Jump to content

Talk:2010 Copiapó mining accident/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

"Spanglish" and units of measure

We have an international article with some inconsistencies throughout.

 Done Notably, we have inconsistent use of Spanish vs English naming. Some times we use the Spanish, other times the English and at other times a combination one might call "Spanglish". Wikipedia:Writing better articles says "Per the guide to writing better Wikipedia articles, use foreign words sparingly." What is the best way for us to handle this?

 Done Units of measure are not always converted. There is a template to assist this and keep it uniform called {conversion}.

WP:ENGVAR says U.K. vs US English is largely superficial so it's probably not an issue unless others find our inconsistency a problem. Veriss (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I have all the Spanish text in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Foreign terms as well as the units of measure. Please double check that I got it right. Veriss (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved
 – Please double check that I've implemented the MOS correctly. Veriss (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Bold image captions

Hi again.

Why are the captions on the images in bold? I don't see this on any other Wikipedia articles. MissWizzy (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi MissWizzy, thanks for all the copy edits. Can blame me I guess. I made them bold so they were easier to read like in newspapers and magazines. I checked the MOS:CAPTIONS and it wasn't prohibited. If people don't like it they are easy enough to remove. Veriss (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
It isn't prohibited because it never occured to us that anyone would do it. Using the fallback option that wikipedia's house style is whatever featured articles use it's pretty clear that captions should not be bolded.©Geni 22:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
sounds good. Veriss (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Resolved
 – OBE. Overcome by events. Veriss (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquotes?

Unresolved
 – Are these useful for Wikiquotes? Veriss (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Are these useful for Wikiquotes?

  • "Estamos bien en el refugio los 33" (English: "We are alright in the shelter, the 33 [of us]").
  • “The Chileans are basically writing the book on how to rescue this many people, this deep, after this long underground,” Dr. Michael Duncan, chief of consulting team from NASA.
  • “It’s been a bit of a long shift”, Luis Urzúa replied to President Piñera after being the last miner to be rescued from the mine. 13 October 2010

Any others? Veriss (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Timeline data

Unresolved
 – Not sure what to do with this timeline data we made. Can anyone make graphic timelines?Veriss (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so we have this timeline data. Who uses it? Do we need it? Since we have it, can anyone make a vertical timeline graphic along the left margin of the timeline section? I looked at the instructions and it appears to have a steep learning curve or I'm just thick headed. Veriss (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is really necessary. It is only repeating what the reader should have already got from the article. As a graphic it might be a pretty addition though. Also, the see also section seems a little redundant, as the articles are either only vaguely related ("somebody fell down a hole") or are already mentioned in the text. Does anybody know how to make a category for underground rescues? Then most of them could be moved there. MissWizzy (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
When I added them I was thinking of both the underground rescue aspect and the media frenzy. Perhaps there is a better way to deal with them. Veriss (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll work it out nicely. ResearchRave (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

@MissWizzy, I created a category for "Mining Rescues" but after rereading your comments it doesn't address the "someone fell down a hole" thing. I don't want to upset the category cops yet. Thoughts anyone?

Perhaps if it was at the top filling in that dead white space between the table of contents and the infobox and had links to the relevant sections it would seem more useful. Perhaps more experienced editors have some suggestions or comments. Veriss (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

@Veriss about the category. If you made it underground rescues or made mining rescues a subcategory of that (I don't know whether that is possible?) you could also cover the "somebody fell down a hole" cases (did I really call them that? heart of ice much?) MissWizzy (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The timeline links are still there in the EL section. Kinda sticking out like a sore thumb. From what I can gather from the documentation, they are for exporting our timeline to external applications like Google maps, etc. which I really can't imagine anyone needing to do in this case. Those two links don't seem to serve any purpose within our article and are not needed if we decide to add a graphic timeline to our article since those data elements are in the actual timeline section with the text. Thoughts? Veriss (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for deletion: Manuel Gonzalez (Chile mine rescue)

I do not know if this individual is notable within the region for more then being a rescuer during the Copiapó mining accident. I stumbled across this article while searching for a more generic term and I personally never considered making an article about him. I am just bringing this to your attention in case he is more notable so you can rescue the article if you like. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No, he is not. Apparently, we could create an article on Yonni Barrios or Mario Sepúlveda, which seem to be the most popular miners, but Manuel Gonzalez... only notable for this event. --Diego Grez (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, those two (Barrios and Sepúlveda) will probably qualify for their own articles long before Luis Urzúa or Florencio Ávalos, the two leaders of the miners, or Gonzalez, the leader of the rescue team. Veriss (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved
 – Already deleted. Veriss (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

New NOVA PBS video posted

Musujyay (talk · contribs) posted this new hour long video from NOVA that was shown on the US Public Broadcasting System (PBS). I didn't expect them to put the whole documentary online. NOVA had a crew onsite since August.

Thanks Musujyay. Veriss (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved
 – FYI. It's a nice documentary. Veriss (talk) 04:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Added new images of Santiago ceremonies, football game and Prez w/ QEII

Added new pics (four) of Santiago ceremonies, football game and a photo of Piñera w/ QEII.

Still on the look out for a pic of families at Camp Hope and media scrum at the mine and we should be good for images.

