Talk:RMS Titanic/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Contents

Morse Code Communications

I don't have the knowledge or skills to edit the main pages so maybe somebody would consider adding this: BBC producers used computer generated voices of actual telegraphic exchanges to simulate the frantic network traffic (18 minutes). http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00q89fy K4THE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.17.166 (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Done Have now added a new para for that programme. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Paragraph added by Martinevans is copyvio:
"To mark the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic, the BBC's Sean Coughlan narrates one of the most authentic versions of events in existence. Using voice synthesis to re-create the strange, twitter-like, mechanical brevity of the original Morse code, this programme brings to life the tragedy through the ears of the wireless operators in the area that night.
On the night of the disaster, the network of young Marconi wireless operators on different ships and land stations frantically communicated with each other across the cold expanses of the North Atlantic in an effort to mount a rescue for the doomed vessel.
All these messages were recorded at the time in copper-plate handwriting, now scattered across the world in different collections, but together forming a unique archive.
Conceived and created by Susanne Weber.
Producer: Alex Mansfield"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00q89fy
and needs cutting by 90%, which I will see to shortly. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Which 10% counts as non copyvio? Most of what was added were simply facts. And some was shown as a direct quotation. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


Happy Titanic Commemoration Everyone: 100 years later

Tonight is THE night, 100 years ago it took place, the tragedy to the Titanic in mid-ocean. Don't know if 'Happy' is the right word but so many people are looking back like a holiday. The people who died April 15 1912 and the many survivors who carried on their lives are given a proper rembrance by us living now. That's a decent thing for us as a human race. That's about all I can add. Thanks Koplimek (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I also must write here in that name. It is NOTFORUM, i know, but this centennial deserve to be mentioned, despite wiki rules... --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Report into the loss of the SS Titanic: A centennial reappraisal

Found this. Some here may find it interesting. – JBarta (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"Full complement" of lifeboats?

This wording ("that if Titanic had carried its full complement of lifeboats, only one third, rather than one half, of passengers could have been accommodated") needs to be changed - Titanic DID carry its full complement of lifeboats, i.e. the number it was designed to carry. What the writer means is that if Titanic had carried only the minimum requirement laid down by the Board of Trade, only a third of passengers would have been accommodated. This is not the same as "full complement". 88.108.86.175 (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Titanic was designed to be able to carry 64 lifeboats, as the designers anticipated a change in the law regarding the number of lifeboats they were required to carry. They decided however to only carry 20 because Bruce Ismay didn't want the view from the promenade deck spoiled by all the lifeboats, and that was more than they were required by law to carry at the time. After the disaster, Titanic's sister ship Olympic was hurriedly refit to accommodate the full 64 lifeboats she was designed to carry.G-13114 (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Cherbourg-Octeville?

The current lead sentence of the third paragraph of the introduction states:

After leaving Southampton on 10 April 1912, Titanic called at Cherbourg in France and Queenstown (now Cobh) in Ireland before heading westwards towards New York.


Shouldn't this be (addition in bold):

After leaving Southampton on 10 April 1912, Titanic called at Cherbourg (now Cherbourg-Octeville) in France and Queenstown (now Cobh) in Ireland before heading westwards towards New York.

Seems to be more consistent as the two cities have changed their official/legal name. I have however, refrained from being bold (not lest because it is protected as it is on the Main Page) but also as I think some editors will probably not agree for various anticipated reasons! Panthro (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Rediscovery?

Surely the wreck was discovered in 1985, not rediscovered? (92.7.31.27 (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC))

Since Ballard himself called his book The Discovery of the Titanic, you've got a good point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Typographical error in introductory paragraphs

In the fourth or fifth paragraph of the introductory header, in reference to recent dives and discoveries, it is mentioned that many "artefacts" have been retrieved; this should read "artifacts".

Nope, the article is written in British English, which spells the word that way. Prioryman (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Propellor RPM

Anyone know it would be for the given speeds? thanks AMCKen (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 April 2012

There is a grammar error in the 'Wreck' section of this article. Near the end of the paragraph the word 'artifact' is incorrectly spelled as 'artefact'.

Jayman1979 (talk) 06:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not incorrectly spelled. Can't you see all the signs that state that artefact is the British spelling? the ship is british/irish therefore british english is used. Request rejected. Pro66 (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
There's no need to be so rude about it - you will only see the the message about the spelling of artefact if you try to edit the page, and the other message about British English is buried amongst a load of notices on the talk page. Please don't bite the newbies. Richerman (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 April 2012

Reference to Canadian Mint coins, at the end of the article is incorrect. In Canada they are referred to, officially, as twenty five cent, and fifty cent coins, NOT quarter and half dollar, as stated in the article. That is a US term, used for their coins. http://www.mint.ca/store/buy/history--events_coins-cat210010

206.116.193.123 (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Richerman (talk) 09:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The 'quarter' is a term used across Canada, and is much more common than 'twenty-five cent coin'. Since the half dollar doesn't see much circulation, it's not often referred to, but when it is, 'fifty cent piece' is usually used. Since 'quarter' was parenthetically referring to one quarter of a dollar, it made sense to use 'half' with the word 'dollar', for the sake of conciseness. While the Mint has official names for coins, their use is not mandated, especially if out of step with normal usage. However, using 25c and 50c is also concise. Here's hoping there's no objection to 'quarter' elsewhere in Wikipedia. That's what it's called by the people for whom it's minted. Yoho2001 (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Food?

I was just wondering should there be a section about the food that was aboard Titanic? i have a source http://www.titanic-titanic.com/titanic_provisions.shtml . On a side note, The type of lettuce served on titanic was, yes, iceberg lettuce.Zyon788 (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who saw the BBC programme with Len Goodman on the evening of 1st April, and coming here to check the facts, might be surprised to see no mention (apart from one single word) about the waiters, who were all Italian (16 in all, I think) and who were specially recruited for the excellence of their service in the First Class dining rooms. Some of these men are still regarded as heroes, by their decendents, in Italy today. Perhaps their deaths are regarded as comparatively too trivial to include in the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
They are listed here: Crew_of_the_RMS_Titanic#Restaurant_staff. —Diiscool (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. Yes, I suppose one can eventually find them, and one can deduce that they were probably Italian, by looking at their surnanes. We don't want to cram everything into one huge article. That page also, more or less explains why Italians were recruited. (Len made no mention of staff being locked in their quarters). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I think we could create a new article about the food and resturants onboard. It coulld include what kind and how much food was onboard, how it was stored, prepared, where it was served, and what type of meals the classes ate. And you could have the resturant staff listed on this new article, which would make the crew page a bit smaller.Zyon788 (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support -- I've noticed that many restaurants featured menus derived from the "last meal" on the Titanic as a centenary commemoration; sometimes including menus from all three Classes. The actual menu might be too specific of detail for the main article, but would be quite appropriate for a 'Food' sub-article. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)04:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Image placement

While it does say that 'In most cases, images should be right justified on pages', Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#How to place an image actually says under 'location': "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left", as well as "Do not place images on the left at the start of any section or subsection. Images on the left must be placed somewhere after the first paragraph." While the image under the section 'Arrival of Carpathia in New York' fell foul of this, the others did not, and now there is a long range of images right orientated, without the staggered effect previously. Is there a reason for this? Featured articles regularly prefer a staggered effect in my experience. Benea (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Titanic buried?

