Talk:HMHS Britannic

Text snippets
Page created by moving article from RMS Britannic. Skeetch

''Two theories have emerged to explain why the ship went down. Some have argued that there was a secondary explosion caused by an illegal supply of munitions being transported on the hospital ship. New dives to the wreck have found no evidence for this, however. The second theory was that the water-tight doors that were meant to divide the ship into separate compartments failed to close; this theory has never been verified. It is known however that many portholes were opened earlier by hospital staff to ventilate the ship in preparation for boarding wounded upon arrival later that day. This was in violation of regulations for passage in a war zone and made the initial list irrecoverable.''

Hello to the author of this article. Here is some information you may wan't to add onto your article, I am glad you mentioned the water tight doors, however, you are wrong one regard. The water tight doors did not fail to operate, but were in fact deliberatly left open when Britannic struck the German mine. You see, the boiler stockers and other personnel would keep some water tight doors open for it would make it easier for maintenance personnel to move about through compartments. When Britannic sank, who ever was down on the lower decks was negligent in closing the water tight doors manually, allowing water to pour into the main boiler rooms and spread throughout the ship. Another reason why Britannic sank quickly was do to the poor construction of her hull. Britannic was made out of steel like her sister ships, and the steel was held together by millions of rivveds(sp?). These rivveds over long periods of time begin to decay underwater and are easy to pry loose under pressure. Britannic when striking the mine must have had more of her hull peeled away due to rivveds coming out of their places exposing the interior of the ship to more water furthering the rate of which Britannic sank.


 * OK, so the rivets "over a long period of time"  decay in a FOUR YEAR OLD ship  and it falls apart ?  Is that your theory ?Eregli bob (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Safety features
I'm not sure how it should be written into the article, but some information about the safety features incorporated into the Britannic 's design should be included in the article. According to Titanic by Thomas E. Bonsall (1987), enhanced safety features included:
 * Reinforced bulkheads and plating from the tank top through F Deck
 * Watertight bulkheads extending as far as the Bridge Deck
 * Designed to stay afloat with any six watertight compartments flooded (vs. two in Olympic and Titanic)
 * Huge gantry lifeboat davits designed to launch six lifeboats, and also to be able to launch the lifeboats on the opposite side of the ship if necessary

The help of anyone who can figure out how to squeeze this into the article would be greatly appreciated. Schuminweb 00:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

HMHS?
Does HMHS mean His Majesty's Hospital (Steam)Ship? Morhange 02:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The "S" stands for Ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.165.41 (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Dimensions
The stated tonnage figure is 50,000, presumably derived from http://www.hospitalshipbritannic.com/history.htm. Elsewhere on that site tonnage is given at 48,158, either as planned, id., or in 1915 after its completion. I changed it to the lower value, but then reverted it as the issue was unclear. The lower figure however is used by other sources as well and likely is the correct one. The dimensions stated appear to be maximum length instead of between pependiculars, and extreme breadth instead of moulded breadth. There does not seem to be any consistency on Wikipedia ship pages as to which figures are used. Maybe eventually someone with access to Lloyd's Register and a lot of time on his or her hands can make the entries consistent.

The displacement figure of 53,000 is from http://www.hospitalshipbritannic.com/rms_engines.htm, but elsewhere on that site it is stated as almost 79,000 tons.  The higher figure cannot be correct. For a vessel of Britannic's dimensions to displace 79,000 tons it would have to be a floating shoebox with a block coefficient of 1. 53,000 tons however is consistent with a figure calculated from its actual dimensions and likely block coefficient (using Titanic's block coefficient of .68). Kablammo 12:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The strange 79,000 tons figure is what was termed the Registered Displacement. It appears on the ship's papers, but how and why it was calculated is uncertain.  It certainly is not the real displacement.  It may represent the displacement when flooded sufficiently to reach a safety limit.  Further research is needed here.  Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.35.107 (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The website linked above also confuses gross tonnage with weight in the FAQ section. Gross tonnage is a measure of enclosed volume, not of weight. See tonnage. Filling up that volume with additional equipment or fixtures, or adding davits or other equipment outside the enclosed volume, will increase weight and therefore displacement, but will not increase gross tonnage. So the lower GRT figure likely is correct.

