Talk:Sinking of Dongfang zhi Xing

Title
I'm wondering if we shouldn't move this article to Sinking of the MV Dong Fang Zhi Xing, as the ship isn't really notable outside of this incident. gobonobo + c 04:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * See Sinking of the Dong Fang Zhi Xing, a separate article. Mjroots (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Moved into right name w history merge. --M ASEM (t) 08:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the name "Sinking of the Dongfangzhixing" would be better. See related reports of Xinhua News Agency:, , . --Alexchen4836 (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As we are using a romanization of the actual name, and other primarily English sources use the spaced version (like BBC), we should stay with this current name. --M ASEM (t) 03:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this really a good title? I cannot imagine anyone in the general public being familiar with the name "Dong Fang Zhi Xing".  No one in the general public would ever think to type that as their search words.  Also, I don't think I have seen reliable sources referring to this as the sinking of the "Dong Fang Zhi Xing".  Any thoughts?   Thanks.2602:252:D13:6D70:6533:6D2D:ACBE:8031 (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Not a maritime incident
Please correct me if I am wrong, but this was not a "maritime" incident. Maritime, as I understand it, refers to oceans in particular and international waters specifically. Since this incident occurred on a river well within China's defined, sovereign borders, this is not a maritime incident. I have replaced the maritime category with one I believe is more relevant and accurate. There is a sub-category "Maritime incidents in China" that likewise should not be used because, again, this was not a maritime event. Thanks, I hope this helps. Juneau Mike (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As the creator of the original article, and not an expect in shipwreck articles but only saw this pass on the news and wanted to get it to ITN/C, I copied and pasted from another shipwreck article, so there certainly might be some terminology problems. Please fix as necessary. --M ASEM (t) 18:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The Yangtze flows into the East China Sea, so this is a maritime incident also, the same as for Sinking of the ML Mostofa-3 and many other "river" disasters. 37.52.1.215 (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Picture
The article now has a picture of a ship "similar" to Eastern Star, which is better than nothing. But are there issues of copyright or credibility preventing the use of the picture allegedly of the actual ship found here ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nø (talk • contribs) 06:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, as a free replacement is possible by a similar ship (either of the same core design or of similar style), so we would not be able to use a non-free image; even if one is not currently free these other ships still exist and a free image could be taken . The idea of the current free image is to distinguish what these Chinese river cruise boats compare to the more common ocean-bound cruise ships that most English readers are more familiar with. --M ASEM  (t) 06:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Judging from the pictures, the ships are not of the exact same type; most obviously, the ship depicted by China Daily has larger windows and a less "classical" appearance. Not an expert, I cannot tell if these difference are merely superficial, but if someone could find a picture more similar to Eastern Star (or the actual ship) it would be fine.--Nø (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Status
The ship's Status is listed rather strangely as- "Operation is restricted"

I'm not sure if this is a bad translation or just Orwellian, but saying a ship that's capsized and on the bottom of a river is 'operationally restricted' is ridiculous. It suggests a ship which could be used, but someone has chosen not to use it. I'd suggest either deleting the category completely, or using something more descriptive like-

Rescue Operations Ongoing

Sinking Under Investigation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CFE1:3A69:6DBA:CA0F:3915:C90 (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The ship is a "wreck", and I have listed it as such. If it can be repaired, it will be listed as "In service". If it is scrapped, it can be listed as such. So on, and so forth. But as of now it is a wreck.Juneau Mike (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Tornadic waterspout
What were the meteorological conditions? Was there not an associated rotating thunderstorm? I don't tend to look up China's weather unless it's being struck by a typhoon or something, so if you can help me out here, that would be great. Dustin ( talk ) 15:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Some mention here in a FP article that the yangtze is prone to supercell thunderstorms which could plausibly spawn tornadoes. It could have just been plain old heavy wind conditions mixed with incompetence on the part of the bridge crew and that could have easily sank the ship even if there was no tornado. http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/02/china-ship-capsize-tornado-us-weather-disaster/ 198.53.1.66 (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: recent move
I moved this article accidentally with my WMF account,. In no way were my edits official actions, and in the interest of avoiding confusion, I revdel'd the usernames from the history. I do hope that isn't going to be seen as covering up after myself. The full edit summary for the move was "Ed Erhart (WMF) moved page Sinking of the Dong Fang Zhi Xing to Sinking of Dong Fang Zhi Xing: "the" is only used with ship prefixes; see also WP:SHIPNAME." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

NOT the worst disaster since 1948
The assertion that the sinking of Dong Fang Zhi Xing is the worst in China since the 1948 sinking of SS Kiangya was added to the article twice (this and this). However, it is apparently also not worse than the January 1949 Taiping disaster (after the December 1948 SS Kiangya disaster), which killed around 1000 people. So I removed such assertion (this and this). --Neo-Jay (talk) 07:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)