Should it be noted that Titanic could be buried by moving sediment mounds? The History Channels Titanic at 100 notes that moving sediment mounds taller than the wreck could bury the wreck before it disintergrates. Zyon788 (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That is already covered here: Wreck of the RMS Titanic#Condition and deterioration of the wreck. —Diiscool (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I have read it and it says nothing about the sediment mounds that were discovered near the wreck during the 2010 sonar mapping of the site. Zyon788 (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Then add it; but it belongs there, not here. —Diiscool (talk) 01:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Definite article? "The Titanic" surely?

I've always heard it called "the Titanic" - so why does the article sometimes use 'the', and sometimes omit it? A rule should be used and stuck to. Here it seemed to be agreed that 'the' should be used, but only two people commented. Can we get a consensus? At the moment the intro grates without 'the', but perhaps there's a reason I don't know about for not using it. British English should of course be applied (in case there's some weird US rule about skipping articles ;) ). Malick78 (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Simple rule of thumb is that ship names are proper nouns; therefore talking about "the Titanic" is like referring to "the France" or "the China" (which does work in, say, French but not in English). It's true that common usage often adds a definite article before ship names (hence "the Bismarck", "the Queen Elizabeth II", etc) but we've been aiming for nautical correctness here, plus it saves several dozen words - no small thing when you're working to a word limit. :-) Prioryman (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
They may be technically proper nouns, but they're certainly not treated that way in normal usage by native speakers, so to say talking about '"the Titanic" is like referring to "the France"' is quite untrue. That's prescriptive to a level that has itself become wrong. Normal usage is "the Titanic" as far as I can tell. Unless there's a clear rule about ships' names, we should go with normal usage, even if some (erroneously) think they're normal proper nouns. Saving space isn't a good enough reason to use abnormal grammar. Otherwise we'd do away with almost all articles ;) Malick78 (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The convention seems to be changing. Prior to about 2000, British Merchant Navy ships used the article, and Royal Navy Ships did not. So "The Queen Elizabeth" was the passenger ship [1] and "Queen Elizabeth" meant the warship [2]. But lately, while I don't know of any official change, the Royal Navy usage seems to be predominating. In all the docos on Titanic this week, I don't think I have ever heard it called "the" Titanic. Rumiton (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
This was (and still is to a degree) under discussion at WP:SHIPS here. Basically academic texts make no prescription either way, and nor should wikipedia. To some extent it depends on grammatical circumstances, for example when the ship is the subject, the definite article often seems to be omitted (Titanic sailed from Southampton on ...) when it is the object, it is often included (he went down with the Titanic). There certainly don't seem to be hard and fast rules that it should always be used or never be used, and both forms appear in the same texts, often on the same page. Benea (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
It might be worth noting that publications, etc. by White Star simply refer to 'Titanic' (often 'TITANIC') -- without "The" -or-"the", and often without "R.M.S." or "S.S.", especially pre-launch references. And one thing that I'm trying to verify is what exactly was written on the ship's bow. My theory is that it was simply "TITANIC", and photos indicating otherwise were contemporaneously doctored "for clarity". ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Update: Indeed, the ship's bow clearly indicates 'TITANIC' (only) in this pre-launch photo. Interesting, but not really germane to this discussion -- sorry. ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The word "the" never appears on a bow or stern; nor does RMS or SS or MV. One exception that comes to mind is the SS MINNOW which is written on the bow of the stranded boat on Gilligan's Island, which is doubly humorous, as there is no way that could be a steam ship. Rumiton (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Citation Needed for Women and Children First

I know this was made popular by the movie, but what substantial proof is there stating that only women and children should go before men? Surely those with large enough pockets could persuade anyone. The line where the [citation needed] is needed is before the table of contents.

Jason021388 (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The women and children first policy was comprehensively documented at the United States Senate inquiry into the sinking of the RMS Titanic and the British Wreck Commissioner's inquiry into the sinking of the RMS Titanic.
The ship's officers responsible for loading the lifeboats, and determining who could board a lifeboat and who couldn't, knew there were insufficient lifeboats and they were likely to go down with the ship. Of what interest would money be to these officers? And those wealthy passengers with large pockets - how much money do you imagine they had in the pockets of their pyjamas or whatever they were wearing at the time? Dolphin (t) 06:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not they had money or whether or not it mattered, perhaps that citation should be referenced in the article. I believe it would help with continuity of the article and provide some reference as to why they made that decision. I believe they had said something like that in the article but it just looks like original research without the citation. Jason021388 (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Doesnt the linked article Women and children first explain it all. MilborneOne (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Not by itself, I think it would be better perhaps if the investigation was linked as well. The idea of saying this for that just because it's in another Wikipedia article might also be considered original research. (I think, but then I could be wrong) Jason021388 (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
It definitely doesn't, you should see: WP:CIRCULAR. So this portion of the article should have [citation needed] or a link to a third party article that covers the US Senate inquiry or the British Wreck Commissioner's inquiry or both. Jason021388 (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Improve the info box

Like in Ms Oasis of the seas wikipedia article there is a cost of ship. Good source, with old photos and car info(for e.g. it was renault 35 hp) I found there: http://cheddarbay.com/0000Tea/Titanic/ship/ship.html
So the cost of Titanic was $7,500,000, which gives about in 2010 dollars: $167248815.93 (http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.103.25 (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
For e.g. -> Infobox to copy directly - say thx ;-), also added convert for hp to more modern kW :(why I can't edit this in article!?)

RMS Titanic 3.jpg
RMS Titanic departing Southampton on 10 April 1912
History
White Star flaga.svg
Name: RMS Titanic
Owner: White Star flaga.svg White Star Line
Port of registry: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Liverpool, United Kingdom
Route: Southampton to New York City
Ordered: 17 September 1908
Builder: Harland and Wolff, Belfast
Cost: US$$7,500,000 [1] (178422414 in 2012 dollars adjusted inflation)
Yard number: 401
Laid down: 31 March 1909
Launched: 31 May 1911 (not christened)
Completed: 2 April 1912
Maiden voyage: 10 April 1912
Identification: Radio callsign "MGY"
Fate: Foundered on 15 April 1912 on her maiden voyage
General characteristics
Class and type: Olympic-class ocean liner
Tonnage: 46,328 GRT
Displacement: 52,310 tons
Length: 882 ft 6 in (269.0 m)
Beam: 92 ft 0 in (28.0 m)
Height: 175 ft (53.3 m) (keel to top of funnels)
Draught: 34 ft 7 in (10.5 m)
Depth: 64 ft 6 in (19.7 m)
Decks: 9 (A–G)
Installed power: 24 double-ended and 5 single-ended boilers feeding two reciprocating steam engines for the wing propellers and a low-pressure turbine for the center propeller.[2] Effect HP: 46,000 hp (34,000 kW)
Propulsion: Two 3-blade wing propellers and one 4-blade centre propeller
Speed: Cruising: 21 kn (39 km/h; 24 mph). Max: 24 kn (44 km/h; 28 mph)
Capacity: Passengers: 2,435, crew: 892
Notes: Lifeboats: 20 for 1,178 people
The Consumer Price Index is for household goods, not capital projects in the millions of dollars. While I agree that we possibly should add the cost to the infobox, I would recommend not including a modern equivalent. Also, we will need a more reliable source than the one you provide (and I know they are out there). —Diiscool (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
See for example: http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/5660/957.html?968477007
(ec but in agreement) I'm not really sure about the reliability of that source (i.e. the original ip's), but there are other issues. First, what does the cost mean, was it that paid for building the Titanic, or building and designing, or building, designing and fitting out, or a number of other options? And is the inflation adjusted figure accurate? The use of the inflation template is often objected to as it doesn't give an accurate idea of the relative costs of complex projects between two time periods. If we are going to discuss the costs of the Titanic, it would seem better to do it in detail in the text and not try and summarise for the infobox. Benea (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
changed to "wiki inflation" . Yes the "inflation" is for household goods. But this a best way to imagine the cost now, and we don't have better(nobody built now 1:1 scale Titanic, and all models are simply ones. But if You calculate something, and want to compare with other ships(for e.g. to see that the Oasis of the seas cost ~10 times more) it is good to have "~" knowledge. And most wikipedia articles uses it, especially old films articles... As far as there will be no long version, and better sources I think this is a good reference cost point. Far another example - everybody knows that Oasis of the Seas cost is approximately cost of build. Nobody summarises cost of operating, ship crew, tests etc., ideas, advertising and even coffee for company owner. But it is always good to known what is the minimum money needed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.103.25 (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
This is all still as problematic. It isn't really better to have more knowledge, even for comparison, when that information is probably flawed, inaccurate, unrepresentative and incomparable anyway. Its likely to be Original Research, and that last point you make really proves my point. You don't know what the figure means, or what it means in relation to a modern ship. You can put in the article something along the lines of "Ismay told the inquiry that Titanic cost $7,500,000 to build" but we don't have to put it into the infobox which lends itself to solid and unambiguous facts. (And is that $7,500,000 American or Canadian dollars!) Benea (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes it is problematic for try to negotiate with You ;-). Ok You can treat this as an "not original receipt info". But it look quite good, if You compare with prices. If checking Internet for sources this will be that value. Of course would be better to see the original receipt for this ship, from the shipyard. But I don't known if somebody saw this. If You will find or anyone else this somebody can always change article. And reference for this is in reflink. So You can blame the author under the linked text. This is not the number from my head, or original research with loose numbers. It depends on sources. If You have better sources You can change the value. It is a common practice in every science related text - check for e.g. what was the knowledge about Egypt in XIX century, in XX century, and today. Even the students learned about wrong or not-so-perfect dates. And this was improved with every revision, like we do on Wikipedia now too. But nobody questioned giving best-known up-to-date of-publication values... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.103.25 (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that this belongs in the article and not the infobox. But the figure in the infobox should include: (White Star contract price) -- or whatever it is, and not just an inline citation. Btw that 'wiki-inflation' template really needs to include commas, especially with such large numbers. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The {{Inflation}} template should not be used for this. Please read the notice at the top of the template's page and see what I have already said above. —Diiscool (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Page views on the centenary day

