This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sinking of MV Conception article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A news item involving Sinking of MV Conception was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 3 September 2019. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The title of this article is currently "2019 Santa Cruz Island diving ship sinking". This is admittedly very wonky, and as such is open to change. SamHolt6 ( talk) 20:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to suggest M/V Conception fire per other articles in Category:Ship fires that are about the fires per se rather than the ship (and I would suggest that, if this article follows the pattern of many of these other ones, it will eventually include the history of the vessel itself and should really just be M/V Conception. Maybe we could even go all the way there. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
There is an picture of the boat on the Truth Aquatics website; cn that be used instead of the look-a-like boat in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:9880:1A08:C:E9C4:6DB:93D5:E52C ( talk) 22:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Can a deck layout of the berth (beds) be included, and a more macro photo of more beds from the occupants' point of view? I had to dig thru a lot of user forums to get this info and still not sure how credible it was. It appears many folks are talking about why any of the occupants could not escape, and we like to see to believe. Soyasauce ( talk) 21:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
"you should curve the mattress edges, as boats almost never use standard mattresses because of the hull curvature". I am happy to hear that point being made. But I'm sure you'd agree that such a minor inaccuracy in mattress shape would not cause us to reject the diagram as original research. Inaccuracy in such an image is inevitable. But I don't think minor inaccuracies should be considered unacceptable. Bus stop ( talk) 13:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Question – In that drawing, what does the yellow represent? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 17:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
"As noted in the photographs from 1995, the emergency escape hatch appears to be centered over Bunks 10/27."I think that is the "escape hatch". I think labeling would represent an improvement. The other yellow area would I think represent egress and ingress via stairway. Bus stop ( talk) 18:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The similarity to Apollo 1 fire is 100%. What has happened is that pure oxygen has leaked (or opened by someone, eg for comfort breathing . ) See /info/en/?search=Apollo_1
The cause of the apollo 1 fire is the atmosphere of higher than normal % oxygen.
The safety concern is that numerous places put tanks of FUEL outside so that a leak blows away , but they have pure oxygen tanks inside enclosed spaces where a leak goes like this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.87.170.66 ( talk) 23:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
In the article Ship prefixes, an uncited passage describes the following, "Note that while calling a US ship "the USS Flattop" may make grammatical sense, the preliminary article "the" is discouraged by nearly all style guides, and the U.S. Navy." Even if this were true, this passage implies that it only applies to U.S. Navy ships, and not U.S. civilian ships such as the subject of this article. Is there a reliable source to say that it wouldn't be grammatically correct to rename this article to Sinking of the MV Conception, and accordingly rename similar articles along the same lines? – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 03:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Is this ship ever referred to as "MV Conception" in any reliable sources? All that I have seen is "Conception" (without any "MV" preceding it). Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 18:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus against - there is a clear consensus against the requested moves ( closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 ( talk) 04:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
– I've seen no reliable sources thus far about grammatical standards in referring to a motor vehicle (MV) with the preliminary article "the", and a search of Manual of Style regarding this issue has evidently failed to yield anything. I tried to raise this issue earlier on this talk page, but was attacked instead, so I'm making this move proposal in an effort to foster more productive discussion and hopefully get some answers. Sinking of the RMS Titanic, a featured article on Wikipedia, uses this grammatical format along with Sinking of the RMS Lusitania and Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, so it's not an uncommon way to refer to ships. An uncited passage in the article Ship prefixes describes that "the preliminary article "the" is discouraged by nearly all style guides, and the U.S. Navy", and is unclear on whether or not this applies to U.S. ships other than U.S. Navy vessels, such as civilian ships. It definitely isn't clear on if this applies to any ships outside of the U.S. The article also has a passage describing how some ship prefixes do not allow for the use of "the", such as Her Majesty's Ship (HMS), but in this case it makes perfect grammatical