Talk:MV Rena

Split
Time to split this article, perhaps? One about the ship and one about the incident? It is certainly notable now - being labelled New Zealand's worst maritime disaster ever. 203.184.41.59 (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But what to call it?  Oil spill, disaster, or sinking? --IdiotSavant (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Could go by location, but following the these conventions Exxon Valdez oil spill and Deepwater Horizon oil spill, MV Rena oil spill may be best. See also List of oil spills. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Other choices:
 * New Zealand oil spill a whole country in the name may not be good, but it is their biggest
 * Tauranga oil spill googles a bit more than MV Rena oil spill it seems
 * 2011 New Zealand oil spill a maybe Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2011 Tauranga oil spill Done. Now to decide how much information to keep here.--IdiotSavant (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * How about Rena oil spill? Currently a redir. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why split at all? Any MOS line you're thinking of? No splitting for now. I'd say. -DePiep (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that it is described as New Zealand's worst ever environmental disaster. It is a very notable topic and likely to be permanently notable. It therefore justifies its own article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How nice of you to respond, Liefting. And all this talk while you knew for hours it was moved already. Next time, if there is anything I can do for you, just let me know. Like, I know what a favor is, or behaviour. At all. -DePiep (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I am missing something here. What point are you trying to make? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * DePiep: the question is the most appropriate title for the new page. I picked one based on one style in list of oil spills, but there's no consistent pattern; if people come to some agreement on a better one they should rename the page  --IdiotSavant (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Liefting: you responded here, so continuing the discussion while the page was already split. IdiotSavant, such a talk should be at the new page. This talk is titled "Split", which is clear enough. -DePiep (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear: I feel x-ed because of this semi-discussion. Don't ask me an opinion when there is nothing left to choose. -DePiep (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)-DePiep (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Origin / Destination
From which port did the ship originate on this journey? Which port was its destination? Shouldn't this be mentioned? Oz1sej (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes it should. The article needs some balance by adding al sorts of info about the ship itself. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * She left Napier on october 4th. Noted in the owners excuse message for a source. -DePiep (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Prefix "CV" and maintenance
A quick Google lookup reveals that "CV Rena" is only used by the US Coast Guard. I don't think we need to bring yet another merchant ship prefix to Wikipedia. Tupsumato (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The ship itself is labeled "CV Rena", not "MV Rena". The media appears to have the wrong name. View a photo clearly showing the ships name here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/image.cfm?c_id=1&gal_objectid=10759388&gallery_id=122188#8166452 The media seems to be simply assuming it has the prefix MV AlaskaMike (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That might explain why the USCG refers to her as CV Rena. However, ABS, Equasis, the shipowner and other sources call her just Rena, so I would say that's the ship's official name. The name is also written in the ship's stern without "CV". As for the prefix "MV" (motor vessel), it is commonly used for cargo ships and is usually considered interchangeable with "MS" (motor ship). In Wikipedia it is usually used in the article name to distinguish the ship from other articles with the same name and usually is only given in the beginning of the lead section or when mentioning the ship in another article. Tupsumato (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of what you have written here. The ship is clearly the CV Rena. I am assuming the prefix CV stands for either "cargo vessel", or perhaps "Costamare vessel", but those are just assumptions. I don't believe a link to a photograph, even one on the website of an otherwise reliable source, would itself be considered a reliable source, although the USCG site was. So until the media or other sources figure it out... AlaskaMike (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Considering the fact that we can not access the Liberian shipping registry to check the official name of the vessel, I would consider the classification society (ABS) to be the next best thing when it comes to reliable sources. As for the media, considering the fact that some newspapers refer to the ship as "tanker", I would not trust them... Tupsumato (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

What's the value added of the USCG finding from 2006 anyway? Its five years ago and the ship seemed to have a different name, a different owner and a different operator? If so this should be mentioned. -- Traveletti (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It documents a significant maintenance issue the ship has had during its history. AlaskaMike (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (break) Maintenance is attributable to the owner / operator. The USCG finding is from 2006; the ship was sold to Greece and renamed Rena in or around 2010 . In 2006 the UCSG either inspected the ZIM America or the Andaman Sea, but not the Rena.
 * As a I am not shipping expert, there is one thing that makes me wonder: The ship was allowed to leave port with a technical discrepancy to be fixed until next port call in the U.S. As she was allowed to depart: What makes the issue "significant"? Did it impact seaworthiness? Is AIS recommended or mandatory or standard or good practice? Is there a n AIS backup system or a timeframe it has to be fixed? -- Traveletti (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * AIS is mandatory for ships above 300 GT, but a malfunctioning transponder unit might have been deemed a minor issue as it does not really affect to the operation and safety of the vessel. It is primarily an identification and tracking device which can be turned off e.g. when approaching pirate-infested waters. Tupsumato (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm quite sure "CV" was never a part of the ship's official name. At the moment it appears that the only online sources that use the prefix are USCG in their database entry and this article before I reverted it. Tupsumato (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The info about the maintenance issue with the AIS is in the History section, not one titled "Maintenance". How often equipment breaks down on the Rena is relevant, but so far we have only this nugget. Was the ship poorly maintained, and/or poorly operated just before the accident or in its past? I dont know and make no such suggestion here. But I believe a record of equipment failure on the bridge is relevant, no matter when it happened. I'm not suggesting it contributed to the grounding, just that it contributed to its history. This isn't a broken reading lamp we're talking about here, and whether the USCG saw it as a "minor issue" or not is pure speculation.

As for the name issue, I believe the ships name to be CV Rena, but I also concede that we don't know for sure, so fair enough on that revert. AlaskaMike (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you're trying to prove, to my general understanding of maintenance, a technical deviation acceptable to an Authority is minor. Otherwise they wouldn't accept it.
 * Some digging: USCG claimed that the properly installed type approved AIS was not functioning properly (§ 164.46). Per Note to § 164.46 "(c) The use of a portable AIS is permissible, only to the extent that electromagnetic interference does not affect the proper function of existing navigation and communication equipment on board, and such that only one AIS unit may be in operation at any one time.".. What makes you sure that there was no portabel unit abord? -- Traveletti (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Criminal charges
The BBC states that the crew are facing sixteen charges in relation to the grounding. Worth mentioning in the article? Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Charterer vs. operator
I reverted part of Mjroots's recent edit. The Rena was chartered by MSC, but operated by Costamare's subsidiary Daina Shipping Co. Although the charterer may in some cases have their say about the way the ship is operated (AFAIK common in tankers, offshore etc.), in the end the operator/manager is responsible for the crew and their qualifications. I think it's important to have the charterer in the infobox in a custom field because some articles have blamed MSC for what happened to the ship. Tupsumato (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but it could go under the "notes" parameter in the infobox. Mjroots (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MV Rena. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111018232601/http://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/news/media-releases-2011/20111005c.asp to http://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/news/media-releases-2011/20111005c.asp
 * Added tag to http://costamare.irwebpage.com/pr100711.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)