This article was one of eleven Titanic-related articles linked from the Featured Article box on Wikipedia's Main Page on 15 April 2012, the centenary of the Titanic disaster. I thought editors here might be interested to know the level of usage the articles got on that day:

Well done to everyone who contributed to making Wikipedia's commemoration of the Titanic such a big success! Prioryman (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That is brilliant! Thanks Prioryman. I find it noteworthy that Sinking of the RMS Titanic was the featured article but RMS Titanic scored 2.4 times more hits. That is possibly because there was so much interest in the centenary of the sinking as a result of general worldwide media coverage that many people simply went straight to RMS Titanic without realising Wikipedia had a more focussed article at Sinking of the RMS Titanic.
It is also noteworthy that RMS Titanic was the Featured Article on 29 June 2005, but subsequent editing by a large number of Users caused its quality to deteriorate so much that on 9 July 2007 it was demoted from FA status. There have been a couple of subsequent attempts to raise it to GA status but both attempts failed. There has been quite a bit of reviewing and repairing of RMS Titanic in recent weeks so perhaps now is the ideal time to put it up for GA again. Dolphin (t) 02:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
There were quite a few Titanic relate DYKs that day too. Mjroots (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you can see the list of DYKs (and their page views) at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Kudos for Titanic anniversary - they attracted over 99,000 page views between them. I agree with Dolphin51 about going for GA. I was tempted to do so before the anniversary but realised that the imminent centenary would mean that the article would be too unstable - for a short period - to make GA viable. Now that we're past the peak, it'd be a good idea to get the GA review back on track soon, when things settle down. Prioryman (talk) 07:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I think that this article could make GA as-is. FA would be tough. North8000 (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

There was an interesting event that I haven't seen on this page. Probably only noteworthy to amateur ham radio fans, but it seems so very appropriate. The german weather service has sent a special broadcast in morse code including the original SOS transmitted from the Titanic (of course reproduced by someone, not an actual recording...). There is a Youtube video on that for more information. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=N36U78YBAzk#! 93.200.89.195 (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The role of mirages at sea.

National Geographic has brought out a new documentary called "Titanic: Case Closed", in which a surprising discovery was made regarding the cause of the disaster. Based on both eye witness accounts as well as weather data, the conditions for mirages were excellent. Mirages best explain why the lookouts didn't see the iceberg in time, and why the Californian never responded. I feel this merits to be mentioned in this article, but I'm not quite sure how to go about adding it correctly. Hannodb (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC + 2)

{{cite episode}} is used for quoting from television programmes. Mjroots (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The only type of mirage that could be possible at night with ice around would be a "superior" mirage, which actually let's the observer see further than he normally would, beyond the directly visible horizon. It's hard to see that this would have any effect on a lookout straining to see an iceberg in the dark 3-4 miles away. Rumiton (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Depiction of image

The image ("Untergang der Titanic" by Willy Stöwer, 1912) is captioned with: Contrary to this depiction... -- This ignores the fact that, as shown, this version of the image has been modified to increase brightness. It could be said that this misrepresents the original artist's intent. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

What did the original look like? How will the reader ever know? However dark it was, it must have been much lighter than the actual night it was portraying? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I think Eric F is really worrying too much about this image. It is clearly an artistic illustration and there at least half a dozen things "wrong" with it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use it nor does it need to be over-analyzed. —Diiscool (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The artist may be dead, but should not be disrespected. (If you don't like it, don't use it.) ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
My particular concern was with use of that image as a lead image, where, at first glance, the reader might (unconsciously) assume that the sinking had happened in daylight. But I think your question raises wider issues of how much images can be adjusted to fit into an article. This might (and frequently does) include contrast, colour, lightness, cropping and re-sizing, but also other "clean up" and enhancement techniques. And does a copyright apply equally to a black and white version of a colour image orignal? and to any portion, however it is rendered? Does "fair use" allow for chopping in half? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
My particular concern: if you're going to use a poorly "enhanced" copy of a colorized version of poor copy of the original B&W wood-engraved lithograph from this book, and attribute the image to Willy Stöwer -- then the reader might "unconsciously assume" that was the way Professor Willy Stöwer intended. (See also, my discussion here). This should be described as "Color rendition derived from engraving by..." -or- leave Stöwer's name off. ~E 09:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC) ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 09:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Very good point. Images get adjusted to fit the article sometimes. Even if they still then don't fully work. When one looks at the superb original wood-engraved lithograph, it's a travesty to seem his name attached to this image. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Note that Warhol's color rendition of a B&W photocopy of the Mona Lisa is never attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, even though Cristies sold it for $3,610,500 (!) to a filthy rich sucker. "distinguished private collector". ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)19:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
And how much did Marcel get? I think that the Willy Stöwer article certainly deserves his original lithograph. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: the image has been reverted to original file. -- Now that the blue sky is gone, suggest removing "Contrary to this depiction..." from caption. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it still fits, because it still looks like daytime (maybe overcast, but still daytime), when in fact it was pitch black once the ship's lights went out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Loss of life

