Jump to content

Talk:2025 North Sea ship collision

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

Solong's flag

[edit]

Although widely reported as Portuguese, Solong is in fact flagged to Madeira. Mjroots (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Madeira's a semi-autonomous region of Portugal. Thanks for that source, Mjroots, I've utilised it a little bit. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No collision - allision: the schematic map is misleading

[edit]
Closed, no good will come of continuing this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Hello, the tanker was at anchorage not on north course as implied by the schematic image. It is actually an allision and not a collision. Slimguy (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It had to have come from somewhere to be at anchorage, and the text makes that clear. And while allision is a cool word to swank about, none of the sources use it. So we won't either (although I'd certainly stick it in a footnote the moment a RS actually cops on to the point). Although that may just reflect the average hack's education standards today. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Slimguy: crisis averted, as the Stena's captain didn't say; luckily the trade mag so describes it, so now we can too. Your wish is my command. Sourced material FTW! Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about "hit", instead of this ... word that hardly anyone has ever heard of. Its use here is unnecessary pedantry. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Stena might have been heading northwards previously, but that has no direct bearing on the topic of the article. At the time of the allision, the vessel was anchored. As such, the map gives a very misleading impression (along with the technicaly inaccurate title) that this was a head-on collision, which it wasn't. I've removed it. My suggestion is for someone to find a proper nautical chart (if this anchorage charted on one?), cropped to an area of a few nautical miles square, and superimpose the course of both vessels (an anchored vessel may, as was the case, still slightly drift) in the minutes leading to the collision on it. As for the other aspect of this, using proper vocabulary doesn't require a reliable source, merely a dictionary. Might be different for the title, though as the "average hack" might have trouble finding the article. 2607:FA49:553D:1900:6456:4768:7E7C:1845 (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allision - no, definitely not. What you are quoting is a precise legal definition, cited in a small circulation trade mag. Mainline news sources are not following this direction, for good reason.
Associated Press, NBC, CBS, BBC, need I go on?
There is plenty of guidance here such as WP:PLAINENGLISH and MOS:JARGON.
I applaud the vain attempts to justify the use of allusion, with no less than three citations in the lead, except all three point to legal dictionaries, whilst conveniently ignoring the majority of mainline sources. Wikipedia isn't a court of law.
Wikipedia's own article on collision makes no reference to both parties being in motion, and instead gives examples to the contrary. But if you insist that allision is correct, I shall ask if there is a possibility that the Stena Immaculate might have swung at anchor, taking itself into the path of the other ship and dealing it a hefty side swipe? Am I clutching at straws; only a little bit.
From MOS:JARGON
Some topics are necessarily technical: however, editors should seek to write articles accessible to the greatest possible number of readers.
Do not introduce specialized words solely to teach them to the reader when more widely understood alternatives will do.
WendlingCrusader (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an afterthought; it is well worth following the link to allision here on Wikipedia. WendlingCrusader (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between a collision and an allision is relevant to the subject matter as it has strong implications on responsability for the incident itself and also instantly clarifies how it unfolded. A ship at anchor is not considered underway (see COLREGs), so is in effect a stationary object to be avoided. To quote the article you link, "determining the difference helps clarify the circumstances of emergencies". It's not merely a legalese distinction. You could also go to wikt:allision, which is clear enough:

Allision ...contact of a vessel with a stationary object such as an anchored vessel or a pier. (Bryan A. Garner ed. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed., 2008))

There's no need to dumb stuff down either; if readers are not aware of the distinction, that's what the footnote is for; this is not the Simple English Wikipedia. If you need a source using the term specifically in relation to this incident, there's this, from the Reuters article cited in the lead:

"A fire occurred as a result of the allision and fuel was reported released," Crowley said. An allision is a collision where one vessel is stationary.

