Talk:Titanic/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Open Letter to Ballard

An interesting read: http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/item/4792/

Link is broken. Looking for it. --Midnightcomm 00:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Steering the Ship

I note that the article describes First Officer Murdoch's actions after the lookouts saw the iceberg. It perhaps misses a beat. In those days, ships turned the opposite way of the wheel. Murdoch's order was "Hard a-starboard!", and the wheelman (Quartermaster) then turned the wheel to the right, but this caused the ship to swing to port (left). His order was the correct order, given the circumstances. In the face of imminent collision at sea, only three options were available: Hard a-starbord (turn the wheel to the right and the ship turns left); Hard a-port (turn the wheel to the left and the ship turns right); All Stop, and allow the collision. In a panic, no one would purposely allow a collision. The Hard a-starboard order meant his intention was to avoid the collision by going around the iceberg to the Port side. In fact, it was the starboard side that actually collided with the iceberg. His mistake, as indicated, was giving the order to "Full Speed Astern", however he could not have known this unless he had been apprised of the engine and propeller configuration (he had not been). The alternate direction steering mode was changed later in the 20th century (steer to port, the ship goes to port). THS member, smileyporkpyn@yahoo.com

I did some checking on this too, and the alternate direction steering mode was changed by international agreement in 1928. This according to Eaton and Haas, Titanic, Triumph and Tragedy (Norton & Co., c 1986), page 137. <smiley> 4.142.105.64 18:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I seem to recall Walter Lord discussing this in one of his books, and I think he said that Titanic was rigged in the new fashion (ie: turn he wheel to starboard and the ship turns to starboard), which may have caused confusion in the wheelhouse at the time of the accident, as the officers would have been used to the older design. --Badger151 05:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you know that the journey was fated from the start as when it left dock in Southampton they realised it was too big to manouvere out of the space it occupied. It went backwards to get into the channel and start its journey and got stuck on the opposite bank so needed tugs to pull it out and in the right direction - this is not shown in any of the films that feature crowded decks of passengers waving goodbye to those they leave behind on the shore. Rebecca

I have never heard of the Titanic running aground. The ship was involved in a near-collision with the New York when its powerful propellers tore New York from its moorings and sucked it towards Titanic. Tugs rushed to stop it but it was only when Smith cut his engines that they were able to push New York back to its berth. LordDextershire is correct, those are films of Olympic, not Titanic. Titanic was one of the most photographed ships ever, despite its short life, but films are extremely rare. <smiley>

Those old films of the crowded decks are actually of the RMS Olympic, though billed as Titanic. 216.52.75.7LordDextershire

I've read a whole swathe of books on the Titanic, including "The last log of the Titanic" (an attempt to reconstruct the fateful moments by an experienced modern-day captain - the result is a very believeable hypothesis) and found no mention of that grounding - there was an incident with another smaller ship which almost sucked into the Titanic by her wake but no running aground in Southampton is mentioned. From the same book I can raise a couple of questions regarding the article - the "crash stop" theory for one. There's no way that the engines were reversed in an emergency stop - such an attempt would have sent an incredible vibration through the aft part of the ship from both the sudden change in engine direction and the cavitation of the screws (which would have been noticed by all aboard - no survivors mentioned such a thing, most of the descriptions talk of a gentle almost unnoticable rumble "as if a giant finger had been drawn along the side of the ship") and would also most likely have snapped both propellor shafts - they were not designed to handle that amount of force. Anyone who has travelled on even a relatively small ferry (20'000-30'000 GRT) is aware of the vibration caused by reversing engines at harbour speeds, which usually causes all the bottles in the duty free shop to rattle along with anything else that isn't bolted down - at 22knots or so it would have been far worse. It seems more likely that the order was "All Stop" rather than "Full Astern" - the idea being that the speed would drop without disrupting the steering and allow Titanic to port around the iceberg. But for a minor miscalculation regarding the turn to starboard she would have succeeded. Hitting the iceberg head on would also not have been thought of - the sheer mass of Titanic going from 22knots to a near dead stop in mere inches would have killed or injured a large proportion of her passengers and crew. To my mind, First Officer Murdoch did the only thing he could, given the circumstances, and I wouldn't attach any blame to his ship handling for the disaster. Matt

IMO, critcism of the X for going full astern (if he did) is unjust. Any sailor confronted with collision will try to take way off, rather than just go "All Stop" & shut his eyes (which seems to be the advice given here...) Trekphiler 09:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I found an article once regarding a ship in the years immideately following the Titanic sinking but have since lost it. This ship was faced with a similar set of circumstances as the Titanic was, but the man in charge of the bridge at the time remembered the Titanic's fate and decided to hit the obstacle head-on. The ship's bow was severely crumpled but it remained afloat. Has anyone else heard of this or have any information, or know the name of the ship in question?

Rudder Size

For some reason, the German language page gives a much better, fairer explanation of the rudder size question. It states that Titanic's rudder (although small to modern eyes) was designed to give the ship a turning circle of 1175m at 20 kts, which was considered normal for open-ocean-going ships of this size at the time. It goes on to say that the Cunard twins had much larger rudders because they had been built to a more-demanding admiralty manoeverability specification, due to their construction being heavily subsidised by the UK government and therefore liable to be requisitioned as armed auxiliary cruisers in wartime. Can anybody give a source for this info, or rebuff it before I attempt an tidy-up to this section?. ChrisRed 16:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This [[1]] (section 17) says "The British Admiralty subsidised the construction of Lusitania and Mauretania" and this[[2]] discusses the effect of rudder size.

I have heard it mentioned once that Titanic's rudder would be legal by today's laws, but I've not been able to find any verification of this statement online. Can anyone shed some light on this?

(Incidentally, is it of interest that the rudder was built in Darlington, and one of the victims of the sinking was the social campaigner W T Stead, one-time editor of that town's newspaper?) Sbz5809 17:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

kaye theres nothing to be racist about, I have irish welsh scottish and english heritige, I just thaught that the anchor should be talked about, ya know these anchors were huge, and it was noah hingley who pioneered building them, by introducing the naysmiths hammer into the works, before the days of noah hingley there were no anchors being produced like that anywhere else, all the navy ships and the like built for the british isles ireland andother countries were all imporing these noah hingley anchors as they were the largest at the time. When it came to industrial espianage the germans were the worst they would come on visits into the factories and have a look on what was going on, and when they got back would grass all the secrets to makers all over the world, so that anchors could be built cheaper and to undermine the firms, and thats what led to the firm closing in the 60's.

                                                                     paul

Engine Reversal, etc.

We have the testimony of the quartermaster at the wheel to support the claim that Murdoch ordered the engines reversed. He survived the disaster. As to the vibrations caused by such an action, the virtual size and complexity of the engines required a reversal to take minutes to achieve. The engines would have to stop, then start again, in order to reverse, a lengthy process. But by choosing this order, the flaw was that although two propellers would have reversed, the center propeller was not designed to operate in reverse. Once the engines started up again, the center propeller resumed forward motion. A "Full Speed Astern" order was actually not full speed, rather somewhat less than full speed, considering two propellers would drive the ship in reverse, but one would continue to push it ahead. Allowing the ship to hit the iceberg dead on would have certainly killed scores or even hundreds of people almost instantly, particularly those located forward towards the bow. Murdoch prudently tried to avoid a collision, and probably anyone in that position would have done the same thing. As to blame, Murdoch was delegated authority by Captain Smith. Such delegation of authority still left Captain Smith in command. The only time a captain is not in command is when he is incapacitated and unable to command. Maritime law is quite clear: The only person responsible for the safety of a ship and it's passengers, crew and cargo, is the captain. Under applicable maritime law, any discussion of who was at the wheel; the substandard materials used in the construction of the ship; the inefficient delivery of wireless ice warnings; None of these are relevant. The captain is responsible. <smiley>

So it would seem likely that the reason for a lack of vibration was that the engines did not have time to work up to "full astern"? I'm aware of the length of time it would take (engineers would not have been expecting engine orders at that time, so their reaction times, moving to the valves, turning them etc would have lengthened it). Not sure they'd have left the centre screw running though - I recall reading that it was left unused while manouvreing (sp?). Matt.

