Jump to content

Talk:2010 Copiapó mining accident/Archive 1

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

is there some place on Links of Chile, or Economy of Chile, or Mining in Chile, or the company's page where this can be linked to?(Lihaas (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)).

I don't think so, I doubt that the mining company is even notable... Diego Grez (talk) 03:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Name of article

I think we should rename this "2010 Chile mining accident" because I fear very few people will find this article with the current name.

What do we think? ValenShephard (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the name is fine as it is, at Mining accident most of the disasters are are named for the area they occurred in, not the country. Searching for "2010 Chile mining accident" puts this article at (or near) the top of the results, but to be sure, I have boldly made 2010 Chile mining accident a redirect. Bigger digger (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I didnt know they mostly refer to the specific area. A redirect like that is more than fine. Thanks. ValenShephard (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I only knew because I was trying to find a better way to structure the article and had looked through mining accident... Bigger digger (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Well if another accident happes, and hoping it doesn't, we can change the redirect. ValenShephard (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of current template

The current template has been removed, added back and now removed again by me. On seeing User:Yellowdesk's edit [1] I thought it was mistaken, but the edit summary suggests checking Template:Current#Guidelines, and on reading that I agree that it was time to remove it. That's why I undid User:Diego Grez's replacement [2].

Hope that's ok with everyone? Bigger digger (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Metallic gel?

In response to fact tag, Bigger digger says: (talk | contribs) m (15,221 bytes) (→Future plans: Alter fact tag - info was in the ref, but the BBC have updated the news story.)

A google search of "metallic gel" -chile does not find what would be expected if this was a real product. Thousands of hits (when searched without -chile) can be traced back to the BBC or Reuters Chile story. The fact that BBC took it out seems to imply that they made a mistake. Someone was probably referring to a standard cable-lubricating gel used in conduit (hence, a "lubricating gel") which might be metallic-colored.

In any case, a lubricating gel only indirectly contributes to the integrity of the shaft. 173.73.192.6 (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It's no big deal, I just corrected the fact tag to one more suitable. Whether there was or wasn't metallic gel is hardly an important part of the article so not worried if another editor feels it should be removed. Bigger digger (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

How long/deep is the cave in?

There is no media articles explaining this. Why isn't the shaft being cleared and reopened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.33.85 (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I work in an underground mine, and can guarantee that nobody knows the answer to your first question. Before the cave-in proper there might be hundreds of metres of broken ground, quite probably along a spiraling ramp - nobody will dare approach it too close from either direction.

The shaft isn't being reopened because it looks to be a decline - a long steep ramp. Good luck finding a miner who thinks he can clear a collapsed decline safely - normal practice would be to build a new decline around the collapse. In good circumstances with modern equipment in a metalliferous mine a decline will advance maybe 25 metres per day, build at a 1:5 gradient and they are advancing down 5 metres per day. Normally 1:7 grade is more common but let's say they are rushing. If they have to go down 450m to intersect the refuge tunnels that gives you three months to rescue. These advance rates are assuming good ground - if they find bad ground they have to slow down to fix support as they go, in this case it takes as long as it takes.

In Australia the standard cost for a decline is maybe $5000 per metre advance ... building a 2500 metre rescue tunnel costs enough that the shareholders will feel the cost. No choice though - when you work underground you know that while you are alive they will work to rescue you. They might do it slowly so as not to risk more lives, but you will not be left down there to die. AND if the mining company ever tried to shirk the workforce would build a rescue decline anyway.

Shafts are even slower than this because every bit of rock you break off has to be lifted out of the hole. Current practice if you want a vertical shaft is to first make a decline, then use a raise-borer to make the shaft from bottom up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.210.35 (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Move

This article was created at 2010 Copiapó mining accident but Mootros has twice moved it, without discussion, to Copiapó mining accident. I think it's disruptive to repeatedly move it back and forth so would like to establish the consensus for the article's location here.

Mootros cites Wikipedia:Naming_conventions for justifying the move, saying names should be kept as short as possible. The more specific policy is Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events). It's only brief, so you can go and read it, but the 3 main issues in the title are what, where and possibly when. It then uses the following as an example:

  • 2003 Bam earthquake
    • When: 2003. There is no other "Bam earthquake" in Wikipedia, but earthquakes happen many times in history in the same place, so the year is a useful identifier.
    • Where: Bam
    • What: earthquake

There have been other accidents at Copiapo, this source I stumbled across [3] says as much, and I'm sure refs already in the article could back that up. Therefore, I think the article should be kept at 2010 Copiapó mining accident. I would be interested to see other opinions. Bigger digger (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should be kept as "2010 Copiapó mining accident". The Main Page still links to "2010 Copiapó mining accident", but now it goes through a redirect. The reason for moving, cited by user Mootros, seems flimsy at best -- keeping titles as short as possible. If there have been other mining accidents in the region, even if Wikipedia currently has no articles on them, by calling it "2010 Copiapó mining accident" will leave no doubt in a searcher's mind which accident the article describes, without having to read an abstract or the lead section. Sometimes a title is all one gets as a search result, and reading further into an article is simply not possible.—QuicksilverT @ 14:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I think Mootros is right in having this article title remain without the year. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Conventions does cover this. The citation noted by Bigger digger indicates prior accidents at this mine, but none specific that caused significant death numbers or miners being trapped for extended periods. I.e., no secondary sources to a specific event. This is apparently the only notable disaster at this specific mine. More realistically, this article should be renamed to San José mine disaster, as this mine is referred to as the San José mine, not the Copiapó mine. There are apparently many mines in this region, and referring to it as Copiapó is too generic. A redirect at this name would of course be appropriate. Getting back to putting the year on it, have a look through Category:Coal mining disasters in the United States. All of the sub categories there with the exception of Illinois have all of their articles without the year. The trend continues elsewhere; Category:Coal mining disasters in Mexico, Category:Mining disasters in Australia, etc. The trend is obvious. This is apparently the first notable accident in this region, much less this mine. I don't think anyone is going to be confused about what year it was in. Further, a few years from now people will tend to forget which year this happened in. If there are future notable incidents, then some adjustment should be made. Not now. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The article should stick at 2010 Copiapó mining accident. Nobody can predict when is there going to be another mining accident there again. As it has been pointed out above, there have been more accidents in Copiapó too. San José mining accident is just too specific. Diego Grez (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The point with being specific is to differentiate this mine from the surrounding region, which has many mines. Also, if there are other notable accidents, what are they? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The note

The article currently contains the line

The note said: "We are fine in the shelter, the 33 of us."[19]

However, the note was in Spanish, not English. Shouldn't it be more like

The note written in Spanish said "We are fine in the shelter, the 33 of us."[19]

or

The note said: "Estamos bien en el refugio los 33" (English:"We are fine in the shelter, the 33 of us.")

I realize that a *lot* of the newsmedia are doing it the way that the article does it now, but I think we can do better.--Naraht (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better to stick to the Spanish source as closely as possible. On first reading, the article and its supplemental materials seem to suffer from poor translation of idiomatic expressions, as if translated into English through a computer program or a person whose command of English is less-than-native. The phrasing of the note, plus its translation and lack of punctuation, should be:
The note read: "EstAMOS BieN EN EL REfugio  los 33" (English: "We are fine in the shelter the 33 [of us]").
There's a YouTube video (F_4sk7KnSRQ) wherein one can see the note in question in the hands of one of the rescuers, a strip of paper torn from a spiral-bound notepad. Based on Google search results, it appears that some news services have already begun to muck with the text of the note, adding punctuation where there was none in the original and changing capitalisation.
In the beginning of the video clip there is an image of another note that contains much more than the single line now quoted in the article and is printed in uppercase and lowercase letters, but there's too much motion and lack of detail to be able to read it in its entirety. What is needed here is a clear photo or scanned image of the longer note.—QuicksilverT @ 15:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Everything I've found has had the note by itself. See http://momento24.com/2010/08/22/estamos-bien-en-el-refugio-los-33-escribieron-los-mineros-atrapados/ and http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/america_latina/2010/08/100822_chile_mina_vivos_pea.shtml
Also, I don't think keeping track of which letters are improperly capitalized is worthwhile.Naraht (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, then, if keeping track of capitalisation isn't worthwhile, then keeping track of punctuation, spelling, order of words or even choice of words isn't worthwhile either.—QuicksilverT @ 15:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the capitalization: As a sometime teacher of native Spanish speakers and wife of another, I can assure you that irregular capitalization is common in cases where the person writing has had only brief formal education in Spanish or penmanship. That said, I think the choice of words should be maintained and no punctuation added unless it is in brackets [] to make clear that it is an addition. The choice of words is more likely than the capitalization to be something revealing of their state of mind or their haste to communicate their message in the brief window they had. The reproduction and the English translation as they stand at this moment, with "[of us]" bracketed in the English, is faithful and accurate.Lawikitejana (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe this accident would have been just another mining accident in the world if it weren't for the surprising twist of fate that it took when the note appeared two weeks after the collapse. This is why the international media is giving so much coverage of this particular accident, and why this story is catching the imagination of the audience, particularly here in the Southern Cone. So I think that this note, the circumstances of it appearance and its significance for the rescue operations should be in the introduction to this Wikipedia article. Aldo L (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Escape tunnel diameter and waist size. How big is too big?

Current article: "The diameter of the rescue tunnel will be 66 cm (26 inches),[11] meaning each miner will have to have a waistline of no more than 90 cm (35 inches) to escape.[11][30]" Assuming your waist can be fit into a circular shape (certainly true if you are sufficiently heavy) that means a circle of diameter 28.65 cm. So that means the tunnel is (66 - 28.65) = 37.35 cm larger in diameter than the requested waist size. So the wall thickness of the rescue capsule is more than 18 cm (> 7 inches)? Really? I know there must be some gap between borehole wall and capsule to avoid friction, but surely not that much. What am I missing? Bealevideo (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I too did a double-take when I read this. In any case, the limiting width dimension of a non-obese human is the width of the shoulders, which you can do nothing about. I think some innumerate journalist has got the wrong end of the stick. PhilUK (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I looked at NASA data, http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section03.htm and I see a 40-year old American male ranges from 159 to 183 cm in vertical trunk circumference (5th to 95th percentile range). On that page, hip width ranges from 35 to 42 cm. I don't think Chilean miners can reasonably be expected to measure half the size of the smallest 5% of US men, so the report of a 90 cm waistline requirement is almost certainly an error. This article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38884569/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/ mentions a US rescue capsule that is 54.6 cm in diameter which was used in a 66 cm hole (2002, Quecreek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quecreek_Mine_Rescue). Bealevideo (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I take back my above comments. I just measured my own waist, and it is 90 cm. Many men in my office have a bigger waistline than me, but apparently most of US adult population is overweight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bealevideo (talk • contribs) 06:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Drill bit diameter

Here the manufacturer of the drill bit that broke through first, gives the diameter of the drill bit as 5cm. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0825/1224277541194.html
Here is a photo of the life line shoved down to the miners, which when I measure it out on my hand is about 5cm.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3113194/Submariners-join-rescue-effort.html
I am taking into account that the glove makes his hand look larger than it actually is. This wiki article perpetuates the notion that the hole is: "grapefruit sized"/6 inches in diameter. Would someone please either correct the diameter/delete the size/include a picture of the containers that they are sending down there/remove any size measurement/explain to the American media the difference between centimeters and inches/explain to the American media the difference between lemons and grapefruits. 00:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Frank L. (American, but our media . . .) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.225.146.106 (talk)

Another area to explain in the details of how they will cope

In reading the (amazing) details of what is being done to help them cope with the potentially debilitating situation of being in the mine for months -- can't even begin to imagine being mentally strong enough to take what they're taking -- I notice that no mention is made of how wastes are/will be handled in order to keep from sickening or mentally distressing them. If anyone finds articles that detail the ill effects these wastes will have, or what steps are being taken to forestall or ameliorate the ill effects, that information should be added. Even as little as they are consuming, at some point the body must eliminate waste, and it's well established that being confined with it can be emotionally and physically detrimental over time. Lawikitejana (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

They have 2 km of galleries to move around in, and I imagine that the mine has primitive toilet facilities at various points (otherwise what would they do in the middle of a shift?), so I don't think that keeping waste well away from where they are living will be a problem. PhilUK (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop moving the page.

