Talk:Titan submersible implosion/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Requested move 20 June 2023

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: moved. Moved to Titan submersible implosion (non-admin closure) Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

---

2023 Titan submersible incident → 2023 Titan submersible disappearance – Per the discussion above, there's support amongst some editors, and personally, as the original article creator, I frankly agree that disappearance is a more straightforward name. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 05:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

misplaced comments added to an outdated section of the discussion

Weak agree - Since we don't know PRECISELY what happened, and we don't know where the submarine is, it DISAPPEARED. If it's found before this discussion is closed, then Strongly oppose Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 07:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Strong agree Michael H 19:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Agree. The Coast Guard has stated in a press conference that debris consistent with an implosion of the vessel was found by the Oddyseus 6k. Jasoney (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC) It would also make the title clearer as to what happened Jasoney (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Weak agree - Like many others below, I'd certainly prefer "...disaster" or "...accident", but I'll accept anything that corrects the ridiculous understatement "...incident", so I'll take "...implosion". --MaeseLeon (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Weak agree - I feel like this accurately describes what happened. We don't say "Titanic accident" we say "sinking of Titanic", because that is what happened. As another editor brought up in previous discussion however, the year as a qualifier is simply not necessary. Maybe we could change that. Jmaxx37 (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Weak disagree -- Undoubtedly, it was an implosion and that's the most notable thing about it at present. However, it received international attention as an incident, and would likely not be a Wikipedia page if it were a mere implosion that came and went. The incident itself is what establishes notability. PickleG13 (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