Resolved
 – FYI. New pics, still need pics of families at Camp Hope and media scrum at the mine. Veriss (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:EL

Resolved
 – Cleaned them all up, please double check. Veriss (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The list of links over here is way too long. wikipedia is not a "repository of links." news article are certainly not el's, but the others, while some are good, could be either cited in the article or decreased. For example, the drillign equipment can be cited int he articel and the videos/pictures can be decreased. dont needa list to nearly redundant info.Lihaas (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I read the WP:EL policy, specifically WP:ELNEVER, WP:ELNO, WP:EL#ADV and WP:YOUTUBE, and all of our links appear to be fully within the guidelines. All of them go to reputable websites, most go to high end news sites, none go to sites like youtube and they are organized and clearly and consistently labeled. I will remove the {external links}, tag because that puts us in the exclusive EL Spam category automatically, unless someone can identify a specific conflict with the policy that they are unable to fix themselves.
From an overall article size perspective, the footnotes and external links sections don't count as readable prose. Many of our external links are because of problems with WP:IUP, specifically illustrating the capsule, the mine area, etc. Veriss (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Its nots just to the word, but that the list can be consolidated over redundancies.Lihaas (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
There are still are multiple links to go, but we can hold off, just add to the to-do list as this is not a priority.Lihaas (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I keep monkeying with it's appearance but I think your concern is more a content issue. Veriss (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Yep, not the appearance, although when EL's have section the guidelines suggests its a sign its going to long. (a ";" before the title would suffice.
Soem stuff from EL doesnt have to be an EL if it can be cited/merged in. So i think the part about the drillers can be merged into the article, while media stuff can be cut down (photos/videos). Likewise for the timelineLihaas (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Likewise official govt websites can link to some part that is directly involved (Min of Mining Chile instead of the govt. website). the press release can also be merged into the article (reactions?)
Rescue capsule can be cited somewhere by the image we put on.

Ok, I think I got it. I can be kinda thick sometimes. I'll work on merging the links into the article text tomorrow unless someone beats me to it. If we get those daughter stubs made we can move the technical stuff to them and add the stubs to the {see also} links I already scattered throughout the article. Veriss (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I moved all the drilling rig specs and the capsule diagrams to inline citations. I removed the two Spanish official links since if the reader can read the pages they linked to, they could easily find on their own the press releases and message a miner links I removed. Just need to decide on which photo galleries are most best quality and most comprehensive to reduce some of those links. Veriss (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Im open to discussion, but since your doing the hard work i have no beef with your decision.Lihaas (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

So it appears that to close this issue we need to weed out the photo and video sections and choose the best of the best galleries and vids from sources least likely to deadlink on us. Veriss (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I went through all the photos and video ELs, removed some redundant ones, reordered them, added playing times, cleaned up descriptions, etc. I think this task is done and done. Veriss (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Well its been cleaned and ordered but there are 4 photos and 7 video sites. Is there a central repository to link to?
If not, we cant go on for ever so consider it resolved.Lihaas (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have personally responded several times to your request to sort out the external links and think I have done the best that can be done given the breadth of the subject. I did not add the vast majority of those links but will protest strongly if they are reduced much more then they already have been. I understand and accept that you are a minimalist concerning external links and I generally support you on that in most cases but feel this subject should enjoy some tolerance. Veriss (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Supporting articles, stubs and nonexistent articles

Resolved
 – This appears to be resolved, thank you everyone for helping take care of this. Veriss (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

Our "B" class assessment had only one observation, the need for links to articles on technical terms used.

These articles are related or support this article and may need attention or do not exist yet.

Perhaps someone is interested in improving some of them?

I highlighted with bold the ones that may be most important. Ideas? Suggestions? Veriss (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Currently C Class:

Currently Start Class:

Currently a Stub:

May need a stub:

Note: Feel free to edit or fix this list as you see fit or move articles as they are improved.

(I forgot the rule about not editing other's posts...please edit, correct or update this one! :-) Veriss (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:IAR ;) Physchim62 (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I've started an article on the Fénix capsules. Added it to the list. Feel free to link it on the article. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The Chilean Safety Association is called Asociación Chilena de Seguridad in Spanish if that is any help. MissWizzy (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thank you MissWizzy and I see Diego already made its article. I think we don't really need the Strata, Schramm, Geotec and RIG-421 articles since they aren't that notable without the accident. I think we described them adequately within the article. What are your thoughts?
It's hard for me to get excited about drilling rigs :) MissWizzy (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
There are always those hunky guys on the SWAT team.  :-)

Looking good on this part. Diego and I started a Spanish and an English version of San Esteban at the same time. Thoughts on the status now?Veriss (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we're good without that last four. Thoughts? Veriss (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Added a stub for Schramm Inc. Veriss (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Made a new graphic timeline

Unresolved
 – Check out the new timeline graphic in User:Veriss1/sandbox Veriss (talk)

Hi, a friendly template wiz helped me work up a functional timeline graphic for the article. I have a draft of in a copy of the article in my sandbox at User:Veriss1/sandbox. We made it so that it goes in the dead white space between the Table of Contents and the News Infobox. All the events are linked to sections within the article.

Overall, it basically does what I had in mind for it but the colors could be a bit more muted if anyone has good color sense. Please check it out and let me know what you think. Veriss (talk) 03:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks real pretty. My only suggestions (& only my suggestions. You've probably stared at it a thousand times longer than me) are "13 Oct – 33 Miners Rescued" could be bolded and - "Operation St Lorenzo" could be called something like "Retrieval of miners begins" or "Operation St Lorenzo - Retrieval of miners". I think it's well good enough to go in the article. Oh, is it possible to put "Days" somehere on the Y axis. Or make "0" say "Day 0". Regards - Cablehorn (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Cablehorn. I managed to mute the colors, fixed up odd wrappings on the text tags, cleaned up the text and tossed a few bolds at the key dates. Running into space issues around the Operation St Lorenzo but we can tweak it some more. It may be ready to roll now. Sadly it's a "simple" timeline tool so I can't label the axis or put vertical text on the bars. Or at least I didn't see those options. Veriss (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been asked on my talk page to comment here. I have several concerns;

  • The timeline reads bottom-to-top. Left-to-right or top-to-bottom are preferable.
  • Information about the relationship between events and their order is conveyed using styles (which are only intended to convey presentation); so it's not in the underlying mark-up. Without CSS, it renders as:
2010 Copiapó mining accident timeline
0 —
–
5 —
–
10 —
–
15 —
–
20 —
–
25 —
–
30 —
–
35 —
–
40 —
–
45 —
–
50 —
–
55 —
–
60 —
–
65 —
–
70 —
–
75 —
–
80 —
–
85 —
–
90 —
 
