Talk:Titanic/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Grammatical error.

The line that says " The RMS Titanic was the largest ship afloat at the time of it entered service. " is grammatically Inaccurate. The "of" could be changed to "when" to correct the error. This error is in the first part of the article. (sorry for not using code usage for this, I don't edit Wikipedia at all, just wanted to point this out) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.101.90 (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The first paragraph includes a line: "was built by the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast with Thomas Andrews as her naval architect, Andrews was among those lost during the sinking." This last clause is independent and not correctly linked to the rest of the sentence. A rewording could be, "was built by the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast with her naval architect, Thomas Andrews, who was among those lost during the sinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcs37 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The second paragraph includes a line: "Though Titanic had advanced safety features such as watertight compartments and remotely activated watertight doors, there was not enough lifeboats to accommodate all of those aboard due to outdated maritime safety regulations." The independent clause should read, "there were not enough lifeboats" instead.

Grammar mistake

Under the sinking section of the Titanic article, the fourth paragraph reads:

"Distress signals were sent by wireless, rockets and lamp, but none of the ships that responded was near enough to reach her before she sank."

Emphasis mine.

It should read:

"Distress signals were sent by wireless, rockets and lamp, but none of the ships that responded were near enough to reach her before she sank."

Emphasis mine.

According to some external sources, this sentence is incorrect. Can we please get this fixed?

Thank you.--BZA99 (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Artifacts is Spelled Wrong

Artifacts is spelled "artefacts" in the second to last paragraph of the "Wreck" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.171.182.50 (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't. WP:ENGVAR. Artefacts is the correct spelling in British English. Benea (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Engelhardt is Spelled Wrong

The collapsible lifeboats were named Engelhardt, not Englehardt.Klaus E (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No engineers survived. Notable?

http://www.uco.es/~ff1mumuj/titanic1.htm

Edit request on 11 September 2013

The Titanic's displacement and weight are incorrectly stated as 52,310 tons. The correct displacement/weight should be approx. 66,000 tons. Dlkintampabay (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Displacement is not weight, ships do not 'weigh' an amount as such, their size is expressed in terms of tonnage or displacement. The figures for the current tonnage and displacement are cited in the article. Introducing a new value for these, or a new measurement, would need a source, and an explanation of what the 66,000 ton measurement actually is if it something other than tonnage or displacement, before an edit can be made. Benea (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Displacement IS weight. The weight of the water displaced by the vessel. Tonnage or GRT (Gross Registered Tonnage) is an expression not of size, but of the vessel's internal volume calculated by an internationally agreed formula. It's important to be precise and accurate about these things; especially in an encyclopedia. It's depressing that that misconceptions on these matters appear so regularly and have to be corrected so often. It's not rocket science.

I don't know where Dlkintampabay got the 66,000 ton figure from, and suggest that until verifiable sources emerge the cited figures should remain unchanged. Although I did have a chuckle at the description of them as the "current" tonnage. Current meaning precisely what, since the vessel no longer exists in any meaningful terms? It sank and has largely corroded away. Hardly current. George.Hutchinson (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in Description of Wireless Equipment

The term "The signals were transmitted through two parallel wires strung between the ship's masts" is incorrect. The principle of the Marconi Antenna is that the horizontal wires at the top form a loading capacitance and are called the "top hat". The vertical wires from the radio room to the horizontal wires are the radiator and the part that actually transmits the signal. If some one can find a reference for that (this is copypedia) please change it. This is well known in radio theory but I don't currently have any books which I can put the reference to. Incidentally the comment in the article is unreferenced so it should be marked as questionable and unreferenced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.198.145.187 (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 September 2013

Could you please change the following sentence under the subtitle ‘Wreck’ (“The ship's wreckage now comes under the cover of the "United Nations" cultural body that protects ship wrecks, but the United States is not a signatory to the convention, introduced in 2001 to safeguard underwater cultural heritage”) into : “As of 15 April 2012, exactly one hundred years after its sinking, the wreck of the Titanic falls under the scope of the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. This means that all States Parties to the 2001 Convention will prohibit the pillaging, commercial exploitation, sale and dispersion of the wreck and its artifacts. Because of the location of the wreck in international waters and the lack of any exclusive jurisdiction over the wreckage area, the 2001 Convention provides a State Cooperation system, by which States inform each other of any potential activity concerning ancient shipwreck sites, like the Titanic, and cooperate to prevent unscientific or unethical interventions”. UNESCO stands for ‘United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’, so it is not merely the “cultural body of the ‘United Nations’”. Also, I feel that the remark on the United States not being a Member State is obsolete, since the wreck site is located in international waters. Here is the link to the webiste of the 2001 UNESCO Convention with more background on the protection of the Titanic wreck: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-heritage/the-heritage/did-you-know/titanic/. Thank you in advance. Rebeccastermans (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done. — Reatlas (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

A fascinating read. Took rather a long time but that was necessary to truly learn about it. It should probably be a good article, but I'd imagine it has a lot of facts and information which are disputed making this difficult and given the extreme amount of material available for sourcing it. If anybody is interested in helping promote it let me know. It should probably be condensed a bit more as it took me almost an hour to read and digest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

lede

The following should be appended to the lede:

RMS Titanic was a British passenger liner that sank in the North Atlantic Ocean on 15 April 1912 after colliding with an iceberg during her maiden voyage from Southampton, UK to New York City, US. The sinking of Titanic caused the deaths of more than 1,500 people in one of the deadliest peacetime maritime disasters in modern history. The RMS Titanic was the largest ship afloat at the time it entered service, and the least afloat ship at the time it exited the royal service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.96.61.236 (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Very funny.  Not done — Reatlas (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect Calculation

Section 6.3 Survivors and victims: The article states that "54 percent of those in third class died". I believe this is incorrect. From the information in the table the total number of third class passengers was 706, of which 178 survived and 528 died. This means that the quotation above should be changed to say that "75 percent of those in third class died". 95.44.168.228 (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: the 54% figure is just for women in third class. The men's 84% raises it. --Stfg (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

---

RMS Titanic → Titanic – Per WP:COMMONNAME. When was the last time you heard someone say "RMS Titanic?" GeicoHen (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NCSHIP. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
• I actually doubt that this ship has primary topic for Titanic. But, since it already redirects here, it's an easy support because WP:NCSHIP loses to WP:NAMINGCRITERIA seven days a week. Red Slash 03:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Since when has an encyclopedia been about pandering to ignorance? The ship was the RMS Titanic. That is a matter of fact, not opinion and the redirect from Titanic to the proper name is the way it should remain. DiverScout (talk) 08:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for exactly the same reason as given by DiverScout immediately above. The full and proper name of the ship was RMS Titanic and nothing else. Centpacrr (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per DiverScout. —Diiscool (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. This was requested and widely opposed a few months ago. Omnedon (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NCSHIP ("Civilian ship articles should follow standard Wikipedia naming conventions"). --BDD (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: A Goggle search for "RMS Titanic" returns more than two million hits for the name with the RMS prefix which seems to more than qualify under WP:NCSHIP which states "However, if a ship is best known in combination with a ship prefix, include the prefix in the article name. Use of the prefix can also provide disambiguation: SS John W. Brown compared to John W. Brown, PS Waverley compared to Waverley. If a ship has had more than one prefix during its lifetime, choose the best-known for the article and create a redirect from the other prefixed names: RMS Titanic should have a redirect from SS Titanic." Centpacrr (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

