Talk:OceanGate/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lost of Titan Submersible

There are reports in the media that the vessel Titan (4000 metres) has went missing during a dive to the Titanic.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65953872 82.152.97.18 (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I created the start of a draft article at Draft:OceanGate Titanic Expedition feel free to edit it, or move it to article-space as a stub. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Tethered?

Is the Titan u-boat tethered? --Alex42 (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Nope, it isn't thethered. It's free floating trough the water collum.Yeti-Hunter (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Copy Violation

The sentences between ref mark 8 and the mark that a citation is needed, seem to be quite similar to this article:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230530032330/https://www.compositesworld.com/news/oceangate-ceo-pilots-carbon-fiber-submersible-in-4000-m-solo-dive

I think a different wording should be found. It's also unclear whether the cylindrical part of the hull is made of 660 layers of fiber as given in the unsourced text passage or whether it's made of more than 800 layers of fiber. But this is actually a minor detail on the submersible itself.Yeti-Hunter (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Possible source about the origin of the submersible

Hi at all, I found another article about OceanGates Submersible developments in the July 2017 issue of the CW Composites World magazine, which covers plenty of details of the production of the hull of Ocean Gates Cyclop 2 submersible which seems to be quite similar to Titan.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210804224656/http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/composite-submersibles-under-pressure-in-deep-deep-waters Yeti-Hunter (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 20 June 2023

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The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. (closed by non-admin page mover) Schierbecker (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

---

OceanGate, Inc. → OceanGate Expeditions – Per WP:NCCORP. Schierbecker (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose the Expeditions a subsidiary of Inc. This company builds and runs submarines [2](archive), and has an adventure tourism subsidiary that operates submarines on expeditions [3](archive) -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose As the above user shared, Oceangate Expeditions is a subsidiary of OceanGate, Inc. Per NCCORP "OceanGate" would be a better name, but it is currently a disambiguation page. Glman99 (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

OceanGate is actually a redirect to OceanGate, Inc. Schierbecker (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

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.

Corporate Mission

I'm a novice here, but I'm wondering about the inclusion of the corporate mission, let alone at as a section as presented. Flipping through other corporation articles including the two referenced in the section itself, Blue Origin and SpaceX, neither have a corporate mission section and instead lead off with a section devoted to History. Likewise for other corporations like Alphabet Inc. and appears consistent for smaller corporations such as Onewheel, Linktree, and M5 Industries.2001:410:E000:902:21D8:6A5:F3FC:7F68 (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. I have renamed the section to "History" and put it in chronological order. It should be filled out with more of what has actually happened and less of what they intend to do. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Support above aswell but the misson doesnt need to be its own section it can be in the blurb of important facts about the company on te right side A Guy Learning and Knowing (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 21 June 2023 (OceanGate)

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. I'm doing this as a speedy close instead of waiting the full week because of the prominence of the article in the news and the clarity of the consensus (WP:NOTBURO). In addition to a comfortable near-unanimous majority, arguments in favor of the move are consistent with longstanding guidelines, and arguments against the move are not backed by disambiguation guidelines. If there is any further need for disambiguation it can be proposed in a guideline-compliant fashion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

---

OceanGate, Inc. → OceanGate – OceanGate currently redirects here and is unambiguous. Only one other Oceangate: Ocean Gate, New Jersey. Oceangate Tower redirects to a tower in Wales for reasons I don't understand. We should avoid legal status suffixes per WP:NCCORP. Schierbecker (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support: for reasons above, OceanGate is also more notable especially given the Titan incident.Spilia4 (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support. "Inc." should be appended only when required for disambiguation. In this instance, it isn't. —David Levy 03:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support. No reason to include ''Inc.'' in the title. BusterTheMighty (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above. Ozwow (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose : According to the disambiguation page, there are already 5 other U.S. properties with the name “Ocean Gate.” I think keeping the “Inc.” is what should be done. Wikentromere (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

We should keep the inc otherwise it may be confused with the other OceanGates your correct A Guy Learning and Knowing (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I count three other American properties. Where did you get five? Schierbecker (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Within the disambiguation page, all other articles are slight variations (ex: Ocean Gate), and are often schools or other organisations. No current article about a similar company could reasonably be confused with this one. Double Plus Ungood (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  1. Ocean gate school

  2. Ocean Gate District

  3. Ocean Gate (this ocean gate that we are discussisng about)

  4. Ocean gate villas

  there are so many more too

  but those arent in the disambiguation page (not all of them) so even within or not within the disambiguation page we should keep the inc A Guy Learning and Knowing (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a good reason Oceangate Villas is not listed there: It is not notable. Disambiguation pages are not exhaustive. Schierbecker (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 17:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support Per WP:SMALLDETAILS. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above. ShadowCyclone talk 00:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support – There is only one other "oceangate" (without the space), Oceangate Tower, and it's a broken redirect that should be removed. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Support and speedy close if possible. Killuminator (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

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.

15 million people went underwater??

