Talk:Titanic/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Launched in 1911?

I think it’s stupid to say The Titanic was launched on 31 May 1911… with no engine and few fittings.

I bet it’s true. (i.e. it’s a valid use of the term).

But I can’t find anything (anywhere) to define what launch means. Wiki has Ceremonial ship launching.

Google has a few; but nothing I found defined how viable the ship has to be. MBG02 (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The most decisive and identifiable moment in the early life of a large ship is when she is named with the aid of a bottle of champagne and then slides down the slipway and enters the water. This moment is called the launch, even though the vessel still lacks engines and most other heavy things. It has to be able to float, but that is the extent of the required viability. There is no similarly decisive and identifiable moment associated with the ship being finished and ready to proceed under its own steam. I don't think it is stupid, or anything else derogatory, to say Titanic was launched in 1911. Dolphin (t) 13:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The Ceremonial ship launching article is a bit of a mess, as you can tell from the two maintenance templates at the top of the article. But if you read the first paragraph of the Methods section it does a good job of explaining the non-ceremonial aspects of a launch. There is some discussion on the talk page about the confusion. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll stick with "stupid". But I think lots of nautical stuff is "stupid". You may interpret "stupid" as "highly misleading" or as "not defined the way 99% of people interpret it".

I was hoping there were qualifying terms, e.g.

Launch of hull,

Launch of seaworthy vessel,

Launch of passenger-ready vessel.

MBG02 (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

How about Ship naming and launching? Dolphin (t) 21:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

SS California

It has been proven that the SS California was in no position to render aid to the titanic

https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/mystery-ship.html

https://woub.org/2020/10/30/mystery-ship-turned-away-from-titanic-in-darkest-hour-secrets-of-the-dead-abandoning-the-titanic-nov-4-at-10-pm/ 50.48.178.66 (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Even the above encyclopedia article states that it would indeed "RENDER AID". It wouldn't have arrived until after her final plunge, she was in risk of hitting bergs herself and she was much smaller ship. Yet the lifeboats would see help was on the way well before her final plunge and may have been compelled to allow additional passengers to board. In short, her coming to the Titanic's aid could have saved dozens if not hundreds but by no means close to everyone...NotBond007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotBond007 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2023

General characteristics

Change [Propulsion Two three-blade wing propellers and one three-blade centre propeller] to [Propulsion Two three blade wing propellers and one four blade centre propeller] LazyBrit (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Do we have a source for that? Three-blade is unsourced, and the photo of Olympic shows a four-blade centre propeller so I'm inclined to make this change. GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The 3 vs 4 blade center propeller debate has been ongoing for years, with no definite data on which the Titanic had. No pictures of the Titanic, while being built or after sinking, show it. Dcheney (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

In that case I suggest we change the infobox to match the article text, which doesn't specify how many blades on the centre prop. GA-RT-22 (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dcheney: It turns out there is a photo purporting to be of Titanic's centre prop, and it does have four blades. This was posted last time this was discussed here. [1] Still, I'm inclined to leave the blade count out. GA-RT-22 (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

According to the tags on that picture, it is from the movie Titanic released in 1997. Also the side propellers look entirely different than the real on-site pics of one of them (where it is buried about half way). But I agree, when there is such doubt, best to leave it out. Dcheney (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The Titanic has two other sister ships

The RMS Titanic had to sister ships called the RMS Olympic and the HMHS Britannic 2607:FEA8:9A3:2C00:3980:93AF:677:9B3B (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the article header. L'Oiseau Lybre (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Deadliest peacetime sinking

(Sorry if my english is bad, or too american) @Canterbury Tail u keep taking the text back when i delete, so here is my explanation. It says that the sinking of RMS Titanic remains the deadliest peacetime sinking of any oceanliner or cruise ship, but both that and the reference used is very false. The amount that died during an peacetime sinking has been surpassed many times during the 20th century. The worst being Dõna Paz in 1987, with 2,800 more casualties, if im right. And if u look at any other site about the deadliest peacetime sinking, even Wikipedias own article, the top one says: Dõna Paz. + it also says ”of an ocean liner or cruise ship”, but is that really right? Since Titanic was only an ocean liner, not a cruise ship. Many people usually mix them up, since cruise ship is more well known. Osthyveln från Österrike (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

So firstly Wikipedia may not be used as a reference. The Titanic is qualified to ocean liner or cruise ship, the Dona Paz was a local passenger ferry and does not meet the same qualifications. The other examples you point out and the Wikipedia article has Titanic as the deadliest ocean liner or cruise ship which is exactly the claim that is being made. No one is claiming that Titanic was the deadliest peacetime ship sinking, we're just claiming (with a reliable source) that it's the deadliest peacetime sinking of an ocean liner or cruise ship which is true. And note, you are currently edit warring and would be advised to revert your edit until consensus is achieved here per WP:BRD. Canterbury Tail talk 14:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Apologies Osthyveln från Österrike (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

names of recovery ships?