Chilean Bicentennial holiday
 
←
5 Aug 2010: 33 miners trapped
←
22 Aug 2010: 33 miners discovered alive (day 17)
←
13 Oct: 33 miners
rescued (day 69)
←
15 Oct: 31 of 33 miners home
←
24 October 2010: 33 miners honored in Santiago, Chile
←
30 Aug – 9 Oct: Plan A drilling
←
5 Sep – 9 Oct: Plan B drilling
←
19 Sep – 9 Oct: Plan C drilling
←
24 September: old survival record
←
9 October: drilling complete
←
Operation St. Lorenzo
 August
 September
 October
 5 Aug 2010: Miners trapped
 17 Aug 2010: Miners found alive
 Plan A – Strata 950
 Plan B – Schramm T130
 Plan C – RIG-421
 Operation 'Saint Lorenzo'
 Miners after rescue
Day 01 = 5 August 2010
  • For that reason, the timeline's accessibility is very poor.
  • It's not clear whether this is intended to replace, or supplement, the timeline at 2010 Copiapó mining accident#Timeline of events; however, it's not suitable as a replacement, not least because it lacks the semantic metadata emitted by the templates used in that section.
  • The links on the timeline as displayed are redundant to those in the ToC
  • Given the previous point, why not simply use a graphic?

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This timeline project started as an attempt to work with the existing timeline semantic metadata as discussed above but no one knew what to do with it. Currently that data is still sitting unused and the text of that section is not as useful as it could be, especially given its current location. I asked the creator of the graphical timeline template I used to help me suppress the display of negative signs if flip the vertical axis so that it reads from top to bottom and am awaiting his reply. How do you suggest we best use this metadata? Veriss (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC) (P/S: can you make your illustration on the talk page collapsible?)

After several weeks, the one person with an objection failed to respond to my requests for clarification about the possible graphical display issues, even after posting a request on his talk page asking him to post more information here. After lengthy testing, including a positive review by the template's creator, I have added the timeline beside the article table of contents. Please post your concerns and comments here. Veriss (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

dunno if this is buried in the article, but while the rescue cost some $25m-$50m, is there anything on how much the 2-month odyssey cost? senidng food and other stuff down must have built up cost and im sure chile didnt scrounge over it (god knows, as the old joek goes, india, and china, to a lesser degree would)Lihaas (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You must have very expensive eating habits! Say they spent US$100 per week per miner on food, that's US$3,300 per week in total or US$21,200 for the 45 days they were being fed. You couldn't hire one of those big mining drills for a single day for that money. Physchim62 (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I had an article about the food service provider I was saving for a possible logistics section. I'll see if I can find it. The feeding cost wasn't very high if I recall. Veriss (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I added this bit to the Aramark article just now. I didn't see a cost estimate but even at US$25 per meal for 6,000 meals, the cost would only be US$150k total. Veriss (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Resolved
 – The question appears to have been answered, please contribute if there are more concerns. Veriss (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Will the miners become notable?

I have a feeling one or two or the miners will warrant a WP article soon (of course, the former footballer already had one). By the looks of it Edison Peña is making a name for himself, being on the David Letterman Show and taking part in the NY marathon. —Half Price 18:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised he doesn't have a paragraph of his own, for his morale keeping by getting people to sing... 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Resolved
 – This appears to be idle discussion as no issues were raised. Veriss (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"Global social impact" section is rubbish

Global social impact is a big title for gossipy, kitschy and schmaltzy low-brow entertatainment. I've removed one advertisment - could others remove the rest. The whole section should be rid-of. Regards - Cablehorn (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. I think Veriss1 was right in putting that section in the article, as it does inform about the social and media (or as you put it "gossipy") human interest aspects of this whole event. I'm not sure why you have this much of a problem with it. It's news, and it's well-sourced, and is of interest (and of arguably somewhat social relevance and importance.) I say that it should stay. It's NOT "rubbish", but a valid section, and factual and what is what. Some people may not necessarily like that this has gone on, in response to the Chilean miner events, but it's life, and it's reality, and it's in the news. And some people are interested in books and movies and documentaries chronicling and/or dramatizing and explaining this huge global news story and event. ResearchRave (talk) 03:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


ResearchRave, I'm not having a go at Veriss1. IMHO I think Veriss1 seems to do some pretty good work. But (and there is a but) I have no idea what these things (which either dont exist, or won't happen) have to do with global sociology. If someone could relieve me of my ignorance, I'd be a wiser person.

  • "... potential book deals and, inevitably, film rights."
  • " "The first of several books - "Under the Earth: The 33 Miners that Moved the World" - is about to be published."
  • "Another book that will focus on the rescue in Chile, is called "33 Men, Buried Alive: The Inside Story of the Trapped Chilean Miners" "
  • "... a book by The Guardian contributor Jonathan Franklin, due for publication in the U.K. in early 2011."
  • "... besieged with requests for television appearances."
  • "Mario ("Super Mario") Sepúlveda has been asked to lead those manning the phones for Chile's version of Children in Need, the Teleton ..."
  • "... Miami television host Don Francisco has invited them on to his popular "Sabado Gigante" show."
  • "The first television re-enactment will be broadcast in December."
  • "Three applications have been made for the internet domain name los33mineros.cl and four for estamosbienenelrefugiolos33.cl."
  • "Yonni Barrios, 50, who was revealed to have a mistress, has been offered US$100,000 to become the face of an online dating service for married people looking to have extramarital affairs."
  • "He may become its Spanish-speaking spokesman and appear in television and radio advertisements in North, South and Central America."

