Talk:Titanic

Ships are not women

The article refers to the ship as "She" when it is, in fact, an inanimate object. If it must be anthropomorphized, no gender can, nor should be, assigned to it arbitrarily. The ship is either an "it" or a "They" 66.23.113.178 (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Female pronouns for ships is maritime tradition. It's not meant as a slur. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 11:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

This argument has cropped up many times on this Talk page over the years (see the archives) - perhaps an FAQ should be added here I've just added an FAQ to the header here. Per WP:SHE4SHIPS: Ships may be referred to by either feminine pronouns ("she", "her") or neuter pronouns ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and exclusively employ only one style. (By way of comparison, Wikipedia also has many references to countries and cities as "she", e.g. "Britain and her allies"; "Tokyo and her sister city New York", etc.) Muzilon (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

True 65.18.39.253 (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Because she was known to be more faster and not like britannic she was know to travel the world she was gonna be a war ship but not.Rms Is Also A Meaning for "Royal Mail Ship" Royal Means Female in Most Cases.

Bryson Bryson W Johnson (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Not True Because Most Ships Are Refered To As that because have you ever heard someone say luxury and Royal And they dont say male but in warships they say male. Strange

Bryson Bryson W Johnson (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Just you wait until ships start to transition. Especially those big burly male warships. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

NAHHHH not them bro In the next century Theres gonna be ships the size of a mountain. Bryson W Johnson (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You could be right. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The death/survivor count and passenger count is outdated

It should be 1,496 deaths,712 survivors, and 2,208 total passengers.

The inquiries found that the ship seen by Californian was in fact Titanic and that it would have been possible for Californian to aid rescue; therefore, Captain Lord had acted improperly in failing to do so.[

The statement is correct and well footnoted: but it doesn't seem to be noted that, following the discovery of wreck, the position is now known, and not what the enquiry accepted, so the enquiry and 'subsequent arguments' are now seen in a different light. 124.187.219.128 (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Why not just get a tugboat as it was sinking and just pull it? Bryson W Johnson (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2024

§ Sinking:

In Lifeboat No. 2, Fourth Officer Boxhall lit several green roman candles, signaling Carpathia to make the way towards them. The ship pulled alongside No. 2, where a woman in the boat cried "Titanic has gone down with everyone aboard!" Boxhall quickly replied with "Shut up, lady!" Boxhall later apologized for his outburst, but both people involved agreed that it was acceptable, given the circumstances they had just endured and their current conditions.

References

One by one, Titanic's lifeboats were picked up by Carpathia. Passengers from Collapsibles A and B were transferred into other boats and ferried to Carpathia. Collapsible C was towed by Lifeboat 14 to Carpathia, where Fifth Officer Lowe rigged up a sail. When asked how he knew, Lowe replied "Not all sailors are seamen, and not all seamen are sailors."

Most of this seems exceedingly trivial - note also that the section has a {{main}} link to Sinking of the Titanic, which is at least ten times as long and yet does not include either of these details, AFAI can tell. Suggest removal, maybe retaining the first sentence of the second of the paragraphs. - 2A02:560:594B:1A00:BD1F:6F7E:31D1:C590 (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

 Removed Left guide (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Lifeboat Davits

There's a discrepancy regarding the capacity of the lifeboat davits, if I'm reading it all correctly.

From the lede: Titanic was equipped with 16 lifeboat davits, each capable of lowering three lifeboats, for a total of 48 boats.

From the Lifeboat section: Titanic had 16 sets of davits, each able to handle four lifeboats as Carlisle had planned. This gave Titanic the ability to carry up to 64 wooden lifeboats which would have been enough for 4,000 people 57.135.233.22 (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and fix that. Carlisle had been shot down by the British Board of Trade, so the ship could only carry up to 48 boats. Erin (SSBelfastFanatic) (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Auction of watch

I removed the following as WP:PROMO, as part of a cleanup effort of similarly promotional content.

On April 27, 2024, a gold pocket watch recovered from the wreckage of the Titanic was sold at auction for £1.175 million (approximately $1.5 million) by London-based auction house Henry Aldridge & Son. This sale is noted to be a record price for Titanic memorabilia. The watch, made of 14k gold and inscribed with the initials "JJA," belonged to John Jacob Astor IV, a prominent real estate magnate and investor who was the wealthiest passenger on the Titanic. Astor's body, along with the watch, was recovered a week after the ship's sinking in 1912. His net worth at the time was estimated to be around $87 million, which is equivalent to several billion dollars today.

The watch was later restored and worn by Astor's son, enhancing its significance as a piece of horological history and its connection to the Titanic. The purchase was made by Patrick Gruhn, a former executive of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX, which led to some public commentary and snark regarding the transaction.