Don't like to add to the the current kerfuffle, but Rush stated a few years ago (in the corporate mission section) that 15 million people went underwater in the last 35 years. A very puzzling statement, how does he define underwater, and I can't envision 15 million people in submersibles in that time frame. Can someone smarter/moreintheloop than I look into this? Maybe we should just put a (sic) after it for now because we don'tbelieve/don'tunderstand ?? Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I would actually believe it. Atlantis Submarines carry 40–60 passengers, make 30 trips a week, and there are (or have been) nine of them. If filled to capacity on every trip that's 700,000 passengers per year, or 25 million in 35 years. My assumptions are generous, but I think 15 million is possible. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

And by the way, the quote is pretty misleading. Going down 12,000 feet is way more dangerous than going down 100 feet. The risks are not at all comparable and Rush is being deceptive when he implies that they are. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Wow, I did not know that Atlantis submarines existed. Thanks GA-RT, and I fully agree 100 ft and 12,000 feet are totally different. I guess we have to leave the misleading statement, unless someone wants to slip in a caveat or explanation. I don't feel qualified to do that, being quite new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk • contribs) 16:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the Atlantis sub WP article would fit under the related articles section? LaggyMcStab (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I would treat anything Rush says with a high degree of scepticism. I think he may be a master at making vague, unverifiable, open-ended statements. In his interview with David Pogue of CBS there was this exchange:

David Pogue (CBS reporter) "are you making money on this operation?"

Stockton Rush [sighs] "ah, no [laughs awkwardly], so... not yet. People might say 'that's a lot of money, $250,000', erm, but we went through over a million dollars of gas."

The BBC picked this up and reported that a single journey to the Titanic wreck used a million dollars worth of fuel. That's not what Rush said, but I think he intended to imply it.

I emailed BBC to point out it wasn't what Rush said, and the idea of using 1,600tons of fuel to make a round trip of under 800 miles was ludicrous. BBC subsequently removed the claim, although other mirror sites still make the silly claim.

As to 15 million people going underwater in the last 35 years? It's a statement that clearly needs qualified. Does he include scuba divers? Snorkelers? Toddlers during bath time? I think Rush is something of a showman who likes to exaggerate to pull people into his thrall. Anyone prepared to pay a quarter of a million to go three miles under the Atlantic in a Heath-Robinson sub (without any apparent safety contingencies) must be in the man's thrall. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:1C76:BBE4:82F1:A241 (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Misinformation, misunderstanding of source articles

The section on titan limitations says "In addition, there is no on-board navigation system", but this is not supported by the referenced article and is somewhat contradicted by the fact that the vehicle has on-board DVL and INS per their spec sheets. It appears to be a complete extrapolation misunderstanding of the statements about no GPS underwater and being guided toward the destination by the support ship during transit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:7EE1:3B00:AD72:1FD6:348B:7E3C (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

yeah true but they are conrtolling the whole dman thing by a controller that is old so i guess there is no on board navigation system (technically) A Guy Learning and Knowing (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

2023 Titan submersible incident had the same problem and I fixed it there too. GA-RT-22 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2023

I would like to add that the passengers that were on the Titan submarine are officially out of oxygen as of 7:10 a.m. ET which would imply that the passengers are unfortunately deceased. Sayed macari (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: We need to wait for reliable sources to make that call. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing, the estimated was 96 hours that being said we dont know for sure, as said we need to wait. A Guy Learning and Knowing (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

sub Decompressorized SlyTheFloof (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2023 (2)

OceanGate Inc. was a privately owned U.S. company in Everett, Washington, that provides crewed submersibles for tourism, industry, research, and exploration. The company was founded in 2009 by Stockton Rush and Guillermo Söhnlein.[1][2] SlyTheFloof (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Ship

For the red-link for AHTC Horizon Arctic to be removed the template has to be deleted.Knocksocksoff (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

An Ace in the Ocean?

According to reports, from the US Navy to the US Coastguard, an underwater event took pleace at about the time contact was lost with the test mini-submarine. Despite this, the Coastguard did not inform the media - but put out reports of 'banging sounds' being heard.

Now, backed up by experts online, the director of the Titanic film mentioned he feared that the test sub was lost within the first few hours. And yet, TV News and the press failed to mentioned any of this. As with the film Ace in the Hole, did reporters know the truth, but kept the story going - as a form of info-tainment?

So, given the involved nature of this story, might not the press and media reaction make for a useful and telling section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.130 (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

everyone died

we need to talk about how everyone died and the streamed video A Guy Learning and Knowing (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

video? Schierbecker (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDP_ig7axtw

Theres like 100 just earch it up A Guy Learning and Knowing (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are asking. Schierbecker (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

"Just search it up"? You're the one who came over here to tell us stuff, you should be prepared with reliable sources. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Right and i gave one, thats reliable A Guy Learning and Knowing (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNq3vQsWfCQ A Guy Learning and Knowing (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

If you're simply trying to say that everyone died on the Titan, that's already included in this article: OceanGate#2023 incident and destruction GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

yeah i realized but.... we should include what was on the stream A Guy Learning and Knowing (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