Picture it as the difference between an automatic transmission and a manual transmission. Small ferries are thurst into reverse and you feel the sudden change in direction of the propellers as it is done. On the Titanic, it was similar to depressing a clutch and waiting for the forward motion of the transmission to stop before throwing it into reverse. The event was FORWARD>ALL STOP>REVERSE, a time-consuming process. They couldn't merely "reverse" the engines while they were running. I did a little research on the center propeller issue, and you are correct, the center propeller merely shut off when the ship was thrown into reverse. It was powered by a turbine engine, and could not operate in reverse. This according to Wyn Craig Wade in his book The Titanic (Penguin Books, c 1986) page 253. Interestingly, several other books, much more comprehensive than his, make no mention of this. 4.142.105.64 18:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC) <smiley> 13 Nov 05

Here is something else on the issue: http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/item/1511/

According to this report the engines were only stopped by murdoch to protect the starboard propellerblades, with the reverse order being given after the collision to bring the ship to a physical stop. Also the ship was already turning to starboard(right) again trying (and succeeding) to get it's stern clear of the iceberg. This explains why leaks occured only forward of the first funnel and not along the entire starboard side (porting-around maneuver). That should be updated to the article. There is a nice graphic of the porting-around maneuver in the German article . Nevfennas 13:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll put in information about Titanic porting around the iceberg this weekend. About the ship not being put at full astern, this is the first place I've ever seen it sourced, how widely credible is the theory? MechBrowman 04:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I first heard (rather read) of it when I read the German wiki-article. When discussing Murdochs actions and the allegations of him reversing the engines immedeatly it's considered unlikely for the following reasons (some are already mentioned above under steering):

• The only source for the claim is the testimony of the 4th officer Boxhall who saw the engine telegraph being on "full astern" when he arrived on the bridge after the Titanic collided with the ice. That does not mean they were on full astern before or during the collsion. After a serious collision the standard procedure is to stop the ship to inspect the damage and prevent further damage by reducing the strain on the damaged parts that is always caused by speed.

• Reversing the engines would have caused enormous vibrations at the stern, but there are no reports of such vibrations, though some of the survivors would have had to notice them.

Don't forget that the stern section contained mostly steerage passengers, and that the death toll amongst such passengers was horrendous.

• Going from full ahead to full astern was a complex and time-consuming process to be perfomed by an engineering crew that was not exspecting it. Even if Murdoch assumed that the iceberg was still further away than it was, he could not exspect a reversal to take effect in time.

• After the sinking the "full astern" was always discussed as a maneuver either worthless or counterproductive. One of the most interesting questions of the collision was how an experienced officer as Murdoch could make such a mistake. All attempts to explain this do not really satisfy. Murdoch simply overestimating the distance cannot explain it alone, Murdoch not being aware of the engine configuration is hard to believe, as he made 9 complete journeys on Olympic with similar configuration. Especially when considering the fact that Murdoch was trying a port-around (proven by the location of the leaks) "full astern" makes no sense, it would under all circumstances be counterproductive during the evasion maneuver and since Murdoch did everything else exactly right, it is hard to believe he would make such a big mistake.

In the document I've linked to (in Appendix II) many witnesses from the engine room are cited as saying (in the british hearings) that only a "stop" order was given, with the stokers being informed by the boiler telegraph going from "full" to "stop". For "all astern" the boiler telegraph would have remained on "full", because the engines would still need the steam. Murdoch stopping the engines to prevent damage to the blades (Olympic had suffered such a mishap two months earlier) makes far more sense than the him going full astern. Nevfennas 20:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think a paragraph about this in the Titanic's rudder and the ship's turning ability subsection would work well, but I'm terrible at writing the techinical "stuff". Anyone more comfortable at it? MechBrowman 06:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

IMO, critcism of the X for going full astern (if he did) is unjust. Any sailor confronted with collision will try to take way off, rather than just go "All Stop" & shut his eyes (which seems to be the advice given here...) Trekphiler 09:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No, we're just dicussing what Murdoch did in addition to the evasion manuever Nevfennas 11:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Just thought this might be of interest - one book detailing the possible "All Stop" rather than "Full Astern" argument is "The Last Log of the Titanic" by David G. Brown, this was my source for first posting the theory - I have no connection with him but read the book last year and it seemed convincing enough, the writer apparently holds a US Coast Guard Master's license so I'd expect him to know what he's talking about. There's interesting comment there on the inquiry transcripts vs how they were interpreted too - Brown feels that the difference between sailor's use of some words and the average landlubber (for want of a better word) may have caused some confusion. He also claims that the damaged Titanic may have attempted to steam away from the crash site after pressure from Ismay though that's very debatable - his evidence is based on passengers noticing a slight bow wave, wind, and vibration - he has one eyewitness account suggesting that the engines began turning again shortly afterwards. Maybe a "Controversy" section is needed as we'll never find out for certain exactly what happened. Matt

Coal fire

I'm interested that the alternative theories regarding the Titanic disaster do not contain the information posited by Charles Pellegrino in his book "Ghosts of the Titanic." Pellegrino makes a strong case that the coal-bunker fire, that plagued the Titanic from the time it left Southampton until shortly befored it sank, weakened the bulkhead against which the fire burned. Although the Titanic may have still gone to the bottom, Pellegrino's information indicates that, had the bulkhead not ruptured the ship may still have been afloat when the Carpathia arrived.

It does not have the information in it because no one has put it in yet. Alternate theories needs a thorough going over that I would like to get to one day, it needs copyediting and, as you mentioned, the information is incomplete. If you would like to put the information in the article please do so, but don't forget to cite your sources. MechBrowman 19:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I have read Pellegrino's book, and I have explored many other alternative theories. Much ado has been made of the coal fire, but I am compelled that many authors and researchers, Walter Lord in particular, make little or no mention of it. If this had been a significant factor in the sinking, I am positive Lord would have devoted some measure of his writing to the subject. <smiley>4.142.105.64 18:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Closed gates?

Article currently states "Not helping third-class passengers were gates kept locked by crew members waiting for orders to let the passengers up to the deck.", but at Titanic (1997 film)#Historical inaccuracies it is stated that "There is no evidence for closed, locked gates". Which is correct? --Stoive 16:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no evidence of locked gates as depicted in the film, but there are witnesses to the gates that led into second class from the aft well deck that said the gates were closed until very late. What is written here is simplistic and should be clarified. I'll clarify it once I find an appropriate reference. MechBrowman 15:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Titanic graphitti

In belfast it is largely believed that the Titanic, being built in the Belfast docks by mainly Protestant / Loyalist workmen carried the Slogan "No Pope Here" and other sectarian graphitti. Indeed some would say, or at least imply, that this provoked God into causing the iceberg to break off from the ice-sheets and head south just in time to crash into the anti-clerical ship (HE presumably being an angry and spiteful god).

There was certainly sectarian graphitti on the Titanic and as its such a compelling image and part oif the social history of the ship I think it would be worth a mention in the main article.

What it sound like your mentioning is a curse where the ships number was supposed to read "no pope" when read backwards in a mirror. This is mentioned in Titanic alternate theories. MechBrowman 23:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Near, far, wherever you are: new piece of Titanic found

Titanic broke into three major parts, not two, the CNN says: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/12/05/titanic.find.ap/index.html

Hopefully Mr. Cameron will be able to re-shoot and re-release his movie to make it accurate with new info, so people can soon watch Leo and Kate on the silver screen!

Picture

Shouldn't the main picture be of the ship, not of a newspaper? Would look a lot more appealing, I think.

I like the image of the newspaper, it contains a headline describing the disaster, a drawing of the Titanic and the people involved. A newspaper is a symbol of the entire event and the Titanic's actual fame. MechBrowman 04:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The newspaper is OK, but it would be nice to include a picture of the ship too. Neutron65 5:58 12 January 2006

Confusing sentence

I hid this sentence becuase it does not make sense to me

"This was considered as sufficent, since the weight of the amount of water necessary to flood over the top of the bulkheads would also put more stress on the ship's keel than it could possibly stand. This would cause Titanic to break apart and sink regardless of the height of the bulkheads."

I think its saying the ship would break apart even if not enough bulkheads were compromised, but I'm not sure. MechBrowman 18:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It's supposed to mean the following:

To flood over the bulkheads the water would have rise up to E-deck. Since water cannot rise above sealevel, the ship would have to be pulled down by the water, so that E-deck would end up below sealevel. This was the basis for the calculations for the number of compartements that could be flooded: A leak in one compartement would cause it to be flooded until the water inside the compartement had risen up to sea-level. The weight of the water inside the compartement would be an extra load, causing Titanic to be a little bit deeper in the water the same way a fully loaded ship is deeper in the water than an empty one. The increased depth of the ship would cause the water inside to rise a bit higher, keeping up with the sealevel outside the ship.

That Titanic could stay afloat with any two compartements compromised meant that the water in two compartements could not possibly pull the ship down enough for the upper ends of the bulkheads to end up below the waterline. Depending on which compartements were flooded Titanic could stand between 2 and 4 flooded compartements, before their bulkheads would get under the sealevel. If you look at the height of the individual bulkheads (e.g. the german wiki article has a graphic of the layout) you will see that the forward and aft bulkheads were considerably higher than the center bulkheads, because a leak in one of the outside compartements would cause the bow/stern to sink deeper than a leak in a midship compartement.

