Talk:OceanGate

7 Months later, I am going to re-start the topic of changing the text from is to was, as the company has shown that it is currently defunct besides legal issues that are evidently going to end in poor favour. Any argument made about a CEO taking over and beginning operations would be unlikely, as I would like to assume their brand is currently worth negative amounts of money at this point and nobody would want the company who made the exploding tin can. I am, however, going to follow guidelines and allow this conversation to be played out for a bit until a consensus is made. Best, Zeke (talk) 05:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The CEO was hired to help close operations, not resume them. We don't know what equipment and patents, if any, OceanGate had which could lead to a sale of assets. We don't know and it is hard to know what will happen. In any case, OceanGate is still active in some form as of the 18th: In a statement released Monday, the company said, "OceanGate expresses our deepest condolences to the families and loved ones of those who died in the tragic implosion of the Titan. There are no words to ease the loss endured by the families impacted by this devastating incident, but we hope that this hearing will help shed light on the cause of the tragedy." --Super Goku V (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Isn't this enough proof in it of itself that the company is defunct in some way, or would we need to wait until the sale of assets is complete and court cases are settled, which could take years. Best, Zeke (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It is technically defunct and only exists for remaining investigation and liability reasons is my understanding. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

"Officially"? Ok. Reliable source? Not until there is such a basis for making that declaration. --Hammersoft (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Could “Was an operating company” get the point across? AndrewAndy08 (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

The problem here is a matter of definition. Status could be operating, defunct, not operating, out of business, or suspended operations. Where one of these definitions ends and another begins is grey area. Only the last of those terms is supported by the company's own definition. As Super Goku V noted, as of two weeks ago, the company was in existence enough to say something. A company that doesn't exist can't say something. So, any idea of "defunct", "out of business", "not operating", etc. all suffer from lack of clarity and sourcing. Thus, using the term "was" is inaccurate and will remain so until we have a definitive source that clarifies it. In this case, a typical reliable source isn't going to cut it, as reporters are suffering the same definition issues as we are. A government filing or announcement from the company indicating the end would do. The end is not now until we have that. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Well our current choices would be out of business or suspended operations. Out of Business would be the most fitting, as that is the phrase media outlets have clung to, and the phrase that best describes the current state of the company. However, OceanGate themselves have considered themselves having "suspended operations" on their website, Is there a way to claim they have partially suspended operations, as obviously they have not suspended their legal operations, but is there some way we can list them as not being a commercially operable company. Best, Zeke (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Out of business is inaccurate, as it is still engaging in activities, albeit legal. I don't see what the push is to try to declare this company dead. It isn't dead yet. When we know more, we'll know more. Until then, trying to decide what to call it other than "is" is an exercise in futility. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Can we add the Board of Directors (or former board of directors) to the infobox? If someone has some decent sources this would be valuable info to add. LegalTech (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

should this article changed to past tense? SYSS Mouse (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Not until we have confirmation the company is completely out of business. See the #Ceasing operations vs. out of business section above. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

::And now it is two years without any development. SYSS Mouse (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)actually sractch that. !SYSS Mouse (talk)

The US Coast Guard released a report on the accident. Says it could have been avoided.

https://www.npr.org/2025/08/05/nx-s1-5493502/coast-guard-titan-submersible-oceangate-investigation

Richard-of-Earth (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I think that we should change “is” to “was” and specify that the company has shutdown de facto. This makes more sense, as the company legally still exists but has permanently ceased all business operations Da badass west (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Previously discussed numerous times on this talk page. General consensus is we're not changing it until it legally no longer exists. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Your point makes a lot of sense. However they are way too stubborn to just say “was” for some reason because “🤓AckTuAlLy It StiL HaS a CeO!!!” Which is kinda true but it doesn’t do business anymore at all and the persons purpose is to literally close its doors. 2600:880A:270C:3580:10ED:4763:D653:ACF3 (talk) 06:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

If someone wants to try to overturn the consensus it would need to be either new information brough forward or a RfC at this point. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed there's multiple repeated paragraphs in the 2023-present section of the History of the company. I didn't change them myself because I'm unsure in what sections the text should be kept.

The one I saw was "Industry experts, friends of Rush..." in the lead of the section, then Safety concerns and then Memes and investigations. The original paragraph in the lead is separated into two sentences which then show up in the other subsections.

Thank you! smallest red boy^he/she/it (talk • contribs) 13:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up.  :)

I was going to fix it, but I noticed that the text was copied from other Wikipedia articles without attribution, so I just reverted it. I believe they copied too much from the other articles and likely don't know that the articles were intentionally split from each other. If they do make a new change, hopefully they read my edit summary and also copy only what is needed. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

This sentence "In 2021 and 2022, OceanGate conducted dives to the Titanic aboard its submersible Titan." is added with no source, no context and it seriously leaves somebody wonder how were those previous dives conducted on a submersible that apparently could not withstand the pressure at such depths. ~2025-31983-94 (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Titan could reach the Titanic. The issue was the repeated dives weakened the vessel, which is why the 2023 dive completely went sideways. It might be that we are implying too much of what happened, but it is clear that main issue was the repeated dives damaging Titan due to its material. "(...) the submersible sustained damage during previous dives that 'further deteriorated and weakened the pressure vessel.' 'The existing delaminations and additional damage that deteriorated the condition of the pressure vessel between dive 82 and the casualty dive (dive 88) resulted in a local buckling failure that led to the implosion of the Titan,' the report states. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2026 (UTC)