University of Washington has denied involvement

in the design and construction of said submersible So strike that from the article 2601:204:4001:4F60:4964:28A2:8E18:835D (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to this CNN article or Business Insider article. According to BI, OceanGate claimed on their website that the Titan was "designed and engineered by OceanGate Inc. in collaboration [with] experts from NASA, Boeing, and the University of Washington." UW says that they not work on Titan, only Cyclops, and minimized their involvement. Being only said it did not work on the Titan but said nothing of the Cyclops. Schierbecker (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That link is not dead - and text is unchanged (it is also well-archived). There are weasel words. It doesn't say that OceanGate collaborated with those institutions, nor with experts at any of them. From can just mean that the experts had worked or been educated/trained there. I am sure that the wording of the denials of involvement have also been carefully worded as part of their corporate damage limitation efforts. (Later: the site seems to come and go) Davidships (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

OceanGate's website is down, replace link with archived version

The last snapshot on archive.org is https://web.archive.org/web/20230621211610/https://oceangate.com/index.html. Thanks. 209.6.25.213 (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The website seems to come and go, so better to stick with the archive version for now. Davidships (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Add a Image for the different submersible they have

Should we not have an image for each submersible in the article, like the Titan, cyclops etc. A Guy Learning and Knowing (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, if you can find non-copyright images. Couruu (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

What if the copryighted images just ask for credits A Guy Learning and Knowing (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It needs to comply with the Wikipedia:Image use policy i.e. it must be licenced with an appropriate free licence. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Have there been any television broadcasts that comply with fair use that may have covered it? A screenshot from one may work, if you cannot find a static photo to add. (Asking the fellow readers on the talk page, sadly finding archived tv broadcasts is not my expertise.) Becquerelite (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2023

The Titan infobox states that the range (Depth?) is "Up to 4,000 m", but this implies certification or a known capability.

I propose that this is either removed entirely as there is no rated maximum depth, or is changed to "Intended operating depth".

Related, the main article mentions the following: "After proof testing to dives at its maximum rated depth in 2018 and 2019"

This states a maximum rated depth, but there was no rating. I propose that this is also changed to "intended maximum depth" as used later in on the page. Yngndrw (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Retain "Up to 4,000 m" in Infobox however swap to use "Ship test depth" param instead per Template:Infobox ship begin/Usage guide. Changing of the label/wording on the Infobox isn't part of this article's concerns, this is handle by standardalized Infobox template, if you're requesting for such changes, please head over to Template:Infobox ship begin instead. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Remove (or merge) Paragraph 3 from History section

Reasoning: Redundant to the 4th paragraph's information. The 3rd and 4th paragraph read as follows: "When he tried to purchase a submarine, he discovered that there were fewer than 100 privately-owned submarines worldwide and was unable to purchase one, instead building one from plans in 2006.

Co-founder Stockton Rush had built his fortune by investing his inheritance in tech companies. A long-time enthusiast of space travel and deep-sea exploration, he tried to purchase a submarine and he discovered that there were fewer than 100 privately-owned submarines worldwide. Because he was unable to purchase one he instead built one from plans in 2006."

These two paragraphs say essentially the same thing in only slightly different words, and read poorly. I am still new to wikipedia so I am not skilled enough to make this edit at the moment, hope this is the right way to call attention to it! Becquerelite (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

That paragraph, which has no source citation, had been removed, but has now been re-added. I have removed it again pending discussion by those who wish to include it. I have also re-removed the DeepFlight Challenger material that duplicates the footnote. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect Patent Citation

The patent link is dead, please change to this link: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11119071B1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.180.226.140 (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The existing patent link to US 11,119,071 via espacenet appears to be working at this time. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I should add that if there is an issue with espacenet instead of Google Patents, that should be taken up at w:Template:Cite patent instead. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Reference links to payed site?

Using a pay-to-read article as a reference is trash.

The New York Times, Washington Post and others like them haven’t been editorially relevant for years anyway.

Do better 107.122.173.31 (talk) 03:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Paywalled sites are perfectly acceptable as sources. See WP:PAYWALL. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you mean "paid"? The two that you mention, and others like them, are considered reliable sources and are perfectly acceptable. See WP:RSP. GA-RT-22 (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

And don't worry, wikipedia is not short on editors capable of getting past the paywalls, so it doesn't lead to verifiability issues for us ^.^ --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Titanic expedition video

I found a video where someone documents their experience in one of OceanGate's Titanic expeditions in July 2021. At one point, the CEO explains some of the Titan's components in detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD5SUDFE6CA&t=1096s Bambobee (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a strong consensus to split Titan (submersible) into a separate article to OceanGate. This doesn't preclude any future discussion of a merger of Titan (submersible) with 2023 Titan submersible incident in the future, which a few users have suggested. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 09:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