In theory, with bulkheads as high as the ship and and no other inlets like bulleyes, one could think that Titanic would be able to take on water until it's physical floating capabitlity was nullified (Titanic being heavier than the displaced water). This probably would have required 6 or more flooded compartements.

But long before that something else destroys the ship: The enormous weight of the water is a load unevenly concentrated through the ship. If the leak is at the bow or stern the weight acts as a lever that pulls one part of the ship down and the other up. The weight of the part in up in the air (in this case it was the stern) is now held by the ships keel and that is not designed for carrying so much weight, therefore it must break.

For an experiment take a ruler and place it on the edge of a table, with half of it on the table and the other half hanging in the air. If you place weights on the table end of the ruler and try to pull the other side down, you will be able to lift small weights up in the air, but if you try it with a heavy weight and pull with sufficent strength the ruler will break.

If the leak would happen to be in the middle of the ship it's only slighty different. The air in bow and stern keeps these parts up, while the water pulls the middle down. In this case the ruler rest with both ends up on something, e.g. two glasses, and it's middle part is up in the air. Now place a large enough weight in the middle and the ruler will break.

What I wanted to explain was that even if the bulkheads had been higher it would not have helped much, that was one of the reasons they were as heigh as they were. So the scenes in the movies where Mr. Andrews is seen as telling the ship will sink because of insufficent bulkhead-height are somewhat misleading. It was not until 30 minutes before the sinking that the water rose above the bulkheads and due to the list of the ship it first flowed further forward into the bow. The first water entering the compartements aft of the leaks came through bulleyes and other openings that could not be sealed.

I read once that had they not ordered the watertight doors closed, the ship would have remained level longer, and perhaps would have allowed more passengers to be saved...once the bow sunk to the point where water could enter the anchor holes the water rushed in extremely fast.

I hope someone can put this in one or more sentences that are more comprehensible than mine :-) Nevfennas 21:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, okay, that makes a lot more sense. I don't want the article to get anymore speculative than it already is, but its interesting information nonetheless.Is there an article or book that point this out or did you get this info from the German wikipedia also? MechBrowman 04:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It's from the German page, their (english) sources for this are:

• C. Hacket & J.G. Bedford: The Sinking of the S.S. TITANIC – Investigated by modern Techniques. 1996
• Marine Forensic Panel (SD 7): Titanic, The Anatomy of a Disaster. 1997

Nevfennas 21:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing those out. I'm going to track these sources down, I'm not comfortable adding the information without context.MechBrowman 06:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ice pop

Not sure if it belongs here, but, the latest I've heard is, the 'berg didn't "push in" her plate, it popped her rivets because the iron in them was brittle (or the plate was). Trekphiler 09:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

But how did the rivets pop if the iceberg wasn't pushing on the hull and putting pressure on the rivets? MechBrowman 03:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It is possible that the berg simply caused the rivit heads to shear off. However, the few exposed regions of the iceberg damage on the wreak shot inward buckling of the hull so it would seem that the berg did push the plates in. Rivit damage would have occured by a) the heads shearing off, and b) the increased stress causing them to snap. Some reports claim that the rivits were made of lower grade steel than the hull plating and represented a weakness in the hull. However, Olympic was built to similar specifications and survived several quite violent collisions during her service life, including two severe enough to result in the loss of the other ship involved. She deliberately rammed and sank a German U-boat in WW1, and inadvertantly crashed into and sunk the Nantucket lighthouse ship a few years before she was retired.

Tech Specs

Could this page be given a table of characteristics like most other wikipedia ship pages, detailing the ships career and specifications such as length, height, cost etc ... -M

Most of those articles are for military ships and the information is located within the article, where it belongs. MechBrowman 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Captain Edward J. Smith

Captain smith is shown as Captain Dude the Third pimp daddy of the titanic in his picture, and his name isn't linked to the wiki page. I checked the edit and can't seem to see any problem with it other than it appears wrong.

It was vandalism and has been fixed. MechBrowman 04:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

head on collision

What would happen if Titanic had a nose/front collision with the iceberg? Would it still sink? After the water tight doors had been locked, I don't see how it could sink...given a lower impact as a result of slowing down. Any comments?

This is common speculation and generally beileved would have likely saved the ship, but the general instinct would be to try and avoid any damage. This idea is mentioned in the Titanic's rudder and the ship's turning ability subsection. MechBrowman 04:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason this would save the ship is because it would only flood 1 or 2 of the water-tight compartments, thus keeping the ship afloat. --NYKenny 12:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody have a citation to support this? I find this thinking very dubious. A ship ramming an iceberg isn't like a car ramming another car. The ship wouldn't just stop dead in the water. Its enormous momentum would carry it forward, and the iceberg would have rolled off to one side or the other and scraped against the side anyway. It takes several miles for a large ship to coast to a stop. (That's probably why the captain didn't order the lifeboats prepared for another 45 minutes.) The claim has been marked "citation needed" since Nov 4. I'm taking it out. -- MiguelMunoz 08:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought

This is just a personal question I have for any Titanic scholars who should stumble accross it...

With more than two hours between realizing that the ship was doomed and it taking its final plunge, couldn't some handy folk have broken up some tables and chairs and built some crude rafts? Obviously they wouldn't have lasted long in the Atlantic waters, but didn't most victims die of hypothermia, and wouldn't have even an extra hour kept out of the frigid water saved at least some people? I just always wondered about that... is there any evidence that anyone even tried to build themselves some kind of escape vehicle?

An interesting idea with hindsight. But keep in mind that most of those people had never been at sea before. They had their lifevests and were sure these would keep them afloat. Few had any idea what the cold water would do to them. Even the surviving officers of the Titanic underestimated the speed people were dying in the water, when they were waiting for "enough" people to die before returning with a half-empty boat to pick up survivors. So according to all known reports nobody thought of making rafts. Nevfennas 23:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Taking all facts into account, no. In the two hours, forty minutes from collision to foundering: 1. At least the first half hour was taken up sounding the ship, then waiting for Andrews to figure out how long the ship had, and then Smith gathering the officers and briefing them on what to do. 2. The next half hour was spent rousting the 2,200 passengers and getting them to put on their lifebelts and go up on deck, while others uncovered and swung out the boats. 3. The first life boat was launched at about 12:30, or 12:40. Even by this time, most on board didn't believe there was any danger and were quite nonchallant about all the activity by the crew. Many passengers were joking about it, or outright refusing to enter the boats. Nobody even dreamed that the ship would sink. 4. After 1:00 AM, with the ship at a much more pronounced list, the pasengers began to realize that the danger might be more serious than they had imagined. But by this time, the ship only had until 2:20. The scramble began to find seats on a boat, and many, if not most, were confident that there were enough lifeboats to accomodate all. Remember, at this point the steerage passengers were still kept below. It wasn't until after the last launch (except for the colllapsables) that Col. Gracie reported "a mass of humanity" appeared from below. At this point the ship had, perhaps, a half hour left, hardly enough time to organize crews and harvest materials to fashion rafts. Further, many still believed the ship might continue floating, and still others believed another ship would come to the rescue. 5. As the final 30 minutes progressed, the steep slope of the ship pretty much prevented doing much anything else but holding on. *THS member* Smileyporkpyn 15:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

One more point. On most boats, especially ocean liners, the furniture tends to be bolted to the floor. It wouldn't have been easy to just flip a table over to make a crude raft. The chairs were probably mobile. Try quickly making a makeshift raft from some chairs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MiguelMunoz (talk • contribs) 23:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

titanics anchor

hey its worth a mention that titanics anchor and chain was made by noah hingey and sons of netherton in the black country region of england, and was haulled by w.a Roe haulage, with twelve shire horses through the streets of netherton, where it was sent by from the northen railway line to the shore where it was ferried to harland and wolfes shipyard.

• • the titanic task that put the town on the map
  • titanics centre anchor.
  • all about the anchor some good photos
  • history of netherton

Paul from walsall

That's a minor detail that doesn't really fit in the article, but the information is accesable here on the talk page. MechBrowman 02:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, i think it was quite an acheivement to build an anchor and chain so big, its an essential part of the ship, they also did other things like cranes rigging and chaines n steel cables for ship building, rigging up boilers n stuff but I dunno much about anything else, they've only just released the records to the firm in the dudley archives. They used to make chains and anchors for other ships aswel, they were contracted by ship builders the word over, until the rest of the world started to make their own chain, then the area sorta went into decline trying to compete with the firms who actually learned their own secrets. German ship builders played a bit of industral espianage with hingley at one time, luring his men at a much higher price to travel to germany, and while they was over there the germans filmed it in black and white as the chain makers were giving a demonstration on chain making and making the tools, when the men relised what what was going on it was already too late, germany was already producing big chain and the secrets spread around the world, I saw the video in a documentary called "the way we were" by carl chinn I think the last chains and anchor was made in netherton in the 60's, but ya can still see chain making going on at the black country living museum, and theres some original noah hingley chain, you should see it close up its really huge.

hey why have you taken that out, its not origonal research, the anchor s one of the most important parts of a ship, without it would crash in the harbour, its just as important as a rudder or a turbine, not to menchion titanics was the biggest ever seen, there were many anchors on the titanic and who ever took that out is sad. alot of the chain was made by hingley, I know why you took it out, I'm not stupid and its childish, I sopose if it was made in ireland you wouldnt have a problem, ger a life aer kid!!! If it wasnt for noah hingley there would be no iron anchors that big, and its only because of industrial espianage that other countries now produce their own anchors!!!

