Talk:Titanic/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on RMS Titanic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081210092502/http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTReport/BOTRepBOT.php to http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTReport/BOTRepBOT.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011223508/http://gaslight.mtroyal.ca/titnch21.htm to http://gaslight.mtroyal.ca/titnch21.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011191543/http://www.itv.com/titanic/ to http://www.itv.com/titanic/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130102151112/http://www.fox10tv.com/dpps/news/national/northeast/full-titanic-site-mapped-for-1st-time-nt12-jgr_4098372 to http://www.fox10tv.com/dpps/news/national/northeast/full-titanic-site-mapped-for-1st-time-nt12-jgr_4098372
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140103014858/http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTReport/BOTRepWC.php to http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTReport/BOTRepWC.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Placement of steam turbine

At the start of the Power section, the steam turbine is described as being between the two reciprocating engines. Towards the end of the section, the exhaust steam from the reciprocating engines is described as routed to the steam turbine, which is placed 'aft'. This is unclear. Mike163 (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on RMS Titanic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030922142819/http://www.mikeskidmore.supanet.com/st-br-scotia.htm to http://www.mikeskidmore.supanet.com/st-br-scotia.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Suspected vandalism

In the "Atlantic crossing" section, just prior to the disaster, it's stated that the collision happened near a Nantucket Shoals lighthouse. This is clearly a blooper, but I have no idea what it used to say ("off the Great Banks region" perhaps?). 83.254.133.58 (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The sentence in question is referring to a rhumb line leg that was 1,023 nautical miles (1,177 mi; 1,895 km) long; stretching from the point in the Atlantic called "the corner" to Nantucket Shoals Light. Titanic had sailed only a few hours past "the corner" when she struck the iceberg. This rhumb line leg was 1,023 nautical miles long, so if Titanic, in those few hours, had covered 75 nmi, the collision would have happened 948 nmi from the Nantucket Shoals Light. It isn't a blooper. Dolphin (t) 01:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like I misread "when she made her fatal contact " as "where she made her fatal contact" - compounded with "Titanic sailed" instead of "Titanic had sailed" at the opening of the sentence this led me astray. It's still a very technically formulated sentence though, and the mention of Nantucket Shoals looks random. How about "Titanic had sailed only a few hours past the corner on the intended rhumb line leg of 1,023 nautical miles (1,177 mi; 1,895 km) aimed for the area around Nantucket Shoals, when she entered a region of ice about 500 miles off Cape Race and soon collided with the iceberg"? The fact that the the shipping lane would have taken her to the Nantucket Shoals area, if she had not been struck, isn't important at all in this article. 195.67.149.168 (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)(same person as the IP above)

I agree that mention of Nantucket Shoals lighthouse is of doubtful relevance. Even "Titanic had sailed only a few hours past the corner when she entered a region of ice about 500 miles off Cape Race and soon collided with the iceberg" would be sufficient for me. Dolphin (t)

JP Morgan is listed as the owner of the Titanic--inaccurate and misleading. Can this be changed?

The article contends, "Titanic's owner J. P. Morgan was scheduled to travel on the maiden voyage but cancelled at the last minute." JP Morgan did not own the Titanic. JP Morgan Co. (not the same as JP Morgan the man) financed International Mercantile Marine Company, of which company Whitestar Lines was a subsidiary. This is not the same as Morgan "owning" the Titanic. The article is misleading/unfactual and should be revised to reflect the appropriate legal and factual distinctions.2601:547:C503:377D:3594:79B3:48B3:6826 (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

This has remained unanswered for awhile. The proposed edit should be made. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Pier needs to be changed

On the "Atlantic Crossing" section, the article says Titanic was to go to Pier 54 when she was actually heading to Pier 59.

Pier 54 was the Cunard pier. That was where Carpathia (a Cunard ship) brought the survivors. Titanic was heading to Pier 59, which was the White Star Pier. If you follow the source on the page, it confirms that. Whoever wrote the article made a mistake

 Done —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"Exploded as a tourist attraction"

"the significance of and interest in Titanic globally (partly due to the 1997 film 'Titanic') was not being fully exploded as a tourist attraction"

Exploded? This should be corrected at once to read exploited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.90.164.223 (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks for notifying us. L293D (☎ • ✎) 20:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2018

112.200.205.38 (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)8OYIH8OI

\

 Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Artifacts

The word artifacts is spelled as artefacts a few times in this article. Ageruntho (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, and correctly so. See national varieties of English and https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/artefact. WhaleyTim (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I can count five instances and they are all "artefacts". So at least the article is internally consistent. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Ageruntho - Did you read the bit in this page's header about British English? It even mentions artefact explicitly ... DBaK (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I suspect this whole thread is a Wikipedia artifact. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Titanic Disaster

1,500 passengers lost their lives 0n titanic because of John Cenna snaped it in half on the bridge that acted poorly in a crisis situation bad judgement and poor seamanship I spent a career at sea and any deck officer worth his salt knows you never ever reverse your engines when running full ahead or place your rudder hard over after doing so two things will automatically happen you loose steerage way and rudder effectiveness smith was careless and Murdoch was wrong in his orders on the bridge a tragedy that could have been avoided altogether with a little common sense and good seamanship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.237.73.220 (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if I agree with you entirely. This was a steam up-and-downer. The Duty Engineer had to quickly spin the ahead steam valve to shut, then very cautiously start applying astern steam, while the props are still spinning ahead. The helm would be effective during this considerable time. The collision definitely happened before the props were reversed.

Rumiton (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

One of the reasons given for sink of RMS Titanic was, heavy cover of stars and other constellations in the sky due to which iceberg was not visible till it came very close to the ship, on the night of April 14,1912. This was discovered by one of the scientist and a discover who was searching on RMS Titanic real reason of disaster. Ash its professional (talk) 08:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Insurance Scam or Accident ?

Should we include this new section as more information has become available regarding the Insurance Scam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.198.69.47 (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This topic belongs at RMS Titanic alternative theories. If you mean the supposed swapping of Titanic with Olympic, the only new evidence that is being discovered discredits the claim. The best evidence is the hull numbers for each ship. Harland and Wolff designated Olympic as hull number 400 and Titanic as number 401. These numbers were used all over the ship on various parts, much as several parts in a car are marked with the VIN. There are wooden panels from Olympic that say 400 on the back, and Titanic's propeller, among other things, has the number 401. Also, Titanic, which cost £1.5 million to build, was only insured for two thirds of its value, £1 million. The last third was self-insurance by Titanic's owners, although I don't know exactly what that implies. Normally, when conducting an insurance scam, one tries to gain money rather than losing it.