I think it should be mentioned that the Titanic was neither the largest loss of life nor the largest loss of life during peacetime. Both of those titles go to the MV Wilhelm Gustloff (about 10K lost) and the Doña Paz (about 5K lost) respectively. This is important because it is a misconception that the Titanic was the largest loss of life. Both of those facts came from List of maritime disasters. 173.75.215.86 (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Relating to this, and other misconceptions (some that have even crept into WP articles) suggests that there should somewhere be "Common misconceptions about RMS Titanic. Perhaps as a sub-section on Myths and legends... ? ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't t Titanic the greatest maritime disaster at the time? Mjroots (talk) 08:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
It was one of the largest peacetime maritime disasters. Other larger losses of life at sea happened during wartime (as you would expect) The MV Wilhelm Gustloff was sunk during WWII so doesn't count, rather like the RMS Lusitania. And the death toll of the Doña Paz is very unclear as no-one knows how many people were on board, although it would appear to have been a greater disaster than the Titanic. But as Mjroots said it was definitely the largest maritime disaster at the time. G-13114 (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
"The greatest maritime disaster at the time?" - It is all about definitions. For example some estimate the loss of life at sea in the Great Storm of 1703 was over 10,000. This was of course from many ships.WhaleyTim (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

DID NOT EXIST in 1912. The correct location is Ireland, which was the part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Mjroots (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this is most likely for the readers. Some could take offence to the fact that the article includes Northern Ireland as part of Ireland, even though it is historically accurate. Tennantstype40 (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Wording could be adjusted. I haven't read all the parts about Newfoundland at the time, but it didn't join Canada until 1948-49(?). Sentences like Northern Ireland(part of UK at the time) and Newfoundland(before it joined Canada) are common in WP.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request (caption)

{{Request edit}} Please remove: (Contrary to this depiction, the sinking occurred in the middle of a moonless night.)
From caption for image: "Untergang der Titanic" by Willy Stöwer, 1912
Reason: image has now been reverted to original (b/w lithograph); that description related to colorized "Quality-Update" which depicted a blue sky. (See also, discussion above: Depiction of image)
And regarding "...please explain your conflict of interest in detail below." -- Presumably, this is related to the file reversion being initiated per my request (?) ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It still shows daylight, albeit overcast, so it's still unrealistic, and the caption still works. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What a massive fuss over nothing. The image is meant as an artistic representation, not a forensically perfect depiction of the sinking. That much should be obvious. It is made perfectly clear that it is a work of art and not intended to be completely accurate! G-13114 (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
That's a good point. Perhaps the caption is a little too patronizing of the reader, although one never knows about them readers. Maybe a caption more along the lines of "artist's conception - with false daylight sky" or something like that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with G-13114. If you are going to start enumerating all of the things wrong in the image, why not just remove it from the article? I do believe people understand that it is representational and not documentary. What does "false daylight sky" even mean? —Diiscool (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps simply mentioning that it was reproduced from a lithograph would suffice -- those familiar with the process would realize that large areas of solid black (night sky, for example) would be a printer's nightmare of smudgy-goo -- such depictions are done with stippling, resulting in varying shades of grey. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC) (Anyway -- I'm done with this subject; talk among yourselves). ~E 01:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC) --> The following link is more precise relating to image under discussion: Wood engraving ~Eric F[now I'm done] 184.76.225.106 (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
So, does anyone think that this might be a better image to use, it's certainly more accurate. Not that I see anything wrong with the current one, just wondering. G-13114 (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
That's okay, but the text is too small/unclear to read for the most part; especially if a smaller size is used. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with the other image -- just the misleading caption. ~E03:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC) 184.76.225.106 (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I would like to know what the specific objection is to specifying that the image is a wood engraving -- Caption = "...(Contrary to this image of the wood engraving, the sinking occurred in the middle of a moonless night.)" ~E184.76.225.106 (talk) 184.76.225.106 (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC) -- My apologies for seeming troll-ish, but once I'm tasked to an issue, I stick with it until some sort of resolution is determined.
Consensus requested: including wood engraving in caption is good/bad because [insert reason here] ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Including wood engraving in caption is good because: 1) For everyone it provides additional information about the image. 2) For some, it provides an understanding as to the image's appearance. 3) For others, it includes a link to provide a better understanding. 4) Perhaps poor ol' Willie will rest a little easier in his grave. 5) I have better things to do.[citation needed] ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk)07:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It is not a wood engraving. It is a very poor digital reproduction (of unknown provenance) of a lithographic reproduction of what may originally have been a wood engraving. The gallery source cited above seems questionable to me. This is going in circles. It is overkill to say anything in the caption about the medium; it is obviously an illustration. Title and artist is sufficient. —Diiscool (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Can we please get rid of the (Contrary to this depiction, the sinking occurred in the middle of a moonless night.) Anyone with half a brain knows that an artistic representation of the sinking is unlikely to be 100% accurate, it is intended for impact rather than accuracy. It is common for wikipedia to use well known artistic depictions of historical events where no photographic images exist, such as Battle of Waterloo as a random example. Nobody expects them to be 100% accurate. G-13114 (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if we want an accurate depiction of a ship sinking on a moonless night, I have a pure black .jpg I could put up instead. One could say that anything other than that (including any sketch or picture that actually shows anything) is "inaccurate" and needs a "the picture is wrong" statement such as "contrary to the image.....". That's really not needed or appropriate. Sign. North8000 (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I quite agree, logically if we have this disclaimer, then it should also point out that it showing smoke coming out of the fourth funnel is incorrect as it was actually a dummy, as well as any other factual inaccuracies in the image, you care to list. G-13114 (talk) 03:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
While we're at it the map showing the route should include "Contrary to this image, the earth is round".98.26.28.41 (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Edited caption again

There are more historical errors. The 4th funnel was a 'dummy' made for 'visual balance', the bright sky could be caused by many of the white flares/rockets launched, image seems to show two icebergs, etc. I just added 'artist's conception' to the bottom of the caption. Feel free to discuss and reach consensus on a caption change that could reflect all historic errors that may be better than mine.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that that's a good solution. North8000 (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
That's fine -- if your intent is to imply that the reader might be unable to distinguish between an illustration and a photograph. ~Eric F [temp IP]>98.26.28.41 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Revised information

According to Report into the loss of the SS Titanic: A centennial reappraisal by Samuel Halpern, et al.; Revised information includes comprehensive evaluation of the fate of each passenger and crew member (taking into account aliases); purportedly the exact number of non-survivors is 1,496 (not 1,514 as WP articles state) and 712 survivors (not 710). @[~00:29:00] Speech from C-Span; National Archives and Records Administration; Washington, DC, 28 Mar 2012. See also (book review): Report into the loss of the SS Titanic - A centennial reappraisal.
The problem with the information therein is twofold:
1) From my understanding, this would probably fall under OR, even though the sources of data and information is referenced to verifiable and reputable sources, and presented at a US Federal Government proceeding.
2) Peer review -- many (if not most) leading "experts" in the field are co-authors of the publication, and as far as I can tell, there aren't really any venues for actual "peer review" ('book reviews' wouldn't count, I believe). ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Quoting from a reputable source is not original research, and this looks like one to me, at least for a mention such as "According to the (book) the actual number of lived lost was..." Because of the large number of different figures floating around, all from good sources, it would probably be unwise for Wikipedia to try to decide which is correct. Rumiton (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it would be unwise to add it because of WP's verifiability policy: WP:V (Though I agree with Rumiton). Perhaps this should be added as additional reference to another fact if the sources he is quoting are as reliable as others in the article. Stating that these sources say something different could give any reader additional perspective to the multitude of research performed by 3rd parties on the fates of individuals on board the Titanic and would be more beneficial than a one sided opinion to the article. Jason021388 (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
May I ask for a continuity check please? The current state of the article lists the number of passengers at the beginning and at several points within the article with different totals than the number of survivors and dead listed at the end. Despite what I am sure are good intentions the many figures do not reconcile and indeed directly contradict themselves by listing more survivors and dead than are listed as passengers and crew in the first place. Such an error bares correction if possible and if it cannot be corrected it should at least have an annotation acknowledging the disputed nature of the numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.37.68 (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I agree we should get an accurate count if we can or note that it is unknown. I started a section on it:Talk:Passengers_of_the_RMS_Titanic#Accurate_count_needed.3F The passengers article seems to deal most with the numbers, so that may be the best place to reach consensus. Any thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Gordon Cosgrave

What's about Gordon Cosgrave who received delayed radio signals from the Carpathia and the Titanic in 1936?