---

I propose that Titan section be split into Titan (submersible). 90.254.6.237 (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Support its a very long section with lots of references so it should get its own article. Sebbog13 (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Please add {{split section}}, in relation to to the above splitting proposal. 90.254.6.237 (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 01:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. The current article is 44 kilobytes long and according to WP:SIZERULE is not yet in need of a WP:SPINOFF. 182.239.159.174 (talk) 08:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• support I think most of this information is not about the company as a whole, and therefore probably belongs in a separate article. That way we can summarize the information in that article here. Besides, after what happened the sub probably deserves its own article. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support: There is already a lot of information about this submersible and it will to be of interest to readers who want to learn about the submersible more than the company. NB, I agree that under WP:SIZERULE the article does not need to be split due to length, but I feel it should be split due to difference in content and readership. --Mgp28 (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Merge with 2023 Titan submersible incident to make one article about the Titan (submersible). We don't need a separate article about the Titan as well as the article about the incident (which is almost all of the information and coverage of the Titan). Failing that, oppose creation of a separate article on the Titan, as unnecessary WP:SPLIT, as per WP:SIZERULE and WP:SPINOFF. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ai ai 2603:9001:2100:41B0:3CEF:F8E6:AB35:CD13 (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Titan is a large enough topic to be split off into its own article. It was a unique vessel that received WP:SIGCOV before the implosion last week, including in Smithsonian, Composites World, CBS News, CBC, GeekWire, and the BBC. Anybar (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support I think there is enough coverage to have the Titan in a separate article specifically about the ship. Especially considering its design has probably gotten enough WP:SIGCOV at this point. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support Should be its own article. Merging with the incident article would make that article top-heavy. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support received WP:SIGCOV prior to the implosion, and the recent story probably gives it enough coverage to warrant a separate article. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 18:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support I think the key question here isn't article length. The key question is whether or not this submarine is notable in and of itself apart from the 2023 incident. I believe the answer is yes due to the unique nature of its construction. Rklawton (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support Completely agree that a seperate article on the Titan should be created, in the same reasons as Rklawton suggested. KeyKing666 (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support. At this rate, with the current size of the section, it will make the OceanGate article too top-heavy. It has also made itself notable due to the unique construction of the submarine itself; something which may have led to its eventual demise. Nascar9919 (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support The section is very large, and it has enough detail to warrant its own article. Persent101 (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support: I think we should ignore WP:SIZERULE because the ship itself meets WP:N and warrants an article apart from the company. Although this is not being decided now, I oppose merging the split article with the article on the vessel's implosion because the destruction of the ship is separately notable and might have implications for regulation of deep ocean exploration that go beyond the ship itself. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom Jjpachano (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Merge with 2023 Titan submersible incident per Joseph2302. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support - the submersible was already notable before the sinking, and as it stands, too much of this article consists of material on Titan; this article should focus on the company, with short sections on each of their vessels, as it already does with Antipodes (aka, WP:SUMMARYSTYLE). Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support splitting into a standalone article about the submersible. Oppose merging with 2023 Titan submersible incident, as there is quite a lot of detail about the submersible here that is not incredibly relevant to the incident, and would make that article unbalanced. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Support splitting into Titan (submersible) Oppose merging with the titan incident, just like the message above, another reason for splitting would be the popup that appears when you hover over a link the popup talks about OceanGate and not the submersible.

  Sebbog13 (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Please remove this vote, or at least de-bold it. You already voted once before. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support Should be a separate article. CarbonX (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support spinning off into an independent article; a fork clearly is merited here. Note that the RM discussion at Talk:2023 Titan submersible incident#Requested move 20 June 2023 has included proposals to move that article to Titan (submersible). It seems highly unlikely that achieves consensus there given the direction that conversation has gone in, but wanted to note the potential conflict for any editor implementing this split. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support spinning off into separate article "Titan (submersible)" , as at present this dominates and unbalances this article about the company. This will not pre-empt any future discussions of a merge with 2023 Titan submersible incident and, if so, under which name - that is for another day as my crystal ball fortells considerable expansion of that article as recovery efforts continue, and both enquiries and likely litigation get under way. Davidships (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

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.

Saftey problems rooted weird corporate philosophy

Here is Stockton Rush expressing his corporate philosophy. He decries the involvement of "50 yr old white guys" rather prefers "inspirational" "25 year olds" https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ecz5wmanMxAo/ He does not put highly trained nuclear submarine professionals ahead of diveristy. It got him, and 4 other people killed, and likely will result in more oversight, stricter controls, lawsuits and tighter safety measure, ie more "50 yr old white guys". Reality bites.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.41.85 (talk • contribs) 2023-06-21 07:25:15 (UTC)

Hello, I know this is not the right reply area, but this above topic has no reply button, nor signature, and I felt alarmed by this topic subject as well as the content linked. I do not believe this talk topic is useful to the discussion and clicking on the link that the unsigned person included leads you to a website that is rife with racist content. Can we please have this removed? Thanks. Parameci (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

A policy of Wikipedia is that it generally isn’t censored , and also not a forum, but I’d say that the original reply is pretty antagonistic and is reading too far into it. Multiple sources, some of which are mentioned in the article, mention and describe the company’s corporate philosophy. And I believe the company’s repeated statements and actions regarding regulations, safety, and commercial innovation, etc. are bigger factors that helped lead to this tragic situation than what the original reply said about “diversity.” If you’re curious you can check this talk page history to see who added that section. I’m not sure why there’s no signature, maybe it’s a PC bug or something. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 04:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for the quick decision on my end, admittedly I saw the content linked and became alarmed. Looking through the user's page, I believe there is nothing they are technically doing wrong except not adding signatures. The issues I have are more or less suspicions, but if anyone well-versed in the guidelines has something to say, their word would likely be of more use, although I am leaning towards the user's contributions not having violations. Thanks! Parameci (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