OK. I've got enough of seeing this page being moved from here to there, stop. Moved thrice without consensus. Let's make a consensus here.

  • The original title, 2010 Copiapó mining accident responds three basic questions, When? Where and What?
  • The current title, Chile mining accident is just too undescriptive. It's like to say "Power outage in Europe", when it just happened in a single town.
  • The other title, Copiapó mining accident removed the When? part, when there have been other mining accidents previously in Copiapó.

Discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I have evaluated the consensus here, per the request of an editor on my talk page, and it's my conclusion that, at the minute, the consensus is in favour of the original title, 2010 Copiapó mining accident. That said, I am encouraging further discussion. Consensus can, of course, change, and exactly how title articles on disasters is a frequent cause of disagreement. If a consensus emerges in favour of another title, then I'm quite willing to move it back or to another title, so this needn't be seen as the end of the discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The current title satisfies all the relevant guidelines and policies that I referred to when moving it - WP:PRECISION, WP:NCE, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:DAB. We don't introduce unneccessary precision in titles, we don't include years when not needed, we don't name articles to disambiguate from unforseeable future events, and we don't disambiguate to past events which don't have an article here. If you think 'Chile mining accident' isn't currently the common name for this incident, and for readers it might refer to some other article that currently exists, then I'd like to see you prove it, not just assert it and revert due to "no consensus". Anyone who has no clue that this article is about the 2010 collapse of the mine in the San Jose mine in Copiapó, can simply read the first line of the article, because the title is not supposed to replace it. MickMacNee (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    I reiterate, the article title IS REALLY undescriptive. What if I write about the 2006 accident also in Copiapó? Excuse me, but that reason just seems stupid and undescriptive. Diego Grez (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm very slightly inclined to agree that the current title is not the best, not because any of the others are better, but because I'm pretty sure there's been more than one mining accident in the history of Chile, which would make this title ambiguous. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Just read the guidelines before calling what they say "stupid" - they have the inherent support of thousands of editors. It doesn't matter what other accidents that have been if there is currently no article on them - you aren't helping anyone by differentiating this article from those non-existent pages, you are simply introducing pointless precision for no good reason. If you write a competing article, then maybe we can move it, as long as you prove that this accident is not the common name for 'Chile mining accident'. Otherwise, we can just use a dab-hat. MickMacNee (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Right. You don't want to read guidelines, so let's see if you can follow your own apparent logic here. You don't think that this current incident affects all of Chile, yet it has had international coverage precisely because it has become a national incident, with Presidential involvement and everything? And you want to claim that an incident that was so important, and had such an impact, that it only got an article just now, sourced to just local sources, and which was created for no other reason that to usurp this title, is now magically a competitor for this title? Does it even have an article in the Spanish Wikipedia I wonder? Can you not see how this just reads as absolute nonsense, which has no connection to actual readers at all, and is just a pointy effort on your part to make up for the fact that you have not read, let alone understood, the relevant linked guidelines, which, like it or not, were written based on what serves the best interests of actual readers of the actual pedia, not editors predictions and likes/dislikes over what they imagine is and isn't ambiguous to readers that clearly don't exist. The only thing that supports moving this article back, is ignorance of the guidelines. And that means it is a bad move, whichever way you look at it. MickMacNee (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Move back to the original title as its the most descriptive, the others all seem like sensible redirects to that page. Chile mining accident could possibly be a disambiguation page or it should be deleted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
How does deleting 'Chile mining accident' make any sense at all? The previous title is not descriptive, infact, in the English Wikipedia, I would wager that Copiapo means nothing to most people searching for, or trying to guess, the title of this article, while everyone will at least understand that this accident, if it is not named 'Chile mining accident', would at least be findable from it. And no, it should not be a dab page even after the creation of that stub - see WP:2DAB. MickMacNee (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I dont think normal users will be able to find it, and very few articles mention Copiapo in their title or lead. I think 2010 Chili mining accident is the best. Maybe its not following some half-rule someone pulled out of somewhere, but in this case, its better to ignore all rules to do with naming and use common sense. Most people know its in Chili, its in 2010 to differentiate from other accidents and its a mining accident. Whats wrong with that? ValenShephard (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
But it is not accurate. The mining accident occurred in Copiapó, not [the whole country] Chile. I would agree in other circumstances, such as 2010 Chile earthquake. The earthquake occurred in Cauquenes, but it affected most of the country, so it can be considered nation-wide. That is what the article is not, actually. President visited Pichilemu when an earthquake happened there, but that does not mean that the earthquake must be named 2010 Chile earthquake (2), by contrast, it must be named accurately as 2010 Pichilemu earthquake. You clearly seem to be misunderstanding the policies you keep recalling. Diego Grez (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Original title for consistency. Why the entire country in this case? 2010 Haiti earthquake and 2010 Pakistan floods do but affect such a large area that they are national disasters. Others don't, e.g. the 2010 British shooting incident is to be found at a different title. This is a local event that has become popular internationally since they have been found (it was ignored internationally for several weeks until that happened) as opposed to an event that has devastated an entire country or region. --candle•wicke 00:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Cumbria shootings is called Cumbria shootings because that is the name used in the sources, for obvious reasons. And even on that article there were clueless people who believed it had to have 2010 stuck on it. You won't find any sources that call this the 'Copiapó mining accident'. Infact, the only sites on the entire internet using the exact phrase "Copiapó mining accident" is Wikipedia and mirrors. That's how crap a name it is. And you won't find any readers out there not from S America who will have a clue what it means either. If they even recognise it, they will be doing so by latching onto the fact that a 'mining accident' in 2010 refers to the thing they probably know is going on in Chile right now. People in here really need to stop inventing the reasons how and why they think names are chosen here, and actually read the guidelines. It's got nothing to do with earthquakes, it's got nothing to do with locality or area affected, it's got nothing to with any of the reasons which are being pulled out of thin air here. Any title chosen by ignoring the guidelines will be, by definition, the wrong one. MickMacNee (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
This title is the wrong one. I can't see any source though that claim it to be "Chile mining accident" either. Wikipedia is supposed to be accurate and descriptive, and this title is not. Copiapó is the place where the event occurred, exactly, not Chile, I reiterate. Diego Grez (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The simple fact is that by simply stating "Wikipedia is supposed to be accurate and descriptive" as if it was the only concern here, just shows 100% how you haven't read the guidelines at all, or if you have, you have not understood them or why they exist. There are a hundred different ways even the old title could be more accurate and descriptive, seeing as it doesn't mention Chile, doesn't mention San José, doesn't mention 5 August or even August, doesn't mention prolonged rescue, it doesn't even mention collapse or trapped ffs. But if we are talking about properly formed titles, all of that is irrelevant crap. And for the exact same reasons, so is insiting that the title needs to include 2010, or must state the town not the country. MickMacNee (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