The article states that other than the chartered Canadian ships, five bodies were recovered by "passing North Atlantic steamships". The RMS Oceanic recovered three bodies, so what ships recovered the remaining two? Elsquared (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

J. P. Morgan

Morgan was almost certainly not scheduled to be on Titanic's maiden voyage,see https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/community/threads/prominent-non-passengers-morgan-and-hershey.13921/ Mab819c (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2023

Around 317% of passengers survived 66.99.48.136 (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: That's one hell of a reproduction rate. Favonian (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization

I went through the passenger facilities section and de-capitalized several standard terms such as poop deck; I hope this is uncontroversial.

One thing I did want to note is that the previous text implied that there was a restaurant literally called "À la Carte Restaurant", and I cannot find any support for this in the sources, particularly those given for Gaspare Gatti. I believe the intention is that there was a restaurant in the à la carte style, but not explicitly named as such. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, please feel free to correct me. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I like the changes you made. They are in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. Dolphin (t) 00:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 2 May 2023

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

The result of the move request was: Iceberged. Seems like there is no support for the move in the last 24 hours. The RM has struck an iceberg! (non-admin closure) Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Titanic → RMS Titanic – Per MOS:CONSISTENCY. Maintains consistence with RMS Olympic, as well as RMS Lusitania. What do we think? Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose this article was just moved from RMS Titanic to Titanic less then 3 years ago with overwhelming consensus. How has it changed from that decision? Additionally there is no MOS on consistency for article titles, and in fact the only thing about article titles is at WP:CONSISTENCY, which is not part of the MOS, and actually states against the proposal above. Canterbury Tail talk 06:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as clearly WP:COMMONNAME. The other examples given are not the main subject for Olympic or Lusitania, so require diambiguation. Davidships (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Britannica. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – per WP:SHIPPREFIX "Since the optional prefix is, in fact, optional, it may be omitted for ships with unambiguous names even when common prefixes (e.g. MS or MV) are sometimes used for them in other sources". GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per common name and shortest recognizable name for the page. Titanic is universally known as the unsinkable ship that sank. Is "iceberg" another name for "snow"? Randy Kryn (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

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

How to change the preview of Lusitania

When you hover over the link of "Lusitania" in the Background section, the only thing it shows is the picture and "it was made in 1569". How do I change this?

Kzhangak (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

That's the result of some vandalism that was reverted here: [2]. The vandalism is getting cached somewhere. I'm seeing it too. There might be some help available at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups/FAQ. If that doesn't help I would try Wikipedia:Help desk. GA-RT-22 (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Why just "Titanic"?

I want to point out that when it is just referred to as "Titanic", it seems a little, odd. I'd say calling it "The Titanic" would be a better option. Just a small suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.218.27 (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

We don't normally do that. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but that is because WP:en is "normally" written in American English. This article is described as being in "BrE", but this only appears to tolerate the subset of BrE style recognised by Americans, viz "spelling" and "vocabulary". I happen to have come across the name of this ship in a couple of BrE places in the last week or two: one was an article in the Guardian, the other an Only Connect clue. Both of course referred to "the Titanic". Then the other day, I came across this Britannica article (what an ironic name!) in which the title, and introduction seems to have been converted to US style, but the body of the article uses the definite article for all ships. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

If you want to change the guideline, this is the wrong place to discuss it. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Referring to the ship as “she”

This strikes me as anachronistic and pretentious. It would be more encyclopaedic to refer to it as ‘it’. Asperthrow (talk) 07:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

See WP:SHE4SHIPS. If you wish to change it it would need to be discussed over there, not on this page. Canterbury Tail talk 11:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. It’s an optional style applied on an article-by-article basis. I’m disputing it on this article. Asperthrow (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh sorry I misread, I thought you were talking about ships in general. For this article consensus is to continue with her and she, see talk page archives. Canterbury Tail talk 19:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I’ve done that and all I see is a discussion featuring about 10 editors from over 10 years ago. Other people enquiring about the feminine pronouns—as far back as 2018—have also been prompted to browse the archives for The Consensus™. I know how editor consensus works.