The consensus among Titanic enthusiasts is that the swap theory was cooked up to sell books. There is very strong evidence against it. Roches (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

"Titanic" or "the Titanic?"

Both are used in this article, but I'm pretty sure "the" shouldn't be used, except when "Titanic" is used as an adjective (i.e. the Titanic disaster). Can this be changed?

[Entry not timestamped. Roches (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)]

Seem to be a point of contention on a lot of articles relating to the RMS Titanic. What exactly is the convention that you (and others) referring to here?Telenarn (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Engineering video

I saw this engineering video showing how the titanic was built. It is well presented by a professional engineer using photographs from the H&W shipyard. Would this be acceptable to add as an external link? There's a big comment asking for discussion first. Titanic: Fascinating Engineering Facts David Crayford ☎ 18:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I would say it's definitely worth adding; it's actually a better find than some of the links already there. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. David Crayford ☎ 02:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2018

The word "artifact" is misspelled in the top introduction section. Padawan76 (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: See notice at the top of this talk page regarding British English. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2018

please change "though these had room for almost 500 more people" to "though these had room for almost 50 more people" because the lifeboats didn't have room for 500 people Casper2308 (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. From my reading multiple lifeboats were only half full, and only 700 or so were saved when the total lifeboat capacity was about 1700 Cannolis (talk) 08:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2018

2ssssoooo (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Edit is not specified.--5 albert square (talk) 08:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2018

In the section describing F Deck, please add that the kennels were also located there. Source:

• Eveleth, Rose (March 31, 2014). "The Definitive Guide to the Dogs on the Titanic". Smithsonian. Retrieved 17 October 2018. — 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Please change X to Y;
—whereas:

X =

• F Deck, the Middle Deck, was the last complete deck and mainly accommodated Second and Third Class passengers and several departments of the crew. The Third Class dining saloon was located here, as were the swimming pool and Turkish bath.

Y =

• F Deck, the Middle Deck, was the last complete deck and mainly accommodated Second and Third Class passengers and several departments of the crew. The Third Class dining saloon was located here, as were the swimming pool, Turkish bath and kennels.

With gratitude, ~2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

References

 Done. Many thanks. This is the clearest Semi-protected edit request I have seen in 11 and a half years. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Propellers

The photo of stern and rudder is not of Titanic but of Olympic and I suggest this should be mentioned, perhaps adding they were similar.

The article says "The middle propeller was slightly smaller at 17 feet (5.2 m) in diameter, and could be stopped but not reversed" which could be interpreted to imply the outer propellers could be reversed. The photo seems to show the outer propellers had feathering blades so that they could reverse thrust by feathering and while continuing to rotate in the same direction. This should be confirmed and mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.53.34.79 (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• It's already mentioned in the details section for the photograph that this could either be the Titanic or Olympic. Sources are cited to support either. If you can confirm the identity of the ship with an independent reliable source then feel free to add it here.
• I hope someone with more editing experience will chime in here, but I don't feel there is anything wrong with the description of the propellers as it is. The outer propellers COULD be reversed. As far as I'm aware, the outer propellers were fixed. In other words, they had to be stopped and then reversed when an order was given. The pitch of the propeller blades could only be changed while the ship was in dry dock. This was done with Olympic throughout her career. Again though, if you can cite a source then feel free to add it here. Maybe someone else with have another view of it and be able to discuss it further. DarkLight753 (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to add Titanic's signal letters and Official Number to info box

Checked this page and noticed that Titanic's signal flag letters are not noted in the information box. Olympic's signal flags are noted on her page. Signal letters were issued by the Registrar General.

• Titanic's signal letters were 'H-V-M-P':

Note: Not to be confused with Titanic's radio callsign letters - MGY

The letters have been mentioned in many books and on many websites. I'm happy to provide more sources if necessary.

Also, Titanic's Official Number is 131428. Again, there are many more sources I can provide to verify this if need be. Specifically, the documents from her Board of Trade inspections.

Just wanted to know if anyone had thoughts about adding this information to the info box? DarkLight753 (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

References

• I've gone ahead and added this information. DarkLight753 (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Titanic’s center propeller

Ive been researching and found out that the titanic most likely had a three bladed central propeller rather than the four bladed one that has been shown to have been installed on Olympic and Britannic. The10thNightguard (talk) 02:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Feel free to add that with a citation to an independent reliable source. Unfortunately we do not allow claims based on original research and all claims of fact that are not obviously uncontroversial must be backed by an independent and reliable source that is properly cited. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Titanic's centre propeller was a four-blade propeller. Exactly the same as Britannic and Olympic. There are multiple (reliable) sources that confirm this. DarkLight753 (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

look here [1] IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Passenger numbers

In the beginning of the article it reads 2,224 passengers. Then the number drops to about 1000. At the same time the some states that the ship had considerably less passengers and the final number of you add the numbers given is 1000 more. That means that the actual capacity should be about 3,000. Right? Onoufrios d (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Its not clear what you are saying, the intro says total on board was 2224 and later it has crew 885 and passengers as 1317 which is a total 2202 so only a discrepency of 22. MilborneOne (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Jack Thayer's Drawing

Currently, there is an image on the Titanic page with a caption underneath. The caption reads, "The sinking, based on J. Thayer's[who?] description. Sketched by L.P.Skidmore onboard Carpathia" J. Thayer refers to Jack Thayer whose Wikipedia page is here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thayer). The "who" should not be in place and "J.Thayer" should be referenced as "Jack Thayer" with his Wiki page linked. Also, there should be a space betweem "L.P." and "Skidmore". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bareit98 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Bareit98 – good points. I've fixed it for you. Cheers DBaK (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2019

The ship that sunk was actually Olympic but they said it was the titanic to get more money off of it. 173.247.17.224 (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: no request made DannyS712 (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but this alternative theory (proven FALSE time and time again) was mentioned in the RMS Titanic alternative theories#Olympic exchange theory page (intentionally left the whole link as is so you can see it there). Tibbydibby (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

"The semi-protected edit request that was sunk was the one above but they said it was this one to get a better explanation." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Turbines vibrate?