The 78,950 T figure for "Registered Displacement" is indeed strange. The formula for calculation of displacement is given on the tonnage page. Using this formula:


 * 852.5’ waterline length x 93.5’ moulded breadth x 34.6’ draught x block coefficient of .684; divided by 35 = 53,900 tonnes.

But if one were to forget to use the block coefficient the calculation would yield a displacement of 78,800 tonnes. Put another way, to displace nearly 79,000 tonnes, Britannic would have to be perfectly rectangular in all underwater dimensions. On her actual length, breadth, and block coefficient, to achieve a loaded displacement of 79,000 tonnes, she would have to have a loaded draught of nearly 51 feet. Britannic could not have displaced 79,000 tons; in fact neither the Queen Mary nor the Queen Mary 2 displace that much. Kablammo 12:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * For a non-naval vessel the 'tonnage' mentioned refers to the internal volume of the ship, not weight. A Registered Ton (RT) is 100 cubic feet. This is why ship owners often talk of 'shipping space' rather than weight, as for a cargo ship what matters is how much it can carry, not what it weighs. For a warship however, displacement (i.e., actual weight) is the measure used as that gives an idea of the amount of armour and guns the ship carries. The GRT (Gross Registered Ton), and other ship tonnage measures, are all derived from Lloyd's Register which required standardised forms of measurement for ship and cargo insurance purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.49.22 (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Cause Of The Sinking
It has been debated over the sinking. Some experts say it was a torpedo, others say it was a mine. I feel that should be changed.—VonV
 * There has been a lot of evidence for a mine hit as recent expeditions show. --Denniss 22:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I read in Robert Ballard's book that it is still unknown as to what caused it to sink. Couldn't it be ammended to say that some belive it was torpedoed. --ShortShadow 23:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Britannic was clearly marked as a hospital ship and so it is extremely unlikely that any submarine or other vessel of the Central Powers would have deliberately attacked her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

BRITANNIC LENGTH WTF???????
comparison

Is PBS/Ballard were smoking or what? Britannic lenght from Ballard is around 903ft ...well looks like he got confused with Aquitania.


 * The PBS source also confuses "gross tons" with "displacement". Kablammo 11:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The 903 feet overall length appears in contemporary magazines, but it is certainly wrong, as are many things in magazines. It's repeated ad nauseum on slipshod websites. Dave Gittins.16 March 2007

Torpedo Vs Mine theories
Should there be included a section on the theories of what caused the initial explosion. I believe I read that, but can not comfirm, a German U-boat commander claimed to have sunk the Britannic in his log book. --Martynd 00:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You probably read that the U-boat captain of U-73 recorded in his log that he had been active in the area where Britannic sank (i.e. laying mines), less than an hour before the explosion. Fionnlaoch (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to be re-written
I'd do this myself, but i'm not even sure if i'm postin this correctly.. i've read most of the article, and this isn't exactly like any other wikipedia page...the writing is crude, improper, and the writings don't mention a mine or a torpedo or whatever, unless you look at the the top right section... it only mentions an explosion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.93.154.103 (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

As of 15 March 2009, this page still needs to be edited heavily for a number of reasons:

1) There are only eight references in the whole article - the information may well be accurate, but its reliability cannot be proven without stating sources (as a piece of academic writing it would therefore have no credibility whatsoever). In academic writing - especially with regard to articles in which the subject matter and/or content could be disputed, EVERY individual point of information should be referenced accordingly;

2) The sections regarding the sinking are too narrative and often there is very little notion of context - this whole section needs to be re-written (with appropriate references to credible sources).

3) There is no explanation of the academic debate regarding the cause of the so-called 'explosion' (i.e. whether it was a torpedo, or a mine). This needs to be elaborated for purposes of clarity - it needs to be acknowledged that there is ongoing debate about what actually caused this explosion (and thus the sinking).