But try titanic -"rms titanic" and you'll still get a whole lot of results. Most appear relevant. --BDD (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That argument, I'm afraid, is really a red herring as a search for the lone word "titanic" would include hits for both "RMS Titanic" and for every other use of the this common word as a noun or adjective anywhere on the internet. Over two million hits for "RMS Titanic" more than constitutes acceptance of this as the ship's best known full encyclopedic name. Centpacrr (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons that DiverScout and Lugnuts set out. Prioryman (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose also per above; plus unnecessary, a search with just the word "Titanic" automatically goes to the "RMS Titanic" page. Xenxax (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Amongst other reasons, "Titanic" sounds ambiguous (like it might be an adjective), and the official title also says that it is the ship Titanic. North8000 (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Titanic already redirects here, so if you think it's sufficiently ambiguous, you could request a move of Titanic (disambiguation) over it. --BDD (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposal but support a move to a similar title - the last time I watched a documentary about this ship, it was referred to as "the Titanic", not just Titanic. This is one of those rare instances where the use of the definite article would be clearer. Green Giant (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • So, if this article was to be renamed "The Titanic", would the articles on the other ships that bore the name become "The other Titanic" and "The other other Titanic"? The RMS Titanic was the RMS Titanic. Having the correct name for the ship as the article title makes a lot more sense. DiverScout (talk) 07:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

What other Titanics are you referring to? The yacht, possible replicas, or Titanic II? They all seem to be clearly disambiguated. Your argument for the correct name does make sense but Wikipedia has long used "common names, based on which I believe that "The Titanic" refers unambiguously to the doomed ship and "Titanic", bereft of the definite article, refers to any number of related and unrelated films, music, people and places etc. Green Giant (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, but not for many of the reasons stated. Titanic was the name, not "RMS Titanic"; the "RMS" is a descriptor and is not part of the actual name. But by convention, that descriptor is used on ships, and serves the same function as a disambiguator. For consistency, that convention should be followed for articles on the vessels themselves. But that does not mean that we should use the "RMS" in other titles, for example Sinking of the RMS Titanic and other spinoffs; Sinking of the Titanic would be sufficient and simpler (and to many of us, use of the definite article before "RMS" is jarring and unnecessary). Kablammo (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please update reference

Reference 202 needs to be updated, this is the new link: http://maritimemuseum.novascotia.ca/what-see-do/titanics-halifax-connection/frequently-asked-questions#5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.72.98.1 (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The feedback page

So I was looking at the feedback page and the different user comments. 99% of the time here on Wikipedia I keep everything professional, but I can't help but notice how absolutely ridiculous some of the requests people were making to be done to this page.

"This page needs a coloured picture."

It was 1912 buddy.

"More images, thank you." "Please and please give some more pictures.I have complaint hundred and one times earlier OKAY.THANK YOU FOR ASKING!!!" "more pictures" "more pictures please!"

This is an encyclopedia, not a picture gallery. Have these people not heard of Googling something? They even have an "image" search!

"i want to know what means titanic"

Big.

"More information of how the Titanic collided with the iceberg"

It was sailing in the ocean, and then collided with an iceberg when it couldn't turn in time. Not much more to it.

"how paid for the titanic"

That's not even a question.

"add something about the cost of a ticket"

A winning hand in poker.

"write a conclusion"

This is an article in an encyclopedia, not a 7th graders paper on the Titanic.

"A well drawn diagram of the inside"

Sigh. Do you have any idea how many diagrams that would be?

"More pictures of the Captain please."

I promise you, he looks exactly the same in every other picture of him.

"this page need a passenger list and crew"

There were more than 2,200 people aboard. Do you know how long of a list that would be? And what would you do with such a list? Look at it and Google random third class passengers to see what shows up? I'll tell you what will come up, nothing! They were alive over 100 years ago!Zdawg1029 (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

ROFL! Thanks for that. It's been a tough day and I really needed the laugh. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I really couldn't help myself. It left me kind of speechless when I saw what people were requesting.Zdawg1029 (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

In response to that last question, we actually do have Passengers of the RMS Titanic and Crew of the RMS Titanic ;) Morhange (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Marconi

I'm in a bit of a hair-splitting mood this evening, so forgive me, but I wonder if the statement "A wireless telegraph provided for the convenience of passengers as well as for operational use" in the lede is accurate. My understanding is that the Marconi apparatus and staff were provided for the convenience of passengers as a separate commercial enterprise. Was there any contractual arrangement between Marconi & the White Star Line for operational use of their services? Was there any regulatory requirement for such use? The fact that it was, imperfectly, used in such a manner may not justify the statement that it was intended to be so used. WhaleyTim (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

There was the 1903 Berlin Convention on Wireless Telegraphy. Marconi referred to that at the American inquiry. So there was an international treaty in effect, at least for Great Britain; Marconi specifically said the US was not a party to the convention in 1912, but that is not relevant to Titanic.

As it is now the information about the Marconi installation is wrong; it was a 5 kW set. Olympic was launched with a 1.5 kW set and was later upgraded to the set Titanic had, a 5 kW set with a rotary disc-type spark gap. There was also an emergency set. The silent room was actually the location of the motor-generator set that was used to convert the ship's DC power to AC. It was lined with cork and was 'silent' in the sense that it isolated the radio operator from the noisy machinery it contained. I'll fix this at some point if no one else does; I don't have the proper references here. I have seen the reference used and it is probably mistakenly referring to the original set on Olympic.

The wireless apparatus is probably deserving of its own article, as it provides insight into the state of the art of telecommunications in 1912 and the way things worked was profoundly different than how they work now. For example, there were no vacuum tubes at all in the main set (the emergency set had some), and everything was done with inductors and capacitors (an LC circuit).

Roches (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Insurance

I looked through the reader comments and one that appeared a few times was about the insurance on the ship. It seems like a reasonable thing to include as many people are probably interested in knowing whether it was insured and for how much.

Placement of the information: Up with the cost of building the ship? Right before the part about the sea trials, to correspond chronologically to when the ship was insured? I decided to put it before the section about the charities set up for survivors. That was at the end of 'Arrival of Carpathia in New York', so I thought a new section was in order, and I put it after that but before the part about the inquiries.

