Talk:Titanic

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

An event in this article is a April 14 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

"Can you Please Add to External Links?"

Hi - can you please add the following resource from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on the discovery of Titanic? It contains information about the ships and technology used in the discovery as well as background information about the discovery.

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7535

thks!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elfino (talk • contribs) 14:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

The new theory on how Titanic broke apart

Just saw the special on the history channel. Rather interesting as they have found to complete sections of the double hulled bottom and have come to the conclusion the the Titanic broke from the bottom up, as opposed to the top down as portrayed in movies and described in most accounts. This is further supported on there by the fact that the breaks in the ship match this blah blah I have no clue what i'm talking about, but this is important crap and this article has nothing in it whatsoever about it.67.133.212.21 19:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Advanced"

The Titanic's design used some of the most advanced technology available at the time and the ship was popularly believed to be "unsinkable."

I've removed this, since the Titanic was technologically a very ordinary design, particularly the engines and steering. There was nothing advanced about her, and she wasn't even the most luxurious ship in the world, just the longest by not very much, until the Imperator was launched shortly thereafter.--CloutierFan02 04:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that is the least wrong with this article. It is generally written by those in love with the ship. Her technical specs we just like the Olympic's and there was very little difference between them. Britannic was revised however. Don't even get me started on the "Unsurpassed Luxury" section. She was not even that much larger that Olympic (except for the enclosed section on "A" deck. Yet you read the article, and you would think that Titanic was a distinct vessel. Save for the disaster...Gary Joseph 01:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

I'm just after watching 'Conspiracies' on Sky One - a repeat of the episode about the Titanic. It mentions "Paddy the Pig" aka James Fenton. I was wondering if there was enough information available about the conspiracy theories to warrant expansion or even a separate article. --Mal 21:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't this be incorporated in the existing Titanic alternative theories? Akradecki 23:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah right - perhaps a note linking to the article, but reading "Conspiracy theories main article" should be inserted at that point. I know there's already a link to the article, but what that article is about isn't immediately clear. I had a quick look at it, and its unreferenced for the most part - no 'inline' references at all, and I don't know if it mentions the specific info included in this article. I'll have another look later though. Cheers. --Mal 00:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The run for the Blue Riband

One important aspect missed is that Titanic was speedy in order to win the Blue Riband (see main article) - the prize for the fastest crossing of the Atlantic by a passenger liner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.40.223.31 (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Not so. The Olympic class (including the Titanic) could not attempt to compete with the turbine powered Cunarders on speed. The Olympics were built for size, comfort and (relative) economy of operation WhaleyTim 12:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I know that. Titanic went a northern - and shorter - path in order to cross the Atlantic faster. But this put the ship in the way of icebergs. The rest is history. (Whithout this goal the ship could slow down during the night, especially after receiving warnings for presence of icebergs in the area).

Again (most probably) not so. The Titanic was sailing on the Southerly Westbound Track http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq94-1.htm FAQ 15 for example - although there are some who dispute this.

Indeed her excessive speed in the ice field was the cause of the accident. However she was not travelling at this speed to break any records, she was just at her normal cruising speed. It was then common (but not universal) practise to maintain normal cruising speed in ice fields on the assumption that the lookouts would be able to give adequate warning of bergs. IMHO a combination of difficult sighting conditions, (possibly - and much disputed) the lack of binoculars for the lookouts and (probably) a lack of understanding of the steering characteristics of the ship and how to best navigate her to avoid collision betrayed this assumption. As you say, the rest is history WhaleyTim 13:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What about the theorie that a german U-boat may have sank the titanic.

Minor Edits

The article introduction has gotten way too cumbersome and detailed. If there is no agreement or an attempt to fix this, then I will do so soon. I want to be careful of others' contributions.Gary Joseph 02:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Gary - I think that the article has become rather flabby and uneven and could certainly do with some serious attention. I also think that there is scope for spinning off some of the content into more detailed seperate articles. I've seriously considered undertaking this task, but it is pretty low on my priority list at the momentWhaleyTim 08:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Gary, I see you've started, but that an IP editor reverted. I'd suggest working on a draft of the opening paragraph here, on the talk page, that way once it goes live, you'll have consensus behind you and it will help prevent protect it. We're doing the same thing over at Extraordinary Rendition, which is a highly contentious article, and the process of working out an acceptable intro will make it iron clad (I was gonna say "unsinkable", but....) Akradecki 14:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And I can already see the problem. Many want the intro to sound dramatic, as opposed to stating simple facts. At the same time, you want an article about such a topic, which most people have very little factual knowledge of, to try to correct that. I changed the first sentence earlier because the Titanic did not "collide" with an iceberg, a fact that more authors are acknowledging by the use of words. But words like "collide", "infamous", etc. sound dramatic. I sometimes wonder if some contributers think they are helping to write an encyclopedia or a novel.

