Talk:Titanic/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Sources, Yet Again

The "Turning Ability" section is well--just awful. The grammar is bad the sentence structure is worse and there is not only no basis for any of the various claims made; there's not even a questionable link to tell us where the questionable information may have come from.

Can we seriously do nothing about the (piss poor) quality of the information contained in Wikipedia that has inexplicabily been bleeding over into the writing quality for some time now?

Guess we can't even police ourselves anymore even when the article in question is...fairly benign.

I guess the first thought that comes to my mind is... if you have these beefs with the section, why not work on it instead of grousing about it? And it would help for you to sign your posts. Wildhartlivie 07:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"Can you Please Add to External Links?"

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

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

thks!

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

The new theory on how Titanic broke apart

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

Doesn't make sense to me. There is no doubt that she sank by the bow, she could not have gone down any other way. This would have raised the stern, putting the keel plates in compression and the top deck plates in tension (pulling them apart.) Compressed plates do not come apart, they buckle together if anything. Sounds like one of those sensationalist "Finally the Truth can be Revealed" type docos that only irritate the informed. Rumiton 12:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't sleep last night for thinking about this, and I've changed my mind. The image of the stern rearing up is so much part of the culture of the Titanic that it's hard to see it any other way, but it all depends on what happened in the fore part of the vessel. If the forward, say, 15% of the length stayed watertight, and also the aft, say, 40%, then there would have been a very powerful sagging moment (force) set up. If the vessel sank more or less on an even keel, the forward section's bouyant upthrust would have increased, and the bouyant stern would have been pushing up strongly also. The mid section would have been weighing down with a force of thousands of tonnes, with zero upthrust (open to the sea.) This stress might well have opened up the keel somewhere beneath the accommodation. The water-filled forward section would have immediately sunk, and the stern some time later. This now makes sense to me, and explains a few things. If the stern had broken off and fallen as in the movie, there would have been a tremendous noise of tearing metal, and the wave set up would surely have swamped the boats. There is no record of either occurrence. It also feels wrong to me that the stern could be raised so high. There would have to have been a lot of bouyancy left in the submerged section aft to cantilever such a weight of steel high above the sea. It all seems out of balance. Maybe we just changed history! Rumiton 01:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is getting more interesting. According to Jack Thayer's account, the sequence was:

1.About this time she straightened up on an even keel and started to go down fairly fast at an angle of about 30 degrees.

2. ...it seemed to me that she broke in two just in front of the third funnel.

3. The stern then seemed to rise in the air and stopped at about an angle of 60 degrees.

4. [The sinking.]

This concurs very well with the theory that she broke up due to excessive sagging. The initial 30 degree slope of the section where the young man was standing would be accounted for partly by the fact that she was sinking by the head, and partly because she was deeply sagged by the flooded weight amidships. Then she broke in two, THEN the bouyant stern rose into the air, after the breaking up, not before. Is anyone else excited about this? Rumiton 10:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think what they were talking about on The Histoy Channel's Titanic Final Moments: Missing Pieces is this. Tension and stress from the ship being suspended at a high angle would cause a clean break at the top of the ship, and then the bottom would be mangled. Yet the condition of the bow showed the complete opposite, the upper decks were all mangled and compressed down, even the double bottom sections had clean breaks. They think tht the break-up occurred at a shallow angle (11 degrees) with the top of the ship just beginning to split apart and then the double bottom began to give out. I think they said at that point, the keel was the only thing holding the ship togeher, and the weight of the water flooding the ship in that weakened spot pulled the 2 sections down, mangling the decks as evident in the wreckage. 4.252.68.54 (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"Advanced"

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

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

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

• Im not gonna argue but people didnt call it the 'Ship of dreams' for nothing

Conspiracy theories

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

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

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

The run for the Blue Riband

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minor Edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the top-right box with the picture...it says... the number of the crew:

First-class: 324
 Second-class: 285
 Third-class: 708
 Crew: 891
 Survivors: 712 (estimate)

why small?... i can NOT see that writing... i had to copy/paste it into a .txt to see the number of persons in each class. And i don't want to take the liberty of modifying this myself..i mean.. maybe there's an explanation for this.

Numaru7 14:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

=

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

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

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

The double bottom is a tank space or cofferdam (dry) along the flat bottom section of the hull. Double wall refers to extending the tanks or cofferdams up the sides of the hull to the deck level. Most modern ships are double walled, at least part of the way up the hull. Rumiton 09:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

=

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The Unsinkable might sink!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The above conversation refects a total lack of understanding of the mind-set of a ship's master. No master believes his ship is unsinkable. His absolute priority is to avoid damaging it in any way. Rumiton 09:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The above conversation mentions that Captain Smith was going to retire and wouldn't worry about getting fired. While this is well known it is also well known that Smith was not on duty when the collision occured. It was in fact, Sixth Officer James Moody who was in command during the collision, and at age 24 it is doubtful that he would want to end his career so early by wrecking the Titanic. Also the difference between 20 knots and 21 knots on a ship that size is less then 2 kph or 2 mph, and wouldn't make much of a difference in the distance it took to slow the ship. Also, to address the question of why the Moody tried to go around the iceberg rather then slow down and take it head on is simple. It is human instinct to avoid an object that is coming at you. An example is being at a sea exhibit at a zoo, where some animal for some reason races at the window you're looking through. By instinct a person will back up or take similar actions even though they should know that the window won't break. Even with a 100% chance humans would still try to dodge something coming at them.

It isn't just instinct, it's the law. The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea prescibe the steps the person in command of the ship must take to avoid a collision. If he didn't take them he would have been found guilty of negligence. Rumiton 10:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Moody wasn't in charge, Murdoch was, amazing no one has corrected you on this. 66.234.32.85 05:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)They call me 4 tildes

Here's another reason you don't want to hit the iceberg head on. Unlike a car crash, the collision would NOT stop the Titanic! Ships that big need to coast for miles before they stop. If the iceberg had been hit head on, it would have rolled off to one side or the other, and still scraped the side of the ship, damaging the hull. The only difference would have been even more damage at the front of the ship, unless the iceberg split in two and damaged both sides of the ship. There's this strange myth going around that a head-on collision would have saved the ship, but that's hogwash. Avoiding a collision is a no-brainer. --MiguelMunoz 18:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this conversation really necessary? --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Amendments to the infobox