I'm not affiliated with Lloyd's. I know it looks pro-Lloyd's, and the reference is to their site, but it corresponds with other sources. The link provided has an interesting and uncommon photo of the insurance slip as well as details about the policy. The facts are that Oceanic/White Star asked for insurance on a supposedly unsinkable ship, and they got a very low premium. The insurers knew they would only pay in the event of a total loss, since no insurance was to be paid for damages under 150,000 pounds. And Lloyd's did pay the White Star Line in full, and promptly.

The insurance on the hull is really only the beginning, and the end of the happy part of the story. Some of the survivors received money for life insurance claims but precise total numbers of claims and amounts paid are hard to find. Same for insurance on property. There are anecdotes about particularly large claims, but not much of an overview.

Beyond that there's the lawsuit, the Limitation of Liability hearing. Lots of people claimed damages against Oceanic Steam Navigation Company (White Star's parent company) for loss of life or property. Again, there are a lot of anecdotes available but not the documentation for that is not complete and there does not appear to be an overall summary.

Please feel free to move/alter the section as seems best. As for more sources, there is not much in the inquiries except perhaps this.

Roches (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

User feedback roundup

I've gone though the user feedback and resolved all the requests for more images. There were many of them.

I'm now working on something that addresses the various requests from readers. For example, people who want more images can try Wikimedia Commons. People who want quotations can try Wikiquote. The links are right there at the bottom of the page. So it seems that having a portal and a simple list of related articles isn't sufficient for everybody. Some people may prefer a sort of if-then list: if you want quotations, then click here; if you want to know Captain Smith's wife's name, then click here. Is there an easy, accepted way to start readers in the right direction within the article itself?

Roches (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The Gardiner Conspiracy Theory

This conspiracy theory states the RMS Titanic had been replaced by its sister ship, the RMS Olympic on its maiden voyage on April 15, 1912. The essence of this theory is the insurance refund that the White Star Line could have received if the undisclosed substitution would have occurred, and the new and reliable Titanic sunk.

The RMS Olympic was a sister ship built along side the RMS Titanic near Southampton. Their exterior profiles were nearly identical apart from minor details. On September 20, 1911 the RMS Olympic collided with the HMS Hawke and receiving extensive damage to its side. In need of urgent repairs the RMS Olympic was sent back to Southampton where the Titanic was being finalized and the Olympic repaired. The White Star Line faced enormous financial sacrifice in repairing the Olympic as the insurance company refused to cover the expenses. Further, the repairs of the Olympic would have delayed the Titanic’s departure.

Facing ongoing financial loss J Bruce Ismay and J.P. Morgan composed a plan, where the repair costs of the Olympic and the building costs of the Titanic were recoverable. The plan was to substitute the almost identical two ships while they were both in the docks together, by changing their ID nameplates allowing at least one ship to earn money. This plan consisted of transforming the newly built Titanic into the Olympic, and the older and unreliable Olympic into the Titanic. Therefore, the Olympic would sail as the Titanic on its maiden voyage and unexpectedly sink; leaving the public and the insurance company in shock. This plan would have allowed the two men to collect the insurance money on Titanic.

The plan further included having another rescue ship in the area, so all passengers and crew would be saved. However, the unexpected course change towards the huge iceberg, which is how and where Titanic would sink, distanced it from the rescue ship. This unfortunate staged sinking of the Titanic went incredibly worst than planned, killing more than 1,500 people on board.

The case facts suggest many coincidences occurred that point towards the direction that this conspiracy theory holds true. Firstly, the owner J.P. Morgan canceled his voyage on the Titanic last minute. J Bruce ucted the captain to go full speed ahead despite the iceberg warnings. The unexpected course change headed directly for the path of the icebergs. Further, the Olympic, whom had numerous technical problems and faced a horrible collision operated successfully for the next 25 years.

Sources:

http://www.rmstitanicandhersisterships.20m.com/theory.html 
http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/9648097._I_can_prove_it_was_not_Titanic_that_sank_/

Anastassia Krainik (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. See WP:FRINGE. —Diiscool (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, this has been a matter of debate for a very long time and has resulted in published text. Not worth more than a passing mention, but probably ought to me mentioned. DiverScout (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

See: RMS Titanic alternative theories#Gardiner's ''Ship That Never Sank'' Fat&Happy (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Haha, fringe indeed - even more so when you consider how none of the numerous expeditions to the wreck have discovered anything remotely suspicious. Also, going full speed even with ice warnings was standard maritime practise in 1912. --Somchai Sun (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment Complete nonsense that is dismissed by every reputable historian. Fringe is definitely applicable here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

They were built in Southampton? wow ... how did they cover that up? Belfast will be sooooo upset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.26.133.147 (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2014

A portion of the "Retrieval of the Dead" section reads "Captain Larnder of the Mackay-Bennett and undertakers aboard decided to preserve only the bodies of first class passengers, justifying their decision by the need to visually identify wealthy men to resolve any disputes over large estates. As a result, many third class passengers and crew were buried at sea. Larnder himself claimed that as a mariner, he would expect to be buried at sea.[199]" Upon further inspection of the source, it would seem that Larnder did not "expect to be buried at see," but that he would be "contented" to be buried at sea. This is his reasoning for burying the non-first class passengers at sea, as most were crew members, and, as Larnder says, "The man who lives by the sea ought to be satisfied to be buried at sea."

Therefore, please change "Captain Larnder of the Mackay-Bennett and undertakers aboard decided to preserve only the bodies of first class passengers, justifying their decision by the need to visually identify wealthy men to resolve any disputes over large estates. As a result, many third class passengers and crew were buried at sea. Larnder himself claimed that as a mariner, he would expect to be buried at sea.[199]" to "Captain Larnder of the Mackay-Bennett and undertakers aboard decided to preserve only the bodies of first class passengers, justifying their decision by the need to visually identify wealthy men to resolve any disputes over large estates. As a result, many third class passengers and crew that were found were buried at sea. The majority of these bodies were of the crew, and as a mariner himself, Larnder believed that "the man who lives by the sea ought to be satisfied to be buried at sea." 2620:105:B00B:4801:B526:828C:7726:88BC (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: Reworded it to:

"Larnder identified many of those buried at sea as crew members by their clothing, and stated that as a mariner, he himself would be contented to be buried at sea."

This leaves the identification of those buried at sea at Larnder's feet, changed the wording to "contented" per quote. Cannolis (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Images

About the request for more images, this is an eye witness description of the sinking by first class passenger Jack Thayer (he descriped it to someone who made the drawing). Soerfm (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The sinking according to J. Thayer, first class passenger (14 years old)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2014

File:Matthew m bilodeau

long time there was the newest

Fireball2003 (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2014

after the titanic sank some life boats found the carpathia at 5:00 IN THE MORNING leaving the rea\st dead by starvation it also seems that the carpathia made to america

in 1997 james cameron found the titanic at the bottom of the alantic. Fireball2003 (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Built in Belfast theatre play and show. A play set in the time of the Titanic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.49.205 (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2014

69.141.231.193 (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC) --69.141.231.193 (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)--69.141.231.193 (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)--69.141.231.193 (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)--69.141.231.193 (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)--69.141.231.193 (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)--69.141.231.193 (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)--69.141.231.193 (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)--69.141.231.193 (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Image123

this is an image

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Please correct spelling - " thousands of artefacts have been recovered " it's artifacts, not artefacts. Thanks.