?? You didn't "decide" something, you only asked about removal. Edits from that IP address are mostly talk-page trolling, and most have been reverted. The linked story is just a distorted hot-button title ("CEO of OceanGate on how he refuses to hire White guys with submarine experience") and a 2m14s video of a conference call with CEO Stockton Rush and two Teledyne Marine VPs. Comments there are mostly malice, and some advocate violence. -A876 (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Displacement

In the infobox we give the displacement as 10,432 kg but in the text it's 9,525 kg. For submarines we usually give both the surfaced and the submerged displacements. It would be best if we could do that here, or at least say which one it is. Sadly the sources don't say. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it's confusing. What reliable sources do we have for the displacement and other specifications of Titan? I removed everything from the sections about Antipodes and Cyclops 1 that was sourced only by OceanGate's self-published material. It would make sense to do the same for the rest of this article per WP:RS. Thanks for calling attention to this. Anybar (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so quick to remove all the specs. Per WP:SELFSOURCE it's ok to use the spec sheet for many of the specs, for example physical dimensions of the sub. The interesting thing is that both displacements are sourced to OceanGate spec sheets. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@GA-RT-22@Anybar

"The interesting thing is that both displacements are sourced to OceanGate spec sheets."

That's not correct though, is it? The OceanGate spec sheet (given as the reference) gives Titan's WEIGHT as 10,432kg. Wikipedia has taken that and stated it as Titan's displacement.

The relationships between mass, weight, displacement and volume are complex; and further complicated by the necessity of having to take account of (and state) whether a cited displacement applies to a floating object or a fully submerged object.

The information in OceanGate's spec sheet must be assumed to be the best available unless proven otherwise.

One must assume therefore that 10,432kg is Titan's weight (or more correctly, its mass) because that is what the cited source states.

Furthermore, the fact that the OceanGate spec sheet does not specify submerged or partially-submerged next to the quoted weight implies either that (a) they know very little about submersible technology; or (b) by weight they do indeed mean weight. 31.94.65.170 (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not all that complicated. For a bouyant object the weight and displacement are the same. For a negatively bouyant object the weight will be greater, but that's not a consideration for surface ships or (most?) submarines. You think that's what they mean by "weight"? GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Did you type this in a rush @GA-RT-22? Thanks for telling me that in the case of a buoyant object the weight (mass) and displacement are the same. I already knew that. You know Titan is a submersible? So it is inherently NOT a buoyant object. So we can completely dismiss this part of your contribution.

Then you go on to tell us that for a negatively buoyant object, the weight will be greater [than the displacement]. But you say, "that's not a consideration for surface ships". It's not a surface ship, so we can disregard this contribution too. It's a submersible - a 'sinky, underwater ship' if you will. You add that it's not a consideration for most submarines, but you're not sure.

It's a huge consideration for all submarines. It's fundamental.

Than you ask, "you think that's what they mean by "weight"?" I have no idea what you mean here. What do you think is what I mean by weight?

I'LL SAY IT AGAIN IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS AND BOLD FONT FOR YOU. OCEANGATE'S SPEC SHEET (THE QUOTED SOURCE) SAYS THAT TITAN'S 'WEIGHT' IS 10,432KG. YOU FOLKS HAVE DECIDED THAT BY WEIGHT THEY MEANT DISPLACEMENT.

It had a weight (mass) on dry land of 10,432kg. I have no idea what its submerged displacement was. Nor do you. Please just stop misquoting your source and giving erroneous data. Say what is in your source. WEIGHT = 10,432KG 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6DEC:D014:ED5B:3E36 (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Please try to be civil. The article currently says the weight is 9,525 kg and says nothing about displacement. So what are you complaining about exactly? (By the way I did not read either the all caps or the bold text) GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You're quite correct. My edit request to remove erroneous references to 'displacement' of 10,432kg was actioned, but without acknowledging me.

Your penultimate talk contribution (that I replied to) states "the interesting thing is that both displacements are sourced to OceanGate spec sheets."

I corrected this mistake of yours. Perhaps the article had been stealthily corrected prior to my last talk contribution. The fact remains you were propagating wrong information in your talk contributions. Maybe you could focus your energies on less technical articles? 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6DEC:D014:ED5B:3E36 (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Titan's mass (or weight) has been incorrectly described as its displacement. They're not the same thing. Consider an empty one litre plastic drinks bottle. Its mass is a few grams, its displacement (submerged) is 1kg. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:9FD:E604:D362:DC3A (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Allow me to express my gratitude to whoever corrected this error without acknowledging my request. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6DEC:D014:ED5B:3E36 (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

"Rounded up" absurdity

"Calculations showed the cylinder that forms the center section of the crew compartment should be 114 mm (4.5 in) thick, which OceanGate rounded up to 127 mm (5.0 in)"

If you must include the notion of "rounding up" in reference to a life-critical engineering calculation, then please give inches as the primary measurement.