"...while turbines were sufficiently powerful but caused uncomfortable vibrations,..."

I'll note that the Wiki article on steam engines says that turbines were desirable for their lack of vibration.

They can't both be right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CA10:18A0:34FF:190B:41A5:486E (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

hi

k — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.96.72.12 (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2019

Hi, i would like to suggest an edit :- (Fate: Hit an iceberg 11:40 p.m. (ship's time) 14 April 1912 on her maiden voyage and sank 2 h 40 min later on 15 April 1912; 106 years ago.) This should be changed to 107 years ago as one March 2019. Themadelinehatter (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done The number of years are calculated automatically by templates in the infobox, based on the dates entered. There are two dates;
"Maiden voyage" (10 April) and
"Fate" (14/15 April, struck iceberg and sunk).
When the date reaches 10 April 2019, the "Maiden voyage" will change to "107 years", same for the "Fate" parameter on 14 April. Your request was not clear as to why you want the "Fate" parameter to read "107 years" as of "one March 2019" [sic]. That would be incorrect (and off by over 6 weeks), and so, your request must be declined. - wolf 12:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Belfast

Titanic left Belfast not Southampton it did stop there though Eadaoin2908 (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Titanic's departure from Belfast was essentially just a delivery voyage after her sea trials were complete. Her port of departure for the maiden voyage was Southampton. Although there was one fare paying passenger on board for the trip (Wyckoff Van der hoef - died in the sinking). DarkLight753 (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2019

Greetings! In the information box on the right, it is stated that RMS Titanic departed 106 years ago (on April 10th 1912) on its maiden voyage. However, since today is April 10th, "106" should be changed to "107", as 2019-1912 = 107. Thank you. Hugomarines (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The number should automatically update, it's a bit strange that it hasn't updated itself already. – Þjarkur (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2019

"Passengers Main article: Passengers of the RMS Titanic

John Jacob Astor IV in 1909. He was the wealthiest person aboard Titanic. Titanic's passengers numbered approximately 1,317 people: 324 in First Class, 284 in Second Class, and 709 in Third Class."

Should be written "Titanic's *initial* passengers numbered..." as the Titanic picked up more passengers later in the voyage. Confusing considering more than 1,317 people died. 2600:8802:600:3B90:6DA3:B70A:5348:9DAB (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The number of people that died includes the crew (nearly 700 of them died out of the 900 or so aboard). NiciVampireHeart 23:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2019

Change: Ship propulsion = Two three-blade wing propellers and one three-blade centre propeller To: Ship propulsion = Two three-blade wing propellers and one four-blade centre propeller

I.e. the centre propeller has four blades.

Source/reference: https://www.google.com/search?q=titanic+propellers+photo yields many versions of the same photo, e.g. https://www.amazon.com/Titanic-Propellers-Vintage-Photo-Poster/dp/B016F7SN82 which clearly shows the 4-blade central propeller. Pzembrod (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that those photos are actually of Titanic, do you have a firm source that isn't these pictures? Just because some photos are circulating, none on Titanic museum or history related sites, doesn't mean it's Titanic. We'd need some better references than just a Google image search. Canterbury Tail talk 16:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2019

You really do need to fix the propulsion area on the article. The Titanic had 2 3-bladed propellers on the sides but a 4-bladed propeller in the middle. The fact that this error has not been fixed confuses me. :/ Technostomp12 (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Technostomp12, could you provide a source for this change? aboideau^talk 16:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Just a question on this point. Can someone please provide the source or sources used to confirm that Titanic's centre propeller was in fact 3-blade? I have tried looking for them but can't seem to find them specifically. Probably just me. Thanks 2A00:23C4:F499:1D00:4430:8291:97A0:7BAF (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2019

Please write that the Titanic still in fact lies in the Atlantic Ocean, and is therefore impossible to preserve. 94.207.172.100 (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done I think we would have seen an update if it had been salvaged. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2019

Please can you change the flag for the first flag displayed to the flag of the UK, as displayed is the flag of Liverpool, and the text says that it is the flag of the UK 94.207.172.100 (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Liverpool doesn't have its own flag. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2019

Please remove this pipe: “there was no gold, [[Raise the Titanic!|exotic minerals]] or diamonds”. This is an egregious easter egg link. 2A01:4C8:C39:F448:90B0:AAD6:4259:2113 (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done I found it quite appropriate; more of a golden egg. Never mind. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Seems more like a job for a footnote. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Belfast, Ireland

I see this has been discussed loads and loads in the past. Here's an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Huhsz (talk • contribs) 14:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

So 12 years ago User:Benea and User:Gregory E. Miller agreed to use "she was a British registered ship, built in Belfast, Ireland" in the text? Maybe we're due another discussion? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Why would we want to do that? "Belfast, Ireland" is geographically and historically correct. And I got the impression from reading some of the discussions that there were edit-wars about whether it was a British or an Irish ship, and whether it is correct to describe Belfast as being in Northern Ireland 10 years before NI existed. I'd be in favour of leaving it alone. --The Huhsz (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• I don't like "Ireland" because that's a geographical region, not a political one. It doesn't really convey much and we simply don't need it. Belfast alone is plenty - if anyone isn't aware where Belfast is, they have a link to use. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• "Northern Ireland" would certainly be wrong. I agree with Andy Dingley. There is only one Belfast and if it's linked, geographical location is just one click away. If you want to claim that use of "Belfast, Ireland" has been arrived at by firm consensus, you'll need to provide something from the Talk page archives that's more convincing than that first link. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• As a general rule on Wikipedia for UK related articles we use constituent country rather than United Kingdom. I.e. London, England; Swansea, Wales etc not Swansea, United Kingdom. So under that defacto standard it should be Belfast, Ireland not Belfast, United Kingdom. And generally we should use the country the first time we use a city unless it's an exceptionally well known city like New York, Tokyo, London. Canterbury Tail talk 14:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Then you'd need Ireland (1801–1921), rather than Ireland. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Fair. Canterbury Tail talk 20:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• And when we're referring to cities at a particular point in their history it's entirely appropriate to refer to their former country of ownership and former name, if applicable. Thus we refer for example to Immanuel Kant as being born in Königsberg, Prussia, not Kaliningrad, Russia. Prioryman (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I took that as read. Definitely should be in terms of the time being discussed not the modern day. Canterbury Tail talk 19:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2020

Please also add American English, the titans was going to America.

