Talk:2012 Lamma Island ferry collision
 | This article is written in Hong Kong English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | A news item involving 2012 Lamma Island ferry collision was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 3 October 2012. |  |
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 1, 2016 and October 1, 2019. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
HK/China edit
HK is not an indep country, it is controlled nad under the jurisdiction of China, even if nominally autonomous(Lihaas (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)).
- Descriptions about a ferry disaster need not concern itself with such political nuances. Deryck C. 20:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- What you said is true, but unless you want to enter an edit war of another magnitude I say leave it out. People will know it's now part of China when they read the Hong Kong article. Feathered serpent (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
This change of Central, Hong Kong's link text from "Central" to "central area" demonstrates an obvious lack of understanding of Hong Kong, and has been reverted. The name "Central" is used standalone as a proper noun to refer to the area. Deryck C. 20:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Pictures/Photos edit
If someone could take photos of the mourning, the shipwrecks, provide a map of the accident location, etc., it will be really helpful. Thanks Feathered serpent (talk) 02:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
PRC National Day fireworks in lede edit
I removed the mention from the lede (it's mentioned one section down, in Background), but it was added back. While the people on the Lamma IV were heading to see the fireworks, the event isn't directly related to the collision, so its presence in the lede feels arbitrary. I would like to remove it again, if there's no significant objection. wctaiwan (talk) 03:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I kind of think of the fireworks as an indirect cause, so I prefer some mention of it. The point, though, is to illustrate the connection. I've changed the wording a bit so that the connection is more obvious. Feathered serpent (talk) 04:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the fireworks is the only reason the Lamma IV was there at all. The holiday also put huge pressure on the normal ferry, many thousands more were travelling back and forth than normal. Barsoomian (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't object to the mention--I just don't think it's lede-worthy. But since people disagree I'll just leave it be. wctaiwan (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- There are allegations that the firework display setup blocked major water transit routes was a cause of the delays in rescue, so I do think the fireworks are rather important to the collision. And as said, the reason the ferry was travelling is probably worth mentioning in the lead too. Deryck C. 10:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't object to the mention--I just don't think it's lede-worthy. But since people disagree I'll just leave it be. wctaiwan (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the fireworks is the only reason the Lamma IV was there at all. The holiday also put huge pressure on the normal ferry, many thousands more were travelling back and forth than normal. Barsoomian (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Vests edit
The article says that the ship went down quickly and passengers were thrown into the water despite an abundance of life vests. They still would have been thrown in the water if they'd been wearing a vest. Did they mean to say life boats? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.13.60 (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- There were no life boats. It was just 100 yards form shore anyway. Exactly how people died is not yet known. I guess many were injured, trapped and drowned, so vests wouldn't have helped much. Barsoomian (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- The new version, saying "thrown into the water unprotected despite", is much better. Deryck C. 23:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- We don't know how many were "thrown in the water". I doubt a life jacket would have protected anyone in the circumstances. If they had been "thrown in the water" rather than trapped, they probably would have survived. The water wasn't rough or cold and rescue craft were there within minutes. Barsoomian (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I wrote it very early on when reports were still scarce. I think they used to say ">100 thrown into water" but more accurate reports, saying people were trapped, have come up now, so feel free to edit =). Feathered serpent (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- We don't know how many were "thrown in the water". I doubt a life jacket would have protected anyone in the circumstances. If they had been "thrown in the water" rather than trapped, they probably would have survived. The water wasn't rough or cold and rescue craft were there within minutes. Barsoomian (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- The new version, saying "thrown into the water unprotected despite", is much better. Deryck C. 23:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
There are no Flag Masts on land. Flags would be flown at half staff if the flag is not being flown on a ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.25.117 (talk) 04:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Extent of published report edit
It is claimed in the article that the "full report" was made available to the public. Could somebody with sufficient knowledge please check how this can be reconciled with the claim of an internal report made in https://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20180925/bkn-20180925150015630-0925_00822_001.html Thank you.CRau080 (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)