Talk:Capsizing of the Wonder Sea

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Fair Use

[edit]

@Amakuru: While I do understand that any image of the vessel would work, despite your claim that there are "likely many such images available", I did search and found no free images of the boat. There are unlikely to be any new free images as the boat has been wrecked, and while it has been salvaged, is currently in the hands of authorities (as far as I'm aware). Therefore, the use of a fair use image is suitable, would you not agree? Coleisforeditor (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we change to UTC+0?

[edit]

Yep. Idk why but this is going to be a bit fair. 27.77.254.56 (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:TIMEZONE, local time should be prioritised Coleisforeditor (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I’m Vietnamese myself (however I’m living down south) so I’m using the ICT (UTC+7). 27.77.254.56 (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accurace; technical vocabulary and dimensions

[edit]

The dimensions given for this vessel are close to a word salad. Qwirkle (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s taken from the cited source but can be cleaned up. Do you think this an appropriate reason to tag the entire article as factually inaccurate? Celjski Grad (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, obviously. The odds are the same level of translationitis prevails throughout. The dimensions might make a good, if difficult, starting point. Qwirkle (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can come up with additional examples, I’ll revert it and add a clarification needed tag to the paragraph. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s add “pressrealeasitis” to the problems. The article is stating as a fact things sourced to government agencies about their own performance…which, btw, the source used does not. Qwirkle (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please cite an example that can be fixed instead of tagging the entire article because of one or two issues. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A systemic problem illustrated by one or two issues remains a systemic problem. Qwirkle (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am in support of removing the template from the article. There is no evidence to suggest that the overarching accuracy of the article is in question. In fact, I did remove it and it was swiftly readded by Qwirkle. skarz (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve tagged the ferry dimensions as needing clarification and removed the “factually inaccurate” tag due to lack of examples or actionable items other than “trust me”. There’s many people working on the article who are willing to make improvements, but they need more than a cryptic drive-by tagging. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have an article so badly written that it claims that an inspection in January proves that a boat is fit for service in June, and you can’t see anything wrong with it? Heh. Qwirkle (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contribution. If you have more, they would be more welcome than these smug and dismissive comments. Celjski Grad (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now me, what I might see as “smug and dismissive” is writing an article like this and not, at the very minimum, warning the reader what they are in for. Your mileage may vary. Qwirkle (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles do not make claims nor do they prove anything. They report facts from verifiable and reliable sources. If there is a source countering a fact of the article then that should be included as well. But what will not be included is a synthesis of opinion-based analysis from editors. Also refer to WP:DT where it states:

It is preferable that in‑line templates be applied to content that is being objected to on bias or fact grounds. Section templates come next in preference, and tagging the whole article is the last resort.

skarz (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is, or at least is supposed to be, a trailing tertiary reference. Of course it makes claims, that’s what references do. All of them. What it doesn’t do, or, rather, isn’t supposed to do, is make claims in its own voice that aren’t supported or supportable by good secondary sources. This article wasn’t doing all that well on that score, was it? Qwirkle (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boat name

[edit]

There are only a handful articles claiming the boat having an English name as Wonder Sea, others all quoted the registetred name is Vinh Xanh 58. I suggest the title of the article to be changed accordingly. Sgnpkd (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 July 2025

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. – robertsky (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sinking of the Wonder Sea → Capsizing of the Wonder Sea – The ship didn't sink, it capsized. It was then righted and towed to shore. Celjski Grad (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)— Relisting. Tenshi! (Talk page) 17:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Ivey (talk - contribs) 20:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: per nom. TansoShoshen (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Great idea; it's capsized, not sank down. 27.77.254.56 (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This would appear more accurate, although it could also be used to try to portray a kinder, gentler disaster. When an article is sourced to defensive press releases, as this one might be partially, that’s something to watch out for. Qwirkle (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Oppose: Cited tienphong.vn reference clearly shows contact with the bottom. It might not have foundered, but it did sink. Qwirkle (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell what you're referring to, unless there was an older citation (existing is here)—the headline uses the word capsized. Celjski Grad (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: I see the contact you're referring to now. I'm not a salvage expert but I believe that is cable damage from righting the ship: [1] Celjski Grad (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Shipwrecks and WikiProject Vietnam have been notified of this discussion. Ivey (talk - contribs) 20:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: project notification for more participation Ivey (talk - contribs) 20:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: final relist Sennecaster (Chat) 04:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, if the ship didn't sink then it capsized. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is, both the photos and videos of the incident strongly suggest that it hit bottom. Damaged masts, mud on the topsides, and intermittent (tidal?) lack of vertical movement Qwirkle (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Qwirkle, an interesting case. The sources, though, use 'capsized', and since the option is 'sink' or 'capsize', and the sources go with capsize, that might be decisive. There is a major baseball event where I was an eye and ear witness, and know for a certainty the correct option of two that Wikipedia presents, yet can't use my original research. If a reporter had interviewed me then it would be sourced. Same situation here. As you say, some evidence points to the ship hitting the bottom, but is that sinking, would it have kept going if the water were deeper or was there just enough water in the ship to capsize but not 'sink' the ship? That would go to the sources, which say capsize. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, another, perhaps simpler, point is that it may have capsized and sunk, but it damned well capsized. That, I can get behind. Qwirkle (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Cited and certainly true (if perhaps not complete). The Truth, and nothing but the Truth is good enough here. Qwirkle (talk) 18:29, 21 August 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.

WP:SYNTHESIS

[edit]

The article states a fact about the certifcation and is properly sourced. Inferring that it is no longer certified because another source describes damage to the ship is synthesis. Alternatively, we can find another source that shows it is no longer certified or the ship has been retired, somehow reword it to avoid the inference, or the paragraph can be removed entirely if you feel it’s not pertinent. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should use past-tense either way. If the vessel returns to service an RS note that, we should indicate that somewhere else in the article. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Celjski Grad (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]