Before throwing allegations of racism around you might want to check your facts. The edit history of this article is available for everyone to see. I removed the section about titanic's anchor (diff) and gave my reasons in the edit summary--the text that I removed was a direct copy of the text of an article at this website, which is clearly marked as being copyright. Wikipedia cannot include copyrighted material without the premission of the copyright holder. JeremyA 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Why did you take my anchor links out

Only one of the links related to the Titanic, the others were more related to the town. MechBrowman 17:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Watertight compartments?

I stand by what I said. Modern day watertight compartments are indeed watertight. These, by definition, were not. No modern day ship is built as the Titanic was with bulkheads x ft above the water line, for just this reason. And, by the way, I totally don't want to get into an edit war here, but "MechBrowman (fixed recent edits, restored better words, just because they weren't watertight under your definition does not allow you to change what they were called)" is technically wrong, and just a little impolite. This is Wiki and by definition I can edit it. In this case I would argue that my words are better. The construction of the Titanic wouldn't be called 'watertight compartments' now. I don't think it was even then; even if it was the difference in then and now meanings of the word should be given. Let's discuss it here, shall we? Guinnog 18:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"The watertightness of bulkheads extended up to one or the other of the decks D or E; the bulkhead A extended to C, but was only watertight to D deck. Bulkheads A and B...further extended watertight up to the underside of D deck." [3] "Bulkheads in the vicinity of the machinery should extend no less than twenty-five percent of the ship above the load waterline, and all should end at a watertight deck." the US inquiry recommendations

• I rest my case. These were not watertight compartments in our sense of the term. (There were of course 44 more genuinely watertight compartment's in the ship's cellular double bottom which were used for water ballast and fresh water, and were rather small} Guinnog 00:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was rude, but what I was trying to say was that despite them not being completely watertight, they were called "watertight compartments". I changed the wording in the article to call them compartments, just compartments and called the bulkheads watertight, which would be accurate under both our definitions. What do you think? MechBrowman 17:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a lot better now. Thanks Guinnog 17:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

mysterious ship

When visiting the "Fisheries Museum of the Atlantic" in the mid 1990's, I remember reading a deathbed confession of a sailor who was on board the "mysterious ship". Apparently the sailors were hunting seals illegally and thought the lights from the Titanic were authorities coming to investigate them. They turned off their lights and sailed off. I seem to remember the ship had been renamed, sometime after that point, to "The City of New York". As this memory is over a decade old, perhaps someone could research this for accuracy?

Lent 20:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The deathbed confession of which you speak is probably that of the First Mate of the Norwegian sealer SAMSON. There are a number of problems with the story, however:

1. The SAMSON was verifiably in port in Iceland (1,500 miles away) just days before the sinking, and returned just days afterwards. This is verified by the port's register, which confirms SAMSON's captain paid his port taxes on the dates in question. It would have been absolutely impossible for a six-knot ship to travel from Iceland down to the Grand Banks and back again in two weeks.

2. The TITANIC site is in international waters, therefore how could they be sealing illegally?

3. The same "memory" offered by the old sailor suggests that SAMSON was off the Carolinas the afternoon before the sinking. Even the fastest ship in the world today could not have reached the Grand Banks in six hours!

As an aside, the CITY OF NEW YORK was launched in the late 1800s; by 1912 its name had been simplified to NEW YORK. This is the ship with which TITANIC almost collided while leaving Southampton on April 10, 1912. It has no bearing on the "mystery ship" story.

artefact vs. artifact

I edited artefacts (yes, I realize that is the British spelling and this was a British vessel) and replaced it with the American spelling (artifacts) because the latter option was appearing elsewhere in the article, and having the two different spellings of the word was inconsistent. Considering en.wikipedia implies American english given that it is physically located in the state of Florida, I believe my change to be appropriate. 65.164.165.36 23:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this an error?

"The investigations found that many safety rules were out of date and as a result numerous safety measures were not enacted.

Stealth graffiti? It seems to imply that although the U.S. Congress investigated, they did nothing. Which is contradicted by the rest of the section. Or is it just a poorly worded way of saying there were few useful rules in place, twice? 169.231.23.208 05:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Needs a better picture

The current picture is too low-res. Klosterdev 06:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

RMS?

Was the ship really an RMS i was under the impression that White Stars principal competitor Cunard was the sole owner of the royal mail shipping rights, and hence the only company that could use RMS as a prefix to its ship names.... Philc 0780 21:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Titanic had a mail room in (I think) the second watertight compartment, spanning 2 decks. Survivors who witnessed this area of the ship flooding include descriptions of the mailmen trying to salvage the post in their accounts. The ship was designed with mail carrying in mind, documentation from the time refers to it as RMS Titanic, it was definately an RMS ship.

Numerical Mistake?

I've been something of a Titanic nut since birth, and I can say that I've never once seen the number "1,517" affiliated with the death toll of the ship. I can dig up sources if anyone would like, but perhaps changing the total to the commonly accepted 1,522 or 1,523? I'm hesitant to change it as is. Also, the number 2,223 in reference to the total number of people on board is almost always instead listed as 2,228. This is probably where the discrepency in death toll occurs as well.

Edit: I want to go ahead and made the change, but am holding off. The U.S. National Archives has it listed at 2,228. My link goes to a .gov page, as opposed to the current .org page. Also, the inquiry of 1912 using to give numbers as of right now has been quite commonly faulted for inaccuracies. The numbers used on the page currently are debatable. I suggest someone else look into it as well, because in 15 years of studying this ship, I've never heard the number 2,223 by anything EXCEPT the faulty inquiry. - President David Palmer

VS. Olympic

All: I am just wondering if it is worth it, even here in discussion, to examine the differences between the RMS Olmpic and Titanic? A lot of hype is given to the Titanic because of its infamous sinking, but as the Olympic had be underway for some time before and was the same length, what distinguished these craft from one another? Was the Titanic more ornate? More technologically advanced? Designed with a higher class of clientelle in mind? Why were people (if they in fact were) people in awe of the Titanic when the Olymic was already afloat and looked, at least to me, to be equally impressive in size and stature? These are just questions I have as I often wonder what would people have remembered if it was the Olympic that had gone down and not the Titanic. Thanks, in advance. Madmaxmarchhare 04:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of the questions you have asked are answered here under the ship that never sank. It deals with the conspiracy theory that the ships were switched in an insurance scam after the Olympic had its back broken in a collision with the HMS Hawke. It lists most of the differences between the two ships whilst explaining the switch. Philc 0780 12:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually saw that after I wrote my paragraph, and, yup, it did answer a fair amount of the questions that I had. However, I'm not 100% sure that one should have to look on an alternate theories page for that information... It was interesting reading, nonetheless, however. Madmaxmarchhare 21:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Grammar

I was just thinking it said that there was 2,223 people on board, but as it says

out of First class, 199 survived and 130 died (60%)adds up to 329 people in First class

out of Second class, 119 survived and 166 died (44%)adds up to 285 people in Second class

out of Third class, 214 survived and 536 died (25%)adds up to 750 people in Third class

out of the crew, 214 survived and 685 died (24%)adds up to 899 crew members

If you add up 329 285 750 and 899, you get 2,263 not 2,223. Just saying!

Those percentages are all rounded, and neither 2,263 or 2,223 are right anyway. Also, please don't delete the entire body of this original post to make your own. - President David Palmer

TitaniC ?

I noticed that TitaniC (with the capitalised T and C) redirects here. Is there some significance to writing it with an upper-case C like this? If so, perhaps it should be noted; if not, perhaps that redirect should be deleted? Phirst 08:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments ?

This is a pretty good article. I have a few comments. In nautical terms, tonnage comes in many varieties and the tonnage given for Titanis is ususally the measurment "gross tonnage" which is a cubic measurment of enclosed space. Displacement, the amount of water the ship displaces is used to measure weight. I revised the tonnage listed to correct this and added the displacement. I was not sure which one to put, ( design, verus departure weight, etc) so I put an approximation of the various figures.