So some are you saying that we should sacrifice ease of use for a very pedantic accuracy? Why would you want to do that? I want people to be able to find and learn about it more easily, not some very strict accuracy that damages this. ValenShephard (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's not fight about this all over again. Let's use 2010 Copiapó, Chile mining accident and matter solved. Diego Grez (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I dont think so. Do you want people to find this article or not? Noone knows what copiapo is, and many sources don't have it in their titles or leads. ValenShephard (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, this discussion is getting annoying. I'm sure that most of US-ians don't even know where is Chile. Come on. Diego Grez (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
That is insulting. But even so, many more people know of Chile than of an obscure mining town (to an English speaking audience and this is English wiki..). ValenShephard (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, it's not an obscure mining town. It is capital of a region (US equivalent for state) and a province. Diego Grez (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
LIke I said, it is obscure to an English speaking audience, which by a totally insane coincidence, happen to populate most of English wikipedia. Funny that. ValenShephard (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, it's not an obscure mining town. It is capital of a region (US equivalent for state) and a province. Diego Grez (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Move "2010 Copiapó, Chile mining accident" I admit, I don't know the regions of Chile, but I agree with Diego here, using Chile as the descirot is rather vague. For example, if an accident were to occur in California, say an earthquake, we wouldn't exactly say "2010 United States earthquake," would we? We'd try to have a more specific example such as "2010 Sacramento earthquake." What if there is another Chilean mining accident this month (unlikely, as it is), then wouldn't it make more sense to use the region or mining town name to describe the area of the incident, e.g. "2010 Sewell mining accident?" It makes the most sense to use a descriptive title, rather than a vague one. —Mikemoral♪♫ 02:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Your argument actually supports mine. Of course if it happened in California you wouldnt say it was a US accident, because in English wikipedia and common western culture, california is very well know. But what if it happened in a town in Hungary? Would most English speakers have heard of this town? ValenShephard (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, should we rename all earthquakes articles with all remotely obscure towns and cites? Quite frankly, I haven't heard of County Clare, Ireland, so should 2010 County Clare earthquake be renamed 2010 Ireland earthquake? Or what about people who haven't heard of Sumantra in Indonesia? Should April 2010 Sumatra earthquake be renamed April 2010 Indonesia earthquake? —Mikemoral♪♫ 02:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe they should. But I am arguing for this article, which is a very common news story in the world, while those earthquakes are not as well known, I would argue (they both have tiny badly written articles, they are obscure events compared to this which is world famous). In this case, I am choosing to ignore all rules, which is legitimate, and concentrate on trying to make the article accessible, while still accurate, for as many people as possible. ValenShephard (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Ideally, for readers unfamiliar with Chilean regions, 2010 Chile mining accident would be best. What if there is another accident next year? In two years? Chile mining accident could be a disambiguation page. —Mikemoral♪♫ 02:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
If you read up in this section, you will see that was the name I desired. If another disaster happens, the name can change. But anyway, this isnt even a very serious issue. The article redirects from the names that are being argued over, so its a win-win situation. I guess it is just stubborness to want to change the name, while the article could be expanded and improved in the meanwhile. If anyone knows of it as the copiapo accident, they will search for that, and arrive here. And if they are like most people who only know it has happened in Chile, they will find it too. Catering for the majority of normal, everyday users is superior to a pedantic accuracy (which doesnt matter to them much anyway). ValenShephard (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
That is better, but why not just have that as a redirect to the originally titled article? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Do not add the year putting the year is against MOS and standard behavior. It just isn't necessary. Leave a redirect at "2010 blahblah", but leave the year out of the article title. It's pointless. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Why, this isn't Chile's only ever mining accident. And can proof be given that overall its the most notable and not just WP:RECENTISM. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I gave my comments above in the "Move" section regarding what I think the name of the article should be. I don't care too much that it's this name instead of that name. I do care whether the year is added or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The essay WP:RECENT has got nothing, not one single thing, to do with the naming policies and guidelines. It is totally irrelevant. And the notability of this accident as the Chile mining accident is already beyond obvious, how anyone can even challenge this, especially without any evidence, is beyond me. Infact, it is the tendency to pretend that every article needs 2010 tacked onto it, has made the search box practically useless for finding articles. There is a good reason why it is not required unless absolutely necessary. It is not the default approash by any stretch of the imagination, no matter how many people ignorantly add it out of simple routine for not knowing any better. MickMacNee (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Chile mining accident is an absurd name, even if 2006 Copiapó mining accident didn't exist. HaŋaRoa (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    Don't just assert it as if you know what you are talking about and everyone else is a moron. Give a policy backed reason referring to the actual wording of any one of the many guidelines that supports the current title and have been provided. That is all I ask. MickMacNee (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Move to 2010 Copiapó mining accident and lock this page from being moved. "Chilean mine disaster" already was redirecting to this article, so it should be easy enough to find. If not, the year should give it away as to what accident this is. That titel is absurdly undescriptive. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    As above, prove it, don't assert it. The presence of redirects is completely irrelevant. If anything, their pointing here simply proves that this page is the Chile mining accident, and thus it is properly titled as such, no matter how many articles are pointily created for no other reason that to somehow prove that there is a naming issue here, when there never was. MickMacNee (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The fact that there are other accidents means that we cannot simply call it "the" Chile mining accident. It is only "the" accident right now because it's the current one. It has already been shown there was a 2006 accident in the same location. Often times when a similar accident in the same year has been shown, both articles are disambiguated, e.g. August and June 2004 Moscow Metro bombings, two June 2009 Washington Metro train accident. I remember when "Haiti earthquake" used to redirect into the 2010 Haiti earthquake, which was quickly reversed. My point is that the year is important, and should at least be moved to 2010 Chile mining accident if not to the original more specific region title. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
MickMacNee the Chileans have been mining stuff since the 19th century, they fought a war over the control of nitrates in the north of their country for starters. This may be the first accident to get a Wikipedia article, but it doesn't mean that there aren't other accidents which are also important/worthy of an article - calling it this is likely to confuse users. If you want to assert that its the most significant accident at this particular mine and less the year call it Copiapó mining accident which would be a reasonable compromise. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Like I said, both of you, please make arguments based on the actual guidelines, and what they say is, WE DO NOT DISAMBIGUATE AGAINST NON-EXISTENT PAGES. I find it rather ludicrous that people are suggesting we are suddenly confusing readers, when until this accident, 'Chile mining accident' and all variations were redlinks. If you actually want to confuse readers, then go ahead and do everything possible to lie to the reader by pretending we have loads of articles on Chile mining accidents, when we don't. If you think there have been much more notable Chile mining accidents in history, then go ahead and write the articles, there must be plenty of coverage in modern sources, if they were truly historically notable, and eclipse this incident. Then, per the actual guidelines, we deal with it. Until then, no, we don't. The 2006 article was only created because of this moronic dispute, people must be crazy if they think that means there is now suddenly a potential for confusion - it is a situation entirely manufactured by editors, whereas the actual guidelines are written and are there to help readers. And comparing the actual events, and simple common sense, that incident is nowhere near to being confused with this article BY ACTUAL READERS right now, or in future. This incident is a hundred times more worthy of the title 'Chile mining accident'. We can wait a month and check the respective page views if you guys really don't believe this is true, and really are making decisions and assertions based on real reaaders, not imaginary ones. MickMacNee (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
You gave me the precise answer. There are enough other incidents that could eclipse this incident, and that is the reason this article should not be kept here. It doesn't matter if there is just one another incident or hundreds of them. This isn't the only accident, and thereby this shouldn't be named with this undescriptive, not precise and not significant enough "Chile mining accident" knowing the facts that there are other accidents. And what exactly is the policy you're recalling. Could you please quote it? Diego Grez (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Jesus christ. So, after god knows how long insisting you are just right and you know how to properly name articles on Wikipedia, you are only now interested in the wording of the policies and guidelines that cover it. Right. Here's a brief selection of relevant passages in no particular order except how I found them, but frankly, nearly everything you say contravenes one part or another of all the linked pages I presented to you what seems like days ago now:
  • "article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources call the subject of the article" (click above link to see how common your preferred title is)
  • "titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in" (it would be pretty easily confirmed that most people are finding this article, either directly or through recognition, through the various basic forms of 'chile mining accident', and not by typing in the ridiculous former title complete with year)
  • "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors." (i.e., don't artifically create a 'naming conflict' by creating new articles for incidents where there was no evident demand for it before)
  • "In determining which of several alternative names is more common, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets" (again, it is pretty obvious what the common name of this incident is and isn't, if following this advice)
  • "Articles' titles usually merely indicate the name of the topic. When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided" (self explanatory, there are no other relevant uses of the term, and the current title is satisfactory indication, the opening line does the rest, because despite what people seem to think, the title does not exist to act as part of the article text)
  • "If the topic of the article is the primary topic ... then the article can take that title without modification." (i.e. don't tack years on if not needed, don't refer to places most people won't recognise, especially when in doing so you remove a more recognisable term - i.e. Chile)
  • "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead" (we've already covered the fact that there are no legitimate other articles that currently exist on Wikipedia that this title could possibly refer to)
  • "If a primary topic exists, the term should be the title of the article on that topic" (just to hammer home the point, you can try and dispute it is not the primary topic if you want, but all the necessary instruction for how to properly do that is detailed in the pages, I am not interested in any more basic assertion)
  • "The year ("when") should not be used in the title unless other descriptors are insufficient to establish the identity of the incident." (self-explanatory, 2010 is only being justified by editors who imagine there is a conflict here, and flatly refuse to believe that readers do not and will not be thinking of any other incident when they hear 'chile mining accident'. Not now, and not years to come)
  • "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate" (this pretty much covers all the arguments about naming the article based on what future disasters might occur)
In short, apart from continual simple assertion without any reference to any guideline or policy at all, you have presented absolutely no proof, not one ounce of proof, that 'Chile mining accident' is not the WP:common name of this incident, or that the old title is more appropriate for English readers, and it is quite clear, it doesn't matter how much you bang on about other incidents, unless or until you create an article about an incident that you can prove readers will be looking for under this title, and you can prove is going to be confused by actual readers for this actual incident and this actual article, then there is no policy or guideline that demands this article be disambiguated/described any better than it currently is. MickMacNee (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Your assertions and empty are hollow and based on recentism. If we did things the way you're proposing, then all historical events would be disambiguated and the most recent one getting the title. This has happened multiple times in the past with stuff like Route 101 (redirecting to U.S. Route 101 and Pope Benedict (redirecting to the current one, XVI) and 2004 Moscow metro bombing (formerly just about the August bombing, which by your assertion would be more notable and deserving of the original title), and 2009 Washington Metro train collision (formerly about the February collision). Every time, it has been disambiguated with the proper year or number or date affixed to it. i'm basing my assertions on actual practice, not quoting policy endlessly. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Rubbish. You've just given some brilliant examples of what the policy and the practice actually is - use the un-disambiguated title UNTIL another event occurs or is written about. I will repeat, in case you really haven't read it, the WP:RECENTISM essay HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ARTICLE NAMING, and all the naming and disambiguation guidance has been written with full consideration of what to do when writing about current events and historic events. Neither the guidance, or that essay, advocate pre-emptive disambiguation to cater for people either writing about past events later on, or future events that have not happened yet, becuase doing so does not actually help the reader at all, it merely solves problems editors manufacture in their heads after they have found the article - by which time the intended function of the title has already been proven to work. MickMacNee (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
But, there HAVE been other incidents, we are not pre-emptively disambiguating the page for nothing. Yet you said that the creation of the 2006 accident was "pointed" and only done in response to the current naming debate. Which doesn't make sense, because Wikipedia is built around interests, and one topic may spawn more articles related to that subject (e.g. Top kill article created after Deepwater Horizon oil spill). The 2006 accident is merely an extension of that interest following the 2010 one. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
It was created simply to interfere with this discussion, that is simply self evident from words of the author himself in this discussion. We can come back to it in a years time and examine it's edit history if you want, but it is already pretty obvious it is a dead duck, doomed to a lifetime of trivial and/or bot edits. And once again, your Top Kill example is irrelevant, that phenomena has not one thing to do with naming articles. Infact, it's brilliant to note that readers are not having 2010 pointlessly rammed down their throats in that title too, and people wanting to find that article through the search box do infact actually have a chance of finding it, because it uses the common name and becuase it follows the guidelines written to help readers, not editors. Any time you want to prove that 2010 or Copiapó are required without having to fall back on made up conflicts, go right ahead, but no more blind assertion please. MickMacNee (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion on page name

I am responding to a request for a third opinion. I'll give mine in spite of the fact that ten or more editors have been disputing about the name here in the past week.

