Talk:Titanic

Barriers

I quote from the article: "large numbers of Third Class passengers were unable to reach the lifeboat deck through unfamiliar parts of the ship and past barriers". Contrary to popular belief, there were no barriers in the ship that could have prevented 3rd class passengers reaching the boat deck (in fact their escape route was via their own promenade deck). This is established by multiple contemporary accounts, including the evidence given by Edward Wilding at the British enquiry. (http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTInq18Wilding01.php) Is everyone happy for this statement to be removed? Fionnlaoch (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

In fact, this sentence is misleading. It was not possible to prevent 3rd class passengers from reaching the boat deck. However, as many of the 3rd classe passengers were not familiar with the ship the locked barriers stopped some of them. There exist also eyewitness accounts on that. --DFoerster (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

So DFoester are you suggesting that the first and second class passengers WOULD be familiar with this entirely new and unknown ship? Frankly that seems ridiculous. I believe that in fact the lockable gates were there because the New York port and immigration authorities insisted that such gates be locked closed when liners were less than one day from NYC to ensure that third class passengers who were assumed to be immigrants would be taken off separately and processed through immigration at Ellis Island. Locking the gates prevented anyone escaping this procedure by sneaking into the other classes.The gates would certainly have been unloccked ..or not locked at the time of the sinking.Sadly the real problem was probably the idea among the third classes that getting them off the safe comfortable boat into cold lifeboats was somekind of trick ....that is how peoples minds worked in those days...the rich accompanied by their maids and servants might even have regarded it all as a bit of an adventure though the males would have stayed behind as it was their manly duty to be brave — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.73.199 (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Striking the iceberg head-on

Can we please get rid of the absurd speculation that the ship wouldn't have sank if it had struck the iceberg head on? Two references are cited, but one makes no mention of this theory. (I haven't checked the other one.) A ship the size of the Titanic wouldn't have stopped after striking an iceberg. Ships that large will coast for tens of miles after the engines are shut down. So the Titanic would certainly have kept moving, and the iceberg would have rolled off to one side and did just as much damage. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It may be absurd speculation, but, Wilding (one of the designers of the ship) did not think so. To quote the evidence he gave to the British Inquiry, as referenced in the article

20269. You mean it did not strike a fair blow?

- If she struck it a fair blow I think we should have heard a great deal more about the severity of it, and probably the ship would have come into harbour if she had ::struck it a fair blow, instead of going to the bottom.

20270. You think that?

- I am quite sure of it.

20271. (The Commissioner.) I am rather interested about that. Do you mean to say that if this ship had driven on to the iceberg stem on she would have been saved?

- I am quite sure she would, My Lord. I am afraid she would have killed every firemen down in the firemen's quarters, but I feel sure the ship would have come in.

20272. And the passengers would not have been lost?

- The passengers would have come in.

