Talk:Sinking of MV Conception

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

Title[edit]

The title of this article is currently "2019 Santa Cruz Island diving ship sinking". This is admittedly very wonky, and as such is open to change. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about MV Conception sinking or Sinking of MV Conception? 89.240.135.201 (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sinking of MV Conception is definitely a much better title than this, fitting with the convention of other ship sinking articles (e.g. the most famous one, Sinking of the RMS Titanic). I'll move it momentarily. ansh.666 00:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ansh.666:} Thank you! 89.240.135.201 (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although, there is one thing: I did a quick search after I moved (because I'm dumb) and I can only find this ship referred to as "MV Conception" in one place, on an internet forum. News reports and the vessel owners' website all refer to it simply as "Conception". If that's really the case, feel free to remove the "MV" from the title. Thanks! ansh.666 00:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MV stands simply for motor vessel, and is a pretty standard prefix. No strong opinion of if WP should use prefixes, but it certainly does at the moment. 89.240.135.201 (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest "2019 Santa Cruz Island boat fire" as an acceptable title. Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to suggest M/V Conception fire per other articles in Category:Ship fires that are about the fires per se rather than the ship (and I would suggest that, if this article follows the pattern of many of these other ones, it will eventually include the history of the vessel itself and should really just be M/V Conception. Maybe we could even go all the way there. Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem like the "real event" here is the fire, not the sinking. The sinking, I believe, was merely the inevitable result of the fire. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The "sinking" was a consequence of the fire. If required to make a choice I would prefer to see the word "fire" in any title we eventually decide on. I think California dive boat fire would be an adequate title. This source uses that locution in its headline. This source also references California dive boat fire in its headline. Bus stop (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

There is an picture of the boat on the Truth Aquatics website; cn that be used instead of the look-a-like boat in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:9880:1A08:C:E9C4:6DB:93D5:E52C (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not per WP:UNFREE. In the distant past it was considered fair use on here, and some old old examples like MV Levina 1 still exist, but they are being deleted nowadays when found. 92.10.181.245 (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overall lower deck layout of MV Conception, scaled using standard mattress sizes