I support the consensus of the majority of editors who commented above that the original 2010 Copiapó mining accident page name is the most appropropriate and the one most likely to be encyclopedic in the long term as well (e.g., if one is reading Wikipedia in 2015 or 2020, this event is unlikely to be in the nightly news). The article should be returned to the original name, all redirects updated to point to it, and move protection retained against that particular form of disruptive editing. – Athaenara ✉ 06:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Copiapó means nothing to the majority of editors right now, let alone in ten years time. I find it utterly ridiculous that people honestly seem to think that people need to be told this happened in 2010, to remember that we are talking about this incident. There is a very good reason why this is the only mining accident in Chile that has an article, and it is not recentism, it is becuase it is totally bizarre and unprecedented. People arguing that it is somehow confusing because of all those other imaginary articles that we could have if only people bothered to write the articles, are frankly not serving the readers in the slightest, not one tiny little bit, because they are catering for problems that do not exist, and for demand from readers that proveably does not exist. The fact that 'Chile mining accident' will still redirect as the overwhelming common name and primary topic, just totally condemns everybody's warped logic about what is and isn't a more descriptive or recognisable title. Frankly, it is not encyclopoedic to be over-precise, or to use the title as part of the article text (it should be noted that Copiapó doesn't even appear in the first line, violating wp:lede and wp:title, if it is supposed to be in the title). These are very basic principles that underpin all the guidance about naming articles. It's basic stuff frankly, which is why it is so amazing that so many people seem totally ignorant of it, and want to pretend that their rationales for deciding titles are what are behind the guidelines - they are not, for very good reasons, designed from how readers actually use titles. MickMacNee (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post discussion, er, discussion

Hmmm. There was me thinking that 'consensus' requires the weighted judgement of policy/guideline backed arguments (and by the by, that closing admins needed to be WP:UNINVOLVED), and not just a vote count of a crowd of people giving proveably policy-ignoring opinions based on what they think that they know about, but haven't really got the first idea of how/why titles are chosen here (as knowing that would actually require reading the guidance - just too hard for some people I guess). Still, now we have it back at such a brilliant title, I await the flood of readers posting thank you messages here for clearing up their supposed confusion, as they have presumably been wandering around the pedia like little boys lost without their helpful 2010 pointers, and looking for the Copiapo incident that they've all heard about in sources, or more amazingly, looking for some other Chilean mining incident. It makes me laugh at the thought of all those imaginary readers looking for all those other imaginary non-existent pages about other Chile mining accidents, arriving here, seeing this naming convention, and then coming to the conclusion based on our actual naming policies that it is like this because we do have other pages, and then realing that we have sod all information on the incident they were supposedly looking for. But as we all know, those readers do not exist, and this renaming is to satisfy editors only, full stop, who of course already know where the article is, so have no need to worry about how readers go about finding it, which is of course, what the naming and disambiguation guidelines were written to take account of (and again, if you don't read them, you won't have a clue why your opinions are so wrong). A triumph all round. MickMacNee (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think MickMacNee makes his points in a very difficult way but there is some merit to them. Very few of the English language sources refer to Copiapo in any meaningful way, and perhaps the next time this conversation comes up it might be worth considering the location. Equally, that could be WP:Systemic Bias and perhaps all the Spanish sources refer to it as Copiapo?
However, I do think the year is relevant, there are clearly other mining accidents in the area that are notable, and this allows sufficient precision in naming. This makes a slight change from my previous thoughts way up near the top of the page in an earlier conversation. Bigger digger (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Have you even tried to google "accidente minero en Copiapó"?. Most news sources, by googling that name show: "ONEMI - NOTICIAS - Monitoreo de accidente minero en Copiapó"; "Más de 30 mineros atrapados tras accidente en Copiapó | Crónica ..."; "lanacion.cl: Golborne vuelve a Chile por accidente minero en Copiapó"; etc. Diego Grez (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
It must be Groundhog Day. Read the guidelines, what matters are English lanugague sources and English language usage. And P.S, I have reverted your change of Chile mining accident into a disambiguation page, as it is the overwhelming common name for this incident per the guidelines - read them. Having a crap title for this page is one thing because the common name at least redirects here, but inconveniencing readers by forcing them to choose between an irrelevent stub and the article they are actually looking for is unnacceptable, and for two entries, is dealt with by hatnotes, not dab pages. MickMacNee (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Well I won't reset your Groundhog Day by continuing that bit of the discussion but I would agree that Chile mining accident should redirect here instead of being a dab. Bigger digger (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Redirecting Chile mining accident here implies Chile hasn't had any other serious mining accidents. See smoke tragedy for a counterexample. HaŋaRoa (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that actually helps MickMacNee's position. Anyone searching for the Chile mining accident is not going to be looking for information on a tragedy that occurred 65 years ago and is known as the smoke tragedy, not as the El Teniente mining accident. Bigger digger (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
(e/c)I'm really not interested. Talking to you about WP:COMMON NAME or WP:PRIMARY USAGE is clearly a complete waste of time, just like that dab page is a waste of readers time. Still, I guess we have two brand new articles that were so in demand here, that they were only created to justify making it into a dab page. Now all you have to do is put some actual content into them that is worth reading. And are you sure there haven't been any other 'smoke tragedy's in history? Smoke tragedy as a WP:TITLE certainly does seem open to confusion and ambiguity in the exact same manner that everybody argued above Chile mining accident was, through what we are assured is their cast iron understanding of naming policies and guidelines. To re-use their own arguments, are you sure that it shouldn't be titled 1945 El Teniente mining accident instead? MickMacNee (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree about Smoke tragedy. Moved to the title suggested. Diego Grez (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, impeccable display of logic there. I think that this episode has helped change my mind. The smoke tragedy was a Chile mining accident, but is very unlikely to be the one that any English-language user is searching for. At the moment, I would suggest that Chile mining accident redirects here and there's a hatnote to Mining_accident#Chile. Thoughts? Bigger digger (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer that Chile mining accident redirected to Mining accident#Chile but I don't feel strongly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


What is a destructive drill?

I can make a guess as to the meaning but cannot find a definition by a Google search.

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your question and sorry for the drilling slang I used in my contribution. Basically, there is two main ways of drilling boreholes:

  1. "Destructive drilling" with drill bits crushing the rock into a fine dust, aka "the cuttings" (drilling debris), and then removing the cuttings with the drilling fluid.
  2. "Core drilling" with a core taker (with a double or triple core barrel to preserve the core from the rotation of the tube bearing the diamond crown) to recover well preserved rock cores for mineralogical or petrographical analysis.

As destructive drilling is much faster than core drilling, definitely in very large diameter (0.7 m) as this one required for the passage of the capsule needed to rescue the 33 miners, destructive drilling was selected using the reamer of a raise boring machine operating in reverse direction to go down (this is a very particular application of this type of machine and certainly deserves more information).

The drilling fluid can be air, water, oil, or a special drilling mud as a function of the rock type and borehole wall stability. However, the presence of the miners below rules out the use of drilling liquids such as water or mud. Consequently, the borehole must be drilled with air in a destructive way, by crushing the rock with an abrasive rotating tool (drill bit, reamer, ...) into a fine dust mostly eliminated towards the bottom of the small pilot hole existing already. The finest dusts produced by the reamer could also be removed by the fraction of compressed air going back to the surface. However, more detailed information on the drilling technique really applied is needed. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Mine diagram

In the mine diagram, there is a translation error. The phrase "Shelter depth (~120 m)" corresponds to the original "Refugio (cota 120 aprox.)". The word "cota" in Spanish should be translated as "hight" or "level", that is, the elevation from Mean Sea Level, that is not the same as the depth from the surface. Aldo L (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that you cannot call this depth, depth increases downward. I added a clarification.--Patrick (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The two diagrams differ from one another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.71.244 (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Uncertainty about their names

The Wikipedia article contains a link to List of trapped miners, which lists 33 names.

However, the names of Esteban Rojas Carrizo (who is mentionend here), Claudio Acuña Cortés (who is mentioned here), and Carlos Mamani Solís (who is mentioned here) are not included on the list.

So, does anyone have an authoritative list of the names of the miners? --Oz1cz (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've done a bit more research, and it turns out that Roberto López Bordones, who is on El Mercurio's list, is in fact not trapped in the mine. (See http://www.maray.cl/articulos_ver.php?id=4158) --Oz1cz (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Calculation of the drilling debris mass

Calculation of the volume of drilling debris to be evacuated by the miners themselves.

This is in fact the quarter or the half of the 3000 to 4000 tons erroneously reported in the WikiNews article:

Race to save Chilean miners trapped underground from spiralling into depression continues

"Quotation from WikiNews (as seen on September 4th, 2010)":

"But over the weekend, The New York Times reported that the "miners who have astonished the world with their discipline a half-mile underground will have to aid their own escape — clearing 3,000 to 4,000 tons of rock that will fall as the rescue hole is drilled, the engineer in charge of drilling said Sunday ..."

In fact, the miners will have to remove by themselves a total mass of fine rock debris (drilling cuttings) estimated between 700 and 1500 metric tons considering a borehole diameter of 70 cm or 1 m respectively, with a depth of 688 m and a rock density of 2.7 metric ton per cubic meter. See the table below for the volume and mass calculations easy to verify.

And it is already a large mass to be continuously evacuated by the miners.

Calculation of the drilling debris mass (in metric ton)

Diameter D (m) 0,20 0,50 0,66 0,70 0,80 0,90 1,00 1,50 1,65
Radius r (m) 0,10 0,25 0,33 0,35 0,40 0,45 0,50 0,75 0,83
Section area S (m2) 0,031 0,196 0,342 0,385 0,503 0,636 0,785 1,767 2,138
Depth L (m) 688 688 688 688 688 688 688 688 688
Volume V (m3) 22 135 235 265 346 438 540 1216 1471
Density rho (metric ton/m3) 2,7 2,7 2,7 2,7 2,7 2,7 2,7 2,7 2,7
Mass m (metric ton) 58 365 636 715 934 1182 1459 3283 3972

Oops, I realized I forgot to sign. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, Wikinews is not Wikipedia. Post your comments about the article there, not here. --Diego Grez (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I did it, but this matter is also relevant to this page, so I copied it here, to also share it on this discussion page. Shinkolobwe (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The figures for mass in metric tonnes seem to include the mass of rock in the initial small tunnel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.59.216 (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this observation is correct. Indeed, in my calculations, I did not substract the volume of the inner "empty" cylinder (small borehole of ~20 cm diameter) from the outer cylinder. I envisaged first to do it, but the effect of doing so on the total volume of rocks debris to be removed is negligible. The reason is that in a cylinder most of the volume (or of the corresponding mass) is located in the outer part of the cylinder, because the surface of a circle depends on the square of its radius (S =  π r2). The main uncertainty on the rock volume of the borehole resides thus in the imprecision on the final diameter of the effectively realised borehole ("as built" dimensions). So it presently makes no sense to determine more precise numbers than the range I have provided. However, if you wish, you can substract the 58 tons of the 20 cm diameter borehole (first column intentionally provided for this purpose) from the numbers given in the hereabove mentioned table, but it does not change very much the situation: a tremendous amount of work is awaiting for the miners (657 to 1401 metric tons). For concluding, the range 700 to 1500 metric tons presently seems to be a reasonable estimation and is much less than the numbers given by the New York Time[s] (3000 to 4000 tons). Or by the way, could this discrepancy simply occur because a forgotten conversion factor between non-metric and metric tons ? I have to check this hypothesis !
A last precision about mining terminology: a tunnel always describes a horizontal gallery or drift, while a borehole, a shaft, or a well, is drilled (or sunk) in the vertical direction. I do not consider here inclined engineering works which can belong to both categories, depending on their diameter. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Could this discrepancy simply occur because a forgotten conversion factor between non-metric and metric tons ? No, the conversion factor between ton and metric ton (or tonne) is always close to one (0.910 or 1.016 for short ton (US) or long ton (UK) respectively). It is thus not a factor two or more. Shinkolobwe (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I was looking at the information in the article and in the news, and I think the estimation in the article is too high and needs to be revised. The news articles I've read indicate that the Strata 950 is the only drilling operation that the miners have to help with right now, and that that borehole is 66 cm in diameter. If that's true, then the miners will "only" have to remove about 578 tonnes of drill cuttings (636 tonnes for the 66cm borehole minus 58 tonnes for the 20cm pilot hole). This agrees (more or less) with one estimate I read of "12 to 15 tonnes per day" until early November. See here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11155447 --Lukeonia1 (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The Title of the Article is Not in Normal Title Case. It Should Read "2010 Copiapó Mining Accident".