Thanks, but spelling is correct as per British English. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in Description of Wireless Equipment AGAIN

The term "The signals were transmitted through two parallel wires strung between the ship's masts" is incorrect. The principle of the Marconi Antenna is that the horizontal wires at the top form a loading capacitance and are called the "top hat". The vertical wires from the radio room to the horizontal wires are the radiator and the part that actually transmits the signal. If some one can find a reference for that (this is copypedia) please change it. This is well known in radio theory but I don't currently have any books which I can put the reference to. Incidentally the comment in the article is unreferenced so it should be marked as questionable and unreferenced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.198.145.187 (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

WHY WAS THIS REMOVED WITHOUT THE ISSUES BEING ADDRESSED? They are still there. In addition the comment on the "Silent Room" is wrong. The "Silent Room" was where the spark gap was housed. It was anything but silent. See Spark gaps in Wikipedia itself. Also T-Antenna for description of how the Antena really works.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2014: Wrong picture description

A piece from the article:

• Titanic (right) after the near-collision with New York (left, with Oceanic)
  Titanic (right) after the near-collision with New York (left, with Oceanic)

In the article is written this picture was taken AFTER the near-collision, but in fact this picture was taken in the short moment the New York was drifting away to the titanic stern, so BEFORE the near-collision. I propose this:

• The New York (middle) drifting to the Titanic (right), the Oceanic on the left
  The New York (middle) drifting to the Titanic (right), the Oceanic on the left

I don't have enough edits yet to get the rights to edit the semi-protected page and fix this, but I hope I can count on somebody to do this? I say thank you in advance. Chris358 (talk) 06:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not very easy to even see there are three ships there, unless one expands the image to full screen. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

Speaking of the fictional Titan... "But like the Titanic she sinks on her maiden voyage after hitting an iceberg and does not have enough lifeboats."

The source cited does not indicate that Titan sunk on her maiden voyage and the Wikipedia page for the novel explicitly says the claim is false (unsourced):

"The host, John Newland, however, makes a number of errors in his comparison. He claims, for example, that the Titan, like the Titanic, sank on her maiden voyage. This is untrue."

I've not read the novel, but the claim looks very doubtful to me in this light and probably should be removed. I would propose simply removing the text "on her maiden voyage". 24.110.50.184 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

You are correct! The voyage in which the Titan sank was her 4th voyage. But, I can't find in the article where this is stated... Could you give me the location where the faulty info is? Airplane Maniac (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

I changed some references and citations on a couple of Titanic articles. If you have a page like this User:Keith-264/common.js, with importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); on, harv errors show up in red. I added references from Sinking of the RMS Titanic for the ones where there was a citation but no reference on this article and deleted an unused reference on Sinking of the RMS Titanic. If a reference is redundant but anyone intends to use it later, I'd remove the ref=harv bit so it doesn't show up when people with the script see the page. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2015

My request is simple, the titanic is an irish ship made by irish men in an irish city, it is not a british ship in any way. Please change this small but really awful error. Pmcparland (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

While it is an Irish Ship, made by Irish, it was bought and operated by the British. Therefore, in a way, it can be called a British Ship. Also at the time it was built, Ireland was a part of Great Britain. If you have any more reason, or suggestions, give them now.--AM (Talk to me!) 20:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done For the reasons above, it was a British ship- Ireland wasn't an independent country until 1922. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually the ship was built in Belfast which is STILL part of the United Kingdom. \Ad Orientem (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Deviation from route

I have got confirmation from Cunard Line homepage that Olympic and Titanic had to follow a route given by their company. However, they hesitate to confirm that Titanic was not following this route on the night of her sinking. Olympic was most likely fllowing the official route and at the time of the sinking she was about 500 nautic miles to the south of Titanic as far as I understand.

If, in fact, Titanic deviated from the official route it would in my mind incriminate Joseph B. Ismay since he was the only one, who could have ordered such a deviation. Does anyone know about this and was it never investigated? Soerfm (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, the Olympic wasn't 500NM to the south of the Titanic. It was 500NM West by south[1]Which, as you can see here, is quite a bit different than the south.

From this information, we can gather that the Titanic was not too far off route. It is true that at 5:20p.m. Captain Smith did change course slightly to the south and west, but this is not a very big change.

And finally, Ismay would have had nothing to do with the course change. It would have been a desion made by the Captain.

Sorry if this is a little hard to understand, I'm still new at this so feel free to ask questions to help you understand what I am trying to say. Airplane Maniac (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

But it was never investigated if Titanic deviated from its route eventhogh it should be a simple matter to find out still today? Soerfm (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

We know that it didn't deviate enough to change the course. That's why we haven't investigated it--Airplane Maniac (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The change in course in the late afternoon of the 14th was part of the course used by the company (and all other liners). It occurred at "the Corner" at 42°N 47°W, where the course changed from a great circle route to a rhumb line from the Corner to Nantucket Shoals Light. This method makes a compromise between the shorter, more efficient great circle route and the need to travel no further south than the latitude of New York City. Roches (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2015

"Titanic was equipped with two 1.5 kW quenched spark-gap transmitters for wireless telegraphy located in the radio room on the Boat Deck, in the Officers' quarters. One set was used for transmitting messages and the other, located in a soundproofed booth called the "Silent Room", for receiving them"

Is factually incorrect. The ship had only one 1.5 Kw transmitter. It was a rotary spark gap not quenched spark gap. The silent room contained the somewhat noisy spark gap. See Spark gaps in Wikipedia itself. The silent room contained most of the transmitter.

The above should be changed to:

"Titanic was equipped with one 1.5 kW rotary spark-gap transmitter for wireless telegraphy located in the radio room on the Boat Deck, in the Officers' quarters. Most of the transmitter circuitry including the noisy spark gap was housed in a separate room called the "silent room" (in order to silence the noise)."

Refs:

With respect to the "silent room" See Spark gaps in Wikipedia itself.

With respect to the transmitter/receiver layout, here we have a major problem. Although the original editor has not given any citation, I suspect they used "Ocean Liners of the Past The White Star Liners Olympic and Titanic" Patric Stevens London 1970. Which is a reproduction of the original article in "The Shipbuilder" Vol 6 Midsummer 1911. Both these references contain the original error. That is referring to 2 different sets in 2 different rooms and placing the receiving set in the silent room. A better citation may be http://marconigraph.com/titanic/wireless/mgy_wireless.html that seems to be based on (Vol. 42 / #4) issue of the Old Timer's Bulletin, the official journal of the Antique Wireless Association.