Regards - Cablehorn (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cablehorn. I personally don't enjoy that stuff. I walk out of the room when "Entertainment Tonight" comes on tv after the news. I quickly reverted all the gossipy edits about mistresses, cat fights and what not and still will; I don't think their personal domestic situations are fodder for our article. Found one slipped into the Survival section last night...with three sources!!! It was mentioned by other editors that we needed a social impact section and when I look at Wikipedia:The perfect article where it says "Acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject." I decided to try to approach that angle.
One could argue against the whole section and one can certainly disagree with how we've approached it, I'm not sure that I even agree with how we've approached it so far. I don't know what the best way forward for that section is. Perhaps we grabbed some easy low hanging fruit to populate that section and we're missing the mark. Perhaps we started it too soon and better content is yet to come. Suggestions? Veriss (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it is important to address this, but the current section adds little to the article because the topic is still developing news (I find the discussion of Yonni Barrios and the cheating website particularly trashy). I think a couple of lines in the section on the miners post-rescue would suffice for now. We could reinstate this section once we can look at the reaction with the benefit of some time having passed. MissWizzy (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Whatever else can be said about maybe some more titillating or "gossipy" things about this whole matter, I think it's worth noting and pointing out and mentioning that movie and book deals are currently in the works, as people do like to read books and watch movies and documentaries, about dramatic or touching or moving human events and situations. There is a "social" aspect to that, or "sociological". The section itself is definitely valid, but maybe some of the stuff put in it (as well as sprinkled in other sections) could be tweaked, pruned, trimmed, edited, fixed, and worked on, for sure. But even so, I don't think it's necessarily "trashy" that movies and HBO documentaries are being made about all this, nor that books are currently being written that will examine the case from start to finish, nor necessarily the lives and challenges of the individual miners. It depends on how tastefully it's done. But the section itself has merit, because life happens, social media happens, entertainment/education occurs, dealing many times with historical or recent events, and many people (whether we like it totally or not) are interested in these things. I mean, for example, can we honestly say that any one of us here would not tune in to the first movie and/or documentary about the Chilean mining accident and rescue, whenever it comes out? I think I probably will. Why? Because overall it's interesting and poignant stuff. Cheers. ResearchRave (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't object to most of it, but I'm not sure there is enough information to fill out a "Global Social Impact" section yet. The movie deals, books, etc. could all be covered in a couple of sentences in the post rescue section on the miners. To me seems a bit...well...superficial to make a section called ""Global Social Impact" and then fill it with the week's commercial activities. (anyway, when I said "Let's fight!" I was just playing, so I won't insist :P ) MissWizzy (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, that comment was not necessarily directed just to you, but also to CableHorn (and Veriss1)... And yes, I do agree that there should be a bit more serious academic material in the section. Though the book and movie stuff could arguably be put in a couple of different spots. It's flexible. There are no fixed rules on Wikipedia, just general policies. (As can be seen on WP:IGNORE). Also, I believe your exact words on Veriss1's talk page were "Let's argue now! :)", which I found adorable, I must say. ResearchRave (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi ResearchRave. That section has changed a bit since since we commented on it and I must say that I'm not keen on the new look. The first two paragraphs are very journalistic and very close to the source. I was going to edit them but got a bit stuck as to what to do with them. The style of those two paragraphs isn't in keeping with the rest of the article or any other articles that I've read. The opening paragraph is about strange behaviour in the UK press not about the social impact of the accident and the second is mostly given over to a rambling quote which doesn't really add to the understanding for the reader. MissWizzy (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this section a lot since before Cablehorn wrote. I didn't have a goal for this section when I made it and admittedly thought "let's see where this goes". I think it should be much more academic and analytical though I've had trouble finding a good example of that on Wikiepedia. The best I have found so far is this section The West Wing#Social impact which has a fairly academic analysis. I had hoped to find even a good editorial that we could use as a model, not a source exactly, but more for an idea about how to approach it or at least give us a suggestion for a good introduction. I left a message at the Journalism project but they seem inactive lately. There isn't anything defamatory in the section for the time being. Right now though, it's just a bin of barely connected facts and though all valid and sourced are not tied together with any logical synthesis or analysis. Veriss (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Since, after several weeks, no one has discussed further concerns or contributed substantially to alter the approach of this section of the article, is there objection to marking this issue as resolved? Veriss (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved
 – No activity for three weeks. Please start a new section if concerns remain. Veriss (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Good Article Status Review

Unresolved
 – Please review the article for "Good Article" requirements. Veriss (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC))

After extensive review, I personally think that this article rates at least "Good Article" status, and may be approaching Featured Article status. I would like to nominate it for at least GA evaluation in the next week or so. However, after starting a new job and having let the article rest for a couple weeks, I noticed that it could use some copy editing. I would like to ask that everyone who has this page watchlisted to please grab a section or two and even a linked or supporting article that interests them and do a detailed proofread over the next few days. I think the two things to look closely for are that any 'copy & paste' errors are cleaned up and that paraphrasing issues concerning sources and quotes are sorted out. Once we do that, I would like to nominate us for Good Article review.

Over three weeks ago I requested informal reviews on the talk pages for the Disaster Management, Mining and Chile project pages but I have not seen any significant activity from those projects or feedback from those projects on our progress. (In all fairness to the Chile project, several of that project's editors have been active editors on this article since the beginning, so understandably due to conflict of interest, were not able to comment on that request themselves.) Regardless, we are suffering from lack of participation and feedback from the projects we belong to.

