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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_North_Sea_ship_collision&oldid=1279965202"