"The signals were transmitted through two parallel wires strung between the ship's masts"

Is factually incorrect. The Titanic's aerial was the Marconi type. The Marconi aerial has a vertical radiator. Therefore the wires from the radio shack to the parallel wires above was the radiator. The parallel wires were what is called the "top hat" or capacitive loading to make the vertical wires radiate more effectively. See T-Antenna in Wikipedia itself.

The above should be changed to:

"The signals were transmitted through a T-Antenna"

124.198.145.187 (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I've made these changes, more or less. The set was actually 5 kW, not 1.5 kW. 1.5 kW was the power of the original transmitter on Olympic, which was not a rotary spark gap set. Olympic's set was later replaced with a 5 kW rotary spark gap, but Titanic had a 5 kW rotary spark gap from the beginning. The silent room also contained a motor-generator set which was used to generate AC from the ship's DC power supply. I added mention of this set and I mentioned Titanic's "musical" signals, which could be distinguished from ordinary spark gap signals. Roches (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It looks like the original must have come from ship builder (event though it wasn't cited) as shipbuilder quoted 2x 1.5Kw transmitters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.198.145.187 (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2015

it was april 7th 1912

24.188.229.44 (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 01:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Number of Passengers

The article contains conflicting numbers of passengers. In the secton "passenger facilities" it says the capacity of the Titanic was 833 passengers in 1st class, 614 in 2nd and 1006 in 3rd. In the section "passengers" (subsection to "Maiden Voyage") the capacity is given as 1034 in 1st, 510 in 2nd and 1022 in 3rd. Which of the figures are correct? (please don't confuse with the actual number of passengers on that voyage, that was lower) --Maxl (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2015

Adņ 2602:306:CC88:5830:1589:B350:F562:D59A (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Herbert Pitman

I've added Pitman who was Third Officer, in the "Officers" section. Not sure why he had been omitted. BBC's Antiques Roadshow, broadcast on 3 January 2016, featured Pitman's great-niece who owned Pitman's original manuscript diary, as well as a photograph of the four surviving officers and Pitman's replacement Certificate of Discharge (the original having been lost in the sinking). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on RMS Titanic. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120415195436/http://www.chriscunard.com:80/titanic.php to http://www.chriscunard.com/titanic.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120122005156/http://www.southampton.gov.uk:80/s-leisure/artsheritage/history/titanic/exhibitions/southampton1912.aspx to http://www.southampton.gov.uk/s-leisure/artsheritage/history/titanic/exhibitions/southampton1912.aspx

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2016

Correct spelling "artefacts " Que22 (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is the correct spelling for this article so nothing needs to be changed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not done: That is not a spelling error. It is the British spelling of artifact. This article uses British spellings. Please see WP:ENGVAR. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) -  Not done - as it says at the top of this page, this article is in British English, so artefacts is correct, as stated here - Arjayay (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on RMS Titanic. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091207054632/http://museum.gov.ns.ca:80/mma/research/titanicfaq.html to http://museum.gov.ns.ca/mma/research/titanicfaq.html#victims

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online}<a href="http://"></a>

03:13, 04 March 2016 (RMS)1912

rms titanic of the day (1912-2016) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.107.205 (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Legacy

Not mentioned was the effect that the sinking had on communications at sea. At that time the generally accepted distress signal was "CQD," generally interpreted as "Come Quick DAnger" and the other signal which was not in general use was "SOS" - which many consider means "Save Our Ship" or "Save Our Souls." After the ship sank it was agreed by the International Telecommunications Union that in every case of danger to life at sea the ONLY signal to be transmitted would be "SOS" sent three times, then the ships call sign and "SOS" sent three times, in each case it was to be sent without a break between each part so that it would be transmitted and heard as "SOSSOSSOS." All communication was carried out using WT aka CW aka Morse Code.

Also out the disaster came mandatory instructions to all wireless operators. They had to stop transmitting what ever they were and tune the receiver to the international distress frequency at 15 minutes past and 15 minutes to each hour. They had to listen for any transmission and notify the ships captain or officer of the watch immediately who would advise whether his ship would go to the distressed vessels aid - for example it would be rather difficult for a ship in the Atlantic Ocean to respond to a distress call from a ship in the Pacific Ocean. Otherwise the vessel was placed under a duty to save life at sea and set sail immediately to the stricken vessel to render all aid.

Only with the advent of voice (RT) did the distress call change from SOS to the spoken word of "MAYDAY" it is sent three times as "MAYDAYMAYDAYMAYDAY" without a pause between each mayday, followed by the call sign followed by "MAYDAYMAYDAYMAYDAY." However any distress signal on the IDF's may be transmitted using Morse Code or Voice and has to be responded to. The requirement to render assistance is also placed on aircraft captains.

Modern aircraft and ship communication systems contain a monitor which automatically notifies the crew that a distress signal has been received. Modern ship lifeboats and aircraft life rafts have to carry communication equipment to enable the occupants to transmit their location.

People forgot the animals to onboard. Twelve dogs and chickens. Yes twelve dogs and chickens, people. Three dogs survive the tradery too. A pomerian called Lady, another pomerain who's name is unknown, and pekegese call Sun Yat-sen. No chickens survived by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.61.200 (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2016

Please add parenthesis at the end of the fifth paragraph. Also, the comma seems better as a semicolon. Change this: Titanic has become one of the most famous ships in history, her memory is kept alive by numerous works of popular culture (e.g.,books, folk songs, films, exhibits, and memorials. To this: Titanic has become one of the most famous ships in history; her memory is kept alive by numerous works of popular culture (e.g.,books, folk songs, films, exhibits, and memorials). 50.46.214.192 (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, alterations made. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Bottom Damage

In his book David G.Brown advances excellent evidence that it was bottom damage that sank the Titanic rather than the side scrape. After the collision the ship was badly damaged but stopped and not in any immediate danger of sinking. Described as being "afloat on its pumps".

Somebody ordered the engines re-started and the forward motion section forced the flood water over a forward bulkhead destroying the last of the forward buoyancy and the ship would then sink. Whoever gave the order to restart the engines remains unknown but would condemn the ship to sink.

This particular DVD version of events has been shown at least once on UK TV. None of the other Titanic DVDs seem to mention this incident so does anybody know the name etc of the DVD that does show this? AT Kunene 123 (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2016

I suggest that many sources can confirm that the Carpathia did NOT arrive on the wreck scene until some four hours later, not two as this suggests.

