? "Hull breached 2012"?It will be refloated surely ? Even if its an insurance write off to the current owner, surely someone will refloat it and repair it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.147.167 ( talk) 10:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone find details of the design of this ship, or any of its sister ships? It would help Wiki users understand some of the issues relating to this incident by reference to hull profiles, schematics of the construction (eg: bracing, ribs, use of watertight chambers, even hull thickness). I am not a naval architect but would find more factual background useful. Perhaps access to a "Boy's Own" type cutaway drawing (showing engine placement, use of electric thrusters, and backup systems) would help temper some of the more extreme speculation. Do shipbuilders publish a list of the electronic navigation aids installed on these craft? Links to sources of information would be sufficient 86.176.89.251 ( talk) 11:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The ship still exists today, and no decision to scrap her has been made. Even should the decision to scrap her be made the ship will continue to exist until this is done. Therefore past tense will not be suitable for the forseeable future, and anything that implies that the ship has ceased to exist should be reverted until it does. Britmax ( talk) 21:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Quite many articles state that the top speed of the Costa Concordia and her sisters is 23 knots, but this article uses 19.6 knots from Fakta om Fartyg. Can a private website be considered a reliable source? The same site states that the Costa Favolosa has a (top?) speed of 19.5 knots, but for example this document states that her trial speed is 23 knots. Tupsumato ( talk) 13:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The ship did not "capsize" as is mentioned in the article. The ship assumed a "list." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.26.216 ( talk) 20:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I am concerned that this section is becoming larger than it should be in the light of the incident's own article. Do other editors feel the same way? Britmax ( talk) 22:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Should this article say it "was" a ship not "is" one? (-----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sollows2 ( talk • contribs) 00:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Is it an encyclopaedic information? Furthermore, do we put such informations in articles about ships when the bottle failed to break but the ship would not had any trouble or when the bottle does break but the ship would had some trouble? ( Bias) -- 79.31.208.108 ( talk) 07:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The matter of broken/unbroken bottle and troubled/untroubled ships is a good one and could be taken up elsewhere. Benyoch ( talk) 23:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
We now seem to have a "See also" list of random ships that sank, when the only thing they have in common with this one is that they were ships, and sank. Are we to link the Concordia to any other ship that happened to sink, or limit the list to those that were holed and capsized? Or what? Britmax ( talk) 12:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
If she has, according to the article, partially sunk suffered an alleged 'partial sinking', is it also partially afloat is the remainder partial floating? The answer is obvious - No, it is not partially afloat because it lacks bouyancy. Notably, the only thing preventing it from being totally submerged is the seabed.
It seems the use of the the term 'partial sinking' used in the article (and not 'partially sunk' as I at first stated), refers to the fact that some parts of the super-structure are remain above waterline, and that some parts are underwater. Certainly it cannot be said to be partially afloat, or partially floating.
For my mind this ship is/has sunk (not, 'partial') in that it is totally disabled and no longer afloat. For me, the term 'sunk' relates to its loss of capacity to perform the task for which it was designed because it is no longer retains any bouyancy and does not have any capacity to recover that bouyancy on its own merits.
So, what is the term that should be used to describe its condition? Is 'partially sunk' 'partial sinking' the correct term? I presume we are looking for a legal definition one way or the other.
Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... ( talk) 03:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Britmax, diesel-electric is a transmission system that includes a diesel engine coupled to an electrical generator. Writing the power value of a diesel-electric system implies a power plant of the same power. On the Costa Concordia there is no such relation. On the one side, we have power plants that together generate about 75,6 MW(e) electrical power and on the other side we have two "electric" propellers, each 21 MW(e), without any sourcing preference from the 6 power plants. If you write 6 × Wärtsilä 12V46C; 75,600 kilowatts (101,400 hp) combined and propulsion Diesel-electric; two shafts (2 × 21 MW), it looks like on board the Costa Concordia we had a total of 75,6 + 42 = 117,6 MW ...-- Robertiki ( talk) 12:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes for someone who knows how the diesel alectric arrangement works or someone with basic electrical knowledge (who can differanciate between "generator" and "load"), the description is ok. But for the rest of us it is not clear as printed. Since there is an "and" between the 75,6MW and the 2*21MW in the text, someone with no electrical knowledge will be confused to say the least. I would prefer something like: "6 × Wärtsilä 12V46C; 75,600 kilowatts (101,400 hp) combined, driving two electric motors of 2*21MW for main propulsion. The remaining 33,6MW services all other electrical needs of the ship.". But I ll leave this edit to others because this specific article suffers from biased editors who keep on reversing any useful editing.