1936.

Ham radio operator Gordon Cosgrave in London apparently picks up Morse code messages between the 'Titanic' and the 'Carpathia' which would have been sent 24 years earlier in 1912 when the 'Carpathia' was racing to the rescue of the stricken 'Titanic'.

Source 93.211.30.135 (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I think radio signals travel close to the speed of light. This means they would have had to bounce of something 12 light years away. Are there any theories that this is possible? It would make a good article if so.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
This could be put under Legends and myths regarding RMS Titanic. But from my knowledge (and i dont know much about the subject) any radio waves would have disipated by then.Zyon788 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC).
Yes, that may be a good article for it. See this for how it is theoretically possible. As well, any article about myths doesn't need much verification.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how that article on tuned circuits supports the idea that this is "theoretically possible." Until we get an article called Absolute bullcr*p about the RMS Titanic, Legends and myths is the place for this kind of stuff. Rumiton (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sorry. I should have included this link as well as the many others in its 'see also' section. The first link just showed how weak signals are amplified. This reminds my of the movie 'Contact' when the little green men sent back earth's first television signal. I wonder if Carl Sagan had heard about Gordon Cosgrave before he wrote the book. Titannic/Carpathia may have had more powerful radios than earlier ones, been in the right place at the right time, and with the right conditions to have ETI record and send the signals back from 12 light years away. Seems to be no end to the theories.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

At a similar level of credibility, Superman was able to fly out ahead of light emitted from various places, and look into the past. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Rewording about the disintergration of bodies and clothes

The sentence "Their bodies and clothes were consumed by sea creatures and bacteria, leaving pairs of shoes and boots – which have proved to be inedible – as the only sign that bodies once lay there." i believe that this should be reworded as cloths as well as a bone with a wedding ring on it have been found. "Most of" should be placed in front of this sentence.Zyon788 (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Was it just the ring, or should it say 'jewellery'? The only edits you really have to mention in the talk page are those that may irk others. If you edit an article, and someone reverts it, then the next step should normally be to discusss it on the talk page. I find that if I leave a good edit summary, then most don't revert.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I tried rewording it and it was reverted. There is a sentence on here that says a finger bone with a wedding ring was found and the bone was later returned to the ocean floor. On the wreck section I added the part about the boots and coat being found near the stern (sourced of course) so it is to my knowledge that the sentence should be reworded. I will reword it again and see if it is reverted.Zyon788 (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Stern broke loose from the bow section and sank?

The article says that. From what I've seen in sources, the front lowered, breaking the ship, the break flooded the rear and then the rear sank. I think that what is implied in saying that the stern broke loose from the bow section and sank is wrong. North8000 (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

As her unsupported stern rose out of the water, exposing the propellers, the ship split apart between the third and fourth funnels due to the immense strain on the keel. The stern remained afloat for a few minutes longer than the submerged bow section, rising to a nearly vertical angle with hundreds of people still clinging to it. At 2.20 am, it sank as well, breaking loose from the bow section. Better? Feel free to edit further here, and then paste in.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The stern rising vertically in the air (as the movie shows) seems to be debunked. Apparently after the bow broke loose the stern popped back up, making it look like she would float like she normally would (minus the bow). It created the illusion to those who saw this that the stern would remain afloat, but a few minutes later the stern filled up with enough water to sink it.Zyon788 (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. Should we add a qualifier that there is more than one theory and that is the most plausible?--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
We can't even make that judgement. We can only report on all the different theories and attempt to identify the "fringe" stuff. Rumiton (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, from new theories (watch Titanic at 100: Mystery Solved) and survivor accounts it would make sense. After popping back up she floated for a moment before rolling on its side as it sank.Zyon788 (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Misspelled word in "Wreck"

Please correct the spelling of artifact in the "Wreck" section. It is misspelled "artefact" in the fifth paragraph when it should be spelt "artifact".

108.172.55.14 (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done The article uses British English. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 May 2012 - This may be a good addition to the "See Also" section

== See also ==

AbdulHakeem1 (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: already in. See last bit of the popular culture section. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Feminine pronoun

I saw some things here that are original research! It is in fact an accepted rule of the English language to use the feminine pronoun to refer to inanimate objects! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonathan Arief Kurniawan (talkcontribs) 12:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Can be either: see WP:SHE4SHIPS. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Survivors by Category, Definition of Child

According to the table from "Passengers of the RMS Titanic" article, there were at least 135 third-class passengers under the age of 18, at least 82 under the age of 14, with two more passengers of unknown age. The table here states there were only 79 children in third-class. At the very least a footnote should be added to indicate the definition of child as including only those under 14, whilst those 14 and over are counted as adults. 18:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

'She' / 'Her'

Very odd. Since when was it appropriate to refer to ships by gender on an encyclopedia? I don't think that the application of personification is entirely appropriate. Wouldn't 'It' / etc. be a better choice? --81.100.44.233 (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:SHIPPRONOUNS has more. She/her is entirely acceptable use here. Benea (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I had exactly the same thought. It should be "it", not "her" - unless the ship in fact had female genitalia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.69.86 (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:SHIPPRONOUNS " Ships may be referred to either using female pronouns ("she", "her") or genderless pronouns ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable "

I vote for having it be genderless. It appears that's the prevailing attitude at this time. I'm going to make the change unless there are any objections. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 May 2012

This is a wikipedia-wide accepted guideline that affects far more than this single article. Please do not make the change, it will simply be reverted again. Benea (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Seconded. Prioryman (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
".. prevailing attitude at this time"? "The Titanic started her trip from Southampton for New York on Wednesday. Late on Sunday night she struck an iceberg off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. By wireless telegraphy she sent out signals of distress, and several liners were near enough to catch and respond to the call." - "The Guardian", Tuesday 16 April 1912 [3]? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I also concur with Benea, Prioryman, and Martinevans123. —Diiscool (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Concur with Benea and others. Manxruler (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • She is a she, and always will be. Would make nice lyrics to a song I should write.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Why? Ships are not people.