I hate to dredge this subject up again after all that debate but the title of the article is not in normal title case and is tagged move=sysop. I would fix it if I could. Veriss (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The title is not "perfectly good" in proper English but I recognize that many articles, bookmarks, etc. on the internet probably link to the current, though incorrect, article name so agree that it should remain unchanged. Veriss (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Links pointing into Wikipedia from external sites are non-issue. When a page on Wikipedia is renamed a redirect is automatically created and external incoming links follow the redirect. It also complies with Wikipedia:Article titles already anyway.--Alvin-cs ✉ 20:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Yep, also, why do you say "the title is not perfectly good in proper english"? I created it under this title based on: titles of earthquakes and events that happen more than once in history (example: 2006 Copiapó mining accident); why Copiapó? Because Copiapó is the place where the San José mine is located; why mining accident? Because that's the proper way to call whatever this accident is. --Diego Grez (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the attention to detail, Veriss, but Wikipedia uses sentence case, not title case (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles). cheers, 205.250.164.112 (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for rescue capsule photo or diagram

A photograph, link to a photograph, or diagram of the rescue capsules would be very interesting here, I think. I found this picture gallery to be very informative, and will add it to the external links, but it doesn't have photos of the rescue capsules. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Found some: side view; top view cross-section; side view, occupied. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Lining of the head of the shaft with a casing

'Mañalich also indicated he expected only the first 100 - 200 meters of the shaft to be encased, a task that could be performed in only 10 hours.' What does it means ? Could you explain ? Thanks, db1987db (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps they mean "encamisado" by "encased". --Diego Grez (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That refers to the need to line the rescue shaft with a metallic casing (a tube) to keep it from collapsing. It turns out that the material they were drilling through was so firm below the first few hundred meters that they won't need to line any of that much longer lower segment to be assured of the integrity of the rescue shaft. This operation is also needed to avoid the fall of dangerous rock debris on the rescue pod. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC). Shinkolobwe (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Perfect explanation! Cheers for that :) db1987db (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Confusing point in article

I think I know the answer to this point from elsewhere but the article does not explain it.

If a borehole is being drilled through rock (or wood), the bits and pieces cut loose or ground loose by the drillhead cannot fall out of the bottom of the hole during the initial drilling process. It is only when the hole reaches an open space that some debris can fall through.

Where the article talks about 500 kg of rock falling into the mine shaft per hour and having to be cleared away by the miners, it would be helpful to explain that an initial relatively small hole is drilled and then progressively enlarged by repeated drilling. And that the fall of rock out of the bottom of the hole will happen during the repeated drillings, not the drilling of the initial small hole.

I'm not going to try to make this change because what I wrote would be at least 3rd, 4th, or 5th hand, not based on a proper source.

I'm also wondering if the rock that will fall and need to be cleared will be primarily small pieces of broken rock or whether there will be a high percentage of rock "dust" that the miners will have to try to avoid inhaling.

Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Logically thinking the rocks fall down during the shaft widening process, not during the pilot bore drill Egh0st (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Gang of five planned their own escape?

Mutiny of the miners: Gang of five 'planned their own escape', Mail Online, UK, By Matheus Sanchez, Last updated at 8:54 AM on 11th October 2010:

“ . . . There had been reports of fist fights, weeping and extreme depression caused by their bleak situation, particularly in the gruelling 17 days before they were found alive.

“It is understood that five men, who had been subcontracted to work at the mine and do not have close relations with the others, had ‘broken away’ from the main group. . . ”

posted by Cool Nerd (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong pod/s number?

from the article: "Several custom-built rescue pods, designed by NASA engineers and constructed by the Chilean Navy, were delivered to the site of the accident.[48] "

and where does it actually say that there are several escape pods? I'm rather under impression there's only one such pod constructed. Egh0st (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

With even a cursory check, there have been multiple articles, even on the BBC, describing three or four copies of the escape capsule. Several media outlets have provided pictures of the secondary and tercerary pods being delivered to the rescue site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veriss1 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Ack, the bot was right. Damn bots! I forgot to sign. Veriss (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Needs Work

This sub-section needs serious work if you want to include it in the intro. I am an American observer and have no dog in this fight but this sentence has too many weasel words in it to be included in the intro.

"Some, including lawyers representing the mining company, suspect that the owners of the mine will declare bankruptcy after the men are rescued.[1][2]"

I moved it here in hopes others more qualified can fix it, evaluate the sources, provide some context and determine where it best fits within the article. Thanks Veriss (talk) 03:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I was told

That this article could end up on the wiki main page as a current event with thousands of visitors hourly while I was doing some minor readability edits.

This is an article about a major Latin American event with Global Impact on an English speaking wiki. Our brothers in Chile did both the right thing and the awesome thing and and fully own the just rewards.

That this situation might normally result in awkward statements and translations from either side of the culture divide but we can't avoid actual reality so us Gringos and Latinos are in this together and need to clean this article up.

I took a good stab at it but I know the sources need a lot of help. Please step in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veriss1 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Dang sinebot...lol. Veriss (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I requested....

...copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. I was told that there is a group that provides these services if we put the {grammar} tag in the article. Veriss (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Rock type?

Is it worth naming the prevailing rock type? - e.g. "... the particularly hard igneous rock ..." or "... the particularly hard igneous rock, diorite..." (cite [4]). - The only descriptor is: "The particularly hard rock exacerbated the drill's tendency to drift." -- ...... "Hard rock" may be sufficient. Yes? No? - Regards, Cablehorn (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think "particularly hard rock" is clear enough to understand the situation. Veriss (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a copper and gold mine. Gold usually occurs in granite and quartz, both very hard rocks.—QuicksilverT @ 16:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Duration of ascent

In the article, the duration of the ascent is quoted as three hours for each miner, on CNN it says 15 minutes. What is right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.113.85.95 (talk) 09:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. Most sources are indicating that each cycle will take roughly an hour. Several minutes to harness the person into the capsule, ten to twenty minutes to lift them to the surface, several more minutes at the surface to unhook and remove the passenger and then twenty minutes or so to lower the capsule again. Veriss (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
My Wikinews investigation says the ascent will take from 15 to 20 minutes for each miner. --Diego Grez (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Good thing that they drilled through such dense rock all the way; if they had seams from tube lining or looser rock, it would take much longer. The original estimate was very conservative, though, and should probably not even appear in the article. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In watching the BBC News continuous streaming news feed on the Internet, it appears that the trip up the borehole is taking about 10 to 15 minutes, with a round trip time of around 45-50 minutes. After the fifth miner was brought up there was an extended delay of 20-30 minutes as technicians checked the rescue capsule and swapped out or lubricated the urethane-coated guide rollers. I haven't watched the coverage continuously, but presumably it will be necessary to periodically perform maintenance or even swap out rescue capsules to ensure that the rescue proceeds smoothly.—QuicksilverT @ 16:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The 21st miner came up at 16:30, about 16.3 hours after the 1st miner, who came up just ten minutes after midnight (0:10), so the average time per trip is about (16.3*60)/(21-1) = 48.9 minutes. —QuicksilverT @ 19:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

New Progress Bar

I eliminated the progress bars for the “plan A” and “plan C” drills, since they have been shut off to focus on the rescue effort through the now-completed “plan B” shaft. A new progress bar is in place to keep track of how many men have been lifted out (a process which could take a couple of days). I don’t know if that should be upped to 35, to include the doctor and mining expert who will be lowered in, or not? Mburn16 (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The progress bars were a great feature, I'm sure many appreciated them but I think there is still some value in leaving the Plan A and Plan C progress bars in the article. From what I've read so far, there will be a total of 38 people to eventually lift to the surface. Three rescuers will descend on the first three cycles of the capsule and an additional two rescuers will join them at the 12 hour mark to permit the first three an opportunity to rest during the possibly up to 48 hour long extraction phase. Veriss (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
After going back to look for good sources, it appears that there is little consistency in the reporting of exactly how many rescuers they are planning to send down. In light of this, and since the planned number may be subject to change as things develop, I suggest that the bar should just indicate the 33 victims. To try to include the rescuers would be a moving target and the significant number is mainly the 33. Veriss (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
This is not a small point, in my opinion. If a catastrophe happened, the rescuers sent down would then become victims of their own right. Perhaps the running count can indicate the status of the 33 initial victims/survivors, along with a separate count for the rescuers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.139.35 (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused about the progress bar. At the moment it says: 4 rescued, 33 remaining, 3 rescuers. If there are 33 miners plus 3 rescuers the total should be 36 but 33 + 4 = 37. What's going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.218.171 (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
That's 4 rescued of 33 total (not 4 rescued, 33 remaining). The rescue workers are not included in the total. 96.50.109.213 (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The progress bar should not count the rescue workers as victims, but should indicate that there currently 3 rescue workers down there with the miners. It should indicate the number rescued followed by the number of miners remaining (e.g. 5 miners rescued, 28 remaining). We should be subtracting from 33, not include in the rescue workers in the rescued miner count, but still indicate that there are 3 rescue workers down there. Let's focus on the miners, so as to not confuse readers.Poetworm (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Previous survival record?

The article says, "The miners have survived underground for a longer period of time than any other group in any prior mining accident." What was the previous record? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, but the other most important mining accident is the German Wunder von Lengede or something like that. --Diego Grez (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"Last year, three miners survived 25 days trapped in a flooded mine in southern China, and two miners in northeast China were rescued after 23 days in 1983. Few other rescues have taken more than two weeks."[5] I read somewhere else that was the previous world record. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 04:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Earth rotation side effects

Other editors in time zones where they are fully awake please keep updating the bar as the miners are rescued. It's sleep time in the NYC to Los Angeles time zones. Thanks.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

So what happened to "The City that Never Sleeps" ? in Oz - 220.101 talk\Contribs 07:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The rescued miners from the Beaconsfield Mine collapse, Todd Russell and Brant Webb, have been commentators on this event on the Nine Network. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.233.21 (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Reference for Plans & Drills

Found this recent reference with good details of rescue Plans A,B,& C and the relevant drilling equipment.
Yang, Jennifer (October 10 2010) “From collapse to rescue: Inside the Chile mine disaster”. TheStar.com, Accessed on October 13, 2010

<ref name=thestar>Yang, Jennifer (October 10 2010) [http://www.thestar.com/news/world/chile/article/873382 “From collapse to rescue: Inside the Chile mine disaster”]. [[TheStar.com]], Accessed on October 13, 2010</ref>

(edit conflict) - 220.101 talk\Contribs 08:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Nationality in table

Is this really necessary? The flag overkill seems to violate MOS:FLAG, but why include nationality at all, when it's enough to say in the text somewhere that all the miners are Chilean except one? The article is after all about a Chilean mine. Lampman (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur, though I haven't read the relevant policy. Maybe even have one flag then '' to repeat except for the Bolivian, at most. - 220.101 talk\Contribs 09:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed & removed that column. --Xeeron (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Images available ...