There has been a tremendous amount of care and energy put into this article by many, many people. If you are familiar with editing GA quality articles, please pay these editors the honor of letting us know what we need to work on yet for a solid GA rating. Thank you everyone for helping this historically and culturally important article reach the quality "Los 33" and the global community who supported the rescue of these men deserve. Veriss (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment, its got more than enough info. anyone could possibly want. Even FA should be considered here as its highly exhaustive. Talk pages at wikiprojects are notoriously unresponsive, maybe contact an active editor from the project on his talk page.Lihaas (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Please see Good Article Nomination and Featured Article Candidacy. Also check What Is A Good Article? and What Is A Featured Article?. The article needs to to be more neutral/comprehensive in its coverage, in my opinion (as expressed below). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Reaction

There was talk that Chile responded to the mine accident in NZ in light of this accident (where the parallel was made). Maybe something should be added here about the Pike River Mine accident.Lihaas (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

In these two edits I've removed text which was copied and pasted directly from the news stories in cited. I noticed this from skimming the article at random, so I'd suggest that a more comprehensive check for copyvios be conducted. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I addressed this as a concern for this article earlier but it appears to have been archived. I applaud your interest in the article but I humbly request that you not just delete a passage that you feel has not been properly paraphrased from a cited news article. I ask that instead you take the few extra minutes to reword the text so that it is, in your view, permissible. Drive-by deletions of cited text because you don't agree with the paraphrasing is hardly helpful at all. Thanks! Veriss (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I reverted your deletions and improved the paraphrasing of the cited text so it should meet requirements now. If you have further concerns, please fix them or request assistance. If you are still unhappy with my attempts to improve them, please let me know. Veriss (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know much about this topic or have unlimited amounts of time, so removing the copyvios and leaving a note explaining the changes was the best I could do I'm afraid. Great work with fixing the material, but the copyvios were not 'alleged' as you said in your edit summary - they were blatant word for word lifts. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Please let me know if you have further issues with this article. Thanks and Cheers! Veriss (talk) 07:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Timeline

At present, the timeline is very confusing. Time proceeds up (most vertical timelines are read top-to-bottom, like calendars), there are color keys for months, miner status, as well as drilling plans, and overall I think it is just very confusing. Can anyone improve it? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You should probably mention your concerns to Veriss. Since he was the one who was largely involved in the making of that time-line graphic. He's been busy lately, but maybe you should tell him (and some others.) Also, there is a Timeline SECTION towards the bottom of the article, which is not confusing at all. But pretty clear and straightforward. Which you probably saw already. ResearchRave (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I identified this as a minor problem with the display of the graphical time line earlier and so I communicated directly with the author of the template to ask for his help reversing the vertical axis so it read from top to bottom allowing it to match up more closely to the nearby table of contents. He intimated to me that he no longer had time to work on that template so am kind of stuck there. I could use a graphic image but would lose the clickable links which would limit its usefulness tremendously. I do agree that it would fit into the layout of this article better if the vertical axis were reversed. If you can find a template editor who can modify the template or assist me in modifying it, or a more flexible template, then I will eagerly reverse it to read as you request it to. Veriss (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

I can't help but notice the lack of mention towards any of the negative aspects of the life of the men in the mine. Reading over even a couple of the sources it becomes clear that everything was not happy-dandy as the article seems to indicate. Though Urzua maintained leadership and organization, five members (the engineers trapped with the miners) were somewhat excluded from the remainder of the eight. These same men were missing from the video; again no mention of this.

If I were not currently writing an overdue essay on this topic, I'd make these changes. Hopefully someone else more eager than I can step in and look this over. This is an encyclopedia article, not a human-interest story. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you mean, and a few weeks ago I made a section right here where I wrote:
"Important new details and information being made known by the miners themselves, about things like "burning tires to keep warm", "pushing and shoving and frustration at first", then "calming down and organizing", and different details. Just keep a listen and look-out to new information and before-unknown nuances of just what went on down there during those 10 weeks."
So far, it seems no one has really put in the tid-bits about the shoving and anger in the mine, and frustrations, and stresses, to any real extent. I would have done it, but I was busy with other aspects, and also wasn't sure where to integrate certain details. ResearchRave (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I do not disagree, however, at the time most of the article was written, there was very little reliable "negative" information available. Most of the "negative" accounts available then were third and fourth hand assertions made by a friend of cousin of a miner's sister-in-law by way of example and were too gossipy in nature to include. Perhaps there is now more comprehensive discussion detailing the darker aspects of their captivity that is available from more reliable original and secondary sources. If they exist, and can be cited reliably, please feel free to contribute. Thanks. Veriss (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Not exactly negative but this link discusses the less than heroic events never reported. [1] and this one is about their sponsored visit to Israel [2]. Wayne (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I read the articles you linked and appreciate the leads. However, the first article by the Daily Mail I'm a little uncomfortable with the article's selective focus on sex and drugs out of everything else most likely covered in the book (The book's author is New York Times journalist Jonathan Franklin who gained special access to the rescue operation), as it fits into the Daily Mail's reputation for sensationalistic reporting. It does however, give me a lead to research for other reviews of the new book about to be published which may be more useful for our article. It also lead me to a more serious article by the Daily Mail that I need to digest and work out how to fit into the 'Survival' section [3]. The second article is more about Israeli social and political issues then about Los 33. Thanks, post up more articles! Veriss (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

File:San Jose Mina - Mision cumplida - screen capture.jpg listed for deletion

A file that Veriss uploaded or altered, File:San Jose Mina - Mision cumplida - screen capture.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 13:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

For Your Information. Veriss (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It was decided that the image will remain for now. Veriss (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

++++

A file that Veriss uploaded or altered, File:San Jose Mina - Mision cumplida - screen capture.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This image has been listed yet again for deletion, this time in a new forum. Since the image was heatedly debated and approved for Fair Use the first time around it had since been tagged by a well-meaning editor as a Free File and then was immediately tagged as possibly unfree media by the same person who tagged the image as ineligible for fair use but was defeated. The image has now been listed on [4] for the full 14 days of debate as stated by the rules but the debate has not yet been closed as there may not be a clear consensus or more likely an Admin is not willing to wade into the issue. I have made a call for closure of debate but no Admin has yet taken up the request as of this writing.