Mistakes made by the captain, not this artical. I was a Hull Maintenance Technician Petty officer, second class in the Navy and damage control is something I'm well versed. Other than the obvious one of going to close to shore the mistakes were many. Dropping the anchor was a HUGE mistake. By trapping them in the shallow water the ship hit bottom and rolled on its round bottom. This roll prevented the damage control teams from getting to the damage area. since they can't get there, they can't seal the watertight doors and stop the flooding. the increse in weight compounded the problem. What the captain needed to do was before he lost power was get into deep water. He wouldn't have rolled, the flooding would have been lessened because the crew would have been able to do thier job. Fuel could have been transfered to the other side of the ship to counteract the extra weight. They may have sank but it would have taken hours and everone could have made a nice orderly evacuation. Herogamer ( talk) 18:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree. If your boat is sinking like a brick your only chance is to ground it on shallow water. I have done it on my 32ft yacht back in 2001 and I saved myself, my passenger, my property and the shoreline from pollution. The same applies to any vessel of any size unless water intake is controlled AND you reasonably expect to keep on over it. This certainly wasn't the case to the Concordia, she was dead on the water and you can't scoop water out of such a vessel with your bare hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfrantzol ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to start and edit war, but it would be nice to get an explanation why my edit was reverted with the reason "Although currently unused, this article is expected to undergo another round of editing in the coming months...". The class names are hyphenated as per our naming convention and the name of the ship should be in italic as per our infobox guide. Also, non-relevant fields may be removed (the ship had no ramps, just like it had no sail plan or ice class, or aircraft facilities!), not to mention that there isn't even a |ship flag=
field in the general characteristics section. Why do such minor stylistic fixes need to wait for "another round of editing in the coming months"?
I admit removing the length between perpendiculars might have been a mistake, but in my opinion the distance from the fore of the stem to the rudder axis is more or less meaningless information for most people. What they need to know is the length of the ship, not some rule-based measurements. After all, we do not need to include everything in the article, just information that has meaning. Tupsumato ( talk) 20:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Most large ships have auxiliary propulsion that allows them to be docked without the need for tugboats. For docking operations main propulsion is shut down and auxiliary thrusters are used to maneuver the ship sideways against a pier. If the Concordia had this capability, it should be described in the Propulsion section. This would explain how the captain could claim that he maneuvered the ship onto the shoreline where it now lies. If the Concordia had auxiliary or emergency electrical power, it would also have had some maneuvering capability. It hardly seems likely that a lucky combination of winds and tides would have placed the ship onshore. Grounding the ship is what saved so many lives and the article should reflect this. Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 18:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
http://www.thestory.org/stories/2013-05/towing-away-costa-concordia-cruise-ship -- Jeremyb ( talk) 14:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
"During the fuel removal operation Smit reported that the ship had shifted 60 cm (24 in) in the 13 months since her grounding[29]"
I know people call boats she/her, etc but it's an inanimate object, and there's not really a reason for it, can it be made gender neutral? Bumblebritches57 ( talk) 13:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
CC was used to smuggle cocaine on her fateful journey. Is this worth mentioning? Mjroots ( talk) 19:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Costa Concordia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Costa Concordia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-19/concordia-at-high-risk-of-sinking-italian-minister-says.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I think the current news notice needs to be added to this article. I would do it myself but I am not sure where to even begin looking for the right code Magnum Serpentine ( talk) 03:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Done -- RadioFan ( talk) 04:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Ship now showing on webcams as lying on her side. It is likely that she will be declared a total loss. Mjroots ( talk) 07:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Costa have issued a statement about the loss. Suggest that if this is used, a link via the Wayback machine or similar is provided. Mjroots ( talk) 08:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Following other precendent in wikipedia, it would be prudent to start a page Shipwreck of the Costa Concordia and redirect it back to here for now. Also, if the details of the shipwreck continue to expand, the content can be pasted in there (since this article is primarily about the boat, not the accident). ChrisUK ( talk) 10:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Goodvac ( talk) 20:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Note that [2] is a news radio agency report current within the hour and quotes the Governor of Grossetto saying the missing persons count is down to 41. Selery ( talk) 21:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
"before a lifeboat drill starting in Savona and visiting Marseille, Barcelona, Palma, Tunis, and Palermo." This makes it sound as if the drill lasted the whole time the ship traveled between these locations. If that's not what you meant, reword this. 4.249.201.74 ( talk) 22:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
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) 23:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm updating at Costa Concordia disaster because with 14,200 Google News hits already and the largest cruise liner grounding in history, I believe it merits its own article and the section in this one should be reduced to WP:SUMMARY style.