174.3.130.68 (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - The page suggests that the Carpathia arrived two hours after the Titanic sank, which was around 2 hours after it hit the iceberg, from what I can see from checking sources. If you have a source that suggests otherwise, please share, but I think you are just mis-interpreting the article. Unless, you can provide a source to corroborate this claim I will not make this change. DPM 06:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

life boats

why sufficients for 1178 people? Bruce Ismay decreed? please mention. Yuriko Tanabe (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

see the section on lifeboats in the article.At the time, lifeboats were intended to ferry survivors from a sinking ship to a rescuing ship—not keep afloat the whole population or power them to shore. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2016

I would like to change the date on when the Titanic sunk, because it sunk on April 14, 1912. Please get your facts right because people do read Wikipedia and if they were doing a report they would get it wrong you got the departure date right though I didn't read the whole thing but that's the slip I automatically saw. Thank you very much. P.S I'm 11 and I've watched the Titanic movie and all about the Titanic movie and researched on the Titanic. Thank You again and I don't need to do it you should one more time Thank you.72.95.96.187 (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC) 72.95.96.187 (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - it hit the iceberg at 11:40 p.m. (ship's time) on 14 April 1912 and sank 2 h 40 min later, which was 15 April - Arjayay (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Viewpoints

@EEng: removed the "US" after New York, with a comment: "We don't explain to readers the NYC is in the US". It's hard to disagree, yet to a reader from England, the "UK" after Southampton is even more jarring. So I removed it, (almost*) restoring the symmetry. While this article is supposed to be written in "British English" (itself really a dictionary-fiction), I think it should aim to be understandable from English(-language) readers wherever they are. If anyone thinks it is imperative to explain to non-English(-country) readers where Southampton is, then at least it should say "Southampton, England". (* Should total symmetry be required, New York could be WL-ed.) Imaginatorium (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

New York City (along with Tokyo, London, Paris, Moscow, San Francisco, etc.) is one of the handful of cities which are so universally well known that we don't further qualify them i.e. not London, England. Whenever I want to cite this bit of MOS it's always a big headache to find, and I just don't feel like it now. And I can never remember whether, for that same rarefied group, we also don't link them in general, unless there's some special reason to do so in context. Anyway, I know for sure that New York City comes under this heading, but wasn't sure re Southampton, so I just left it. As for UK vs. England, that's what was there so I just left that as-is too. I think England is correct but I seem to recall some people are touchy about that. EEng 13:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, we do have 17 different articles on places called Southampton, two of which are in New York! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2016

I have noticed that the on the Wikipedia article of the ship RMS Titanic, the photograph of the iceberg is incorrect. The photograph used in the article is that is the artificial one featured in the film 'A Night to Remember'. I would like to request that this be changed as soon as possible.

This is the photograph that I believe should be used: https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2012/04/titanic-iceberg-red-paint-nasa.jpg

Dh58598 (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. VarunFEB2003 (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Maiden voyage

at first her maiden voyage was in May? please add description. Yuriko Tanabe (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? Please post using standard English of some sort. Your comments make no sense. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The box on the right says that the Titanic's maiden voyage was in the April of 1912. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.176.107 (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The captain goes down with the ship

The article noted that Thomas Andrews died in the sinking, but it wasn't mentioned that Captain Smith also died. I added a link to Captain goes down with the ship and used the same phrase in the article. For the rest of the article, it is not normally stated whether or not a person survived, but Smith's fate is important and "Did the captain survive?" would be, I imagine, one of the basic questions a reader might have about Titanic. Roches (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2016

Sylvainr (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

no request made IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

expand your knowledge ..joint..

It's a well-known fact, though at the present i lack a citation or link, but it was well known that the RMS Titanic had what is called an expansion joint. Yes, right there where it broke in two.. it's a design element allows the ship to bend a bit in heavy seas.. understand? Seems this has been forgotten and passed over, swept under the waves, so to speak, for added Hollywood/Historical effect. James Cameron is an arse. 2602:304:CDAF:A3D0:ACB0:65A1:5653:AD28 (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links

Proposed addition :

• Titanic's Propulsion Plant Samuel Halpern (2011). Detailed description of engines and boilers with images and animations. Extensively sourced footnotes.

Proposed removals:

• Facebook
• YouTube

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Halpern is impressively comprehensive. Here is the correct link: [2] Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

reciprocating engine's power?

Article says, "reciprocating engines by themselves were not powerful enough to propel an Olympic-class liner at the desired speeds, while turbines were sufficiently powerful but caused uncomfortable vibrations".

Surely, the power of an engine is pretty much dependant on how big you make it. Reciprocating engines were more efficient at low speeds than turbine engines, and indeed continued in service in ships which did not need to go fast for quite some time because of this. At higher speeds turbines were more efficient, which is why a ship wanting to be the fastest in the world would use them, and why warships were early adopters. The problem at first with turbines was an inability to construct gearboxes capable of transmitting the powers involved, so that the propellor could turn more slowly than the turbine. Turbines need to rotate fast to be efficient, but driving a propellor too fast creates vibration and inefficiency because of cavitation (bubbles form in the water). This is one reason for having several screws instead of one big one, because the bigger the diameter the faster the blade tips are moving through the water. Wing screws can also be used for steering, because more push on one side or the other will tend to turn the ship.

A triple expansion steam engine uses the steam three times over as it loses pressure, in three separate stages. The setup here then used the turbine as a fourth low pressure stage since the exhaust steam from the reciprocating engines was fed to it. So the turbine was not really independent of the other engines, and could not be used independently as far as I know. I think this setup was much more about efficiency than speed.Sandpiper (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and Halpern says the same thing. The statement is sourced to Gill, which I don't have a copy of. But I suppose it's possible; the turbines themselves would not be subject to vibration, but the rest of the power train might be since the shaft runs at a higher rpm. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Witnesses

I believe what it came down to is that the more "esteemed" witnesses claimed to have seen it go down in one piece while those who said it snapped were either lower-class men, women and children. https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/articles/wormstedt.pdf

Benjamin (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Condensor

A recent edit (incorrectly marked as minor) changed this:

Exhaust steam leaving the reciprocating engines was fed into the turbine, which was situated aft. From there it passed into a condenser, to increase the efficiency of the turbine and so that the steam could be condensed back into water and reused.

to this:

Exhaust steam leaving the reciprocating engines was fed into the turbine, which was situated aft. From there it passed into a condenser so it could be condensed back into water and reused, thereby increasing the efficiency of the engines.

This does not seem like an improvement. The second version makes it sound like re-using the water increases the engine efficiency, which is not true. Also it implies that the condenser improves the efficiency of all three engines, when it only increases the efficiency of the turbine. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for raising your concern on this Talk page. I can begin my response by contrasting the propulsion system of an ocean liner with that of a steam locomotive. After the steam has expanded in a locomotive's cylinders it is exhausted to atmosphere. After a few hours of operation, the steam locomotive has consumed all the water on board and it must stop to replenish its water supply. The water in the boilers of steam locomotives is obtained from dams, rivers and lakes. It must be fresh water but even so, the boilers of steam locomotives are eventually fouled by calcium carbonate and other dissolved impurities. These boilers must be de-fouled regularly. The water also contains dissolved oxygen causing corrosion in locomotive boilers.