Nobody has ever rounded up 114mm to 127mm. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:1122:4FD:855C:AEEC (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Y Resolved Wikentromere (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Wikentromere Thank you for resolving. However, check the article: it has since been de-resolved... 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:1010:6E3A:FC2D:C806 (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Lawsuit over safety

There needs to be a section about the 2018 lawsuit and counterlawsuit filed by a former employee who claims he was fired. Per the lawsuit the vessel was not built to dive to the depths needed to see Titanic. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/titanic-submarine-oceangate-hull-safety-lawsuit/ https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/oceangate-company-behind-missing-titanic-tourist-sub-once-subject-lawsuit-safety-complaints 2604:2D80:A48F:300:F462:B2B3:3612:5DDA (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

the info was given recently, we have no idea what the court case was about or anything. we just know they were sued and then the court case was settled outside of court with the guy. That should not be in itself a article. If you add it to the Ocean gate website it would be unnessary because again not enough info about this. We should wait, if we get more info then we should include it. A Guy Learning and Knowing (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorr i mistakened your addition to saying for a new article please ignore my above comment lol my bad A Guy Learning and Knowing (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Refusing to talk about lawsuits turns this page into a virtual advertisement for the company which is against Wiki policy. Fact is they were sued and the docs have been released online.

They were also sued recently by this couple who dropped the suit after the wreck:

https://www.insider.com/titanic-sub-couple-drop-lawsuit-oceangate-ceo-after-his-death-2023-6

Various industry experts have given written and oral statements to the press over the last couple weeks. Refusing to mention that makes this article dishonest. The fact is that many people warned Oceangate and its CEO that the craft was unsafe. It is also against Wiki policy to write a biased article and unless Oceangate employees themselves are writing this page (which wouldn't surprise me) there is no reason for members of the public to deny the various statements by industry experts, former employees, former passengers and lawsuits. Do you have a reason for deciding not to include this factual information? 2604:2D80:A48F:300:C027:FCC8:4FF5:61CF (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

did you see my second comment? I stated specifically that i thought he wanted to create a whole ARTICLE about this, i didnt realize he was mentioning of adding it to the ocean gate current article. That was a mal read on my part.

That being said, i believe it was clear that i made a mistake when i responded. I hope next time you can read the comments before writing this A Guy Learning and Knowing (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

According to , they were sued at the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in 2021. There should be a filing that "lays out the Titan’s testing details and its specifications". I was not able to locate any of these documents.217.24.230.116 (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2023

Someone has added inline external links to OceanGate#Associated entities. Those should be removed. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

•  Removed as they violate WP:ELNO. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Units

We should probably choose either SI or US units as primary, and change the order of units in the text to match, per MOS:UNIT. If we decide this is a non-scientific article, that would be US. If it is a scientific article, then SI. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@GA-RT-22 If SI/metric units are adopted throughout, there is one exceptional place where imperial units need to be retained as a matter of semantics, which is in the sentence dealing with OceanGate's designers 'rounding up' 4.5 inches to 5.0 inches. If metric units are given precedence in this sentence, (i.e. rounded up 114mm to 127mm) it becomes slightly absurd. See my (now actioned) edit requests previously on this point. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:9144:358:E282:BAC0 (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

"rounded up" absurdity: for the second time

Initially this text (current version):

OceanGate's calculations showed the cylinder that formed the center section of the crew compartment should have a wall thickness of 114 mm (4.5 in), which they rounded up to 5.0 in (127 mm)

read thus:

OceanGate's calculations showed the cylinder that formed the center section of the crew compartment should have a wall thickness of 114 mm (4.5 in), which they rounded up to 127 mm (5.0 in).

I pointed out that nobody in the history of 'rounding up' has ever rounded up 114mm to 127mm. And the text was edited to give the imperial (inches) units first and the metric (millimetre) units in brackets.

It's been edited again such that we now have 114mm being rounded up to 5.0 inches. Which I think is more absurd than the original idea of rounding up 114mm to 127mm.

If you are intent on retaining the "rounded up" mention, then the imperial units have to be given precedence in both instances. I think it is worth retaining, because it demonstrates the ridiculousness of OceanGate's haphazard approach to engineering and design standards (in a supposedly positive but an indisputably insufficiently-positive way) . 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6DEC:D014:ED5B:3E36 (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done looks like this edit request has been fulfilled somewhere after this text was moved to the new page👍--Licks-rocks (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC).

@Licks-rocks Thank you! 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:9144:358:E282:BAC0 (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Given that this is a US company, why is the article using metric measurements as primary in the first place? Per MOS:UNIT, US units should be used first. Parsecboy (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Parsecboy I imagine the unit-system used will flip back and forth over the years to come, either actioned by bots or by Wikipedian Unit-Change Mission Specialists. Certainly in the instance I mentioned that deals with 'rounding up', it's a necessary issue of semantics to give Imperial units (i.e. inches) precedence. There is a certain ludicrousness in my opinion of 'rounding up' the dimensions of such a safety critical design, which ties in well with what some commentators see as a haphazard, somewhat Heath-Robinson engineering approach by Stockton Rush. In fairness to Rush, the source for the 'rounding up' quotation is a third-party. It might be that their engineering calculations gave a necessary wall-thickness of 4.5 inches, and the addition of a specific safety-factor just so happened to take this to precisely 5.0 inches. Or they may have made their calculations using metric units, arrived at 114mm and added a safety-factor that took this up to 127mm. What I'm driving at is that they might not have 'rounded up' the dimension: they might have increased the dimension in a considered, scientific way (which a third-party has wrongly described as 'rounding up').

In the dimensional drawing that accompanies the article cited, only metric units are given. That could imply that the design-engineering was undertaken using metric units.