4) Generally speaking the narrative and language used is not coherent, nor does it adhere to the style conventions of an encyclopedic article (which are commonly used throughout other Wikipedia articles).

May I suggest that anyone wishing to edit this page refers to the Wikipedia entry on RMS Titanic for guidance on how to make the article more coherent with similar entries. I do not wish to question the credibility of any facts in the article (I am no expert on the subject matter and generally the content appears to be well-researched), but I am criticizing the manner in which it has been put together generally stylistically, and with regard to the lack of sources referenced. In academic writing - especially with regard to articles in which the subject matter and/or content could be disputed, EVERY individual point of information should be referenced accordingly. This is so that anyone reading the piece can verify the credibility of the information independently by looking at the same sources (in an academic context certain sources will always be considered less reliable than others). It is worth considering that if it is not possible to identify the source for a particular point of information, then the validity of the information is questionable; in a worst-case scenario it may be assumed that such points have been made up and are thus entirely inaccurate - i.e. not based on any relevant fact of truth at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eljuanlosgrand (talk • contribs) 07:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Original Research or Copyright Violation
This article appears to be completely OR. No references are given or anything. At the very least it's a copyvio. -- Kimon talk 15:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please explain the copyright violation claim. --Denniss 17:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

More Deaths than the Titanic?? WHAT?!?
"1,036 people were saved. Thirty men lost their lives in the disaster but only five were buried. The others were left in the water and their memory is honoured in memorials in Thessaloniki and London. Another twenty-four men were injured. Luckily, the ship had no patients. If that had been the case, probably the death toll would have been much higher, perhaps even greater than the Titanic."

If the Titanic had 1,500 some deaths, how could it ever be greater than the Titanic?? The final two sentences make no sense.

AlexForche (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the passage is speculative. The if patients were aboard, the number of people aboard would be greater than the number that was onboard Titanic. -MBK004 02:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Problem solved. The unsourced, speculative sentence is gone.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of the Sinking
Is the timeline of the sinking of the Britannic in this page is the correct one? Aquitania (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems about right, but that site shouldn't be used as a source, as it's not sufficiently reliable per WP:RS. Certainly a better source will have the information we desire.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Greek Legal Framework
In the year 2003 the Greek Government (ministry of culture), issued a Ministerial Order classifying "any wreck of ship or aeroplane, sunk for longer than 50 years from the present" as Cultural Assets / Monuments, setting also a protection zone of 300 meters around them. Terms and conditions for visiting any monument in Greece are set by the greek government (ministry of culture). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.89.195 (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Purchasing the wreck
Does anyone have any information on how much was paid to purchase the wreck and whether it was a purchase or a lease? sjwk (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Carl Spencer's death diving the Britannic wreck in 2009
Sadly, reknown British diver Carl Spencer died in a decompression-sickness-related deep-diving accident at the wreck of the Britannic [], reported just today, 2009-05-25. He was diving at approximately 300-feet (120 m) depth in the Mediterranean at the wreck of (Titanic's sister ship) Britannic, a bit "larger than the Titanic and deemed equally “unsinkable”, [which] sank in 57 minutes after hitting a mine in 1916 while serving as a First World War hospital ship. The wreck was discovered by Jacques Cousteau, the French underwater explorer, in 1975 but, at a depth of about 304ft (120 metres)." N2e (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not bad writing, but not particularly notable as far as Britannic is concerned. Maybe for the Carl Spencer article, but not here.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no Carl Spencer article. And he was 39, not 37.65.255.147.8 (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"Intended White Star Livery"
I've removed the purported photo of the "Britannic in her intended White Star livery before conversion to hospital ship". It's a Photoshop job. See http://titanic-model.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=100&topic_id=31597&mode=full&page= for details. Mgy401 1912 (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because the photo is a fake does not mean it is summarily removed. The caption should be modified, but there is still encyclopedic value to having the image in the article. -MBK004 03:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't care enough to get into a major discussion over this. It just seems to me that the "postcards" section of the article already has an image depicting Britannic in her intended peacetime livery.  Why not move that into the main body of the article, and dispense with the photoshopped fraud?  But since, on my talk page, you've all but threatened to block me if I do anything else on this--do whatever you want.  I'm out.  Mgy401 1912 (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've re-captioned the image to show that it's an artist's conception. Upon closer examination, I saw the crosses on the hull as well.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sinking angle at the final moment
The Britannic was 882ft/269m long. The ship lies at about 400ft/120m deep, less than twice the length of the ship. The bow is bent because it reached the seabed before the sinking was complete (the rolling over to starboard side caused the bow to bend). Therefore, the timeline of the sinking on this page is never true (the sinking angle is too much). The sinking should be more identical to the one in the film Britannic. Aquitania (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.233.69 (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The article also states "the funnels began collapsing" when the ship rolled over. I don't know how the only photo of the sinking at the section "Final moments" was taken, but I am certain that the photo was taken just second before the ship rolled over (the ship's propellers exposed and the waterline reached the forward funnel). Aquitania (talk) 03:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Timing of John Chatterton's Rebreather Failure
In the 2006 expedition section, it says "John Chatterton's rebreather famously failed whilst he was still deep inside the wreck."