Here are some updates:
Selery ( talk) 01:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
"the largest ship ever to sink." -- USA Today Selery ( talk) 02:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Um, the article says that the ship hit an Israeli submarine... Ttow1944 ( talk) 02:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The Wikepedia description of the post-rock course seems impossible ["This reef was about 800 metres (870 yd) north of the entrance to the harbour of Giglio. The vessel continued for approximately another 1,000 metres (1,100 yd) until just north of the harbour entrance. The vessel then turned in an attempt to get close to the harbour."] How can the ship be 800 yds North, then go another 1000 North and still be "just North"? Perhaps the "reef" was the one 800 yds South (not North) of the harbour? There are rocks SOUTH of the harbor that could have been the impact point. This is the "reef" circled by Repubblica on its chart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.75.214 (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Because la Republica is reporting, as confirmed by the WSJ, that the impact rock is indeed the outcrop "Le scole", which is South of Giglio Porto, I have now entered that info into to main text of the article, with both citations. I have not yet "corrected" the article's assertion that "this reef was... north of...the harbour" Steve-O — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.75.214 ( talk)
I have now removed the sentence "This reef was about 800 metres (870 yd) north of the entrance to the harbour of Giglio." It had no direct footnote and the next footnote, presumably by the same editor, cited la Repubblica, a newspaper which, as I cited, states the the "reef" was "le scole" which is south, not north, of the harbour. With respect, I let stand that editor's other statements about post-reef maneuvering, which now make more sense. Time will tell and this will all be much more certain in a day or two.
So I get that the ship ran aground, but for all intents and purposes, she sank, and is now a wreck. If she had drifted into slightly deeper water, there would be nothing left to see. I think we can compare Concordia to MS Sea Diamond and consider changing the heading from Grounding to Sinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.43.253 ( talk) 16:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
There's a chart of Giglio here: (click on "(+) Visualizza la Tavola I.I.M.") The grounding area looks like it's marked as 6 fathoms (11 meters) but navigable (white) which generally means no reefs or rocks. Does anyone know whether she ran aground where she lies, or somewhere else? Selery ( talk) 17:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused, where does it say anything about fathoms in the link you provided?
The article distinctly said the reef was 800 m north and the vessel continued for another 1 km north of the harbour. What is this nonsense about the distance being 800 "yds" and 1000 "yds"? Why are you changing the quoted distances? Since it was officially measured in metres, leave it that way, otherwise you just corrupt the data. This is just plain ignorance.
Is it really necessary to point out it was Friday the 13th so explicitly? It seems rather sensationalist to flaunt superstition in this way. 67.163.102.158 ( talk) 19:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The Italy map was removed in this edit by Goodvac ( talk · contribs). I appreciate that there is a map of the port area showing where the ship came to grief, but the map I added showed the location of the wreck in relation to Italy. Should the map be reinstated or not? What do other editors think?