Please visit the discussion and offer your considered opinions, regardless of your side of the issue, so that the fate of this file can finally be determined. If you have a strong opinion one way or the other, please be mindful of the WP: CANVASS policy. Please see my talk page for background posts and additional information concerning the complaint against this file. Veriss (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

After an extended review, the discussion was closed with the determination to revert the image back to Non-Free Fair Use. Thank you to those who contributed to the discussion. Veriss (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

New image

This image appears in the spanish article. ¿Somebody who works in Inkscape can create the translated versión?--201.246.116.226 (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a nice looking image, perhaps someone has time to translate the text layers. Veriss (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Working on this translation with the assistance of Google and I may be able to edit the image myself:
  1. monitor del cinturon biometrico = Monitor for biometric belt
  2. Gafas con filtro luminoso = Special dark glasses
  3. Arnes de fij acion a la capsula de 5 enganches = Safety harness with five hooks
  4. Mascara de oxigeno = Oxygen mask
  5. Cinturon biometrico = Biometric belt
  6. Buzo dry fit termico permeable a la sudor acion = Water resistant sweat permeable coveralls
  7. ropa interior con fibra de cobre = copper fiber underwear to minimize fungus
  8. casco adaptado para communicasiones = Helmet adapted for communications
  9. vendaje para prevenir trombosis = wraps to prevent thrombosis
  10. huinche para conectar la capsula al sistema de izaje = connection for the capsule to the winching system
  11. patines de establizacion = stabilization wheels
  12. modulo de transporte = transport module (rescue capsule)
Please review and comment. Veriss (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
That's perfect, nice job translating! --Diego Grez (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Text is a bit primitive but I'm not very skilled with GIMP. Testing it here. Comments welcome, Veriss (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Perfect translation Veriss... thanks!. --Lufke (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Prep for good article nomination proposal

After some prodding by other editors and reviewing the Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles, I have decided to nominate the article for a Good Article Review at WP:GAN#ENG. I am looking forward to the suggestions and recommendations. --Veriss (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for restucturing with Wikipedia:Summary style

The article was tagged as WP:TOOLONG and it was suggested that sections be split out. This issue was also raised before which led us to create Reaction to the 2010 Copiapó mining accident so this is a recurring concern. After reviewing the guidance at Wikipedia:Summary style I inserted some new {{See also}} as suggested place markers for proposed daughter articles at the appropriate places in the main article.

The suggested daughter articles we consider creating are:

See also: 2010 Copiapó mining accident (survival)
See also: Miners' survival during 2010 Copiapó mining accident

per suggestion of User:Diego Grez

See also: 2010 Copiapó mining accident (health issues)
See also: Miners' health issues during 2010 Copiapó mining accident

per suggestion of User:Diego Grez

See also: 2010 Copiapó mining accident (rescue plans)
See also: Rescue plans for 2010 Copiapó mining accident

per suggestion of User:Diego Grez

See also: 2010 Copiapó mining accident (miners post-rescue)
See also: Miners post-rescue of 2010 Copiapó mining accident

per suggestion of User:Diego Grez


There are a couple of existing daughter articles and I propose that we rename them for consistency. I initiated move proposals on their respective talk pages and sent "talk backs" to the primary contributors to those two existing daughter articles. The existing daughter articles and their suggested name changes are:Do not rename existing daughter articles as part of this migration to WP:SS

Fénix capsules -> 2010 Copiapó mining accident (Fénix capsules) per suggestion of User:Diego Grez
Reaction to the 2010 Copiapó mining accident‎ -> 2010 Copiapó mining accident (international reaction) per suggestion of User:Diego Grez

Did I miss anything? I have never migrated to summary format before so this is new to me. Please provide your feedback and suggestions on how best to implement this action. Best, --Veriss (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I support the proposed splits and think it will result in a much cleaner article here. So it is just a case of splitting off material and leaving a summary and link to the new article here. Johnfos (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

@Diego, I see what you mean and after some poking around a bit for more guidance found this "Do not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another: Even if an article is considered subsidiary to another (as where summary style is used), it should be named independently. For example, an article on transportation in Azerbaijan should not be given a name like "Azerbaijan/Transportation" or "Azerbaijan (transportation)" – use Transportation in Azerbaijan." at Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Subsidiary articles. Perhaps the naming style you recommend should be followed instead of what I first proposed. --Veriss (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That's perfect! Diego Grez (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I did the grunt work and created all four daughter articles and copied all of the text, images and references into them. I also formatted them like the main article including categories, see-alsos, talk page headers, etc. We can probably copy some more images to them. I'm not sure if we should copy the infobox for the main article to the daughter articles. Please help convert the sections with new daughter articles to summary style to complete the migration and of course provide your invaluable feedback. Veriss (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: The daughter article, Miners post-rescue of 2010 Copiapó mining accident, was tagged for deletion per WP:PROD by a sysop according to the concern that Wikipedia is not the news.. I initially contested the deletion nomination and removed the tag but realized later that the article is not satisfactory in its current form and I am unlikely to have the time to make a major rewrite of it any time soon. I discussed the problem with the sysop who originally tagged the article on his talk page and have decided to nominate the article for speedy deletion under criterion for speedy deletion G7 unless another editor indicates within a few days that they are willing to restructure the article. If the article is speedy deleted, it can be returned per the procedures at WP:REFUND. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Update1: I took a few stabs at summarizing three sections for WP:SS. Readable prose size is now only 45kb which is within the the WP:LENGTH guidelines of 30 to 50kb readable prose. Would appreciate some feedback and if this is enough to remove the {{Very long}} tag. I think the existence of the tag is discouraging reviewers from looking it over for GA status. Comments, complaints and suggestions please. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Update2: After a pleasant discussion, the editor who placed the {{Very long}} tag has removed it so I will update the GA note that the transition to WP:SS is complete. Please continue to help with any summarizing tasks you feel remain. Veriss (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

File:San Jose Mina - Mision cumplida - screen capture.jpg listed for deletion

A file that User:Veriss1 uploaded or altered, File:San Jose Mina - Mision cumplida - screen capture.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 21:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