Nonetheless, like many other articles I have contributed to on Wikipedia, I will debate and argue on what is right, but only if I think we are coming from the same base. This is usually not the case. Otherwise, there will just be another edit war. We have enough of those already.Gary Joseph 00:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Erm, if Titanic did not "collide" with an iceberg, just how would you describe that, uh, "interaction?" It hit an iceberg. That's a collision, whether it was head-on or not. I agree with you on the other points, though, and agree that the intro needs a lot of work.--chris.lawson 00:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster lists collide; 1 : to come together with solid or direct impact. Ballard described the Titanic's impact as "a glancing blow" (glance; 1 : to strike a surface obliquely so as to go off at an angle <the bullet glanced off the wall>. Other authors have described have also used other synomyms( hit, impact, grazed, etc). It is just like the difference between being "shot" by a bullet versus "grazed" by one. But whether you intended it or not, you just underscored my point.Gary Joseph 02:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

=

The article says: "Titanic had a double-bottom hull, containing 44 tanks for boiler water and ballast to keep the ship safely balanced at sea [4] (later ships also had a double-walled hull)."

Would someone please elaborate on the distinction between a double-bottom hull and a double-walled hull?

Thanks.4.249.186.160 22:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

=

I'm new to Wikipedia, so please excuse any blunders. In the Titanic article as of April 23, 2007:

"Among the second-class passengers was Lawrence Beesley, a journalist who wrote one of the first-hand accounts of the voyage "

I have never seen any occupation listed for Lawrence Beesley other than high-school science teacher in any reference I have read.

and in the section entitled, "Long-term implications", a simple typo, ". . . and new regulations reated to life boats," should be "related to life boats"

I am not an editor, and the page is locked, so I have chosen to add these comments here. Given my newness to Wikipedia, I don't want to make a mess of a fine page! Cretiree 23:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm no Lawrence Beesley expert (I generally have concentrated on Byles), but I would say both professions are correct. Beesley certainly was a teacher, although according to what I read here in Encyclopedia Titanica [1], he had resigned from that position. Of course, by writing his account of the RMS Titanic he certainly would qualify as "journalist." That may have been what was meant here by whoever originally added Beesley, not so much that he wasn't a teacher, but that he was THE journalist who wrote THIS particular first-hand account. Scholastica547 01:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"The Unsinkable might sink!"

If everyone foolishly thinks the ship is really unsinkable, why are they worry about an Iceberg? Why didn't they just hit it head on? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.221.202 (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

If you have airbags in your car why do you bother to brake when approaching stationary traffic? WhaleyTim 14:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but my point it The ship is unsinkable (Ofcourse it's not, I'm talking from there foolish point of view), so why freak out over an Iceberg.

Because a)unsinkable doesn't mean undamagable, and any skipper who lets such major damage happen can kiss his career goodbye, and 2) hitting a stationary object at 20-something knots would throw everyone and everything against the forward bulkheads...not the kind of ride those high-roller 1st class folks are paying for! Akradecki 21:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to speculate whether the ship would have sunk had it hit the iceberg head on. Obviously the foreward end of the ship would have been severely damaged, but it's possible the damage would not have extended backwards far enough to open enough compartments for the ship to sink. On the other hand, given recent metallurgiucal evidence on the rivets and plating it's also possible a good portion of the length of the ship would have been opened by the stress of impact buckling plates and opening joins.

Of course it's not a course of action the crew would have taken, if only intuitively. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.249.209.181 (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Oh, ok, but there weren't going 20 knots, it was 21 knots, and why should the Captain Smith worry about getting fired? It's a well known fact that he was going to retire when the Titanic came to New York.

If they were going at twenty one knots, the damage would have been worse and the damage to the ships infrastructure would have cost the White Star Line hundreds, if not thousands of pounds to be repaired, so why risk it?Its human instinct to respond to something to something you perceive as dangerous, regardless of whether or not your, in this case, ship is allegedly invulnerable. Plus Captain Smith wouldn't want to be fabled as somebody who endangers his passengers, rather, as somebody who fought gallantly to save his ship. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

In the movie, Ismay did say he could retire with a bang. I can imagen that would be the "bang" he needed (stupid joke).