sense to say "the motor vehicle (MV)". It seems clear that most editors here use "the" when referring to ships, as the opening line of most of the articles listed above uses this grammatical format. For example, this article, Sinking of MV Conception, refers to the ship as "the Conception" numerous times. I personally have exclusively referred to ships in this manner, so I'd like to see if there can be a consensus either in support or against the use of "the" in these article titles, and establish some sort of consistency among articles of these topics. – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 23:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I believe that there were 39 people on the boat: 6 were crew and 33 were passengers. Five of the six crew members survived. I believe that one of the crew members was below deck, with the 33 passengers. All of those below deck (33 passengers plus 1 crew member) died. The five crew members above the deck survived. I am not 100% sure, but I think that I got all of those numbers correct. The article should make this clear. The main point being that there was one "additional" crew member; he died; he was below deck. If it's already mentioned, I did not see it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 03:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I believe the two distress calls cited were made from two different vessels and possibly by different people. The first was clearly made by Capt. Jerry Boylan from the Conception's wheelhouse as it burned. The second appears to have been made from the Grape Escape, not necessarily by Boylan and likely made by the skipper of the Grape Escape instead. This needs further research and verification as news sources equally seem to be unclear on this aspect. 172.112.212.228 ( talk) 01:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Considering the nature of the accident and the number of victims, should we add a list of victims like that included in Ghost Ship warehouse fire? — btphelps ( talk to me) ( what I've done) 17:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
"I think that many victims would fail independent notability requirements and so WP:NOTMEMORIAL would apply". I think there is ample reason to add to the article the names of the victims. WP:MEMORIAL applies to articles. It does not apply to content within articles. WP:MEMORIAL simply tells us not to start articles on otherwise not-noteworthy people simply to memorialize them. But the names of the deceased are content within this article. It goes without saying that this article meets notability requirements for the subject it covers. As concerns content found in articles WP:N says: "the notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles". The "This page in a nutshell" section of WP:N even says "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." Bus stop ( talk) 19:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Including a list of victims requires consensus. That includes a (pointless) list on this page, which I have removed. I suggest the inclusionists start an RfC, as usual. WWGB ( talk) 07:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm new to this so please excuse any departures from Protocols My Interest is as a one-time long-ago divemaster aboard the Conception, and a recovering lawyer tired of loose conclusions from foregone assumptions.
The current article says: "The focus of the investigation is on records retrieved from the offices of Truth Aquatics, prompted by a preliminary investigation which indicated potential deficiencies in crew training, passenger safety briefings, and the failure to use a roaming "night watchman"". The cited authority is from an LA Times article which cited unnamed "Law enforcement" sources for its claim that the investigation was focusing on the lack of a roaming "night watchman". That has now been picked up by a multitude of news sources, all relying, however, on the anonymous LA Times statement. I have been unable to find any authority requiring, as a matter of maritime or general law, a "roaming night watchman" and I propose that the existing article be amended by adding "No legal authority has been located which would require such a "watchman" touring a sleeping area on a boat at anchor. In addition, one crewman reported inspecting the galley at 2:30 a.m. and observed no hotspots that could have initiated a fire out-of-control by 3:15 a.m. If there had to be a roaming watchman, that would seem to be it.
Not meaning to get too argumentative, the NTSB will be conducting this investigation and reporting results. They are not a "Law Enforcement source." Neither is the Coast Guard which would be expected to contribute heavily to the final report. Finally, an otherwise unidentified law enforcement source could be a van driver who brought the local sheriff's department to the scene. The source of the information is not credible enough to have their "fact" included in this article, at least without a disclaimer, and too many reputations are at stake to allow this forum (Wikipedia) to promulgate unfounded speculation.
72.79.30.195 ( talk) 22:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Bob
On MV Conception’s sister ship the “Vision” while they were charging numerous & various batteries. A lithium ion battery started smoldering. A crew member picked it up and threw it over the side into the ocean. There was several witnesses including the crew member whom verified this.
