Jump to content

Talk:Costa Concordia/Archive 1

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

Current News Alert

I think the current news notice needs to be added to this article. I would do it myself but I am not sure where to even begin looking for the right code Magnum Serpentine (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done --RadioFan (talk) 04:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that'ts the notice I was meaning. (Sorry forgot to log in) Magnum Serpentine (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Loss?

Ship now showing on webcams as lying on her side. It is likely that she will be declared a total loss. Mjroots (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, I think it is. [1] Goodvac (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement from Costa Cruises

Costa have issued a statement about the loss. Suggest that if this is used, a link via the Wayback machine or similar is provided. Mjroots (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Redirect page

Following other precendent in wikipedia, it would be prudent to start a page Shipwreck of the Costa Concordia and redirect it back to here for now. Also, if the details of the shipwreck continue to expand, the content can be pasted in there (since this article is primarily about the boat, not the accident). ChrisUK (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you've already done it! 12:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources with new info

Goodvac (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that [2] is a news radio agency report current within the hour and quotes the Governor of Grossetto saying the missing persons count is down to 41. Selery (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

bad verbage

"before a lifeboat drill starting in Savona and visiting Marseille, Barcelona, Palma, Tunis, and Palermo." This makes it sound as if the drill lasted the whole time the ship traveled between these locations. If that's not what you meant, reword this. 4.249.201.74 (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Costa Cruises notices pages about accident

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

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

English:

German:

French:

Italian:

Portuguese:

Spanish:

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

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY for Costa Concordia disaster

I'm updating at Costa Concordia disaster because with 14,200 Google News hits already and the largest cruise liner grounding in history, I believe it merits its own article and the section in this one should be reduced to WP:SUMMARY style.

Here are some updates:

Selery (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Please do not remove information from this article while there is a deletion discussion ongoing at Costa Concordia disaster. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 02:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
    • There is no indication in WP:SUMMARY that deletion nominations should have any affect on proper summary style. The deletion nomination is frivolous and this sort of insisting that we duplicate effort is not helping to build an encyclopedia. If your deletion nomination for the largest passenger ship grounding in history with 14,200+ Google News hits succeeds, then the article can be folded back here. Selery (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"the largest ship ever to sink." -- USA Today Selery (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Er, passenger ship[3]. Selery (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hit by an Israeli sub?

Um, the article says that the ship hit an Israeli submarine... Ttow1944 (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Not any more, (unless the Israelis are fiendishly clever at camouflage and disguised their sub as a rock reef. RS for that?) and the editor who did that edit, and was repeatedly vandalising the page was blocked @ 02:17, 15 January 2012. - 220 of Borg 03:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ship's Course: The location of the "Reef" and path of subsequent maneuvering

The Wikepedia description of the post-rock course seems impossible ["This reef was about 800 metres (870 yd) north of the entrance to the harbour of Giglio. The vessel continued for approximately another 1,000 metres (1,100 yd) until just north of the harbour entrance. The vessel then turned in an attempt to get close to the harbour."] How can the ship be 800 yds North, then go another 1000 North and still be "just North"? Perhaps the "reef" was the one 800 yds South (not North) of the harbour? There are rocks SOUTH of the harbor that could have been the impact point. This is the "reef" circled by Repubblica on its chart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.75.214 (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Because la Republica is reporting, as confirmed by the WSJ, that the impact rock is indeed the outcrop "Le scole", which is South of Giglio Porto, I have now entered that info into to main text of the article, with both citations. I have not yet "corrected" the article's assertion that "this reef was... north of...the harbour" Steve-O — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.75.214 (talk)

I have now removed the sentence "This reef was about 800 metres (870 yd) north of the entrance to the harbour of Giglio." It had no direct footnote and the next footnote, presumably by the same editor, cited la Repubblica, a newspaper which, as I cited, states the the "reef" was "le scole" which is south, not north, of the harbour. With respect, I let stand that editor's other statements about post-reef maneuvering, which now make more sense. Time will tell and this will all be much more certain in a day or two.

Grounding vs Sinking vs Wreck vs Foundered

So I get that the ship ran aground, but for all intents and purposes, she sank, and is now a wreck. If she had drifted into slightly deeper water, there would be nothing left to see. I think we can compare Concordia to MS Sea Diamond and consider changing the heading from Grounding to Sinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

A ship is said to founder when it fills with water and sinks. This ship meets this definition, but since it is in shallow water it is only partially submerged. The ship is not grounded as it is on it side. This ship could also be declared a wreck. Note that it is not a ship anymore since it doesn't float. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.18.96 (talk • contribs)
You are correct in that if it had been deeper water the ship would have sunk. Technically, she is aground with an 80° list. A similar situation to MS Riverdance in 2008. I wouldn't worry to much about such details at the moment, they can be sorted out once an official announcement is made as to the fate of the ship. For now, let's keep the article updated from reliable sources. Mjroots (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
True, but it is routine to tow a ship that has grounded off the bottom or a sand bar. If you call on the radio "I have grounded on a sandbar" it is not an emergency. The vessel was materially wrecked and the Captian steered her into shallow water. Agound with an 80 degree list is much better than partially capsized which suggests she is not on the bottom and is floating on her own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.18.96 (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
No, the complete absence of the word SINK from this entire article (with the sole exception of the line "the shipping line initially insisted there was no danger of sinking") is actually a significant problem. It smacks of an article that has been processed through new-speak in order to remove commercially harmful language. It's really perfectly simple: this ship has sunk and is now a wreck. Please update the article accordingly. Fig (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Then where's your reliable source that says the ship has sunk? Goodvac (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
A ship doesn't have to sink to be wrecked. Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
My mistake, but "wreck" is already established in the article. I just object to saying the ship has sunk when sources have not reported it. Goodvac (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Google the phrase "Costa Concordia sunk" and get 5,790 results. Fig (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I found one source that says the ship has sunk. Two that say the ship is sinking. Considering the controversial nature, we shouldn't say the ship has sunk (which has the connotation of the ship's being irretrievable) until high-quality reliable sources have reported it (such as Reuters, Associated Press, AFP, or other major news agencies). Goodvac (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually I just found this USA Today article that states "The 114,500-ton Costa Concordia is the largest ship ever to sink." I'm no longer opposed to including "sink" in the article. That article was actually from expertcruiser.com Goodvac (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Are Google search results generally accepted as a benchmark when deciding which wording to use in the article, especially in today's world where everyone can say anything about everything? Tupsumato (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
No HiLo48 (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm no shipping expert, but in the form of English I'm familiar with, sinking means ending up under water. So this ship hasn't sunk. HiLo48 (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, it's certainly "wrecked aground" not sunk. Selery (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I think sinking could be a correct term. It is not run around, that is significantly less worse. A ship run around is not materially unable to float but rather hung up on the ground or reef etc. If it was wrecked in deeper water and just the funnels were visible then most people would say it sunk. If a ship is wrecked due to taking on too much water, hasn't it sunk because it was no longer floating? Even if it lying on its side? And this ship is certainly wrecked. The side of the ship lacks the structure to support the ship. The nonvisible side will certainly be crushed beyond repair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.18.96 (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The word wreck also doesn't appear anywhere in the body text (it appears in a caption, and in links). This looks like an attempt to sanitise the article. This is clearly not a grounding - groundings are solved by towing at high-tide or by adding floatation aids. That clearly isnt going to happen here. Fig (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
But then again grounding was the initial event that caused the incident. Evacuation was already well underway when the ship settled to the bottom without catastrophic consequences. If there was a fire on a passenger ship and it sank afterwards, would the article be named "Unlucky ship fire" or "Unlucky ship sinking"? As for "sanitizing", I would also try to avoid using words that do not accurately describe what happened. Personally I will refer to the ship as "wreck" once it is certain that it can not be saved. We'll probably get some sources regarding the issue once the passengers have been rescued and people have time to think what to do with the wr... ship. Tupsumato (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The most similar situation is the MS Herald of Free Enterprise. That article says it capsized. And yet the Herald while on its side was only partially submerged. MS Riverdance is not a good alternative as that ship was beached. - fdewaele, 16 January 2012, 19:01 CET.