An ocean liner has no access to a large supply of fresh water. Even if it did have access to an inexhaustible supply of water of the kind used by steam locomotives, the task of regular de-fouling and repair of corrosion would be intolerable because it would probably make the whole operation uneconomic. The problem is avoided by having a small but adequate supply of high purity, low-oxygen water, and condensing the steam back to liquid water when it reaches its minimum pressure. The liquid water is then forced back into the boiler using a high-pressure feed pump. The boiler water and the working steam constitute a closed system. Little or no water or steam is lost from the system, and no impurities or oxygen enter the system.

Avoiding the need to take sea water and purify it, and avoiding the need to clean boilers at regular intervals, constitutes an enormous saving in the operation of an ocean-going steamship. This is the efficiency implied by my sentence - see the diff. In the RMS Titanic this efficiency applied to operation of the boilers that supplied steam to the engines, both reciprocating and turbine. It is an obvious error to try to confine the efficiency to the turbine alone. (I concede there is an additional efficiency for the steam turbine by using a condenser to reduce the exhaust pressure to less than atmospheric pressure, but there shouldn't be any implication that this is the only efficiency conferred by condensing the waste steam. If this is what the cited source is actually saying, the sentence needs to be significantly re-worded to make that clear.)

I was initially attracted to edit the sentence because it stated the condenser was to increase efficiency, and also to condense steam back to liquid water. This version of the sentence implied these were two different benefits. In fact, condensing waste steam to liquid water is a physical action, and increasing efficiency is the objective of doing so.

I don’t have access to the cited source so I didn’t make reference to the efficiency of the whole operation, or the efficiency of the ship because I don’t know exactly what the source says. I left it as a mention of the efficiency of the engines. Perhaps someone with access to the cited source can fine-tune the sentence to reflect exactly what the source says. Dolphin (t) 22:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The sentence used to use "efficiency" to mean thermodynamic efficiency of the steam engines. You have changed the meaning so that it now means efficiency of the entire system. I don't think that's a good idea, at least not without checking the cited source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I hope not. We can talk about the thermal efficiency of the Rankine cycle, or the mechanical efficiency of the turbine; but if we talk about the thermal efficiency of a turbine we can expect to be seriously challenged. It isn't a defined concept.

There is another problem that I haven't raised, until now. The first sentence in the para suggests exhaust steam from the reciprocating engines was fed to the steam turbine, and then into the condenser. This implies the steam turbine ran on second-hand steam, which was highly unlikely. If it did, its power output would have been very low. I think a more likely description is that high-pressure steam from the boilers was fed directly to each of the three engines, and the exhaust steam was then fed to three or more condensers. Remember, Titanic was expected to be the fastest ship on the Atlantic run. It wouldn't have achieved that by feeding the steam turbine with steam at anything less than full boiler output pressure. Again, it would be good if someone with access to the cited source could fine-tune the paragraph so that it matches the source, and makes sense. Dolphin (t) 02:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course turbine efficiency is a defined concept. And increasing the thermodynamic efficiency always increases the overall efficiency. See Steam turbine#Theoretical Turbine efficiency. And the turbine was fed exclusively from the output of the LP piston at 9 psia and 188 °F, with an exhaust of 1 psia and 102 °F.[3] Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that information about the input and output pressures and temperatures. I now see why the Parsons turbine was described as a "low-pressure turbine"! If your information is from a reliable source it would be good to have it in the article because it would make it more understandable.

I'm still of the view that the original sentence lacks adequate purpose and direction. (For example, why does this paragraph tell the reader that a condenser condenses steam back into water so that it can be reused? It isn't as though the condenser on the RMS Titanic was somehow unique or different to condensers in use elsewhere.) What do you think of the following wording?

From there it passed into a condenser, increasing the power output and efficiency of the turbine.

Dolphin (t) 12:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Why are you so opposed to pointing out that the condenser serves two purposes? If we leave out water re-use, then why mention the efficiency boost? "It isn't as though the condenser on the RMS Titanic was somehow unique or different to condensers in use elsewhere" applies just as well to efficiency boost as to water re-use.

I have added a link to surface condenser so that anyone who is curious can learn more. That article lists the two purposes of the condenser in its "Purpose" section: "to obtain maximum efficiency, and also to convert the turbine exhaust steam into pure water".

I will concede one point. Since the output pressure at the LP piston is below atmospheric, it's fair to say that the condenser improves the efficiency of all the engines, not just the turbine.

The titanicology source at first glance looks like just a fan page, but the author is Halpern who we treat as an expert and cite in several places, so it's probably ok as reliable source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with multiple facts being presented in a paragraph. I sometimes see a problem when two or more facts are presented inappropriately in the same sentence. This problem can often be avoided by dividing the sentence into two or more sentences, or placing the information in different paragraphs. The sentence in question here contains information about the universal purpose and benefit of condensers when used in steamships, and it also contains information about the contribution of the condenser to the efficiency (thermodynamic or mechanical or energy conversion) of the turbine or the engine configuration employed in the RMS Titanic. I think someone reading the paragraph for the first time will find the sentence confusing and amateurish, as I did. However, we are making progress. Linking to "surface condenser" is good. I agree that Halpern's data can be treated as reliable. Let's use it. Dolphin (t) 21:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Fire Theory

Hanjin recently moved the theory about the coal bunker fire to RMS Titanic alternative theories. Almost immediately after this Mlpearc reverted this edit (as vandalism no less). I tend to support the move on the grounds that the theory has not gained widespread acceptance and probably does not belong in the main article. While it is not an obviously fringe nutball theory like the alleged switching of Olympic and Titanic as part of some sort of insurance fraud, I believe it can be fairly described as an outlier theory. Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Having seen the television programme that covered this, it certainly warrants mention in the article. Having aired on a major UK TV channel, it cannot be dismissed out of hand. Mjroots (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess that means the expansion joint theory needs to be in the main page as well? It's been covered by major TV channels as well. Parsecboy (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Major TV channels have also broadcast documentaries about UFO abductions and how Lyndon Johnson was really behind the Kennedy Assassination. I'm not sure that being on TV is a suitable stand alone criteria for inclusion of a theory in an encyclopedic article. Granted we do actually have articles that deal with UFO's and conspiracy theories, but they are generally labeled as fringe. There is a reason we have a separate article for non-mainstream theories about the Titanic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the section looks fine as it is at the moment, it is mentioned but hardly a mainstay of the article. Certainly it was an injustice - for want of a better word - that the fire's presence was not at least mentioned - with or without associated theories - in the article prior to this week. TAG 22:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