Both maps are worth including with the focus being on the one which shows the site in relation to Italy.-- RadioFan ( talk) 21:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Industry experts believe Costa will only be insured for 500 million dollars, which isn't enough to rebuild her. Total Loss?. -- Yankeesman312 ( talk) 17:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I posted a proposal on the use of Template:Current related with an example taken from this article. Comments welcome. DarTar ( talk) 17:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Why are there entries for draft and draught in the specs column? Are they not the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.168.160 ( talk) 02:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Who is going to do the technical investigation into the accident?
http://www.amem.at/pdf/AMEM_Marine_Accidents.pdf says it would be the "Commissione Centrale di Indagine sui Sinistri Marittimi" CCISM - At www.guardiacostiera.it Is this true?
We need to have a Wikipedia article on the authority who will do the technical investigation WhisperToMe ( talk) 18:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The 51k tons of displacement in the data table looks excessive to me. Wasn't the 250 meter long Bismarck circa 50k tons, clad in 33cm thick Wotan armour and wide as a pregnant hippo, with four massive and a dozen smaller gun turrets on top? There the windguards were probably thicker than the hull plating of the Costa. What could displace 51k tons of water on Costa, when the pre-fabricated cabins are mostly made of plaster and light metal frame and most of the interior space is indeed the empty space of atriums?
BTW, it would be interesting to know if a sturdier north atlantic ship, like the QE2 could have survived the same rock-scraping event? Reportedly the QE2 hull plating is 28mm steel, app. double of what's usual on Med-sea and Caribbean giant cruise ships. 82.131.210.163 ( talk) 12:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Marine Traffic site using AIS information reports that the ship was going at approximate 15.5knots. [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.151.21 ( talk) 00:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
There's a little flurry of activity turning descriptions of the ship's amenities into past tense, e.g. changing "has four swimming pools" to "had four swimming pools". I don't think this is appropriate yet. HiLo48 ( talk) 02:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
STOP WITH THE PAST TENSE SHE WAS NOT DELCARED A TOTAL LOSS YET! -- Yankeesman312 ( talk) 19:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Only present tense is appropriate. It still "has 1,500 cabins"! At some point it will be wrecked, at which point the tense should change. Don't go thinking anyone will salvage this boat by the way. It can't be "towed to dry dock and fixed". The superstructure is beyond repair. Even if it were possible no-one wants to cruise the med on a shipwreck! 94.101.120.73 ( talk) 21:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
This section has been removed twice now. As far as I can tell, the section is relevant, and three of the vessels mentioned are of direct relevance to this loss. I'm not sure that Express Samina is relevant, but will open that one up to discussion. If any editor has any strong opinions on those ships listed, or feels that there are better candidates for inclusion, please say so. The section should be kept as short as possible (say 4 max) as we can't list every shipwreck here. Mjroots ( talk) 08:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Did his ship have a proper citadel? A fully enclosed, thickly armoured box, that includes all critical machinery, bilge pumps, the central control room, comms, fuel for at least a few days, enough personnel to do drainage work, etc.?
If yes, was the citadel breached in the collision? I think it is rule that a ship must float for at least 24 hours if the citadel is intact, no matter how much the other spaces are flooded. 82.131.210.163 ( talk) 12:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
This was a 21st century ship, it is all about technology, but this is not technology of mass consumers. An expert of big modern ship should tell what kind of technology and systems are installed to prevent navigation accidents. Sonar (for detecting other ships or obstacles at the sea level), ECDIS (for submerged obstacles too?), AIS (transponder) (just telling the positin of the ship), GPS for knowing the position). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.80.201.13 ( talk) 19:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rvongher Selery ( talk) 21:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
It's highly relevant that the ship was holed. Water flowed in through the hole and due to the layout of bulkheads caused the ship to list to the opposite side.
(This para, and a few other additions, inserted later) Quoted text here is from an edit summary justifying deletion of "holed" from the article: 16:55, 22 January 2012 Steves615 "The problem with 'holed" is that it does not have meaning to non-British readers and only a handful of UK news articles describe the vessel as such. Hull damage can be inferred by listing/sinking after the grounding"
Are you sure, it seems obvious that "holed" means having a hole made in it? I've checked a few non-British dictionaries (all US I'm afraid, no others in my normal reference places). Hole as a verb appears in American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and Webster's 4th. Examples of non-British use: [6] [7] [8]. A Wikipedia article on a US warship stated that "One Japanese cruiser ... was holed twice".