  • This is the third time this file, that is part of this article, has been listed for deletion in 60 days. Please visit the discussion and offer your views, one way or the other so this can be settled. Veriss (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 Copiapó mining accident/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found and fixed.[5] Jezhotwells (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: ten found and tagged.[6] Recommend that you use WebCite to archive the news links as most will expire within the next few months. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Chile has a long tradition in mining, "of" not "in" - Done Veriss (talk)
    a company that is notoriously dangerous in the mineral-rich region and, clumsy - Reworded Veriss (talk)
    Mine workers at this mine were paid around 20% higher wages than at other Chilean mines, due to its poor safety record. "Mine workers at this mine" is clumsy - Reworded Veriss (talk)
    Food supplies were limited and the men had lost an average of 8 kilograms (18 lb) each. was this at the time of reaching the surface or at the time it was discovered they were alive? - Clarified Veriss (talk)
    Once the trapped miners had been found with exploratory bore holes and several bore holes were being used to supply the men logistically, the Chilean government developed a comprehensive rescue plan modeled after the successful 2002 US Quecreek Mine Rescue operation which was in turn based on the 1963 German Wunder von Lengede rescue operation. Over complex and very poor grammar. - Split complex sentence and simplified Veriss (talk)
    As illustrated in the graphic to the right, it was the Schramm T-130, Plan B, that reached the miners on Oct. 9. the graphic may display differently in different browsers so should not be directly referred to in this. - Removed direct reference to graphic and removed redundant sentence, also demoted that sub-section for visual balance Veriss (talk)
    While the three separate drills pushed relentlessly downward "relentlessly" is a weasel word. - Removed Veriss (talk)
    The steel rescue capsules, dubbed Fénix (English: Phoenix) were constructed by the Chilean Navy with design help from NASA.@@ This repeats information from the previous paragraph. - Removed redundancy Veriss (talk)
    Bulleted lists should be converted to prose - Done, many copy edits for readability except the list of "Key members of the trapped group" since I don't think that was intended Veriss (talk)
    An Australian documentary will be broadcast in December 2010.[170] It is now March 2011 - Removed, didn't find current information on it Veriss (talk)
    Social impact section needs severe pruning and removal of trivia. - pruned 50%, merged remainder into other section Veriss (talk)
    The lead does not fully summarise the article, please read WP:LEAD - initial attempt to make lead more comprehensiveVeriss (talk)
    I think you need to get someone to copy-edit the article to render it into good plain English. - Listed article for review at the Guild of Copyeditors Veriss (talk)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    ten dead links as noted above. The expiring news links which provide the bulk of references need to be archived using WebCite. - Apparently the old WebCite bot is broken and replacements have fizzled. Looks like we need to manually input 170 references as well as find replacements for the ten deadlinks. Suggestions? This is new ground for me. Veriss (talk)

'::Other references check out OK.

  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Over detailed in parts, please go through the article again, pruning out material such as comparative credit ratings (which change rapidly). Also some statement may need updating now, nearly six months after the rescue. Also please note the comment about newly published sources such as franklin, below.
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    I note the discussion on the talk page. Has any editor got hold of books such as Jonathan Franklin's book The 33 This would also apply to the broad coverage criteria.
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Rather too many images, some of them repetitive. sel;ect key images which add to the artcile rather than turning it into an image gallery of photos of the president greeting miners, football matches, etc.
  • I removed six images and relocated some of the remaining for visual balance. Several were already in daughter articles and I will look at including more of the deleted images in them if appropriate. Veriss (talk)
  1. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Overall, I believe that there are too many issues outstanding for this to reach the criteria in a week. Please consider the points raised and re-list when all have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review corrections

Frankly, we failed Good Article review. I have posted within the scorecard above the remedial actions I have taken so far. I have already requested assistance from the guild of Guild of Copyeditors.

I need more help on these items:

  • The WP:LEAD
  • Comprehensive copy-edit
  • Using Webcite to archive 170 sources and citations
  • Rescuing at least ten dead links
  • Pruning overly detailed sections
  • Reviewing outdated statements

-Sincerely Veriss (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


I would like to revisit this effort. Will these comments to a nearly two-year old review be seen by anyone? Veriss (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

As part of a self-initiated assessment drive for WikiProject Mining, I just saw this, and have been working to a general improvement of mining articles; I want to help, though admittedly my experience is mostly in general work, formatting, style, and copyediting, not deep citations or the like. Let me know what I can do to help. Morgan Riley (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Guild of Copyeditors Review

After correcting as much as I could on our GA Review scorecard tonight I requested a review from the Guild of Copyeditors as recommended by our reviewer. Happily, a few hours after I posted the request a representative has begun work on our article.

Please look out for the "GOCE In Use" tag to minimize interference with the volunteer effort to help us and please minimize your edits to the article until it is complete.

Fresh eyes are a good thing, please be patient. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Philg88 of the Guild of Copyeditors took on the lengthy task of giving our article a good work over with experienced eyes. I think Philg88 did a great job on a complex, detailed article and the huge effort is very much appreciated. Thank you Philg88. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ownership

Hi, Something I just spotted - in the lead it says the mine is owned by Codelco and in the body that the owner is the San Esteban Mining Company - which is it? ► Philg88 ◄ talk 04:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

San Esteban Mining Company, I was just about to tidy that up. Lots of details to keep track of in this one. Codelco, the state owned company, took over the rescue and all the contracting at the direction of the government. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

San Lorenzo or St. Lorenzo

There is an inconsistency in the article vis a vis "san" or "saint" Lorenzo. The timeline diagram at the very top calls it "Saint Lorenzo" whereas the rest of the article calls it "San Lorenzo". Whichever it is, it should be consistent. Victor Victoria (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It is either "San Lorenzo" or "St. Lawrence", "Saint Lorenzo" is a mixture of English and Spanish. I changed everything to Operación San Lorenzo except "Rescue Operation San Lorenzo", no quotes.  Andreas  (T) 21:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggest rename to "2010 Chile mining accident"

Nowhere outside of Wikipedia will you find this incident referred to as the "Copiapó mining accident" or anything else with Copiapó in it. The New York Times refers to it as the "Chile mining accident" [7]. If a more specific reference is made, it's normally to the "San José mine", never to the "Copiapó mine" or anything like this. The basic problem is that, even though the accident is very well-known, the town of Copiapó is almost never mentioned, and I bet that 99+% of people who had heard of the accident would have no idea what the "Copiapó mining accident" is if asked using that term. This is bad and totally contradicts the principle in WP:NAMING:

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article.