I’m seeking a new one in this discussion for referring to the ship as “it”. Asperthrow (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

You are free to open an RFC on the topic. Canterbury Tail talk 23:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a box near the top of this page marked "Search Archives" that you can use to find previous discussion on this point. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Unless you have a "clear and substantial reason" for changing it, other than you don't like it much, then you're probably wasting your time tbh. G-13114 (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to change it, I'm just trying to help OP. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

A clear and substantial reason is that it’s very anachronistic language which I find inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. It’s an object. Asperthrow (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is anachronistic. The word means "belonging to a time other than the one being portrayed". That is clearly not the case here. If you are using the word to simply mean "belonging to the past", then I disagree with that as well. Rightly or wrongly, the usage that you are complaining about is still very common today.Mike Marchmont (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Last Picture?

I feel maybe we should add in the last known picture of the Titanic, solely because it was a rather important part of the ship's history (and the last we ever saw of the ship until the 1980s). Not too important, but I find it significant.

https://i.postimg.cc/Z5vbRtx5/Last-Photo-RMS-Titanic.jpg Theyallcallme (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

What encyclopaedic value does it have? It's a picture of the same side of the ship as what we already have, it adds zero new information or content to the article besides decoration. Additionally that isn't the last known photo of it, there is another "last known photo". Canterbury Tail talk 17:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Display title

@Juanpumpchump: I'm going to revert this [3] because it does nothing. That field can only be used to change the styling of the page title, not the actual text of the title. You can see this if you temporarily add "|showerrs=yes" to the template then preview. The previous value for this field is also unnecessary, as the title will be styled in italics without it. So I'm just going to remove it. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, yes that a great help as that was my mistake - Question, why is the title of the article "Titanic" and both her sisters are "RMS Olympic" and "HMHS Britannic"?

Regards

Juanpumpchump (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Please see the talk page archives and the RM just above. It was a long RM conversation that moved it. Canterbury Tail talk 17:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Category renaming

Since this page was renamed to remove "RMS" on the tittle, its category (Category:RMS Titanic) and the subcategories should also follow. 152.133.1.16 (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

missing submersible

I think it'd be better to detail that somewhere else, so I created the start of a draft at Draft:OceanGate Titanic Expedition, feel free to edit it, or move it to article-space. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Someone has created 2023 Titan submersible incident and we already have OceanGate, Inc. so I don't think this new article is needed. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

That article is now on the Main page, But ".. in the North Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Newfoundland" is not really very accurate. It was directly over the wreck and starting to dive down to it? 86.187.170.25 (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but that is not an issue for this talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 21:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

What? This article says ".. in the North Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Newfoundland". That is not really very accurate. The phrase "off the coast of Newfoundland" is incredibly vague. They were directly over the site of the wreck? 86.187.170.25 (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

This isn't the page for details on that, there is an entire article devoted to it. This article should just mention it in passing. Canterbury Tail talk 21:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

If this article is going to "just mention it in passing", it ought to at least be accurate? Or are you suggesting that no geographical detail at all should be included? This is a notable incident. 86.187.170.25 (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not inaccurate, the statement is perfectly accurate. Could it be more accurate, perhaps, but it's not inaccurate. Also none of the references state that it went missing directly over the wreck site. You'd need a reference for that. Canterbury Tail talk 21:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Titan Submersible info Added?

I believe that the Titan submarine disappearance should be added to the information. Mrjtswift (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Already there with links to the appropriate articles. Canterbury Tail talk 12:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2023

To add 5 Deaths to the death toll of the Titanic as it has technically been the final resting place of 5 more people. 206.83.112.155 (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Not done, not actually to do with Titanic, and no confirmation of the deaths anyway. Canterbury Tail talk 12:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Next port...?