See WP:ENGVAR for how we handle language variants. If there's a specific term which needs translation, please point it out. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Trivia

What is the significance of the Southampton pilot's name - the addition of this person's name appears to add nothing to the article and is a distraction to the reader. Without some strong reason for inclusion showing that this person is important to the story of the Titanic, it appears to be complete trivia and should be removed.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's important in any way. The pilot's name or who they are is not important to what is being communicated in this section. Purely trivial. Canterbury Tail talk 15:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

2 weeks, no voices for keep, removed. Canterbury Tail talk 12:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2020

The amount of passengers whom died is incorrect and i wish to fix it. Carnivalship (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Let me see if I can help with this a bit: firstly, there are minor errors in your request above, so I would ask you to be very very careful in your editing here as it may get jumped on and corrected quite a lot. Next, you seem not to have read the bit above where it says: This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". This means that your edit request is unusable and cannot be met. Last, but best of all, just hang around and do some more editing on some unprotected articles and after a while your account will become confirmed and then you can edit, within reason, as you like. Hope this helps, best wishes 82.39.96.55 (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Correct death toll

Specify death toll as 1496 passengers and crew. Can offer sources for this revision but it is the commonly held and verified statistic. Not specifying the number perpetuates misinformation and discounts each personal life by generalising this figure. VonDeutschland (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Please offer the sources. Thanks. --regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 18:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Flag Error

Hi fellow Wikipedians, I noticed that next to "United Kingdom" there is the flag for Manchester instead of the United Kingdom. Please can someone change the flag to the UK flag please? Cheers, EGL1234 (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Next to "United Kingdom" is the Blue Ensign - which apparently is the correct flag flown by Titanic as Captain Smith was a member of the Royal Naval Reserve and hence entitled to fly the Blue Ensign rather than the normal Red Ensign. This has been discussed several times in the archives for this article.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2020

Under header "Background" the first paragraph states: "The name Titanic derives from the Titan of Greek mythology."

This Titan should be plural, Titans of Greek mythology, since the name does not derive from a single titan named Titan, but rather the beings referred to as Titans. So it should be

"The name Titanic derives from the Titans of Greek mythology."

A rather insignificant change, but it does bug me. 141.168.245.143 (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC) orn.david@gmail.com

Thanks, will do that. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2020

"small but comfortable cabins capable of accommodating two, four, six, eight and 10 ten passengers."

Although MOS:NUM says that numbers from 0-9 should be spelled out in words, and any higher numbers should be written in numerals, it also says not to juxtapose different forms when they refer to comparable quantities (MOS:NUMNOTES).

81.103.37.86 (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done QueerFilmNerd^talk 16:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

The RMS Titanic was made into a film by James Cameron Dr dictionary2743 (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TheImaCow (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2020

The stoker Arthur John Priest has his own wiki page, but it doesn't show on this site. It is referenced on both Violet Jessop's page and Archie Jewell's page. These 2 pages do show the link for Arthur John Priest. 76.103.207.27 (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I have linked to AJP's article now. Cheers IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2020

I am a lover of the rms titanic and would love to share my information with you and Everyone around! Please, please and please let me edit, Many thanks Chabee09 (proper name preferred not to say)! Chabee09 (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Editing is restricted to autoconfirmed users, no exceptions. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

And considering all the disruptive edits your account has made so far, not going to happen. Canterbury Tail talk 14:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 5 August 2020

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

The result of the move request was: Move. We have a clear consensus for moving the article. Cúchullain ^t/c 20:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

---

RMS Titanic → Titanic – As discussed recently at Talk:Queen Mary 2, omitting the ship prefix will yield a more natural, recognizable and concise title. Addressing some of the concerns from the other times this move was proposed (June 2013 and November 2013):

WP:COMMONNAME: "Titanic" is evidently the most commonly used name. All but a handful of sources under § Bibliography use "Titanic" without the prefix. A Google Scholar search for "Titanic sinking" returns more than 10x as many results as "'RMS Titanic' sinking".

WP:SHIPNAME: since prefixes are optional, the guideline alone isn't a reason to keep the prefix. It states, "Civilian ship articles should follow standard Wikipedia naming conventions", which include recognizability, naturalness and concision.