Nautical chart

There's a chart of Giglio here: (click on "(+) Visualizza la Tavola I.I.M.") The grounding area looks like it's marked as 6 fathoms (11 meters) but navigable (white) which generally means no reefs or rocks. Does anyone know whether she ran aground where she lies, or somewhere else? Selery (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

AFAICT, she hit a "sandbar" some distance off the island and attempted to reach port there. All will become clear in the next few days. Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hm, there's nothing along the path at [4] which could possibly be shallow enough. I guess we'll have to wait to find out. But, don't we know that many passengers were already disembarked on Giglio at the time of the accident, right? That implies she was at least close to port already. Selery (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused, where does it say anything about fathoms in the link you provided?

There is a better nautical chart here: http://firenze.repubblica.it/cronaca/2012/01/14/foto/le_scole_ecco_gli_scogli_sulle_carte_nautiche-28110610/1/
The Wikepedia description of the post-rock course seems impossible ["This reef was about 800 metres (870 yd) north of the entrance to the harbour of Giglio. The vessel continued for approximately another 1,000 metres (1,100 yd) until just north of the harbour entrance. The vessel then turned in an attempt to get close to the harbour."] How can the ship be 800 yds North, then go another 1000 North and still be "just North"? Perhaps the "reef" was the one 800 yds South (not North) of the harbour? There are rocks SOUTH of the harbor that could have been the impact point. This is the "reef" circled by Repubblica on its chart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.75.214 (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The article distinctly said the reef was 800 m north and the vessel continued for another 1 km north of the harbour. What is this nonsense about the distance being 800 "yds" and 1000 "yds"? Why are you changing the quoted distances? Since it was officially measured in metres, leave it that way, otherwise you just corrupt the data. This is just plain ignorance.

Because la Republica is reporting, as confirmed by the WSJ, that the impact rock is indeed the outcrop "Le scole", which is South of Giglio Porto, I have now entered that info into to main text of the article, with both citations. I have not yet "corrected" the article's assertion that "this reef was... north of...the harbour" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.75.214 (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Friday the 13th

Is it really necessary to point out it was Friday the 13th so explicitly? It seems rather sensationalist to flaunt superstition in this way. 67.163.102.158 (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You may be looking at an old version. It was removed earlier. And I agree, including that was tasteless. Goodvac (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
AFAIK, naming the day is against the MoS. I've removed this a second time, and added an edit note. Mjroots (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Map

The Italy map was removed in this edit by Goodvac (talk · contribs). I appreciate that there is a map of the port area showing where the ship came to grief, but the map I added showed the location of the wreck in relation to Italy. Should the map be reinstated or not? What do other editors think?

The other map shows the wreck in relation to Italy in the top right corner. Goodvac (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
No, it shows the wreck in relation to Tuscany, not Italy. Mjroots (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Then the smallest box in the top right. Goodvac (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, maybe. Let's see what others think. Not worth a war over though. Mjroots (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Both maps are worth including with the focus being on the one which shows the site in relation to Italy.--RadioFan (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

this is the best http://firenze.repubblica.it/cronaca/2012/01/14/foto/le_scole_ecco_gli_scogli_sulle_carte_nautiche-28110610/1/
Nautical charts are much better that terrestrial maps at given info re coastlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.75.214 (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
As the bulk of the info on the grounding has been moved to that article, I've reinstated the map. Mjroots (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Could be declared a loss

Industry experts believe Costa will only be insured for 500 million dollars, which isn't enough to rebuild her. Total Loss?. --Yankeesman312 (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Better way of linking to disaster article

I posted a proposal on the use of Template:Current related with an example taken from this article. Comments welcome. DarTar (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Why draft and draught?

Why are there entries for draft and draught in the specs column? Are they not the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.168.160 (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

That's obviously an error. Could someone check the draft from a reliable source and remove the incorrect one? Passenger ships rarely have more than one operating draught since they don't take that much "cargo" and the changes in draft due to consumed fuel etc. are usually compensated with water ballast. Tupsumato (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Draft is the American spelling, draught is the English spelling. I've removed the incorrect (unsourced) measurement, leaving the measurement sourced from the Fakta om Fartyg website. Mjroots (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I've also corrected my typo in the ibx, Mjroots (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Investigation - which agency?

Who is going to do the technical investigation into the accident?

http://www.amem.at/pdf/AMEM_Marine_Accidents.pdf says it would be the "Commissione Centrale di Indagine sui Sinistri Marittimi" CCISM - At www.guardiacostiera.it Is this true?

We need to have a Wikipedia article on the authority who will do the technical investigation WhisperToMe (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I asked that question at WT:SHIPS and got the same answer. Hopefully, with the weekend over, an official announcement of the investigation being opened will be made. Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Displacement mis-quoted?

The 51k tons of displacement in the data table looks excessive to me. Wasn't the 250 meter long Bismarck circa 50k tons, clad in 33cm thick Wotan armour and wide as a pregnant hippo, with four massive and a dozen smaller gun turrets on top? There the windguards were probably thicker than the hull plating of the Costa. What could displace 51k tons of water on Costa, when the pre-fabricated cabins are mostly made of plaster and light metal frame and most of the interior space is indeed the empty space of atriums?

BTW, it would be interesting to know if a sturdier north atlantic ship, like the QE2 could have survived the same rock-scraping event? Reportedly the QE2 hull plating is 28mm steel, app. double of what's usual on Med-sea and Caribbean giant cruise ships. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say the displacement is around 50,000 tons based on the main dimensions (Lwl ~270m * B 35.5m * T 8.2m * rho_w 1.025 kg/m3 * lambda ~1.006 * C_B ~0.6 approx 49000 tons). The block coefficient is probably larger, so 51k tons seems reasonable. As for QE2, I think the result would have been more or less the same. Those inch-thick plates are not that strong. Tupsumato (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Cb likely .65 or more. QE2 perhaps finer for speed which would mean lower dp if the product of underwater dimensions is the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.151.107 (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The only problem I have with the displacement is that it is unreferenced. Mjroots (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
True. We should find one ASAP as quite many sources already quote her displacement as 114,000+ tons i.e. mix it with gross tonnage. Tupsumato (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

AIS

Marine Traffic site using AIS information reports that the ship was going at approximate 15.5knots. [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.151.21 (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

that's a fascinating trace. Assuming the arrowheads represent regular updates, it looks to me as if a couple of readings have been removed - presumably for legal reasons. They are precisely the ones that would show how close the vessel actually came to the headland. Chris55 (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Past tense?

