Talk:Timeline of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OUTDATED LINKS[edit]

Just passing through. I note that a number of the references are outdate, no longer display what they proport to, etc. especially on some items that may be somewhat controversial. Later. -Passer-by, Feb23, 2013154.20.243.40 (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV-Check[edit]

Can someone with some familiarity with this event evaluate the timeline to verify it is balanced? Thanks! Jminthorne (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any basis to assume that it isn't balanced?--PinkBull 04:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At a glance, I had trouble identifying the method for inclusion items in the timeline. I believe the line "May 11 - BP, Transocean and Haliburton officials testify before Congress blaming each other for the incident" (which after a second look does not appear to be supported by the citation) also made me feel it should be reviewed. Jminthorne (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the reference. Business Week's headline is "BP, Halliburton, Transocean Blame Each Other in Gulf Oil Spill" There are currently 52 rederences on this article. Americasroof (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sale of Tony Hayward's shares[edit]

Is the fact that Tony Hayward sold roughly 30% of his shares on March 17 relative? Jhendrix (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he acted on information that wasn't public knowledge, the sale may be ruled as insider trading, which is illegal. USchick (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the line entirely. There is no evidence to suggest that Hayward's sale of stock was in any way related to the oil spill and thus should not be included in the timeline of events that lead to and followed the disaster. In fact, its inclusion in this article violates NPOV by implying that the CEO was engaged in insider training, when in reality he had no way of knowing the spill would occur. 208.69.104.5 (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This information is related to the explosion and oil spill if Tony Hayward know beforehand that something will happen. However, there is no such evidence. Therefore, I don't think this information belongs here and should be removed as irrelevant. Beagel (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was the only item that I've put that I have qualms about and I only included it because of the initial post. There is interest in it but there is no cause/effect and no direct tie to the spill other than incredible timing. If it's kept it should probably be clear that it was not illegal or imply that he somehow sabotaged the rig.Americasroof (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't understand is why, despite the evident consensus that everyone on here agrees that this information should not be included (at least until some correlation with the spill is established, or even suggested by the mainstream media), someone keeps putting it back in the article. Deleting it again.208.69.104.5 (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no defined consensus. I have my concerns about the item but there is interest in it. I don't like it being deleted "anonymously".Americasroof (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article needed?[edit]

Many of the individual line items from this list seem non-notable. Has the need for this article in general been established somewhere? Jminthorne (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed here. Beagel (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that and wasn't sure if a consensus was reached elsewhere since the only reply was a "no" to the idea. Jminthorne (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The comment was a suggestion for sources for a timeline article. There's no requirement that you get a consensus before starting an article.Americasroof (talk) 11:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put my comment on the main article's talk page. It seems that there are lot of details in this article which are irrelevant from the timeline point of view and belong rather to the main article. For readability, the timeline article needs extensive cleanup. Beagel (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the article[edit]

At this time before I run reflinks the article is 90K. I'm thinking of splitting it:

I suspect the huge amount of press is about to trail off so after June it will probably go back to multimonth thereafter. The June portion is 50K now for two weeks! Beagle, I know you don't like me putting in so much info. But I'm trying to capture it in a relatively clinical format so we can keep track of what is actually happening. Americasroof (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for splitting yet. Most likely it possible to cut the article size significantly by proper cleanup. E.g. there is no need to mention every time when the site is mentioned, where exactly it is located or how deep the water is. These things will not change by time-being, at least not in the short run. Also, I really don't understand how the Tony Hayward's shares sale is related to the oil spill (and yes, by my understanding there is clear consensus to remove this from the article). There are several similar things and therefore critical copyediting and cleanup is needed. Beagel (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Size says it needs to be split. When it hits 100K I will split it (it's 96K now). If somebody wants to create a different simple timeline that can also be done. This article names names and gives dates and is heavily referenced. This is a very complex issue. The "instant analysis" that people try to impose on Wikipedia creates all sorts of mischief and inaccuracies. The spill main article has all sorts of problems and I think often doesn't properly cover the nuts and bolts. There's still no consensus on the Hayward stuff. There's both pro and con. I adjusted it to my satisfaction in the article. It's been edited again.Americasroof (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The more I think about the barebone timeline with main article spinoffs into more detailed timelines is actually a good idea and when I split it that will be my intention.Americasroof (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Size is certainly an issue but as the spill is still ongoing I think that it would be better still wait and see what would be the logical point of time for splitting. May 31 is in middle of progressing events and is not associated with any breakthrough event in the process. Maybe there would be any better point for splitting. Beagel (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do value your opinions and appreciate your considerable work in cleaning the article. I was thinking of splitting on months and using as this article as a very top level timeline. I can't imagine it will continue with the same amount of info coming online. I will hold off for the momemnt.02:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
At 125K I had to split it. I'm still committed to eventually making this a barebones timeline with spin offs.Americasroof (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coast Guard logs[edit]

New data out from Center of Integrity obtained from Coast Guard: http://www.publicintegrity.org/documents/entry/2124/#document/p42 Hope this helps.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.13.68.101 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 22 June 2010

That is an excellent source! Thank you! 17:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Too long, too detailed[edit]

This article is getting out of hand. Is it really necessary to have detailed blow-by-blow accounts of what is happening every day, so much so that June and now July need their own articles? I believe the purpose of this encyclopedia is to summarise what happened and point readers in the direction of more detailed information in reliable sources. It is worth remembering Wikipedia is not the news. As it stands, a lot of the content if this page (and subpages) could be moved to Wikinews or deleted. Astronaut (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Fork[edit]

I think the merges out are a extreme and create massive overlaps in coverage making accuracy, updating, and maintenance a nightmare. I've added merge proposals to consolidate these. If the information's getting too detailed, perhaps someone needs to consolidate it better to the key points. Shadowjams (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have maintained all along that the timeline portion can/should be a barebones main article with more detail on the subpages. This is a very complicated issue. There's an unfortunate aspect to Wikipedia that editors feel compelled to instantly analyze current events and the result is usually unreadable.Americasroof (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

relevance of MMS retirements[edit]

I believe the retirements of Birnbaum and Oynes, and particularly Oynes, are relevant to this timeline. Oynes announced his retirement almost immediately after the initial rig explosion and then re-announced it on May 17th with a new hurry-up date. I believe that, at a minimum, the 2nd announcement dated May 17 should stay in the database. DocWhom (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:AccidentTimeLine-01a.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:AccidentTimeLine-01a.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/macondoprospect/
    Triggered by \boffshore-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Timeline of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 11:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Timeline of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source 22 is broken[edit]

The link in source 22 doesn't lead to what the hyperlink says, instead leading directly to a varying random news video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:2820:2007:8552:E183:CDDE:A174 (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_the_Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill&oldid=1210723252"