Ambiguity: this was brought up in both previous discussions, but there's been no attempt since then to disambiguate Titanic, which still redirects here. Both long-term significance and use in published sources suggest this ship as the primary topic (see e.g. Google image search). While there have been later vessels called Titanic, the fact that the original Titanic is arguably the most famous ship in history leaves little chance of confusion in omitting a prefix ("Royal Mail Ship") that most readers won't be familiar with anyway. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support. It's definitely the more WP:COMMONNAME, as well as being a more WP:CONCISE title. Since "Titanic" already redirects here as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT there is no need for any disambiguation. I see no good policy reason not to move it. Encyclopedia Britannica also has the title of their article as simply "Titanic".[2] Rreagan007 (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment it should be noted that WP:PREFIXSHIP specifically calls out this article as being at RMS Titanic. It does not however make a judgement that that has to be the name of the article. So if any name change is to be made, the ship project MOS will need to be updated alongside. Canterbury Tail talk 12:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Note we currently also have HMHS Britannic and RMS Olympic. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. People naturally say "the Titanic", not "the RMS Titanic". Titanic is the common name by far.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. But all titles are not ambiguous name for British ships, which should be placed under "RMS" or "SS", within this title "RMS Titanic", not just a single word "Titanic". But other titles of ships, (e.g. Mary Celeste, Endurance, etc.) without using any ship prefixes. --122.2.97.13 (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:NATURAL In ictu oculi (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Is Titanic ambiguous? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Titanic already redirects here as a WP:primary redirect so WP:NATURAL doesn't apply, as disambiguation is unnecessary in this case. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Common name. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I forgot to add related pages with "RMS Titanic" in the title to the move request (too late now?) but the name change should ideally apply to all such pages as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah it's a little late. Just let this RM discussion finish, and if the title gets changed, a supplemental discussion can take place after that for any related pages that may need to be moved. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Note: I've added a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships pointing to this discussion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The honorific can be explained in the article. While this ship "died" doing the job RMS refers to it is unnecessary in the title. Palmeira (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support I'm always a bit dubious about mechanical counts of Google hits, but a quick check of the New York Times, BBC News and the Guardian's archives demonstrates that these sources usually refer to the ship as just the Titanic, with the 'RMS' only being occasionally included. As such, I think that just Titanic reflects modern usage. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Just because disambiguation is not required it doesn't mean it should be removed. All other ships have a prefix, no reason to break the practice that already exists. Don't fix what's not broken. This move is nothing but a continuous pandering to dumbification movement that doesn't know what RMS is apparently. Crook1 (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. All other ships have a prefix? No, all do not either here nor in public literature. Neither do they in professional journals. For example: Queen Elizabeth 2 here, America's Finest Liner just the name Washington, just Comfort with no prefix and just a lower case description, and "America, SS" with the engineering bit is a suffix or just DAB. So, no, these prefixes are by no means universally used. Some individual ahips even go through several "prefixes" — including engineering based prefixes. I can cite a couple that were SS then MS after conversions. The prefix is not part of a ship's name except in some publicity type (mainly modern) where some sort of corporate/cause addition is made to a registered name. Perhaps the most misused "prefix" here is United States Ship (U.S.S.) where it is attached to every tub that plowed a harbor by some and was never commissioned — the only time any vessel carries that designation. We don't have to go as far as the Navy and drop the U.S.S. when a ship goes into a long decommissioned status for overhaul or modernization, but that the habit of tagging every yard craft "in service" with it is simply a demonstration of Wiki cluelessness. So is a lot of the other "prefix" obsession. The one good use of prefixes here in my opinion is to help distinguish ship articles from namesake articles. Palmeira (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • As already stated, prefixes are optional. Besides historical ships such as the Golden Hind and the Mary Celeste that were never given a prefix, article titles for some modern ships including the Celebrity Equinox and its sister ships, and the aforementioned Queen Elizabeth 2 and Queen Mary 2, also lack them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • As a general rule, we do not disambiguate article titles when disambiguation is not necessary. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment It's quite eurocentric to assume all readers know what RMS stands for. There's nothing wrong with "dumbification" if it means more readers will understand and recognize the title. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Top hole, Ganners!! We could well do without all these cabbage crates coming over the briny!! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I lol'ed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    • But it's fine to be American centric with all those USS or SS ships? Canterbury Tail talk 17:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
      • In the case of ambiguous names, some disambiguation is needed. Whether that should be via a ship prefix or some other method is a topic for a more general discussion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support We should follow the sources. Nothing is this proposal affects the content of the article one iota, only the name of this page (and other favourite titles for the ship will link anyway). Undoubtedly the common name is plain Titanic, and there is no need for any disambiguation since it is a well-designated Primary. Davidships (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is its "full name", which seems appropriate. The article is supposed to be written in English English, and therefore just supposing "RMS" seems unnecessary to American ears, that does not matter. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Commonly used names are preferred over "full" or "official" names, especially when more concise; see examples given above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The full name of the ship was Titanic; RMS was a functional prefix - if she had lasted and ceased to have a Royal Mail contract it would have been removed. Davidships (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Keep "RMS" in the lead sentence as the more "proper" name, but the title absolutely does not need it per WP:COMMONNAME. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Note: Yes, and an excellent place in a popular topic to explain what "RMS" meant. I would likely win a bet that most readers have almost no idea and certainly (as we see even here) not that it was something that applied only as long and during a ship's warrant and subsidy to carry the Royal Mail. Palmeira (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Two contemporary references: An example of the name being simply Titanic, before the Royal Mail bit, is an unused (as far as I can tell) reference. International Marine Engineering, July 1911, article "Launch of the Titanic" (pages 281-283) in which the plain name occurs throughout. There are two interesting bits in the piece. The use of hydraulic triggers for launch is one. The other is the clarity of the issue of the central turbine not needing an astern turbine because the two wing reciprocating engines could go astern for maneuvering. That means in an emergency stop the 16,000 shp central propeller was useless for going all astern. All that could be done was to stop it while the port and starboard propellers went astern. Olympic had the same system. An engineering level description of both ships is found in The Marine Engineer and Naval Architect with the first of three parts in the July 1911 issue. Pertinent to this discussion is noting that in neither industry journal are prefixes of any sort common; just names and descriptions. Palmeira (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Sinking Support unless common name (let alone conciseness) isn't a thing anymore on Wikipedia Red Slash 22:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 14 August 2020

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

The result of the move request was: Moved per WP:SNOW. There is a clear consensus to move these pages. Interstellarity (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

---

• Animals aboard the RMS Titanic → Animals aboard the Titanic
• British Wreck Commissioner's inquiry into the sinking of the RMS Titanic → British Wreck Commissioner's inquiry into the sinking of the Titanic
• Changes in safety practices after the sinking of the RMS Titanic → Changes in safety practices after the sinking of the Titanic
• Crew of the RMS Titanic → Crew of the Titanic
• Cultural legacy of RMS Titanic → Cultural legacy of the Titanic
• First-class facilities of the RMS Titanic → First-class facilities of the Titanic
• Grand Staircase of the RMS Titanic → Grand Staircase of the Titanic
• Legends and myths regarding RMS Titanic → Legends and myths regarding the Titanic
• Lifeboats of the RMS Titanic → Lifeboats of the Titanic
• List of films about the RMS Titanic → List of films about the Titanic
• Memorials and monuments to the RMS Titanic victims → Memorials and monuments to victims of the Titanic
• Musicians of the RMS Titanic → Musicians of the Titanic
• Passengers of the RMS Titanic → Passengers of the Titanic
• RMS Titanic conspiracy theories → Titanic conspiracy theories
• RMS Titanic in popular culture → Titanic in popular culture
• Second and Third-class facilities on the RMS Titanic → Second and Third-class facilities on the Titanic
• Sinking of the RMS Titanic → Sinking of the Titanic
• United States Senate inquiry into the sinking of the RMS Titanic → United States Senate inquiry into the sinking of the Titanic
• Wreck of the RMS Titanic → Wreck of the Titanic