discussion before debris field were found

Yep, makes sense to me - methinks WP:JUSTDOIT might apply. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 06:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC) "Incident" is the best term for an ongoing situation. We do not know what happened or what will happen. The submersible may yet be found, or some new developing information will change the context. Ng.j (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC) The sub literally disappeared and hasn’t been located Eoj9020 (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC) It has been a few days, I wouldn't add it right now. Maybe wait a week or so as there is still an ongoing investigation. 212.250.189.37 (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Yeah nothing has happened yet, like "oh yeah they are missing" well no shit it has only been a few days. Wait until they get found dead/alive or not found at all in a week or two. Sebbog13 (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC) they will run out of air tomorrow, so I doubt they will be found alive in a week or two. Death Editor 2 (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC) "dead/alive or not found at all in a week or two." Sebbog13 (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC) It has been located just now Icehax (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Wait At least give it a few days for them to try to locate it --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Articles should be titled based on current information. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Wait we don't know if they'll find anything yet ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC) No. Certainly wait a few days. There are several possible outcomes, of which disappearance is only one. Davidships (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Still No. It's still too early to decide. Nir007H (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Wait Within the next few days it will become clearer what the title should be. There's no urgency to change it now. GoPats (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Neither: This entire conversation is backward. Regardless if the submarine has imploded or is never found or recovered with or without the passengers alive, it's likely the subject (the submarine) will never need more than a single wikipedia page with the title of "Titan Submersible" with redirects for other potential titles only and where any loss is a subheading. From a quick check of various wikipedia pages regarding maritime disasters, almost all of those involving single ships are simply written about within the article titled for the ship itself and not on their own "wreck" pages. Example, MV_Doña_Paz, which sank killing an estimated 4300+ people, MV Wilhelm Gustloff and SS General von Steuben were sunk in action thousands of deaths and again, no individual articles for their loss. The information within could also be placed in the OceanGate, Inc. page, with redirects from "Titan Submersible" and "OceanGate Titan" (or vice versa), to ensure that there is only one overarching Wikipedia page that hosts the content regarding this one-event notability situation. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Yes it makes sense owing it's a dissaperance. Also while your at it pls can you protect the page from unverified editors? Metalhead11000 (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Wait If the search gets abandoned with no hopes, then we can move to disappearance. But if they found alive, there will be need in moving the article back from disappearance. Brandmeistertalk 13:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC) +1? I agree, but it feels like there should be a better way to say this on Wikipedia. ForTheGrammar (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC) User:ForTheGrammar, try {{Agree}}. Folly Mox (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC) @Folly Mox: I'm not sure they meant a better way to express their endorsement. Maybe they were asking whether there could be a better way to talk about "abandoning them with no hopes" on Wikipedia. --Renerpho (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Exactly this, we wait. Words in the Wind(talk) 21:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC) I mean... even if they're found, they still disappeared. The incident is still a disappearance, right? cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Absolutely everyone has missed that none of these titles are correct because no other submersible named Titan has ever sunk/disappeared/whatever, so "2023" is completely superfluous. It's not like the article for what it was going to see is "1912 Sinking of the Titanic". -- Kicking222 (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC) I concur with @Kicking222here, there is no need for qualifiers Maximilian775 (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC) I feel like having the "2023" doesn't lose us anything - it definitely doesn't make the titles incorrect - this event happened/is happening in 2023 and if anything having the year there does futureproof the article in case another submersible or submarine goes missing 94.5.218.193 (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC) That's not how WP naming conventions work. If there's no need to disambiguate, don't. Kicking222 (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC) WP:NOYEAR: "Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. As this is a judgement call, please discuss it with other editors if there is disagreement." I personally vote to omit the year. BhamBoi (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to title without the disambiguation, Titan submersible incident. I oppose the originally suggested move. --Renerpho (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Struck because I voted again below, after the discovery of debris. Agree, Move to Titan submersible incident. Date is unnecessary, and it's looking like 'disappearance' isn't going to be required.--A bit iffy (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Just to cite some precedent, the Chinese balloon incidents earlier this year are titled as 2023 Chinese balloon incident. Celeron64 (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Yes Even if they find it it will have been a disappearance. 156.143.240.139 (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible disappearance. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Agree , Move to Titan Submersible Disappearance. Regardless of final outcome, the Titan did disappear. If a plane disappeared and we found the wreckage later on, it would still be a disappearance. Date is redundant as I sincerely doubt that this event will be repeated to the extent that a second page is needed. OneRandomBrit (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC) No Wikipedia is not news. We'll know what to call this article in a few days. Hopefully Titan submersible rescue. ~ HAL333 15:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC) But would support move to Titan submersible incident. ~ HAL333 01:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible disappearance. 2023 is not needed, and it's a disappearance, so this is the proper WP:COMMONNAME for it right now. We shouldn't be pre-empting what it might be in a week or two time, but right now, it's a disappearance. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC) It’s incident too, so that’s neither here nor there.Tvx1 16:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible disappearance. As per above. Death Editor 2 (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible incident. The year is redundant, an other potential change to the title is speculation.Tvx1 16:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Keep: I think its WP:TOOSOON for us to know the best title. Wait a little before moving and see what happens. With the exception that I agree 2023 is not needed in the title here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible accident or similar. Incident is too vague. Disappearance appears wrong if debris are confirmed to be from the submersible. I'll try and update my vote if WP:RS settle on a term over the next few days. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree. The year 2023 is redundant, and it is too soon to know if it disappeared or if it will later be found. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible disappearance. The title should say exactly what it was. Incident is too vague. Songwaters (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Not yet; as others have said, "incident" is fine until more is known, but "2023" should not be part of the final title in any case.--~TPW 17:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan (submersible) or something similar, per User:Macktheknifeau. The name of the vessel alone is concise and sufficiently unambiguous, and is consistent with how other shipwrecks are covered. pburka (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Wait. While I do agree that it would be a better title, it'll only be one or two days until (in all likelihood) those onboard will have run out of oxygen (sorry to be grim), at which point the media coverage can give us a better sense of how to classify it. Cpotisch (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Changed my mind. Move to "Titan submersible disappearance". That's quite clearly what it is now, and it's helpful that it's the only submersible disappearance ever, because we can indeed take off the 2023 and make it shorter. Cpotisch (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible disappearance", for concision.--ERAGON (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Move to "Titan submersible disappearance". More concise, and even if the submersible and its crew are found and rescued the fact that it disappeared in the first place is what makes it notable. PolarManne (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Agree: And like MtPenguinMonster said remove the 2023 from the title as well. Rager7 (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC) None of these suggestions match the common names though. As "Titanic" and "missing" seem to be present in most news media headlines, I'd support moving to something similar to Missing Titanic submersible for now. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Wait but removing the year is fine. Y'all are so quick. It could very likely be located within a couple days, at which point it won't be remembered as a disappearance but as a "rescue", or an "implosion" or "crash" or "disaster" or whatever once we get more information. TarkusABtalk/contrib 21:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC) you are too optimistic about their chances of being found. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible incident per above comments regarding year and time.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  21:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Wait to see what happens before making any changes. This is Paul (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Support now we've had confirmation of its loss. This is Paul (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Wait. It's definitely an incident, and may only be a disappearance for a bit longer. The current title harms nobody. Folly Mox (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Incident. Not disappeared. It has not disappeared. Its whereabouts are simply unknown at present. I haven't seen a squirrel since two weeks ago. However, squirrels have not disappeared. The people with WP usernames who are actively debating this really need to get a grip of themselves. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:1122:4FD:855C:AEEC (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Pretty sure if a person's whereabouts are completely unknown to the wider world, that means it disappeared. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC) We know precisely where Titan is. It hasn't disappeared. It's approximately 435 miles south of Newfoundland (Google will show you the exact spot) and somewhere between sea level and 4,000 metres below sea level. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:1122:4FD:855C:AEEC (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC) wow, that is the most idiotic statement I have heard in a long time! So no, you are wrong and it has disappeared because we DON'T FUCKING KNOW WHERE IT IS! Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Please remain WP:CIVIL. NM 10:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Someone get this man in contact with the U.S. Coast Guard immediately, the mystery has been solved. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Wait until it is either found, or the search abandoned -- and then follow whatever terminology reliable sources are using at that point. — The Anome (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Wait until the submersible is found or declared lost, then we can qualify it as a disappearance depending on what happens. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible disappearance. Geordie (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Wait per TulsaPoliticsFan and The Anome. It's WP:TOOSOON to predict how this search will end. When it does, a more appropriate title can be found. 〜 Askarion ✉ 02:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Wait, or drop 'Submersible' from title: The current title seems to tell us exactly what it is: An incident, occurring in 2023, regarding the Titan submersible. The '2023' portion of the title seems to bristle some hairs, it does help differentiate from other similarly named articles, particularly the 1980 Damascus Titan missile explosion. I believe that shortening the title to 2023 Titan Incident, is the best course of action, at this moment. As many others have said, we will have more information in the coming days - with casualties expected, if any, within the next 30-35 hours, once the submersible's oxygen supply runs out. Then, we could talk about more specific, final title changes. DylanJ10000 (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Support, and drop 2023 regardless: It has literally already disappeared. Further the incident has gained wide enough press and recognition that 2023 is no longer needed, Titan is sufficient. Changing the title also makes the article more accurate, acceptable and digestible to the general audiences which Wikipedia tailors too. Spilia4 (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Wait - there is no rush, and if it's found in a few days then we would have to move it again which is silly. Drop 2023 when deciding on a final title. The submersible is a better disambiguation than the year, I think that should stay in. --mfb (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Move, it's disappeared, not had an incident, if they don't get it, then it's a disappearance and incident. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 05:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Wait. Disappearance has an air of finality about it. Nobody has concluded it has disappeared yet. It is currently missing. If it is found, the article will be moved again. In general, we should avoid haste at seeking to rename articles documenting a current event, requiring a maintenance tag slapped on top of a highly visited article. Finally, and with the greatest of respect to the article's original author for their efforts, the view of the original author of the article has no special standing in determining consensus - WP:OWN. Local Variable (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Wait until it's confirmed that the Titan is lost. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 06:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC) It will probably be found in time. Titanic was lost and then found again, many years later. But it looks likely that the crew of Titan will be lost? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC) If it wasn’t lost, they wouldn’t be looking for it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Wait as above, current name is fine, although agree we could drop 2023. GiantSnowman 08:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Wait until we see how this plays out. The most prominent precedent seems to be Kursk submarine disaster. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC) I don't know if I'd categorize this as a "disaster", regardless of how the events unfold. Kursk had a significant number of souls on board, a nuclear reactor, and was the apparatus of a State. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Wait: Still a few days less. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC) I meant left Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC) shame on you Dh75 (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Wait, as it is an ongoing event. I'm unclear of what the precedent here would be but 'disappearance' would be correct once there was no longer an ongoing search. I concur with dropping the year in line with the other incident this year that has its own article, MT Princess Empress oil spill. JackWilfred (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Agree Matthew Campbell (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Move article to be about the submersible in all aspects (design, capabilities, and disappearance). Also, can we please ban the usage of the pointless non-description "incident" in Wikipedia page titles? Anything and everything that has ever happened is an "incident", an article shouldn't start off by being purposefully obfuscating--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Not a bad idea here, actually. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 03:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC) This prohibition should also extend to other meaningless descriptions like "tragedy" and "disaster". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Yep I agree. 80.7.92.124 (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Wait, they still have air supply until after June 22 this says. Give them a chance! Iljhgtn (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC) the morning of June 22nd Matthew Campbell (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Wait, at least until friday. Also drop the 2023, as it is unnecessary Tantomile (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible incident or Wait: Incident is what describes this best until it disappears for good. They may find the sub and it's wreck, then it would be "Wreck of...", or they are rescued and it's the same as it is now. 2023 is needless because it's the only time this kind of thing has happened. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Wait, if it's recovered then keep, if not then move. MaxLikesStuff (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC) "Incident" seems best for now. We don't know if it has entirely disappeared, as there may or may not be sounds coming from it at this time. Ann Teak (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Wait: As per other waits, we're unsure if they're able to recover the submersible or not. We're pretty much playing the waiting game until something happens. Kirbix12 (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Do it. Veganoregano (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible disappearance, removing both the 2023 over-disambiguation and using a more common title. Most current news seems to be referring to this as the "missing Titan submersible;" it seems accurate to say that the event is a disappearance, even if it is later found, and regardless of whether the crew are rescued alive or not. No strong prejudice against waiting some period of time before moving, but I'd note that a large chunk of the Wait comments don't specify how long we should wait (or use recovery of the vessel as a line, which can't ever be confirmed as a negative), nor is there any reason the article couldn't be moved again if that title is somehow rendered inaccurate. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 22:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible disappearance. It's clear that "2023" is unnecessary (this hasn't happened with Titan before); the disappearance itself is going to remain relevant, whether it is found or remains lost. Zilch-nada (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible disappearance. The incident is primarily a disappearance, regardless of the outcome. The search may go on for years, like Air France which wasn't found until almost 2 years later. No need to mention 2023 as there will never be another incident involving the Titan submersible. Usedbook (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC) NO! Wait at least a week. I'd suggest the qualifier "2023" is not needed. Keep it for now. Suggested title if located: Titan submersible incident. If not found and the recovery phase is called off, then I'd concur with a move with the title Titan submersible disappearance makes sense. Abebenjoe (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose Per Category:Maritime incidents in 2023 - no other article there uses "disappearance". And it may or may not be found, with or without the crew alive, so it is way too soon to call it a "disappearance". If it cannot be found and the search is permanently called off, then we can revisit this move. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Wait per Ng.j. The original name of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster was Space Shuttle Columbia explosion.[1][2] In an early version of the article, two of the five paragraphs discussed the unlikely possibility it was a terrorist attack and precautions related to the fact that there was an Israeli aboard. None of that is mentioned in the current article--it was all removed last year. As new information comes in the best title of the article will be clear. "Incident" covers almost anything. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible disappearance. remove 2023 per above; the submerisble has disappeared, that will not change even if it is found.Yeoutie (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Wait until the search has concluded. Christian Toney 01:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Wait until the search is ended by the authorities. If it isn't located in anyway at that point, we can reasonably conclude it's unlikely it will be located and it has 'disappeared'. If they locate it in anyway (floating on surface, submerged, on the bottom, debris field), then I'd say we leave it at incident.--The Navigators (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Also support removing "2023" from the final title, regardless of what we decide on.--The Navigators (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Yes. Even if the submarine if found the submarine still disappeared, however "2023" is not needed for the new title - CatPerson987 (he/him) — Preceding undated comment added 02:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Nope. Incident encompasses disappearance here. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 03:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Not yet: Let's see how they report on things over the next few days. 2023 probably should be removed from the title, though I don't have the policy on that memorized and I have no strong opinion either way. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible incident per Kicking222 and Tvx1. 〜 Festucalex • talk 03:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to the current page name? MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 04:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Oops, yeah, the year is superfluous. Ignore this. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 04:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Support “disappearance” as proposed. It is merely disappeared, and may well remain merely disappeared for decades. Change to “incident” only if reliable sources report an incident involved (eg sabotage, aliens). “Incident” implies something unusual, well beyond an accident, or a wiring or seal failure. OPPOSE dropping the year and current events cannot be presumed to have long term significance, it takes years worth of sources to demonstrate that the event is referred to with a timeless COMMONNAME. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2023‎ (UTC) Wait at least until the search ends, then rename. But the year is not needed, so remove. SethWhales talk 05:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Wait. We don't know if it has disappeared yet. Also, I would be in favor of putting this incident under the Oceangate Inc. page@ Wikepediathefreeencyclopedia1 (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible incident, since "incident" better covers all aspects of both the initiating event (the disappearance) and the resulting ones (search and rescue, governmental responses, company response, etc.). Beginning (talk) 06:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Disappearance of Titan. See Disappearance of ARA San Juan, a submarine. "Incident" is misleading (what was the "incident" here?). Year is not needed. WikiHannibal (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Disappearance of Titan. As per WikiHannibal, see Disappearance of ARA San Juan. Don't need "Incident" and very unlikely to ever need year. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Wait. WP always rushes to do this. Geez. If the Titanic went down today, the article would have been changed to Titanic: Incident, Titanic: Sinking, etc. Hour by hour. Once the smoke clears, the "incident" (regardless of its outcome) should just be a section at the overall article Titan since there is so much more information coming to light about the backstory than just this current tragedy. This morning I came to WP and typed in "Titan". It took me forever to find this article because of all the attached description. KISS. Maineartists (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC) • Move to Disappearance of Titan. I am uncertain about needing the year; but WP has always mixed up Disappearance, Disaster, Tragedy, and Incident in my opinion. Right now, the issue is that the Titan submersible has disappeared; it has not been found. The search is on-going for a missing vehicle and its occupants. While it might be very likely the occupants are now deceased, we can't state this fact — and call it a disaster or tragedy — until we find trace evidence of the submersible or the potential remains of the occupants. JenM5595 (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Drop "2023" from the title as it doesn't seem to be disambiguating anything, neutral regarding everything else. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Disappearance of Titan - As far as we know the submersible wasn't involved in any sort of accident .... it simply disappeared so "disappearance" would be more correct. I live in hope that all those on board are still alive. –Davey2010Talk 13:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree Matthew Campbell (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Wait. Still actively being searched for, so as of now it doesn't seem sensible to say that it's gone. JoelJSK (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move – it has disappeared. Even if it gets found soon, it still will have disappeared. – bradv 14:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC) It will have disappeared, yes; however, as people have said, once we know more we will know whether it was a crash, implosion, etc., which should take precedence over whether it has disappeared. Nonovix (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Change to 2023 Titan submersible situation. That way whatever the outcome, the actual impact of this accident is still the same without too much deviation from what it is. We don't know what's happened other than they have disappeared and banging metallic noises have been heard. Too much gobbledy gook info spewing out of the media. Koplimek (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Would it be possible to change it to a tragedy/accident maybe after the press conf, they have found debris in the field if it is confirmed as belonging to the Sub then it could be classed as that. 212.250.189.37 (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC) • I'm not suggesting whatever has happened to Titan was deliberate, but that is a possibility. Therefore, until we know otherwise it would be unencyclopedic to use the word "accident". In addition, if the Titan has failed due to negligence or poor engineering it might not be appropriate to call that an "accident" either. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Who or what would have an interest in Sabotaging The Titan? Death Editor 2 (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC) No disrespect, but I sense you would (given the opportunity). That aside, my point (clearly made) is that it cannot be assumed to be an accident. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC) It was an accident, stop fooling around. Death Editor 2 (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC) You sound adamant? Exactly what a saboteur would say to throw police off the scent :) 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move: whether or not found, it's still a disappearance. 'Incident' or 'situation' is vague and unhelpful. ɱ (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC) You say whether it's found or not it should be termed a disappearance? When it is found wouldn't that have to be changed to 'former disappearance'? 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Why would it? It would still have disappeared. For example, one can still speak of the "disappearance of Agatha Christie". Of course, we would only continue to call it a disappearance if it were to reappear safely (as Christie did). As that now seems not to be the case, we would move on to titles like "wreck of ..." or "implosion of ...". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Incident is a better term as especially in regards to deep sea incidents recovery is usually not viable whether the submarine reappears or not is irrelevant 99.224.199.140 (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible disappearance. So far this is a disappearance rather than an incident. The year is also irrelevant. Grahaml35 (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion after debris were found