Short answer: Traditional personification.
Long answer (from U.S. Naval Historical Center): "It has always been customary to personify certain inanimate objects and attribute to them characteristics peculiar to living creatures. Thus, things without life are often spoken of as having a sex. Some objects are regarded as masculine. The sun, winter, and death are often personified in this way. Others are regarded as feminine, especially those things that are dear to us. The earth as mother Earth is regarded as the common maternal parent of all life. In languages that use gender for common nouns, boats, ships, and other vehicles almost invariably use a feminine form. Likewise, early seafarers spoke of their ships in the feminine gender for the close dependence they had on their ships for life and sustenance."
Diiscool (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Well that's just sexist, it encourages people to associate certain traits with femininity and others with masculinity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.90.212 (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
And by "it" you mean the English language? —Diiscool (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it associates females only with frilly things, like when they call the most powerful war machine ever built (an aircraft carrier) "she". :-) North8000 (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The reasoning behind it is sexist, because it is "dear to us". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.90.212 (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of how you feel about the matter, this is not the appropriate venue to discuss it. This is the talk page for RMS Titanic and consensus holds that we use she/her in this article. If you want to discuss the feminine pronoun as applied to ships, take it to WT:SHIPS. —Diiscool (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Artifacts, not "Artefacts"

just simply spelled wrong, it's at the end of the 1st section. although it can be seen called "artefacts", i believe it is more commonly spelled using an "i" instead of an "e" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.148.80 (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Both spellings are correct. Artefact is the more common usage in UK English. This article being about a UK-built and operated ship uses UK English. See WP:ENGVAR. WhaleyTim (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Also see the banner at the top of this page which specifically addresses this issue. Rumiton (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
If "Artifacts" is both used and correct in both British and US English, might we use it? North8000 (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Artifacts is not used in BE. it is understood but is not used, and is not correct. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Oxfordictionaries.com says: "Spell artefact with an e after the first t (the spelling artifact is American)." [4]. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and if we change it to artifact for a quiet life, we won't succeed. A succession of Brits will just change it back again. But I was pretty sure a previous version of this page specifically included this example in the British-English banner. Does anybody know how to make this addition? Rumiton (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, I found out how. Anyone trying to edit the main article to change the British spelling will see this specific example. Damn, I'm clever. Rumiton (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Panel has become corrupted

Hi, the panel titled "Titanic's First Class passenger facilities" has become corrupted somehow. Perhaps someone who can edit the article might be able to fix it? 86.146.110.153 (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Now fixed! Thanks for alerting us to that one. On 8 July the title of the image was changed to a non-existing title. Dolphin (t) 07:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Maiden voyage

"Titanic was only to sail as a complete ship for two weeks before she sank......"

What does that mean? Moriori (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

  • That's my mistake. I think someone else wrote: She had only been in service for two weeks before she sank. Does that sound better? Soerfm (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

First Class

"First Class" is styled thusly throughout this article. Is there any reason for the capitalisation? violet/riga [talk] 21:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sinking needs edited

The ship has been determined to have broken between the second and third funnels now. Also, the ship listed 32 degrees because crew members believed they could load lifeboats through a port-side gangway. This was never done and the doors were left open. The ship broke apart in a twisted angle and the air pockets in the imploded; resulting in the third funnel's support shaft and decks to obliterate and shred to pieces. The bow and stern experienced water down-bursts when they hit the ocean floor resulting in the flattening of the upper decks. The ship broke at a 19 degree angle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.13.23.117 (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any references to prove that fact? To back it up? As I haven't hear about that.--Clarkcj12 (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Numbers are off?

People on board = 2,224 (first paragraph) People died = 1,517 (first paragraph) This leaves 705 survivors

At the end of paragraph 3, they report “an estimated” 705 survivors were rescued by the RMS Carpathia. So, essentially of the 705 survivors, 705 were picked up by Carpathian. I’m no mathematician but that means 17 survivors used the rescue boats from the Titanic which can't be true....unless I missed a vital part of the numbers game somewhere. Perhaps the 705 picked up by Carpathia is grossly overestimated? Huls80 (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make. There are minor differences in some of the numbers, caused by people with tickets not boarding, people leaving at Cherbourg, errors in the passenger list, people travelling under aliases etc. To quote the article, "The death toll has been put at between 1,490 and 1,635 people". However, there are no 'gross' errors. What I think is confusing you is that the survivors were picked up by Carpathia from the lifeboats, ie. the total numbers in the lifeboats equals the total number of survivors. There were no survivors picked up from the water, as you probably realise. Does this answer your question? MatthewHaywood (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Need 3 links

"Lord Pirrie, J. Pierpoint Morgan and J. Bruce Ismay" are first mentioned in the section Construction, launch and fitting-out & should each be links. I cannot do this, as the article is locked. Would someone who can please do this. Thanks.
- 99.120.130.167 (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The first mentions of all three are in the "background" section. All 3 are linked in that section, but the first mention of Pirre was missing both his first name and a link which I fixed. Thanks for noticing and pointing out. ANorth8000 (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

New External Link Request - Please add!

Please add the following to the External Links section of the RMS TItanic wikipedia page:

Titanic International Society

Note to Editors only: For more information about the TIS, please visit our "About" page: http://titanicinternationalsociety.org/about/ I am a member of the TIS and our society would like to be mentioned on this page along with other titanic societies that are currently mentioned. Thank you!!

Laurafrazee (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi, to edit this article you only need a user account which is four days old and to have made ten edits according to the Autoconfirmed users rule:

Soerfm (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have an account, but I do not yet meet this critera. Is this edit something someone (like yourself!) could add for me? It would be most appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.60.133 (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The above comment was written by me - laurafrazee, sorry I didn't realize I had been logged out. LaurafrazeeLaurafrazee (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done I'm declining this requested edit because I do not feel the link follows our external links policy. I welcome you to read that page, and if you still feel that your link should be added, continue contributing to other articles until your account is four days old and ten edits have been made with the account. Then you can add the link yourself. Please do not take this as anything against your organization or that every external link currently listed follows our policy. Sometimes things get added that should be removed. If you see any links that do not abide by the external links policy, please post about them here and someone will remove them. Thanks. :) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

English doubt: why using she for ships?

Hey! I wanna thank all those who are helping Wikipedia, but I have an English doubt, which I've seen in some places: why to use she for ships? Shouldn't be it? Thank you! Sim(ã)o(n) (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

English convention is to refer to ships in the feminine. DiverScout (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
You can read more about the topic here: http://www.history.navy.mil/trivia/trivia01.htm#anchor253178. —Diiscool (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot! Sim(ã)o(n) (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Citation misused

At the end of the Role of the SS Californian section is the statement: "However, Lord protested his innocence to the end of his life, and many researchers have asserted that the known positions of the Titanic and Californian make it impossible that the former was the infamous "mystery ship," a topic which has "generated . . . millions of words and . . . hours of heated debates" and continues to do so." with a citation, however this is nowhere in the citation. At no point does it say that many researchers have asserted that the known positions make it impossible the Titanic was the mystery ship (or anything to that effect). It states that there is polarization between pro- and anti-lordites but mentions nothing about position, except to mention a problem with location and near the end that the book being reviewed concluded the ships could see each other. The direct quotes in this statement are also taken completely out of context. Those "millions of words" and "hours of heated debates" were actually references to the pro- and anti-lordite opinions, not anything to do with the position of the ships. Indeed the controversy portrayed in the citation appears to be one of why Lord took no action, it seems to be taken almost as a given that he could see the Titanic. The citation certainly mentions nothing about many researchers asserting the Californian could not see the Titanic, and the quotes, while accurate, are not referring to that.--90.199.141.31 (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Agree with the above. - In general, Section 6.2.1 - which deals with the S.S. Californian, doesn't achieve the same standard as the rest of the article. It's doubtful that the section complies with Wiki criteria to use the best reliable sources and to maintain balance by noting sources with alternative viewpoints. There are some obvious errors and distortions. ( e.g. It doesn't require much navigational expertise to appreciate that if the lights of a ship - allegedly Titanic - were seen to the south of the SS Californian at 10:10 pm. then that ship would have been well beyond the visible range of those on the SS Californian an hour and a half later – given that Titanic had a speed of about 22 knots.) However, the story of the SS Californian was, and continues to be, a contentious and complex subject. ( Much of that problem originates from the deficiencies in the 1912 Inquiries ! ) I believe it would be difficult to edit the 'Californian' section in a way that was balanced, concise and sufficiently robust to avoid edit-warring. Probably better to reduce the section to the briefest of details. Regards Norloch (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I just think the last sentence should be removed. – Soerfm (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 February 2013

Where the text reads

Background

Built in Belfast, County Antrim, Ireland, in the UK, (as it then was), .........

the parenthesized clause is superfluous: Belfast, County Antrim is still in the UK to this day, being in Northern Ireland.