Can a deck layout of the berth (beds) be included, and a more macro photo of more beds from the occupants' point of view? I had to dig thru a lot of user forums to get this info and still not sure how credible it was. It appears many folks are talking about why any of the occupants could not escape, and we like to see to believe.Soyasauce (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"still not sure how credible it was" is a bad sign, there. We now have a photo atm of the inside of the boat. 89.240.128.149 (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote this request *because* of the "photo atm of the inside of the boat". You obviously have never look at boat brochures to buy a boat before. The "photo atm of the inside of the boat" looks like it can be from any boat, and certainly does not paint a layout of the berth. When you google images for "truth aquatics conception interior" you do find a nice photo with the gallery exit, but it belongs to truthaquatics. We need a previous visitor to contribute one so it can belong to the wiki.Soyasauce (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Soyasauce: do you still need a deck layout like the one that is available at https://www.truthaquatics.com/conception/ ? That could be reproduced fairly easily as a vector file claiming public domain/simple geometry. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Idk about Soya but I think that would be great to have 89.240.128.149 (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I heard of this, I was curious as to why people couldn't just jump off such a small boat. If they were trapped, I want to believe it. As I brought up earlier, here is an awesome shot of the claustrophobic very wooden and flammable interior https://goods.truthaquatics.com/u/sites/23/2018/12/boat-bunk-2-1200x800.jpg that makes be both want to buy an excursion and terrified of anything with a single entrance/exit. And here is something by someone that did their own homework to make their "vector file" http://pressure-drop.us/imagehost/images/05519279890903877180.jpg , showing the useless escape hatch. Now, all small boats have escape hatches here, and would have only worked if the showers and beds were swapped. These two images have both answered my questions about this incident, and never to ride anything that isn't owned by NCL. There's a good reason why cruise ships are both made and decorated with only steel and nothing else.Soyasauce (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I created a vector file of the passenger berth layout on the lower deck, using the overall dimensions stated by the company (79 feet (24 m) long overall, 25 feet (7.6 m) beam) and standard mattress dimensions. Single berths are Twin XL 38 by 79.5 inches (970 mm × 2,020 mm) and double berths are Queen 60 by 79.5 inches (1,520 mm × 2,020 mm). Scale is 10px = 1 foot. The layout drawing on the Truth Aquatics website appears to overstate the space between bunks and understate the dimensions of the berths as well. As noted in the photographs from 1995, the emergency escape hatch appears to be centered over Bunks 10/27. The newspaper illustration linked above appears to be incorrect in showing an escape hatch in the shower area. There may be an escape hatch there, but the relevant hatch is the one within the passenger compartment. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: cropped image to relevant passenger compartment. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mliu92: That's perfect, treat yourself to a well-earned cold beverage. 88.111.213.55 (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From the video tours I have seen the drawing is not accurate. In the videos the middle bunks extend all the way to the berths at the bottom of the drawing above. I think the LaTimes has the layout about right. Also, for the vector drawing (thanks!) you should curve the mattress edges, as boats almost never use standard mattresses because of the hull curvature. Mattresses are usually custom made by foam and canvas shops. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ThatMontrealIP: Thanks, updated with some detail improvements based on the video and LA Times drawing. I'm not going to reshape the edges as the effort involved is nontrivial (right now I'm using rectangle primitives). Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your diagram is a great effort! It might be better not to use it though, as we are speculating on some aspects of the layout, which violates WP:NOORIGINALRESEARCH. An accurate and freely licensed diagram will certainly be included in the NTSB report, whenever that comes out.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be original research even if it is original research, unless the information is substantially incorrect in some way. By its very nature it is original research, even if it accurately describes the layout of the boat. The pertinent question concerns whether or not it accurately describes the layout of the boat. Is there anything about the layout described by the diagram that is questionable based on information available to us at this time? Bus stop (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, I saw your three month ban from ANI discussions for bludgeoning the conversation! Hopefully you are not here to continue that kind of thing? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The thing about User-made, "hand-rendered", diagrams is they are inherently original research, at least in my opinion, but they are acceptable sometimes. The question here concerns acceptability versus unacceptability. One thing you said, and I'm not finding fault with your input, is "you should curve the mattress edges, as boats almost never use standard mattresses because of the hull curvature". I am happy to hear that point being made. But I'm sure you'd agree that such a minor inaccuracy in mattress shape would not cause us to reject the diagram as original research. Inaccuracy in such an image is inevitable. But I don't think minor inaccuracies should be considered unacceptable. Bus stop (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I put the diagram together because the Truth Aquatics layout diagram didn't seem right to me, based on the photographs here and the videos that others have posted; the space seemed smaller and more dense than the Truth Aquatics diagram. In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, many news organizations seized on the Truth Aquatics diagram and either reposted it or slavishly redrew it to match. To reiterate, we have several reliable sources available for comparison:
I sourced the overall dimensions for the boat from Truth Aquatics. I believe this is a reliable source of information, and the beam is stated as 25 feet (7.6 m). I took liberties with the overall shape of the boat but stuck with the overall dimensions. Standard mattress sizes are a reasonable assumption as it is unlikely the boat would want to also supply custom bedlinens. Per the Truth Aquatics diagram, sheets and blankets are provided. The next potential quibble is the dimension of the double bunks. This could potentially be a "Full" size mattress, which are smaller than the "Queen" size assumed. However, "Full" size mattresses are also shorter than "Queen" and would not comfortably sleep anyone approaching 2 metres (6 ft 7 in) in height. Based on the arrangements shown in the video tour, the bunks are set flush or nearly flush with the neighboring bunks, which gives reasonable assurance the overall layout is correct. Finally, the Truth Aquatics diagram shows a straight staircase, while the videos and photos show a curved/spiral staircase. This is a schematic and could be reverted to the straight stairs that were previously shown, but the Los Angeles Times diagram also shows a curved stairway. I assert the amount of original research involved in this diagram is small, and the diagram itself can be reliably sourced back to Truth Aquatics and news reports, specifically the three sources linked above. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am very familiar with the boat layout, having been on multiple trips both on the Conception and its slightly bigger sister, the Vision. Thank you for your work on the diagram. I believe it perfectly captures what it needs to capture. The middle bunks indeed extend all the way to the aft bunks. In fact, the bunks are not bunk beds stuck together as the "Inside the Dive Boat" rendering linked above (which also incorrectly shows Platt's Harbor location) would lead one to believe, but rather compartments completely separated from each other by dividing walls. Mattress shape is unimportant--the mattresses are fully contained within the bunk structure, so the front of the entire wall of bunks is flush, with openings (this picture https://goods.truthaquatics.com/u/sites/23/2018/12/boat-bunk-2-1200x800.jpg is worth a thousand words). The hatch is indeed located as shown, centered over bunks 10 and 27 (which were thus partially connected by a gap in the dividing wall under the hatch). The proportions of bunks vs passages seem about right. Both the LA Times and especially Truth Aquatics' own renderings overstate the width of passages. Not sure about mattress sizes, but adherence to bedding standards is not an issue because no real bedding is provided, you only get a pillow and a blanket. Most people sleep in sleeping bags they bring. Other than the width of passages, the LA Times renderings are passable for below deck, but above deck the position of the escape hatch relative to the salon doorway is incorrect. The center "island" at the end of which the hatch opens did not extend almost all the way out of the salon as the rendering suggests. It was still way inside, about where the rendering shows a gap between the two island sections (you can see that in one of the 1995 photos in the article). This is a very important detail because it means the hatch opening was way inside the blaze and not almost out in the clear. ScalarField (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question – In that drawing, what does the yellow represent? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"As noted in the photographs from 1995, the emergency escape hatch appears to be centered over Bunks 10/27." I think that is the "escape hatch". I think labeling would represent an improvement. The other yellow area would I think represent egress and ingress via stairway. Bus stop (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Makes sense. If we are -- or will be -- using that drawing in the article, the yellow needs to be explained by some legend or such. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo 1[edit]

