Talk:Sanchi (tanker)

prospective info from shipnostalgia.com (as the Sepid)
source Class : Det Norske Veritas. Ship Type : Crude Oil Tanker. Build in 2008 by Hyundai Samho Heavy Industries Co Ltd Samho South Korea as " SAMAN " Launched as " IRAN SAMAN " for Saman Shipping Company ( NationalIranian Tankers Company Tehran Iran as manager ) Limassol Cyprus.

Tonnage : grt / nrt / tdw - 85.462 / 53.441 / 164.154. Main Engine : MAN-B&W 6S70MC-C - 25.337 bhp. Aux.Engine : Himsen 7H21/32 - 3 x 1.400 Kw. Emerg.Gen : Cummins NT 855D(M) - 1 x 179 kw. Exh.Boiler : KangRim EM18DD21A2. Aux.Boiler : 2 x Mitsubishi MAC 35B.

2008 Transferred to Sepid Shipping Company (Same manager) Limassol Cyprus,renamed " SEPID ". built 08 08 saman 08 sepid imo 9356608 builder hyundai samho hi incheon sk 85462gt 164154dwt flag malta call sign 9hoa9 terry music man

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakari07 (talk • contribs)


 * That source is not useable. However, DNV has a website which is useable. Mjroots (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

More Engineering Information on Ship?
I'm trying to figure out if it has a single, double, or triple haul design and that information doesn't appear to be available anywhere. --FordGT90Concept (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It won't be a single hull tanker. Agreements were made many years ago to stop building them for oil traffic. Mjroots (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Rented
I'm not sure that "rented" is the correct term. Ships are usually on a bareboat charter, which means that "chartered" is probably a better term. Can we find a RS for a charter? Mjroots (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Early sources were saying (or were translated as saying) "rented" or "leased", but that has since been clarified by Hanwha that the ship was not chartered to them (in any case, it would be a voyage or time charter for this sort of movement, not bareboat), and reported that it is the normal practice in shipments from Iran for the seller to make all the arrangements - I edited accordingly.Davidships (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

CF Crystal
I had a redirect that I created removed and no explanation made, that is why I hesitate to create the redirect myself, as follows: The non-existing CF Crystal page could redirect to the 2018 collision section since there is all the detail about it there? 134.186.234.108 (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Davidships removed the section regarding CF Crystal so this section is no longer relevant 134.186.234.108 (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't understand IP as I expanded one sentence on CF Crystal into a paragraph here; don't know anything about any redirect going missing. Davidships (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My brain must have malfunctioned, when I reloaded the page, I remember clearly seeing that the paragraph and source were removed. They are there now, so pretend I never made that sentence up there. Should a redirect be set for MV CF Crystal to that section? The only reason I say this is because there is already a link to the non-existing article 134.186.234.108 (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * per WP:REDLINK, the link for CF Crystal should not be created as a redirect. It can be created as and article though. Mjroots (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Cause of collision
All that reliable sources are saying at present is that the cause is not known, and have refrained from speculation. I have removed "It was reported that CF Crystal struck Sanchi, which was the vessel that should have given way to avoid the collision" which was sourced only to "Maritime Herald". This is a distinctly unreliable site which recycles other sites' material without credit or just makes it up. They are not known to have any editorial maritime expertise and, at least last year, were using fake IDs for some "journalists". That doesn't mean that they may not turn out to be right, but we should wait until real RS address the question of the cause of the collision. Davidships (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've not found any problems with MH as a source. Info they give is generally corroborated by other Maritime websites. However, given you objection, I'll find another source. Mjroots (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not corroborated by other sites, it's stolen from them. And, typically they just lifted one sentence and omitted the important part from Fleetmon: "That’s my best guess".  This is pure speculation at present and should not be in the article.  There are many reasons why Sanchi may not have been able to avoid CF Crystal and it is clear from the general silence on this that there is little for serious journalists to go on (ship tracks, radio messages etc) - we should wait until reliable sources have better information, and not include pure guesswork even by relatively knowledgable commentators like Mikhail Voytenko in his blog. Davidships (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * On re-reading I have misquoted Voytenko, who says that he is sure about the vessel to blame and speculates about how the fire started. Nonetheless, this remains just an opinion of a lone blogger. Davidships (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Article name
Everyone in WP:SHIPS knows I hate prefixes, but if we are going to have one, aren't tankers typically referred to with "MT" (motor tanker)? Google also finds more hits with "MT Sanchi" than "MV Sanchi". Tupsumato (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Choosing a prefix for Sanchi is very much a minority sport. Using Google News, there is but one English-language RS hit (US Naval Institute) for MT - the 3,710 hits on the non-RS site GCaptain are because it appears on a video-title in the sidebar of every one of the site's pages. For MV the equivalent number of hits is a heady three (again including USNI!), once a couple of Russian-language sites are excluded. That's just a little less than the 500,000 news hits for Sanchi (even if that does include the foreign-language journals).  All the mainstream English-language media (as well as all other sources cited in this and the Collision article) choose not to use either prefix.  This is yet another example of the continued creation or article names in direct contradiction of WP:SHIPNAME and even WP:COMMONNAME.  So, no, we don't have to have one - and shouldn't. Davidships (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. I didn't look at RS, just hits. Will know better next time. Tupsumato (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the earlier move from MV to MT which had been moved on the basis "it's a tanker like MT Haven" and without reference or contribution to this discussion. For the record (not that I believe that this is in any case a determining factor) there are about 79 articles on individual diesel-powered tankers listed in Category:Oil tankers: 42 begin MV, 16 begin MT and 21 have no prefix.