I understand the White Star Line disposed of a lot of stuff when the ship was lost. However, I was wondering if it was true that had the ship survived the journey to New York, the next scheduled stop was Plymouth in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.163.101.38 (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

After New York - Plymouth > Cherbourg > Southampton as per [this image]. So I think you're right! JoelJSK (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2023 (2)

Add An Indirect Death Toll Counter Involving Submarine Accidents Ufearme (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Not done. Nothing to do with the Titanic itself. Canterbury Tail talk 22:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Question

Can you make it about 1505? 2600:1008:B026:7761:19D2:FF6F:B4B:535 (talk) 05:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023 (2)

On 18 June 2023, the submersible Titan operated by OceanGate Expeditions went missing in the North Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Newfoundland. The submersible, designed to carry five people, was carrying an expedition of tourists to view the wreckage of the Titanic.[277][278] On 22 June 2023, the operating company announced that they believe the Titan crew were lost at sea after a catastrophic implosion of the submersible.[279]

On 18 June 2023, the submersible Titan operated by OceanGate Expeditions went missing in the North Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Newfoundland. The submersible, designed to carry five people, was carrying an expedition of tourists to view the wreckage of the Titanic.[277][278] On 21 June 2023, debris thought to be from the submersible was found. After identification of the debris, the operating company announced on 22 June 2023 that it did correspond to the Titan submersible, and believed that the Titan crew were lost at sea after a catastrophic implosion of the submersible.[279] 185.10.157.12 (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023

update "22 June 2023, the operating company announced that they believe the Titan crew were lost at sea after a catastrophic implosion of the submersible." they're confirmed dead they don't believe Coziploo (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.cnn.com/americas/live-news/titanic-missing-sub-oceangate-06-23-23/index.html

https://nypost.com/2023/06/22/debris-discovered-near-titanic-site-amid-search-for-missing-crew/

come on man thats just being lazy making me look for sources its all over the damn internet Coziploo (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

When the wreckage was found

I think it's notable and important to mention that the wreckage was not found until 73 years later. I propose this should be mentioned in the final paragraph of the article introduction, at the very end. 94.118.0.209 (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the wreck section. Unsure if it's really important enough to be in the lead. I'm leaning towards, probably is. Canterbury Tail talk 14:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to add it, the problem being that the lead is already longer than I'd like. I think the final paragraph about the lifeboats could be shortened. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Is it notable though? Shipwrecks sometimes take a long time to be found. Carpathia wasn't found until 1999. Achille Lauro still hasn't been found. I'd say that the length of time is interesting only because there was so much attention given to the matter, rather than taking an unusually long time to locate. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The technology to find and investigate it didn't exist until 73 years later, at least for an event that did not involve national defense. Even then, it was a side project that Ballard negotiated; the real project was to get a close look at Thresher and Scorpion. There's nothing surprising about not finding the wreck itself in 12,000 feet of water. The location was known to within a few miles, but couldn't be found at the seafloor until sonar and ROV technology had sufficiently advanced. Acroterion (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2023

I found a problem with a few of the numbers and would like to fix them. TheWreckingPaul (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done – That is not a "complete and specific description of the request". GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023 (3)

"more than 1,500 died" to "more than 1,500 + 5 died" Second coming of ape (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Not done. The 5 who died in the submersible have nothing to do with the Titanic disaster. Canterbury Tail talk 17:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The request should be denied. Mike Marchmont (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

After all, if an article reported the number of people who had died in a battle, you wouldn't expect that number to include any tourists who happened to die while visiting the battle site many years later. Mike Marchmont (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

edit request

Please wikilink the first occurrence of "RMS Titanic Inc." -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

question re ocean-floor pressure

we have all now heard of the submersible titan's implosion due to the great pressures at that depth. has the titanic been affected in any way by those pressures? it didn't ex- or implode, but has it been compressed? if not, anyone know why not? 70.51.81.212 (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Titanic was not an airtight vessel. Water rushed in as it slowly descended. In contrast, the submersible was airtight and had a much smaller pressure inside than outside its hull, so the submersible imploded in a way Titanic did not. —RCraig09 (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. And that is is main answer. And so the remaining materials themselves are only negligibly compressible. North8000 (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Cold incapacitation link

@Quixoticelixer-: I'm going to revert this: [4]. When a user clicks on "cold incapacitation" they should be taken to cold incapacitation, not some other place. If you think that "cold shock response" is the correct term here, and the source supports it, just change the link and leave it unpiped. If you think that clicking on "cold incapacitation" should always (not just in this article) take the reader to cold shock response instead of to Hypothermia, then change the redirect. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Check the page, it's not cold incapacitation, it's Hypothermia#Water_immersion, the article clearly says and explicitly mentions that it's not talking about hypothermia, but that it's talking about cold shock response. Quixoticelixer- (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

So then you want to change it to cold shock response? I don't have a copy of Aldridge so I don't know what it says. GA-RT-22 (talk)