If it's indeed a British-only term, I didn't know that and thought it was general maritime usage; what terms are used in other English-speaking areas? This point in no way justifies deleting the fact; it should be worded more appropriately. I can't do it as I don't know usage everywhere.
So what? It was holed, there are respectable references. As it happens there are non-British ones; I will add one. There are also pictures of a massive hole.
We're speaking of holing letting water in, not hull damage in general. That it can be inferred is not true: if a vessel capsizes, water may enter through apertures above the waterline (even without capsizing this can happen, but it's doubtful that water would have entered through gunports or portholes in this case!) Plausible scenario: ship grounds without damage, capsizes to lie on its side, water enters, ship is flooded and set to sink if water becomes deeper (tide, or slip into deeper water).
The hole is also relevant as the captain didn't tell the passengers about it (though the article doesn't mention this).
Pol098 ( talk) 00:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I assure you it is a UK thing. And by UK I mean UK, Australia, and New Zealand. Citing The Telegraph, a British news source, only proves that point.
The fact that a term is in a dictionary does not mean it universally appears in common usage. "Lorry" appears in the Merriam Webster dictionary, and I'm sure I could find an American article written about a lorry somewhere.
Besides the fact that most readers not from the UK/NZ/AUS look at the term "was holed" and are puzzled by exactly what it means, a primary reason for eliminating the phrase is brevity of the intro paragraph, and style. "Ran aground, was holed, and capsized" is a little more awkward than simply "ran aground and capsized", which by the way was the original wording of that passage. You are technically correct in adding that term, but there are many details of the crash that are also highly relevant that have been left out of that summary paragraph. Your argument is that "respectable news sources stated that xyz event occurred during this incident, therefore I'm justified putting the fact into this opening paragraph." There are a lot of details omitted from that paragraph for the sake of brevity. I could say, "the captain was seen drinking at the bar earlier in the evening, bullocksed the turn, the ship ran aground, hitting a rock, was holed, water filled the ship, and then capsized", though "ran aground and capsized" is not incorrect, and in the spirit of an introductory paragraph which only briefly touches on the accident, referring readers to the full costa concordia disaster article for further info, I think it does the job.
Finally, that term appears nowhere in the Costa Concordia Disaster article itself. The intro paragraph for that article simply says "partially sank... after hitting a reef... and running aground". I don't think anyone reading that article would be confused as to why the ship started sinking after hitting a reef.
The original wording of that article did not include the term ",was holed,". I realize that you saw an opportunity where a particular term you know seems to fit in well, but the wording as it had been written is not incorrect from a technical standpoint, and that term is not universally known so it might in fact muddy the idea of exactly what happened in peoples' minds rather than clarify it. Steves615 ( talk) 01:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
My assurance comes as a human being living in the United States who has never heard that usage in my life. That term confused me when I read it, and I'm sure many others were as well. The facts that support me are your inability to find any substantial references that use that term outside of the- what do you want to call it? British Empire? Have a field day picking my definition apart but the fact is you all share a common cultural and linguistic origin, I'm not going to spend the time here coming up with the perfect term to describe that sphere of linguistic influence.
The references you list are really stretches. You find one NYT article from some unknown time written by an unknown news agency as proof that it is somehow used commonly in this country. I can show you tens of thousands of articles on the concordia that never once use the term holed, and I'll show you a couple dozen of "British Empire" (again, whatever term you want to use)articles, that do include the term holed. A Reuters article which includes the term is not a sign that it is universally known, as that could have simply been submitted by a British news agency, with many of the people reading the article puzzled by just exactly what they mean by the term holed means. I also enjoy when people start making statements along the lines of "that line of reasoning is simply not.... elementary logic dictates..." etc. That often means their basic argument is running out of steam. If you can't figure it out I will spell it out for you- since your argument is that it is a term used outside of the "British Empire", you are not doing anything to prove that point by listing a British source. If you were able to list a number of sources from American for example, that used the term holed, that would be a smoking gun to prove that holed is in fact used universally outside of "british empire" circles, and that I am wrong. I really hope you were just sparring and didn't fail to realize that basic fact. I understand that it is a common term for you and you cannot probably imagine how someone wouldn't know what it means, but that really is the case. There's going to be a large contingent of people reading this article who stop and say huh? and they might figure out what it means, or they might not, and keep slogging through the article.
