This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
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 Panama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.PanamaWikipedia:WikiProject PanamaTemplate:WikiProject PanamaPanama articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polynesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Polynesia 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.PolynesiaWikipedia:WikiProject PolynesiaTemplate:WikiProject PolynesiaPolynesia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malta, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Malta 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.MaltaWikipedia:WikiProject MaltaTemplate:WikiProject MaltaMalta articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all
Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please
join the project, or contribute to the
project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
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
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
[1] - I edited accordingly.
Davidships (
talk)
22:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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
[2]: 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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
@
Davidships:, 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 @
Tupsumato:, 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)reply
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)reply
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)reply