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

"Iceberg, right ahead!!" dialog

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

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

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

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

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

I certainly agree. The training at sea, the whole culture, is that when a situation seems most perilous you give your orders and reports in the most correct and unemotional way. This all rings very true to me. Rumiton 14:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Professional tradesmen don't swear in professional communications with each other. One may also point out that even if they did, cursing has changed incredibly since 1912, and relatively words that are relatively benign to us today were positively scandalous then, whether in print or spoken aloud. Times change and the past can't be accurately viewed through the lens of the present.Michael Dorosh^Talk 14:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

What motivation would Lightoller have for making things up? He wasn't on duty at the time of the collision and had no need to exonerate himself, not as far as the collision was concerned at least. G. McVey (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Artefacts" (and "colour")

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

Go ahead Martin, but I bet someone will only "correct" it again. Incidentally, the Oxford dictionary gives both versions of arti-e-fact, but the main reference is "artefact." I think the main thing is consistency. Rumiton 11:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I just modified artefacts to artifacts, and then saw that note. I'll undo the modifications. Its not Wikipedia ettiquite but should a small VISIBLE note be made at the top of the page? I'm thinking the British spelling should be used as a small Wikipedian tribute to the tragedy. Jeffreh172 (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This happens about once a week, and we are all getting sick of it. I just took out no less than nine mentions of arte(i)facts and replaced them with "items", "objects" and "relics". I have not yet run out of synonyms, I still have "material", "gadgets" and "stuff" to call on. I could not change the quotes from court cases (three of them) but if this continues I will unilaterally (sorry, "boldly") move them to the footnotes where nobody will read them. Enough is, as they say, enough. Rumiton (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Gardiner Ref

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

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

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

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

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

Rollback

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

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

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

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

Article Length

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

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

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

I've got some experience of cutting down overlong articles, do you want me to do it? I can see several sections that could either be reduced (they already have their own articles) or split off into new articles (e.g. the Ballard rediscovery). Totnesmartin 16:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ballard sounds like a good sub article. I had previously tagged the external links section as being excessive. Two thoughts occurred to me. Many of the links are to passenger stories, which could be moved to an article on the passengers. Also how many of those links are aready prominent on one of the Titanic megasites and so could be removed from here with an expansion of the note after the megasite links? --J Clear 22:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Several comments: First, Wikipedia does not have an article length policy. Wikipedia:Article_size is a guideline which is part of the MOS. It may sound like I'm splitting hairs, but it's actually important. Even the guideline says "article size is no longer a binding rule". Length is now a stylistic issue. So, for stylistic reasons, if the article needs to be trimmed, that's one thing, but the original assertion of the need/requirement to "knock it down" is inaccurate.

Second, Totnesmartin, you'd be most welcome to take a stab at it, but I'd suggest either proposing your changes here for discussion, or else come up with drafts in a sandbox, and then submit them for discussion. Because this is an FA-rated article, major changes need to be approached carefully and consensus built.

Having said all that, the two suggestions above for spin-offs, Ballard's rediscovery story and the stories of the passengers do seem like natural articles in and of themselves, and I can see justification for such a split, as the resulting articles would themselves easily be judged notable. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll sandbox my ideas for you all to assess, before doing anything for real. I've never chopped up an FA-rated article so I will check here first. It also strikes me that a lot of the article is about the sinking, which again has its own article. Perhaps these sections could go to that article? Please go to User:Totnesmartin/sandbox and discuss the changes I make - and add your own! Totnesmartin 07:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a constant struggle with high profile topics like this one to keep sections that have a {{main}} link in them on a diet. Everyone wants to come along and add their pet fact to the top article even if there's already a paragraph on the same thing in the sub article. Clearly the sinking is Titanic's primary notability item, so could be expected to have a fatter section on the sinking in the parent article. Sometimes hidden comments help, sometimes ruthless editing. --J Clear 15:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ruthless aditing does it for me nowadays I'm afraid. I'm fed up of those great turgid pop culture lists in otherwise sensible articles. Incidentally, watch out for Dr Who fans on this article tonight. He's just landed on the deck. Totnesmartin 19:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The article seems fine, it's more reading for me, and I love to read.. which may be why I'm on here, lol! <i>Megan</i> 23:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding new article for the sinking of the ship

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

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

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

titanic

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

so tell the facts !!

breakmyheart

Okay, obviously, we all know the details, breakmyheart, and we told the facts. I suggest you don't write like a second grader. Ruby loves me.. not u.. 23:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

trivia section

please add one it will clean things up

Please sign your your name with four tildes. It makes it nicer, so we know who said what. I don't think we need a trivia section, because Titanic has a big article, and too much trivia. Ruby loves me.. not u.. 23:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Passenger List

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

Comparisons with the Olympic

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

It always will, Gary. After 29 years at sea I still have to think about it. GRT isn't really a good measure of anything, there were so many disputed/exempted spaces, storerooms and special measurements and so on. It really means nothing that different measurers came up with different figures, and the ships may well have been identical. It's better to use displacement if you have it. Most people think they know what that means. Cheers. Rumiton 09:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly A Night To Remember quotes circa 66,000 tons displacement for the Olympic class ships. G. McVey (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Grammatical error

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

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

List of RMS Titanic passengers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Region

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

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

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

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

well if that is the cast then change it from Ireland to Islands of Ireland. This is why the Troubles still goes on people who arent educated to the point. Belfast has never been part of Ireland it has been part of Northern Ireland, Ulster, UK and the Islands of Ireland. Islands of Ireland is the correct term as it is talked about on both sides of the border. Craig7006 23:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"Belfast has never been part of Ireland"? I suggest you acquaint yourself with some basic geography then! Please don't try to push any political POV into this article, Belfast Ireland is descriptive, appropriate and I think can stay.--Guinnog 00:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Belfast is in the Island of Ireland yes, but today and in 1912 Ireland was used just for the ROI. You are very cheeky to say for oneself to acquaint with basic geography, i should know what the country and city is as i live in it. Craig7006 00:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, in Northern Ireland the Term Ireland refers to the South (ROI) even with Wikipedia refering it to the Islands of Ireland. I didnt mean to use any Political as the Toubles were not to do with Potitical in was to do with Civil Rights and i am sorry that you feel that way. Could I suggest the the Article on Ireland should have its Title changed to the following "Islands of Ireland" as this is the fact. Many thanks Craig7006 13:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be okay to rename it that. More to the point with this article, it is irrelevent what the terms refer to today...this is a historic article, and we refer to what it was referred to at the time. ROI is only a post-1948 term, before that it was the Irish Free State from 1921 to '48. Before that, when the whole island was part of the UK, it was the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". Not Northern Ireland, not Ulster, not the Islands of Ireland, but Ireland. If you were able to ask any of the workers who built Titanic, they would say with pride that they were Irish. They weren't Welsh, Scottish or English, they were Irish. AKRadecki 16:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