If this same discussion were happening around the word pram, what would it take to convince you that there are a lot of English speakers out there who would have no idea what pram means? Did you even know that already or did you think everyone knew what a pram was? If I found 10,000 British articles on prams, 50,000 American articles on baby carriages, and you found 2 articles from America newspapers that included the word "pram", would you then use that as proof that all Americans know what a pram is? That is really the argument we're having here.
From what I know of it now, holed might be a very apt word to describe what happened. You just have to realize that not everyone knows what it means. It may be technically correct, but so is the current statement without the word holed, and it doesn't introduce the potential for confusion depending on what part of the world you're from. Steves615 ( talk) 05:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I've mentioned the hole being torn in the hull in universally understandable, "Americanized" terms. Hopefully this will be enough for everyone that wanted the hole mentioned, and we can just move on. Steves615 ( talk) 05:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
site:www.history.navy.mil "holed"
elicits over 100 uses of "holed". I remind you of your words: "If you were able to list a number of sources from American for example, that used the term holed, that would be a smoking gun to prove that holed is in fact used universally outside of "british empire" circles, and that I am wrong". The "fact" that the ship was holed (or had an aperture forcibly and unwantedly created in its hull due to impact with geological material of significant hardness concealed below water level but above the draught of the ship, or whatever wording) is highly significant; the holing, followed by displacement of water that entered through the bulkhead system, caused heeling (look up heeling if you don't know what it means) first in the direction of the hole, then heeling to the point of capsize in the opposite direction.Might be good to add more detail on the propulsion system. It's apparently diesel-electric, with two motors of either 21 or 34 MW each, but I'm having trouble finding a good source. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 21:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I've added this information. I thought it would be interesting because some of the initial reports blamed the disaster on loss of propulsion, but more recent reports seem to be pointing to navigational errors. Still I think it's a good addition. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 15:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I provided some additional details, such as engine type, but the edit got lost in the process. If someone wants to re-add them, feel free to do that. Tupsumato ( talk) 05:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
There was recently a long discussion about the word "holed" in the text; to sum it up, one editor objected to it, others thought it OK; the outcome was that acceptable (and arguably better) alternative wording was found.
I start a second section so nobody has to read through the discussion of whether the word is appropriate or not. The issue now is that "Holed by rock in 2012" has been replaced by "Sinking 2012". This heading is obviously a cause of trouble; it's been through several headings since the initial "2012 grounding" - [text added later:] I had looked them all up but managed to delete them while editing this paragraph.
Now I don't think it's right to say that the ship is at the moment sunken. It may be technically correct (I'm not sure) as it's holed and rested on the bottom, but to someone scanning headings it looks as if it's down deep. I would say that the correct description (too long for a heading) is that it struck a rock, had a huge gash torn, sailed to shallow water, grounded deliberately, and came to rest on the bottom, capsized, mostly out of the water, in shallow water. I have no particular fondness for the word "holed" but can't think of anything better for a section heading. So I propose (and will implement) "Holed and grounded 2012" ("January" is unnecessary for an encyclopaedia article). This is accurate and short. If anyone can find a better word than holed, great, but it does need to be accurate. "Damaged and grounded 2012" is correct but vague. "Holed, flooded, and grounded 2012" is a fairly complete description, a bit long.
By the way, "Grounded 2012" was used when news reports said she had grounded, but it later became clear that the cause of the disaster was holing, not grounding. We could say "Grounded 2012" as the current situation can be so described, but it's not the cause. I suggest that the ultimate heading should be either "Holed and scrapped 2012" or "Holed and sunk 2012" (or "Sunk 2012"), but it's a little premature to choose.