Re. "mainline" news sources: this is a very pertinent read. Most journalists are not experts on the topics they write about, and this is frequently very obvious (including that issue I had earlier in the day with one ship being stated as weighing "804 twenty-unit equivalent containers" or the other having a "dry weight" of 47900 tonnes (which took me some time to correct until I found the correct information). In this case, the specialist sources, including what you dismiss as "small circulation trade mag", are certainly more accurate. 2607:FA49:553D:1900:6456:4768:7E7C:1845 (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lloyd's List, a good specialist reference, use "collision" in their title but "allision" in the caption under the picture right after, [1]. 2607:FA49:553D:1900:6456:4768:7E7C:1845 (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
STOP! You are guilty of CHERRY-PICKING.
The Lloyd's List item uses collide/collision SEVEN times, but you can only see the single instance of "allision".
You quoted from Black's Law Dictionary, but the FULL QUOTATION is
..contact of a vessel with a stationary object such as an anchored vessel or a pier. In modem practice, “collision” is often used where “allision” was once the preferred term.
As for your single Reuters quote; you have totally ignored the remainder of that article where it uses the term collision, a number of times. And that's before we look beyond Reuters and consider Associated Press, NBC, CBS, New York Times, BBC, Daily Telegraph, The Independent, ...enough already!
Your obsession with this specialised/archaic term makes me wonder if you have a Conflict of interest? Are you a lawyer? Do you work for Crowley? You need to stop.
MOS:JARGON applies;
Do not introduce specialized words solely to teach them to the reader when more widely understood alternatives will do.
WendlingCrusader (talk) WendlingCrusader (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm merely interested in describing this correctly. I should assume the same of you, so why do you insist that shipping and maritime law experts are to be ignored in favour of generalist journalists? Are you also suggesting that we should describe the ships as "weighing 'twenty equivalent units'" because that's how some journalist somewhere got it completely wrong? 2607:FA49:553D:1900:6456:4768:7E7C:1845 (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are simply wasting my time now, and yours, when we could both be working towards improving this article. And please stop introducing red herrings.
FWIW I share your views about journalists, but as a Wikipedia editor, I leave that at the door. It is not for you (or me) to decide what is right or wrong. WendlingCrusader (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The better sources (eventual investigation report, academic journals, etc.) will require patience, but we're not required to stick to just the broadest mainstream newspapers. 2607:FA49:553D:1900:6456:4768:7E7C:1845 (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allision is the correct term - it's not really that hard to understand one new word. See the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse too. 2A00:23C8:30A0:C800:D95B:434A:C49F:C6B5 (talk) 08:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW the FSKBc article specifically avoids using either term in the lead (instead using "struck") and the article body says "at the time of the collision (in maritime terms, allision)...". I don't think there's anything in this discussion that wasn't discussed at Talk:Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse (1 2 3). MIDI (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this still a thing? The FSKBc article differs in two key aspects;
  1. The bridge is most definitely stationary, and fits the (narrow) legal description (and examples) provided by the above editor.
  2. The event occurred in the USA, where this term seems to be gaining some traction.
Conversely, the North Sea ship collision FAILS on both counts. And once again the editor highlights the single use of this obscure term, not the 23 instances of "collision".
I fear we are heading towards an edit-war.
WendlingCrusader (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of legal liability the tanker is considered to have been stationary? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I'm not arguing against that. But the main promoters for the use of this American English terminology are the owners of the Stena Immaculate (Crowley), for obvious reasons, and one specific editor wanting to apply legal-specific American English to something that happened off the coast of Yorkshire. Are you sure you are 100% happy with that?
WendlingCrusader (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In view of possible "sub judice" concerns, I think it's probably better to avoid use of "allision" altogether. Sticking to mainstream, UK sources e.g. BBC, suggests that "collision" is perfectly adequate. But am not opposed to a footnote. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would be using the word collision with a footnote explaining what an allision is. Allision should not be the primary term used; we should not sacrifice readers' comprehension for technically correct terms that aren't commonly used outside certain fields. It's a reasonable assumption that readers infer that a collision is something bonking into something else, regardless of the specifics of anything else. MIDI (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree. We also have Brit Eng to consider here. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is now resolved, so this section should be hatted to prevent it descending deeper into the swamp abyss. And fyi, if any one else wants to disregard good faith and call me one specific editor wanting to apply legal-specific American English to something that happened off the coast of Yorkshire, they'll find themselves alliding with an ANI thread. Cheers, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Dogger Bank, surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me? You were not the target of that comment - what gave you that idea? In fact your first contribution was to question the idea of using that awful word, not champion it. How have we ended up at each other's throats? Anyways, just to be on the safe side; I apologise if I caused to you to believe you were the target of my ire. Can we be friends now?
    WendlingCrusader (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's all good. Now get to WP:ITNC and vote with your conscience  :) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim that this is "legal-specific American English" is all wrong. The word appears in the OED, first used attested in 1721, with the full definition being:

    rare before mid 20th cent. intransitive.
    To hit against something. Now Maritime Law: (of a vessel) to collide with another which is stationary, or with a static object or structure. (OED, allide, v., [2])

    And a very similar definition for the noun form. 2607:FA49:553D:1900:D9B9:862:76C8:9E76 (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think we need to raise an RfC to decide if and how this word is used here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have better things to waste my time upon; in any case it should definitively appear somewhere in the article, as there's no doubt that this was an allision (maybe in the infobox, like in the FSK bridge article?) 2607:FA49:553D:1900:D9B9:862:76C8:9E76 (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you mean worse things. But I'm not convinced that a quick unilateral decision made by yourself will necessarily suffice. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) It (reference to the term "allision") does appear in the article – the explanatory footnote provides a Wiktionary link as well as a definition of "allision". Using a footnote like this is surely the ideal solution, as it gives the technical term and definition while still allowing readers to comprehend what's happening without distraction. I don't think there's any real dispute that the definition of allision applies to the events here; rather, it's what's the best wording for readers of WP. MIDI (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @MIDI would it not make sense to apply the solution as in the FSKBc article? Use a slightly roundabout alternative in the first sentence, and include "allision" clearly in the infobox? 2607:FA49:553D:1900:D9B9:862:76C8:9E76 (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's already mentioned in the sodding article. "Collision" is used throughout because that's what reliable sources call it. But "allision" is footnoted on first use. So there should be no further problem, no RFC is required, and everyone keep their wigs on. Cheers! Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category:Ship allisions, anyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ship illusions... even harder to see :) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Watch out for those ghostly tulips. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel type

[edit]

US air force uses JP8 fuel which is the not the same as A1 fuel. The sources mentioned seem to only mention aviation fuel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A06:61C0:AECB:0:3818:EB0:BDEE:46BC (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources that refer to A-1 fuel being on board. However, I've removed this until we can be sure citogenesis isn't at play – we must be able to verify that the sources mention A-1 before we do; i.e. we're citing them not the other way around! MIDI (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MIDI: I respect the concern over citogenesis. However, I don't see the problem (and in any case the anon's suggestion, while possibly accurate (I wouldn't know), falls foul of WP:OR). To clarify, I added the reference to A1 fuel, and cited it to TradeWinds, where the information remains now. Actually, it would be impossible for me to have inserted that material before a RS mentioned it as, until yesterday, I had never heard of A1 aviation fuel, or indeed, any other kind. So citogentic fears are, I suggest, groundless in this case. Cheers, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy that the TradeWinds source predates your addition, but moreso that it attributes the A-1 statement to Crowley Ship Management. Restored my edit that added the specific wikilink. MIDI (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 21:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • Source:
  • Ahmed, Jabed (10 March 2025). "North Sea collision - latest: 'Massive fireball' after oil tanker hit by cargo ship 'carrying sodium cyanide'". The Independent. Retrieved 10 March 2025.
  • "North Sea tanker and cargo ship have become 'disentangled'". BBC News. 11 March 2025. Retrieved 11 March 2025.
  • "Everything we know about North Sea oil tanker and cargo vessel collision". The Independent. 11 March 2025. Retrieved 11 March 2025.
  • "North Sea crash: Solong ship unlikely to stay afloat but wasn't carrying sodium cyanide, owners say". Sky News. Retrieved 11 March 2025.
Created by No Swan So Fine (talk) and Fortuna imperatrix mundi (talk · contribs · count) and MIDI (talk · contribs · logs). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 48 past nominations.

Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 11:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Restored your comment MDI, and changed to 'struck'. 'Allided' would be best though, the prep-wonks would have a melt down. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 12:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article, created on 10 March, is new enough, long enough, well-sourced, and presentable. QPQ done. No copyvio issues. @No Swan So Fine: @Fortuna imperatrix mundi: The hook is too long as is, so I'd trim it to:
ALT0b: ... that when MV Solong struck MV Stena Immaculate, early reports suggested that she was carrying 15 containers of sodium cyanide, which was later described as a "misrepresentation"?
The hook is interesting, in the article, cited, and citations check out. We might want to clarify that sodium cyanide is a toxic/hazardous chemical (I didn't know it) in the hook, but somebody can add that in prep if they agree. GTG. Tenpop421 (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenpop421: apologies, I musty have forgotten the character count. Yours is a much better hook, as is your suggestion. If we add 'highly toxic' before sodium cyanide, it adds 13 characters, making 191 in total. What do you think? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna imperatrix mundi: I just realised that this hook has an ambiguity about which ship was reported as carrying the sodium cyanide. how about:
ALT0c: ... that when MV Solong struck MV Stena Immaculate in March 2025, the former ship was falsely reported to be carrying highly toxic sodium cyanide?
This gets us below the character limit. I've dropped the "15 containers" part but re-added the date, as people are interested in recent things. Does this work for you? Tenpop421 (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vessel size graphic

[edit]

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi: Thanks for creating and adding the vessel size graphic image. A handful of thoughts:

  1. Would it be possible to add unit conversions to a new version?
  2. Could this be exported as SVG (Commons:Template:Convert to SVG)?
  3. Is it obvious to general readers that the smaller dimension refers to beam?
  4. Is the flag a relevant inclusion to a diagram about dimensions? If so, would it be better situated on the right so that the two dimensions are the primary focus of the image?

MIDI (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, MIDI, excellent suggestions; all of these things can be done. Cheers, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! MIDI (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Had the opportunity to make the SVG based off your PNG. Have applied #1, #2, and #4 (with reduced wording) as proposed, I'm not sure there's much ambiguity about #3 as I initially thought. MIDI (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Map graphic

[edit]

The inclusion of the "route" lines (or at least that of Stena Immaculate) is misleading – it's plausible to assume, by glancing at the graphic, that both ships were underway. The graphic doesn't say that, but it might imply it. Also, what source do we have for the approximate routes? We know where the ships originated, but do we know their course? Are we making assumptions and dressing them as approximations? I'd suggest that, in the absence of sources to verify the ships' routes, we dispense with the lines. We could easily use {{OSM location map}} to allow interactivity and avoid using rasterized text. I'd happily help prepare this. MIDI (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AIS data probably taken from MarineTraffic would be the usual source. I doubt that's what was used for the map, although it seems to roughly match with what given is on it. The videos on the "What's going on with shipping" channel also go over this in detail. 2607:FA49:553D:1900:D9B9:862:76C8:9E76 (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With that in mind, and that "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable", we should cite that somehow. MIDI (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MIDI: I disagree that it's plausible to assume, by glancing at the graphic, that both ships were underway. Surely this is only possible if someone somehow manages to look at the image but fails to read the text which literally says that SI was at anchor. And if you remove the directional lines then it will look as if the ships just appeared in that spot, when the article makes it clear they came from different directions. That would definitely be misleading. And again, do we know their course? Yes: the image caption—and therefore the image itself—is referenced to the Independent, where the source material cimes from. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But that's exactly what readers do; they will interpret the graphic before reading the text. We should avoid possible misinterpretation if we can... but perhaps we can approach this differently. Do we have space on the image to add the dates – "Approximate route of Solong (11 March)" and "Approximate route of Stena Immaculate (10 March)"? Assuming that's correct, of course! I feel like that would remove the risk of misinterpretation. If space is at a premium, we could dispense with "on her port side" as that's probably not overly useful information on the graphic.
Agree with your point about ensuring readers understand the origins (and therefore the direction of travel), especially as we could never easily show a map that has pins for their origins. I'd still like a source for the route, though – otherwise we're synthesizing a route based off a start and end point. Given IP's comment above about data possibly being available from tracking websites, hopefully there's something there. MIDI (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tangled, entangled, connected, engaged, ravelled....?