How dare you my great grand father was worked aboard the Titanic before lauch, and he stated to me that and i quote "I am as British as the Queen" Craig7006 00:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, isn't that phrase usually used to indicate someone isn't British pointing to the current royal families non British heritage. It is in the contexts I've always heard it. Ben W Bell talk 17:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

So he was British...I'll bet he never said he was English. So I take it he was a Unionist? Funny, because the Unionists' slogan at that time was "Erin go bragh" which is Irish for "Ireland for ever". Even the Unionists, therefore, acknowledged the place as Ireland. AKRadecki 01:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

He never spoke in Irish as he didnt know how to. and the English then and today was from and lived in ENGLAND. As from the 1920s Unionists never spoke irish. Irish is not even a Offical Language. it is being consided a offical lanugage of the EU. and before you start most of the Catholics in Northern Ireland today dont even know how to speak irish. Craig7006 16:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Fascinating though these glimpses of the past are, we are not going to let you push your POV on this article. There are lots of useful things you could get on with instead, if you want to improve the encyclopedia, but this suggestion is not a helpful one. --Guinnog 16:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

They are not my POVs they are correct and factual of the country. Craig7006 21:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In 1912 Belfast was in the country of Ireland, part of the United Kingdom. Ben W Bell talk 21:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if that is the case put down United Kingdom Craig7006 02:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Cities in countries forming part of the UK, then or now, are customarily referred to as being in the constituent country - Edinburgh, Scotland; Cardiff, Wales; Liverpool, England; and, in 1912, Belfast, Ireland. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ben. In 1912, Ireland had the same status in the UK as Wales and Scotland do today. They were separate nations united under the banner of the UK. Part of that nation chose to break away from the UK, part remained. But at the time that the Titanic was built, Ireland was a united nation, albeit as part of the UK. Therefore it is qute correct to say that the Titanic was built in Belfast, Ireland. You could add UK, but it would be redundant, just as you wouldn't say that the wings of the A380 are built in Broughton, Wales, UK. Harry was a white dog with black spots 13:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"Belfast has never been part of Ireland, Belfast and the rest of Northern Ireland has been part of the United Kingdom from the early 1600s." Where do we begin? If Belfast isn't on Ireland then were is it? Northern Ireland didn't exist until 1921 and the United Kingdom was formed in 1801.

"... today and in 1912 Ireland was used just for the ROI" - a decade before partition and 36 years before the Republic of Ireland?

Agree with Bastun, customary style is to give the city and constituent country (e.g. Southamption, Enlgand; Inveraray, Scotland; Bangor, Wales). --sony-youth^pléigh 12:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)I

Even though the name Northern Ireland didn't come about until after 1921, I still think it should still state clearly that the Titanic was built in the Northern Ireland and not Ireland. It is surprising how many people don't understand that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, and it makes it more confusing who don't understand our country when it says that the Titanic was built in Ireland. So my suggestion is that instead of saying that the Titainc was built in Ireland you could write it was built in the North of Ireland or even keep it Ireland and in brackets state that after 1921 it became Northern Ireland. (karen)

Wikipedia’s goal is to provide factual information relative to the subject. By the time of the Titanic, Belfast was part of the state of Ireland. Thus the place of origin will remain Belfast, Ireland. ISSUE CLOSED! User:callumbm (User talk:callumbm) 00:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Expansion Joint

Can anyone tell me for sure what this thing was? Rumiton 11:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

sure: see Expansion joint--IdreamofJeanie 16:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks. But how was it fitted in a ship? It could not have been in the side plating or they would not have been watertight. Likewise the decking. How? Rumiton 10:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The bottom of the joints (effectively vertical slices across the superstructure of the ship) were above the waterline and the top of the main structural hull. They were protected by leather covers on the outside to prevent spray or rain water ingress. I do not have my plans to hand at the moment, so cannot say exactly which was the lowest deck that the joints extended down to - but I'll try and remember to have a look. Their main purpose was to relieve stress on the superstructure as the hull sagged and hogged in heavy seas. WhaleyTim 16:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

PS if you Google for images of "titanic expansion joint" there are some good pictures.WhaleyTim 16:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tim, I've been wondering for years. It still doesn't make a lot of sense to me, almost seems like saying Open Here. Which seems to be pretty much what happened. Rumiton 03:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was just watching The History Channel, they were airing a program called Titanic Achilles Heel. This was a year after the last dive featured in Final Moments: Missing Pieces where they found 2 sections of the double bottom hole. They thought perhaps there was a design flaw in the construction of the expansion joint, and the stress from the waves might have weakened the hull. They wanted to compare the joints between Titanic and Britannic to see if the design had been altered, but they weren't able to dive on Titanic, the Keldysh was booked. They found the expansion joint on the Britannic, and from what I understood, it had been changed, but the researchers weren't sure if this meant White Star and Harland & Wolff suspected it had been a contributing factor to the disaster. I missed the results, hopefully others caught the end of the show. 4.252.68.54 (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You have to have expansion joints on ships with multiple decks to allow the hull to be flexible and bend with the ocean waves. If it isn't flexible the hull can suffer structural damage and even fail. It's just like how skyscrapers are designed to sway with the wind and earthquakes.

As for them being implicated in the sinking I don't see how expansion joints that didn't extend any further down the ship than B (or C, don't have plans to hand) deck could have possibly explained how the berg opened the hull below the waterline. If you're talking about the breakup, the stresses involved were far beyond what any engineer would have reasonably been expected to design a hull to cope with. Titanic's joints were modified from the Olympic's but for purely aesthetic reasons (the Olympic's aft joint tended to creak).