WP:BOLDLY closing this off due to loss of cohesiveness; discussion should continue in the survey immediately below - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 15:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No. Incident is the right word. Debris have been found and identified so the sub has not "disappeared" but rather imploded in a million pieces. I think this news alone should close this discussion outright. Icehax (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree: It's no longer a "disappearance", and "disaster" seems a bit much for a loss of this magnitude. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Concur: I agree that incident is the correct word to use here. The current title is clear. DynCoder (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Disagree. "Titan Submersible Implosion" would be a better name for the article. CatPerson987 (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Disagree. "Titan Submersible Implosion" is too specific. --sign Dat1 607 (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC) MOS:SECTIONCAPS does not support capitalizing "implosion." ~TPW 13:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Agree to "Incident" this is what Emergency services call such cases on land sea and air, Police call Car accidents "Incidents" because they are absolutely not accidents but some form of carelessness.you could call it an event but it does sound right for some reason. same with fire dept's and even surf life saving drownings. I think "Incident" is perfect. Jayson Black1 (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Agree. Debris was found, no longer a disappearance. Atrenx90 (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Agree. Disappearance implies that the submarine was never found, however debris was found. XCBRO172 (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Adding in re Stockton Rush’s incompetence and the fact he basically murdered these people seems logical. 2A00:23EE:17E0:27CB:E866:ACD8:845E:B71 (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible implosion and remove 2023 as there is no need in distinguishing the implosion when this is the only one of its kind.:KeyKing666 (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC) we do not know when it imploded, and this whole news feels like it would just be worded as an incident that the world watched. 2607:FB91:515:6F4:412:6C2D:146C:E1A5 (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC) We absolutely do know when it imploded - the US Navy detected the implosion when it happened. 216.201.29.14 (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible implosion per @KeyKing666. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Change to 2023 Titan Disaster, in accordance with Wikipedia precedent. Redacted II (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Concur: This title fits the bill perfectly, especially when compared to other catastrophic events, such as the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster or Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Alternatively, I believe that OceanGate Titan Disaster is a sound title. DylanJ10000 (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Sorry, Space Shuttle Challenger disaster or Space Shuttle Columbia disaster! DylanJ10000 (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC) MOS:SECTIONCAPS does not support capitalizing "disaster." ~TPW 13:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Concur, but disaster with lowercase 92.22.127.50 (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC) I agree with Icehax here. The sub imploded and took 5 lives, meaning its probably enough to be call an incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Typicalglazed (talk • contribs) 18:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible disappearance. All five passengers are believed to be dead. CitationIsNeeded ツ 19:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Titan Submersible loss 80.7.168.14 (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Implosion of the Titan submersible per Coast Guard statement. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree with Tamzin KoP152 (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Implosion of the Titan submersible or Titan submersible implosion would be best. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Removing the "of the" would make this a bit more WP:CONCISE and I feel is good practice when picking titles for articles: Titan submersible implosion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Strongly oppose and I suggest close the discussion now. The company and media outlets says they believe the sub is now destroyed. SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Concur with Tamzin, sources will be published soon, if not already published. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Concurring with Tamzin. - L'Mainerque - (r/talkpage) - 19:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Oceangate Titan Disaster: It has been confirmed that the pressure chamber on the vessel exploded, instantaneously killing everyone aboard. Debris from the vessel has also been located and identified. DylanJ10000 (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I agree with this, but with a lower-case "d" in "disaster". Useight's Public Sock (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I agree, including using a lowercase "d" for "disaster." TH1980 (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Move to OceanGate Titan Implosion: I disagree, sort of. While disaster is not an incorrect label, calling it an implosion is more informative. Grave8890 (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Disagree (sort of), The closest comparison I can see with this event would be the Kursk Submarine disaster, I think disaster is still apt given the length of time it took and the widespread international response it took to get. Based on that comparison, I would back the use of term "Disaster" TheDataStudent (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Disagree, the overall situation and response involves more than the implosion itself, the implosion was just the cause of the overall 'disaster', and this article represents more than the implosion itself. Pressue (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC) MOS:SECTIONCAPS does not support capitalizing "implosion." ~TPW 13:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Agree with Dylan. It should be a lowercase D. I don't think it particuarly matters whether it is 2023 or Oceangate, but the Oceangate would fit more with Wikipedia precedent, similiar to the Space Shuttle Disaster wikis. Pressue (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Agree, but lowercase D per MOS:AT. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 07:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Agree, OceanGate Titan disaster is a good fit. No need to state the year. Company name should be in front of Titan similar to DeepFlight Challenger. --Dual Freq (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC) I move to close this discussion and reopen a new one. Schierbecker (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree with Schierbecker Tantomile (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I don't think that is possible as this one isn't 7 days old yet. Furthermore you can just suggest a new title here and whoever closes the discussion in a few days will take it into consideration. Icehax (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Discussion does not have to take full 7 days. In addition, the discovery of the debris field meaning the vessel had imploded means that the request move discussion has been contaminated. I believe it might be better to restart a fresh discussion. SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I don't think that's necessary. I've put a subheading up for comments after we learned debris had been found; I think the closer should be able to use common sense and weigh !votes before and after that point. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I've also just struck my old vote and posted a new one below. Effectively, this is a new discussion. --Renerpho (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Noting that (prior to the last few comments) I've reverted a close by 90.254.6.237 that seemed to ignore all recent developments in this dicussion. Per WP:NACD, IPs cannot close RMs. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agreed, there are a lot of possible titles that have been suggested so closing it right now is not the best idea. Icehax (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I collapsed the discussion as they are no longer relevant. SYSS Mouse (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC) No they found the wreckage so moot point Limesave 19:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Close early and start again: It is clear from recent developments that the vessel is no more and that significant parts of the original discussion no longer applies as initial written. Starting over will give participants a clean break to suggest different names with less confusion. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Amended as the discussion above has been collapsed instead, which works for me. (It does give the benefit that the closer can review prior comments that have not been superseded by comments in this subsection.) --Super Goku V (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible implosion. The sub violently collapsed onto itself, so frankly the word "implosion" would be a better fit for this. - pivotman319 (📫) 19:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree with this or "disaster," with a preference for implosion. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 20:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree, or Titan submersible destruction. -- ElLutzo (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree with either of the suggestions OneRandomBrit (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree with Titan in italics. Significa liberdade (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree. That seems the best choice considering what we know now. Gawaon (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I agree with this, as other articles refer to it as an implosion when referring to the event itself Xradicon (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Loss of the submerisble Titan or Loss of the OceanGate Titan are also possibilities. Somehow disaster seems off for an incident of this size craft and crew. I'd support quick close and open new discussion with voting among the more popular suggestions consistent with the news. Chris vLS (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Now that this has coalesced around a couple of options, i'll add my vote below. Chris vLS (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Move to 2023 Titan submersible implosion It's clearly imploded or suffered severe damage causing it to appear imploded. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 19:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Remove 2023 -- There's no need to distinguish between the 2023 Titan submersible implosion and some other Titan submersible implosion. Significa liberdade (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree Parham wiki (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree, too. Later, when we know more about the subject, we can move the Article to Titanic tourists disaster. Within a few years one may only reminiscend about this and the name Titan will be lost and only a link in the article Titanic or the disambiguation Titan should help. Horst Emscher (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Just remove "2023" - I don't really have a strong opinion on whether we call it "implosion" or "disaster" but there is absolutely no need to include the year [2023] in the title. Colipon+(Talk) 20:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree Parham wiki (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree, 2023 isn’t necessary 2601:89:8400:B9D0:DDC0:53FA:A9D3:AFEE (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Comment. Renaming of this article should not include the cause, because an investigation will follow to determine the sequences of events to this disaster. Therefore, the article name needs to be generic. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 20:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible implosion per Coast Guard statement. 2023 is unnecessary. Glman99 (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Just remove "2023", and keep the word "incident". I second what User:KyuuA4 has said two lines above. We should be careful implying any kind of cause, even if the media have discussed it, and just referring to it as an incident is the safe approach. Please note that the US coast guard, in their press release an hour ago, said that the discoveries are consistent with a catastrophic loss. They are not saying "we have found proof of an implosion, case closed", even though that's the obvious conclusion. --Renerpho (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible implosion. Year is not needed, and "implosion" is magnitudes more descriptive then "disaster" or "incident" DarkSide830 (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree: maybe a redirect from Titan submersible diaster? Jake01756 (talk) (contribs) 03:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Sadly, Titan submersible disaster would seem to be appropriate now. Ann Teak (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Implosion of Titan - reads better this way round (rather than "Titan implosion"), and I can't think of any other famous implosions of Titans, so "submersible" seems unnecessary. 2A00:23C4:6B13:D801:243A:5816:555B:30FD (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Submersible helps define context, you might not have heard of other Titans imploding but to the outside eye you wouldn't have a clear understanding of what the article might entail. I would keep the title almost as is and just remove 2023 since this is an ongoing event and we don't even have a preliminary report yet. What is certain is that this was not a disappearance. Icehax (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC) As @Icehax stated, it's best to include "submersible" for outsider context. Secondly, it's best to be concise for article titles, which means removing prepositions if possible. Titan implosion is grammatically sound. Significa liberdade (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to OceanGate Titan disaster; "OceanGate Titan" sounds nicer than "Titan submersible", and including the word disaster would be consistant with other incidents, such as Costa Concordia disaster and Hindenburg disaster. Liljimbo (talk) 20:35, June 22, 2023 (UTC) Move to either Titan submersible implosion or Titan submersible disaster. I'm not sure how the company's name could fit in any of these titles to be honest, and we should only leave it at that. CycloneYoris talk! 21:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC) There have been similar instances in the past where the name of the company has remained in the title. I personally think it's an integral part of the vessel's name. For reference see the Costa Concordia disaster Icehax (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC) In the case you're referencing, the company name was Costa Cruises, and the name of the ship was Costa Concordia. This is not an instance of keeping the company name in the Wiki title but rather an instance of a company naming a ship after the company. Significa liberdade (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I'd say keep the company name out of the title. Looking at past disasters, there's no precedent to include the company name. ETA: See List of submarine incidents since 2000. Significa liberdade (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree with Titan submersible disaster, like the title of the Kursk submarine disaster article. Emkut7 (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Rename to OceanGate Titan Disaster. I think this would be the best title to both provide context (some have suggested just "Titan" but it feels too vague to me) and remain in line with other similar articles. Icehax (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Support Icehax proposal as it's more precise and more concise than just "incident". I'd agree that WP:NOYEAR applies here as it would be closer to CRYSTALBALL to imply more incidents have happened in the past…mentioning the specific submarine further reduces the need for year as well. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Support Icehax proposal due to reason similar to InvadingInvader. The more precise the merrier.(AlphaBetaGammsh (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)) SUPPORT. This is the typical phrasing for most "expedition" style catastrophic failures. Abebenjoe (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC) MOS:SECTIONCAPS does not support capitalizing "disaster." ~TPW 13:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC) I agree with the suggestion to move to Titan submersible implosion or Titan submersible disaster. As Significa liberdade pointed out, in the Costa Concordia case, the name of the ship was Costa Concordia, not Concordia, but this submersible was named Titan, not OceanGate Titan. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I would prefer Titan submersible implosion: it's more descriptive and straightforward than "disaster". I also prefer "Titan submersible" over "OceanGate Titan", as it's more descriptive, and the company name isn't part of the craft's name. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I would actually move this page to the 2023 Titan submersible sinking not implosion. This vessel sank as a result of compressive implosion. The term implosion has a broad meaning including the intentional inward demolition of buildings through explosives, nuclear detonation and other meanings, that may confuse the common reader. Most subs that sink in deep water implode after they reach a certain depth anyway. In summary, this vessel sank as a result of a kinetic implosion and not a detonative implosion, so I propose moving it to sinking or keeping it at incident. Words in the Wind(talk) 21:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I think incidindent still fits the bill. all the other words: "implosion", "disaster", etc, are not used uniformly across media outlets coverage of this "incident"... it is clearly tragic, and a disaster, but I think the current title should just hold. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Do you have an authoritative source to support your assertion that "most subs that sink in deep water implode after they reach a certain depth"? Further, do you have a source to support your assertion that there was not any kind of explosion (detonation) on board Titan that triggered an implosion? Primie facie, a pressure vessel containing oxygen cylinders and Heath-Robinson electrical systems powered by lead-acid batteries sounds like a recipe for explosions. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC) That would mean making assumptions on the mechanism of incident since we currently have no official preliminary nor final reports, which is a big no-no in my books. It's better to use the more general terms for now such as incident or disaster, it could always be updated later without a discussion when a proper report comes out. Icehax (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Incident works for now i argue Iljhgtn (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC) In that case, "accident" would be a better word in my opinion. CycloneYoris talk! 23:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I would refrain from using "accident" as that tends to imply an error was made (and that someone is at fault). Again, we don't know why the vessel imploded (at least not yet). Perhaps sticking with "incident" is the best course for now. Significa liberdade (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC) People have raised good points and perhaps it is best to leave it at incident until we actually know more about the structural failure of the submersible. Words in the Wind(talk) 13:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Support Titan submersible disaster in line with other submarine losses such as Kursk submarine disaster. [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 21:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Support Titan submersible incident Until there is a definitive report from a government agency that details the mechanism of failure for the craft, I say referring to it as an "incident" in the title is entirely appropriate. It is purposefully vague enough to not rule out any other possibilities even though evidence currently suggests implosion as the most likely scenario. Discussion of moving the page should only be revived once an official report is released in my opinion. As for the year, I agree that the page should be moved to Titan submersible incident specifically, and neither "sinking" nor "implosion" for the reason I listed above -- we don't know for sure what happened until an official report is released. I am not necessarily opposed to "disaster" either. Red Card For You (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC) yes, these are my thoughts too Iljhgtn (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC) 100% agree with you, this would be the most sensible choice for now. Also everybody has a slightly different idea for the title so i think going with the most general option might be best. I suggested OceanGate Titan disaster but your version works as well. Icehax (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree Significa liberdade (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Agree This is the best option, until and unless there's definitive proof of an implosion. GoPats (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC) 2023 Titanic Submersible Sinking like a normal person would. That's after most people calling it a submarine. WorkingOnTheRailroad (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC) MOS:SECTIONCAPS does not support capitalizing "submersible sinking." ~TPW 13:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC) but most do not even call this a submarine, they are calling it a submersible Iljhgtn (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Adding sinking would presupposes a known mechanism of failure which we currently do not have. Until we have at least a preliminary report i wouldn't use such specific vocabulary. Icehax (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Support "Titan submersible implosion" or "incident", per above, and per Coast Guard statement. Best to be succinct and detailed about the event itself, whilst mourning the lives lost. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I would support either Titan submersible accident or Titan submersible implosion. Both seem natural and a good description of the event. Incident doesn't seem proper for an event that caused the deaths of all 5 people in the submersible. We should also keep in mind WP:DISASTER, the word "disaster" shouldn't be used unless it is more severe than other events of the same type and there is significant usage of the word. This event doesn't seem too extraordinary compared to others. There has only been one Titan accident before so the year isn't that necessary. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 22:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose. They found debris, so it's not a disappearance anymore. Christian Toney 22:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Support Titan submersible implosion. ~ HAL333 22:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible disaster or Titan submersible incident or Titan submersible accident or Titan submersible sinking. The former is most consistent with similar articles from what I can tell. Calling it an implosion is too specific and unnatural for the title (Space Shuttle Challenger disintegration is still red as of now). We should specify that we are discussing the titan sub and not one of the many other vessels called Titan, but including the year is probably unnecessary and reduces conciseness. Calling the sub "OceanGate Titan" would also distinguish it but that's not part of its official name, so it's not consistent with other articles and could be confusing to readers. The word "incident" is rather vague, but we still don't know what exactly led to the implosion. "Accident" conversely might imply we know more than we do about the causes, but it's used broadly to describe many marine incidents. "Sinking" might be a reasonable middle ground but it just sounds weird to me; I might be prejudiced against gerunds. I think "disaster" is best, but any of the above would be OK, maybe depending on what reliable sources call it after today. Definitely not "implosion" though. —Rutebega (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Disagree They found two piles of debris. It imploded Matthew Campbell (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Where did I say it didn't implode? We decide article titles based on this policy, which specifies that they should be, among other things, natural. As I pointed out, we don't have articles called "Space Shuttle Challenger disintegration" or "Hindenburg rapid exothermic oxidation" even though that is what happened to those craft. —Rutebega (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC) 😂 I'm just stupid. But I think it should be "Implosion of Titan Submersible". It wasn't a disaster. A disaster is like Chernobyl. Only 5 people died. A disaster is 50+ Matthew Campbell (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC) No 20+ Matthew Campbell (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Where's the reliable sources calling this a "disaster"? Macktheknifeau (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC) The Telegraph does use the wording 'Titan submersible disaster' in the headline to refer to the situation. However, I am currently unsure if there is enough reliable sources to have that be the article name. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I've been fighting for decades to have the Hindenburg disaster relabelled as the "Hindenburg-rapid-exothermic-oxidation-and-succumbence-to-downward acceleration-due-to-the-force-of-gravity-event". Please DM me and let's work together to make this happen. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose: The article page should simply be named "Titan submersible" or "OceanGate Titan" with all content regarding the submarine on this one page. It doesn't need "incident" or "implosion" or "disaster" on the end as anything but redirects if required. The vast majority of ship sinkings on wikipedia have their article names solely as the name of the ship and only when a vessel itself and the the sinking event are both significantly notable to the point that splitting content over a "Ship" and "Ship Sinking" page does such a split page be required. There is no such justification here, there is no reason to split the content between an article regarding the submarine and the sinking. It also handily avoids the inevitable complaining from people who think it should or should not be suffixed with "incident" or "implosion" or "sinking" or "disaster" or "disappearance" or "loss". Macktheknifeau (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Strongly Disagree People should know right away what happened. I do think that the Titan should have its own Wikipedia page. Matthew Campbell (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Your use of all-bold text is duly noted Matthew. Thank you for your forthrightness. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:A1:3912:35A8:F10D (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia:BLP1E Icehax (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I thought about this as well. I had assumed that certain naval ships had their own notability guideline dictating they have their own article anyway, but there isn't one that I can find. The other argument would be that when dealing with people, we typically cover the notable event rather than the person involved. This isn't about a person however, the sub would certainly meet the GNG, and I can't think of any other reason it can't have its own article. I would also support a move to Titan (submersible), though I won't strike my comment above since I think those options are also reasonable. —Rutebega (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC) If you search for the Titan specifically you won't find basically any sources talking about it specifically (OceanGate had other subs as well), so i don't believe it would meet the notability guidelines. It might not be a person but WP:BLP1E still applies i think. Icehax (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC) i went and looked around and found this: Wikipedia:Notability (vehicles) which says this specifically about individual (unique) vehicles: "When possible, a vehicle that is only notable for participation in a single event that was not specifically modified for the purpose of the event should be covered in the article about the event, not in a separate article." So i would argue we dont need a separate article for the Titan. Icehax (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I wouldn't assume that 1E applies to any subject notable for a single event, but I missed that essay which does seem to apply it to vehicles. It isn't a guideline but it's longstanding and doesn't appear to have generated controversy, so I'm reversing my support. —Rutebega (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to implosion of the submersible Titan. Much clearer, and eliminates useless year from the title. Neutralitytalk 23:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC) 2023 implosion of Titan Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC) i do not like how that sounds.. if someone were googling it, i do not think they would google "implosion of the submersible Titan" Iljhgtn (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC) maybe "Titan submersible accident" ? Has anyone suggested that Iljhgtn (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC) i do agree that the year is uselss though and does not need to stick around Iljhgtn (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible implosion (or if really need be Titan submersible disaster) as per those above and per sources which now state it imploded, May Shahzada Dawood, Suleman Dawood, Hamish Harding, Paul-Henri Nargeolet and Stockton Rush all rest in peace, My sincere condolences to friends and family at this sad time. Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 23:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Rename to OceanGate Titan Mishap. This is a "maritime mishap" which resulted in catastrophic loss of vessel and fatalities. You may further wait to mirror the language classifying this mishap in the likely ensuing U.S.C.G. Incident Investigation Report. The Titan (i.e., Cyclopes 2) is technically a class of vessel developed by Oceangate (flagship). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.236.138 (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I think news outlets are mostly just breaking a new detail/quoting USCG and other sources rather than referring to the whole incident as an implosion (with the exception of USA Today, who originally titled this article "Titanic submarine implosion victims: These 5 men died on Titan trip" which frankly does seem a bit insensitive) I would predict that over the next week as journalists refer more to the event in the past tense, the terms disaster, accident, and wreck will be used more frequently in headlines and elsewhere. —Rutebega (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC) MOS:SECTIONCAPS does not support capitalizing "mishap." ~TPW 13:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan submersible disaster, this is how the public would refer to it, otherwise sinking. Do not use incident.Spilia4 (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Move to 2023 Titan submersible implosion.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Use Implosion. That's what happened. "Incident" is too common and is not WP:PRECISE. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Submarine Titan disaster, per the Space Shuttle Challenger and Columbia pages. Redirects would get all the suggested names to the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Concur 92.22.127.50 (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Continue to oppose There is not yet a WP:COMMONNAME for the situation. Wikipedia shouldn't try to dictate what it will be called which could lead to WP:CITOGENESIS. I'm sure one will emerge eventually. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC) I agree with you here, but the current title poses essentially the same risk; we need some title for the article, and it seems likely whatever is picked will be a common name for the disaster/incident/disappearance/implosion/sinking/accident. Of course, incident seems as fine as any of the others. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 04:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC) While I'd support leaving it at current title for now per my reasoning above, I'd also be fine with "accident". "Disaster" seems too large in scope. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC) The page is fairly broad already - it covers the leadup, predicted safety flaws etc. 92.22.127.50 (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Continue to wait; I think the best course of action is to not make any major changes, and come back in like two weeks whenever news coverage calms down. We still don't have all the facts – don't rush to conclusions. I have no objections to removing the "2023" from the title (as there seems to be general consensus for that, I'm not going to try and stop things there when I don't disagree), but this was an "incident", there's no need to rush to change that. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Agree; I think it's too early to ascertain, given the intense media coverage, what actually happened. Keep in mind, whilst the Coast Guard's official statement strongly suggested the cause, it's yet to have been fully confirmed. Cobaj Thaite (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Remove 2023 from title - I'm not sure what name to go with, but with any of those options, the year is unnecessary. There isn't another incident involving a submersible named Titan that we need to distinguish this incident from. Other articles of this type, like ship sinkings, major rail disasters do not include years in the title, unless there's another incident it could be confused for, such as at the same location or involving a vehicle of the same name. (Example: Channel Tunnel Fire articles. Channel Tunnel fires have happened multiple times, with major ones in 1996 and 2008, and both stand alone articles now named YEAR Channel Tunnel fire. However, the 2004 article for the 1996 incident was originally named simply Channel Tunnel Fire, prior to the 2008 fire.) It didn't disappear for long, it was found, and in a bunch of pieces. Since it seems like it was an implosion, I recommend a variation of Titan submersible implosion, with or without the year. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Comment. As this discussion stands it seems almost impossible that a closer would be able to find a clear consensus. There are discussions on at least half a dozen different potential titles and variations. Proposed title changes include removing the year, removing the word submersible, adding OceanGate, changing the term from "incident" to any of implosion, disaster, accident, disappearance, or sinking, and changing the subject verb order ("Implosion of the Titan submersible" vs "Titan submersible implosion"). Can we get a short list of proposed options and have a !vote around those? Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 04:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC) i agree Icehax (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC) These are all the ones I saw post the discovery of the debris: Titan submersible implosion Titan submersible disaster Titan submersible disappearance Titan submersible incident OceanGate Titan disaster OceanGate Titan implosion Implosion of the Titan submersible Implosion of the submersible Titan Loss of the submersible Titan Loss of the OceanGate Titan I took out a couple that included years and such. QueerFilmNerdtalk 05:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC) By short list I mean three or four options maximum. Alternatively, we could have several separate questions: what word should be used, should the year be included, should OceanGate be included, etc; that strikes me as overly complex, but there's enough voices in here that maybe we need it to have any chance of clarity. This has become a bikeshed problem; basically all these titles are reasonable and it's unlikely there's a strong policy argument against any of them, leaving us in the situation of settling the preferences of every editor whose eyes happen to come across this page. @Knightoftheswords281 as the original proposer of this move, do you have any thoughts on how to structure the discussion here? Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 05:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC) I believe the policy on polls says they should not be used to filter the discussion in any way but rather to gauge consensus on outcomes, so you could argue against this. I feel like we should leave it to the neutral person that will eventually close the discussion to select the options he/she feels like have the most consensus and maybe create a poll using those. I don't think it would be useful to hold one right now. Icehax (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC) @Dylnuge, yeah, I was already noticing that (296 comments!). I'm thinking of dividing the poll up, i.e, including several subsections dedicated to the answer (e.g, OceanGate or no?) and hatting this section because the convo has spiraled out of control since neither of my original proposals seem to be favored now. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 18:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC) I think the most reasonable options are Titan submersible implosion Titan submersible disaster OceanGate Titan implosion OceanGate Titan disaster Patmorgan235 (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Agree: these are the best options. The year should be omitted and implosion or disaster should be used in place of incident, although disaster seems more appropriate. ~~~ kiepier (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC) The list is missing the "sinking" variations. I personally don't agree with those but a poll should have all the options clearly laid out. Icehax (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC) This list is missing the most obvious solution, which is that it doesn't need any special name and that all the content can be collated simply in "Titan Submersible" or "OceanGate Titan". Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC) There's an article on notability guidelines for vehicles which states that if a vehicle is notable for one event only it should be presented in the article dedicated for the event without having another article dedicated to just the vehicle. Icehax (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Comment: Why not Titan submersible or Titan submarine? Take a look at how Germans did it. Goldddd (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose move until further information is revealed. However, I agree the year is unnecessary. QueerFilmNerdtalk 04:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose, either make the title specifically about the submersible (way the Deutsch Wiki does it), or wait until the event has ended to make a final decision. However, I support 2023 being removed from the title at this point in time. Move to Titan (submersible). Changing my vote after the fate of the Titan was determined. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Agree, count my vote for this. Goldddd (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose, although I support 2023 being removed from title. User:DimensionalFusion 09:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose, the current name is pretty clear already. But I would rather remove the "2023" in there. What about like, Titan submersible implosion, Titan submersible accident, Titan submersible catastrophe, Or you know, anything like that? I just want this discussion to be closed. Packnuts (talk) 7:03, 23 June 2023 Move to Titan submersible implosion. It's much more precise than incident. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Agree. Whether or not this is considered an “accident” or “incident” should be based in an internationally-agreed-upon definition of those terms in the maritime context, similar to how aviation accidents and incidents are differentiated. The UNDRR definition of a maritime accident includes the following: “ A marine accident is an event, or a sequence of events, that has resulted in any of the following occurring directly in connection with the normal operation of a marine vessel: the death of, or serious injury to, a person; the loss of a person from a ship; the loss, presumed loss or abandonment of a marine vessel; material damage to a marine vessel; the stranding or disabling of a marine vessel, or the involvement of a marine vessel in a collision…” What happened to the Titan was definitely a maritime accident under this definition. And “implosion” is a more specific definition of the type of accident. Swordfish36 (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose any change other than removing the "2023". Wikipedia does not lead, it follows. Wait for a common name to emerge. Charcoal feather (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC) yeah keep or remove the 2023 no other change Sebbog13 (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Move to anything other than 'incident'. I was an incident when we knew something was wrong, bu not necessarily what; not we know it imploded, we know it has disappeared. Ergo it has become a disappearance. BTW, did someone ^^^ suggest that imploding into one's component atoms was not a disappearance? SN54129 16:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC) disappearance would presuppose no part of the vessel was found, which is not the case. It didn't implode into atoms but rather into many clearly detectable pieces. Icehax (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC) I have no objection to the move to "implosion" as that is almost certainly what happened. SecretName101 (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Move to Titan Submersible Implosion, as that is exactly what this article is about. Anybar (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Comment why have all the comments from before debris found been hatted like they don't matter? The fact they found debris doesn't change my opinions and vote on the name. You can't expect everyone to re-post just because they posted a few days ago. Honestly never seen a RM where someone has hatted half the discussion....... Joseph2302 (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC) No Current name is appropriate, following discovery of debris. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Keep the current name would be my vote. There's no reason to change it. The fact of the matter was that it was a tragic incident. Calling it a disaster is a bit too exaggerated, sinking doesn't sound right since it's a submersible not a ship. 'Implosion' would make sense at first, but that wasn't the whole thing. This article highlights not just the implosion, but also its disappearance and the search. Therefore, I believe the current title is appropriate. Ulysses Grant Official 19:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Support yeah the current name is good the "2023" could be removed tho, but the current title also works great. Sebbog13 (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC) I say NO. This whole thing was an INCIDENT. So much about it doesn't make sense, because really the Coast Guard knew from day ONE that the thing had a catastrophic depressurization, they had been told of the noise that had been detected right when they lost contact with the Titan, and yet they went on that wild goose chase, for nothing. Searching an area twice the size of Connecticut? For what? As James Cameron has stated, as soon as that French (non-Coast Guard affiliated) ROV team went to the last place it had been, right above the Titanic, as soon as it got down there, they found it. And yet for 4 days the Coast guard was running around like chickens with their heads cut off. So no, disappearance is not appropriate, because it's not even accurate, not really. That thing was right where everyone should have known it would be the whole time, right next to the Titanic. Incident is 100% the correct word for it. Rebeccathecowgirl (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Do we know exactly when the acoustic information was passed from the U.S. Navy to the Coast Guard? The article does not seem to say. Thanks. 86.187.229.73 (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose Agreed with others that the name of article is fine and that 2023 should be removed. YborCityJohn (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose It is not only known for the dissapearance and it was found 173.168.100.26 (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Close discussion — Too many tangents and seemingly no agreement on much here... it's hard to even follow the discourse, let alone discern any kind of consensus. We should open new discussions on proposals for more specific changes to the title, one by one. The first of which should be removing "2023", as that seems to have the most tacit support right now, and is the easiest to make clear support/oppose arguments for. — AFC Vixen 🦊 15:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Agree. My notifications are getting spammed because i posted 1 comment on this page. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Survey on a general aggregate of the top 4 requests