31.53.78.123 (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That's correct. Now that you say it, that part of the text is quite ambiguous. But you have to include a possibility of change for the request to be accepted. As this seems to be your first time, based on your contributions, I'll do this for you. I'll change it to "Built in Belfast, County Antrim (at the time in Ireland, UK (Both islands); today in Northern Ireland, UK) [...]" What do you think of this? I'll change it as soon as possible. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Wanna talk? See my efforts? 18:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The request is fairly unambiguous - if the anon is saying that 'the parenthesized clause is superfluous', they are asking for it to be taken out, i.e. 'Delete '(as it then was)'. However, the 'as it then was' is referring to Ireland only, not Belfast, and not County Antrim. However as far as fixes go to this whole nationalist mess, it's still suboptimal. The suggested phrasing by the way is also far short of a clarification and makes it even harder to understand. I'm going to use the full title to give "Built in Belfast, County Antrim, Ireland, in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland..." The argument over which nation Belfast is in now is superfluous, and should be kept out of this article so far as is possible. Given that the UK bit is being seen as confusing, giving the full title of this historic nation might solve some of the problem. Benea (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Angels fear to tread on this subject, but note WP:IRE-IRL and place naming conventions for people born before independence in 1922. It is not a great leap to apply the same convention to ships. WhaleyTim (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Benea: the request is, indeed, not much ambiguous, but still really implicit. If you note the template for requesting a change, it says something like "A request like 'Change X' is not acceptable. Your request must be like 'Change X to Y' in order to be accepted." They (31.53.78.123) didn't clearly say which Y they wanted. Their request wasn't "Change X to Y", as obligatory. I just made them the favor of getting a Y, but on this way, I should have told'em: "Shut up! Come back when you have a better solution; criticize us positively, not negatively!". But back to the matter, I think it should be kept like it is now, but the clause should also be removed (now that it's the full historical name, the as it then was is unnecessary), but maybe with a footnote say something like "Belfast, County Antrim now belongs to Northern Ireland, United Kingdom". I think this footnote would clarify stuff. What do you think of it? -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Wanna talk? See my efforts? 16:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Just remove the first bit of the sentence in Background it isnt really needed and makes an awkward statement that is not needed. Start with The RMS Titanic was the second... you dont need the preamble. Belfast is already linked and mentioned in a number of other places without the awkward construct, and anybody can follow the link to Belfast for more explanation. MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Silly use of the feminine form

I think it is silly to refer to a ship as She in an encyclopedia. Such use is normally restricted to poems and stuff like that. Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Errr, no, it's pretty much standard. Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Prioryman; it's standard for ships. North8000 (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
see eg http://www.hms-victory.com/ and http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-a/bb39-v.htm IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Yet again, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Requesting_further_review_of_pronoun_usage Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Some months ago, I would also have agreed with you. I thought the use of (s)he for anything other than people was only for things that are dear to one. And I've always disagreed with that. Although I'm Portuguese and I don't speak English too much in my life, I would never say something like "Look at that cat! She's so cute!" or so... No matter how weird it'd be "It's so cute!" in this context, I'm the kind of guy that, if English were my native language, I'd direct to my parents as "mother" and "father", no matter how stupid that'd be. Back to the ships, I recently discovered it's actually "pretty much standard" (quoting Prioryman) to use she for them. The first usage I saw of that was in the Seconds From Disaster (TV doc) episode about the Titanic. They would always use the female, even when saying "(...) not Titanic, but her sister Olympic (...)"! I found it comes from the fact that sailers would think of their ship as the one thing that provides them comfort and shelter, much like a mother would do it, and so use the she to refer to them. Now, whilst that "tradition" almost no longer exists, the treatment as she remained, and it's a very used alternative to it. I personally like it a lot. I now always use she for ships. Thanks for reading; sorry that this got so long... -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Wanna talk? See my efforts? 22:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The Titanic or just Titanic?

There is a fundamental inconsistency in referring to this ship. In ordinary usage it is called THE Titanic, not simply Titanic. The latter use apparently derives from the fictional film about the sinking of the ship, where the producers decided to use the title Titanic for ease of marketing, and then carried over the article-less form within the film for reinforcement -- much as the daily USA Today always refers to the United States of America as "USA" even when that would not be the normal usage.

By contrast, if used with the initials, RMS Titanic, no THE should be used.

Now the usage in the article is inconsistent, but mostly wrong.

Any thoughts?79.185.5.36 (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary headlines typically said just plain "Titanic", while the body of the text often said "the Titanic". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
British Naval usage is that warships don't use the article (HMS Eagle, or just Eagle) while merchant ships are always "the". But that is original research. Rumiton (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Namesake

One piece of information that ought to be included in the general information table is Titanic's namesake the Titans of Greek Mythology. The same request also extends to the sister ships Olympic and Britannic, which were named after the Olympians and Britannia respectively. I cannot list a specific source, however this is common knowledge so it might not be necessary. (talk) 1:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Be nice, but I do not think that it is true. The original names were Olympic, Titanic and Gigantic - all names based on size. Gigantic was renamed (prior to actual naming) as Britannic as the imagery of the original names was not so marketable after Titanic went down. DiverScout (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
After Titanic, there was also a suggestion of God's wrath being involved, in punishing the hubris of human beings in giving their creations such towering names. White Star and others decided not to do it again. Rumiton (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Cyril Evans' Testimony re: Rebuke

Cyril Evans claims that Phillips rebuked him with "Shut up, shut up." Is there any evidence, other than Evans' self-serving testimony on this point? Phillips, after all, was dead, and he could not defend himself. Was Evans trying to paint Titanic in a bad light, and to cover for the lax unconcerned attitude of Captain Lord?John Paul Parks (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

There can be no other evidence. Cape Race apparently didn't hear the exchange, or if they did, they did not write it down, which would be usual for ship-ship traffic. It was nothing to do with them. So we are stuck with what Evans said at the enquiry, and you might well be right. He might have been primarily defending himself. Rumiton (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
If my recollection of Evan's testimony is correct, he tried to make it clear that he, personally, didn't consider that he was being 'rebuked' by Phillips. It seems unlikely that Phillips would have wasted time by morse signalling the plain language words "shut up, shut up". It's much more likely that he used one of the standard radio officers' abbreviated codes. (e.g. a couple of code letters which signified " I am working with another radio station please do not interfere with our transmissions at this time." I think that Cyril Evans tried to explain that it wasn't considered as an insult or anything like that but, sadly, an interpretation of the incident as some kind of violent rebuke made it better copy for the gutter press. Regards Norloch (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
And the gutter press of 1912 has become the reputable source of 2013. Rumiton (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes indeed. That's a wisdom which has escaped the notice of generations of press barons!