There was definitely a fire, that is agreed fact. There has been controversy over whether it affected the sinking. That is an established fact (considered in official enquiries). They are both part of the story of the sinking: we arent writing about the Titanic because it sank, thousands of ships have sunk, but because it is famous for sinking, and thus readers want to know about the myth. The fire could have contributed to the sinking, or how quickly it sank, that seems to be the current acepted position. Slower sinking would almost certainly have allowed more time just to get more people into the half empty lifeboats, so thats quite significant. I see there is a mention of the shortage of lifeboats, but launching them half empty isnt nearly so strange if the priority is to get them actually into the water and floating in limited time. Sandpiper (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I have posted my thoughts regarding the coal bunker issue and Molony's documentary here, on Sinking of the RMS Titanic Talk page. Best regards, —Hanjin (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

IMO while the fire itself is appropriate, the related theories are fringe or below. "Below" fringe is putting out something that you know to be stupid or baseless just to get publicity and the related money. Suggest moving the theory part 100% to RMS Titanic alternative theories. IMHO this article is not even where theories are covered, much less below-fringe theories. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2017

please put periods in between U.S. its more formal 208.180.92.130 (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: per MOS:US. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2017

I think the line about Captain Smith going down with the ship needs to be changed. It's well known (including in HIS wikipedia article) that accounts of his death vary from witness to witness. 76.67.94.91 (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Discussion can follow. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2017

Please change

• buckle inwards along her starboard side and opened

to

• buckle inwards along her starboard (right) side and opened

That is... linking the early use of 'starboard' to Port and starboard, and putting the clarification (right) after the term.

This follows a comment on the helpdesk, [4]

Thanks, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Dolphin (t) 21:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

What age was considered to be "child" vs "adult"

This would probably be good info for the statistics section. Doing a quick search online has some inconsistencies (including by those that were on the Titanic). Looks to be about 14 years old was the oldest to be a child in some circumstances. _{th1rt3en.talk.contribs} 22:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Diving expedition

According to CNN 2017-03-21, London based company Blue Marble Private plans to begin diving expeditions to the Titanic wreck in May 2018. Is this worth mentioning? Soerfm (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2017

It didn't have holes in the side. The 'berg just popped out rivets. Jdw6701 (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

New evidence regarding coal bunker fires prior to departure from Belfast and the Inquiry's ignoring of vital evidence.

My edit of yesterday suggesting new evidence that has previously been ignored regarding the effect of the ? several coal bunker fires on the starboard side has been redacted by Dr K. I do not know how to contact him/her directly regarding this edit removal. Wiki is more obtuse than hen's teeth. This is to the great loss of Wiki. I do not know who he is (nor care) but wonder how he has superior knowledge. Eventually, this text will reappear and give a fuller picture. Would someone who can drive this behometh kindly put it right. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjh009 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Pjh009. It's "behemoth", not "behometh". Wikipedia is daunting at first (and sometimes for a long while), but you're doing the right thing by opening a discussion here on the article's talk page. The content you added was unsourced, and although it was Dr.K. who happened to remove it, most experienced users would have done the same. Here's why:

Article content must be supported by reliable sources so that it is verifiable. It's not a question of "superior knowledge"; the rules apply to everybody. Even Nobel laureates aren't allowed to add original research to articles. So don't be discouraged—just cite reliable sources for any content you add. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much Rivertorch for explaining the reason of my revert so thoroughly and using such great examples. This is one time that wiki collaboration is really a wonderful thing. :) I have to add that it is a really bad habit to add unsourced information for three additional reasons: 1. If not stopped in its tracks, the addition of unsourced information has a tendency to proliferate. This can't be allowed for obvious reasons. 2. If editors are allowed to add unsourced stuff to articles, then, how do we know if the stuff they are adding is reliable and not just the figment of their imagination? 3. If the editors who are adding this stuff have reliable sources to support it, why don't they add them to the article? In conclusion, only verifiable, sourced, information should be added to any articles. The corollary to that is, that unsourced information should be removed immediately. Dr. K. 22:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

RMS Titanic alternative theories

A discussion concerning this article is now taking place at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion and/or to help improve the article.

Interview with Bill Muller

I have removed "* Audio tape interview by Lyle Bebensee of the last male survivor of the sinking of the Titanic, Bill Muller." from the See Also section. The last male survivor of Titanic is Michel Marcel Navratil. No "Bill Muller" appears on crew or passenger lists; the closest is a Ludwig Müller, who did not survive. The interview also has certain inconsistencies. Roches (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC) [Fixed red link] Roches (talk) 05:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on RMS Titanic. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208180845/http://www.usps.org/national/ensign/uspscompass/compassarchive/compassv1n1/hypothermia.htm to http://www.usps.org/national/ensign/uspscompass/compassarchive/compassv1n1/hypothermia.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.marconiusa.org/history/titanic.htm

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) 16:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Fire weakening bulkheads

The section "Atlantic crossing" states: "Fortunately, the fire was over on 14 April.[133][134]" (the second ref doesn't work for me). However, a documentary shown on Australian television in August or September 2017 claims on the basis of newly discovered photos that the heat of the fire had so distorted and cracked at least one bulkhead that it collapsed under the weight of incoming water. It also claims that most of the originally engaged stokers refused to sail. It blames the owners for proceeding with the voyage, despite knowing of the fire, rather than face the embarrassment of a delayed departure. The documentary is reported by several media, including CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/02/europe/titanic-fire-new-picture/index.htm. Wikiain (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ship portholes

The first image of the ship has different looking portholes than all the other photos and diagrams of the ship. Is it actually the correct ship?

Yes. If you enlarge the image by clicking on it a couple of times you can read her name on the bow. Another way to tell the difference between her and the Olympic is the forward 1/3 or so of the A deck promenade on Titanic was enclosed to protect the 1st class passengers from the often miserable weather on the North Atlantic. All of which said this is a very famous photo whose provenance is not in doubt. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2017

Please change "Built in Belfast, Ireland, in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (as it was then known)" to "Built in Belfast, Ireland (Now known as Northern Ireland)" As 9 years after the Titanic sank- Ireland split leaving- the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, they thus became separate countries. Northern Ireland became a part of the UK and is a completely different country to Ireland. Evanleigh (talk) 06:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: At the minimum this request should have a consensus before adding it, but the sentence as it stands now is accurate for the geopolitical situation of the time. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2017

I would like to add sources to this page. Higginsal (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2017

I would like to add reliable sources to this page. Higginsal (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Malformed sentence towards end of second paragraph

Towards the end of the second paragraph it says:

In total the ship carried lifeboat davits would could lower three lifeboats each, for a total of 48 boats.

Something's obviously not quite right there. That text was added on 9 November 2017 at 17:54 by @Sydney Rigdon:.

86.21.27.117 (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I have fixed the offending sentence. See my diff. Hopefully Sydney Rigdon will return to change the sentence so it says exactly what he intended. Dolphin (t) 00:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Edits made as suggested by Dolphin.