According to the History Channel TV show, this failure was on his earlier expedition.

Ralph X. Williams III (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Last voyage
I have a slight issue with the last voyage section. The Evacuation section makes mention of "carnage" after two lifeboats drifted into the props, but end of the Rescue section notes that only 30 men died and only 24 men out of 1036 survivors were injured. The mention of "surviving doctors and nurses" and "the horribly mutilated men" does not provide sufficient context about how many of the total number of dead and injured were in those two lifeboats, how many of the medical staff were among the dead and injured (reading literally, none of the female nurses) or how many doctors/nurses/injured were among the 150 reaching Korissia. ShipFan (talk) 08:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The sinking coordinates are wrong
Those coordinates in Google Earth are in the middle of an island. Will (Talk - contribs) 11:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, isn't that a beaut. Time to do more research, it seems...  SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Torpedoed, not mined
According to Jacques Cousteau, reported in, Britannic was sunk by a single torpedo. She did not strike a mine. Any opinions on changing the article? Mjroots (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * We have a large section on the different possibilities and theories as to what sank Britannic. Cousteau's dive in the seventies has been superseded by better equipped research and dives, including the 2003 one which attributed the cause to a mine. While I would have no objection to adding Cousteau's opinion that it was a torpedo to that section, with the proper contextualization, it should not be used to state definitively a cause. Benea (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅, added the info, stating it was Cousteau's opinion. Mjroots (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Gigantic name rumour
I've tried to clarify the Gigantic rumour. So far, I've got two internet sources to show for it. One quoting the owner of the wreck and the H&W historian, the other from Mark Chirnside, who has written lengthy articles on the subject for the Titanic Historical Society. That same Mr Chirnside has also published a book - "Olympic Titanic Britannic - An illustrated History of the Olympic Class Ships" - which shows a facsimile of the H&W order book from October 2011, already showing the name Britannic. A month before its keel was laid, and about six months before Titanic sank. I've held the book in my hands and saw that facsimile, and I'll add the exact pages as soon as I actually own that book.--afromme (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just found this: http://titanichistoricalsociety.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=783&sid=76d18dd6f6c9f3e8c256d3bbd54582e5 Forum thread at the Titanic Historical Society in which the three people in question - the author Mark Chirnside, the Britannic's owner Simon Mills, and H&W's historian Tom McCluskie, discuss the issue in a bit more depth and provide some proof to their arguments. Their consensus is that it was Gigantic at least 6 months before Titanic set off on its maiden voyage. --afromme (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean it was Britannic six months before Titanic's maiden voyage.

The so-called poster of Gigantic is not a shipping poster at all. Researcher Mark Baber has shown that it is a packing slip for bedding, probably blankets. The figures in the middle are a standard blanket dimension, in inches.