The similarity to Apollo 1 fire is 100%. What has happened is that pure oxygen has leaked (or opened by someone, eg for comfort breathing . ) See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1

The cause of the apollo 1 fire is the atmosphere of higher than normal % oxygen.

The safety concern is that numerous places put tanks of FUEL outside so that a leak blows away , but they have pure oxygen tanks inside enclosed spaces where a leak goes like this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.87.170.66 (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's just speculation at this point. Surface transport of compressed air fueling a vehicle fire, if proved, would be more akin imo to the Wilmer, Texas bus fire disaster which led to safety recommendations about the transport of pressurised aluminium cannisters in the USA. If that's the case, I'd support putting that accident in the see also section once we have an article for it (stunning that we don't already). 92.10.181.245 (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
its as obvious as the light of day today is caused by the sun which caused light of day yesterday. its a pure oxygen fire.202.87.170.66 (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We currently have three wikilinks in the "See also" subheading, which is probably enough for now. To add my two cents, the SS Morro Castle (1930) would be a good comparison. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the situation is a very enclosed and poorly ventilated space containing many people, with a fire so furious that no one of 28 people below deck escaped.
That is a repeat of Apollo 1 . The crew died even though NASA staff were just there outside of the capsule.
The Wilmer Texas bus fire is totally irrelevant. They are going to have pressurised air on heavy vehicles and on dive boats. The NTSB's summary points out that preventing the fire is the only way
The situation is that the O2 leak on MV Conception caused the dangerous fire (one that rapidly progressed ) situation, and probably , 99%, caused the initial fire . You won't find many O2 caused fires 202.87.170.66 (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered waiting for investigations to conclude? We need sources to cover things. Also, I can assure you that vehicles do not routinely drive around with 20-30 canisters of oxygen (medical oxygen in that case, not that it matters). 92.10.181.245 (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "the" before MV[edit]

