This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
I don't know why someone added a screed about "NASCAR" (some racing sport?) to the end of the article, but it's deleted now.
Is this some new sort of ratings war conducted by robots?
Capsizing Sequence
"....Suddenly the rig heeled over 30° and then stabilised. Five of the six anchor cables had broken, the one remaining cable was preventing the rig from capsizing. The list continued to increase and at 18.53 the remaining anchor cable snapped and the rig turned upside down....."
A multimedia animation of the capsizing does not include (visually) the role of the mooring cables or their sequence of failure (i.e. breakage). Is there a similar animation or simulation for the Ocean Ranger? What was the equivalent sequence for the Ocean Ranger?
Of the 212 people aboard 89 survived, but I count only 49 saved in the description of the rescue: 19 in lifeboat #5, 3 from Kielland 's rafts, 13 from Edda 's rafts, 7 by supply boats, and 7 swimmers. There were 40 men then in the one lifeboat that launched, or else how were these other men saved?
Yappy2bhere (
talk)
08:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)reply
The correct name of the platform is Alexander L. Kielland, not Alexander Kielland so it should not be moved back to
Alexander Kielland wreck anyway. What is the difference between "the platform itself" and the wreck of the platform itself? If a second move should take place, the article could be moved to
Alexander L. Kielland disaster. Still - why not
RMS Titanic wreck? Also ALK did not sink! Is there then any wreck? OK it was sunk later, but that was to get rid of some scrap.
KjellG (
talk)
21:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I think you confuse the English term wreck with being synonymous with the Norwegian term vrak. A wreck can also mean a collision, i.e. the disaster. So, with the name correction the appropriate name would be
Alexander L. Kielland disaster, since it wasn't a collision which caused the accident. __
meco (
talk)
15:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Agreed, I was a bit mistaken regarding wreck. Having said that, scanning through some wreck-articles on en:WP, most of them talk about wreckage that often can be visited by divers. There are some "train wrecks" meaning accidents. Regarding ALK platform vs. ALK disaster - I do not have any grate feelings, but most iw use "platform". I think the same discussion will come up on no: soon. I do not see any need for two articles. This because the informations regarding the disaster also include the need to describe the platform and the platform itself is not of any grate interest but for the accident.
KjellG (
talk)
21:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I'd like to see it moved to "disaster", but I won't make the move, for now. We'll see if any more editors have an opinion. __
meco (
talk)
10:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Death at the cinema
Ok, at least some clarification is required in this article. At about 18:30 rig heeled over 30°, stabilized, started to list again and at 18:53 capsized. Then accident description says - "130 men were in the mess hall and the cinema". Well, I find it hard to believe. Rig heeled over 30°, but regardless they are still eating their dinner and (dear God) watching movies at the cinema?! The way it is written makes it look that way, like they didn't react for 23 minutes. That part of the article needs to be either rewritten or, if they really were so careless about a 30° list, at least some further explanation is required. --nn — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
83.3.109.11 (
talk)
12:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)reply
I have just modified one external link on
Alexander L. Kielland (platform). 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.