On Flickr at http://www.flickr.com/photos/rescatemineros - posted by the Chilean government under Creative Commons CC-BY-ND 2.0 - Alison ❤ 09:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That is now there under "External links" Ms Alison, though it was misplaced under "References" until I moved it at 10:05. ;-) - 220.101 talk\Contribs 11:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
On second thought that wasn't what you meant was it? - 220.101 talk\Contribs 11:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
CC-BY-ND is verboten because ND. Free culture enthusiasts agree on the fact that, if you can't use Photochop to insert 34, there is no point in having them. PirateCrackK (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Although Rescate Mineros selected the CC-BY-ND license, the Flickr description says "These photographs are property of the Government of Chile for editorial use only". This contradicts the license and think we need them to clarify, if they really do allow commercial use and use on Wikipedia. --Aude (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm seeing these images on Flickr licensed with CC-BY, not CC-BY-ND [6]. Still, the note in the photo description about commercial use contradicts the license. --Aude (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I sent them a message asking for clarification, noting that we want to use the images on Wikipedia. --Aude (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

11th miner just rescued

I changed the numbers in the graph to reflect that. Atomic1fire (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Progress Bar alignment faulty

The progress bars are badly aligned and goes off the right-hand edge of the page, no matter how wide the browser window (IE7). The left-edge of each bar is aligned with the centre of the infobox. The heading of each bar is ok. Bazza (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur, I have the same problem with IE7. (Time to Update Bazza?) - 220.101 talk\Contribs 15:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Safari 5.0.2 on OS X has some progress bar issues too; specifically, the upper third of the "Extraction Progress" text overlaps with the black outline around the "Drilling Progress" progress bar above. It's still somewhat readable, but it looks ugly being broken such. IE7 really has standards compliance issues and changes should be made only if it's not going to negatively impact the display on more compliant browsers, I think...however, I plan to add a slight space above the "Extraction Progress" text to address the Safari issue since it is much more standards compliant and doing so will not majorly change the layout. 71.57.48.148 (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"The scene was broadcast by a camera brought by rescue worker González."

There was a live feed already established when rescue worker González reached the bottom. Judging by the quality, it was a web-cam-type device. When the first miner was about to be raised, the original audio carried the following commands (in Spanish): "Tell Manolo (Manuel González, first rescuer) that when everything is ready he has to come to the telephone [to communicate it]", and "Don't block the camera as the winch operator has to see the cage". Later in the night the same person warned Manolo to refrain his manners "as the whole planet is watching you". So I assume it was a closed TV circuit established earlier and primarily to oversee the technical aspects of the operation. Aldo L (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Miners (About to be) rescued! Politicians steal credits again?

Food for thoughts if there will be a controversy section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.28.90 (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

An interesting dilemma, whilst there are men in the mine whether worker or rescuer, the operation might be considered unfinished. It would be a little obtuse to suggest that, if it continues to run smoothly, when Luis Urzua, the last on the list, is brought to the surface that the operation is not complete because a rescue worker has been down there for what might be 30 hours needs to be "rescued". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.251.181 (talk) 06:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

As impersonal as it may sound, I would suggest that the rescuers in the mine be considered as part of the "rescue infrastructure." The primary rescue mission really is over once the 33 miners are safely up from my viewpoint; however, obviously the rescue operation itself is not over until the rescuers are all back up, and they of course deserve to be tracked just as the miners are since they'll have spent significant time underground as well. Perhaps we can keep the current status bar for the 33 miners until they're all up (assuming no rescuers need to be brought up prematurely), then perhaps have a status bar/etc for the rescuers being brought up below it as soon as the miners are up and extraction of the rescuers begins? 71.57.48.148 (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that the current solution which displays a second progress bar for the status of the rescue workers is an excellent solution. Veriss (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

BBC is repeatedly reporting that there are 2 rescuers to be brought back up after the miners are rescued. They're stating that the first rescuer was already brought back up to the surface, but this contradicts previous reports and the given timeline on rescues. Were those 2 additional rescuers (for the total of 5) even sent down? Need a better reference than the BBC live stream to edit this since they cannot agree with themselves on this specific issue. In the long run, it's really not important when the rescuers came back up, however I do think it is important to make sure the list of rescuers who WERE sent down is correct...so is it the first 3, or are there 5? I wasn't watching the live stream overnight so perhaps I missed something. 71.57.48.148 (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC) BBC still saying only 2 rescuers down there. They're going to look a bit silly soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.186.189 (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, in the last hour alone they've (BBC) seem to stress there are only two rescuers down there total, although I don't know how verifiable that is. Watching the live feed they have down in the mine, it certainly looks like only two rescue workers,..but obviously that's not worth much. 98.165.176.87 (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The BBC are still saying there's only 2 down there, and the progress bar has been reverted again to say 5 though someone set it to 2 earlier. What is any other news agency saying? El Paulio (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Update: Now someone's upped it to 6. Care to provide some links, whoever it was? El Paulio (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
It was me that changed it from 2 to 5 because the BBC is wrong. I base this on two sources: http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/detalle/detallenoticias.asp?idnoticia=441043 and the Spanish version of this page Messelink (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Well it's certain the BBC were wrong as a brief headcount by myself from the mine camera shows 9 people. 4 miners, 5 rescuers. But it's possible I'm missing one. Wonder who was in charge of keeping count at the BBC... El Paulio (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
BBC have now acknowledged that "there is a certain amount of confusion".--81.106.147.132 (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
A BBC reporter just stated on the live feed that they themselves are confused about the number of rescuers. They said they think it's 4 or 5, and considering other sources and that we have descent times for 5 of them, that seems like the right number. 71.57.48.148 (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The Chilean mining minister just tweeted (at least per being quoted in the BBC live feed text) that there are six rescuers. However, multiple other sources point to 5, including the BBC crew carefully counting heads live. I suggest we leave it at 5 unless we get further confirmation that this number is incorrect. 71.57.48.148 (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I concur. El Paulio (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The link I gave above at 14:05 local time report a spokesperson saying they will send a sixth rescuer down. I haven't found that this has actually happened already. Messelink (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be an edit war going on between several people due to the mining minister's tweet. I added a comment to the markup to please see the talk page before changing it to 6 based solely on that. 71.57.48.148 (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I did a headcount when they were loading the last minor in the capsule, I saw 6 rescue workers. I'm going to update the status bar on that basis. 64.114.67.195 (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I concur, though I have no information regarding his name or when he decended. Messelink (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There are six in the BBC live feed right now. Six just posed on the CNN live feed holding a sign so they weren't moving around. Veriss (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, definitely 6.--81.106.147.132 (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there's definitely 6. Bizarre that no news agencies seemed to get that right. El Paulio (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some mistake regarding the age of the rescuers. The article is not coherent with either earlier revisions or the spanish version (e.g. Manuel Gonzalez appears to be 66 now, although he was told to be 32 before). 94.21.93.151 (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Are rescue workers genuine?

I have removed Mitchaleo Tismandianano from the rescue workers as there was no proper citation. I have to wonder whether the other rescue workers listed are genuine. Can someone who speaks Spanish assess whether the given emol.com refs support them?--81.106.147.132 (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In view of El Paulio's response I presume the other workers are genuine.--81.106.147.132 (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The five are genuine, I have added them from the emol source, including the times the went down. You should be able to verify this even if you don't speak Spanish. emol is the website of el mercurio, a renowned Chilean newspaper. Messelink (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, apologies.--81.106.147.132 (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Not at all necessary! You did right to remove the 6th one. Messelink (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Just a note per my above comment about the mining minster (very possibly incorrectly) stating that there are 6 rescuers...even if there are, I do not think it is the one you removed. (I tried to do the same removal but you beat me. :)) I could not find that name in any of the references concerning other rescuers, nor Googling (and both with the first and last names alone) for the rescuer. So I agree this removal was correct and should stand; it can always be fixed if we get updated information! 71.57.48.148 (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Upon watching live video of the rescue in progress, there were definitely six people still in the mine after the 33rd miner was rescued. I have no idea where there is any information that can confirm this, but it appears that the count of 6 is correct.--Jvanderb (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Likely error

The text refers to the "RIG-422" in the "Rescue Plans" section, but it should be "RIG-421". Ref precisiondrilling.com Chile Rescue Updates from Precision Drilling Corporation which was the company involved in 'Plan C'. I'll fix, revert if you have a good reason to object. - 220.101 talk\Contribs 09:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The image shows as : The note sent by the miners does not seem original. The original is the one here, I suppose. Someone who can read Spanish, please check. http://elmundosigueahi.blogspot.com/2010/08/estamos-bien-en-el-refugio-los-33.html 122.172.43.172 (talk) 03:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)nikhilnarayanan


Resolved
 – by me! - 220.101 talk\Contribs 11:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Pay at the mine

I saw it reported on the live BBC stream last night more than once that these miners are being paid around 20% more than at other Chilean mines, due to the safety record. Since the article does touch upon the pay of Chilean miners, I found it noteworthy to mention the higher pay at this specific mine. Unfortunately, I cannot find any usable references to support this specific number. I updated the article simply to note that the miners are being paid more than at other Chilean mines, with a reference to the English-language version of Der Spiegel, the only one I could readily find. If anyone can find backing information that they were indeed being paid around 20% higher than at other mines, please update and reference it... 71.57.48.148 (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's one RS ref which says their pay was 30–40% higher than at other private mines. Physchim62 (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What's with all the UTC?