There's a little flurry of activity turning descriptions of the ship's amenities into past tense, e.g. changing "has four swimming pools" to "had four swimming pools". I don't think this is appropriate yet. HiLo48 (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. She still very much exists, so everything should still be in the present tense. If in the future she were to be scrapped, that would be the appropriate time to make these changes to past tense. I just changed a few occurrences back to present tense. --Lest69 (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Still happening though! diff - 220 of Borg 11:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
If the ship is declared constructive total loss, I think we could safely change the tense from present to past. Until then it's still a ship that can potentially be saved and put back to service. Tupsumato (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
At minimum, it will take weeks to refloat the ship and get it off the bottom. The gash along the side would have to be fixed by underwater divers. Then it will need to be towed to dry dock, have the gash fixed plus all damage from resting on its side. Anything electrical will have to be fixed along with all water damage. It might be fair to say it "was" a cruise ship. It may be a cruiseship in the future, but it is not now since it materially cannot serve its purpose of taking on passengers since it is 40% underwater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.18.96 (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

STOP WITH THE PAST TENSE SHE WAS NOT DELCARED A TOTAL LOSS YET! --Yankeesman312 (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Only present tense is appropriate. It still "has 1,500 cabins"! At some point it will be wrecked, at which point the tense should change. Don't go thinking anyone will salvage this boat by the way. It can't be "towed to dry dock and fixed". The superstructure is beyond repair. Even if it were possible no-one wants to cruise the med on a shipwreck! 94.101.120.73 (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The "See also" section

This section has been removed twice now. As far as I can tell, the section is relevant, and three of the vessels mentioned are of direct relevance to this loss. I'm not sure that Express Samina is relevant, but will open that one up to discussion. If any editor has any strong opinions on those ships listed, or feels that there are better candidates for inclusion, please say so. The section should be kept as short as possible (say 4 max) as we can't list every shipwreck here. Mjroots (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely relevant in the article about the disaster, but not necessarly in the article about the ship itself. Tupsumato (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
See alsos should be limited to links that would be included in text of a comprehensive article on the subject. The subject here is the ship. None of these other vessels has anything to do with this ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.154.206 (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Citadel?

Did his ship have a proper citadel? A fully enclosed, thickly armoured box, that includes all critical machinery, bilge pumps, the central control room, comms, fuel for at least a few days, enough personnel to do drainage work, etc.?

If yes, was the citadel breached in the collision? I think it is rule that a ship must float for at least 24 hours if the citadel is intact, no matter how much the other spaces are flooded. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Never heard of "citadel" in passenger ship design. Tupsumato (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
See Safe_room#Citadel_on_ships. I've never heard of the rule 81.* mentions. HausTalk 13:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
While I knew about "safe rooms", I didn't know that they were referred to as "citadels". Still, they don't prevent the ship from sinking. I'm not sure if 82.131.210.163 was even serious. Tupsumato (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This was a 21st century ship, it is all about technology, but this is not technology of mass consumers. An expert of big modern ship should tell what kind of technology and systems are installed to prevent navigation accidents. Sonar (for detecting other ships or obstacles at the sea level), ECDIS (for submerged obstacles too?), AIS (transponder) (just telling the positin of the ship), GPS for knowing the position). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.80.201.13 (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Pictures on Commons!

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rvongher Selery (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this! Great work. 0.8 seconds - you have very steady hands ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Holed

It's highly relevant that the ship was holed. Water flowed in through the hole and due to the layout of bulkheads caused the ship to list to the opposite side.

(This para, and a few other additions, inserted later) Quoted text here is from an edit summary justifying deletion of "holed" from the article: 16:55, 22 January 2012‎ Steves615 "The problem with 'holed" is that it does not have meaning to non-British readers and only a handful of UK news articles describe the vessel as such. Hull damage can be inferred by listing/sinking after the grounding"

  • "The problem with 'holed" is that it does not have meaning to non-British readers"

Are you sure, it seems obvious that "holed" means having a hole made in it? I've checked a few non-British dictionaries (all US I'm afraid, no others in my normal reference places). Hole as a verb appears in American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and Webster's 4th. Examples of non-British use: [6][7][8]. A Wikipedia article on a US warship stated that "One Japanese cruiser ... was holed twice".

If it's indeed a British-only term, I didn't know that and thought it was general maritime usage; what terms are used in other English-speaking areas? This point in no way justifies deleting the fact; it should be worded more appropriately. I can't do it as I don't know usage everywhere.

  • "... only a handful of UK news articles describe the vessel as [holed]."

So what? It was holed, there are respectable references. As it happens there are non-British ones; I will add one. There are also pictures of a massive hole.

  • "Hull damage can be inferred by listing/sinking after the grounding"

We're speaking of holing letting water in, not hull damage in general. That it can be inferred is not true: if a vessel capsizes, water may enter through apertures above the waterline (even without capsizing this can happen, but it's doubtful that water would have entered through gunports or portholes in this case!) Plausible scenario: ship grounds without damage, capsizes to lie on its side, water enters, ship is flooded and set to sink if water becomes deeper (tide, or slip into deeper water).

The hole is also relevant as the captain didn't tell the passengers about it (though the article doesn't mention this).

Pol098 (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a US/UK issue - the verb "to hole" is indeed part of the US lexicon, see for example The American Heritage Dictionary. HausTalk 00:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I assure you it is a UK thing. And by UK I mean UK, Australia, and New Zealand. Citing The Telegraph, a British news source, only proves that point.

The fact that a term is in a dictionary does not mean it universally appears in common usage. "Lorry" appears in the Merriam Webster dictionary, and I'm sure I could find an American article written about a lorry somewhere.

Besides the fact that most readers not from the UK/NZ/AUS look at the term "was holed" and are puzzled by exactly what it means, a primary reason for eliminating the phrase is brevity of the intro paragraph, and style. "Ran aground, was holed, and capsized" is a little more awkward than simply "ran aground and capsized", which by the way was the original wording of that passage. You are technically correct in adding that term, but there are many details of the crash that are also highly relevant that have been left out of that summary paragraph. Your argument is that "respectable news sources stated that xyz event occurred during this incident, therefore I'm justified putting the fact into this opening paragraph." There are a lot of details omitted from that paragraph for the sake of brevity. I could say, "the captain was seen drinking at the bar earlier in the evening, bullocksed the turn, the ship ran aground, hitting a rock, was holed, water filled the ship, and then capsized", though "ran aground and capsized" is not incorrect, and in the spirit of an introductory paragraph which only briefly touches on the accident, referring readers to the full costa concordia disaster article for further info, I think it does the job.