Amendments to the infobox

Ive made a few adjustments to the infobox which highlighted some of the headings, ive also adjusted some of the passenger listings, so that the whole infobox looks more coherent 82.36.182.217 16:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"Iceberg, right ahead!!" dialog

Is there any evidence for the dialog between the iceberg watchers and the bridge quoted in the article or was it just lifted from the '97 film? Just curious to know. It doesn't read like real dialog (and therefore does read like JCameron dialog) - for a start there's no swearing. If I saw the ship was bearing down on an iceberg as big as the ship, the air would be blue!Fizzackerly 16:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes - http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTInq15Fleet01.php - Testimony of Frederick Fleet (lookout) at British Inquiry Question 17286 WhaleyTim 10:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Also http://www.titanicinquiry.org/USInq/AmInq04Fleet01.php - Testimony of Frederick Fleet (lookout) at US Inquiry WhaleyTim 11:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Also http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTInq04Lee01.php Question 2422 - Testimony of Lee (lookout)at British Inquiry - Question 2422

IMHO the conversation between Fleet and the bridge is credible and consistent with expected professional behaviour. What the conversation between Lee and Fleet would have been like is anyone's guess. WhaleyTim 12:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"no moon, no wind, no binoculars, and the dark side of the berg facing the ship"

If there was no moon that night, how the iceberg had 'a dark side'?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.40.223.31 (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

The "dark side" of an iceberg is a side that is not as smooth and does not reflect as much light. This is generally the side that has recently broken away from the parent glacier or ice shelf, so it isn't as weathered as the rest of the berg. This dark side would have been even more difficult to see by what little light they had. Scholastica547 04:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The "dark iceberg" is a piece of nonsense dreamed up by Charles Lightoller in an attempt to find an excuse for the collision. He came up with the statement that "it must have been a berg broken from a glacier with the blue side towards [Titanic]." Any icebergs in the area had left their parent glaciers at least a year before and had the normal appearance of icebergs, namely white by day and mere dark shapes by night. Dave Gittins 14 March 2007

"Artefacts" (and "colour")

Hi, I noticed that the word "artefacts" (UK English) was spelt "artifacts" (US English) twice in the article. I've changed it to the appropriate spelling. The first instance also contained a note to the effect that the spelling in the article was the correct UK spelling, but it didn't say exactly what the correct spelling was, which was rather confusing, so I've added the UK spelling to the note. However, upon looking at the rest of the article (nice piece of work btw), I've also noticed that the word "color" appears many times, even though it should be spelt "colour". I'm loath to jump in and make lots of edits to change the spelling style used in an article without discussing it first, so any objections if I change it to UK English? Martin 20:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Gardiner Ref

I added the Gardiner reference to the number of people in lifeboat 1 - I understand this book is controversial in Titanic circles, but this is a relatively clear point. I guess the info is in the enquiry papers somewhere, but for now...--Sheep2000 09:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"1st, 2nd, 3rd class" or "first, second, third class"

It keeps bothering me (and maybe it shouldn't) that we have "1st, 2nd, 3rd class" in some places, and "first, second, third class" (spelled out) in others. I don't know what is specifically the Wikipedia standard (I see both ways throughout the entire wiki), but I do think it at least should be consistent within a single article. I haven't done anything towards that however... wanted some imput first. Or, if someone else went in and made it consistent before I got a chance, that's fine by me. Scholastica547 04:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm a little reluctant to go through the whole thing and fine tune all the errors like this, but as far as I am aware, numbers and their cardinals from zero to nine should be spelt (one, two, three, . . . & first, second, third, . . .), and those greater than or equal to 10 should use numerals. I assume that we should thus use these consistently, but if anyone else has some input on this. . .?

Now, I don't know who posted the above response, since they didn't sign... but actually, the issue that was driving me crazy for so long got fixed some time ago by somebody else. But if there is any concrete rule, I'd be glad to know it for future reference. Thanks! Scholastica547 18:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Rollback

I just rolled the page back two days. A large number of vandalism edits had occurred, along with a wholesale (and unnecessary) change of date formats. The MediaWiki software is smart enough to format any date in DD Month YYYY or Month DD YYYY format in the reader's preferred format, so there's no reason to make wholesale changes to formats like that. There was also a well-intentioned edit to the intro that just made it longer than it really needs to be (we shouldn't have to enumerate every single ship with which Titanic was intended to compete).--chris.lawson 17:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather nettled at seeing all my careful work go down the drain. The big thing about date preferences is that registered users have them, but most Wikipedia users (i.e. readers as opposed to editors) don't and therefore see dates in the raw format. The Titanic uses UK English, it should also use International rather than American Dating. --Pete 01:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a guideline somewhere on Wikipedia, I can't remember where just now, that specifically says not to do what you did. However, now that you've provided an explanation for it (please try to use edit summaries in the future, too), I'm perfectly happy with the reasoning. I'll see what I can do about putting it back without making you re-do it all by hand.--chris.lawson 03:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You should take a look at WP:DATE. Jguk doesn't apply when there is a good reason for a style change. --Pete 03:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Length

