Talk:RMS Titanic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star RMS Titanic is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 29, 2005.
RMS Titanic is a candidate to become a selected article for the Northern Ireland Portal. A selected article should be relevant to Northern Ireland, well written and interesting. Please feel free to leave comments.
Crest of Belfast This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belfast, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the City of Belfast, Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.See comments
Top This article is on a subject of Top-importance for Belfast-related articles.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Belfast:

The class rating of FA seems obvious, since the article IS a FA. Mid for importance seems to make sense to me, (a non expert on Belfast) as it's not pivotal to the history of Belfast that the Titanic was built here. ++Lar: t/c 05:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I would set the importance level to top as the Titanic is in the hearts and minds of many people of Belfast - their fathers and grandfathers having built it. The fateful ship is very much a part of the culture of Belfast. I will wait for comments before I change the importance level. --Mal 04:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Belfast tasks:
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster Management.
Vernet's Shipwreck This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, an attempt to improve coverage of shipwreck-related topics. See also the parent WikiProject, WikiProject Disaster Management. If you plan to work on this article for an extended period of time, please indicate what you are doing on the Project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish Maritime.

WikiProject Irish Maritime is an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of Maritime, seafaring and inland waterways articles associated with the island of Ireland. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.


This article is part of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.


Archive
Archives
To-do list: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh


Here are some tasks you can do:

    An event in this article is a April 14 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

    Contents

    [edit] Conspiracy theories

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

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

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

    [edit] The run for the Blue Riband

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

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

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

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

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

    [edit] Minor Edits

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

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

    Gary, I see you've started, but that an IP editor reverted. I'd suggest working on a draft of the opening paragraph here, on the talk page, that way once it goes live, you'll have consensus behind you and it will help prevent protect it. We're doing the same thing over at Extraordinary Rendition, which is a highly contentious article, and the process of working out an acceptable intro will make it iron clad (I was gonna say "unsinkable", but....) Akradecki 14:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    And I can already see the problem. Many want the intro to sound dramatic, as opposed to stating simple facts. At the same time, you want an article about such a topic, which most people have very little factual knowledge of, to try to correct that. I changed the first sentence earlier because the Titanic did not "collide" with an iceberg, a fact that more authors are acknowledging by the use of words. But words like "collide", "infamous", etc. sound dramatic. I sometimes wonder if some contributers think they are helping to write an encyclopedia or a novel.
    Nonetheless, like many other articles I have contributed to on Wikipedia, I will debate and argue on what is right, but only if I think we are coming from the same base. This is usually not the case. Otherwise, there will just be another edit war. We have enough of those already.Gary Joseph 00:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    Erm, if Titanic did not "collide" with an iceberg, just how would you describe that, uh, "interaction?" It hit an iceberg. That's a collision, whether it was head-on or not. I agree with you on the other points, though, and agree that the intro needs a lot of work.--chris.lawson 00:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    Merriam-Webster lists collide; 1 : to come together with solid or direct impact. Ballard described the Titanic's impact as "a glancing blow" (glance; 1 : to strike a surface obliquely so as to go off at an angle <the bullet glanced off the wall>. Other authors have described have also used other synomyms( hit, impact, grazed, etc). It is just like the difference between being "shot" by a bullet versus "grazed" by one. But whether you intended it or not, you just underscored my point.Gary Joseph 02:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] "The Unsinkable might sink!"

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

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

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

    Because a)unsinkable doesn't mean undamagable, and any skipper who lets such major damage happen can kiss his career goodbye, and 2) hitting a stationary object at 20-something knots would throw everyone and everything against the forward bulkheads...not the kind of ride those high-roller 1st class folks are paying for! Akradecki 21:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    It's interesting to speculate whether the ship would have sunk had it hit the iceberg head on. Obviously the foreward end of the ship would have been severely damaged, but it's possible the damage would not have extended backwards far enough to open enough compartments for the ship to sink. On the other hand, given recent metallurgiucal evidence on the rivets and plating it's also possible a good portion of the length of the ship would have been opened by the stress of impact buckling plates and opening joins.

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

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

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

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

    [edit] Amendments to the infobox

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

    [edit] "Iceberg, right ahead!!" dialog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [edit] "Artefacts" (and "colour")

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

    [edit] Gardiner Ref

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

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

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

    [edit] Rollback

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

    I'm rather nettled at seeing all my careful work go down the drain. The big thing about date preferences is that registered users have them, but most Wikipedia users (i.e. readers as opposed to editors) don't and therefore see dates in the raw format. The Titanic uses UK English, it should also use International rather than American Dating. --Pete 01:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    There is a guideline somewhere on Wikipedia, I can't remember where just now, that specifically says not to do what you did. However, now that you've provided an explanation for it (please try to use edit summaries in the future, too), I'm perfectly happy with the reasoning. I'll see what I can do about putting it back without making you re-do it all by hand.--chris.lawson 03:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    You should take a look at WP:DATE. Jguk doesn't apply when there is a good reason for a style change. --Pete 03:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Article Lenght

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

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

    [edit] Regarding new article for the sinking of the ship

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

    [edit] titanic

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

    so tell the facts !!

    breakmyheart

    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/m/s/Talk%7ERMS_Titanic_0dfb.html"