Finally, that term appears nowhere in the Costa Concordia Disaster article itself. The intro paragraph for that article simply says "partially sank... after hitting a reef... and running aground". I don't think anyone reading that article would be confused as to why the ship started sinking after hitting a reef.

The original wording of that article did not include the term ",was holed,". I realize that you saw an opportunity where a particular term you know seems to fit in well, but the wording as it had been written is not incorrect from a technical standpoint, and that term is not universally known so it might in fact muddy the idea of exactly what happened in peoples' minds rather than clarify it. Steves615 (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Or see e.g. this by Reuters a US news organisation who are hardly going to be sloppy with their language, and is a source for the word if you want one. Or wikt:hole that gives no indication that it's use as a verb is 'regional'. Finally, the article is written in British English. There may be some variety of American English (though clearly not the one used by news organisations or described in dictionaries) which doesn't use 'hole' as a verb but that's not the variety of English used here.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean you assure me it is a UK thing? I quoted references and supported what I said - please provide some facts supporting what you say.

"And by UK I mean UK, Australia, and New Zealand." This is the Lewis Carroll school of linguistics: "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less." Virtually all Anglophone countries are such due to past association with Britain - how do you demarcate? For clarity, when I use UK I mean "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

"Citing The Telegraph, a British news source, only proves that point." That "reasoning" is nonsense, and against elementary logic. The fact that the word is used in Britain does not disprove that it is used anywhere else. [On this Talk page, above] I cited sources in Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, large English-speaking countries. I don't want to trawl through references from India, South Africa, and so on, but here is an additional reference, this time from the United States, a newspaper headline from the New York Times: "U.S. Navy Ship Is Holed In Crash at Vancouver".Anyway, if you have a better word, use it.

When I added to the article that the ship was holed I referenced it properly. Sourced information shouldn't be deleted without good reason.

"A primary reason for eliminating the phrase is brevity of the intro paragraph." What? One, highly relevant, word?

"that term appears nowhere in the Costa Concordia Disaster article itself. The intro paragraph for that article simply says 'partially sank... after hitting a reef... and running aground'." That article could do with attention; holing is relevant, and it wasn't a reef (but I don't think that point is so important).

"I think it does the job." Wasn't the idea behind Wikipedia that it was to do with verifiable information and so on, not a soapbox for people's opinions?

Anyway, let's see what others say. By the way, I'm almost certain the ship didn't hit a reef (although this is widely reported due probably to a misunderstanding of what a reef is), but rocks.

If anyone has an opinion on whether the article should, or should not, report that the ship was holed when it ran aground, please say so. Pol098 (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

My assurance comes as a human being living in the United States who has never heard that usage in my life. That term confused me when I read it, and I'm sure many others were as well. The facts that support me are your inability to find any substantial references that use that term outside of the- what do you want to call it? British Empire? Have a field day picking my definition apart but the fact is you all share a common cultural and linguistic origin, I'm not going to spend the time here coming up with the perfect term to describe that sphere of linguistic influence.

The references you list are really stretches. You find one NYT article from some unknown time written by an unknown news agency as proof that it is somehow used commonly in this country. I can show you tens of thousands of articles on the concordia that never once use the term holed, and I'll show you a couple dozen of "British Empire" (again, whatever term you want to use)articles, that do include the term holed. A Reuters article which includes the term is not a sign that it is universally known, as that could have simply been submitted by a British news agency, with many of the people reading the article puzzled by just exactly what they mean by the term holed means. I also enjoy when people start making statements along the lines of "that line of reasoning is simply not.... elementary logic dictates..." etc. That often means their basic argument is running out of steam. If you can't figure it out I will spell it out for you- since your argument is that it is a term used outside of the "British Empire", you are not doing anything to prove that point by listing a British source. If you were able to list a number of sources from American for example, that used the term holed, that would be a smoking gun to prove that holed is in fact used universally outside of "british empire" circles, and that I am wrong. I really hope you were just sparring and didn't fail to realize that basic fact. I understand that it is a common term for you and you cannot probably imagine how someone wouldn't know what it means, but that really is the case. There's going to be a large contingent of people reading this article who stop and say huh? and they might figure out what it means, or they might not, and keep slogging through the article.

If this same discussion were happening around the word pram, what would it take to convince you that there are a lot of English speakers out there who would have no idea what pram means? Did you even know that already or did you think everyone knew what a pram was? If I found 10,000 British articles on prams, 50,000 American articles on baby carriages, and you found 2 articles from America newspapers that included the word "pram", would you then use that as proof that all Americans know what a pram is? That is really the argument we're having here.

From what I know of it now, holed might be a very apt word to describe what happened. You just have to realize that not everyone knows what it means. It may be technically correct, but so is the current statement without the word holed, and it doesn't introduce the potential for confusion depending on what part of the world you're from. Steves615 (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I've mentioned the hole being torn in the hull in universally understandable, "Americanized" terms. Hopefully this will be enough for everyone that wanted the hole mentioned, and we can just move on. Steves615 (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I am an American who has only ever lived in the United States and I can assure that "holed" is the correct and common word in American usage for this situation. I have never heard of an American who is unfamiliar with this term, which is the normal term that would be used in the United States for this situation. HarryHenryGebel (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
As the originator of this thread and in answer to Steves615, while I've documented the word "holed" (whose meaning is really very obvious) around the Anglophone world I don't think the word used matters in the least and don't myself see any point in discussion further. Certainly wording understood by educated speakers in most Anglophone locations should be used, though from postings here the USA seems to use "holed". (My US example wasn't contrived, just the first I found; there are plenty of examples. I simply searched for "ship holed" on the New York Times website and selected an article headlined "holed" from the many hits - here's a use (not in headline) on 22 Jan 2012.) A Google (Google is a search engine which has stored and can search many web pages) search on an impeccably US site for string site:www.history.navy.mil "holed" elicits over 100 uses of "holed". I remind you of your words: "If you were able to list a number of sources from American for example, that used the term holed, that would be a smoking gun to prove that holed is in fact used universally outside of "british empire" circles, and that I am wrong". The "fact" that the ship was holed (or had an aperture forcibly and unwantedly created in its hull due to impact with geological material of significant hardness concealed below water level but above the draught of the ship, or whatever wording) is highly significant; the holing, followed by displacement of water that entered through the bulkhead system, caused heeling (look up heeling if you don't know what it means) first in the direction of the hole, then heeling to the point of capsize in the opposite direction.