Since this discussion has somewhat spiraled out of control, and we now have various competing titles, as the original starter of the discussion, I'm WP:BOLDLY closing off the above discussion to centralize it here and bring cohesiveness to more effectively form consensus. There is consensus to remove 2023 out of the title, but there is no consensus on the rest of the title. Out of all of the proposed suggestions, the following seemed to be generally favored:

• Titan submersible implosion
• Titan submersible disaster
• OceanGate Titan implosion
• OceanGate Titan disaster

Icehax (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I favour Titan submersible implosion. It doesn't offer information that may not be as useful as the reader, it shows the reader what kind of object it was, and what happened to it, all in just 3 words. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link!< 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 16:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Likewise. It succinctly describes the vessel and what happened. ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree.

"Titan Submersible Disappearance" sounds like a placeholder title, until more information is known. "Titan Submersible Implosion" is more direct and reflects the actual event that occurred. 2600:6C5A:407F:7DBF:10F8:E72A:DB73:60FD (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

OceanGate Titan Disaster is my vote - Titan submersible disaster would be my second choice. I favor disaster over implosion here because the article involves a lot more than the implosion itself. For example, the Space Shuttle Challenger title doesn't talk about the cause, just references it as a disaster. Pressue (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The manual of style doesn't support capitalizing "disaster." ~TPW 18:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Titan submersible implosion is my preference. "Disaster" feels too much like editorializing unless it becomes the common name for the incident. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 16:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

+1. Name in italics. It is not an adjective. ElLutzo (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

My vote too. Gawaon (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

XCBRO172 (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this, suggestion is well explained. OneRandomBrit (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 06:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I favor Titan submersible implosion, disaster seems to general, and the scale of the incident does not deserve the title of disaster. Implosion lets people know exactly what happened at a glance. Including the word submersible in the title is also crucial, in my opinion. Wikepediathefreeencyclopedia1 (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I favor Titan submersible implosion or Titan submersible disaster - there doesn't seem to be a precedent to include the name of the company owning the vehicle in the title. We don't have an article called Sinking of the White Star Line Titanic, we have an article called Sinking of the Titanic. I can see the cases for both "implosion" and "disaster" in the title. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• I think in terms of providing context, OceanGate was an instrumental part in the overall 'vision' of Titan, and provides more context than establishing that Titan is a submersible. In this instance I believe that including the operator's name is important; and I think it sounds better, too, but I'm fine with any candidate.

I think the issue here is that there is little consistency when naming submarine tragedies. Take a look at: List of maritime disasters, 2008 Russian submarine accident, Submarine incident off Kildin Island. Maybe this could be discussed under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) or a similar project page? Cobaj Thaite (talk) 05:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Titan submersible implosion (followed by disaster). There's not really a precedent to include the company name. (See: List of submarine incidents since 2000). As for how we want to refer to the "incident," while disaster would work, some organizations define disaster as "serious disruptions to the functioning of a community that exceed its capacity to cope using its own resources" (IFRC). In this case, a community hasn't particularly been affected (except perhaps researchers and rich people who want to go to the Titanic in the future). As such, implosion is preferred. Significa liberdade (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

OceanGate Titan Disaster gets my vote. It generalizes the entire thing for what it is: an unfortunate disaster (similarly to the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster and the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster). I also believe it important to include OceanGate in the title, due to, as far as I can tell, the vessel being commonly referred to as the OceanGate Titan. I would also like to bring up similar submarine/submersible incidents that have also used disaster in it's title (i.e. the Kursk submarine disaster). DylanJ10000 (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

lowercase disaster Sebbog13 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

not changing my vote just correcting the above message by dylan Sebbog13 (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not a vote, and @Sebbog13 is correct regarding how we capitalize. ~TPW 18:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

As before, adding "implosion" or "disaster" is redundant, and as per existing consensus for maritime sinkings (rather than spaceships being destroyed) it should only be named Titan submersible or OceanGate Titan. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• OceanGate Titan Implosion. I believe using 'implosion' instead of 'disaster' would be more concise, straight to the point for those in the future who might come across this. As I've previously stated, WP has a tendency to use the wrong word for an incident and I feel it's too much of editorializing. This occurred in a contained environment, and only impacted five people. 'Disaster' signifies something of a greater magnitude. JenM5595 (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'd pick Titan submersible implosion. It's one of the most concise, and it pretty much explains literally the entire article, in my opinion.