The intro reads really bad with all the "local time" and UTC information in brackets. Is this really necessary? Local time is the most important thing and the rest is just not needed and if you look at other important event is not used. Bjmullan (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It's been an ongoing battle on how the time is expressed which I've given up on but still watch with a bemused eye. I agree that the only important time is local time and all this monkeying with UTC business is a waste of effort and a distraction, especially over a transient issue that will be moot after today. Veriss (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree, these should be changed from "local time" to just CLT/CLDT with the proper link to Time in Chile. (All of the current operations are in CLDT, but at least one reference is in CLT, as DST just started on 9 Oct there.) Excessive use of UTC is not needed as all operations are happening in the same location. 71.57.48.148 (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Happens all the time, its a thing that always gets fixed after a few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.28.90 (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I cleaned up a bunch of these. Probably still requires a bit more cleanup, but it reads more cleanly now with most UTC references removed (I left one in the infobox since it seemed appropriate.) Also noticed that the infobox time of 14:05 CLT contradicts the collapse time of 14:00 CLT in the article, neither properly referenced... 71.57.48.148 (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
We have to consider that this was a worldwide event, as it was watched live by many millions of people around the planet. Paraguay's Diario Popular newspaper aptly carried the following cover title on 13 October 2010: "The country [Paraguay, 2000 km away] did not sleep last night". Argentina's TodoNoticias TV correspondent stated that there were journalists from about 40 countries at Campamento Esperanza. I think that use of UTC at important milestones is granted. Aldo L (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Capsule transit time

I'm still very green to Wikipedia, so forgive me if I've inadvertently defied protocol in the way I've edited this article, participated in discussion, etc.

Anyway, I'm hoping to resolve the somewhat ambiguous and potentially inaccurate reference to the travel time of the Fenix capsule ([7]). I've been following the TV coverage rather closely, and I recall that as the operation began, officials predicted that bringing each miner to the surface would take at least an hour: about thirty minutes for the capsule to travel down, a few minutes to attach, calibrate, etc the medical and safety equipment, and another thirty to raise him. However, as the evening went on, it became obvious that the initial estimate was rather conservative, and the capsule's transit itself would take significantly less than a half hour. (This isn't just my subjective observation, mind you – the television reporters made similar remarks.) I tried to point out this development within the article, but my edit was reverted. Can anyone comment? Jrmarsico (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that we all just leave it alone till after the event is concluded. All it takes is the door getting jammed again and it throws all the speculation out the window once more. Veriss (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, that seems like a reasonable middle ground. Jrmarsico (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The transit time has actually decreased. Initially, it was estimated at about 30 minutes one-way. Then, this estimate was reduced to 20 minutes. In fact, the first rescue worker reached the underground mine in 16 minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.138.9 (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, and that's what I tried to point out in my edit, which was subsequently reverted. Jrmarsico (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that the elapsed time column be eliminated. It has no historical or encyclopediac value, as there can be variations due to checking the technology. While it may seem significant that the extraction time has been decreased, the actual time of egress for each miner is most important, in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.139.35 (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I concur. A brief textual explanation of how long the rescues were taking in general, once the operation is completed, is more appropriate in my opinion. 71.57.48.148 (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
… once the operation is completed … Fair enough - then it will be possible to provide an overall perspective. Until then, such an overview is not possible, so I suggest leaving the elapsed time column in place until then. Vilĉjo (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The transit time in the table is definitely different from the travel time which was less than 10 minutes for some of the later rescues. For example, I remember José Henríquez entering the capsule around 22:49 CEST (17:49 CLDT) and reaching the surface aroung 22:59 (17:59, as shown in the table). Actually, the transit time in the table also includes the descent time of the capsule and the entering and exit procedure, or, in other words, simply the time difference between two subsequent rescues. Therefore I would suggest to replace the term "transit time" by something like "rescue duration" or remove it completely (since it does not contain additional information the reader couldn't acquire by simple subtraction of two rescue times).--SiriusB (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by 200.88.98.205

Vandal has changed miners' ages, people's names, etc. Not sure on procedure to request an edit ban, but I do believe this vandal needs to be hit with a banhammer. 71.57.48.148 (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV, but he hasn't made enough vandal edits to get a block yet. :/ -174.117.237.76 (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Done?

They've all been saved now right? Mr. R00t Talk 01:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the five rescuers who were sent from the surface still remain in the mine at the time of this comment. Jrmarsico (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
...and some a-hole, eager for the glory of updating the completion, broke the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrovagus (talk • contribs) 01:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
the exact time it took to get all 33 miners out, given on the news, is "24 hours and 35 minutes." But now I hear some "22 hours". I think that that's the more accurate time. ResearchRave (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The Mining Minister tweeted that all there was left were 6 rescuers that were sent down that were left to be brought up. I also just heard from BBC UK that there were only six rescuers still left underground that were to be brought back to the surface. Shouldn't we update the progress meeter?Clarkcj12 (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
TV pics clearly show 6. So we've missed one.©Geni 01:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Not only did we miss one, but so did CNN as their website has said 5 for some time. But the picture underground clearly shows 6 rescuers. SargeAbernathy (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I was flipping channels, back and forth, and Fox News a few minutes ago said that there was confusion, but that there's actually 5 rescue workers. (And by the way, it's not that big a deal though, because they've only been down a few hours, whereas the miners were down there suffering for well over 2 months.) But it's 5 rescuers I believe... ResearchRave (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
They sent an extra worker about halfway through the rescue. One rescuer left, so there are five left in the mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.138.9 (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
There were clearly 6 when the mission accomplished sign was held up.©Geni 01:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I saw 6 at that point as well. 02:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I just heard "6" now, on Fox.... I might have mis-heard it before. But there was some confusion. But the number is 6....ResearchRave (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
That's a change from what Fox said maybe an hour ago. The only sure way to know is to count them as they come out, and I think Fox is still doing live coverage. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

New page

Just to bring to everyone's attention this article which I hope can detail international and local reactions to the event, including comments on media coverage etc. I will add some info but others need to espand the article. 03md 01:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Number of Rescuers in Mine

Is there 5 or 6? --Kuzwa (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

6 but we don't know who number 6 is.©Geni 01:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

On TV a few minutes ago they said the number was 5, and that appeared to be the count of those walking around in front of the webcames down in the mine. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Thats because one has been taken out. But when the Mission accomplished sighn was help up and they were all standing still in frame there were clearly 6.©Geni 01:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.eluniversal.com/2010/10/12/int_ava_designan-a-rescatisi_12A4595053.shtml It mentions another Chilean Navy Officer (Cristián Bugueño). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.42.105.21 (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

We're currently showing Rescuer number 6 as "name unknown". It's got to be Chuck Norris, surely.86.101.36.174 (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe "Gran Juan". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

How many rescue workers?

Watching coverage from the mine just now as Jorge Bustamante entered the capsule, there was only one more rescue worker in the picture. Maybe it was just five workers after all? 84.181.96.138 (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No, definitely 6. Several editors observed the "mission accomplished" banner displayed in front of 6 rescuers.--81.106.147.132 (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, we missed a time for one of the rescuers coming up. BBC cut away for a recap and I didn't have a live feed for a number of minutes. There were definitely 6 in frame. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I figured it out. 1st one was up at 22:30, *second* was up at 22:39. We're missing the 2nd time. Yes, nine minutes between first and second was a new record! Third was at 22:53, elapsed time of 14 minutes, so they were keeping up the torrid pace for a while before calming down. So all the entires are off by one. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
If you missed it so did the BBC reporters. Again they appear not to be sure how many people are still down there.©Geni 02:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
AAt 54 minutes past there are two people at the bottem of the shaft.©Geni 02:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, heck. It's 23:54 and there are two people down there again. So maybe my correction wasn't correct. =( The guy in black is now going up, leaving a guy in orange. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
At 00:03 the penultimate capsule appears, at 00:06 the rescuer emerges. I think my earlier 22:39 time was actually a rebroadcast on the BBC feed of the 22:30 rescuer. So the times from the beginning are 22:30, 22:53, 23:17, 23:42, 00:03, 00:32. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There are clearly two left in the mine's live feed via both CNN and Fox. BBC is distracted running political speeches it seems. Veriss (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Now that the capsule is down again, another worker has emerged from the dark. :-) 84.181.96.138 (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the list of rescue workers, aside from missing the sixth one, shows the wrong order for return to surface, as it appears that Manuel Gonzalez is first in, last out based on the current CNN feed. Risker (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
At this point no one seems quite sure best bet may be to keep track of the times and see if we can work it what order they went out in when more sources come through.©Geni 03:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

BBC is saying the same thing, he must be the rescue leader and so was first in and last out. Veriss (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

BBC is also saying that he was called "Manuel" by the ground crew. We should probably put a notice like http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidente_en_el_yacimiento_San_Jos%C3%A9_de_2010 has, which says the times are right, but the people they correspond to are probably not. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I support following the lead of the Spanish version's editors. I'm sure they have access to more detailed sources. Veriss (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I have been watching the live feed through Swedish television (which had no interruptions at all) for the last few hours. There were six rescuers in the mine. And I am pretty sure the rescuers were carrying uniforms in this order when coming up: Miner, military, military, miner, military, miner. (I was continually comparing what I saw with the list in the Spanish article, and the uniforms matched the "Afiliación" column in that article, as the column looked at the time. Note that I can't tell a GOPE and Armada uniform apart.) I hope that might help in checking who is who. And the last one up had the name "Manuel González" written on his helmet.
--David Göthberg (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Man in the photo with Álex Vega

The man in the photo with the tenth miner, Álex Vega (the guy with the pony tail), is one of the rescuer who got down the shaft. He got back up from the bottom at 23:17 Chliean time, according to what I saw on BBC World. Might be useful to know later, so I'm writing it here.Bouchecl (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Last rescuer

According with BBC and TVN, the last rescuer is Manuel González, not Pedro Martinez. Manuel go down first, and now he's comming to surface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.100.119.27 (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"Pedro Martinez" is a famous baseball pitcher. That name was some vandal's idea of a joke, I think. The spanish wiki (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidente_en_el_yacimiento_San_Jos%C3%A9_de_2010) lists the name as Pedro Gomez. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Note on rescuer table that times don't match names

What is this supposed to mean? "Note: The recovery times for several of the rescuers do not necessarily match with the correct names although the names and times are correct." Jpatokal (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

We know the times that people appeared on the surface. We don't know what order people appeared in though.©Geni 03:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
See the discussions above concerning the number of rescuers and the times. It will get sorted out but for now it's not exactly correct and needs a notice. Veriss (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it needs to be reworded for clarity. Feel free to word-smith it. Veriss (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I've done so: "Note: The recovery times for the rescuers may be out of order and not listed next to the correct rescuer." Feel free to clarify further; I still don't think it reads quite right, but that was the best I could do quickly without being excessively verbose. 71.57.48.148 (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks better then my attempt. I too was worried about wordiness. I think we may have more source info available soon in Spanish language media. Veriss (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I took another stab at wordsmithing the disclaimer. If we can't find good sources soon the table will need to be reworked so it's not original research. Veriss (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Rescuer ordering

I think the rescuers should be ordered by descent time, not by extraction time. When you think "first rescuer", for example, you think of the first one in, not the first one to be extracted. We also don't even know if the removal order is correct right now. If there are no objections, I will re-sort the rescuers by descent time. The only negative I can think of is that this is different than the sorting of the miners, but it's different information being presented. 71.57.48.148 (talk) 05:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Go for it. Veriss (talk) 06:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Then I would remove the extraction time column for the rescuers: 1) it is not essential 2) we know it could be (and quite probably is) wrong 3) the rescuers are already in another table, so we dont'have to worry to have the same informations as for the miners. It is enough to write, after the rescuers' table, that they have all been extracted between 13 October 21:55 and 14 October 00:32; we can add that Manuel González was the last to be extracted (which seems true and sourced, and the information is now missing on the page) --Maxbeer (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