By the way, purely in passing and as a curiosity with no incidence on the article, you seem to be striving to find an expression for the English-speaking world that is not part of what you consider the UK (i.e., not Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc.; "what do you want to call it? British Empire?"); could I suggest that you mean "the United States"? While the US was, like the others, associated with the British Empire, my guess is that that's what you're trying to say. Pol098 (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
This issue seems to be resolved: all concerned seem to agree that the holing is relevant. The use of the single word "holing" is objected to, but I personally don't think it matters (though I always prefer a single word to a phrase that can replace it). Pol098 (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Propulsion

Might be good to add more detail on the propulsion system. It's apparently diesel-electric, with two motors of either 21 or 34 MW each, but I'm having trouble finding a good source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, diesel-electric with traditional shafts. Since the total installed power is around 75 MW (six Wärtsilä 12V46 medium-speed engines), I would assume that the rating of the propulsion motors is closer to 21 than 34 MW, but of course we need a source for that. Unfortunately RINA does not have a public database. Any change of finding maritime publications from the time the ship was delivered? The basic data should be in one of them. Tupsumato (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I haven't found one that's available online. Might have to go to an actual library. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Could this help?
IEC 60092-204 Electrical installations in ships. Part 204: System design - Electric and electrohydraulic steering gear
IEC 60092-301 Electrical installations in ships. Part 301: Equipment - Generators and motors
IEC 60092-501 Electrical installations in ships - Part 501: Special features - Electric propulsion plant
Lloyd's Register - General Information for the Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Ships - July 2011
Are those general Lloyd's rules or documents specific to this ship? Tupsumato (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
IEC 60092 is more specific just to propulsion and electric system on ship in general. The ship needs a clearance or authorization to seal and stay in the dock, and there are inspections to obtain it, and to be inscribed in Lloyd's register, RINA, DNV, etc. they are safety rules, prescription ,specifications, and standards which apply in this case to the design, manufacturing, inspections and authorization processes. The power is generated with 6 diesel genrators with medium voltage in this case (6.6 or 11kV, not sure) and then driven to 2 engines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.118.90.5 (talk) 09:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
That's what I thought. I guess Kendall-K1 was asking for more information about this ship, i.e. the exact specifications of the generators and the propulsion system. Tupsumato (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
https://www.leonardoinfo.com/leonardoInfo/LeoInfoLogInExternalServlet?ImoNum=9320544
RINA naval registry says
PROPULSION
Number of Engines 2
Total Engine Power 42000
Propulsion Type Fixed pitch propeller
Number of Tailshafts 2
ELECTRICS
Total Electric Power [kW] 68400
Number of Engines for Electric Power Production 7
Engines for Electric Power Production : Total Power [kW] 76850 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.118.90.5 (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
http://diem.uniud.it/Conf_energia_navi_19-05-09.pdf
at pg 7 2 MMEE 42,00 MW, 6 DDGG 75,60 MW
at pg 23 Traditional diesel electric
at pg 19 pic 1 typical traditioanl diesel electric, (propeller + rudder) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.182.3.74 (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I've added this information. I thought it would be interesting because some of the initial reports blamed the disaster on loss of propulsion, but more recent reports seem to be pointing to navigational errors. Still I think it's a good addition. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


For diesel electric propulsion see also this one:
http://www.sam-electronics.de/dateien/pad/broschueren/1.002.pdf
Also consider that Costa Victoria, same concept, just smaller (6 DG 52.5MW, 2 ME 30MW), electric shematic at pg 4
http://www.sam-electronics.de/dateien/pad/broschueren/1.001.pdf
Consider this also for general diesel electric propulsion systems technology overview:
http://www05.abb.com/global/scot/scot293.nsf/veritydisplay/c348ae87dd99ce5cc12574e30023fede/$file/Maritime%20El%20Installations%20and%20DE%20Propulsion.pdf
And this ship components companies:
http://www.abb.com/industries/us/9AAC910035.aspx?country=US
http://www.sam-electronics.de/dateien/pad/prop.html
http://www.industry.siemens.com/industrysolutions/global/en/marine/Pages/Default.aspx
http://www.rolls-royce.com/marine/products/propulsors/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.182.3.74 (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I provided some additional details, such as engine type, but the edit got lost in the process. If someone wants to re-add them, feel free to do that. Tupsumato (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Holed part II

There was recently a long discussion about the word "holed" in the text; to sum it up, one editor objected to it, others thought it OK; the outcome was that acceptable (and arguably better) alternative wording was found.

I start a second section so nobody has to read through the discussion of whether the word is appropriate or not. The issue now is that "Holed by rock in 2012" has been replaced by "Sinking 2012". This heading is obviously a cause of trouble; it's been through several headings since the initial "2012 grounding" - [text added later:] I had looked them all up but managed to delete them while editing this paragraph.

Now I don't think it's right to say that the ship is at the moment sunken. It may be technically correct (I'm not sure) as it's holed and rested on the bottom, but to someone scanning headings it looks as if it's down deep. I would say that the correct description (too long for a heading) is that it struck a rock, had a huge gash torn, sailed to shallow water, grounded deliberately, and came to rest on the bottom, capsized, mostly out of the water, in shallow water. I have no particular fondness for the word "holed" but can't think of anything better for a section heading. So I propose (and will implement) "Holed and grounded 2012" ("January" is unnecessary for an encyclopaedia article). This is accurate and short. If anyone can find a better word than holed, great, but it does need to be accurate. "Damaged and grounded 2012" is correct but vague. "Holed, flooded, and grounded 2012" is a fairly complete description, a bit long.

By the way, "Grounded 2012" was used when news reports said she had grounded, but it later became clear that the cause of the disaster was holing, not grounding. We could say "Grounded 2012" as the current situation can be so described, but it's not the cause. I suggest that the ultimate heading should be either "Holed and scrapped 2012" or "Holed and sunk 2012" (or "Sunk 2012"), but it's a little premature to choose.

Pol098 (talk) 07:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not that big a problem as long as there are no incoming section links. Once they decide to write her off, we can call the section "Wrecked 2012". Should they decide to salvage her, then we should probably stick with "Grounded 2012". For now, let's just leave the section title alone. There are better things to be doing arguing over this. Mjroots (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
If we're going to stick with "Grounded 2012" or something like that, should we also change the heading of the first incident to "Bow damage 2008" or even "Bow damaged 2008"? Tupsumato (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Go ahead and change Holed to Grounded or whatever (I had already replaced "sinking"); for the record I have no objections at all, except to "sinking" or similar (though I continue personally to prefer holed & grounded). If the section is linked, an anchor could be added (very appropriate for this topic). Pol098 (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Someone would just change it back, so I'd rather discuss it here first. I propose "2012 grounding" because I consider that to be the initial event that led to the disaster. The ship was holed as a result of the grounding and subsequently partially sank close to the shore. Although I understand what "holing" and "holed" mean, I have never seen them being used to describe this kind of accident — there's always something that makes the holes, and that has been used instead. Tupsumato (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
" ... I consider [grounding] to be the initial event that led to the disaster". That's where I disagree; and I think the facts have become clear and confirm that grounding was not the cause. Initial reports spoke of "grounding"; this may be why so many people prefer the term. It later became clear that the ship had hit rocks (not grounded on them; if she had grounded her bottom, not side, would have been breached. The damage is consistent with sideswiping a rocky ledge just underwater). The rocks tore a hole, water rushed in. The ship was still afloat, not grounded, otherwise she could not have sailed away. Then she was sailed to shallow water and grounded (perhaps deliberately; in any event if she hadn't been grounded she'd have sunk).