– Following up on the above move request. "RMS Titanic" should be changed to "Titanic" in ancillary article titles pertaining to the ship for consistency's sake. Also seeking to standardize use of the preceding definite article "the". Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment hasn't this latest move introduced an inconsistency with every other similar ship article? I'm not sure this has been properly thought out tbh. G-13114 (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom; interesting that the two formal enquiries in the titles of their reports eschewed RMS - the British used SS and the American Senate just unadorned Titanic. Davidships (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • It is not just "interesting" — it is how actual nautical centered entities tended to deal with that (and indeed even the SS/MS and other such) prefix in usage. In gigabytes of professional and naval nautical journals, reports, investigations; in thousands of bookmarks to the same I don't store; in a couple of shelf feet of hard copy, the bits and ink wasted on prefixes is minimal. Palmeira (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Noting that the proposal is about titles, not creating mandates regarding text. North8000 (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CONSISTENT for consistency with the main article. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support for consistency with main article. 180.245.101.217 (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Palmeira (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support per nom. move all the page 114.125.235.71 (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support but also proposing changing Second and Third-class facilities on the RMS Titanic to Second and third class facilities on the RMS Titanic without the hyphen and with third being lowercase since it's not a proper noun. The intro to the article doesn't use hyphens, I'm not sure why the title does. Piratesswoop (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Lowercase does seem appropriate, but the hyphen is correct ("Second-" should actually have a hanging hyphen as well) per MOS:HYPHEN/MOS:HANGING, indicating that "Second- and third-class" are used as compound modifiers (as in the corresponding article about the first-class facilities). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2020

well i would like to edit because i work at the titanic museuem in belfast GRUMPY CAT11 (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You can suggest edits here on this talk page on the form "Please change X to Y". – Thjarkur (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2021

Edit from 108 to 109 years ago 152.93.100.29 (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done The infobox correctly says maiden voyage was on "10 April 1912; 108 years ago" and sinking was on "15 April 1912; 108 years ago". It won't be 109 years until 10 April 2021 and 15 April 2021 respectively. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

"RMS titanic" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect RMS titanic. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 14#RMS titanic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2021

Footnote 152, under the 'Atlantic crossing' subheading, link to the 'Titanic: Fire & Ice (Or What You Will)' pdf is now dead. Please redirect it to the Internet Archive copy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.148.28 (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2021 (2)

I would like to Change the Picture of the Template at the top-left of the page, and replace it with a color image of the Titanic. AMAMAMAMMAMAMAAM (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide such an image? Maybe you have a video of it sinking too? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2021

I want to cite more information. 2600:6C44:7900:1300:11BE:31F8:8BFA:97A5 (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Titanic Stardboard Side Diagram.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Pronoun

"She was built by the" ships do not have a concept of gender, nor do they have a biological sex. The correct pronoun is 'it' 2A02:C7F:1676:8100:95B4:2AE9:1985:A22 (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Why do ships have a gender? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Also see WP:SHIPPRONOUNS. Canterbury Tail talk 22:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2022

• Starting-RMS-Titanic-Rev-21 file by Author, Stephen Carey marine engineer. 78.147.209.200 (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it might be useful for "Background reading", but may be WP:SPS. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2022

It says in this article that the engines were reversed after the iceberg was spotted, but they were stopped. The section is called "Maiden voyage", the sub-section is called "Sinking". Here is a translated quote from the German Wikipedia Titanic article in the section "Die Jungfernfahrt" (meaning maiden voyage), sub-section "Die Kollision mit dem Eisberg" ("The collision with the iceberg") that states evidence for this: "4th officer Boxhall later testified to the simultaneous command "Full astern" by Murdoch, as also depicted in J. Cameron's film Titanic (1997). However, there is not enough evidence for this; it seems more likely that the ship was almost stopped with "Slow Astern" shortly after the collision." 2A02:8109:B6C0:49D0:2161:22E9:E902:A7DF (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

There's a mistake about the center screw

The center screw powered by the turbine isn't a 3 blades but a four blades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipotez (talk • contribs) 08:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent research, including a notebook from Harland and Wolff has concluded that the center propeller was, in fact, 3 bladed.

--SpigotMap 03:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Just look at theses pictures:

https://fineartamerica.com/featured/titanic-propellers-bill-cannon.html

https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/speed-v-revolutions.html

Ok obviously the original 4 blades configuration has been changed to 3:

https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/titanic-centre-propeller-new-evidence.html

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipotez (talk • contribs) 02:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Crosses

Can someone explain the use of crosses (†) after some names? Rp2006 (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The section on passengers explains that the † is used against those that perished. And that section is the only one that uses the daggers. Canterbury Tail talk 21:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Ballads

Can’t edit the text, but “ballads” is spelled wrong 212.159.112.119 (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting us to this problem. I have corrected the spelling to “ballads”. Dolphin (t) 11:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2022

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Stopped, not reversed

1st officer Murdoch ordered the engines to stop, not to reverse. A translated quote from the German Titanic Wikipedia article: "4th officer Boxhall later testified to the simultaneous command "Full astern" by Murdoch, as also depicted in J. Cameron's film Titanic (1997). However, there is not enough evidence for this; it seems more likely that the ship was almost stopped with "Slow Astern" shortly after the collision." 2A02:8109:B6C0:49D0:2161:22E9:E902:A7DF (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2022

I think I know lots about the R.M.S Titanic and I would write lots of information concerning the sinking of this British Passenger/Mail Ship. 2604:3D08:5A7C:0:E866:62A1:A330:738 (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done, please state the changes you wish to be made in a "change X to Y per source" format. Alternatively, if you create an account, make 10 edits and wait 4 days, you will be able to edit the article directly. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 19:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Shorten the lead?