Hey guys, this article is MASSIVE, we gotta knock about 40-50k of this this thing to get it withing Wikipedia standards, can anyone think of any way to cut it down, like sections that can be made into there own article, or unneeded info?
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver And The Vandal Watchman 21:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• • The article doesn't need to be cut down. It's already a featured article, and do consider that Wikipedia is not paper so length is not an issue-Halo 16:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

True, but Wikipedia does have an acticle lenght policy, and you can find it here Wikipedia:Article_size, enjoy.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver And The Vandal Watchman (Talk) 02:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding new article for the sinking of the ship

(Not sure if this discussion page is the most appropriate, or the one for the new article itself.) I don't have any issues with having moved the sinking to its own article, as I see has been done -- except that the notes (references/citations) don't work anymore. The reference numbers in the article itself are there, but the actual citations that they link to need to be gathered up with them for that article. (I hope this makes some sense.) I don't have enough know-how to do all that without really messing something up, so I would need to leave it to someone else more capable, but it needs to be taken care of if we keep this new article. Scholastica547 11:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

All it needed was the {{reflist}} template added to the References section. I've done that and it works now. It probably would be a good idea to cull out the ELs from this article that are specific to the sinking, and put them over there, though. Akradecki 22:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Scholastica547 18:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

titanic

amazing starliner sank on April 14 1912 and was found by Dr.Ballard in the 1980`s

so tell the facts !!

breakmyheart

trivasection

please add one it will clean things up

Passenger List

For anyone who doesn't know yet, the entire passenger list has been digitized and is available for the first time ever on the internet at http://www.findmypast.com, according to this Yahoo! News article. So I guess anyone who is interested should definitely go check it out since it's available for a limited time only. This might make a valuable contribution to Wikipedia as List of RMS Titanic passengers or something. --Life is like a box of chocolates 23:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Comparisons with the Olympic

Titanic was 1, 004 GRT larger than Olympic, not heavier. Geez, no matter how many times we go through this, it always comes back up!Gary Joseph 01:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Grammatical error

"Other differences, such as the skid lights that provide natural illumination on A-deck, were round, while on Olympic they were oval." - suggest "There were other differences, such as the skid lights that provide natural illumination on A-deck, which were round, while on Olympic they were oval." 70.17.135.67 21:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a Wiki. Just go in and fix it if you think it's wrong. Leave an edit summary explaining what you've done and it'll be fine. --Guinnog 21:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

List of RMS Titanic passengers

On the French WP we have an article Liste des passagers du Titanic. We think there is a copyvo from Encyclopedia Titanica.

I thought WP:en had such an article. Am I right or I have a dream?

Did you already meet such an issue? If yes, how did you solve it?

Regards Jpm2112 04:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you know any of the names of survivers that were on the titanic?

See fr:Titanic#Les derniers rescapés. Why IP 66.204.134.253? Jpm2112 12:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It could just be me and my resolution but, the coordinates are floating way farther down than they should be. (over the picture) I belive this is because there is too much up near the top but if there is some way it can be fixed please do. DPM 21:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Region

Belfast has never been part of Ireland, Belfast and the rest of Northern Ireland has been part of the United Kingdom from the early 1600s. Northern Ireland has never left the union with the ROI and it is incorrect and unfiar to paint towns and cities in Northern Ireland as Ireland. Northern Ireland is a British country as during Queen Virtorias Rain the ROI left the Union however Northern Ireland stayed with the rest of brition if you are an idot then read the Union agreement. Northern Irelands goverment was formed in the 1920s yes, however it was ruled by the UK Mainland up to then it was never ruled by Dublin. This is not breaking Wikipedias Netreul point of views. And the location of where Titanic was built should be changed to the correct region either Ulster or Northern Ireland for the reasons stated. Craig7006

From the article Northern Ireland: "In United Kingdom law, Ireland was partitioned in 1921 under the terms of the Government of Ireland Act 1920. Six of the nine Ulster counties in the north-east formed Northern Ireland and the remaining three counties joined those of Leinster, Munster and Connacht to form Southern Ireland." This was after Titanic was built and sunk. At the time, all of Ireland was part of the UK, but that doesn't mean it wasn't still considered "Ireland", any more than Wales is and was still Wales. This is a geographical and political reality. For this reason, please leave the Belfast reference as it is. AKRadecki 22:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong (but I'm NOT), but the link is to the Island of Ireland. The nation you're reffering to is called the "Republic of Ireland", and it is also on the Island of Ireland. As long as that is what is in the text, this is a non-issue. Last time I looked at a map, Belfast is still on the island of Ireland; if it's not anymore, the city's article needs to be updated. Oh, and please don't change the link to the Republic of Ireland to make your [[WP:POINT}Point]]. - BillCJ 22:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Gee, and I thought I lived in the only place that threatened to fall off into the sea.... (Sorry, random sarcasm) AKRadecki 22:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)