Talk:M/S Sea Diamond
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Validation of article performed by WIKICHECK. WikiCheck 17:53, 09 April 2007 (UTC)
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |  |
| Start | rated as start-Class on the assessment scale | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ. | ||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) | ||||||
|
|||||||
[edit] Almost 100 years after Titanic, seaworthiness has actually degraded, even on the drawing table!
I cannot understand why this ship sunk after getting a hole in the bottom? I mean double hulls have been used in shipbuilding for at least 120 years. Add compartmentalization, massive bilge pumps and a small army sized crew available during havaria events. With all this a 150 meter long ship simply can not sink in a reef incident.
This is scary. If a stupid reef can sink a luxury liner, what stops a bunch of terrorists in a trotil-laden rubber dingy from ramming and sinking one of the recent 300+ meter megaliners? Shouldn't ocean liners have double hull, reinforced keel, pugliese, torpedo belt, deck armour, 5000 compartments etc. installed, considering there are over 1000 to 3000 civilian people on each one? Cars and train carts are built to strong crash-protection standards to protect people from all aspects. Why are ships built like fold-paper boats? 82.131.210.162 14:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- reminded me of USS Cole bombing --Dennis Valeev 23:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- All the things you mentioned helped in keeping the ship afloat to take out 1,100+ passengers. From a 20m gap (that's 1/6th of the ship length !), taking more than 12 hours to sink is incredible in my opinion (and since I'm a shipbuilder myself, I believe my opinion does have some importance). So, speaking in a friendly manner, the title of your comment looks to me like the hysterical headlines we got her and is - in my opinion - invalid. The simple reason the ship was sunk is that nobody seemed like wanting to save it. Looks to me like it was left to sink, instead of starting some rescue effort. Why was this done is beyond the engineering scope, however.Geohack 09:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
She was no ocean-liner, but originally built for Baltic Sea. She was owned by Birka Line, a company that operates between Finland and Sweden. 213.139.171.67 16:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
the ship wasnt towed for repairs...it sank this morning wtf?
[edit] Cheer up! Almost anyone got out alive and unhurt!
Hey, this is current event stuff- it is already scheduled to change thus named that! Let us pray for the two missing.
Fixed it already - added info on missing and current status of the event
It is true though that they reside on the side that broke through and this may be why they are still missing.
Speaking of seaworthyness, I must state that Titanic took 2 hours to sank, compared on 15 hours of Sea Diamond - and was much larger than her.
It is true that s*** happens always - if it didn't, we on wikipedia wouldn't have anything but nice stories to write on.
Makrisj 18:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I am thankful but i don't understand either
The ship was pulling into a port when it was beached and got a hole ripped into its side when they went to tow it. Why didn't they just leave the ship there in the rocks and make a more secure evacuation?
That way the other passengers would have a chance to get out if they were stuck. The thing that concerns me is that there was a hole in the side but what about the Andrea Doria? The andria Doria got another ship to plow through it and it sank in more time than it did this one. strange don't you think. The boats marked this spot up and we'll know when they take a dive to it to see what happened. Let's hope they wrote down cowardenants. This is a sad day in greek ship history. [salute] it went down with a fight.
[edit] Well, you are definatey right. But...
If they didn't move the ship and kept it stabbed, less water would have leak in it and it wouldn't sink that fast.
Who can ensure though, that the rescue ships wouldn;t stuck on the reefs too?
This is why Captain of the ship took her in deeper waters (she had a in-water depth of about 6m. and still stroke the reef. Imagine that - twice as high as your home's ceiling and still mortal!
This is true. I'm still amazed how many people they managed to get out, and how slowly it sank. The most disappointing thing I've seen here is that the crew panicked, according to some passengers, more than the passengers themselves did, and there's also the fact that the reef was clearly marked.... Andrew 00:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Louis Hellenic Cruise Lines
...Has been created. Graeco 23:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] She/it
Can we please have some consistancy- is this boat a 'she' or an 'it'? J Milburn 23:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I would assume the English language requires inanimate objects be "it". Countries are also sometimes described with the pronoun "she", but Wikipedia uses "it". --334 23:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at RMS Titanic, the predominant pronoun used for the ship is "she." This is a traditional usage among sailors, that ships are referred to as female. I cannot find a point on this in the MOS, though. —C.Fred (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- It's somewhat comparable to referring to Jesus of Nazareth as "He" in the middle of a sentence (reflecting a Christian perspective) rather than "he". As we're not all Christians, we're also not all sailors. Referring to ships by the pronoun "she" instead of "it" simply to satisfy a specific group of people doesn't make sense. --334 03:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Although the Jesus example is covered under the manual of style, and He is properly referred to with uppercase pronouns.
-
-
-
- The other thing that crossed my mind is whether sailors made any distinction between a "living," still-afloat ship and a wrecked ship. Since that would be an esoteric distinction in the nautical community, and since "she" is in common usage to refer to ships, "she" is the pronoun with the strongest argument. —C.Fred (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
-
"She" is the correct pronoun in English to refer to ships. I'm surprised the subject isn't talked about at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships but I guess, since they all are constantly immersed in nautical matters, they take it for granted. Note that throughout the entire project they use the pronoun "she". Countries used to also be referred to as "she", but that was a term more in use during the days of empire. It's since fallen out of use as archaic. --Monotonehell 05:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- When referring to the Titanic, Britannica says ". . . Over 1,500 of its 2,200 passengers were lost."
- Confusingly enough, in another article it says "With her she took the lives of some 1,500 men." This probably isn't the best place for this type of discussion. --334 16:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Only since the discussion keeps happening again and again. Actually, WP:SHIPS has taken the issue under discussion a number of times (see the archives), but no clear consensus was reached. All things considered, I say go with the first-editor's-usage rule, and whatever the majority of usage in the article is as of right now, keep that. —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Was the rock charted?
Santorini is an active volcano. Was the rock she hit charted, or is it a new feature resulting from volcanic activity? If the latter, then this is important news in its own right. Santorini is strongly implicated in the destruction of the Minoan civilization, and may be the source of the Atlantis legends. So, renewed activity is of considerable interest.--APRCooper 23:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- We'd need to find sources for all of that. I've visited Thira and the other Islands of Santorini and you're quite right, the volcano is pushing up new land in the centre of its caldera. And the Atlantis myth is anecdotally attached to the archaeological digs on the South of Thira. --Monotonehell 05:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Launch Date
The launch date in the article body and the one in the side box are different, and im quite honestly too lazy to look into which one is correct BBnet3000 05:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The was launched from drydock in 1985 and delivered in 1986. I'm fixing the article body text to display the delivery date. Also, for some reason the infobox doesn't seem to be displaying all the years entered to it; if you look at it whilst editing the article, there's a lot of info that doesn't display when you view the article. - Kjet 09:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Names?
Do we have names for the people missing and/or the wife and son of the missing Frenchman? I've looked everywhere and I can't find them. Andrew 00:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Images of the wreck.
Does anyone know if there are images of the wreck itself out there? I Know that there are lots of photos of the sinking, but i have found nothing about the wreck.