One thing that's apparent from reading these comments is that a lot of people don't seem to understand that the expansion joints don't completely dissect the entire hull from boat deck to keel. They only dissect the superstructure (the white painted bit). G. McVey (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Continuous Manning of Ships' Radios

Is there a reference for the above being an outcome of the Titanic sinking? Rumiton 10:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes - recommendation 20 of the British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry Report [2] WhaleyTim 16:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim. I am coming to respect your grammatical and nautical fanaticism. It is a fine and good thing! But the recommendation only applied to foreign-going passenger ships, no? Rumiton 16:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the recommendations applied to "foreign-going passenger and emigrant steamships". I'm not sure about the 'fanaticism' - I guess it comes with the job WhaleyTim 08:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Without wishing to pry, what job might that be? Rumiton 08:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at the 'Professional Interests' on my user page - I essentially work on a range of computer-based life safety systems in the Maritime and Petrochemical industries WhaleyTim 09:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I guess we have been colleagues. I was a ship's officer on British/Australian ships for 29 years, the last few years doing fleetwide ISM Code implementation. Cheers. Rumiton 13:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Titanic's Passengers

How many passengers are there in Titanic? Camille32 7:10 , 20 June 2007 (UTC) I think that would be above 2 000. camille32 11:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Camille32 11:19 , 1 July 2007 ( UTC)

• Titanic had room for a total of 3,547 passengers; however, titanic left southampton with 2,224 souls on board, about 1,500 of whom perished. I hope this helps
  • However, after it left Southampton it went to Kobh, Ireland and to Cherbourg, France to pick up additional passengers, so the true number of passengers and the death probably wont ever be known —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 23:51:18, August 18, 2007 (UTC)

Cooks and Stewards Locked People In Their Cabins During the Sinking

I was re-reading Dr. Charles Pellegrino's book "HER NAME, TITANIC" and I noticed a piece about the stewards locking them in because of their ethnic backgrounds (French, Italian, and German; caused from tensions between England and the rest of Europe). According to it, White Star never took blame or even mention of the incident and neither did the English Naval Board. It seems to me, some mention towards the death's of these people should be added. IHouse65.255.130.104 06:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not read the book myself, however a quick look on some of the discussion boards show that it has had some mixed reviews [3] for example. I would be interested in reviewing his sources for this particular event before putting it in the article. WhaleyTim 09:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In Popular culture

I've added a hidden comment asking people not to post news about new pop culture references. I hope this OK with any regular edoitors here. This is to (hopefully) ward off anyone coming to edit this after seeing Dr Who this weekend. (it was only in the programme for a few seconds, but that's enough for some fans). I'll take the notice down on Monday. Totnesmartin 20:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

So much for that! Someone anon has gone ahead anyway... Totnesmartin 22:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you think you should mention Thomas Hardy's poem, The Convergence of the Twain?

This article lost FA status

This article has really let itself go guys, we need to get it back to featured article standards; ive provided references for the lead and the fixtures and fittings, comparisons to the olympic and passenger headings. Im hoping to provide more inline citations.

External links

The EL section is bloated and out of control - needs a clean-up. --Fredrick day 10:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I ruthlessly cleaned it out and added the 'no more links' comment. Future external link additions should be discussed here as to there merits for inclusion. I didn't spend much time deciding which ones to keep, so it is up for discussion. --Chuck Sirloin 18:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Provisioning of the RMS Titanic merge

The result of a discussion decided to merge the article Provisioning of the RMS Titanic into this one. It should be done promptly. I'll go and do that now. Looneyman 21:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. A long list like this does not belong in the article. --John 21:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I also don't find the sources very convincing. I propose to delete the article instead. Anybody mind? --John 23:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The sources are dubious at best. Not a needed article, but doesn't there have to be an AFD or does the merge discussion preclude that? --Chuck Sirloin 16:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected the article to point to this one. If anyone seriously objects we would have to go through another AfD. --John 18:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This may be a bit off-topic but...

WHy are ships always referred to as a female? I have always wondered that. - DancexwithxmexXx

The ship is the sailor's wife while he is aboard. It is affectionate hyperbole. :-) Rumiton 11:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

And if the sailor should be a woman or gay? Branei (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We are speaking historically. There were no women at sea, and any sailor who was gay kept very, very quiet about it. Unless, of course, it was such a long voyage that he found himself unexpectedly popular. You're right. This is way off-topic. Rumiton (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not strictly true (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/women_nelson_navy_01.shtml ) for example, but as far as I am aware there were no women in the deck or engineering departments (as opposed to stewardessess etc) in the British Merchant Marine the era of the Titanic WhaleyTim (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. Thinking about this further, I recall reading of family run esturial and coastal vessels, in which presumably the women played a full part in crewing.WhaleyTim (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Titanic's Horsepower

There is much confusion about the maximum horsepower that could be developed. In 1911-12, the White Star Line reported that the reciprocating engines produced an estimated 15,000 hp each at 75 rpm, and the turbine 16,000 hp at 165 rpm for a total of 46,000 hp. The British registry figures stated that the engines could produce 50,000 hp. Olympic and Titanic's engines were essentially identical. However, in service Olympic's reciprocating engines attained 83 rpm in 1911 and the turbine also a correspondingly higher number of revolutions. At these revolutions, Olympic's Chief Engineer gave the power developed as 59,000 hp -- a figure which held equally true for Titanic. I have amended the table to give the 59,000 hp figure and given it a full reference, to Mark Chirnside's 'The Olympic Class Ships' (Tempus Publishing; 2004) page 72. He was the first historian to publish this information, and coming from Olympic's Chief Engineer it's an authoratative source. Also see: Source

I've been trying to find a good place to put this, figure this is the best. In the General Characteristics box, it says of the turbine: One low-pressure (about 7 psi absolute) steam turbine producing 16,000 hp (13.5 MW) for the centre propeller at 165 rpm. 7psia would put the turbine at a vacuum relative to atmosphere. Atmospheric PSI at sea level is normaly ~14.7psia. Was this intended to mean 7 PSI gauge? I can't see them running the turbine on a vacuum. Paul Anderson (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The turbine was discharging steam into a seawater-cooled condenser which would instantly lower the steam pressure on that side, that is, it would create a partial vacuum. It is the difference between the (relatively) high pressure inlet side and the (relatively) low pressure exhaust side that gives the energy to the blades. It is a closed system where outside atmospheric pressure is irrelevant, and if they said absolute they probably meant it. Cheers. Rumiton (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Passenger casualties

The main reason for the large loss of life in the Titanic disaster was the decision to close the watertight doors. This resulted in the ship sinking bow first, and it sank in only 2hours and 40 minutes. If the doors had remained open then the ship would have sunk in over 5 hours. This is because as the bow sank the stern was lifted out of the water and buoancy was lost at double the rate. I have tried this experiment with a model ship (not the Titanic) anit stayed afloat approximately twicw as long when sinking on an even keel.