Now, of course he could well have been talking nonsense, but, the article is (correctly in my opionion) reporting the existence of such speculation with reliable references, however absurd it may seem. WhaleyTim (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that it might be informative to illustrate that relatively minor damage sank the ship due only to the number of compartments that were breached. The area of all of the openings in the hull added together added up to that of a 1 meter by 1 meter square. North8000 (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I should have checked the reference more carefully. (Sorry about that.) I still think it's absurd, but it may merit qualified mention in the article. The trouble with quoting speculation in an encyclopedia is that it may easily be mistaken for fact. I'm not sure under what conditions speculation is allowed under Wikipedia guidelines. If we include it, we should say whose speculation this was, and we should look for qualified opposing view points. Starting with "It has been speculated that..." doesn't cut it. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree - 'It has been speculated' seems like weasel wording, and there is scope for improvement in this section. WhaleyTim (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any strong opinion, I was just yakking/ discussing. In that vein, I think that it is plausible rather than absurd. North8000 (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure of the value of this "speculation." If the Officer of the Watch had not taken every possible action to avoid the collision he would have been pilloried in the court. If he had claimed it was better to take no action and hit square on, they probably would have locked him up. Rumiton (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but behavior at the moment is a different question. At that moment, heading straight for the iceberg vs. trying to steer away from it would be choosing certainty of collision vs. trying to avoid the collision,, the expected decision at that moment would be obvious. We are talking about a illustrative comment made after-the-fact based on detailed knowledge of the actual collision, damage and sinking. Again I am neutral on the topic of inclusion/exclusion of the material, I am just yakking. North8000 (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It was an absurd speculation in 1912 and has continued to be so throughout the decades. There is no precise information about the size or the underwater shape of the iceberg (or perhaps icebergs) involved in the Titanic collision. If the underwater contours of the berg in question were shelved in a particular way, it might have caused the ship to sink even faster.Rumiton makes the valid point that it was a "no win" situation. Probably, it's better to take as much positive action as possible, when you are in that situation. It's even better to avoid being in that kind of situation altogether! - regards Norloch (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"The superior seaman uses his superior judgement to keep out of situations requiring his superior skills." Unknown author. Rumiton (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well said, and I think that that applies for most of life.  :-) North8000 (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There is still the moot question of whether it should be included. There have been many wild and wacky theories relating to Titanic over the years: It would be wearysome to list them all, find sources for the speculation and reliable sources for refutation. However this particular speculation is well known and has a clear origin in (a) evidence given to the Board of Trade inquiry by someone who cannot be discounted as a complete flake, and (b) by the outcome of a previous collision by a different vessel. I do not know if there are any reliable sources that support or refute the theory. Does anyone know of any well-qualified group or individual that has published serious research on the subject? WhaleyTim (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of any that have addressed that comment specifically. There are many that say it was designed to keep floating even with 4 compartments flooded. This may be useful to review plausibility in talk page regarding potentially leaving out the material. My gut feel is that it's plausible and possibly informative to say "what if", but ridiculous to imply that the captain trying to steer away from it (vs. deliberately ramming it) was mis-behavior. The latter should stay out, the former is borderline on being given space in the top level article. So, my suggestion, if inclusion of the former is is controversial, leave it out, if not put 2-3 sentences on it in just to illustrate the "Murphy's law" nature of the actual damage. North8000 (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

In May of 1912, The "English Review" published an essay by Joseph Conrad - "Some reflections on the Loss of the Titanic." - Conrad highlighted the flaws in the reasoning of those who considered that extremely large, fast, ships could be operated in the same way as conventional ships of the day. The practices that were acceptable for (say) a fifteen thousand ton ship, with a speed of fifteen knots, could not realistically be applied to ships like Titanic. If the flawed reasoning was obvious to Conrad, then it was also apparent to other experts of that time. Given that there were some awkward issues arising, with regard to the standards of construction for those very large ships, it's maybe not surprising that Wilding would seek to introduce an element of misdirection into the Inquiry proceedings. The fact that Lord Mersey didn't seek other independent expert opinion to corroborate Wilding's "theory" may be significant. From a Wiki perspective, it raises the question of whether Wilding should be considered as a "reliable source" on the subject. Norloch (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I am still trying to fully absorb the two large technical reports on this. But I might prematurely propose the following (details to be checked/tweaked and sourced):

The total area of all of the breaches of the hull was only 12 square feet in a scraping type collision. The ship sank because the collision breached 6 compartments. On this point, at the British inquiry , xxxx Wilding, one of the designers of the ship speculated that the ship would not have sank if the collision would have instead been a direct head-on collision.

