Talk:Marine salvage

comments
Not in favour of merging with treasure diving, ship salvage is not very related, there is just a passing kmention of diving in the article. 18:00, 12 June 2006 154.5.132.51


 * It seems to me that treasure diving, marine salvage and marine salvage law should be three different articles. --Gbleem 13:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * They're different subjects; I can see keeping the salvage law content here until the articles get too big, though. Georgewilliamherbert 00:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support merge. The treasure hunting article emphasises that this is a legal activity - however, it is only legal because it falls under the principles of marine salvage.  The treasure hunting article specifically states that it applies to maritime salvage.  Viv Hamilton 09:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see the treasure hunting article expanded. Legally, salvage is salvage, and that's covered nicely, but there is more to the treasure and historical aspect. Bring in some notable hunters and finds, for example.Lisamh 20:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree to merge MARINE SALVAGE with TREASURE HUNTING. Marine salvage is an industry/activity sector that provides commercial services for the world's maritime and insurance communities. Marine salvage companies are engaged in marine casualty response, pollution defense, wreck removal, cargo recovery, towage and related activities, which doesn't reflect the definition of treasure hunting per se.

Merge removed
I have removed the merge proposal tags. Consensus is against doing it. Georgewilliamherbert 20:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Bad title sentence
"Marine salvage is the process of rescuing a ship, its cargo, or other property from peril." I wouldn't describe salvage this way. This describes what coast guard rescue does, not salvage. I'm changing it.

97.113.105.224 (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Salvage and rescue and quite different matters. A ship being recovered may be in peril - more often than not it isn't.JohnC (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Investigation
Should investigation be listed as a reason for salvage work? As an example, the efforts to recover Air France 447 right now - wouldn't this be a salvage operation for the purpose of determining why it crashed?

This was also part of the reason for the rediscovery of the Titanic. Most notably, they learned that the ship did split in two as it sunk.

97.113.105.224 (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Salvage was not the reason for the Titanic discovery. It was a by-product of/cover for a search for sunken American nuclear submarines.JohnC (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Salvage can be done for investigation, but investigation can be done without salvage.&middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 18:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

to add to notable salvages
i'd suggest perhaps: Cramyourspam (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * space shuttle challenger remains.
 * that apollo space capsule that sunk. or was it mercury?
 * recovery of the sully sullenberger jet.

Added Phoenix International Holdings, Inc. (Phoenix), under the direction of the U.S. Navy’s Supervisor of Salvage and Diving (SUPSALV), located and recovered the fuselage of a downed MH-60 Seahawk helicopter in the Philippine Sea from a record breaking depth of 19,075 feet or 3.6 miles beneath the surface. This is 266 feet deeper than the previous salvage record, also set by Phoenix and SUPSALV during the recovery of a C-2 Greyhound aircraft in 2019 and cited source. I work for Phoenix — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhnxMktg (talk • contribs) 19:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Removed "the deepest successful marine salvage operation to date" from "The search for the wreckage and flight data recorders of South African Airways Flight 295 is at 16,000 feet" (4,900 m) as it is no longer the deepest-I work for Phoenix who holds the current record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhnxMktg (talk • contribs) 14:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

If we have an article on something that might qualify as a notable salvage, please leave a link here. A short explanation of why it should be considered for the article can be added to save time. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 08:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Marine salvage in popular culture
The famous Stan Rogers song "The Mary Ellen Carter" is about a fictional ship salvage. Worth a mention here? --Ernieba1 (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have never heard of Stan Rogers or the song, so can't comment on its value to anyone looking up marine salvage. Why do you think it should be mentioned? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Notable salvages
In tidying some "in progress" cases that have since been resolved, I added a resolution to the Black Swan Project from it's own page. I'm finding the Vrouw Maria situation to be somewhat unclear. Phrases from the VM WP page specifically relevant to this one say the following: "The ship was in good condition when it was discovered, but only six objects from the deck of the ship have been salvaged. The cargo holds have not been disturbed, so the condition of any art on board remains unknown. The Finnish National Board of Antiquities is responsible for the ship and all recovery efforts." and that "A dispute between the discoverers and the authorities was later resolved." but not how. If anyone is able to say how this relates to the phrasing as it stands, clarification would be good. EmyP (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Current phrasing: "Vrouw Maria was discovered in 1999, and after a protracted legal battle, plans for salvage are still in the discussion and planning stage[citation needed]. It is known to contain priceless works of art."
 * So not actually a salvage yet. I have commented it out until the salvage is at least started.&middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 08:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marine salvage. 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/20131219020810/http://www.vasamuseet.se/en/The-Ship/Important-dates/ to http://www.vasamuseet.se/en/The-Ship/Important-dates/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090121004512/http://natgeochannel.co.uk/programmes/salvage-code-red to http://natgeochannel.co.uk/programmes/salvage-code-red

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) 21:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Negative pressure?
In the history section:

"this meant that if a hose became severed, the high-pressure air around the diver's head rapidly evacuated the helmet causing tremendous negative pressure that caused extreme and sometimes life-threatening effects."

There's no such thing as negative pressure. That would be less than vacuum. I'd propose a better wording if I understood what the sentence tries to explain.

Hope someone does and takes care of this.


 * Should have been negative pressure difference between the inside of the helmet and the surrounding water. This is a common error, and easy to fix. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 15:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Connection to historical wrecking
I've worked a lot on Wrecking (shipwreck), which is about the 19th-century and earlier pursuit of salvaging shipwrecks. I'm looking at how to tie that history in with this article, but am not sure of how to do so. Any thoughts? - Donald Albury 12:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Marine salvage - misnomer?
An article titled "Marine salvage" that tells you everything except for the most important item - how marine experts go about salvaging a ship. 182.239.144.105 (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Working on it, do you have any suggestions? &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 03:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Largely done, and the article is now much larger. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 08:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me know if I have missed anything important. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 08:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Harmonising references for consistency as required for FA
I intend to edit the references to format them consistently as required for FA. My preference is for list format and CS2 templates, because I find them easier to maintain and the body text is less cluttered. If anyone has an objection, please suggest an alternative you are willing to set up and maintain, that provides an equivalent level of consistency and compliance with MoS and FAC requirements. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 08:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned, consistency using a standard format is the main issue, so go for it. Donald Albury 15:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Split out some details to merge into Underwater searches
I plan to condense or summarise some of the content about underwater searches, and move the fully detailed stuff to Underwater searches, once I have worked out how best to do it. Constructive suggestions welcome. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 07:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. More trimming and copy editing may still be useful. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 08:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Upcoming major copyedit
Hello all, I will be copyediting this article as a request posted in April 2023. I plan to correct some formatting issues as well as grammatical errors found within the paper. This will be a continuation of the copyedit shown above. Criticism welcome. Tarantula TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 23:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅, but several of the paragraphs I've copyedited may contain instructions / how-to content and may be too technical. Tarantula TM  (speak with me) (my legacy) 21:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * please specify what information in the article is instructional or "how to" as opposed to how salvage is done, which is descriptive of the process, and a very different matter. Also, if you tag anything that needs explantion or clarification, that can be done. It is a technical topic to some technical language is to be expected, but where useful, it can be explained or linked. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 16:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)