Also, there was not Northern Ireland when the ship was built, so "... in what is now Northern Ireland, UK" might be appropriate. Some parts of the article are not neutral. The punctuation and sentence structure of some paragraphs is confusing. Not all of the bulkhead doors were operated from the "bridge switch". The section describing the anatomy of the damage should be cited. All figures of the number of passengers should be noted as known figures since steerage (third class) passengers were not all listed on manifests.The part about the head-on impact is false and should be substantiated. The experts who have said such a collision would have saved the ship and only a minor length of the bow would have been crumpled This has happened many times before ( ie Andrea Doria versus the Stokholm and the Arizona in 1879). There is a solid history of head-on collisions and no sinikngs.(Gary Joseph 11:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC))

The "Unknown Child"

Perhaps we could add something about the mystery surrounding the "Unknown Child" who was the fourth body recovered by the Mackay-Bennett? He's been identified now, but it was one of the most endearing stories of the more unknown victims of the disaster. Morhange 22:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Iceberg Picture

Is there any real reason for the iceberg image in the 'diaster' section ? It doesn't add anything useful...

ahpook 23:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I remember seeing a b/w picture of an iceberg in a book about the Titanic (can't remember which), caption was reading about in the following days many icebergs were photografed as the one that sank the Titanic, this one showing some kind of red line is probably the most likely candidate. Maybe someone can find the photo, I think was made by someone aboard the Frankfurt Nevfennas 08:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, no confirmed photographs of the iceberg exist. One of the vessels searching for survivors did capture some images of what appeared to be a 'berg with a stripe of red paint on it, but there was no way of proving that this was the iceberg in question. ahpook 11:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a photograph of the iceberg suspected of sinking Titanic in Walter Lord's A Night To Remember. The photo shows one side of the berg with what appears to be red paint on it near the waterline.

If someone is still interested in using the photo, here's a link to it: http://www.uscg.mil/lantarea/iip/pics/unberg.jpg (it's from the USCG's website). It is the berg containing the infamouse "red smear" and was found in the same vicinity as many bodies and debris from the ship. The photo is credited to the chief steward of the Prinze Adelbert, who took the photo at a time when he was still unaware the Titanic had gone down, thus it was temporarily neglected. President David Palmer

Accuracy

It says that "the British inquiry had determined mathematically that the damage to the ship could not have comprised more than twelve inches square". I own a Discovery Channel documentary about the expedition that solved many of the mysteries. In it, they say that the damage they found was about twelve square feet (the surface area of an average sized person). Also, do we mention the fact that they found about 60 square feet from the third piece of the hull? One more thing, are we going to get images of all the ship's deckplans?- JustPhil 18:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Iceberg/Pack Ice?

I've added the section about Collins' book and conclusions, but I'm also wondering whether we should alter the main text to reflect the uncertainty it brings up over what sort of ice the ship actually hit. Personally having read the book I'm convinced it was pack ice, but since the general consensus from the enquiries is that it was a berg this obviously isn't something that can be altered with debate. MartinMcCann 18:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ireland?

Belfast, Ireland? Shouldn't this say Belfast, Northern Ireland? It was a British, not an Irish vessel after all. 84.69.106.119 17:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

At the time the whole of Ireland was part of the UK. The southern counties weren't granted independance until 1922. MartinMcCann 19:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Comparable maritime disasters #2

There's contradicting pieces of info in this section. Consider:

The worst peacetime maritime disaster happened on 21 December 1987, when the passenger ferry Doña Paz sank in the Philippines after colliding with the oil tanker Vector and catching fire. The sinking of Doña Paz claimed between 1,500 and 4,000 lives.

and Although "Titanic" is the best known peacetime maritime disaster, the worst one comes from the MV Joola, a Senegalese government-owned ferry that capsized off the coast of The Gambia on Sept. 26, 2002. The disaster resulted in the deaths of at least 1,863 people, making it the deadliest peacetime maritime disaster known.

Well, which is it? Maybe the latter section was added later and the editor missed the earlier text. Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення), 11 May 2006

If you look at the article about the Doña Paz, that article states that the official death toll for the Doña Paz was only 1,565 but had been 'reported' to be as high as 4,000. Since the 4,000 figure was an estimate based on un-confirmed reports, thhe MV Joola retains the record as that has been confirmed to be higher. I do accept that the section about the Doña Paz needs to be edited to reflect this though. JonEastham 11:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Binoculars and the Titanic

Although the RMS Titanic did carry binoculars, the lookouts were not supplied with them, and why they were not has been the subject of much speculation. It has also been asked: If the lookouts had binoculars, would the field glasses have made a difference? The book; "Titanic, the Death and Life of a Legend" by Michael Davie, 1986, pages 39 to 41, goes into great detail discussing the subject. According to the book, no one knows why the binoculars were not issued. Fredrick Fleet, a lookout, argued,(at the inquiry), if he had binoculars, he would have seen the berg sooner. 2nd Officer Charles Lightoller argued,(at the same inquiry), they were not important. However,(to quote the book); "In the British Navy, lookouts are taught to look for icebergs first with their eyes and then with binoculars." Both naked eyes and binoculars are used. Binoculars were standard on White Star ships and there was a locker for binoculars on the RMS Titanic, which was empty on April 14,1912. At Titanic-titanic.com [[4]], it is stated that the reason the lookouts were not issued binoculars, is because there was a change in the officer in charge of the equipment from David Blair to Henry Wilde, and this mixup was responsible for the lost binoculars. If this is the real reason, it sounds like incompetence on behalf of the officers, especially since the accident occured 5 days after the ship left port. The officers should have found and issued the binoculars to the lookouts by then. 24.195.52.131 18:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Titanic 2

I've heard rumors over the years about a second Titanic either Had been built, is being built, or is going to be built. Any truth to these rumors?

I heard those same rumors as well. I heard that the ship was gonna sail and reach New York on January 1st, 2000. This may have been a joke. Besides, it might be disappointing to have a Edwardian steamship in a world where cruise ships have four internet cafes, twelve swimming pools, etc. In other words, the ship would be out of place in our world (just my opinion).- JustPhil 15:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I heard the same thing. But I've also heard it's bad luck to name a ship after one that's already sunk. If I had to guess, I'd assume they went with a different name. Queen Mary 2 seems like a possible candidate.Mustang6172 08:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the HMS Olympic might be what you are refering to. 220.253.18.90

4 Cylinder engine?

Is that statement correct? It just seems that 4 Cylinder TRIPLE expansion is a contradiction. Does a triple expansion engine not, by defination, have 3 cylinders?

Not always. There can be multiple low-pressure cylinders. See Steam Engine. Titanic and her sisters had two low-pressure cylinders. [[5]]

The four-cylinder triple expansion engine was better balanced and ran with less vibration than versions with only three cylinders. Triple expansion referes not the the cylinder number but the number of stages of expansion. By incorportating three stages, the maximum amount of work was taken, while the pressure of the steam went from 215 psi to only 7psi, the pressure at which the exhaust was fed to the turbine engine. While the turbine engine internally may have had several expansion stages, as a unit it was essentially a fourth expansion stage, since the steam exhausted it into the 20-23" Hg vacuum of the condenser.-WK-

Amerika/America?

A while back when setting up subheadlines I used the name Amerika from the article which was the Hamburg line ship that first warned of icebergs. Somebody changed it to America and I changed it back so everything is consistent. But on further research I see that America is also correct (although a real #*@! to use as a keyword search on the topic). I was curious if there is strong opinions one way or the other or what the wiki way was on this. The ship probably deserves a full fledged wiki entry. Thanks! Americasroof 18:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Amerika was a German steamship of the Hamburg-Amerika Linie (the Hamburg-America Line) until she was renamed America after being seized by the USN in 1917 and should be named with the original German spelling in this particular context (in my opinion at least). --SincereGuy 19:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia Incorrect

The world's largest passenger ship, Royal Caribbean International's Freedom of the Seas easily dwarfs the Titanic, being approximately 3.4 times the Titanic's displacement.

This is wrong. Freedom has been estimated as displacing 75 to 80 thousand tons. Titanic was just over 50. How is this 3.4 times? Do not confuse displacement and gross registered tons. It has been mentioned in this article and mentioned elswhere in Wikipedia. (Gary Joseph 06:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC))

Worst Peacetime Disaster

MV Joola being the deadliest peacetime disaster?