Unnamed person, she may have stayed afloat even longer than that. The ship almost certainly broke her back in the first hour and a half, due to excessive bending moments from the water "loaded" in the forward third of the hull, and while still only slightly "down by the head." The flooding rate after that was hugely increased. The bow thus could not "lift the stern out of the water", it had already dropped off. If the water had been allowed to flow aft, the keel would have held together and the ship would have settled much more slowly in the water. Rumiton (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Human remains

While I probably know the answer to this question I'd like to have it confirmed. Is there any human remains in the ship left becuse there had to have been people who didn't make it out on time. Im guessing most of the bodies have been eaten by microbes. But I know of a ship that was under water for two hundred years NOT raised, this is one particular case in Sweden, divers found several entire skeletons. Please tell me what you think tho'.--Philip Auguste 00:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I have scuba dived on the wreck of the SS Yongala which sank off Townsville, North Queensland the year before Titanic sank, and I saw a human pelvis and a thigh bone inside the forecastle. With the near freezing water, I am guessing there would be many remains in the hull of the Titanic. Morbid? Yes. Rumiton 10:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think any human remains have been eaten by microbes. Middle of the North Atlantic, two and a half miles down, there are plenty of human sea critters over the past 95 years, so I think there's a very slim chance of finding remains now. Morhange 05:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think so too. Any other opinions? Anyone?--Philip Auguste 03:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll jump in again. I can only point to the unexpected sight of bones on Yongala, which lies in shallow tropical waters, rich in organisms of all kinds. I don't think white bone, which must be mostly mineral, can be tempting to microbes. Possibly its composition is similar to that of oyster shells, which after they die and fall off, pile up on the bottom around the hull of a long term wreck. Nothing seems to eat them, either. Rumiton 12:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There are no human remains on or near either section of the ship. None of the various expeditions have found anything but leather shoes. This part of an interview with Bob Ballard helps to explain why:

FM: Although many artifacts of the Titanic are nearly perfectly preserved, there are no traces of human remains. Why?

BB: ... People are eaten and their bones are exposed. The deep sea is undersaturated in calcium carbonates that make up bones. As a result, bones dissolve quickly leaving only the inedible shoes behind. Inside wrecks you’ll find bodies and skeletons, but not outside unless you are in the Black Sea, which has no oxygen.

http://www.fathomspub.com/cgi/interview.pl/8/index.html SteveRamone 23:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

So Ballard is saying that the great depths, rather than preserving bones, ensure their dissolution? OK, I guess that makes sense. Rumiton 02:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Guarantee Group/Orchestra

Okay, I've been hard at work on the List of passengers onboard RMS Titanic. I have finished the entire first class listing and am now moving onto second class. Similiarly, I've started work on a list crew members. But now, I've run into a small problem. The Guarantee Group (of which Thomas Andrews was a member) are listed as both passengers and crew, as are the orchestra. Encyclopedia Titanica lists both groups on the passenger AND crew list, but I wonder if it would be repetetive? I've sectioned off the crew members into their own categories, and have them for the Guarantee Group and orchestra. I think having the orchestra at least on the crew list would be helpful, but I'm not sure if I should list them as passengers, which they were considered, or just as crew. Same with the GG. Any suggestions? Morhange 05:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As the bandsmen were almost certainly not White Star Line employees, nor required to be on board by Board of Trade rules, I suggest you leave them on the passenger list only, perhaps with (orchestra) after their names. Rumiton 02:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no heading called "Construction"?

Im wondering why there is no construction present in this article

The sinking of the Titanic was caused by a series of mistakes - like most accidents. The large loss of life was a direct result of the decision to close the watertight doors. If the doors had been left open then the ship would have sunk on an even keel and stayed afloat at least twice as long. The rescue ship would have arrived while the Titanic was still afloat. This is because as the ship sank bow first, the stern was lifted out of the water. It was losing buoyancy at wwice the rate that woud have happened if the doors had remained open. I have verified this with a model boat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.173.34 (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources and OR

The first half of the article looks nice, everything is sourced and factual. The second part however, section "Long Term Implications" is almost completely unsourced, has interwiki sources, appears to be a lot of original research and opinion. SpigotMap 02:44, 11 August 2007

Cost?

How much money was spent on the RMS Titanic and the RMS Olympic? --Philippe Auguste 03:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Crew not listed?

How is it that the crew of the Titanic isn't talked about in a Titanic article? Do a word search, and you'll find one reference to "Captain Smith" without even giving his first name or otherwise identifying him??? --69.22.254.111 00:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you forgetting First Wireless Operator Jack Phillips and Second Wireless Operator Harold Bride in the "SOS" section? The main reason, though, is that this article is about the ship. Most of the crew mentions would logically be found in the split-off article, Sinking of the RMS Titanic, because that's where their involvement is most often discussed. That having been said, this whole project is a volunteer one...if you believe something is missing, then add it. Since we have a section on "Passengers", it would be logical to list the principle officers onboard as well. Feel free to add it! AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

21:04 13 Dec; How come it is now only the Deck Officers who are listed on this pages crew section? Have you forgotten the Engineering crew and officers which all died. If the Engineering Officers could be added I would be greatful.

Here is a start; Chief Engineer Officer, Mr. Joseph Bell 2nd Engineer, ?? 3rd Engineer, Dodd, Mr. Edward Charles Junior Assistant 3rd Engineer, Coy, Mr. Francis Ernest George Senoir Assistant 4th Engineer, Dyer, Mr. Henry Ryland Junoir Assistant 4th Engineer, Dodds, Mr. Henry Watson

The Chief Engineers staff consisted of 24 engineers, 6 electrical engineers, two boilermakers, a plumber and his clerk. Source: http://www.uco.es/~ff1mumuj/titanic1.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosedmonkey (talk • contribs) 21:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Coordinates

The coordinates are incorrect. They should be 41°43′32″N, -49°56′49″W —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.25.42 (talk) 14:16, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

And your source is? AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ship number

Where should we add that Titanics ship number was "no.401" 172.203.213.61 15:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

metallurgical analysis

Ran across this article: The Royal Mail Ship Titanic: Did a Metallurgical Failure Cause a Night to Remember? (Katherine Felkins, H.P. Leighly, Jr., and A. Jankovic, JOM, 50 (1) (1998), pp. 12-18).

I was thinking of adding something like:

The steel of the Titanic's hull was probably made in an acid-lined open hearth furnace in Glasgow, Scotland. This kind of steel was typical for ships built during this period.