I think that this puts Wilding's comment in the context that he intended it, which was merely making/illustrating the point that the ship sank due to the number of compartments breached rather than intending to present as authoritative a complete alternate scenario which assumed knowledge (e.g. geometry of the iceberg) which did not exist. North8000 (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree with the proposed wording. It's a fair summary and it would be lengthy and complex to detail all the pros & cons. - Forensic witnesses never have an easy time of it. They need to be wary of lawyers who are inclined to lead them into speculations beyond their areas of expertise. It may have been a case of Lord Mersey indulging himself, (when he should have known better), by 'leading' Wilding into his speculation about ramming head on. - On the other hand, it's apparent that Wilding was willing go along with that and he did give a false precedent to support his assertion ( he used the example of a much smaller, slower, ship which had survived a head-on collision.) He also gave a rather misleading analogy when he spoke about deceleration effects (he made some comparison with a motor car.) - After the passage of a century, it's difficult to know how far Wilding intended to speculate on the subject. Certainly, at the time, Joseph Conrad, while 'naming no names' in his essay, was notably scathing about the concept of attempting to ram bergs 'head on'. ( It's also notable that Conrad considered one of the fallacies associated with the sub-division of those large ships. - i.e. It could only be of limited usefulness that a ship would remain afloat with up to four compartments flooded when the construction and operational practices permitted any of the compartments to be pierced and flooded relatively easily.)Norloch (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The proposed wording is certainly an improvement. But I'm inclined to say we should leave out the speculation entirely, as it's impossible to know for sure. We could quote Conrad (good find BTW) to refute the point, but since both were speculating, I'm not sure it's worth keeping the point at all. The important point, with which everyone seems to agree, is that the ship sank because six compartments were breached. We might want to relegate the entire question to the Legends and myths regarding RMS Titanic article, or maybe the RMS Titanic alternative theories article. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that something along the lines of my wording is the smallest/mildest version of including the "head on" speculation, thus the approach with the best chance of having support for "head on" inclusion, and thus a good judge/measure of what folks think. How 'bout folks weigh in on that for another week and then go by the input received? Again, I don't have a strong opinion, I was just trying to move the matter forward. So I'm going to weigh in as being "neutral" on my idea. North8000 (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

In other words, if my idea doesn't fly, nothing regarding putting "head-on" in would. North8000 (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it helps the article. It's one of those "what if" speculations, which have never impressed me much when raised by historians. They should know better; so should we. Rumiton (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rumiton. I have no objections to putting into one of the other articles I mentioned, but I don't think it belongs in this article. Incidentally, the SS Arizona that Wilding referred to was a much smaller ship. The Titanic was 9 times as massive. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the consensus is against my idea, and that my idea was probably to most palatable way to put "head on" into the article, so I think that means that we have decided that "head-on' comes out / stays out of this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I would feel better about this consensus if WhaleyTim had piped in, but that does seem to be the consensus. —216.103.134.250 (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Do y'all want to try for Featured Article by the 100th anniversary of the sinking in April 2012?

Do y'all want to make an effort towards getting this back to Featured Article status by the 100th anniversary of the sinking in April 2012? Could be a fun team effort. North8000 (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a conversation on this at User_talk:North8000#RMS_Titanic, which is further to other conversations, basically various persons asking us (just after we and others got the SS Edmund Fitzgerald article to FA) about an effort to do that here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Count me in.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 12:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I doubt I'll be able to contribute much, but I thought I'd mention that the discussion of notable passengers could use some work. There's a section called Notable Passengers, and another called Maiden Voyage, which is where most of the famous passengers are mentioned. (The Notable Passengers section seems to be a list of notable survivors, who weren't otherwise famous.) —MiguelMunoz (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Some could be added to the Passengers of the RMS Titanic article as well. Morhange (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

sure that sounds cool. i have a website if yall get bord. its www.titanicbook.webs.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.91.47.219 (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"Collision" Section has Bogus Math

"The pumps could only cope with 1,700 tons of water per hour,[36] but 2,000 gallons were flooding into the liner every five minutes."