The ferry Dona Paz collided with the 629-ton tanker Victor, loaded with 8,800 barrels of petroleum products, in the Tablas Strait. The collision ignited an explosion and fire. Of the 1,583 passengers and 60 crew on the Dona Paz manifest, only 24 people survived. Their accounts of the disaster, however, indicate that the ferry carried a large number of people who were not listed on the ship’s manifest. Estimates of the death toll range from 3,000–4,375. Authorities recovered only 275 bodies. Of the 13 crew members on the Victor, two people survived. A variety of possible causes for the collision were suggested, including mechanical failure and inattention by the captain and other ship’s officers. The Dona Paz was not equipped with a radio, and the accident occurred on a moonless night.

Someone reading the "comparable disaster" section might get confused. What I mean there is a conflict of information between MV Joova and MV Dona Paz.

Titanic Replica; Titanic Remembered; Trivia

The unrealized scheme to replicate the liner is really not relevant here. This is an encylopedia article, not a collection of any and all references to the ship, no matter how speculative or far-fetched. There are other places people can go read about this stuff. This section should be deleted. Kablammo 02:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, 2 versus 1 and I lose, since noone is happy with my addition I delete the article. My point this is historical account that someone was attempting to build a replica in fact this is not a rumour this is actually reported from reuters.

I pasted here just for reference:

In 1998, a joint venture with South African and British companies formed a company called RMS Titanic Shipping Holdings. They were planning to build a replica called Titanic II and fitted with all the modern propulsion and safety features. March 23, 1998, Harland and Wolff, who originally built liner, was contacted to plan and construct the replica in South Africa and the cost was estimated from $400 to $600 million. The reaction was mixed; some people were excited while others felt that it was an insult to the dead and survivours. Some critics questioned the unrealistic time frame and the fesability of the project. As of 2006, there was no report regarding the development of the replica.

jbrian80

There also have been schemes reported over the years to float her which came to nothing. While the replica plan is not a rumor and you did cite a 1998 source for it, nothing came of it. So I think it added little to an already long article. If people are interested in it, you have provided references here.

I would lose the "Titanic Remembered" section as well-- that's a transitory news item, not encylopedia material. And the trivia item truly is trivial and not relevant to much of anything. It's hard to imagine there are many people out there who think that Titanic was larger than a supertanker. Kablammo 03:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I understand the article is so bloody long. Forget it, I thought I can relate the story to "Titanic" fever in 1998. I thought earlier that the story of building Titanic replica is more relevant than that Pentium Itanium thing on pop culture section then Malo butchered it. Forget it, that replica story is stupid so nothing harmed except the editing history is trashed with craps ;) Dont bother butchering the "Titanic Remebber" thats more important.

As discussed above, I have deleted the Titanic Remembered section as that was newpaper material, not encylopedia material. I also deleted the Trivia item on the supertanker. I moved the deckplans to the external links section, and rewrote the Last Survivors section to give an ending to the article. Kablammo 16:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Titanic vs Olympic

Olympic suffers from vibration, ventilation problem, according to one of cheif designer of Aquitania. The big question is, did Harland and Wolff correct these problem?

Lifeboats

Is their any evidence for the statement that insufficient lifeboats were provided for primarily economic reasons? Would it not be that if economics had prevailed then only the minimum number of lifeboats required by the British Board of Trade would have been provided?

- I have never once heard that it was done for economic reasons. From my readings, it seems that the lack of lifeboats was that White Star Line did not wish to crowd the boat deck and the promenade with the clutter caused by the additional 20 or so boats that it would need for the number of passengers on the maiden voyage. It would have taken an additional 40 lifeboats to the 20 it had with it on that voyage to take care of the maximum occupancy (3,000+). White Star's arrogance in assuming the ship was unsinkable only contributed to their comfort in not adding any other boats. President David Palmer

I agree ClemMcGann 20:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the article to state that the reason for the decision not to fit more lifeboats is unknown. Is their any primary evidence for the 'Clutter' theory? WhaleyTim

The claim that Ismay cancelled the lifeboats as they would "detract from the leisure space for passengers" has been added to the site. I am not greatly read on the subject, but have not (yet) come across any primary evidence that will support this claim, although I know it has become part of the folklore. Can anyone provide a source for this claim? WhaleyTim 13:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the lifeboat question

The question of lifeboat regulations was under review at the time of the sinking. This review had been ongoing from some years and does not seem to have been considered urgent.

The ship owners in general had opposed 100% provision of lifeboats. They presented an argument that lifeboats would be ineffective in many emergency conditions, and to provide trained crews for all boats would be prohibitively expensive. Essentially their (somewhat flawed) argument was that as full provision of lifeboats was not a sufficient condition of safety it could not be considered a necessary condition.

Also increasing the number of lifeboats on existing vessels would be expensive, and possibly (by increased top hamper) make these vessels less seaworthy, and increase the risk to passengers.

If the Olympic class had 100% provision, this would have undermined the ship owner’s position. It is a viable (but untested, and probably untestable) hypothesis that White Star did not fit the additional lifeboats as an act of solidarity with the other ship owners, and to prevent them being forced to refit their existing fleet. WhaleyTim 13:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comparable Maritime Disasters

It's time to revisit the discussion on this section. This site is about Titanic, not other ships. With the possible exception of the first two sentences, this whole section should be in a separate article. Kablammo 19:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC) There is something missing after the reference to Hans Hedtoft. William Overal

Clairvoyance / Predictions

I was under the impression that the Titanic was one of the most popular events that has been claimed after the fact to have been predicted beforehand. Is there any reason for this topic's non-inclusion? -UK-Logician-2006

Hmmm (R.M.S.) Titanic

I am tempted to revert it back to RMS from R.M.S. since many known of ocean liner article comes with RMS abbreviation....

That Doraemon thing was taken out from the list because it lacks of year and it said comic book. In Addition I cant find anything on the net about it....

Etc

As a newcomer to this article there are a few things that I feel need fixing. The 'Comparison To Olympic' does not seem to me to be highly relevent in context, and most of the content of the section does not actually make such comparisons. There should be a section (and perhaps a more detailed linked seperate article) dealing with the British Board of Trade enquiry. The section on the 'Pack Ice Theory' should perhaps be moved to the 'alternative theories' article.

In general I think that given the vast amount of secondary and tertiary sources that abound, the number of competing and contentious theories along with the high emotion that the subject still creates that this article should be in general a fairly short narrative history based on primary sources, with seperate articles expanding on particular issues.

You are right specially with moving pack ice theory to alternative theory. I felt the comparrison is iadquate and it needs expansion or maybe I thought about moving it to RMS Olympic then create a link (just what it did on Lusitania comparing the olympic class). Titanic is essentially a vastly improved Olympic. The difference seems to be little, but its more than we ever thought. (Just ask Kit manufacturer and Kit buuilders). an account from one of the passenger said that Titanic didnt have any vibration problem with Olympic. Just do what you have to do, but you should let everyone know your intent then you can do a drastic change (deleting a chunks of paragraph). If it just a minor one like spelling, bad grammar or innacurracies you dont have to.

I agree that the article is too detailed for an encyclopedia, but as suggested the detail should go into linked articles. The Board of Trade investigation is mentioned in the article and I therefore have deleted the word "Congressional" from the title "Congressional investigation" where the BOT/Mersey inquiry was discussed. Either or both investigations would merit a separate page. Kablammo 21:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I am moving the Pack ice theory to the alternative theory article. I made the Alternative theory as Main topic rather than subtopic. (that lightens up the load on titanic artile a little).

Okay I made a modification on some section. I move some of them on construciton and I slightly expanded the comparisson. I have to make sure everyone agree with this:

Harland and Wolff shipyard

Titanic was a White Star Line ocean liner built at the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast, Ireland (now in Northern Ireland) and was designed to compete with rival company Cunard Line's Lusitania and Mauretania. Titanic, along with its Olympic class sisters, Olympic and the soon to be built Britannic (originally to be named Gigantic ), were intended to be the largest, most luxurious ships ever to operate. Titanic was designed by Harland and Wolff chairman Lord Pirrie, head of Harland and Wolff's design department Thomas Andrews and general manager Alexander Carlisle, with the plans regularly sent to White Star Line's managing director J. Bruce Ismay for suggestions and approval. Construction of Titanic, funded by the American J.P. Morgan and his International Mercantile Marine Co., began on March 31 1909. Titanic No. 401, was launched two years and two months later on May 31 1911. Titanic's outfitting was completed on March 31 the following year.

Titanic was 882 ft 9 in (269 m) long and 92 ft 6 in (28 m) at its beam, it had a Gross Register Tonnage of 46,328 tons, and a height from the water line to the boat deck of 60 ft (18 m). It contained two reciprocating four-cylinder, triple expansion, inverted steam engines and one low pressure Parsons turbine which powered three propellers. There were 29 boilers fired by 159 coal burning furnaces that made possible a top speed of 23 knots (43 km/h). Only three of the four 63 foot (19 m) tall funnels were functional; the fourth funnel, which only served as a vent, was added to make the ship look more impressive. The ship could hold a total of 3,547 passengers and crew and, because it carried mail, its name was given the prefix RMS (Royal Mail Steamer) as well as SS (Steam Ship).