Dave Gittins 15 May 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.240.70 (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Gallipoli campaign
"After completing five successful voyages to the Middle Eastern theatre and back to the United Kingdom transporting the sick and wounded, Britannic departed Southampton for Lemnos at 14:23 on 12 November 1916, her sixth voyage to the Mediterranean Sea. "

OK so the "Gallipoli Campaign" started with naval activities in the Dardanelles and followed by land campaign from April 1915  which ended with British and allied withdrawal in January 1916. Focus then switched to the campaign from Egypt towards Palestine and Syria. So what was Britannic actually doing heading for northern Aegean in November 1916,  ten months after Gallipoli Campaign ended ? Eregli bob (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The port of Mudros, on Lemnos, was the gathering point for casualties from all the Mediterranean theatres at the time. Benea (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Arms on HMHS Britannic
The HMHS Britannic was never armed with "four anti-torpedo guns". This would have been a violation of her status as a hospital ship. The relative sentence has been deleted. This myth was created by a scene from the movie "BRITANNIC", where the crew is trying to stop an incoming torpedo by using machine guns. She had a lowis gun on deck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.101.182.34 (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

When did the lights go out?
I cannot seem to find any sources that state when Britannic's lights went out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.251.144 (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Worth mentioning
Does anyone think it might be worth mentioning the 100th Anniversary of her sinking?--Expertseeker90 (talk) 08:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

BBC Contradictions
Article claim 1 "As they reached the turning blades, both lifeboats, together with their occupants, were torn to pieces. Word of the carnage arrived on the bridge, and Captain Bartlett, seeing that water was entering more rapidly as Britannic was moving and that there was a risk of more victims, gave the order to stop the engines."

BBC Correction 1 (BBC2 documentary, Titanic's Tragic Twin.) The BBC claim is that Captain Bartlett spent 30 minutes swimming until being picked up and only then became aware of the propeller blade carnage.

Article claim 2 "... he and Assistant Commander Dyke walked off onto the deck and entered the water, swimming to a collapsible boat from which they continued to coordinate the rescue operations".

BBC Correction 2 The BBC state that Bartlett spent 30 minutes swimming around before being picked up. The article reads as if he swam to a collapsible boat within minutes to coordinate the rescue when in fact it was a full 30 minutes before he was picked up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.92.95.78 (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The Name Britannic was not the planned name, but because of Titanic disaster they cancelled the originally name which was more heroic like Olympic and Titanic.
.I do not remember the first planned name? Do anyone? It was not Britannic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.106.74.99 (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This was proven untrue as there are no records of the Britannic ever being called Gigantic. "Britannic" comes from the British Empire. IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Photograph of the sinking and newspaper propaganda
1. In this article, a long time ago, there was a photo of the sinking, uploaded by me (who found it on the internet) under my old Commons username (before the automatic corresponding Commons account creation). It has since been removed. The photo is also on the French article (and other languages). Should I re-add it? I must admit that I am skeptical from the beginning about how did the photo come about (who took it and from where was it taken)?

2. The French article, from which I am translating, contains a section on the newspaper propaganda (and the question of exactly what caused the sinking). It relied on a single source: Mark Chirnside's book. I think that if the sinking and propaganda concerning it was on newspapers, there should be an image of them or the pages should be searchable online. I did not own the book myself, so I do not know on what primary sources did he rely. The question is whether to translate the section into English and add the citation accordingly. VarunSoon (talk) 08:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

War munitions
Britannic was transporting war munitions, like all British hospital ships. (86.147.59.246 (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC))

In popular culture
I saw that you removed the sentence I added to the "in popular culture" section about the novel - was this because it didn't have a source? If so, I was curious as to why the other sentence (which also lacked sourcing or an article and you tagged it as CN) was left in the article. Books fall within the realm of popular culture and are commonly included in the IPC sections. (The popular culture article for the Titanic has a section that lists books, for example.) Almost half of the novel is set on the HMHS Brittanic so it's not a small trivial mention in the book. I'd say that about 40% of the book's plot takes part on the Brittanic, less than 5% on land, and the rest takes place on the Titanic.