The sale of the watch has stirred some controversy, particularly among the Titanic preservation community. The Save Titanic Memorial Lighthouse group, composed of descendants of Titanic passengers, expressed concerns on social media about the auctioning of such artifacts, advocating that they should be placed in museums rather than private collections. Despite these concerns, the auction house reported that the complaints were minimal and emphasized that many Titanic artifacts eventually make their way into museum collections.

References

Al Jazeera is generally reliable. There's no author that I can find, and the "Source: News Agencies" at the bottom makes it questionable. https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/26/style/john-jacob-astor-watch-titanic-scli-intl-gbr/index.html is better.

As far as the level of detail that's WP:DUE and where to put it. It certainly doesn't belong in "Northern Ireland". I'll leave it to someone that's following this article closely as where such content should be placed.

If others feel that this is DUE in this or some related article, I propose:

In 2024, a gold pocket watch originally belonging to John Jacob Astor IV was sold at auction for £1.175 million (approximately $1.5 million), a record for Titanic memorabilia. The watch had been recovered from the wreckage in 1912.

I'm not finding any obvious article/section where it would belong. --Hipal (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Remove. Completely undue weight. One single item that adds zero to the overall understanding of the article. Has little real relevance. Canterbury Tail talk 02:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Engine were ordered to STOP, not reverse; request to mirror the Sinking of the Titanic wiki

To mirror the Sinking of the Titanic wiki, please add: "There is evidence that Murdoch simply signalled the engine room to stop, not reverse. Lead Fireman Frederick Barrett testified that the stop light came on, but even that order was not executed before the collision." with a cited source

Sinking of the Titanic#:~:text=About five minutes after the,south in the Labrador Current. NotBond007 (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing and Literacy in the Digital Age

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2024 and 13 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vanillacashewmilk (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Vanillacashewmilk (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Colorized newsboy photo

Why use a colorized (faked) photo? Does it feel more "poignant" that way? 2A02:AA1:164A:86B:44BF:B570:1CCE:589A (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 14 December 2024

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: not moved. per WP:SNOWBALL... It's crystal clear we're not reaching any consensus (closed by non-admin page mover) RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

---

• Titanic → RMS Titanic
• Sinking of the Titanic → Sinking of the RMS Titanic
• Wreck of the Titanic → Wreck of the RMS Titantic
• Crew of the Titanic → Crew of the RMS Titanic
• Passengers of the Titanic → Passengers of the RMS Titanic
• Memorials and monuments to victims of the Titanic → Memorials and monuments to victims of the RMS Titanic

– I think the "RMS" should be in the main articles at least which would be in line with the article names other famous sinkings, like the RMS Lusitania. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose the latter five. I think Sinking of the Titanic or Sinking of RMS Titanic is the usual idiom and I see no reason to add an extra word when one is not required or usual. DrKay (talk) 08:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Should be added, at least, to the main article but was floating around if it should be on the others. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose all. Titanic is the common name, familiar enough to retain its one-word title. RMS already exists at the first mention, and I'll add the 'RMS' to the infobox caption (which should contain the full name). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose all Per WP:COMMONNAME. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose with one alteration however Per WP:NC-SHIP. We should not be using the definite article in front of a ship name per WP:NC-SHIP so the article titles with "the" in front of Titanic should be moved to article titles excluding the definite article. So "Wreck of Titanic", "Crew of Titanic" etc. Canterbury Tail talk 13:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  The article is required in British English, which is what this is written in. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose – per common name GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support I can't see any reason for this to be inconsistent with all the other ship articles (e.g. RMS Olympic) also the name is ambiguous, Titanic is also the name of a blockbuster film. G-13114 (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  In fact at least eight feature films? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  And yet if I say "Titanic" in a sentence, most people will think of the actual ship before the film. The ship's popularity exceeds that of the film itself, so it is not a valid argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I tend to agree. Furthermore, unlike RMS Lusitania, there's no confusion with a region in modern day Portugal etc., to deal with. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, and per WP:NC-SHIP the prefix is optional but may be used for disambiguation or if it is more commonly known with it. However this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC so no disambiguation needed, and it isn't more commonly known with the prefix, so the addition is not needed. DankJae 20:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per the common name policy, and I suggest a WP:SNOWBALL close here (let's be honest – I'm sorry – but we're going nowhere with this). RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME. Theparties (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Snowball close? Nah. Iceberg close! Randy Kryn (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Britannica I've never known it by this name and its the primary topic so we don't need the longer name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. WaggersTALK 08:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 14:10, 16 December 2024 (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.