But I thought it best to put it here instead, because (a) this is a primary source (see WP:PSTS), which means that it will not help us with the job of assessing its importance (relevant here) or wide acceptance (probably not a big deal in this case), (b) is it newsworthy to say "nothing unusual was found"?, (c) how much detail do we want? There are plenty of parts of the ship other than the hull which we perhaps could write about (if there are sources), but I don't think the intention is to write a "Titanic technical manual". So I'll leave it to others to decide how, if at all, the above reference and/or its information should be worked into the article. Kingdon 15:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Built

"Built at the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast, Northern Ireland" - should it not be Ireland as there was no NI in 1912?? seven+one 10:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

deck chairs

The chair page mentions the phrase "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic", a common expression. Does it deserve a mention here? --203.6.205.34 05:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The two survivors

The article currently mentions two living survivors:Barbara West Dainton and Millvina Dean. While their ages are mentioned, I think it should be noted that they don't have memories of the sinking (which is currently mentioned in the article) because they were 1 year old and just months old, respectively, at the time (which is not mentioned in the article). I commented this to a friend, not telling them their ages at the time but their current ages, and my friend thought they'd caught Alzheimer.--190.74.126.248 10:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Titanics Last given Position - Also Verification on an error in Rudder Design dimensions

Ok firstly i noticed on the front page that the ship was stated to have been discovered in this location 41.43" North - 49.56' West

Acording to the last telegraph transmission her last position was given as this (Transcript from Original transmision)

(Sent via Morse Code)

[Start Message]

            Going down by the head 
      Passengers being put into lifeboats
                   send help
           41.43 North - 53.14 West
                     M.G.Y

[End Message]

The above was the given possition. This leads me to another question (well actually a few).

So here we go...

1. Is it possible that after the collision the ship could have drifted along the north atlantic current which could be possible for the difference in the ships stated possition and discovered possition ?

2. Was a mathematical mistake made on plotting the ships possition at the time of the sinking ?

Now this next topic has been bugging me for years and due to lack of funds and Harland and wolf asking Huge prices for blueprint copies. I had always wondered if what people told me was true. Was Titanics rudder too small ??

This is a question i have asked many people and they so far have never been able to convince me, a friend of mine let me view a copy of the stern section blueprints and when studying them carefully i did notice that the rudder did look unusually small for a ship of that length. The height of the rudder from the deck to the keel was ok, what i call into question is the broadness of the rudder. (the length extending outward).

Also compared to todays standard of ship manoeverability, it is a bit scary how a ship of that size and length could depend all their steering ability on just 1 rudder.

Any information on the points raised here would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krhall (talk • contribs) 21:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Assuming your position figures are correct, if the skies were clear Titanic's Chief Officer would have obtained a star position at Civil Twilight, about 6 pm the previous night. Typically star positions are accurate to within about 3 miles. After that they would have used Deduced Reckoning (DR), that is they had to look at how long they had been going on a certain compass course at whatever engine revs, and allow for what they thought the effects of wind and tide might be. There was probably no real "mistake," DR is just not an exact science. Then after the collision no one could have known how far the ship would have gone before stopping completely in the water, and currents would have continued to act on her after she stopped until she hit the bottom.

The rudder looks small to our eyes, but we are used to seeing much larger rudders on modern ships. In 1910, with no computers to predict performance, ship designers, like bridge and building designers, could only work on what had been successful in the past. Titanic's rudder was based on 19th Century designs from smaller and slower vessels, even going back to sailing ships. Many of Titanic's dimensions would be different if she was built today, some things larger, some smaller. Rumiton 02:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind this is not a forum for speculation, it is for discussion the article only, not the subject. Thanks! SpigotMap 02:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There will always be areas of overlap. We need to examine folklore and even "expert" opinion in a sober way before deciding what should go in the article. (I am unrepentant.) Rumiton 02:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Faults in Construction

This section mentions the programs, Seconds from Disaster on the Discovery Channel but does not give the correct conclusions of the show. The correct conclusions can be seen on the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seconds_from_Disaster

The rivets holding Titanic's hull, weakened by too much slag, failed under great pressure when the ship collided with the iceberg, opening the ship to the ocean and allowing water to enter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.157.23 (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

good great!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsay cuty to tooty (talk • contribs) 20:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Much of this article is written at below sophomore grade composition, with far too much speculation and drama. We are an encyclopedia not Discovery Channel , History Channel, or Hollywood, pandering to the needs of a commercial audience in search of speculative sensationalism. We can do much better for both content and style. --Kevin Murray 08:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a Wiki, Kevin. Just start improving. Rumiton 09:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but we really need to have some order here. Other articles may not attract the same level of attention and speculation, but are wriiten to much higher standrads. Perhaps we need a formal project to watch over this article. --Kevin Murray 14:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Let's go with improving it. Rumiton 15:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This article needs periodic cleaning because every so often, it is vandalised and other well-meaning individuals add their two cents worth without thinking about the overall impact. I have participated on two such endeavors. Since this article is fairly popular, it should be cleaned by consensus, and subsequently protected from hereon. But this is highly unlikely.Gary Joseph 02:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have this article on my watchlist and revert vandalism when I see it. I'm sure many others do the same. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how this was ever a FA - it's really poorly written and referenced, and is barely B class now, despite being such an important article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's go to work on the cleanup

The article states: "When Captain Murdoch gave the order to reverse the engines to avoid the iceberg, he handicapped the turning ability of the ship, because the centre turbine could not reverse during the "full speed astern" manoeuvre, it simply stopped turning. Furthermore, the centre propeller was positioned forward of the rudder, diminishing the turning effectiveness of the single centerline rudder in reverse"

• This does not make clear sense. (1) although I agree that reversing the engines handicapped turning, having a reversable center prop would have made the effect worse not better by slowing the boat more (though it may have lessened the impact), (2) if the center prop was stopped, how did that affect the centerline rudder performance in reverse. (3) I believe that forward motion continued, though slowed, all the way to impact, thus the characteristics of the rudder in backing seem irrelevant. There may be something missing to fill in the blanks in the logic. It seems that there may be some synthesis in interpreting a TV documentary with some facts and effect being mised up in their relationships. --Kevin Murray 15:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Kevin. This is going to be a big job. I assume you want me to speak professionally, rather than Wikipedially? Unless you tell me otherwise, I will assume so. As I partly explained on your Talk Page, I have a degree in Nautical Science, a Master's Licence and many years experience in the Royal Australian Navy and as a senior officer in coal-fired, steam turbine vessels of the size of Titanic. That is why I tend to avoid Wikipedia shipping-related articles. That way madness lies. But to start.

First, who is "Captain" Murdoch? I think the officer of the watch, and not a captain.