Comparing gallons with tons? Wow. A gallon of water weighs about 8 pounds (seawater may be very slightly more.) Thus 2000 gallons = 8 tons. So this would be 96 tons of water per hour. So at this rate it should have arrived in NY with no problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.59.137 (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. Thanks for noticing. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

ok so the question now is what happened? why did it sink? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.91.47.219 (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the 2,000 gallons every 5 minutes is implausibly low and almost certainly wrong. North8000 (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph on lights of nearby mystery ship is very confusing

The paragraph on lights of nearby mystery ship is very confusing. I read it several times and still need to read it more times to figure it out. It appears to say that the mystery ship is the California, but then that the California also saw the mystery ship. Right now I'm not knowledgeable enough on the material / what the sources say to fix it. North8000 (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There isn't an easy answer to that one, North8000. -Evidence from witnesses on all four of the identifiable ships that were in the area (i.e. Titanic, Carpathia, Mount Temple and Californian) confirmed that they had sighted the navigation lights of an unidentified ship in their vicinity - at some time during the hours of darkness - April 14th/15th. Since those identifiable ships were quite widely separated, it's improbable that they could all have seen lights of the same unidentified ship. For unknown reasons the conclusions of the British Inquiry appeared to discount these multiple sightings and made the assumption that the unidentified ship lights sighted by Californian must have been Titanic and the unidentified ship lights sighted by Titanic must have been Californian. Since then, the matter has been debated with much heat but with very little light. In some cases the evidence of witnesses was contradictory.Californian's Third officer considered that he'd seen a passenger ship with two masthead lights but Californian's 2nd. officer believed he'd seen the typical lights of a cargo ship, of similar size to his ship - but with only one masthead light.) So... it's over to you! Good luck Norloch (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks. With that and another re-read, the wording makes sense as is. But even after the first re-reads, I was still thinking that the paragraph was saying that there was a single mystery ship. Possibly tweaking a few words might be good. North8000 (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Also in that same section, - the sentences describing exchanges between Californian's radio operator and Titanic's radio operator are part of the legend, but maybe the alleged irascibility of Titanic's radio operator - Jack Phillips - has been somewhat exaggerated in the article. According to the testimony of Californian's radio operator, Cyril Evans, (given to the British Inquiry) Titanic's operator did no more than use a standard code signal to indicate the he was working with another station and didn't want to be interrupted. From the transcripts, Evans seems to be stating that it was a normal procedure used by all radio operators and he noted specifically that he didn't consider that Phillips had intended it as an insult. (See British Inquiry question 8998.) Norloch (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

List of sub-articles

Here's a question I posted for guidance at the wp:disambiguation page talk page: == Are sub-articles inappropriate for a disambig page?==

I'm involved with a topic/article (RMS Titanic) where the main article is huge and the topic is huge (lots of sub-articles and related articles) with the sub articles mostly (or all) linked in-line or as "see also" in the individual sections. I think that it would be useful to communicate which sub-articles exist, I've been at the article for a half year and am still learning which exist; it's very hard to see this from in-line links and notes in the section headers. I first thought of listing them in "see also", but I think that the guidelines for that clearly exclude articles that are already linked in the article. So I though of using the disambig page to list them and then listing the dis-ambig page as a "see also" in the main article, there being no specific exclusion of this here. I was reverted at both, the person saying that dis-ambig pages are only for listing where there is true ambiguity and that the "see also" section should be used for this. I was thinking that folks here would have more of persepctive on this than I do on this. Is it a common or OK practice to list sub-articles on the dis-ambig page? If so, possibly a mention of that could be added. And if not, do any folks have experience on the best way to do this? North8000 (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 December 2011

It was built in Belfast, Northern Ireland,UK.