[edit]

We have "They remained entangled for the rest of the day, when they separated" but also "The ships may have remained connected for up to four minutes until disengaging." and also "The two ships remained entangled, but ravelled overnight on their own accord..." At first sight, these three statements look contradictory? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123 I'm with you on this. Ravelled is a contranym or contronym (take your pick!), and requires a dictionary definition to explain it. Whereas unravelled is not, and does not, strangely. Your edit from last night was quietly reverted within the hour, but I have just changed it to separated, which was the choice of a previous editor too. Plain English for the win!
WendlingCrusader (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much the plain English I was after, it's more that the three statements say three different things. I don't see how they can all be right, and I don't know which (if any) is actually correct. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WendlingCrusader what dictionary do you use? Ravelling means both to tangle and to untangle, or to put it another way, to ravel and to unravel, so its use is appropriate here. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First wikt:allision and now wikt:ravel? Oh dear. And we've only "borrowed it from the Dutch"? Maybe it's time to give it back. But it's use isn't appropriate if it says something that didn't happen? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one of its meanings is to separate, or to come apart, so that's appropriate (the ships were entangled after impact but later that night they disentangled). Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Was it overnight? Or was it (possibly) after four minutes? Or was it just for the "rest of the day"? I haven't checked, but I guess the relevant sources all say different things. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Solong pushed the Stena for some minutes (most sources say 10?), but that doesn't mean they separated the moment it stopped pushing, I guess. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, um, when did they separate..., or disentangle..., or ravel? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess (I haven't looked at pictures to confirm) that what is meant is that at the immediate moment of the allision, and for a few minutes thereafter, Solong remained in direct contact with the hull of Stena Immaculate, but the ships were not completely clear of each other afterwards. One would say they were afoul - how exactly (these aren't sailing ships, so how they may have fouled each other is not obvious: some element of the superstructure? containers dangling overboard from Solong? other on-deck equipment?) is beyond me right now, and in any case I don't think its a particularly meaningful distinction; maybe they only remained in close proximity to each other without any physical contact. Again, not a really meaningful distinction at this stage as far as I can see. If one were to insist, it would be clearer to simply say that the ships remained in contact for 4 (10, whatever) minutes after the collision but did not drift clear of each other until much later. 2607:FA49:553D:1900:D9B9:862:76C8:9E76 (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it might be clearer. But how many minutes (or hours) is correct? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that it didn't happen; it is that the word is ambiguous, a contranym. As Fortuna brilliantly put it, in means both to tangle and to untangle, although how that makes it appropriate is beyond comprehension.
I guess we could re-write the whole sentence to read;
The two ships remained ravelled, but ravelled overnight of their own accord.
Purrfect! WendlingCrusader (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, you all seem to have been quite ravelled by this... Maybe listening to some Ravel would help unravel things? 2607:FA49:553D:1900:D9B9:862:76C8:9E76 (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Pavane pour un bateau décédé"? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"This location was a common but uncharted anchorage for ships traversing the east coast.[30]"

[edit]