The obvious name is "2010 Chile mining accident". There are no other notable Chile mining accidents that occurred in 2010, so there is no problem with ambiguity.

At the very very least, the title has to have the word "Chile" somewhere in it so that the reference is obvious. Other possible -- but much less desirable -- names would be "2010 San José mine accident (Chile)" or "2010 Copiapó, Chile mining accident". The former is at least somewhat better since the term "San José Mine accident" is more likely to be recognized than "Copiapó".

Notice that even the lead sentence, which is intended as a concise summary of the topic, doesn't even mention "Copiapó", and that the mine isn't even located in the town of Copiapó at all, but 45 km away.

Benwing (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

A google search with "Copiapó mining accident" -Wikipedia yields 230,000 hits vs 83,000 for "Chile mining accident" -Wikipedia. "San Jose mining accident " -wikipedia only 2,600.  Andreas  (T) 20:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


I concur with Andrea. Please see the archives for the talk pages before trying to resurrect a name change discussion once again. We've been down this road before. Veriss (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

BBC: 17 Days Buried Alive (1 hour film)

BBC: Chilean Miners: 17 Days Buried Alive http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0139kl5 87.69.14.42 (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hoax

The incident is widely speculated to have been an engineered Masonic hoax. {See: "The Odd Masonic Imagery of the 33 Chilean Miners’ Rescue", "Chile Miner Rescue a BIG MEDIA HOAX? FAKED?"}

Wheres Dan (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Not widely. If you can find a reliable source for that speculation, you may add it to the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Please ignore the problematic editor (Wheres Dan). Veriss (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
LOL Rubin. "If you can prove it, yes you can". Criminals have the same logic. Modus ponens.
The Light Burns (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Wheres Dan has been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia effective 28 November 2011. Veriss (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Time to update this article and its 30+ supporting articles

Lihaas contacted me recently to see if I was interested in updating and improving this article, and possibly gaining a GA status for it. After skimming the article and looking over many of the 30+ supporting articles, I have begun the process of improving the readability of the text. I ask the previous editors to join in and review the main article and it's multiple supporting articles to make it as good as it can be.

Please check the article:

  • for basic readability, grammar, punctuation as well as clarity and precision
  • for the correct usage of Spanish and English terms and names (this has been contentious in the past, please make sure the translations and usage are still correct and accurate)
  • to ensure the tenses used in the article reflect that it happened over two years ago
  • to make sure linked supporting articles are relatively up-to-date, accurate and provide useful information to support the main article
  • to identify, mark, and hopefully replace dead links to citations
  • to identify, mark, and hopefully replace links to "paid only" sources (i.e.: The Santiago Times)
  • to update the status of the miners
  • to update the status of the various political investigations, lawsuits, judgments, findings, etc.

I have fond memories of helping to build this article and look forward to participating in the review. Perhaps after all of our hard work, we might finally attain GA for it. Both the miners and the article deserve it. Cheers Veriss (talk) 10:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Im ready to help on this. Howevber, i may be a little busy till feb 10Lihaas (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Selective Focus

I just finished reading Deep Down Dark and then came to this article for the first time. I'm surprised by the gap between the two texts. This article uses many quotes issued by the government or by the miners specifically to raise morale, and so paints a very sunny picture.

It crucially leaves out the raiding and hoarding of the food stores by some miners, against the express orders of those in charge. Urzúa early on abdicated his role as supervisor, removing his white hat in an act that disappointed many of the miners. Nowhere is the hopelessness and apathy that the miners experienced mentioned. Portions of the first Mario-narrated video were specifically suppressed by the government because of the brutal and inhuman conditions they revealed. When the miners learned that their rescue might take months, they were in fact quite depressed, in contrast to government reports that they took it quite well.

-June 27 '15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.143.162.114 (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2010 Copiapó mining accident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Drilling Results technical difficulty

Hello: The table of Drilling Results with the yellow highlighting bar needs editing. I could not figure out how to correct a poor display of the Plan A Strata results. It appears to display the total number right on top of the amount of feet drilled. The percentage number is not showing. I tried to edit, but it's above my WP level.Kristinwt (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Water use (drilling)

Two of the three drill rigs required a great deal of water to operate, in the driest desert in the world. No mention is made of the water truck runs from a rare lake some distance away nor the ensuing environmental discussion on the impact of this much water into this area. I recall reading and seeing this discussion at the time, but am not able to do the research right now to append the articles on rescue to include this. At least one supporting article refers to the potential 70,000 liters of water inundating the mine and miners if one of the drills gets through (Drill C probably) [8]. Drill B, the successful one, did not require water to cool the drill.

(I'm listening to the audiobook version of Deep Dark Down, hence my current (renewed) interest. Audio books are great, except for the missing illustrations.) GeeBee60 (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

What is a “copper–gold mine”?

The first paragraph says “the troubled 121-year-old San José copper–gold mine”.

What is exactly a “copper–gold mine”? A mine where both copper and gold are extracted? It would be clearer to write ”copper and gold mine”. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2010 Copiapó mining accident. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The chilean miners miracals how faith helped them survive

today im here witnissing an actual miracale 33 man survived a tragic collapas the names are

san jose jimmy sanchez omar reygado samuel avalos acuna alex vega salazan jaun illanes ariel ticona yanez pablo rojas rillacorta2606:A000:4443:2100:E0AA:85E1:1121:80BA (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Error in Plan B

The "boreholes that were already keeping the miners supplied with palomas" doesn't seem correct. "[palomas]" is an alcoholic drink. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paloma_(cocktail) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.117.208 (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Read the section "Videos sent to the surface". Britmax (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 2010 Copiapó mining accident. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Copiapó_mining_accident/Archive_3&oldid=1222757403"