Packnuts (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

My vote goes for Titan submersible implosion. Second choice is Titan submersible disaster. Thanks team. Nir007H (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Titan submersible disaster is a better title, because the article isn’t exclusively about the implosion. ForTheGrammar (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Titan submersible implosion for the ease that it rolls off the tongue, and very eloquently sums up what happened. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 22:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

OceanGate Titan disaster is the most descriptive and communicative in my opinion, and it follows Wikipedia precedent, namely Space Shuttle Challenger disaster and Chernobyl disaster. Cobaj Thaite (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Titan submersible implosion would be best as “incident” doesn’t seem right. Who knows, there could be many other different “incidents” related to “Titan”, so it is good to be specific.

TheCorvetteZR1^{(The Garage)} 13:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Titan submersible disaster gets my vote. It's succinct, and as an above replier said, the article isn't exclusively about the implosion. AliceBelmont (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Titan Submersible Implosion "OceanGate" isn't needed in my view. Disaster works as well but personally I think "Implosion" is the best. CatPerson987 (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

In favour of Titan Submersible Implosion. "Disaster" sounds like it lost a lot of lives in my eyes. Implosion clearly states what happened and provides a more "single view" approach where the audience doesn't need to look further to see what happened in case they just want a quick search and scan. Lefty Lucy Righty Tighty (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

+ don't get me wrong, 5 lives is still too many but "disaster" sounds like 200 to me. Lefty Lucy Righty Tighty (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Titan submersible incident (current without the year)

- Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 15:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

MtPenguinMonster (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 16:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

- Sebbog13 (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

We can just add our signature (4 consecutive tilde) under the title we want to vote if that's ok with you? Icehax (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• OceanGate Titan disaster Abebenjoe (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• Titan submersible implosion Seems like the most fitting title that describes what happened. Canuck^{89 (Speak with me) or visit my user page} 18:11, June 24, 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion gets my vote, it's straight forward and makes sense. Tantomile (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Titan submersible implosion is also my preference. I think the italics are important. Also, no one is referring to the event as a "disaster," except possibly news channels. Natureader (talk) 04:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• I favour implosion over disaster, given how much that word crops up in headlines and how people are talking about it. However, may I also submit that the extra word "submersible" is unnecessary? I.e. I would go for either Titan implosion or Implosion of Titan (I've no special preference for having OceanGate or not, btw). I raised this possibility in the earlier discussion above. However, other commenters rejected this idea because removing "submersible" would mean that "to the outside eye you wouldn't have a clear understanding of what the article might entail". That's a valid concern, however I would also point out that we refer to it as the "Hindenburg disaster", not the "Hindenburg airship disaster". We don't worry that people might think "Hindenburg disaster" was actually a disaster involving the former President of Weimar Germany! It seems then to me there's a judgement call over whether someone might see a title like "Titan implosion" and be seriously confused. I don't think it's particularly likely, given how far this topic has penetrated popular culture, but ymmv. 2A00:23C4:6B13:D801:D51C:E4:6E5A:2165 (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• I also favour implosion per above, and the fact that most news coverage about it calls it an implosion. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• I vote for OceanGate Titan disaster. It's more general and the full name is warranted. Songwaters (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion or Titan submersible accident. I don't have a preference over which one to choose, but I think these are the best. It seems many media sources are calling this an implosion and not a disaster. Also, keep in mind WP:DISASTER, don't use the word disaster in the title unless many reliable sources are saying it is and it is more destructive than other events. This just seems like a normal submarine implosion/explosion. Having OceanGate in the title also doesn't describe what reliable sources are saying and submersible is good enough for the title. Submersible should also be included in the title to disambiguate from other Titans (like the 1980 Damascus Titan missile explosion). RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 16:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• Titan submersible incident works for me. The scale is insufficient for the use of the word "disaster". Also, although the vessel is definitely known to have imploded at some point, we don't know if that was what killed the passengers; they may have already been dead at that time. — The Anome (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't think it's good to keep hatting and re-starting this discussion, which has now happened twice. This behavior seems very likely to result in a "no consensus" close. I think this discussion needs to close after 7 days, then a new RM should be started with whatever the most likely to succeed rename request is at that time, informed by the discussion in this RM. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  Seconded. I understand the reason the hatting was done and it seems good faith, but it's added a lot of confusion. It's hard to figure out who is arguing for what at this point.

  As for the survey, it seems like a decent way to structure discussion on something like this, but I'm not clear that the options here had consensus or are even based in what was leading popularity-wise. I count 30 comments that supported the term "incident" (which is not a poll option) vs 11 that supported "disaster" and 9 that supported putting "OceanGate" in the title before the poll was opened (I'm including both hatted sections). There were also a non-trivial number of people opposed to any move, but the current page title isn't in the poll options. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 17:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  Seconded. This discussion is very confusing. There's no way to assess votes, and the way the discussion has been "cut" effectively invalidates some votes, and that's not okay. Simply mass-pinging users is decidedly not helpful. Close discussion as "no consensus", because a consensus under those conditions is impossible. --Renerpho (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  I initially thought that a close was the best choice forward when the discussion pivoted after it was confirmed the Titan was lost, but was convinced that hatting the older discussion would be better.

  But here, I don't see why a second hatting was a good idea. Now the closer has to deal with tracking comments from an additional section to prevent re-votes from counting. It requires people to come back who did not pick one of the four above names and decide which one they want to support. I also don't understand how two users can both claim to be the starter of the discussion and claim to have hatted the second section. (I also don't see why I was pinged because I suggested that the vote be closed, but that is another matter.)