The word "holed" is used extensively worldwide, though people are less aware of ships and nautical terms than in the past; references in a previous section of this discussion confirm this (including scores of references in a US Naval site; Google site:www.history.navy.mil "holed"). Here's an extra sourced example: "Characteristics of Ice Breakers: ... Hull divided by bulkheads into a series of watertight compartments in case it is holed.". I don't insist on the word, but I can't find a short accurate alternative. It's all very well to use a description of "something that makes the holes" instead; that was done in body text, but fit that in a section heading! Maybe "Hit rocks 2012"? "On rocks 2012"? "Hull breached 2012"?

The order of events: hit rocks and holed (cause); flooding; list; sailed away nearby; beached (grounded if you prefer).

Summary: some people don't like "holed", not because it's inaccurate, regional, or never used, but because they personally are not familiar with it. I don't like "grounded" because it's demonstrably not the cause of the disaster, but won't object if it's generally preferred. Pol098 (talk) 11:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, the verb that is used to describe a ship hitting a fixed object is to allide, as in "the ship allided with the rock". I wouldn't argue for its use here, because it is not a widely known word. HausTalk 12:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
That suggests a lovely heading which everybody can disagree with: "Allision and holing 2012". Example of use, 2007 report: "SAN FRANCISCO, Calf. – The Coast Guard Sector San Francisco responded to the Ferry Vessel Royal Prince of the Red & White Fleet after the vessel allided with some rocks south west of Alcatraz a little after 3pm." Pol098 (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Refloat

It will be refloated surely ? Even if its an insurance write off to the current owner, surely someone will refloat it and repair it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.147.167 (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It the tore in the hull is really 60 meters long, as reported, then it must have been a high-speed or high-powered collision. The keel is probably wrecked and the ship must be at least cut in half or three parts, before the individual pieces can be refloated and towed away for the breakers. If fact, these ships were originally built from modules, two or three of them, each one containing dozens of pre-fabricated "lego blocks" of several hundred tons of weight. Maybe the wreck should be left where it is to serve as a memento mori? 87.97.51.159 (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
If you see the slideshow of damage, you may think that it can't be refloated. I have no knowledge, but imagine that it'll be eventually cut up & removed for scrap value, to reduce any further potential environmental damage, stop people putting themselves at risk by visiting or trying to board the shipwreck, and remove the 'eyesore'. It would be interesting to hear news on the owners' intentions. Trafford09 (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
See WP:NOTCRYSTAL. It's not our job to speculate on what may and may not happen, merely to report what reliable sources say has happened. If ya ask me, a bit of filler and some duck tape and she'll be a good-'un . Mjroots (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Which is why such speculation is taking place on the talk page, not the article.--RadioFan (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it will be scrapped on site. The salvage value is enormous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.34.105 (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:FORUM. "...bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article..." JunCTionS 21:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC). Seems like nobody read this. This discussion should take place in any of the many forums online and not in this talk page. 217.216.30.226 (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Well I think the ship could be re-floated, repaired, and returned to service. If you remember; the damage to the USS Cole (DDG-67) [9] was quite extensive, yet it was repaired, and has since returned to service. The damage to this vessel looks very similar in nature. The real question is; Who would want to sail on the vessel after it was repaired?--Subman758 (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the Costa Concordia weighs some six-seven times as much as the USS Cole, so refloating and righting her will be difficult especially in shallow water. For sure the ship will be removed, but will it be in one piece? Surely that will be something that we will add to this article when it happens! If they can remove the ship more or less intact, the damage can quite likely be repaired and the ship can be returned to service after a long stay at a shipyard. As for the willingness of the passengers to return, this is not the first ship that has been involved in a serious incident. If there will be long-lasting effects, they will affect to the whole cruise industry.
Anyway, until official sources give a statement regarding the future of the vessel, the article should treat her "as is, where is" and not begin to speculate, as per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Let's keep an eye on what happens and update the article when new information emerges. Tupsumato (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The ship will probably be written off and scrapped, so the cruise line can cash in on the insurance money fast, for example to cover compensation and lawsuit expenses. On the other hand, the insurance company does not want to object too much and drag leg, so other customers having big insurance contracts do not feel FUD and hurt the business. A refloat-rebuild could take years and the result would be dubious at best.
Furthermore, the successfully refurbished Cole was a warship, built for twice the speed and much worse open ocean meteo conditions and to take battle damage. The structure of a giga-cruise-liner cannot be compared to a ship of the line! (Not to mention the difference between the quality and strenght of Bethlem Works made US structural steel and italo-russian steel, which any unfortunate FIAT 124 owner can attest to, versus those F150 rednecks...) 91.82.36.49 (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, naval ships and cruise ships can not be compared. The latter are generally much more complex and more difficult to design, as economical aspects must also be taken into account. As for US built quality, you might want to take a look at the most recent cruise ship your yards attempted to build... ;) Tupsumato (talk) 06:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone find details of the design of this ship, or any of its sister ships? It would help Wiki users understand some of the issues relating to this incident by reference to hull profiles, schematics of the construction (eg: bracing, ribs, use of watertight chambers, even hull thickness). I am not a naval architect but would find more factual background useful. Perhaps access to a "Boy's Own" type cutaway drawing (showing engine placement, use of electric thrusters, and backup systems) would help temper some of the more extreme speculation. Do shipbuilders publish a list of the electronic navigation aids installed on these craft? Links to sources of information would be sufficient 86.176.89.251 (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Costa Concordia was classified by Registro Italiano Navale, so you might be able to get some info from their website. Mjroots (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, much appreciated. I will investigate further. 22:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.167.163 (talk)
As far as I know RINA does not have a public online database like e.g. DNV, so finding detailed information might be difficult. As for general arrangements or steel drawings, I seriously doubt that they can be found online. Doesn't hurt to look, though. You can probably find some information from the maritime publications that came out when the ship was completed. Tupsumato (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The ship is a write-off, according to some analyst from Credit Suisse ? Seriously, those discredited racketeers who have almost wrecked the world economy twice, are the go-to experts on large ship repair now ? Cannot a reference be found which is more credible than a banker ?Eregli bob (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Take your point about bankers, though the way rescuers are drilling all through the ship doesn't make me optimistic about the ship's future. A reference quotes Smit (salvagers) as saying it looks like a total constructive loss; Smit is more reliable than a banker, but the source doesn't look too reliable. Pol098 (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
It's quite likely they have asked some consulting naval architects before making that statement. Tupsumato (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The following link is German, but there is a schematic drawing that explains it good visually: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/technik-motor/umwelt-technik/nach-schiffsunglueck-die-schwierige-bergung-der-costa-concordia-11620323.html. There were 2 options considered in order to remove the Costa Concordia from the site. One would have been to cut her into 15 pieces and transport those pieces to salvage companies. It is believed that the process of cutting the ship to pieces will be a difficult task. Furthermore, the process of cutting her to pieces will litter lots of hazardous materials like debris and fluids from the ships systems into the surrounding sea, damaging the local eco system.
The other now seemingly preferred option is to weld so called "A-blocks" to the Costa Concordia and install hydraulic cylinders on the coast next to the ship. More hydraulic cylinders will be on the other side of the ship on a ponton which itself will be anchored so it can hold the cylinders in position while they are in action. With this setup the Costa Concordia will be tilted back into an upright position without moving her closer to the deep water where she would simply sink. Then the hull breaches will be sealed where it is necessary in order to refloat the Costa Concordia and keep her in level. When she is stable enough, she will be moved either to a salvage company or to a dock where she can be repaired. -- Trotzdem (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Past tense for ship