Comparisons to the Olympic

Titanic was identical to its older sister Olympic. However, Titanic received a number of modification and some of them was suggested by Bruce Ismay and Thomas Andrews after they made some observation with Olympic. Some of the flaws found on Olympic, such as the creaking aft expansion joint, was corrected on Titanic. The most noticeable difference was half of Titanic's forward promenade deck (below the lifeboat deck) was enclosed to protect the passengers from weather spray. Unlike Olympic, Titanic had a specialty restaurant called Café Parisienne. Other differences such as Titanic's skid lights, that provide natural illumination on A-deck, was round while on Olympic was oval. These extra modification make Titanic 1,004 tonnes larger than Olympic.

Everyone feel free to alter the section, I want to make sure everyone agreed to this article before pasting it.. Extra info on Titanic's forgotten extra blueprint

Comparing Titanic with other ships is welcome, but I prefer them on new article of sperate page.

Infobox/General Characteristics

Should this section not list passenger capacity, rather than passengers on board on the maiden voyage? The title after all is "General Characteristics"; such tables are used to compare ships, and the number of passengers on board in 1912 is set forth in the text.Kablammo 21:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons

Perhaps a comparison between 'Titanic' and other contemporary ships, representing the then standard and best practice, particularly in the areas of internal subdivision, life saving equipment and other safety issues relating to the sinking might be useful. It is all too easy when discussiong Titanic to create the impression that the Olympic class vessels were uniquely dangerous (Whaley Tim) (PS I note the comparison given in the Lusitania article )

Feel free to do that on seprate article, make a chart and so on...I guess

Brittle steel or bad rivets?

There have been several scholarly publications with analyses of the steel in the sides of the ship. It was ok by 1911 standards but became brittle at freezing temperatures, unlike modern steel. This has been implicated as a cause for the sinking. Then there is a school of thought that the brittle steel is a myth and it was the fault of brittle rivets which sheared of. I was a bit surprised to find no mention of this issue in the article. 71.228.11.251 03:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep it was mentioned on rediscovery section. - Jbrian80

Raise the Titanic in Pop Section

Notable was the film score by John Barry (composer) of James Bond fame, and is considered by some to be better than the 1997 Titanic film score by James Horner

I felt this sentence is inapropriate in popular culture. The section is all about films making reference to titanic and not comparing musical scores. Please put it on "Raise the titanic" section.

Blue Ensign & Nationality

Can someone please explain to me why my carefuly 'crafted' Career tag on the side bar has been removed, as well as the all-important Blue Ensign. Other ship related articles, such as Cunard's Queen Mary 2, have these features in their respective articles (although usually with the Red Ensign), so I dont see why this article should be any different, considering E.J Smith served with the Navy in the Boer War, and that it was only 3rd Officer Pittman who was not in the Navy Reserve.

Also I really cant understand why the fact that the Titanic was a British ship has been emitted, and when it is included in the article, it is constantly removed. As a respected Titanic Hstorian (whom wishes to remain anon) as well as a proud member of the United Kingdom I can't understand why such details which, in my opinion, add to the richness of this fine article are 'vetted' by members of this website. Can someone please provide an answer in the space below. Regards and many thanks!

While I don't know why this has been changed, perhaps it is to avoid the issue of IMM's nationality. You may get more response by moving this to the bottom of the page, which is where new subjects are typically raised. Kablammo 13:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

(moved new content to bottom)Akradecki 15:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In looking through the history, it looks like the items you added were removed unintentionally during other edit reveresions. I've put them back. As for issues of nationality, there is no question. The ship was British...has to be to carry the RMS prefix. Yes, IMM is a different story, but that doesn't change the flag the the ship was flying under. Akradecki 15:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 20:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Titanic-Titanic.Com appears to be misdesribed - The last time I visted there it was a forum with other links which seemed to be dedicated to Google Ads.

I believe you're mistaken. Try clicking on "Site Map" on the main page and you will see that the site has a wealth of information related to the Titanic. —dustmite 15:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Auto Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
• The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
• As per WP:MOSDATE, dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • some people sa
  • allege
  • apparently
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 33 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
• Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 08:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

APR update

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 50 miles, use 50 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 50&nbsp;miles.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.^[?] Specifically, an example is 10 ft.
• When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • some people sa
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), meter (A) (British: metre), recognize (A) (British: recognise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), signaling (A) (British: signalling), travelled (B) (American: traveled), any more (B) (American: anymore), sulphur (B) (American: sulfur).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Avoid using contractions like: wouldn't.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 10:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

1:45 PM - Amerika iceberg warning section requires cleanup

1:45 PM - Amerika iceberg warning "On the night of Sunday, April 14" this section is supposed to be going on about daytime?

Yes, the wireless warning was received on the afternoon prior to the night it sank. Akradecki 18:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Curse the fools!

Curse the utter fools who made the descision to build that ship! It was their fault. If they had anything in their skulls other than blue cheese and a jellyfish, they should have known that building such a large ship was sheer stupidity. It should have beem obvious that they did not have proper technology to make the ship safe and agile enough to turn fast enough to avoid icebergs. I hope their souls went down with the titianic itself...- SilentWind 20:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, the design was only flawed really because the tops of the bulkheads did not extend to the top of the ship. The size was irrelevant to be honest, given that the technology was suficient, just not incorporated into the ship

Indeed. There was very little about the Titanic that made her less fit for purpose than her contemporaries. If she had been navigated in a safe manner she may well have had a long and uneventful life Whaley Tim

You might someone like Thomas Andrews who helped designed the ship? Too bad Bruce Ismay jumped into that lifeboat, huh? Morhange 01:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

New Picture

Excuse me i keep on adding a new, and must i say it, better picture to the article, but for some reason or another it keeps on being reverted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.193.98 (talk • contribs)

There are a number of us who don't think it's a better pic. Please discuss such changes here before unilaterally doing it. Also, you might want to consider registering and editing under a user name.Akradecki 04:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well why isn't it better, the old one is clear, fuzzy and has the subject of the article in the background, whereas the new one has the actual ship, centered and large and very clear without any fuzziness and blotches. And what you've just said, surely before reverting it should be discussed, so I guess it works both ways Ahadland 19:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If it hadn't been photoshopped, I might be inclined to think otherwise, but a ship floating in white space with no context? Nope. If you go back through the history, you'll see that this subject has already been decided...with the photoshopped image being rejected. And no, revert to what could be considered mild vandalism doesn't need to be discussed first. Akradecki 19:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If an image has context but is still quite frankly cluttered and has the subject in the background it should not be the picture on the article's infobox, something with clarity is what is needed. Besides this talk page isn't archived and there is no reference to the new picture in this talk page, so your revert, and there are a number of us, thats why its just me and you having a debate?

If you are concerned that others have not weighed in yet, then permit me to do so: If a photograph has been altered it should not be used. Kablammo 22:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not, it presents if it presents it with greater depth and clarity? I mean e a personally, if it were upto me we would use coloured movie snapshots from the film. But hey, political correctness gone mad, why have a nice clear, colour image, when you can have a black and white rubbish one

But clarity isn't the whole issue. Context (ie, the subject within the image) and historicity is also important. Sea trials represent the first actual sailing of the ship, and the image itself is full of context. Sorry, you won't convince me of color, either. There's a wonderful beauty about old B&W images. There are countless ones that would lose so much if they were in color. Again, I would be open to the change if the one you want was unaltered. What does the original look like? Why was it whited out? Post it to this talk page so we can see. And thanks for retracting the personal attack.

Akradecki 00:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll attemptto find the original picture before I took it out of context right|300px

I can't seem to be able to remove the border with the caption. The image that has just been cut out was what I found on the internet, however, the picture of the ship appears to be the same. Click it for a larger view

Um, big problem. Notice the copyright statement in the border? Cutting it out doesn't make it go away, and it makes it ineligible for use on Wikipedia. Akradecki 15:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What if I pay the company to let us use it, gotta admit, its a good picture?

Get permission for GFDL distribution license first, then we'll talk.

Akradecki 17:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm only 16, I don't know how to do that

You have to contact the owners of the copyright, in this case the Smithsonian. Write a letter explaining what you want to do, and explaining that they will have to release the image under the GFDL license )Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License). Akradecki 19:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I see, and how do i prove that they've let me use it for free documentation?