In the article Ship prefixes, an uncited passage describes the following, "Note that while calling a US ship "the USS Flattop" may make grammatical sense, the preliminary article "the" is discouraged by nearly all style guides, and the U.S. Navy." Even if this were true, this passage implies that it only applies to U.S. Navy ships, and not U.S. civilian ships such as the subject of this article. Is there a reliable source to say that it wouldn't be grammatically correct to rename this article to Sinking of the MV Conception, and accordingly rename similar articles along the same lines? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this ship ever referred to as "MV Conception" in any reliable sources? All that I have seen is "Conception" (without any "MV" preceding it). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph A. Spadaro: Can we stay on-topic? I'm trying to ask about the use of "the". – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 05:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PhilipTerryGraham: Yeah, dude. I know how to read. I learned it in first grade. Sheesh. I will start a new topic below. About the precise wording for the name of the ship. Which is exactly what your question is about. So, yeah, dude, I am already staying on- topic. But -- so as not to offend your delicate (and territorial) sensibilities -- I will start a new topic below. I agree that the use of the word "the" is a very big, significant, important topic. It needs to be addressed all by itself. Sheesh, dude. Really? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph A. Spadaro: How about instead of launching into a tirade about another user, you could discuss the concerns raised instead of brushing it under the rug as being not important? I've gone ahead and started a move proposal, since it'll be more likely I can get an answer that way instead of a personal attack. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 23:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PhilipTerryGraham: Your suggestion is that I, quote, "could discuss the concerns raised instead of brushing it under the rug as being not important". What could I add to the discussion, if I don't know the answer to the "the" issue? Since the issues were closely related (namely, what is the precise wording for the name of the ship), I decided to add it in this section, sort of as a piggy-back to your original question. I didn't think I was asking you to donate a kidney, man. So, again, if I did not know the answer to your question, what exactly would you have liked me to add to the discussion here? Let me know. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's all just calm down. Joseph, while I'm glad you started a new topic, please refer to this page as to why your comment was ill-received, if you don't already know why. And Philip, while I believe you're somewhat innocent here, please keep in mind that something as potentially pedantic as including or not including "the" in a set of article titles will not immediately garner a lot of enthusiasm for editing. I am willing to assume that neither of you value fighting over productive editing, so please continue discussion, just civilly. Thank you! The Average Gamer (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@The Average Gamer: Thanks for your input and intervention. You can read my reply immediately above. That other editor (PhilipTerryGraham) asked a question. I thought that my question was related closely enough to his topic (namely, what is the precise wording for the name of the ship), that I included my question as a piggy-back onto his question. Since it was so closely related, I did not (originally) start a new section. That other editor replied by accusing me of not staying on-topic. And I thought that I was precisely on-topic. So, that's where the original problem surfaced. I found his reply to my genuine/sincere question to be snarky and condescending. I have been on Wikipedia long enough to know that I will not allow others to "bully" me, even if subtly so. Thanks. My topic is now in a separate section. In my wildest dreams, I would not have thought that it would be "objectionable" and cause "agita" to have included it as a piggy-back to the original question. Thanks again. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't consider Joseph's introduction of the topic here as necessarily offensive, I believe that the idea of a thread is indeed to avoid piggybacking. If there exists a new topic, make a new thread. Since that has now been done by Joseph, and furthermore the OP Philip had to make a new thread elsewhere to avoid this argument, this section is now moot. NomadicNom (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name of ship[edit]