However, it's notable that the length of the carbon-fibre tube is given as 2540mm (precisely 100 inches). That of course is possibly mere coincidence. I'm aware I'm raising questions and not giving answers. Nothing I've written here (except for the semantics point) is intended to inform the article. I'm just putting my thoughts out there for discussion. In that spirit, suppose Imperial units were used in the design-engineering. Engineers working in inches generally work to tolerances of thousandths of an inch. Therefore it would be extraordinary if engineers concluded the optimum length of the tube should be precisely 100.0 inches. I would love to know if there was ever a dialogue in a design meeting along the lines of "what length should the tube be?", "it needs to be about 8 feet", "Okay, let's make it 100 inches". Kids like nice round numbers when making things: engineers generally make things to whatever the optimum dimensions are, especially sui generis designs.

No need for anyone to point out all the speculation in the foregoing. I know. I just think these are interesting ideas to put out there, given what we know about the fitness-for-purpose of Titan's design and build. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:9144:358:E282:BAC0 (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure you've been around long enough to be aware of WP:NOTFORUM, but just in case... WP:NOTFORUM. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I've not been around long, so no. But thanks for pointing it out. Some of what I wrote is 'forumy', but the part about retaining Imperial measurements as the primary measurement in the sentence dealing with 'rounding up' is an important WP:Talk point. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:9144:358:E282:BAC0 (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Quite right, a debate about what units to use is exactly what a talk page is for. You might want to start a new section if you want to pursue that, and have a read of the MOS on units of measurement to see what the standing guidance is. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

No need for a new section if discussion is already ongoing, for what it's worth, I'm a metric enjoyer, but I think imperial units with metric translation would probably be a logical choice here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, that specific information isn't here anymore, it's over at Titan. But discussion about measurements on this page in general can certainly stay here. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Licks-rocks@97.113.8.72 I'm a metric-enjoyer too (I might put that on my CV under 'Hobbies & Interests!). I wouldn't myself want to delve too deeply into Wikipedia conventions on metric versus imperial measurements: it'd either be a rabbit-hole of ecstasy from which I never emerged, or it'd send me into a shame-spiral for even going there. The people saying the sub was made/designed/operated in North America and therefore the article should use Imperial measurements, seem to know the rules and it sounds like the right way to go.

The only proviso I would make is that if it were known what units of measure had been used in the engineering/design of Titan, there would be a good case for giving precedence to those units in the article (and in any WP article for that matter). The reason being that the secondary units tend to be rounded up versions of the primary ones (in WP in general).

For example, the diameter of Titan's window is given as 380mm or 15 inches. But was it precisely 380.0mm (14.96 inches) or was it precisely 15.0 inches (381.0mm)? I don't know and I don't think any of us do for sure.

So my point is there is a case for over-riding WP conventions on units to preserve precision of OEM dimensions (if and when those are available).

Something else to consider is that over time, if primary/secondary units get swapped back and forth repeatedly, there's a risk of accuracy being lost every time a measurement is relegated to secondary-unit-status and rounded up/down. e.g.

9.95 in (253mm)

253mm (10 in)

10 in (254mm)

I daresay the highly-paid boffins at Wikipedia Towers who write the articles have already thought of this though! 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:C124:1C14:EFDC:8213 (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

We write the articles. The highly-paid boffins do outreach and software and legal stuff. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

haha  ;)

Judging from some of their articles I bet they do a fair bit of illegal "stuff" too!

Joe Public could do a better job of writing an encyclopaedia than those guys.

I donated a fortune to them last year but they still haven't fixed the bit on the Mir Submersible page that says it uses VHF radio to communicate with the surface - VHF radio waves are blocked by a few millimetres of seawater. Too busy sitting around on beanbags engaging in bluesky thinking to actually update their website! 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:C124:1C14:EFDC:8213 (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I meant that literally. The WMF is not responsible for article content. The folks you donate money to are not the ones writing articles. If you want something fixed, you need to either get a fellow volunteer interested and motivated, or do it yourself. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

You mean to say my cash has been supporting professional wrestling? This explains a lot. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:C124:1C14:EFDC:8213 (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

WMF deals with keeping the site running, setting the terms of service, and collecting information for us (there's a whole wikilibrary you can borrow literature from) us volunteers are responsible for everything else, up to and including writing policy. --Licks-rocks (talk) 07:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Number of employees

The cited source for the number of employees lists April data for 47 employees, should it now say 46 as the CEO is dead, or do CEOs not count in that number? Lexd2g (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, April 2020 PPP $ was for 22 jobs.Doug Grinbergs (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Website correct?