NASA ref source

[8] - NASA description of their role here, and I think that earth orbiter view is better than the one on the page, where the mine is almost indistinguishable and at the very bottom of the image. Posting here to see if anyone feels these might be useful (plus, I don't "do" images.) Risker (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the NASA image is significantly better; the mine is centered, clearer, and annotated. I don't really "do" images either. If someone who does could please scale/crop this and replace the current image, I believe it would enhance the article. 71.57.48.148 (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Transit Times

The final rescued miner took 27 minutes to transit but emerged only 25 minutes after the previous man - how come? TheOneOnTheLeft (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Since as far as I know, the "transit time" is just calculated based on the other data, seems like a math error. The second to last one was off by two minutes as well. I think consensus above is to eventually remove this column anyways, but I went ahead and fixed it. 71.57.48.148 (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Information about the miners

This is a raw Google translation from pt:Acidente na mina San José em 2010 in the Portuguese Wikipedia:

  • Claudio Acuña Cortés: 35 years
  • Juan Carlos Aguilar Gaete: 49 years, worked as a miner for 19 years and throughout that time has had to rescue many companions who had been buried. Was a supervisor at the time of the accident.
  • Osman Isidro Araya Araya: 30 years.
  • Samuel Avalos Acuña: 43 years.
  • Florencio Silva Avalos: first appears in the video and is the foreman, first and second in rank to have been rescued.
  • Renan Silva Anselmo Avalos: Nurses and doctors responsible for the data. Brother Florencio Silva Avalos.
  • Carlos Alberto Contreras Barrios: 47 years.
  • Yonny Barrios Rojas: 52 years.
  • Carlos Alfaro Bugueño: 27 years.
  • Enrique Bustos Raúl Ibáñez, 40, has survived the earthquake in Chile in 2010. On August 5 had completed his shift and was to have gone but there was a failure and called it.
  • Pedro Cortez Contreras, had had an accident with a machine in the mine. As a means of electricity, was instrumental in assembling and maintaining communication with the outside world.
  • Galleguillos Jorge Orellana, 56, survived two accidents in 2009, broke a rib in the first and the second a stone that fell from the roof of the mine took her a piece of skin on the back. Between the two accidents was four months on sick leave.
  • Mario Gomez Heredia: 63 years, the oldest of the group. It was without three fingers of his left hand in an accident seven years ago.
  • José Manuel Henríquez González: 56 years, entered the service of mine in January and shortly afterwards there was a gas leak. Pulled out from within two companions and trying to get the third ended up passing out, although he survived the accident.
  • Daniel Herrera Campos, 27, driver, was working at the mine for seven months.
  • Juan Andrés Palma Illanes: 52, ex-military.
  • Franklin Lobos Ramirez: 58 years, former player of the Chile national football team. For five years he worked as a truck driver and only those mines there were four in San Jose
  • Carlos Mamani: The only foreigner, from Bolivia. Of the few who have completed secondary studies.
  • Jose Ojeda Vidal: 45 years, it was he who wrote the now famous paper note "We bien en el refugio los 33" (We're right in the refuge 33. ") Conductor of heavy machinery and mining for 27 years.
  • Edison Fernando Peña, 34, who stayed during the days without communication with the outside was responsible for verifying that the batteries of the flashlights of helmets is not exhausted.
  • Orlando Reigada Omar Rojas: 56 years, working as a miner for 30 years and this is the third time since suffering an accident at work. The first was saved by a companion, who eventually died. The second occurred when the vehicle that followed was partially buried for 8 hours, but suffered no injury.
  • Carrizo Esteban Rojas, 44, who was carrying the explosives in the mine.
  • Pablo Villacorta Amadeo Rojas: 45 years.
  • Jimmy Alejandro Sánchez Lagues: 19 years, the youngest of the group. No one put obstacles to their employment, even though the legislation is very clear: mine workers must be over 21 years.
  • Arturo Darío Segovia Rojas: 48 years, a miner for 40 years.
  • Víctor Segovia Rojas: 48 years, did drilling work when the accident.
  • Mario Sepúlveda Espinacas: Unionist, who narrated the video was 40 minutes where the miners sent greetings and reported how they were living.
  • Ticona Yáñez Ariel: 29 years, father was on September 14, when he was buried.
  • Luis Alberto Urzúa Iribarrem: Head of the group assumed duties as head of shift when the accident occurred. Miner for 31 years, worked at the mine in San Jose for only two months when the accident occurred.
  • Alex Vega Richard Salazar, 31 years.
  • Richard Villarroel Godoy: 26 years, the family did not know who worked at the mine.
  • Claudio Yáñez Lagos: 34 years, worked for a mine in.
  • Victor Zamora Bugueño: 33 years.

Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't add it into the article. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Franklin Lobos, the footballer, is already mentioned once or twice and has its own article. The other miners are only known for this accident. Diego Grez (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The article is already kinda long and I'm sure the "byte counter" editors are salivating for their chance to cut and slash once the spotlight is off of it. If there is an interest to add some of this information, I suggest adding a "comments" column to the existing table to keep the scroll time to a reasonable length. Veriss (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Clock change effect on time underground?

Does the amount of time the miners were stranded - 69 days and eight hours, I believe, before the Manuel Gonzalez reached them - reflect the fact that one hour was lost on Saturday, October 9 when Chile moved to summer time? GBC (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The link at http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?NoCache=1&Dato=20101013&Kategori=NEWS01&Lopenr=101013060&Ref=AR says 69 days eight hours. However, taking the date and time of the collapse - August 5 at 14:00 CLT (Chile Standard Time) - to the time of rescue, is less.

The first miner emerged at 00:10 Chile Summer Time on Oct 13, which would be 23:10 standard time, or 68 days, 9 hours, 10 minutes, while the last miner emerged at 20:55 Chile Summer time, which would be 19:55 standard time, or 69 days, 6 hours, 55 minutes. The median stranding interval would be approximately 68 days, 20 hours, 2 minutes. The average is 68 days, 21 hours, 52 minutes. GBC (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"Enriched Oxygen"?

With regards to the "Health of miners" section - the Washington Post article referenced does in fact say "A second tube for enriched oxygen". However, it is highly unlikely that they were sending down Oxygen 17 or 18 - it's more likely the tube was delivering "air enriched with oxygen", ie, air with more than the standard ~21% oxygen. Delivering air with a higher concentration of oxygen is a standard way of making breathing easier. Mr. Bene (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Victims list

The list of trapped miners has been added, removed, and re-added, so we should probably discuss it and come to a consensus. Though they are mere guidelines, the rationale behind deletion seems to be coming from WP:Victim Lists, WP:Notability (people)#Victims and #People notable only for one event. I doubt anyone would argue that we should not include those miners who are otherwise notable (i.e. have their own wiki article) or provide demographic info on the group as a whole (i.e. nationality, other occupations), but is a full list of otherwise non-notable victims really necessary? How about an external link instead? - Ruodyssey (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

None of them are notable except for Franklin Lobos. I removed the list again. Diego Grez (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the list is notable enough since they are very famous in Chile now and every Chilenos encouraging them. Information about each indivisuals are already broadcasted on national TV. At least they are more notable than sports player of minor games, small city, Jr high school in US,....--Taquoma (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
No, they aren't notable, they're just part of a notable event. Lots die on other events, such as earthquakes, etc., but that doesn't mean we have to create a list with all of the people involved. Diego Grez (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The only notable miner trapped is Franklin Lobos, as I noted above. Diego Grez (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The policy is quite clear, wikipedia articles don't include lists of victims. Bigger digger (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think they are typical victims. Now they are working in one of the most famous and historical rescue. they are as notable as the members in apollo project.--Taquoma (talk) 07:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry, they really are not. There are whole books about each of the members of the apollo project; we have articles on each of them; if you use Google, you will find specific articles about them. Therefore, wikilinks to their names in the article Apollo project helps with our comprehension of that subject. For the unfortunate trapped miners, the facts simply are not available; if we tried to write an article about them, all we could say was that they were stuck in a mine. There is no other information on the individuals. Knowing their names does not help us to understand this incident; there is no encyclopaedic value in listing them.  Chzz  ►  06:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
You've got a lot of editing ahead of you then Bigger digger - because lists of 'non notable' victims and survivors absolutely abound all across Wikipedia.24.16.181.82 (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Please do not attack the editor, Mr. IP. Anyway, that logic is fallacious. If Wikipedia is not intended to have lists of victims, then there should not be a list of victims on this page! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

CNN every now and then runs little bios on one or another of them; and unless somthing goes wrong, they all are survivors, calling them "victims" kinda sounds like they aren't alive anymore... --TiagoTiago (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Added list under NPOV section heading. It is unencyclopedic to leave the names of "the 33" out of the article at this point, i.e., October 13, 2010. --Artiquities (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Artiquities about keeping the list as they are rescued. Chances are, they will be famous in the future, as books and articles will be written about them, and they will likely become notable over time. This is a Guiness Book of World Record event. There is already a list forming in the rescue section of the names of the rescued miners. Should we just use the table that was up earlier? User:71.130.128.55 02:45 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think "notable" rescues should be expounded on as well; e.g., the second miner (Mario Sepúlveda) seeming to be in very good spirits and very energetic, handing out rocks as souvenirs, etc. This particular individual seems to have demonstrated that at least some of the miners have kept in good mental and physical condition, though they ARE bringing up the "strongest" miners first in case something goes wrong with the capsule, but I think it's still article-worthy. I can't find any permanent references to this at the moment (most of the videos of Sr. Sepúvelda's return are semi-dynamic links that'll likely be dead in a few days or weeks), but I'm sure there's permanent video/etc available, and this does seem notable. 71.57.48.148 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC).

I think it's perfectly acceptable to include the names of the miners. This is, for Chile, a national event and if there weren't any miners there and just non-human-boxes, there wouldn't be all this interest. These are REAL people and to my mind, people have names, lives, families, etc. The event is notable for:

a) it has a great number of people trapped (a long way underground)
b) they survived the event, (other miners have sadly died during their work for this company)
c) they survived for a long amount of time and I keep hearing on the bbc updates that this is a record amount of time they're spent underground....alive..

My (humble) vote, is keep their names in. If in 20 years time someone wants their name removed, then we can remove it but for now, as the story is unfolding and they are being rescued, keep their names in. Veryscarymary (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the matter is settled because we don't have a victims list, but we do have a list of rescue times with names. Everybody should be happy now. HaŋaRoa (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Guardian-4months was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Accident brings scrutiny to Chile's mining system", Associated Press, Google News, 26 August 2010, retrieved 26 August 2010
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Copiapó_mining_accident/Archive_1&oldid=1082467248"