  Honestly, it might be better to have this be prematurely closed and a new discussion started in 48 hours so that everyone can take a brief break and prepare. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• Titan submersible implosion - No need for company name to be in front, Disaster would be my second option but that doesn't fully explain things, "Titan submersible implosion" says exactly what happened. –Davey2010^Talk 16:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• None of these are correct. It should just be the name of the vessel, as we do for most other shipwrecks. pburka (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• OceanGate Titan implosion due to it being the most accurate description of what happened based on the consensus of sources. I think that "incident" is too light of a word and it should not be used in light of more accurate descriptions. I would also support Titan submersible implosion if editors prefer that, though would discourage use of Disaster. In the end though, all four options are better than the current one, and if one option has reasonable more support than the other, as long as "incident" is removed from the page title, I will support the title. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• My preferences are either Titan submersible disaster or Titan submersible implosion. This is Paul (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion, short and descriptive. --ERAGON (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• OceanGate Titan disaster Abebenjoe (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Just leave it at Titan submersible implosion for now, and possibly open another RM in a few weeks or months once more details come to light. Implosion is the word the media is currently using, so it should be used here also. CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• I remain supportive of Titan submersible implosion, with the year notedly removed because we do not need to disambiguate here. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Titan submersible implosion. Google search results for the topic without any of these keywords suggest that "implosion" is much more common than "disaster", and the company name is not very prominent in snippets. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• Titan submersible implosion at the moment (though one day the cause may change - we can worry about that at the time); I have some sympathy with the suggestion for Titan (submersible), but that might depend on whether that is spun off from OceanGate, so could be left to a later merge discussion if that happens. Davidships (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• New *OceanGate Titan accident or another title using the word accident Five people dying is a disaster? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:4ef0:9b0:b54b:ede1:aad5:f94 (talk • contribs)
• Titan submersible implosion or Titan submersible disaster. I favor disaster because I feel it better conveys that there was a loss of life and not just that a submersible imploded; but implosion better describes what happened. Either would be fine with me as long as "2023" is dropped and "incident" is changed in the title. 〜 Askarion ✉ 19:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion is my favorite option. Unambiguous and short. "submersible" is more descriptive than "OceanGate" in the future. --mfb (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion - Short and descriptive. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible disaster seems like a good summary succinctly describing the nature of the event [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 20:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• I'll agree with OceanGate Titan implosion despite my preference for the word incident, but in my opinion the scale of the event is way too small to be called a disaster. DynCoder (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion is my vote out of the four. I do prefer a simple Titan (submersible) however. as per @Macktheknifeau and @Khajidha.MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 21:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion is straight to the point and referred to a lot in the news. I think we should go with that one. Christian Toney 21:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible incident, for the same reason as I stated previously. The word "implosion" in the title is not acceptable until after the investigation has finished. --Renerpho (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Strike in favour of a close as "no consensus". Same result, but having participated in this vote would look as if I believe this discussion to be useful (or valid), which is not the case, as I explained in an earlier comment. --Renerpho (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion is my choice. Disaster is typically meant for large scale death or mass destruction. Including the name OceanGate is unnecessary. Usedbook (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Implosion, reflecting how the event is now being reported in HQRS. Agreed with Usedbook above re. Disaster and the non-inclusion of the company name. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion, it is more concise than the current title. We likely do not need a preceding year, and incident offers ambiguity. Persent101 (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion, I agree with all the viewpoints above in favor of this title as it is the most concise and straightforward title for the article.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• OceanGate Titan disaster is my narrow preference, given how important the operation and owner of the company is to the story. Narrowly followed by Titan submersible disaster and then Titan submersible implosion. My logic is more or less that attention is drawn to it because of the disappearance and then deaths, rather than that it was an implosion in particular. Cpotisch (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• A quick google search at this point is immediately pulling up news sources using "implosion" in the title, so Titan submersible implosion is fine, though I still think it's probably better to wait for things to settle down and just remove the year, and start a new discussion soon. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion is my preference. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible disaster is how I imagine most will refer to it going forward. I give a backup vote to Titan submersible implosion, but it really should be disaster.Spilia4 (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• OceanGate Titan disaster OceanGate should be in front of Titan similar to DeepFlight Challenger, Pro-Design Titan, and Ellipse Titan. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• I'm sticking with Titan submersible implosion. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion: Use of the word "disaster" is discouraged per WP:DISASTER and the word implosion is both precise and concise. The name of the ship should be italicized per WP:SHIPNAME. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• OceanGate Titan disaster remains the most appropriate, in my opinion, because the title encompasses the entire tragedy, not just the fatal implosion itself. TH1980 (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible disaster. You can read my earlier comments, or just WP:CRITERIA if you want to know why. —Rutebega (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion is the most precise & descriptive title. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Let's go with Titan submarine implosion, or (my preferred choice) Loss of the submersible Titan. It doesn't qualify as a disaster, and "accident" seems inappropriate, given the many warnings about the safety of the system. And it certainly wasn't a disappearance; the debris field is clear evidence of that.— The Anome (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Did you mean to put "submersible" in your first title? Titan is not a submarine. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Titan submersible disaster. The cause of the incident does not belong on the article title, especially when the investigation is still ongoing. It is not Wikipedia's job to draw these kinds of conclusions. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 11:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Prefer Titan submersible implosion to Titan submersible disaster. "Disaster" is more vague and "implies a certain level of destruction" (WP:DISASTER) that doesn't apply here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion is my preference, similar articles have had the fate of the vechicle in the title. Helicopters and Subs. 2603:7080:7000:1108:45A3:2234:B4B7:95AD (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• I prefer either of the titles with implosion. It's clearer without sensationalizing. Mason (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion This title is the most precise title. The person who loves reading (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• I think I'd prefer "disaster" over "implosion" but seems like a lot of people are in favour of implosion so in the interest of closing this, I'll go with Titan submersible implosion. For the record I just want the year "2023" removed from the title ASAP and think this is an uncontroversial change that any admin can perform without impacting the wider discussion. Colipon+(Talk) 18:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion -- glad disappearance is off the table. I see no reason to mention the company's name. Implosion provides specificity in a single word. I like the idea of including the word "submersible" to differentiate it from a Titan rocket. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion sounds best to me. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion makes the most sense. It's specific and short. RteeeeKed💬📖 00:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion is straight and to the point. QueerFilmNerd^talk
• Titan submersible implosion is more specific and concise. 📖 (💬/📜) 05:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion is my preferred choice. It's straightforward, specific, and doesn't bog the reader down. IncompA (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• It's been 7 days since we started this discussion. Perhaps someone who can actually move the page should start deliberating on the final consensus? I feel like this is getting too long and losing cohesiveness again. Icehax (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Prefer current title; "disaster" makes it sound like many lives were lost, especially non-adventurer lives. "Incident" is a more accurate term. If the current title is "out", then "implosion" is preferable to "disaster" (OK to drop "2023", though). Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Titan submersible implosion is my choice. Straightforward and accurate statement. Grahaml35 (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion is still the best. ~ HAL333 16:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Titan submersible implosion is how multiple RS have been referring to it in their ledes since debris field was found. Headlines generally don't include OceanGate. Xan747 (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Titan submersible implosion or OceanGate Titan submersible implosion are the best titles.

DanTheMann15 (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support change to Titan submersible implosion, more encyclopedic and accurate. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible implosion works well I think. "Disaster" doesn't seem like the right word for the scale of the incident. There are lots of Titans, so a qualifier is needed. "OceansGate" doesn't offer much help to someone trying to find the article, since OceansGate is more obscure than Titan. So I think submersible is better. Chris vLS (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Titan submersible incident (current title, with '2023' removed) is a better fit than any of the proposed alternatives. Here's my reasoning:
  • OceanGate is entirely superfluous as there is no other Titan submersible
  • Disaster is strongly suggestive of an incident with massive loss of life
  • Implosion: the implosion is just one, admittedly central, part of the story. The article is manifestly not just about the implosion itself.
  • Incident is neutral regarding massiveness or extent, and accurately and more broadly describes the subject of the article. --Ekaterina Colclough (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Preparations

The article says, regarding Harding's report: "He also indicated the operation was scheduled to begin around 04:00." Was this local time or UTC? Thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Updated- as per the source, it was 0400 Eastern Daylight time, have added a conversion to UTC time too. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. The article seems to have a mixture of a.m./p.m. and 24-hour format? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

“Disappeared” or “imploded” in the lede?

Most contemporaneous coverage of the event treated it as a missing persons/stranded vehicle case. By all means, it had disappeared for over 3 days. Should this not be reflected in the article? Asperthrow (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Possibly. The word "disappeared" might be better to start with. A later sentence could explain that it was later concluded the vessel had imploded, after debris had been found. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Minor copy edit

In the Titan submersible section, there's a slight problem with the sentence "The entire pressure vessel consisted of two titanium hemispheres, two matching titanium interface rings, connected by the 142 cm (56 in) internal diameter, 2.4-metre-long (7.9 ft) carbon fibre-wound cylinder." Perhaps it could be "two titanium hemispheres and two matching" or "two titanium hemispheres, with two matching". 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC) - struck out, see below 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed and well spotted. As it stands it could be inferred that the two interface rings match one another (which I imagine they do), but the point is that they match the hemispherical bell-ends.

There is another issue with this text. As it reads, it doesn't properly convey the engineering design (and could be misconstrued) - this is a semantic issue arising from how/where the word 'connected' is placed.

The connections (in the strict sense) are between the interface rings and the bell-ends. It's an arguable point, but I'd say a connection (might not always but can) mean something that can be made (connected) and unmade (disconnected), as opposed to a 'joint' (which has a more permanent quality).

In Titan, the interface rings are integral parts of the carbon fibre tube - they're joined/bonded to it. The titanium bell-ends then connect to this assembly (using nuts and bolts). The bell-ends can be connected and disconnected (and we know that the frontal bell-end is mounted on a hinge allowing ingress/egress of crew).

Ideally this text "The entire pressure vessel consisted of two titanium hemispheres, two matching titanium interface rings, connected by the...etc."

should be changed to:

"The entire pressure vessel consisted of two titanium hemispheres and two matching titanium interface rings, the latter being integral to (i.e. permanently bonded to either end of) the 142 cm (56 in) internal diameter, 2.4-metre-long (7.9 ft) carbon fibre-wound cylinder. The titanium hemispheres were connected to the interface rings by nuts & bolts, which in the case of the front (windowed) hemisphere allowed the pressure hull to be opened & closed for maintenance and the ingress/egress of crew & passengers."

I hope this can be edited without too much kerfuffle. I think sometimes with WP there is excessive inertia against changing the status quo text, on the basis that the status quo has an inherent superiority over a new version. That may sometimes be true in cases of very mature, established articles. However, this is an immature article and WP:editors should be inclined to give full & proper consideration to well-informed, articulate suggestions on improving clarity and detail. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6C3C:5F5:C493:76FB (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that much detail is needed here, as opposed to over at OceanGate#Design and construction (and is all of that in the currently cited source? I can't check at the moment). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I've only proposed a single additional sentence for clarity. It hardly qualifies as "that much detail".

My WP:Talk contribution is certainly heavy on detail. However, that's why WP has the WP:Article separated from WP:Talk. I've gone into detail explaining why I think your suggestion is a good one, and why one additional sentence might also be beneficial to clarity and information. I find it quite frustrating that you've effectively dismissed my detailed rationale (in talk) for a minor edit (to the article), and conflated my detailed rationale with me wishing to bog-down the article with excessive detail. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6C3C:5F5:C493:76FB (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to resubmit my original minor suggestion as a formal edit request. Feel free to use this section to further discuss your proposal. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2023

In the Titan submersible section, the sentence "The entire pressure vessel consisted of two titanium hemispheres, two matching titanium interface rings, connected by the 142 cm (56 in) internal diameter, 2.4-metre-long (7.9 ft) carbon fibre-wound cylinder." needs a bit of copy editing. Perhaps it could be "two titanium hemispheres and two matching" or "two titanium hemispheres, with two matching". 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

In this edit I've changed the sentence to read The entire pressure vessel consisted of two titanium hemispheres with matching titanium interface rings bonded to the... cylinder. I think that conveys how all the pieces related. Folly Mox (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)