I was just curious as to why you removed this. I've re-added this with sourcing that specifically mentions that it's partially set on the Brittanic in case that was the issue. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  02:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:IPCV, pop culture references need a citation to an independent source that not only establishes their existence, but that the reference was considered significant in some manner. Or, as I like to put it, a citation that not only establishes that the tree fell in the woods, but that it made a sound when it fell. So, you'll need a citation that involves someone discussing the book to some degree.
 * As for the other one, I tagged rather than removing it because in that cause I couldn't identify the responsible editor and/or it wasn't a recent edit. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * That makes sense - I figured it was likely that I forgot to add a source! Thanks for responding so quickly! ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡) 
 * You're welcome! Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Bell found in 2019 dive
Discovered today on youtube that a dive in 2019 actually found the bell from the crows nest right below the mast sitting on the bottom. Should we update the main page to include this find?

The video in question is Britannic's Lost Bell by Richard Simon if anyone wants to give it a watch. WestRail642fan (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Britannic & Olympic Sisters Together in Belfast Shipyard.jpg

Was the (1914) move discussed? Does it matter?
This article was moved, a short while ago, from HMHS Britannic to HMHS Britannic (1914). Unless I have missed it, in which case apologies, there seems to have been no discussion of this, which I find surprising. I'd have expected usually to have the opportunity to say whether I thought it was a good move or not, but that seems to have not happened. Maybe we are OK with this and it was a good move? I would just like to know what other editors think, please. Sure, all of this is ignoring the problems – presumably caused by inexperience, and therefore good to learn from – that the mover had with the process, which is quite separate from the question of whether or not it was a sensible move to make. With best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: Just adding pings for, and  as the mover and two people who were since involved, in case they wanted to comment. But no rush. Cheers DBaK (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope not discussed and the 1914 is an unnecessary dab Lyndaship (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * - I was asked to reunite the article and the talk page, which I did. No reason the article cannot be moved back to its previous title. Mjroots (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! I see that since I started this topic, it has indeed been moved back to the undated version. Personally I prefer this – though I would always be happy to discuss – and I am grateful to those who sorted this out. Thanks, all DBaK (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Map
Alongside the section on the Last voyage are two graphics: the left-hand one is a map showing the Cyclades archipelago; the right-hand one is an aerial view of a small part of the upper left-hand corner of the map. 1. The map's caption is "The location of Kea in the Cyclades archipelago in the Aegean Sea" - but two islands are shown in red … it's not until reading the caption of the aerial view - "The channel between Kea (left) and Makronisos" - that the reader can work out that Kea is the larger island. May I suggest that the map does not show Makronisos in red? That way there's no doubt that the island shown in red is Kea. 2. The aerial view is rotated through about 110° … but there seems to be no reason for doing so. Why not use a view that's aligned with the map? See thumb. Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Help
I accidentaly broke an image. at the "explosion" part in the article, all the way to the right. how do i fix this? 104.235.68.154 (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Also it is an article about a British item so uses British English.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * oh so it was spelled right to begin with, i didnt need to change anything? 104.235.68.154 (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Britannic was spelt wrong so I've left those. The file for the image has the name spelt wrongly so when that was changed it broke the link. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * got it. also thats an..... interesting username 104.235.68.154 (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have so many user names on so many sites I now just pick an object on the desk in front of me. Kitchen Knife (talk) 10:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

British English articles do not use the Imperial system
If this article is written in British English, then why does it primarily use the imperial system, used mostly by the United States, and not the metric system? Æ&#39;s old account wasn&#39;t working (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Death toll of disaster
In the article, it cites the total death toll to be 30. This appears to be accurate, and consistent with the 1,036 survivors out of 1,066. However, it tells of several deaths after the sinking, in addition to 30 deaths from the lifeboat accident. Are the deaths after the sinking included in the final toll? It is written as if it is, but the numbers don't add up. CarsonBoardman (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Date of sinking vs mine laid
Both the info-box and the page on SM U-73 states that the mine was laid earlier the same day – the text of this article states the mine was laid on 21st of October exactly 1 month before the Britannic hit it. fancsali (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)