Is this ship ever referred to as "MV Conception" in any reliable sources? All that I have seen is "Conception" (without any "MV" preceding it). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "MV" is not part of the name (nor, for that matter, are SS. HMS, USS. etc. for ships so designated). It is a prefix, like "Mr." Kablammo (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. But I have not seen any reliable sources at all using the "MV". Does it matter, for our purposes? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is a motor vessel, so the MV can be applied, but as noted in the overarching article on ship prefixes they are not in common use in civilian shipping. However, that MV may be critical to differentiation at a later date; Conception may not be the most common name for a vessel, but you never know. So I'd argue that it remains AnyOwl (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The USCG Port State Information Exchange lists six active vessels named Conception, including this one, and a number of others with "Conception" as part of their names. There may be others which do not visit US ports or pass through US waters. Kablammo (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Coast Guard video showing DB Salta Verde arriving onsite for salvage efforts refers to the boat as MV Conception. https://dod.defense.gov/News/Special-Reports/Videos/?videoid=707250 Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 September 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus against - there is a clear consensus against the requested moves (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


– I've seen no reliable sources thus far about grammatical standards in referring to a motor vehicle (MV) with the preliminary article "the", and a search of Manual of Style regarding this issue has evidently failed to yield anything. I tried to raise this issue earlier on this talk page, but was attacked instead, so I'm making this move proposal in an effort to foster more productive discussion and hopefully get some answers. Sinking of the RMS Titanic, a featured article on Wikipedia, uses this grammatical format along with Sinking of the RMS Lusitania and Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, so it's not an uncommon way to refer to ships. An uncited passage in the article Ship prefixes describes that "the preliminary article "the" is discouraged by nearly all style guides, and the U.S. Navy", and is unclear on whether or not this applies to U.S. ships other than U.S. Navy vessels, such as civilian ships. It definitely isn't clear on if this applies to any ships outside of the U.S. The article also has a passage describing how some ship prefixes do not allow for the use of "the", such as Her Majesty's Ship (HMS), but in this case it makes perfect grammatical sense to say "the motor vehicle (MV)". It seems clear that most editors here use "the" when referring to ships, as the opening line of most of the articles listed above uses this grammatical format. For example, this article, Sinking of MV Conception, refers to the ship as "the Conception" numerous times. I personally have exclusively referred to ships in this manner, so I'd like to see if there can be a consensus either in support or against the use of "the" in these article titles, and establish some sort of consistency among articles of these topics. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 23:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"MV" stands for "motor vessel", not "motor vehicle". WWGB (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Needless make-work, and mars the appearance of a heavily-consulted article. Both formulations are correct; there is no need to enforce an artificial consistency; and no need to change. Kablammo (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. MV Conception is already a proper noun, I doubt if there is a need to add "the" into the title.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As noted above, especially Wikipedia's own established naming conventions. Attempting to change all these article names would be a de facto change of Wikipedia policy itself and should not be considered at this talk page level. NomadicNom (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above, but we should standardize the ones noted in the first post. The only one I can't see doing that for is the "Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior" as it lacks the USS/HMS/MV designation in front. --Masem (t) 23:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sinking was consequence of fire. "Fire" should be in title. Bus stop (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the fire was the disaster that should be noted, not the sinking. I also propose the following rewrite to the first sentence of the lede to accommodate a proposed title of MV Conception fire: Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The MV Conception fire, which occurred early in the morning of September 2, 2019, killed 33 passengers and 1 crew and sank the 75-foot (23 m) dive boat off the coast of Santa Cruz Island, California, United States.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Number of victims and number of survivors[edit]

I believe that there were 39 people on the boat: 6 were crew and 33 were passengers. Five of the six crew members survived. I believe that one of the crew members was below deck, with the 33 passengers. All of those below deck (33 passengers plus 1 crew member) died. The five crew members above the deck survived. I am not 100% sure, but I think that I got all of those numbers correct. The article should make this clear. The main point being that there was one "additional" crew member; he died; he was below deck. If it's already mentioned, I did not see it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The crewmember who died was female. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-boat-fire-crew-member-allie-kurtz-passed-away-doing-what-she-loved-father-says/ Other than that, I agree, the number has been reported numerous times in reliable sources as 34 fatalities, 5 survivors consisting of 6 crew (5 survived) and 33 passengers (no survivors). Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Radio distress calls on VHF ch16[edit]