Hello all, Noticed that https://oceangateexpeditions.com/ is still online and looks like the same company. The infobox lists a shorter website and says it is offline. The area code looks like the right area, etc. but I'm hesitant to make this change without 'peer review' of some kind. Thank you, Liastnir (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

That's the subsidiary in the Bahamas, @Liastnir - see OceanGate#Associated entities. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

OceanGate Expeditions is a tour subsidiary of OceanGate, it ran the OceanGate Titanic Expedition that the sub was lost on. OceanGate the sub manufacturer is the parent to the tourism company -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, the ocneagateexpeditions.com comes and goes online/offline, so not an improvement over the online/offline alternating status of the primary website. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Whereabouts of Rush's Stake

Who now owns the stake in OceanGate that once belonged to Rush? I think it may have been transferred to his family members but at this moment I am clueless of who was in his will. WiinterU (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Such speculation is of no value to us, even if made by reliable secondary sources. One day something reliable may emerge, which may be appropriate for inclusion in the article, or not.Davidships (talk) 07:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, OceanGate Inc. is a private corporation meaning that the stakeholders could be involved directly in a potential lawsuit. We have to see if it is possible. WiinterU (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

We don't need to see anything. If a reliable source reports something, then we can add it to the article. If not, then we don't have anything to add. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The three OceanGates

Pinging those that might be interested, @Chessrat, Smallbones, JoshRichards98, Sebbog13, HapHaxion, Dylan Fourie, Aeromachinator, Deflines, Editchecker123, Carlosguiavzla, Farmdudler, and WiinterU:

The recent news regarding OceanGate has become a bit of a problem. The OceanGate Expeditions website currently has a notice saying OceanGate has suspended all exploration and commercial operations. The main problem with this is that OceanGate Expeditions is a subsidiary of OceanGate, Inc. and it isn't clear if this applies to all three organizations. The OceanGate Foundation website lacks the notice while the OceanGate, Inc website remains down. There are a number of news article about the notice, but some refer to just Expeditions and others appear to refer to all of them as one. Given the problem this is causing, is there a recommendation as to handle the situation? --Super Goku V (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on splitting the article into three articles, one for each? Editchecker123 (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

an ip made Draft:OceanGate Titanic Expedition a while ago Sebbog13 (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

No, OceanGate Inc. (No comma) is the main corporation. We only need a page for one. WiinterU (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the correction. I was going off the former name of the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• I'll suggest looking at the real world situation, rather than looking at it from the POV of encyclopedia editors, or the legal system. There could be something important I don't know about -so this is a bit speculative - but let's take the basic working hypothesis as "there are at least 3 parts of the organization, but the entire organization is effectively defunct. A website may be 'working', but it is just appearing because websites don't automatically go offline when something bad happens." Does anybody have a better working hypothesis for the overall situation?
• I'm most comfortable discussing the business situation. It may have been essentially a one-person organization, despite having a dozen or 2 employees, a similar number of scientific contacts, and maybe even more former and "potential" customers.
• The implosion
  • killed Stockton Rush, the ceo and the guy in charge of everything
  • destroyed the company's main asset, it's only way of generating any income
  • destroyed the company's reputation (for safety among other things)
  • effectively made all employees lose their jobs, and maybe backpay

Now somebody is still legally "in charge" - probably Mrs. Rush, and she is likely not in a state to deal with the impossible business problems. What likely will happen is that it will take a couple of weeks for people to get themselves together and then a bankruptcy lawyer will essentially be in charge. Within a month they'll likely file in court and the liquidation could go very quickly. There's likely no money left to split up among creditors, so the judge might just shut the whole thing down asap.

• The other main way of looking at the situation is looking at the people involved, the social situation. Is anybody going to be able to benefit from dealing with the other people involved? Is anybody going to want to stick around? So it looks like the people involved will just let it go, and the company is essentially already gone.

So what is the best "official website"? I'd say the main one "offline" and the expedition one "inactive since July 5"?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Wait and see what happens This is a good question. While I added some edits on the prior assumption that the whole business had folded in the first place, I now find it strange that the Expeditions website didn't clarify what part of the company had shut down. On that note, I think we should assume it still exists—once OceanGate files for bankruptcy and/or gets liquidated or dissolved otherwise, then we should readd disestablishment information accordingly. Aeromachinator (talk to me here) 05:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• No split needed Stick with this one article covering the OceanGate group, with spin-offs only if and when they become necessary. In any case it is also impracticable at present with the paucity of RS that address the relationships between the three entities and "which did what". Both the US and Bahamas trading businessses have ceased operations and time will tell what will happen with them, while the associated charitable venture is different (website still current - only recent changes seem to be the condolences front page, and the removal of their email contact). None of the websites should be in the infobox; if there is encyclopaedic value in their content, the last archived versions could be in External Links. Meanwhile, speculating is not what we do here, only following the reliable sources. Davidships (talk) 07:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• no split needed the three companies basically operate as one entity and appear to simply be different branches of one organisation. I think we can handle the finer distinctions in the text. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Mainly, my issue was that edits were going back and forth regarding what happened to OceanGate with myself also being involved, so I figured I would make a post to the talk page and see if there could be a consensus on how to format the notice. Sadly, it seems that there has still been some more back and forth so I guess this was pointless in that regard. (On the brighter side, it does seem that my concerns about listing OceanGate as defunct was not fully correct, so that at least has been fixed. Sorry for the trouble to those editors.) In any case, I don't see anywhere in Smallbones' post where a split is suggested, so I will not vote on that. To answer the question that was asked, I would say that the main website is the one that has gone down. Expeditions and Foundation are more branches of the main OceanGate, so while they are also official websites, they are not the main website. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Remove redundant date.

The articles says "On June 18, 2023, OceanGate lost contact with Titan during its dive in 2023 to the Titanic." That is redundant. Please remove the second reference to "in 2023". 73.109.121.55 (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 01:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)