The ship still exists today, and no decision to scrap her has been made. Even should the decision to scrap her be made the ship will continue to exist until this is done. Therefore past tense will not be suitable for the forseeable future, and anything that implies that the ship has ceased to exist should be reverted until it does. Britmax (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Just thought I'd add another voice. Ship is until scrapped. May also become was if it sinks in deep water and is not to be salvaged. Pol098 (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The ship isn't yet a total constructive loss and and I don't believe was should be used until we know the ship won't be hauling around people this time next year. --DakotaDAllen (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. Let's all keep an eye on this, shall we? Britmax (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Whilst no official announcement has been made, this news report would suggest that the decision has been made to scrap her in situ. Until it is officially announced, we stick with present tense. Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ship speed

Quite many articles state that the top speed of the Costa Concordia and her sisters is 23 knots, but this article uses 19.6 knots from Fakta om Fartyg. Can a private website be considered a reliable source? The same site states that the Costa Favolosa has a (top?) speed of 19.5 knots, but for example this document states that her trial speed is 23 knots. Tupsumato (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Fakta om Fartyg is a reliable source as far as I'm aware. Could it be that other sources are quoting what Costa Cruises say the ship will do, rather than what it actually will do? Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
it looks like a personal hobby website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.139.157 (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I admit my mistake. Costa themselves state that the cruising speed of the Concordia class vessels is 19.6 knots while the maximum speed is 23 knots. Tupsumato (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The ship did not "capsize" as is mentioned in the article. The ship assumed a "list." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.26.216 (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Grounding

I am concerned that this section is becoming larger than it should be in the light of the incident's own article. Do other editors feel the same way? Britmax (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I also don't think we need two photos that are nearly identical except for zoom. Can we cut this section back please? Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Decommission

Should this article say it "was" a ship not "is" one? (-----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sollows2 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Not yet. The ship is still largely intact. As I understand it, the plan is to refloat her before a decision is made on repair/scrapping. Of course, it is entirely possible that she will sink at some point in the future. Until that happens, or she is scrapped, we stick with the present tense per established consensus. Mjroots (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

the champagne bottle, released by model Eva Herzigová failed to break

Is it an encyclopaedic information? Furthermore, do we put such informations in articles about ships when the bottle failed to break but the ship would not had any trouble or when the bottle does break but the ship would had some trouble? (Bias) --79.31.208.108 (talk) 07:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree concerning the superstitious focus of this sentence, noting that, in terms of maratime culture, the unbroken bottle is significant (at least for some). Importantly, the statement does indicate it was an 'omen' and does not suggest the validity of any direct metaphysical causal connection to the recent disaster. The sentence simply reports and/or implies a view of the possibility such an event in the context of maratime culture, and does so in an unsensational manner. I am inclined, therefore, to leave it as read on the basis of its encyclopaedic value which demonstrates the cultural significance of the unbroken bottle in terms of 'maratime superstition', as stated.

The matter of broken/unbroken bottle and troubled/untroubled ships is a good one and could be taken up elsewhere. Benyoch (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

See also

We now seem to have a "See also" list of random ships that sank, when the only thing they have in common with this one is that they were ships, and sank. Are we to link the Concordia to any other ship that happened to sink, or limit the list to those that were holed and capsized? Or what? Britmax (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree, Britmax, as the ships that sank list would be endless. Holed and capsized as you suggest, along with the filters of non-wartime, non-sail, and passenger vessels only would allow for reasonable comparison. Even then, post 1900 could be a reasonable limit, but that is quite arbitary. Benyoch (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I thought I'd raised this earlier. IMHO, Achille Lauro is justified as the previous Italian-flagged ship lost. Costa Europa is justified as the previous Costa Cruises ship involved in an accident. The rest are cruft. Mjroots (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Terminology: If the ship is/has suffered a partial sinking, is the remainder partially floating?

If she has, according to the article, partially sunk suffered an alleged 'partial sinking', is it also partially afloat is the remainder partial floating? The answer is obvious - No, it is not partially afloat because it lacks bouyancy. Notably, the only thing preventing it from being totally submerged is the seabed.

It seems the use of the the term 'partial sinking' used in the article (and not 'partially sunk' as I at first stated), refers to the fact that some parts of the super-structure are remain above waterline, and that some parts are underwater. Certainly it cannot be said to be partially afloat, or partially floating.

For my mind this ship is/has sunk (not, 'partial') in that it is totally disabled and no longer afloat. For me, the term 'sunk' relates to its loss of capacity to perform the task for which it was designed because it is no longer retains any bouyancy and does not have any capacity to recover that bouyancy on its own merits.

So, what is the term that should be used to describe its condition? Is 'partially sunk' 'partial sinking' the correct term? I presume we are looking for a legal definition one way or the other.

Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The word "sunk" cannot be used because it's obvious that to many people, and outside the context of this incident, it means covered by water. You described the state of the ship as "totally disabled and no longer afloat". That's accurate. Why not say that? Or something similar? We are not restricted to simple, one syllable words ..... unsigned post on 15 July 2012‎ by HiLo48 (per Benyoch)
HiLo48, my apologies, but I have corrected my OP to better reflect my query. With respect to you and your reply I shall refrain from responding to yours above in order to allow you to make any changes to your original response, if you wish. Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Diesel-electric or Electric

Britmax, diesel-electric is a transmission system that includes a diesel engine coupled to an electrical generator. Writing the power value of a diesel-electric system implies a power plant of the same power. On the Costa Concordia there is no such relation. On the one side, we have power plants that together generate about 75,6 MW(e) electrical power and on the other side we have two "electric" propellers, each 21 MW(e), without any sourcing preference from the 6 power plants. If you write 6 × Wärtsilä 12V46C; 75,600 kilowatts (101,400 hp) combined and propulsion Diesel-electric; two shafts (2 × 21 MW), it looks like on board the Costa Concordia we had a total of 75,6 + 42 = 117,6 MW ...--Robertiki (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? The "installed power" lists the combined rating of the ship's power plant (six Wärtsilä generating sets), which provides power for all shipboard systems, and the "propulsion" lists the output of the two electrical motors turning the propellers. There is a clear distinction of power-producing and power-consuming components, so there's no danger of making a mistake like that. Tupsumato (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes for someone who knows how the diesel alectric arrangement works or someone with basic electrical knowledge (who can differanciate between "generator" and "load"), the description is ok. But for the rest of us it is not clear as printed. Since there is an "and" between the 75,6MW and the 2*21MW in the text, someone with no electrical knowledge will be confused to say the least. I would prefer something like: "6 × Wärtsilä 12V46C; 75,600 kilowatts (101,400 hp) combined, driving two electric motors of 2*21MW for main propulsion. The remaining 33,6MW services all other electrical needs of the ship.". But I ll leave this edit to others because this specific article suffers from biased editors who keep on reversing any useful editing.