I believe the two distress calls cited were made from two different vessels and possibly by different people. The first was clearly made by Capt. Jerry Boylan from the Conception's wheelhouse as it burned. The second appears to have been made from the Grape Escape, not necessarily by Boylan and likely made by the skipper of the Grape Escape instead. This needs further research and verification as news sources equally seem to be unclear on this aspect. 172.112.212.228 (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims[edit]

Considering the nature of the accident and the number of victims, should we add a list of victims like that included in Ghost Ship warehouse fire? — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 17:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that many victims would fail independent notability requirements and so WP:NOTMEMORIAL would apply – so no. Respectfully, Talk:Ghost Ship warehouse fire shows the prior discussion and how consensus was reached on listing the victims of that disaster, so there is precedent to add a sidebar. A list of victims that were aboard Conception was already deleted from the page on 10 Sept. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"I think that many victims would fail independent notability requirements and so WP:NOTMEMORIAL would apply". I think there is ample reason to add to the article the names of the victims. WP:MEMORIAL applies to articles. It does not apply to content within articles. WP:MEMORIAL simply tells us not to start articles on otherwise not-noteworthy people simply to memorialize them. But the names of the deceased are content within this article. It goes without saying that this article meets notability requirements for the subject it covers. As concerns content found in articles WP:N says: "the notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles". The "This page in a nutshell" section of WP:N even says "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." Bus stop (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. At the moment only 27 victims have been officially identified, so let's hold the list on the Talk page until all are identified. Also, please double-check the current list against the cited sources. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Including a list of victims requires consensus. That includes a (pointless) list on this page, which I have removed. I suggest the inclusionists start an RfC, as usual. WWGB (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose inclusion for the usual reasons, which can be found here (permalink). ―Mandruss ☎ 07:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support inclusion of the victim names in this article. Those who don't want victim lists should not add victim lists. Those who do want victim lists should be allowed to work on that aspect of the article. The WP:OWNERSHIP aspect of the current crusade The initiative to prevent victim lists from getting into articles is accomplishing nothing and is doing harm to articles at the inception of those articles. Tham Luang cave rescue, Ghost Ship warehouse fire, Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, Charlie Hebdo shooting (photos of decedents included; articles on decedents were initiated only after the incident), Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Orlando nightclub shooting, Virginia Tech shooting, Columbine High School massacre—all of these articles benefit from the inclusion of victim lists. And virtually countless other articles could be mentioned. It should be noted that no one is attempting to remove victim lists from already-existing articles. It is silly to argue the names should not be included. The names are included in 90% of articles where the names are available. Some parts of the world do not provide this information. Opposition to victim names is a recent phenomenon only being propagated by a few editors. And it represents a deterioration of our mission to create a comprehensive repository for information relevant to noteworthy topics. Based on precedent this information can be considered standard for inclusion. Articles benefit from inclusion. Members of humanity are not interchangeable. It is individuals who died. Self-censorship makes no sense. It is very simple—Wikipedia is not censored. This information is inarguably relevant to these sorts of articles. The argument has been made that this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE information. The names of the decedents are anything but indiscriminate. The deaths of these specific individuals is in large part the reason the article exists. The article's existence is not supported merely by property damage. The loss of life—specific lives—is of integral importance to an article such as this. I think readers are interested in the identities of their fellow human beings. We aren't writing for automatons that are unconcerned with which individuals lost their lives—or in the case of Tham Luang cave rescue nearly lost their lives. Bus stop (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This decision means that arguments based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are worthless, as decisions are to be made on a case-by-case basis. Also, the contrived "90%" assertion is based on selective original research that has no standing in Wikipedia. Arguments in favour of including the names of the Conception deceased should be based on why those people warrant inclusion in this article, not what may (or may not) have happened elsewhere in Wikipedia. I also find it offensive to apply labels like "ownership", "silly" and "crusade" to well-meaning editors simply because they do not agree with Bus Stop. As an experienced editor, he should know to comment on content, not on the contributor. WWGB (talk) 05:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are linking to a discussion from 2017. There was also a later discussion in 2019. You make a valid point concerning my use of the terms OWNERSHIP, silly, and crusade. I regret speaking that way. I've made adjustments to my comments. Please tell me if they are adequate. I apologize. Bus stop (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your edits, which I accept. The 2019 discussion does not vary the 2017 consensus, that victim lists are determined on a case-by-case basis, as we are doing here. WWGB (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support inclusion. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roaming Night Watchman - Requirement?[edit]