The reason I have not moved it to a prefix-less title is because I hope for more contribution to the discussion here. And it raises an interesting question on WP:SHIPNAME: As Sanchi already exists, and I would not argue against it remaining the prime use, a dab would be required - Sanchi (tanker) would be the most obvious. But there is nothing in the guidelines to clearly determine which of the two optional elements of the article name should take precedence. Perhaps an older hand than I can recall whether this has come up before, perhaps in WT:SHIPS. Davidships (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Sanchi (tanker) it is also a valid option to me, but MV is too generic. --Nicola Romani (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with the current title. MV = Motor Vessel, Sanchi was the name of the motor vessel ∴ MV Sanchi. Mjroots (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But how does this respect WP:SHIPNAME or WP:COMMONNAME since "MV Sanchi" is hardly used at all by sources, reliable or otherwise? Davidships (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * SHIPNAME says that ship prefixes are optional. The creator of the article exercised the option to use it. Thus it is in accordance with SHIPNAME. Mjroots (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * COMMONNAME is Policy, SHIPNAME is Guidance. That guidance goes on "However, if a ship is best known in combination with a ship prefix, include the prefix in the article name."  In this case it is not best known with any prefix. What the creator did is irrelevant. Davidships (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Just for information, I checked Sea-web and found two vessels named Sanchi: the tanker that sank and a 1968-built Indian bulk carrier (IMO 6813382) that was broken up in the mid-1980s. Thus, Sanchi does not seem to be a very generic ship name and we don't need excessive disambiguation. Tupsumato (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Should an article on the other Sanchi be created, this on will need to be moved to a dabbed title - MV Sanchi (2008). No immediate rush though. Mjroots (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Let's check on Google. As per English language I've got: 340 results "MV Sanchi" "ship" -Wikipedia; 326 results "MV Sanchi" "tanker" -Wikipedia; 15,500 results "MT Sanchi" "ship" -Wikipedia; and 15,600 results "MT Sanchi" "tanker" -Wikipedia. Now seems correct not just for WP:SHIPNAME but also for WP:COMMONNAME. By the way in order to avoid confusion between ships, as per our policy I suggest Sanchi (tanker) and Sanchi (bulk carrier) --Nicola Romani (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For the reason explained above re gCaptain, only 1200 results for "MT Sanchi" "ship" -Wikipedia -gcaptain and only 1530 for "MT Sanchi" "tanker" -Wikipedia -gcaptain Meanwhile a somewhat more impressive number with no prefix: 266,000 for "Sanchi" "tanker" -"mv sanchi" -"mt sanchi" and 308,000 for "Sanchi" "ship" -"mv sanchi" -"mt sanchi" Davidships (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * While the other Sanchi meets the notability criteria for being a relatively large (42k DWT) ship, I don't think it's worth making an article for it. Apart from database entries, I doubt there's any information available about it. Tupsumato (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * , ok but, searching only "Sanchi" "ship" -"mv sanchi" -"mt sanchi"] we probably get also some results regarding the "relatively large (42k DWT) ship" as per, so if we agree to have Sanchi (tanker) with no ship prefix we will avoid for sure any possible disambiguation in order to avoid futher misunderstanding. Nicola Romani (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes NR, I agree with you entirely that Sanchi (tanker) is the preferred title per WP policy, and supported by overwhelming use as CommonName Davidships (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. Sanchi has been in the news a lot lately and that probably generates some traffic to the article page. However, while "MV" may be a familiar prefix for us at WP:SHIPS and we associate it with ships, the general public would benefit more if the name included the world "tanker": "A-ha, I've arrived to the article about the ship that sank few weeks ago!". Yet, we are not "dumbing down" Wikipedia as it's according to our naming policy. Tupsumato (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Waited for further comments - now moved page. Davidships (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hindsight Bias in Wikipedia Article?
Some days ago I ran across the phenomenon of hindsight bias and I've been wondering whether this bias could also be present in this article... The hindsight bias delineates that in retrospect it is overestimated how likely, foreseeable and/or inevitable an event is perceived, and obviously a study has found it even in Wikipedia articles on catastrophes/accidents: doi:10.1007/s00426-017-0865-7 In this respect I wondered whether that could be the case with this article, too, and whether the disaster is presented as more foreseeable and inevitable than it actually was before. Maybe we should search again for information that would have spoken against the disaster. Obviously, the hindsight bias results from a retrospective focusing on information that argue FOR the event while ignoring or not taking seriously information that argued AGAINST the event (or: for another outcome), which then, naturally, leads to the impression of inevitability and foreseeablitity... So I wondered whether this article might be affected by hindsight bias as well and should be therefore be checked again for this?--2A02:810D:1300:38E5:A195:7F94:49ED:A9DC (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)