Pol098 ( talk) 07:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
site:www.history.navy.mil "holed"
). Here's an extra sourced example:
"Characteristics of Ice Breakers: ... Hull divided by bulkheads into a series of watertight compartments in case it is holed.". I don't insist on the word, but I can't find a short accurate alternative. It's all very well to use a description of "something that makes the holes" instead; that was done in body text, but fit that in a section heading! Maybe "Hit rocks 2012"? "On rocks 2012"? "Hull breached 2012"?It will be refloated surely ? Even if its an insurance write off to the current owner, surely someone will refloat it and repair it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.147.167 ( talk) 10:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone find details of the design of this ship, or any of its sister ships? It would help Wiki users understand some of the issues relating to this incident by reference to hull profiles, schematics of the construction (eg: bracing, ribs, use of watertight chambers, even hull thickness). I am not a naval architect but would find more factual background useful. Perhaps access to a "Boy's Own" type cutaway drawing (showing engine placement, use of electric thrusters, and backup systems) would help temper some of the more extreme speculation. Do shipbuilders publish a list of the electronic navigation aids installed on these craft? Links to sources of information would be sufficient 86.176.89.251 ( talk) 11:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The ship still exists today, and no decision to scrap her has been made. Even should the decision to scrap her be made the ship will continue to exist until this is done. Therefore past tense will not be suitable for the forseeable future, and anything that implies that the ship has ceased to exist should be reverted until it does. Britmax ( talk) 21:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Quite many articles state that the top speed of the Costa Concordia and her sisters is 23 knots, but this article uses 19.6 knots from Fakta om Fartyg. Can a private website be considered a reliable source? The same site states that the Costa Favolosa has a (top?) speed of 19.5 knots, but for example this document states that her trial speed is 23 knots. Tupsumato ( talk) 13:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The ship did not "capsize" as is mentioned in the article. The ship assumed a "list." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.26.216 ( talk) 20:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I am concerned that this section is becoming larger than it should be in the light of the incident's own article. Do other editors feel the same way? Britmax ( talk) 22:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Should this article say it "was" a ship not "is" one? (-----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sollows2 ( talk • contribs) 00:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Is it an encyclopaedic information? Furthermore, do we put such informations in articles about ships when the bottle failed to break but the ship would not had any trouble or when the bottle does break but the ship would had some trouble? ( Bias) -- 79.31.208.108 ( talk) 07:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The matter of broken/unbroken bottle and troubled/untroubled ships is a good one and could be taken up elsewhere. Benyoch ( talk) 23:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
We now seem to have a "See also" list of random ships that sank, when the only thing they have in common with this one is that they were ships, and sank. Are we to link the Concordia to any other ship that happened to sink, or limit the list to those that were holed and capsized? Or what? Britmax ( talk) 12:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
If she has, according to the article, partially sunk suffered an alleged 'partial sinking', is it also partially afloat is the remainder partial floating? The answer is obvious - No, it is not partially afloat because it lacks bouyancy. Notably, the only thing preventing it from being totally submerged is the seabed.
It seems the use of the the term 'partial sinking' used in the article (and not 'partially sunk' as I at first stated), refers to the fact that some parts of the super-structure are remain above waterline, and that some parts are underwater. Certainly it cannot be said to be partially afloat, or partially floating.
For my mind this ship is/has sunk (not, 'partial') in that it is totally disabled and no longer afloat. For me, the term 'sunk' relates to its loss of capacity to perform the task for which it was designed because it is no longer retains any bouyancy and does not have any capacity to recover that bouyancy on its own merits.
So, what is the term that should be used to describe its condition? Is 'partially sunk' 'partial sinking' the correct term? I presume we are looking for a legal definition one way or the other.
Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... ( talk) 03:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Britmax, diesel-electric is a transmission system that includes a diesel engine coupled to an electrical generator. Writing the power value of a diesel-electric system implies a power plant of the same power. On the Costa Concordia there is no such relation. On the one side, we have power plants that together generate about 75,6 MW(e) electrical power and on the other side we have two "electric" propellers, each 21 MW(e), without any sourcing preference from the 6 power plants. If you write 6 × Wärtsilä 12V46C; 75,600 kilowatts (101,400 hp) combined and propulsion Diesel-electric; two shafts (2 × 21 MW), it looks like on board the Costa Concordia we had a total of 75,6 + 42 = 117,6 MW ...-- Robertiki ( talk) 12:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes for someone who knows how the diesel alectric arrangement works or someone with basic electrical knowledge (who can differanciate between "generator" and "load"), the description is ok. But for the rest of us it is not clear as printed. Since there is an "and" between the 75,6MW and the 2*21MW in the text, someone with no electrical knowledge will be confused to say the least. I would prefer something like: "6 × Wärtsilä 12V46C; 75,600 kilowatts (101,400 hp) combined, driving two electric motors of 2*21MW for main propulsion. The remaining 33,6MW services all other electrical needs of the ship.". But I ll leave this edit to others because this specific article suffers from biased editors who keep on reversing any useful editing.
Mistakes made by the captain, not this artical. I was a Hull Maintenance Technician Petty officer, second class in the Navy and damage control is something I'm well versed. Other than the obvious one of going to close to shore the mistakes were many. Dropping the anchor was a HUGE mistake. By trapping them in the shallow water the ship hit bottom and rolled on its round bottom. This roll prevented the damage control teams from getting to the damage area. since they can't get there, they can't seal the watertight doors and stop the flooding. the increse in weight compounded the problem. What the captain needed to do was before he lost power was get into deep water. He wouldn't have rolled, the flooding would have been lessened because the crew would have been able to do thier job. Fuel could have been transfered to the other side of the ship to counteract the extra weight. They may have sank but it would have taken hours and everone could have made a nice orderly evacuation. Herogamer ( talk) 18:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree. If your boat is sinking like a brick your only chance is to ground it on shallow water. I have done it on my 32ft yacht back in 2001 and I saved myself, my passenger, my property and the shoreline from pollution. The same applies to any vessel of any size unless water intake is controlled AND you reasonably expect to keep on over it. This certainly wasn't the case to the Concordia, she was dead on the water and you can't scoop water out of such a vessel with your bare hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfrantzol ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to start and edit war, but it would be nice to get an explanation why my edit was reverted with the reason "Although currently unused, this article is expected to undergo another round of editing in the coming months...". The class names are hyphenated as per our naming convention and the name of the ship should be in italic as per our infobox guide. Also, non-relevant fields may be removed (the ship had no ramps, just like it had no sail plan or ice class, or aircraft facilities!), not to mention that there isn't even a |ship flag=
field in the general characteristics section. Why do such minor stylistic fixes need to wait for "another round of editing in the coming months"?
I admit removing the length between perpendiculars might have been a mistake, but in my opinion the distance from the fore of the stem to the rudder axis is more or less meaningless information for most people. What they need to know is the length of the ship, not some rule-based measurements. After all, we do not need to include everything in the article, just information that has meaning. Tupsumato ( talk) 20:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Most large ships have auxiliary propulsion that allows them to be docked without the need for tugboats. For docking operations main propulsion is shut down and auxiliary thrusters are used to maneuver the ship sideways against a pier. If the Concordia had this capability, it should be described in the Propulsion section. This would explain how the captain could claim that he maneuvered the ship onto the shoreline where it now lies. If the Concordia had auxiliary or emergency electrical power, it would also have had some maneuvering capability. It hardly seems likely that a lucky combination of winds and tides would have placed the ship onshore. Grounding the ship is what saved so many lives and the article should reflect this. Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 18:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
http://www.thestory.org/stories/2013-05/towing-away-costa-concordia-cruise-ship -- Jeremyb ( talk) 14:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
"During the fuel removal operation Smit reported that the ship had shifted 60 cm (24 in) in the 13 months since her grounding[29]"
I know people call boats she/her, etc but it's an inanimate object, and there's not really a reason for it, can it be made gender neutral? Bumblebritches57 ( talk) 13:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
CC was used to smuggle cocaine on her fateful journey. Is this worth mentioning? Mjroots ( talk) 19:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Costa Concordia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Costa Concordia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-19/concordia-at-high-risk-of-sinking-italian-minister-says.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)