I'm new to this so please excuse any departures from Protocols My Interest is as a one-time long-ago divemaster aboard the Conception, and a recovering lawyer tired of loose conclusions from foregone assumptions.

The current article says: "The focus of the investigation is on records retrieved from the offices of Truth Aquatics, prompted by a preliminary investigation which indicated potential deficiencies in crew training, passenger safety briefings, and the failure to use a roaming "night watchman"". The cited authority is from an LA Times article which cited unnamed "Law enforcement" sources for its claim that the investigation was focusing on the lack of a roaming "night watchman". That has now been picked up by a multitude of news sources, all relying, however, on the anonymous LA Times statement. I have been unable to find any authority requiring, as a matter of maritime or general law, a "roaming night watchman" and I propose that the existing article be amended by adding "No legal authority has been located which would require such a "watchman" touring a sleeping area on a boat at anchor. In addition, one crewman reported inspecting the galley at 2:30 a.m. and observed no hotspots that could have initiated a fire out-of-control by 3:15 a.m. If there had to be a roaming watchman, that would seem to be it.

Not meaning to get too argumentative, the NTSB will be conducting this investigation and reporting results. They are not a "Law Enforcement source." Neither is the Coast Guard which would be expected to contribute heavily to the final report. Finally, an otherwise unidentified law enforcement source could be a van driver who brought the local sheriff's department to the scene. The source of the information is not credible enough to have their "fact" included in this article, at least without a disclaimer, and too many reputations are at stake to allow this forum (Wikipedia) to promulgate unfounded speculation.

72.79.30.195 (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Bob[reply]

I added MSIB 008-19 in part to address these concerns. To briefly summarize:
  1. The proposed amendment "No legal authority ..." appears to fall into original research and should not be added without a reliable source.
  2. The galley inspection at 2:30 am is an interesting detail that should be added if it can be sourced.
  3. The relevance of MSIB 008-19 appears to be the first and second bulleted points of that document, which talks about crew responsibilities.
It is possible the requirement to use a night watch was part of conditions for the vessel's Certificate of Inspection. We are unable to independently verify without the CoI, but NTSB Member Homendy suggests the night watch was required: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-12/all-conception-crew-members-were-sleeping-when-boat-fire-broke-out-ntsb-says
Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update: it appears that 46 CFR 185.410 is applicable. Title 46 contains shipping regulations; Part 185 applies to small vessels, and Subpart D (185.410) talks about crew requirements, including the requirement for a night watch. The night watch is a "shall" statement, meaning it is a requirement, not a suggestion. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smoldering lithium battery[edit]

On MV Conception’s sister ship the “Vision” while they were charging numerous & various batteries. A lithium ion battery started smoldering. A crew member picked it up and threw it over the side into the ocean. There was several witnesses including the crew member whom verified this.

It’s not clear if this was a incident reported to the USCG or not. Just seems to be an important fact that leaves you hanging. Danddmiller1 (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three passengers on the 2018 excursion aboard Vision were interviewed as part of the NTSB investigation. I've included a brief statement based on their transcripts in the "Causes" section. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MV Conception[edit]

Is there any detailed and complete, updated listing of all machinery that was on board? Danddmiller1 (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sinking_of_MV_Conception&oldid=1209339459"