Rewrote the description a bit to clarify how a diesel-electric power plant works. Tupsumato (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

mistakes

Mistakes made by the captain, not this artical. I was a Hull Maintenance Technician Petty officer, second class in the Navy and damage control is something I'm well versed. Other than the obvious one of going to close to shore the mistakes were many. Dropping the anchor was a HUGE mistake. By trapping them in the shallow water the ship hit bottom and rolled on its round bottom. This roll prevented the damage control teams from getting to the damage area. since they can't get there, they can't seal the watertight doors and stop the flooding. the increse in weight compounded the problem. What the captain needed to do was before he lost power was get into deep water. He wouldn't have rolled, the flooding would have been lessened because the crew would have been able to do thier job. Fuel could have been transfered to the other side of the ship to counteract the extra weight. They may have sank but it would have taken hours and everone could have made a nice orderly evacuation. Herogamer (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Did they have manuals in the Navy which you had to read to improve your job skills? The Army did through my entire 13+ year career, called Technical Manuals & Field Manuals. The reason I ask is because of the many inconsistencies in your remark, as compared with the wording of the article itself. The anchors were found almost directly under the bow with lots of loose chain around them, i.e. they were dropped AFTER the ship had already grounded, resulting in an almost immediate starboard list. Although the chains had no tension on them, meaning they actually did nothing, the Captains intention MAY have been to keep the ship from sliding into deep water. The ship floated with only bare minimum power for over an hour, with ONLY rudder control to counteract any wind/current movement. During this time it was already listing 20 degrees & sinking. I'm not sure if the watertight doors would even close at 20 degrees, nor am I sure if they COULD be closed with no main power at all. Would that have even mattered with a 160 feet long gash, 1/5th of the whole waterline length of the vessel, up to 26 feet tall. The ship was dieing, the engine room was the FIRST major section which almost instantly flooded, killing the generators & engines. How do you plan on transferring fuel fast enough to equalize the helluvalot-per-minute of water gushing through 160 feet of the other side .... hand-pumps or battery-power? The CHIEF of the Italian Coast Guard stated that only a fortunate coincidence of wind, tide, & current grounded the ship near shore, rather than it sinking completely in deep water. But you're gonna keep it out there, 2/3d's mile from shore, at night, in January-cold water, with near 1/2 of lifeboats unlaunchable, and MAYBE 10% normal power, while your boat with 4,200+ souls on board is sinking like a fish with a cannon-hole in it's middle. Rather than 32 presumed dead & 64 injured, your plan will most likely result in at least 10X that many .... or worse. Would you stay inside your 1-story home on the coast during a Cat.5 hurricane IF you had over an hour to drive your bicycle to the top of a nearby hill? Might ought to re-read those manuals I mentioned at first. While you may have been great at welding, I'm not sure you quite understand the do's & don'ts of a near-dead sinking boat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.159.69.146 (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. If your boat is sinking like a brick your only chance is to ground it on shallow water. I have done it on my 32ft yacht back in 2001 and I saved myself, my passenger, my property and the shoreline from pollution. The same applies to any vessel of any size unless water intake is controlled AND you reasonably expect to keep on over it. This certainly wasn't the case to the Concordia, she was dead on the water and you can't scoop water out of such a vessel with your bare hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfrantzol (talk • contribs) 15:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox cleanup

I'm not going to start and edit war, but it would be nice to get an explanation why my edit was reverted with the reason "Although currently unused, this article is expected to undergo another round of editing in the coming months...". The class names are hyphenated as per our naming convention and the name of the ship should be in italic as per our infobox guide. Also, non-relevant fields may be removed (the ship had no ramps, just like it had no sail plan or ice class, or aircraft facilities!), not to mention that there isn't even a |ship flag= field in the general characteristics section. Why do such minor stylistic fixes need to wait for "another round of editing in the coming months"?

I admit removing the length between perpendiculars might have been a mistake, but in my opinion the distance from the fore of the stem to the rudder axis is more or less meaningless information for most people. What they need to know is the length of the ship, not some rule-based measurements. After all, we do not need to include everything in the article, just information that has meaning. Tupsumato (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Auxiliary propulsion

Most large ships have auxiliary propulsion that allows them to be docked without the need for tugboats. For docking operations main propulsion is shut down and auxiliary thrusters are used to maneuver the ship sideways against a pier. If the Concordia had this capability, it should be described in the Propulsion section. This would explain how the captain could claim that he maneuvered the ship onto the shoreline where it now lies. If the Concordia had auxiliary or emergency electrical power, it would also have had some maneuvering capability. It hardly seems likely that a lucky combination of winds and tides would have placed the ship onshore. Grounding the ship is what saved so many lives and the article should reflect this. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, but we can't just speculate on it. Are there any reliable sources that discuss this? HiLo48 (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Maneuvering thrusters are not usually called "auxiliary propulsion". Also, the main propulsion is not "shut down" during docking since that's the only way to move the ship or maintain position in the longitudinal direction. Also^2, the power requirements of the bow and stern thrusters are so high that emergency power alone is not enough to turn them on - you need the main generators to run them, and in that case you should've had at least some of the main propulsion as well. Tupsumato (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

new source: "the story"

http://www.thestory.org/stories/2013-05/towing-away-costa-concordia-cruise-ship --Jeremyb (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Factual error

"During the fuel removal operation Smit reported that the ship had shifted 60 cm (24 in) in the 13 months since her grounding[29]"

The "13 months" stated above is wrong. More like three weeks, if the given footnote reference (which incidentally does not cite Smit) is to be believed. This condensed re-write needs re-tweaking 31.185.188.80 (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Gender?

I know people call boats she/her, etc but it's an inanimate object, and there's not really a reason for it, can it be made gender neutral? Bumblebritches57 (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

As per MOS - which specifically mentions the use of the feminine with regard to ships - it can be made gender neutral, but it doesn't have to be so. There's no good reason to change the article from the established, so leave as is, I say. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
See WP:SHE4SHIPS. Mjroots (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
"articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so." Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
This is written in the vernacular as opposed to an encyclopedic format. "...in recent memory..." and "She is..." is terrible prose. Please re-write this as a proper article; it reads more like fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.222.20 (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The use of the feminine gender for ships is encyclopedic. Many sources, such as The Times, also refer to ships the same way. Per consensus, the article will not be changed. Mjroots (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
On the other hand, the article was first written using "it". I thought that was supposed to count for something as well? At the moment the article uses both, which looks a bit rubbish. --John (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Drug smuggling

CC was used to smuggle cocaine on her fateful journey. Is this worth mentioning? Mjroots (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Costa Concordia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Costa Concordia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Costa_Concordia/Archive_1&oldid=1146791945"