Personally I've some sympathy for Cyril Evans. Only six months at sea and first trip on his own as radio officer. An experienced man would have gone to Captain Lord and reported that he'd been unable to carry out his orders and Lord would've been alert to the possibilities. An experienced man might have been more forceful with Jack Phillips and ignored the fact that Phillips was an important Marconi officer on a high profile ship. But that's how disasters develop. Regards Norloch (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Action of condenser

I added that the condenser was used (primarily) to lower the pressure at the exhaust end of the turbine by turning the vapour back into a liquid, which occupies far less volume. The process is described here. [5] Rumiton (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 March 2013

The image of the ship's screws in dry dock (Section 3.1) has a caption indicating they are those of Olympic, not Titanic. The file info page suggests the opposite. I do not know which is correct, but Titanic would make much more sense, this being the article for RMS Titanic. -Shaun 76.116.98.139 (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It needs to stay captioned as Olympic. Click on "edit" for that section to see why. Rumiton (talk) 07:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I have changed the file description to the following: According to the source, United States Library of Congress, this is an image of Titanic's stern and rudder. However, the Titanic expert Bruce Beveridge claims it to be of her sister Olympic (Titanic—The Ship Magnificent Volume One: Design & Construction, 2008, The History Press, page 100). Furthermore, it is known that there exists no single photograph of Titanic's propellers (http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/mystery-titanic-central-propeller.html) which makes Olympic the most likely choice. Soerfm (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if that makes sense, at least the "furthermore, it is known" part. If it is "known" that no photo exists, then this cannot be one. Rumiton (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I was trying to combine (a bit clumsy maybe):
1) (Article comment:) The name was often changed back to Titanic because the file and its source claim that it is Titanic. In the source cited below {Beveridge, 2008, p=100} this fotograph is identified as Olympic (and Beveridge is highly reliable!). Furthermore, it is known that there exists no single photograph of Titanic's propellers: http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/mystery-titanic-central-propeller.html
2) (File description:) Titanic's stern and rudder
Whatever is the truth should be written in the file description rather than the body as a comment. - Soerfm (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Not sure how to remedy this. Changing the file caption would probably constitute original research. Rumiton (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Made a change to the article. See what you think. Rumiton (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
It looks OK. I have simplifyed the file description: "According to the source, United States Library of Congress, this is an image of Titanic's stern and rudder. Others claim it to be of her sister Olympic ( Bruce Beveridge: Titanic—The Ship Magnificent Volume One: Design & Construction, 2008, The History Press, page 100)." This shouldn't be OR. - Soerfm (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 April 2013

respected sir.Iam pritpal singh likhari from INDIA (also on facebook) wants to share the ticket of TITANIC issued by WHITE STAR LINE(oceanic steam navigation company)for 10 April 1912,which was sent to me by some one through facebook account,Now I forget the sender name but the ticket is save in my computer.please send me your email for sending the same to you.pinkuparullikhari@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.56.127.50 (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Description of Wireless Equipment

The description of the wireless equipment needs research and a rewite because of factual errors. It is disputed she had 2 x 1.5KW sets. I believe the main set was 5KW. There were other smaller emergency sets. The purpose of the silent room was to house the synchronous spark gap for the main set,not to separate the transmitting and receiving functions of it. On the famous Marconi Aerial, the horizontal wires are the "top hat" loading element. The radiating element is the vertical wires.

Anyone care to reasearch this and re-write it properly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.198.145.187 (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC) The love story in this movie was a real life interpretation of a couple very similar to Jack and Rose, these are the same names of the true lovers found out about through the remaining survivors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.103.240 (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC) the titanic sunk because of a very large ICE burg. This made lots of people die some died because because they were still in the boat while it was sinking. Also the y died because the water was too cold so then they they froze to death.


They also died because they climbed on a ICE burg that they fingers got frozen and go stuck to the ICE burg so when they pulled it off it ripped of their skin. They could of also died because the boat while it was sinking the pressure pulled them to the boat so couldn't swim up and they drowned. That the true story of the titanic and how the people died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.241.60.193 (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. Moving Titanic (disambiguation) to Titanic will require a separate discussion. Favonian (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


RMS TitanicTitanicWP:COMMONNAME. I understand the general need for a ship naming convention... most ships are not well known, have ambiguous base names, and we need a consistent way to refer to them unambiguously. But there can be exceptions; per WP:IAR if nothing else, but also because WP:NC-SHIP explicitly states:

Civilian ship articles should follow standard Wikipedia naming conventions.
WP:COMMONNAME is a section of Wikipedia naming conventions, of course, and Titanic is the more natural, recognizable and concise title.

In addition, since Titanic already redirects here, that this topic is primary for Titanic is established.

Finally, of the three potential reasonable titles for this article, SS Titanic, RMS Titanic and Titanic, the latter is most commonly used to refer to the ship. The Titanic is probably the best known ship of all time, and searches in Google Scholar[6] and Google Books[7] confirm that most reliable sources refer to it as just "Titanic". Therefore, so should we. B2C 06:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This has been discussed quite a few times before; the controlling convention is WP:SHIPNAME. The fact that there have been many vessels named Titanic means that the prefix is necessary. Prioryman (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The fact that there are many vessels named Titanic does not mean the prefix is necessary on the article about the primary topic for Titanic... that's the point of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This basis for opposing is unfounded. --B2C 15:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If we did that we would have to move all the other ships with a prefix to their bare names, so RMS Olympic would have to move to Olympic. I don't see that as very viable. I don't see a reason for an exception here. G-13114 (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • There is no argument that the relatively obscure RMS Olympic is the primary topic for Olympic, so this concern and basis for opposing is unfounded. --B2C 15:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
      • That's not the point. It's an issue of consistency. I don't see a strong argument for breaking with the standard naming format here. G-13114 (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Oppose per Prioryman's argument. —Diiscool (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per COMONNAME. Its a reasonable request and is logical according to the sources and the guidelines. The ship is very well known and the RMS is unneeded in this particular case, unlike the Olympic which is less well known.--JOJ Hutton 13:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No good reason to rename here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • If you don't mind, please explain why you believe all the reasons listed in the proposal are not "good" reasons to rename here. --B2C 15:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Consistency and precision are other aspects of article titling. "RMS Titanic" seems to be the most consistent with other ship articles, and has the appropriate level of precision, neither too much nor too litle. Omnedon (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: as per above arguments. Dazedbythebell (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose helpful in that it immediately lets searchers know that it is the real ship, not the movie. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose – It's OK for a term with a primary topic to redirect to the article on that topic, when another convention or guideline makes a different name preferred. There's no need to let most concise or most common override precision and recognizability. In this case, the precision added by RMS contributes to recognizability of what topic this particular word refers to, even though the less precise term is more common. There's nothing unusual about this (but the over-interpretation of COMMONNAME to push for most concise, even when that's ambiguous, should be made more unusual, hopefully). Dicklyon (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I was all ready to support, but I've been swayed by the argument that the minor additional precision is a great help given the presence of the film. There's also the consistency factor to consider. It's borderline, and I wouldn't be too upset with either title. Powers T 14:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • How is the additional precision of any help, much less great help? In what context?

      If Titanic was the dab page I would agree with you, but since it redirects here anyway I don't see the point.

      Should we move Titanic (disambiguation) to Titanic? --B2C 00:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

      • Yes, let's do. Ambiguous terms going to disambig pages is generally a good idea. But even if we don't, and keep RMS Titanic as the primary topic for Titanic, the less ambiguous title is quite helpful in letting the user know they got to the article about the ship, before they start reading it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
      • The article title must identify the topic. It serves more than just a search-engine or URL or linking function; it's the top part of the article, the first thing the reader reads, and serves to reassure the reader that they are in the correct place. Yes, "Titanic" redirects here, but most readers are aware of the film as well, and might not know off-hand whether we would put the film or the ship at the base name. By having the title read "RMS Titanic", that potential confusion is immediately alleviated, and at absolutely no cost to anyone else. Powers T 17:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.