Since you haven't said how you want to resolve this, and the footnote supports cold incapacitation, I'm going to change it back. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I have added a "dubious" tag until we get to the bottom of this. Right now the text is contradicted by the footnote, which says "50% die within 15–30 minutes from cold incapacitation". GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Cold incapacitation is a vague term and doesn't even have an article. Cold shock response has multiple meanings and so is vague. It's pretty widely accepted that death from cold is and is called hypothermia. The one source at Cold shock response that implies otherwise is a blog posting that said a few really silly things. North8000 (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

What does the source we're referencing for this sentence say? We should say that. If we don't have a source we should find one or remove the information. Right now it reads as WP:OR. Canterbury Tail talk 19:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The authoritative given source is "Hypothermia safety" and there's nothing in it about cold shock response! The text in the cite is not even in that source. Then the text in the cite cites a blog which rambles and even it really doesn't say that and also a book about the Titanic which I couldn't check but which I would use as an RS on how people die in cold water. What's in there now is worse than OR. North8000 (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

So nuke it all and only add in what sources specifically say. No OR, no rambling, no guessing, we cannot interpret or guess only cite. This shouldn't even be a conversation. Canterbury Tail talk 19:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The source for "cold incapacitation", I would assume, is Aldridge p. 56. Anyone got a copy? Agree with CT; I think we should say exactly what's in Aldridge. What's in the footnote looks like OR to me. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

These are so many problems that I just took it out. My edit summary was "remove what is largely an unsourced and implausible essay per talk. Good sources say that any info on this would be/is conjecture and so even with the best case scenario we could not replace this with real info". If anyone disagrees please feel very free to revert me or modify. North8000 (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it was mostly conjecture not an actual facts. Canterbury Tail talk 21:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 1 July 2023

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

The result of the move request was: Too soon after the previous discussion; consensus is unlikely to change this soon. --Jasper Deng (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Titanic → RMS Titanic – WP:CONSISTENCY with other ships, such as RMS Olympic. There's no rhyme or reason why the RMS is neglected in the title of the titanic, only the fact that it is a well recognizable name. Despite this, I think the RMS should be included for reasons including WP:PRECISION etc. Obviously Titanic should be WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. 92.40.197.121 (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Too soon. This was just discussed two months ago, and you haven't given any new arguments. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose, and possible snowclose. It's been two months. O.N.R. ^(talk) 00:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per other editors. Killuminator (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME by a mile. Steel1943 (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Pressure at depth

We say the wreck is at 12,000 feet and Wreck of the Titanic says 12,500, where the pressure is over 6000 psi (40 Mpa). But when I calculate it for salt water I get a pressure of 5550 psi (38.2 MPa) at the lower 12,500 depth. I get the same results from some online calculators I tried, like [5]. The cited sources are popular books, not science or tech books. I think some lazy person just took 12,500 feet and divided by two to get psi, which is a common rule of thumb but does not give an accurate result. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a valid criticism. Thank you for drawing it to our attention. I suggest an immediate repair of the problem by simply changing over 6000 psi (40 Mpa), about 400 standard atmospheres to “over 5000 psi (33 MPa, about 325 standard atmospheres)”.

On Wikipedia I haven’t found a figure for the density or specific weight or specific gravity of “typical” saltwater. Can anyone point to a suitable value?

I arrived at the figure 33 MPa by elementary arithmetic. It is likely that 32 or 34 MPa would be more accurate. Dolphin (t) 06:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2023

Remove the "Britannic was originally to be called Gigantic and was to be over 1,000 feet (300 m) long." part early in the "background" section. This is a false myth and this has been like this for over half a year as this change was made in Jaunary. BoltTheSailor27 (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for letting us know. — Trey Maturin™ 16:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

This was removed back in January [6] then immediately restored by someone who maybe didn't actually check the source, since it doesn't say that. I added the "failed verification" tag. I would say we now have consensus to leave this out and I hope anyone wanting to restore it again will discuss first.

By the way, Template:edit semi-protected is for changes that are trivial or have already been discussed. This should have been just a normal talk page section. GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

RMS Titanic Inc. being stopped from retrieving items

Where should this information go in the article? There are several possible places but it doesn't seem like any of them would be the right one.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Probably nowhere in this article. However there is Wreck of the Titanic which may be more appropriate. However at the end of the day the US doesn't have any jurisdiction over the wreck, but does over companies in its borders. So this is really a dispute of the US government and a company in the US, not ultimate about the Titanic in any real sense. Canterbury Tail talk 01:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I was concerned that until there was definite action, it might not belong here at all. I'll consider your idea.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)