Someone tagged it as having the lead too long. By Wiki standards, it is too long. I looked it over; rather than just having summary type statements, it also has a lot of interesting facts about the Titanic and it's sinking. So the lead makes for a nice read, though not following the wiki norm for leads. If we wanted to follow the norm, we would need to take a lot of the interesting individual facts out of the lead (of course, they are still in the body of the article) Should we do this? The alternative, since the wiki-norm is not policy, would be to decide to leave it as is, the wikinorm not withstanding. North8000 (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2022

2604:3D08:5A7C:0:510B:8C69:4B1C:A63B (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

TITANIC Myths There are numerous myths about the R.M.S Titanic. One may think not, others may feel yes. This is a section about the myths of TITANIC. Lots of people think that the mummy on board the ship was cursed and led the ship to sink in the depths of the North Atlantic Ocean. This mummy (Princess Amen Ra) was onboard the TITANIC as it founders into the North Atlantic Ocean. As you read this, Princess Amen Ra is laying in the British Museum numbered 'Artifact #22542' This mummy was 5ft tall. This is only one of the myths about TITANIC. There are many more to come.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2022

The Sighting distance for the iceberg was 430 meters. Sfreeseeew (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: Update link for source

This Source : Canfield, Clarke (8 March 2012). "Full Titanic site mapped for 1st time". The Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2 January 2013. Retrieved 9 March 2012.

These links are dead. The "archived" link sent a redirect in November and December of 2021, recorded by waybackmachine . The redirect goes to this link: https://archive.ph/20130102151112/http://www.fox10tv.com/dpps/news/national/northeast/full-titanic-site-mapped-for-1st-time-nt12-jgr_4098372

Retrieved 5 April 2022

Celticsunfish (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Death upon setting sail and electric camel

This would be an addition to the sentence "Just before the launch a worker was killed when a piece of wood fell on him." in the section about building the ship. Although it is a small fact I think it is an interesting addition. When the Titanic was being launched from where it was docked in Belfast, Ireland on May 31, a dock worker, by the name of James Dobbin, was stuck on the head with a piece of falling timber. He was in the hospital for a day before he succumbed to his injuries.

Another fact to add is about the electric camel. This can also be seen in the background of a scene in James Cameron's film "Titanic"

As well as other gym equipment, the first-class gymnasium included an electric camel for passengers

Citation: Fitch, Tad, Layton J.Kent, Wormstedt, Bill (2012).On a Sea of Glass: The Life & Loss of the RMS Titanic. Gloucestershire: Amberley Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4456-4701-2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinortutora (talk • contribs) 00:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracies

While the Titanic’s collision is considered accidental, conspiracy theorists have different opinions. “A lifeboat drill was scheduled for April 14, the day that the Titanic was struck,” Georgia H. McKibben says. “The captain cancelled it without given reason. He also received up to six iceberg warnings, which he disregarded. It seems as if he was attempting to sabotage his own vessel.” Other theories besides sabotage have also been mentioned. A foreign vessel was spotted by the crew as they deployed the lifeboats. Some suspected it was German and had shot the ship with a torpedo. Some think it was an elaborate murder, for many wealthy people were on board, including John Jacob Astor, the richest man on the Titanic and maybe even in the world at the time. Some think that the bolts used to build the ship were weaker due to budget cuts. Though many theories have been proposed, almost everyone still assumes it was just one big accident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3400:209:93C0:547F:B106:3A3E:E1CB (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

If you are seeking changes to the article by proposing an edit here, you need to post it in a "please change X to Y" format, and ensure you provide reliable sources. - wolf 03:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thewolfchild, are you joking or have you not read the message above? The anonymous editor is talking about Titanic-related conspiracy theories, and we already have an article on Titanic conspiracy theories. It needs work, but it should cover the editor's interests. Dimadick (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

She and he change

According to some sources, the conmpany what built the titanics CEO decided the titanic was to be referred to as a he, unlike any ship before it. Which, did end up happenning. I propose a further look into this and correct the she on this page if it is true. 82.18.134.221 (talk) 08:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Might be a curious titbit. But just as he is generic for man, she is otherwise always generic for ships. This is because they're not gendered in concept, they just possess he and she as neutral pronouns.Wooblo (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Typo

In "Wreck" artifacts is spelled wrong Moose124 (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Artefacts appears to have the correct British English spelling. Canterbury Tail talk 19:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

(ec)I think you're looking at the correct British English spelling, and this article uses British English. North8000 (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2022

Source 11 (Furness, Hannah (23 January 2022). "'Women and children first' onto the Titanic lifeboats was a myth, historian claims". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 23 January 2022.) is incorrect.

Below is an excerpt from that article:

“While the story goes that those who survived were women and children, it’s not true: 323 men survived, 80 per cent of them got on lifeboats from the starboard side.

“They survived because first officer William Murdoch, who evacuated that side, didn’t prevent them from getting in.

“On the port side, second officer Charles Lightoller had the rule of women and children first and he took it literally.

“One boat that could take 65 people rowed away with 28, leaving men behind. Over on the starboard side, it was a different story. On the last boats to leave, the majority were men.”

Why this is wrong and the source and accompanying text needs to be removed:

> “While the story goes that those who survived were women and children, it’s not true: 323 men survived, 80 per cent of them got on lifeboats from the starboard side.

This does not disprove the fact that there was a 'Women and Children First' policy, only that it was interpreted as an exclusive and preferential order on the port and starboard sides respectively.

> “They survived because first officer William Murdoch, who evacuated that side, didn’t prevent them from getting in. It is well documented that Murdoch only permitted men to enter the lifeboats after giving preference to nearby women and children.

>“One boat that could take 65 people rowed away with 28, leaving men behind. Over on the starboard side, it was a different story. On the last boats to leave, the majority were men.” This is not correct. The last boats to leave the starboard side were:

Collapsible Boat A (starboard) - Was not launched. Desperate survivors in the water attempted to enter from the water.

Collapsible Boat C (starboard) - 25-28 women and children were assisted into the boat, followed by nearby crew and men.

Boat 15 (starboard) – Mostly male crew members, but women were given priority for boarding "Boats Nos. 13 and 15 were swung from the davits at about the same moment. I heard the officer in charge of No. 13 say, ‘WeÂ’ll lower this boat to Deck A.Â’ Observing a group of possibly fifty or sixty about boat 15, a small proportion of which number were women, I descended by means of a stairway close at hand to the deck below, Deck A. Here, as the boat was lowered even with the deck, the women, about eight in number, were assisted by several of us over the rail of the steamer into the boat, and called repeatedly for more women. None appearing, and there being none visible on the deck, which was then brightly illuminated, the men were told to tumble in. Along with those present I entered the boat. Ray was my table steward and called to me to get in.Â’" (Gracie, p. 294)

Boat 11 (Starboard) – Mostly women and children in the boat, about 30 ladies (including possibly nine stewardesses), three men passengers and some 16 or 18 male crew; close to 60 people.