Anyone able to read the Telegraph source to tell what it actually says? The statement seems rather contradictory at face value, because i don't see why any ship TRAVERSING the east coast would anchor just off the coast of a major port unless it planned to visit that port. The anchorage had about a dozen ships anchored at the time, and presumably normally does. But it would appear to not be for ships traversing the coast, rather those with business at the port. Which has a major oil handling facility, which is presumably why a number of tankers were anchored off shore, and presumably usually are. Is this port usually used by the military? Any ideas? Sandpiper (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Daily Telegraph source (archived 2 days ago) says: "Experts said the area was well known for having ships at anchorage and that travelling through it rapidly was like speeding through a car park full of vehicles." I can see no wording about "uncharted anchorage for ships traversing the east coast". Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have been invented. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added "uncharted" per What's going on with shipping; but it is probably readily verifiable from nautical charts. I'm not sure I can find one online, but this shows an example in the estuary. I'm not sure how up-to-date or accurate this website (centered approx. to within one or two [nautical] miles where Stena was anchored) but it clearly shows no charted anchorage. Ships are probably anchored there often because there is not enough space in the charted areas (there is one just a few miles east of Spurrn Head, for ex.). 2607:FA49:553D:1900:ADDA:F89D:1B56:469A (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that makes sense, but is there any source about the collision that directly mentions it being "uncharted anchorage"? And what about "traversing the east coast"? Surely this is more likely to be "wanting to enter the Humber Estuary" (as per the comment from Derek R Bullamore in the thread below)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123 I've changed it (if you haven't noticed yet) to simply "for vessels off the Humber estuary", that is probably less contentious and avoids attempting to divine what they were there for. WGOWS could probably count as a source (though a self-published one by a subject-matter expert; there'll surely be better ones eventually) if one were to bother to cite it. 2607:FA49:553D:1900:ADDA:F89D:1B56:469A (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hear that the sky is blue, over the Humber Estuary. Well occasionally, anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely, we all know the default weather in England is rain (and fog)... 2607:FA49:553D:1900:ADDA:F89D:1B56:469A (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah shucks, yes, I forgot about the fog. But could be worse. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC) (Jeez.... you IP Canadians.... you come over here.... complaining about the weather... with your big ideas... )[reply]
Funnily enough as I type this the sky hereabouts is largely blue ! Awaiting the next Sheffield Flood... Incidentally, Spurn is a surreal and beautiful place to visit - let's hope the spillage attached to this accident does not too badly affect the area. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stena Immaculate's location and schedule

[edit]

The article says "Stena Immaculate had travelled from Agioi Theodoroi in Greece, and was anchored 13 miles (21 km) off Withernsea, offshore from the Humber estuary and the city of Kingston upon Hull, waiting to arrive at Killingholme dock at 17:30 GMT on 9 March." Can we clarify why it was still at anchor and hadn't proceeded? MIDI (talk) 11:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wording has evolved, but point still stands... MIDI (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is obviously that she was waiting for something. Whether that was a pilot, a free space to dock, or whatever else, is probably not something that can be determined with the available sources at this time. 2607:FA49:553D:1900:ADDA:F89D:1B56:469A (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: the exact reason probably (but I can't confirm this) has to do with the Humber Passage Plan (see no. 4, here). I'm unacquainted with the exact details of this process, but it looks prima facie like the equivalent of aviation's landing/takeoff slot system. 2607:FA49:553D:1900:ADDA:F89D:1B56:469A (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I live less than 30 miles or so, as the crow flies, from this accident, and have resided in roughly the same area for most of my lifetime. The River Humber is a notorious passage of water, full of ever shifting sandbanks (actually mudbanks); only last week a vessel ran aground on the southern side of the estuary - as far as I know it is still stuck there, awaiting the spring tides to hopefully float off. Therefore compilance with the aforementioned Passage Plan, plus the use of pilots is vital and tide times (high and low) are also paramount. As the previous editor noted, ships do not move at whim or to an exact timetable. I am reasonably sure that these factors will have been the main reason for the vessel to remain anchored. All original research, of course, but given as background information for those who may not be so aware. Thanks. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would anticipate this being covered in the MAIB final interim/report. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What... where I live ?! - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're a local Wikipedia celebrity in MAIB circles, apparently. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The expected arrival time of 17:30 at the dock was posted on a website page https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/details/9693018 linked somewhere in the article but it says arriving 9 march whereas the collision was 10 march. Since this was the day before, I'm not now sure whether the ship was really expected to travel to the dock that day or simply wait. The page doesn't give perfect information because some is hidden for subscribers, but it looks like it habitually spends quite a bit of time at anchor. As a military charter its may not be following normal commercial patterns of always moving and could just have been sitting there until they needed the fuel.Sandpiper (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MAIB statement

[edit]

The MAIB have issued a statement about their investigaion. Mjroots (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this useful talk page post, Mjroots. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_North_Sea_ship_collision&oldid=1284509261"