Read this for details: Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Akradecki 19:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconds From Disaster article

I'[ve noticed that my 'timeline of events' article was deleted due to speculation, what was so speculative? The article was based on footage of a test carried out by N.I.S.T (National Institute of S tandards and Technology)if u don't believe me, search titanic on the internet and u'll find this info B06Todd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by B06Todd (talk • contribs) 18:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Blue Ensign

The Titanic used the Blue Ensign and NOT the Red Ensign. Whilst she was indeed a merchant ship, E.J Smith had served in the Boer War (1902) with the Royal Navy, and it was only Third Officer Pittman who was not in the Navy Reserve. So in terms of British Maritime tradition, a ship under the command of such a crew is permitted to fly the Blue Ensign in recognition of these facts, and it did.

Please stop with the use of the Red Ensign. --Jbryant500 10:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think part of the problem on both sides of the issue is the lack of information. No one is citing sources. You've at least provided a plausible explanation, but it would have helped if you cited a source for the statement "and it did". Akradecki 14:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that I have found a source and that the explanation given by the unsigned user above is indeed valid (at least in my view). Have a look at http://flagspot.net/flags/gb-blenr.html Which states: British merchant ship would be allowed to fly the plain Blue Ensign providing that the ship's master was an officer of the Royal Naval Reserve (RNR) and it just so happens that Edward Smith was an officer of the Royal Naval Reserve. And while there where some other restrictions regarding the number of crew which must also be RNRs, that requirement seems to have been relaxed over the years before the ship sailed. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 19:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I found some more information that seems to confirm that the blue ensign was used; [6] and [7]. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 19:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic...now that's the type of research that will be helpful in justifying the way the article is presented. Akradecki 19:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

californian

The section "Investigation, safety rules and the Californian" reports the findings of the Smith Inquiry (U.S.) and Mersey Inquiry (U.K.) concerning the Leyland liner Californian and its captain, Stanley Lord, at face value. This is extremely misleading and one-sided, repeating popular misconceptions and ignoring a sizable debate that dates back to the time of the inquiries and has been in front of the general public at least since Peter Padfield's book Titanic and Californian was published in 1962. This section also seems a bit naive, as it overlooks purely political reasons for the actions at least of Lord Mersey, whose role as a hatchet-man for the political authorities is more transparently on view in his handling of the inquiry into the Lusitania sinking, a case where questions of state were more directly involved. In the case of the Titanic inquiry, he may have been motivated by a desire to distract attention from his ruling that the captain and owners of the Titanic could not be held liable for their actions with respect to the safety of their passengers and crew.

It may not be possible to settle the argument over the actions of the Californian once and for all in this space. However, with all their vehemence, partisans for the popular version of the Californian story can not explain away the several inconsistencies and flaws in the documentary record they use to justify their convictions. At the very least, an acknowledgement of the extent to which prominant historians have revised the originally politicized findings of the official inquiries with regard to the Californian is required to bring this section to a minimally respectable level. As it is, it is a merely perfunctory retelling of discredited popular disinformation.208.100.231.173 02:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Extra payments to survivors

A few months ago, I had went to a local museum who had an exhibit of the Titanic. Really neat too. It had given you a ticket with your "persons" name on it, and at the end of the tour, a huge bulletin board with all the passengers on the Titantic were listed. They had different categories from who survived that were rich to the poorest of the survivors (My person had died, whereas my person's wife did not..). An interesting thing though was that I had later found out that the White Star Line company had given EXTRA payment to the survivors in an attempt to make a few extra bucks. I found that quite absurd(sp?), but I'm just wondering if it were true. And if it is, it would be really nice if you could add that to the article, if you have not done so already.

                                     -Anonymous Internet person guy.

Red links

Current red links listed below with the section of the article in which they can be found, for discussion. --Mal 05:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Café Parisienne

• RMS Titanic#Unsurpassed luxury

This part of the ship doesn't have its own article. Should it? Is there an article on it with a different spelling? --Mal 05:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Pierre Maréchal Sr.

• RMS Titanic#Passengers

Described in the article as a "pioneer aviation entrepreneur". There is also some information in the notes at the bottom of the page. --Mal 05:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Jean Louis Michel

• RMS Titanic#Disaster

Michel was one of the leaders of the team, along with Robert Ballard, who discovered the wreck in 1985. Ballard has his own article apparently. Should Michel have one? --Mal 05:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Leyland Line

• RMS Titanic#Investigation, safety rules and the Californian

Shipping company that doesn't have its own article. Can we contact any WikiProject group who can offer to write one? --Mal 05:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

International Conference on Wireless Communication at Sea

• RMS Titanic#Use of SOS

Don Lynch and Ken Marschall

• RMS Titanic#Rediscovery

Do "historian Don Lynch and historical artist Ken Marschall" have their own articles? --Mal 05:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ductile-brittle transition

• RMS Titanic#Rediscovery

What is this process? Is it explained in any Wikipedia article that already exists? --Mal 05:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Return to Titanic

• RMS Titanic#Current condition of the wreck

Robert Ballard's book. Is it notable enough to deserve its own article? Is it mentioned in Ballard's article? If yes, then is there enough information to create a new article? --Mal 05:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Titanic: the Musical

• RMS Titanic#Popular culture

This musical (from a book with its own article in Wikipedia) apparently prompted a book of its own by Peter Stone (needs article?). The lyrics and music were done by Maury Yeston (needs article?).

It won five Tony Awards and starred several actors that have articles about them on Wikipedia. --Mal 05:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Both Peter Stone and Maury Yeston have articles. Also, it looks like the Titanic musical was wrongly wikified. --Mal 05:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Jennifer Piech and Martin Moran

• RMS Titanic#Popular culture

Notable enough actors in the aforementioned musical to warrant their own articles? --Mal 05:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Bertha Watt and Helen Shine

• RMS Titanic#The last ten survivors

The 12th and 11th last survivors of the disaster. --Mal 05:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The novel predicting Titanic's fate

Who wrote the novel about a great ship, Titan, which have sank the same way as Titanic, a few years earlier (1911 as I can remember)?--Alex:Dan 02:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Morgan Robertson, (possible inventor of the periscope), wrote Futility, or the Wreck of the Titan in 1898. I do not know how he responded to news of the Titanic disaster.204.80.61.10 21:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Would like to draw reference to a community website

"Encyclopedia Titanica" - http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org specifically the forums offer a place where both "novice" and "professional" Titanic hobbiests and researchers are able to share resources, discussions and theories.

A particularily interesting article on that website titled "The Grounding of the Titanic" written by David G. Brown and Parks E. Stephenson brings new evidence that the generally accepted "bumping glance that crumpled a few plates/poppped a few rivets" may not have taken place with the ship instead striking an ice shelf protruding from the iceberg - resulting in signifigant deformation of the ships structure eventually leading to structural failure and the eventual breakup of the ship.

Other noteworthy topics include an article regarding the steering of ships which questions the maneuvers performed just prior to the collision. Ships don't steer like vehicles such as a bus which have tires at the front which rotate - they steer using a rudder at the stern. Therefore they have a pivot point that is further back. At the distances involved, had the ship been steered to shift the bow to the left, the stern section of the ship would be pivoting towards the iceberg making the "glancing blow to the starboard side" nearly impossible - the iceberg would have continued to hit the ship all the way aft (which is not the case) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rpeloski (talk • contribs) 23:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Factual Error

"The Titanic could stay afloat with any four of her compartments flooded, or with eleven of fourteen possible combinations of three compartments flooded, or with the first/last four compartments flooded: any more and the ship would sink."

The above sentence cannot possibly be correct, but I don't know how to correct. Maybe others can take a stab.

If any FOUR compartments could be flooded that would logically have to include all possible combinations of three compartments, as well as making the last phrase redundant since the first four or last four are included within the statement of "any four." Furthermore I am not convinced that 14 is the correct number of 3-compartment combinations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Albertod4 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

I believe you are correct, the four should be two. --Martynd 19:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate article

A substantial duplicate article, R.M.S Titanic, was created on 28 Jan. I redirected it. Could someone with an interest in the topic please look at the history of that article, weed out any new material and add it to the main article? Deb 16:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Kiehl and Hawkins

I asked Chief Officer Alex about his edits on his talk page. Posted here for informational purposes JPotter 22:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Titanic Characters

Jason, Kiehl and Hawkins are two fictional 1st Class passengers who, at one time, were popular in Titanic tales. Kiehl was a history teacher, from Washington D.C., and Hawkins was a flamboyant, Spanish-American War veteran. I find it odd that you haven't heard of them. I guess they aren't as popular now as they used to be. Anyway, I hear that they will soon be making a comeback. An author (who's name I can't remember for the life of me) will be including the men in an upcoming novel about the Titanic, set for release around the 100th anniversary of the sinking. If I ever remember the name of the author, I will let you know.

Saved From The Titanic

The article about this lost 1912 silent film states that the movie was filmed in black and white with colour scenes. Is this true? Was the movie entirly in black and white or was in in fact a B&W and Colour movie.