It’s not clear if this was a incident reported to the USCG or not. Just seems to be an important fact that leaves you hanging. Danddmiller1 ( talk) 16:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Is there any detailed and complete, updated listing of all machinery that was on board? Danddmiller1 ( talk) 17:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sinking of MV Conception article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A news item involving Sinking of MV Conception was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 3 September 2019. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The title of this article is currently "2019 Santa Cruz Island diving ship sinking". This is admittedly very wonky, and as such is open to change. SamHolt6 ( talk) 20:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to suggest M/V Conception fire per other articles in Category:Ship fires that are about the fires per se rather than the ship (and I would suggest that, if this article follows the pattern of many of these other ones, it will eventually include the history of the vessel itself and should really just be M/V Conception. Maybe we could even go all the way there. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
There is an picture of the boat on the Truth Aquatics website; cn that be used instead of the look-a-like boat in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:9880:1A08:C:E9C4:6DB:93D5:E52C ( talk) 22:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Can a deck layout of the berth (beds) be included, and a more macro photo of more beds from the occupants' point of view? I had to dig thru a lot of user forums to get this info and still not sure how credible it was. It appears many folks are talking about why any of the occupants could not escape, and we like to see to believe. Soyasauce ( talk) 21:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
"you should curve the mattress edges, as boats almost never use standard mattresses because of the hull curvature". I am happy to hear that point being made. But I'm sure you'd agree that such a minor inaccuracy in mattress shape would not cause us to reject the diagram as original research. Inaccuracy in such an image is inevitable. But I don't think minor inaccuracies should be considered unacceptable. Bus stop ( talk) 13:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Question – In that drawing, what does the yellow represent? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 17:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
"As noted in the photographs from 1995, the emergency escape hatch appears to be centered over Bunks 10/27."I think that is the "escape hatch". I think labeling would represent an improvement. The other yellow area would I think represent egress and ingress via stairway. Bus stop ( talk) 18:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The similarity to Apollo 1 fire is 100%. What has happened is that pure oxygen has leaked (or opened by someone, eg for comfort breathing . ) See /info/en/?search=Apollo_1
The cause of the apollo 1 fire is the atmosphere of higher than normal % oxygen.
The safety concern is that numerous places put tanks of FUEL outside so that a leak blows away , but they have pure oxygen tanks inside enclosed spaces where a leak goes like this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.87.170.66 ( talk) 23:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
In the article Ship prefixes, an uncited passage describes the following, "Note that while calling a US ship "the USS Flattop" may make grammatical sense, the preliminary article "the" is discouraged by nearly all style guides, and the U.S. Navy." Even if this were true, this passage implies that it only applies to U.S. Navy ships, and not U.S. civilian ships such as the subject of this article. Is there a reliable source to say that it wouldn't be grammatically correct to rename this article to Sinking of the MV Conception, and accordingly rename similar articles along the same lines? – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 03:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Is this ship ever referred to as "MV Conception" in any reliable sources? All that I have seen is "Conception" (without any "MV" preceding it). Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 18:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus against - there is a clear consensus against the requested moves ( closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 ( talk) 04:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
– I've seen no reliable sources thus far about grammatical standards in referring to a motor vehicle (MV) with the preliminary article "the", and a search of Manual of Style regarding this issue has evidently failed to yield anything. I tried to raise this issue earlier on this talk page, but was attacked instead, so I'm making this move proposal in an effort to foster more productive discussion and hopefully get some answers. Sinking of the RMS Titanic, a featured article on Wikipedia, uses this grammatical format along with Sinking of the RMS Lusitania and Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, so it's not an uncommon way to refer to ships. An uncited passage in the article Ship prefixes describes that "the preliminary article "the" is discouraged by nearly all style guides, and the U.S. Navy", and is unclear on whether or not this applies to U.S. ships other than U.S. Navy vessels, such as civilian ships. It definitely isn't clear on if this applies to any ships outside of the U.S. The article also has a passage describing how some ship prefixes do not allow for the use of "the", such as Her Majesty's Ship (HMS), but in this case it makes perfect grammatical sense to say "the motor vehicle (MV)". It seems clear that most editors here use "the" when referring to ships, as the opening line of most of the articles listed above uses this grammatical format. For example, this article, Sinking of MV Conception, refers to the ship as "the Conception" numerous times. I personally have exclusively referred to ships in this manner, so I'd like to see if there can be a consensus either in support or against the use of "the" in these article titles, and establish some sort of consistency among articles of these topics. – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 23:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I believe that there were 39 people on the boat: 6 were crew and 33 were passengers. Five of the six crew members survived. I believe that one of the crew members was below deck, with the 33 passengers. All of those below deck (33 passengers plus 1 crew member) died. The five crew members above the deck survived. I am not 100% sure, but I think that I got all of those numbers correct. The article should make this clear. The main point being that there was one "additional" crew member; he died; he was below deck. If it's already mentioned, I did not see it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 03:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I believe the two distress calls cited were made from two different vessels and possibly by different people. The first was clearly made by Capt. Jerry Boylan from the Conception's wheelhouse as it burned. The second appears to have been made from the Grape Escape, not necessarily by Boylan and likely made by the skipper of the Grape Escape instead. This needs further research and verification as news sources equally seem to be unclear on this aspect. 172.112.212.228 ( talk) 01:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Considering the nature of the accident and the number of victims, should we add a list of victims like that included in Ghost Ship warehouse fire? — btphelps ( talk to me) ( what I've done) 17:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
"I think that many victims would fail independent notability requirements and so WP:NOTMEMORIAL would apply". I think there is ample reason to add to the article the names of the victims. WP:MEMORIAL applies to articles. It does not apply to content within articles. WP:MEMORIAL simply tells us not to start articles on otherwise not-noteworthy people simply to memorialize them. But the names of the deceased are content within this article. It goes without saying that this article meets notability requirements for the subject it covers. As concerns content found in articles WP:N says: "the notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles". The "This page in a nutshell" section of WP:N even says "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." Bus stop ( talk) 19:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Including a list of victims requires consensus. That includes a (pointless) list on this page, which I have removed. I suggest the inclusionists start an RfC, as usual. WWGB ( talk) 07:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm new to this so please excuse any departures from Protocols My Interest is as a one-time long-ago divemaster aboard the Conception, and a recovering lawyer tired of loose conclusions from foregone assumptions.
The current article says: "The focus of the investigation is on records retrieved from the offices of Truth Aquatics, prompted by a preliminary investigation which indicated potential deficiencies in crew training, passenger safety briefings, and the failure to use a roaming "night watchman"". The cited authority is from an LA Times article which cited unnamed "Law enforcement" sources for its claim that the investigation was focusing on the lack of a roaming "night watchman". That has now been picked up by a multitude of news sources, all relying, however, on the anonymous LA Times statement. I have been unable to find any authority requiring, as a matter of maritime or general law, a "roaming night watchman" and I propose that the existing article be amended by adding "No legal authority has been located which would require such a "watchman" touring a sleeping area on a boat at anchor. In addition, one crewman reported inspecting the galley at 2:30 a.m. and observed no hotspots that could have initiated a fire out-of-control by 3:15 a.m. If there had to be a roaming watchman, that would seem to be it.
Not meaning to get too argumentative, the NTSB will be conducting this investigation and reporting results. They are not a "Law Enforcement source." Neither is the Coast Guard which would be expected to contribute heavily to the final report. Finally, an otherwise unidentified law enforcement source could be a van driver who brought the local sheriff's department to the scene. The source of the information is not credible enough to have their "fact" included in this article, at least without a disclaimer, and too many reputations are at stake to allow this forum (Wikipedia) to promulgate unfounded speculation.
72.79.30.195 ( talk) 22:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Bob
On MV Conception’s sister ship the “Vision” while they were charging numerous & various batteries. A lithium ion battery started smoldering. A crew member picked it up and threw it over the side into the ocean. There was several witnesses including the crew member whom verified this.
It’s not clear if this was a incident reported to the USCG or not. Just seems to be an important fact that leaves you hanging. Danddmiller1 ( talk) 16:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Is there any detailed and complete, updated listing of all machinery that was on board? Danddmiller1 ( talk) 17:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)