Agreed! --Kevin Murray 03:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Second, the OOW's action in pulling the telegraph handle to full astern was a fulfillment of his responsibilities under the Collision Regulations. The effect on the vessel's steering or speed through the water was nil, as he knew it would be. The turbines were spinning at 10 000+ RPM, several tonnes of metal with tremendous angular momentum, plus the prop shafts, plus the momentum of the heavy propellers doing maybe 100 RPM and the on-going torque provided by the water rushing past them. In the 2 or 3 minutes before the collision, all the duty engineer could have had time for would be to get the ahead steam valve closed, and possibly start to crack open the astern steam. You cannot rush this procedure, the turbines disintegrate if you do. Similarly for the steam reciprocating engine. The final stopped position of Titanic would have been several miles past the collision point. There is a lot more. Are you with me so far? Rumiton 02:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes! --Kevin Murray 03:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, there is no doubt that a propeller stopped or turning astern forward of a rudder will disrupt the flow of water past the rudder and reduce the torque and lateral force on the rudder post, which is what turns the ship. But this was not the case here. We have no way of knowing the size of the berg or the angle it subtended at the bridge, and therefore how many degrees of course change were necessary to miss it. We can only say for certain that the ship almost made it. Expert testimony seems to agree that the berg was 0.5 to 1 mile off when the lookouts first saw it, and there is mention at the enquiry of a delay of some seconds before the bridge phone was answered. It is reasonable to assume that the ship swung to port through some 15 to 25 degrees, quite consistent with the 1 to 1.5 minutes time available, but there is no question of the ship's turbine responding materially in that time, so speculation along these lines is irrelevant. Do you think it can be removed from the article? Rumiton 13:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we have documentation sufficient to say that the effect of reversing the rotation of the outboard props (reciprocating engines) and slowing the rotation of the center prop (turbine), reduced the effectiveness of the rudder, thus may have impaired the ability to maneuver? --Kevin Murray 13:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my mistake. Working from memory, I was thinking that the center engine was the recip, not the outside ones. But it makes little difference. It is highly improbable that the reciprocating engines could have been actually put astern in that time. 22 knots is a tremendous speed in any day, and the engineers would have been battling to even slow them down in this short time. The center turbine was apparently not reversible, i.e. without astern steam, so all they could have done was shut the ahead steam off, leaving the turbine still spinning at full sea speed, dragged along by the ship's headway. The reduction in speed of the ship in this short time, while increasing, would have been negligible. Rumiton 14:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• OK. My next question is whether any of this is related to a historically notable theory about the cause for the sinking? And if so is that worth mentioning (a) due to historical interest? And (b) mention in order to discredit. --Kevin Murray 14:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think these theories are "historically notable." They are just part of the white noise that has come to surround this subject, not as lurid as the conspiracy theories, but just as hollow and speculative. Red herrings, you might say. The hull break-up and assertions by White Star constitute another, which it would be good to work on. I believe if we can dispell at least some of them it will be time well spent. Rumiton 15:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• I took a shot at a bold simplification of the section, plus a rename. I think that even what is left requires some degree of referencing. --Kevin Murray 15:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That looks pretty good to me. See you Monday. Rumiton 15:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The Break-up

Hello Kevin,

Recent research has shown that the separation of the hull plates began at the keel and travelled up to the upper deck. This is entirely what would be expected. The dramatic notion of the stern towering hundreds of feet into the air (as depicted in the famous painting by Will Stoewer) then breaking off with a crash and plunging down onto the drifting boats is impossible. Salt water would not support that degree of cantilever. The forward half of the ship would need to be encased in concrete to allow the stern to be held up so high. In reality, the most that could happen would be that the forward half of the ship, as it filled, dragged the bow under. But even a sinking ship is at equilibrium at all times; she is still afloat, and still displacing her weight in water. As that weight increases by ingress of more water, the displacement must also increase, until down she goes. The highest that the stern might have risen, needing, as it did, to be supported by the remaining bouyancy in the forward hull sections, might have been 100 feet or so, approximating a North Atlantic storm, and well within the design parameters of the hull. But that is not what happened.

Large bulk carriers have broken in half while loading because the loading operator went to sleep and over-filled a midships hatch. The stresses that build up as perhaps 20 000 tonnes of cargo are loaded in the centre of the ship, with nothing on either side, are too much for the vertical plates and horizontal decks to withstand. It is the sheer forces and the bending moment created by the upthrust of the bouyant, empty ends of the ship, pressed down even deeper in the water by the increasing overall weight, that do the damage. No ship can withstand it, it is not a design fault that they break in two. This is what happened to Titanic.

There is a misconception that trim, the difference between the forward and the after drafts, is what stresses a hull. Not at all. Stress is measured by the difference between the midship draft and the average of the forward and after drafts. This is known as hogging or sagging. As Titanic took on water abaft the collision bulkhead, the effect was the same as loading heavy cargo amidships. She sagged heavily. The forecastle would have been lower in the water than before, which made it, until the top of the collision bulkhead went under, even more strongly bouyant. Passenger reports indicate that she broke her back at about 15 degrees of forward trim, but the forecastle deck probably seemed about horizontal. The apparent trim was in fact sag. This is absolutely normal and expected behaviour for a ship sinking from water ingress in the forward third of the vessel. It seems uncontrovertable that the ship's officers hid the truth at the Court of Inquiry, and may have perjured themselves in saying the vessel sank intact. They knew better, but the task of explaining to the public what really happened was considered impossible. Titanic sagged herself to death, and the plates opened up from the bottom. By the time the propellers rose out of the water the forward section was already on the bottom. Rumiton 12:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sacrifice Theory holds no water

Even though it's only briefly mentioned in the article, I find it incredible that that ridiculous sacrifice theory is present at all. It's not as though the entire ship were a sunk cost (no pun intended) that couldn't be recovered; White Star could have sold the Titanic to another shipline, which definitely would have worked better than letting her go for free and receiving bad publicity from the sinking. Whoever fabricated the sacrifice theory has clearly never studied economics.

Any disaster brings out the conspiracists. Thanks for ignoring them. Rumiton (talk) 09:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Artefacts -> artifacts -> artefacts

I feel that the change from one to the other and back again (the Oxford says both are acceptable) that currently takes place about weekly, should actually be done more often. The glow of superiority that arises in an editor each time they do it ("these stupid Yanks/Brits") and the sense of calm transcendance they must carry around for a while has to be of benefit to all they encounter, and the whole human race. Rumiton 14:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Artefacts is offensive to the rebelious spellcheckers in our inferior Yankee word processor's. Take off your red coat and join the tea party. --Kevin Murray 15:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just changed "maneuvering" to "manoeuvring". Still waiting for calm transcendence. Old Moonraker 15:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the topic is more British than American, I see no problem with using the British spellings. --Kevin Murray 15:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

How about just replacing them all with "object" or "relic" etc and be done with itWhaleyTim 15:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I like this solution where the substitute words make sense. --Kevin Murray 17:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

However I do not that the "a" word is used in direct quotes from a US court - so I suppose the American spelling is correct in that context. WhaleyTim 15:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Very good point. It seems that in quoting a writing, we should use the spelling from the writing. --Kevin Murray 17:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Disperse, you rebels! Damn you! Disperse!"