Ireland is not on the UK

Velvet1346 (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Belfast in Northern Ireland is very much part of the UK--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

As a starting point, what are you suggesting, and would your suggestion be correct at the time of the building? North8000 (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed a small mistake in the second paragraph

Change "The largest passenger steamship in the world at the time, the Olympic-class RMS Titanic was owned by the White Star Line and constructed at the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast, Ireland, UK"

To "The largest passenger steamship in the world at the time, the Olympic-class RMS Titanic was owned by the White Star Line and constructed at the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK"

Why? Belfast is in Northern Ireland and also Ireland is not in the UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velvet1346 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

As a starting point, what wording are you suggesting, and would your suggestion be correct at the time of the building? North8000 (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read the links given above. Republic of Ireland is not in the UK, Northern Ireland is. They are two seperate countries --Jac16888 ^Talk 21:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

When the Titanic was built, Belfast was in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland did not exist as a separate entities, and it would be an anachronism to say Titanic was built in Northern Ireland. This is a perennial headache that continually comes up when someone says 'hey, Belfast is in Northern Ireland, I'll change that!' and wades in without thinking. Benea (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

For the third time, Jac16888, if you are proposing a change, what is your proposed new wording? Then we'd have something to discuss. Right now you are only giving comments about the current wording without proposing anything. North8000 (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"sigh". Please read this section properly--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand that at the time Ireland was part of the UK, but it is still a bit misleading. A person who might not know much about this topic they could easily assume that Ireland is still in the UK. Today it is very common for people to refer to Ireland as the Republic of Ireland.

The following is only a suggestion;

"The largest passenger steamship in the world at the time, the Olympic-class RMS Titanic was owned by the White Star Line. It was constructed at the Harland and Wolff shipyard, which is located in Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK"

I know that it wasn't built in Northern Ireland but the shipyard is still active and it is in Northern Ireland. Velvet1346 (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Manual Of Style states for Irish biographies

For people born before independence in 1922, describe their birthplace as simply Ireland (not [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|Ireland]]). Similarly, for people born before 3 May 1921 in what today is Northern Ireland say Ireland, not Northern Ireland or [[Northern Ireland|Ireland]] Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles#Biographical articles.

I guess the same principle would probably apply here. WhaleyTim (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

How about something like this: "It was constructed at the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast, which at that time was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, but is now the capital of Northern Ireland, UK" ? Shirtwaist ☎ 00:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That looks cumbersome and off topic. Support the suggestion from User:WhaleyTim to follow the principle in WP:IMOS#Biographical articles. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a cumbersome compromise, and if it were up to me it would read "It was constructed at the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast, Ireland." But how is it "off topic"? Shirtwaist ☎ 08:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The linked guideline is quite broadly drawn: material "only loosely relevant" to RMS Titanic has no place so "[p]lease be bold in deleting...". --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a huge eternal wiki-war on everything Ireland-naming and any thing about any relationship of any part of Ireland with Great Britain/British Isles/England etc. The combatants tend to carry it to other articles. I don't know if this is a case of that, but those battles are not welcome here. Lets just find some non-akward wording and move on. North8000 (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Titanic on film and TV

Template:Titanic on film and TV has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brad (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Titanic memorials

Template:Titanic memorials has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brad (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite underway of Timeline of the sinking of RMS Titanic‎

I am currently rewriting Timeline of the sinking of RMS Titanic‎ with the intention of getting it onto the Main Page as a featured article on the centenary of the sinking. Please see Talk:Timeline of the sinking of RMS Titanic‎#New version of article on the way for details. Prioryman (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sinking of the RMS Titanic rewritten

I've written a new version of Sinking of the RMS Titanic (formerly Timeline of the sinking of RMS Titanic‎), which I'm intending to nominate for Featured Article status with the aim of getting it onto the Main Page in time for the anniversary of the sinking. If you have any comments on the new version, please leave feedback at Talk:Sinking of the RMS Titanic#New version posted - feedback requested.