Boat 9 (Starboard) – Most passengers were women, with two or three men who entered when no more women came forward. One elderly woman refused to board, making a great fuss, and retreated below decks. May Futrelle, the wife of novelist Jacques Futrelle, was likewise initially reluctant to board; but after her husband told her, "For God's sake, go! It's your last chance! Go!", an officer forced her into the boat.[49] The millionnaire Benjamin Guggenheim brought Léontine Aubart, his French mistress, and her maid, Emma Sägasser, to Boat 9 before retiring to his stateroom with his valet, Victor Giglio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.127.127.118 (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Following this up Dazgra (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, looks like this section has already been removed Dazgra (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Inaccuracies with Titanic starboard image

Titanic_Starboard_View_1912.gif Inaccuracies

Hello, I have recently visited this Wikipedia page looking for information about the titanic until I noticed the severe inaccuracies in one of the starboard side displays of the ship. I will now list the inaccuracies:

1. Funnel color and stripes 2. Thin white line above the red part of the hull 3. Flag at the bow? 4. Unknown flag at the forward mast 5. Nameplate color and placement 6. No yellow stripe between the hull and the superstructure 7. Not enough cowl ventilators 8. Red British naval flag instead of the blue oceanic flag at stern This display looks as if the Titanic was a Cunarder. I hope you guys take the time to fix this though, but it's fine. If you do happen to fix this I would recommend using Thomas Andrews's design blueprint of the Titanic. Thank you. MrSpankMan whip (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: When submitting edit requests you need to phrase what changes you would like explicitly, usually in the format of please change X to Y. If you believe the image you mention is within and of itself an inaccurate potrayal of the Titanic you would need to find an image you believe is suitable, ensure that it meets our image use policy, and then either a) become autoconfirmed and boldly make the change yourself or b) attain consensus on this page for another editor to replace the image. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a man-made image of Titanic, painted for multiple purposes other than simply presentation in Wikipedia. It is an image that can’t be adjusted by Wikipedia Users.

I prefer that this image be visible in this article, warts and all, rather than it be removed in the interest of correctness. Any errors are unlikely to be significant for the great majority of readers. The article itself is imperfect due to the absence of certain items of important information so I don’t see a problem with an image that is also imperfect. Dolphin (t) 23:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Titanic and RMS Titanic

I don't want to start another debate on the topic, but I'm curious as to why this article is "Titanc" and not "RMS Titanic". All the other articles on ships seem to include the prefix in the name. Looked through the talk page archive and can't find any any previous discussion. I'm assuming it was discussed, so all I need is a link to said discussion. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

You can find the move discussion in the archives at Talk:Titanic/Archive_12#Requested_move_5_August_2020. Canterbury Tail talk 15:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess it comes down to the "common name" thing. I find that principle deeply problematic, but I don't suppose I have any hope of changing any minds. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Consensus can change. There is no prohibition against starting another discussion on it, a reasonable period of time has passed. But don’t do anything against the consensus. If a new consensus is established due to discussion then so be it. The big issue here in common name is the Titanic is one of, if not the, most famous ship name in history. That is what can differentiate it from other ships. As I say, no prohibition on starting a new discussion. Canterbury Tail talk 12:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Why are there two "Sinking" sections?

Why are there two "Sinking" sections? The first one seems completely unnecessary and out of place. It appears in the wrong order chronologically, and it is entirely redundant with the rest of the article. Seems to me it should be removed. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I see now that the newer Sinking section was just added recently, about four months ago. I see no good reason for it so I'm going to remove it. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Women and children first

This makes no sense to me: "it was "not true" that women and children survived thanks to the gallantry of men; of the last survivors escaping on the final lifeboats leaving the starboard side of the ship, he said, the majority were men". If women and children were evacuated first, then of course the last lifeboats would be filled with men. I checked the cited source but it does not offer any clarification. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@SKG990: I see you had reservations about this too, can we just remove it? GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2022

Fourth paragraph from top. Collapsible is spelled wrong. 2600:4040:762C:7100:891F:3737:D399:7BAB (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed - wolf 14:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Not a collision.

The Titanic did not collide with an iceberg according to Maritime law. It allided with an iceberg. See: https://mahonefirm.com/allision-vs-collision/ Dan Bollinger (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

You can only allide with a stationary object, an iceberg is not a stationary object hence it collided. Canterbury Tail talk 01:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2022

i want to edit because some of the stuff is wrong and i want to fix it 12334333f (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@12334333f: while the page is protected and before you reach the milestones required to edit the page yourself, you can request individual edits here on the talk page, using this same template. Your requests need to be in a "please change 'x' to 'y'" format and should include sourcing, if required. - wolf 21:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Titantic and Belfast

The cultural significance of the Titantic to Belfast is complex and emmeshed in the city's sectarian history but the idea that discussion of it was in some way taboo is absolute nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.190.222.43 (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Animals ?

Was there a pony/ponies on Titanic?? I’ve read about dogs, cats, chickens (and uninvited rats) being onboard.. but were ponies onboard (belonging to a first class passenger) ? 82.13.90.63 (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Some information about Titanic if anyone needs it.

The ship titanic sunk in 14 April 1912 – 15 April 1912 in the Atlantic Ocean. Titanic has been named "unsinkable" ship, and was the largest, most luxurious ocean cruse of its time, sadly it crashed into an iceberg on its way to New York in 1912, it took down more than 1,500 of its 2,200 passengers to the sea bed to never return. April 10, 1912 - Titanic sets sail on its maiden voyage from Southampton, England and had held 2,240 passengers and crew.

Who was the most famous person on board the Titanic?

John Jacob Astor was the wealthiest passenger aboard Titanic and was born on 13 July 1864 with a personal fortune of approximately $150,000,000. Sadly John Jacob Astor IV died on the Titanic 111 years ago. But Astor's wife, who was 30 years younger than him, was pregnant aboard the Titanic and survived the wreckage.

Where did the dead Titanic bodies go?

Only 59 bodies were placed in the morgue and shipped out by train to their families. The remaining victims of the Titanic tragedy were buried in three Halifax cemeteries between May 3 and June 12 147.147.39.32 (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

This smells like a copyright violation. And without a source we can't use it. GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)