Maj John Pitcairn, British Army, at Lexington, April 19, 1775, attempting to disarm American civilians. Rumiton (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture Section could be cleaned up

The "popular culture" section on the main page needs to be cleaned up a bit. The link to the 1953 movie titanic links to the Titanic page (the page your already visiting, not the movie) although there is a page for the movie. Sentences need to be moved around or shortened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisBoulden (talk • contribs) 22:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fire in the bunkers caused disaster?

I fully expected this article to be full of fascinating detail, but I find it's not.

I know we don't want conspiracy theories, but one of the ideas I've come across (and was hoping to see commented here) is that the coal had self-ignited in the bunkers. The Titanic was sailing flat-out trying to empty the bunkers before they got really, really hot. Apparently, this self-ignition was not so unusual, but it was a bigger problem in this case because the bunkers were bigger. If this is a serious possibility (even if not thought to be true, or not very significant), I feel the article would be better for documenting it.

Another, less likely, theory is that JP Morgan (or another?) had disembarked before the voyage fearing a disaster - is there any possible truth in that?

Also, I've heard it said there was a flat calm that night, meaning that, most unusually, bergs were not ringed by white waves. This has been claimed as the reason that the iceberg wasn't spotted until it was relatively close. Again, I'm surprised this isn't mentioned, if only to be refuted. PR^talk 20:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The bunker theory is almost certainly hogwash. Coal driven ships have fires in the bunkers more often than not. There is almost no oxygen there so the fires can do no more than smoulder. The lack of fringing breakers has been mentioned. If you can find a source for it, stick it in. Rumiton (talk) 12:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A lasting legacy

The sentence in the lead that starts "She also gained a lasting legacy when she sank on her maiden voyage" makes no sense to me. A legacy is something either inherited or left behind, not gained by sinking. Any suggestions? Rumiton (talk) 12:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I might suggest this: “She came to a lasting prominence when she sank on her maiden voyage.” Sound better, mates? BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 20:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding Louise Kink Pope

The section 'Recent Survivors' Deaths' contains the 10 survivors who died most recently. I noticed that Louise Kink Pope, who died in 1992, was not listed, however Ruth Becker Blanchard, who died in 1990, was. I thought it was appropriate to add Louise, and I did. Not sure what you all want to do with Ruth...should her name be kept or should we remove it so as to only have the last 10? -Eric 1/2/08

I think we can keep her, as she is a more famous death than some of the other passengers. Morhange (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph

Hello, the first paragraph says "it's maiden voyage". Obviously according to maritime tradition this needs to be changed to her - can someone do it for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitana (talk • contribs) 20:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. --John (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

100th Anniversary

I am not sure that what seems to me to be a very speculative proposal to build a new Titanic themed super liner at H&W should be included. Any thoughts before I delete? WhaleyTim (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Irish built

Titanic was built in ireland at the time i believe it should say irish built as it was built by irish builders and one of designers was irish (Thomas Andrews) then say it was a british ocean liner as it was used by the british. Also remeber that in 1912 theres a country called United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland not UK of Great Britain, if it is built in ireland then it is irish built not british and vice verser. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Look up your history. All Ireland was part of the UK in these days. --John (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats what i basically said as 'united kingdom of britain and ireland' which 10 years later became united kingdom of britain and northern ireland. why dont you look up your history? Pathfinder2006 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. So what is your point then? If you know that Ireland was part of the UK, why do you want to call it Irish-built? It seems strange if you know the history already. --John (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

my point is that the article says its a british ocean liner but hey no meantion of irish building it, i beleve the introduction Should include 'irish built british ocean liner' as that is more accurate and includes both of the uk islands. Also it looks to me that reverting 'irish built' from the start of the british ocean liner sentence is saying that whatever the irish makes it was the british that made it and goes the same for famous irish people before the creation of the irish free state i.e. look at george bernard shaw talk page. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Pathfinder - please note the WP:3RR warning on your user page. I don't want to fully protect this article, but I'm afraid I will do if you keep on changing the lead without resolving it here first. Pedro :  Chat  21:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I will stop changing the introduction bit but can i put in the info box where it says belfast 'Ireland' as i think it be better as the reader would probly not quickly think it was built in britain rather then a british owned ship or whatever? Pathfinder2006 (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If this would allow the article to settle down, it might be a useful compromise solution. Old Moonraker (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, to settle this argument, the Titanic was built in Northern Ireland. Yes, at the time, the whole island may have been Ireland (which was part of the UK), but I think to avoid any more conflict, it should be recognised that it was built in what is now British NORTHERN IRELAND. As a Northern Irishman, I'm proud of that. It should read "Belfast, Northern Ireland". Titanic was a British ship. It was at the time, and is still is. I'd apprechiate it if you could change the info box. Thanks. - MSM 16:24, 10th April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegisXIII (talk • contribs) 15:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Another book

I've added Clive Cussler's book, and a note that it is fiction. If this isn't the sort of book that the list is intended for, I'm happy for it to be removed.

BTW the link for "The NIght Lives On" redirects to the film "Ghosts of the Abyss"- is it a book at all? Freestyle-69 (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Gallery

I really don't see where the gallery adds anything substantial to the article, which is already adequately illustrated. It just produces clutter on the page. And we already have the link in the lower right of the article to Wikimedia Commons, which is a more appropriate location for photo galleries of subjects - to me, the gallery images should just be ported over to the commons, then removed from here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the gallery (And most of the pictures) to give a better idea of what the ship looked like inside and because there is not enough room for more pictures on the page, hence the gallery. A lot of articles have galleries and they work just fine, but as long as they don't get too large. I added a number of high quality exterior and interior photos of the ship in order to save people time, and because the average person that reads articles on wikipedia doesn't know to look at the commons for more pictures. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Time/date

I've modified the presentation of the time/day of sinking. The original (2.20 AM Monday morning) really isn't suitable as AM infers morning anyway- "morning" is redundant. To make it fit better I inserted the "April 15th 1912", still not sure if it's spot on though. Freestyle-69 (talk) 04:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I tightened the writing ...

... in the section describing how the first five 'watertight' compartments filled after T struck the iceberg. It was unwieldy and somehwat unclear so, after a bit of thought, I reworded the description without compromising the content. I think it reads smoothly now. 68Kustom (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I compared versions, it reads easier this way--English836 (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)