In conjunction with this rewrite, I'll also do some work on the RMS Titanic article to reduce the amount of overlap. It will involve some significant reductions in the "Sinking" section (but don't worry, the content will still be represented in the Sinking of the RMS Titanic article). Prioryman (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

How about keeping the existing information about the sinking in this present article? Why should readers have to go to another article for basic -- or even substantial -- information about the sinking? How about leaving as much information about the sinking of the ship in this present article? How about nominating the newer article "Sinking of the RMS Titanic" for deletion and merging any unique information in it into this present in this article? --L.Smithfield (talk) 06:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The re-name apart, the other article is still very much a timeline of events. The two articles complement each other, and should stay much as they are. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There are issues of which article covers what, since about 90% of this article is about the sinking and so going by titles the two articles are a 90% overlap. But there is a need for an article / sub-article with expanded coverage of the sinking process itself, including technical matters related to that. I've been discussing this more at the other article. My gut feel that an article that limits itself to sinking matters about the ship itself wouold be good. It could have items leadign to the collision, design matters that relate to the sinking, timeline at the core of it, items in technical inquirires about what happened to the ship itself. And leave out everything else e.g. passengers, lifeboats, all of the people stories. I think that Prioryman has 90% limited it to this so far, but the title is so broad broad that it could create an ongoing issue. Possibly a header that defines the scope would solve it. North8000 (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I am convinced that there should be two (or more) articles. I reacted (perhaps over reacted) to the idea of removing information about the sinking from this present article. But I do feel that additional or sub-articles should truly be of the sort where they go into extraordinary depth of the particular subject. They should not be simply overviews of material that readers will (and are entitled) to expect to be present in the main article. If a sub-article is truly an in-depth explanation of a particular or single aspect of the Titanic story, then it should not be (or feel) threatened that an overview -- and maybe even an extensive overview -- of the same subject is covered here in the main article. Material should never -- or at least very rarely -- have to be deleted from the main article in order to justify the existence of another sub-article. It seems in my experience with Wikipedia too often that an excellent article is dramatically reduced in size just so that sub-articles get the right to exist without being deleted themselves. Main articles should continue to provide very comprehensive coverage of a subject, and it is the duty of a sub-article to justify itself by covering something in particular to an extraordinary length. A primary part of the "story" about the RMS Titanic is its sinking. It should not be surprising that the main article covers that event in substantial depth and detail. Most readers in the world will come to this article expecting to read about the sinking of the RMS Titanic. I do not think that this expectation by the readers is misguided. Readers should not have to go to a sub-article just to read a reasonably substantial account of the sinking of the ship. After all, most readers did not come to this article to find out how many Watts of electric power served each particular section of the ship (as an example), but rather to read about its maiden voyage and its sinking. A sub-article on the subject of the sinking should be comprehensive enough to not feel threatened by this fact.

--L.Smithfield (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Except I don't think that the described motivations apply. So, I think we need a medium-length coverage in this article about the sinking. North8000 (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Material should never -- or at least very rarely -- have to be deleted from the main article in order to justify the existence of another sub-article... Not sure if I agree with that. Articles tend to grow naturally until they just get too cumbersome. Then it's time to "hive off" some of the data to a secondary article or articles. Rumiton (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Molly Brown

Molly Brown was a first class passenger who had her own special personality. On the last hours of the titanic, she realized the crew members were running out , she and 6 or 7 others in the lifeboat took their life into their own hands and steered the life boats.Dabney holtLiunderman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.187.98 (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

-> Molly Brown » Cooper Kid (Blether · Contreebs) 04:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Further Reading

I recently read The Titanic Disaster by Dave Bryceson and found it extremely interesting. The Titanic Disasteris written based off of newspaper articles which shows a different view; the survivors view. If you fellow wikipedians get a chance, check out this book. It is quite good and wont be a waist of your time. Bahnzaijr (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Featured Article candidacy of Sinking of the RMS Titanic

Sinking of the RMS Titanic has recently been identified as a Good Article and is now a candidate for Featured Article status. If you have any comments on its nomination as a possible Featured Article, please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sinking of the RMS Titanic/archive1‎. Prioryman (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There may be a problem with ticket price

i noticed in the "interior" section that the conversion of the ticket price into present day pricing seems off. The US price is about half that of the British price in pounds. I don't know enough to fix this; could someone please verify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.175.193 (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Article title

Proposal: Per WP:COMMONNAME, this article should move renamed to simply "Titanic" instead of "RMS Titanic". Telco (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)