Talk:Sinking of the Titanic/Archive 1

"America" or "Amerika"?
Shouldn't "America" in the first paragraph title be changed to "Amerika"? The ship's name was spelled with a "K" in 1912. The ship's article says it was only changed to "C" after World War I, which, in case you didn't know, as it appears so, started in 1914. VolatileChemical 04:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't that also the spelling of it in German, just like "Atlantik"? 65.255.130.104 05:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Lightoller's testimony
Noting that this passage has been needing a citation for a long while (I don't know who originally put in the part about Lightoller here), I hunted around. Never found this exact reference, nor anything similar in the American inquiry. (Could have missed it.) But I did find a similar quote in the British inquiry: Lightoller's testimony on Day 12 of British Board of Trade Inquiry. Lightoller says this near the bottom of that page. So I've changed the wiki text to reflect a quote that at least can be verified somewhere. Scholastica547 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

New Information from the Wreck
I would like to take a hard look at the description of the sinking given here, as some important questions now surround the traditional story. This will take a while. Rumiton 09:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent survival ratios
The sections "Titanic founders" and "Investigation, safety rules and the Californian" give different accounts of the survival ratios of genders and classes. In the latter case this may be referring to incorrect information stated at the time, but this is unclear from the text.

83.250.197.97 19:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Survivors from water?

 * Only 10 survivors were pulled from the water into lifeboats.

I don't quite understand this. If one lifeboat recovered 8 people from the water and another 4, where did the 10 come from? At first I thought this was referring to people survived the disaster completely i.e. those who later died were discounted. But this adds up to 9 not 10 Nil Einne 15:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The effect of reversing the engines
I would like to make the point in the article that whatever jingle-jangling noises the officer of the watch made with the telegraphs, in the 37 seconds before collision they would have had no effect at all (or negligible) on the rotational speed of the propellers, and therefore none on the speed of the ship through the water. The turbines that drove them would have needed at least a minute after the valve was shut before astern steam could have been safely applied. So his action didn't "make turning more difficult," it didn't do anything. The astern movement would have just been taking effect when the captain reached the bridge. Rumiton 06:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note: The Titanic did not have steam turbine engines, it had two four-cylinder triple-expansion reciprocating engines, starboard and port. The excess steam from those engines ran a low-pressure steam turbine powering the center propeller, and that could only operate in forward motion. It may be useful to the article to cite how long it takes to reverse a reciprocating engine. The "fact" that Murdoch "doomed the ship" by reversing the engines has problems since it is not clear that Murdoch gave such an order and it may just be a popular cultural notion put forward in books and movies. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 15:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I corrected my mistake later in this page. Whether they were turbines or steam-recip (which you are right, they were) they wouldn't have had time to even slow the propellers appreciably before the collison, let alone reduce the headway of the ship. It seems that someone on the bridge rang full astern, but the testimony of one of the firemen was that the main engines did not completely stop until about half a minute after the collison. Rumiton 14:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not what Murdoch did with the propellers of the ship had any kind of effect is debatable because we have very little direct evidence as to what the facts are or even what Murdoch's intentions were (since he went down with the ship). We don't even know if there was only 37 seconds, that number was an estimate made by Harland & Wolff, based on tests with the Olympic. Murdoch's intentions may not have been to turn or slow the ship as much as they were to avoid server damage to the ship. From Murdoch's personal experience and expertise with this series of ships, the worst that could happen would be to drive full ahead or full reverse on the propellers and turn hard left. This would a) - cause the ship to turn sideways to the berg (46,328 tons of ship at full speed tends to keeps going in a straight line no mater how hard you turn it), and b) - cause server damage to the starboard propeller/shat/engine if it hit the berg at full RPMs forward or reverse. The results of this maneuver would be damage starting at the center of the ship back and damage to the starboard propeller and probably the engine. This is not what we have. We have a ship with damage to the bow, and the remainder of the ship, including the propellers, clearing the berg with aparently no damage. So on the face of it, Murdoch's jingle-jangling with the telegraph may have done something since we don’t have the damage you would expect with the propellers running at near full RPM with a port turn only. And if that jingle-jangling was an order of STOP on the starboard telegraph and FULL-ASTERN on the port telegraph with a greater distance to the berg it did make all the difference in the world (except for the fact that the ship sank due to minor damage to the bow :^. But like I said--- its all speculation, we don't have the guy and we don't have the ship. It would be useful to the article to cite the various testimony (like the one Rumiton cite above), and various theories and current thinking on the subject, as long as they fall with WP:Undue weight. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 15:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the testimony of the fireman who stated that the engines did not fully stop until some time after the collision means a great deal and rings true to me. It was the rudder that created the glancing angle of impact. I know it does not make me a source for Wiki and I fully accept that, but I served for ten years as Chief Officer on all of the world's last four coal-burning steamships of Titanic's size. There are a number of things about this article that grate badly, but it is too time-consuming to look for sources to back up what I know to be the most likely truth. Rumiton (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The turning point of the disaster came at 1:15 a.m., when the openings at the bow for the anchors went under the water
What "openings at the bow"? Were they the hawsepipes? Surely not, they pierce the focsle and come out on the upper deck at the windlass. No ingress is possible. Were they the spurling pipes on the focsle deck leading to the chain lockers? Unlikely. They are barely wide enough to accept the chain, and are blocked with concrete plugs at sea. And for them to be under water the entire fore part of the vessel would have to be submerged, allowing water to enter through vents and doors far in excess of the small amount that might get in through spurlings. And what is the source for all that lurid garbage? Gosh, this article is irritating. Rumiton (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed text on alternative theories
A number of alternative theories diverging from the standard explanation for the Titanic's demise have been brought forth since shortly after the sinking. These include a coal fire; pack ice rather than an iceberg; the notion that White Star sailed the nearly identical Olympic and not Titanic as part of an insurance scam; and even a mummy's curse. Biruitorul (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Main article - section "1:45 PM - Iceberg Warnings" -    NPOV ??
The following comments are made in final part of that section…. 'Although there were warnings, there were no operational or safety reasons to slow down or alter course. The Titanic had three teams of two lookouts high up in the crow's nest who were rotated every two hours, and on any other night it is almost certain they would have seen the iceberg in time. However, a combination of factors came into play, and with no moon, no wind, no binoculars and the dark side of the berg facing the ship, the lookouts were powerless. As Lightoller stated at the British inquiry, "Everything was against us."

Although it may not have been intended, those comments read more like an exoneration than an explanation and they hardly represent a neutral point of view. Contrary to what is implied in that section of the article, the 'combination of factors which came into play' were, in fact, significant operational and safety reasons for slowing down or taking other positive action.

Icebergs vary greatly in their sizes, shapes and visibility. It's no more than wishful thinking to believe that they can always be sighted in darkness.

With regard to the lookouts, they were positioned in a cramped, exposed, crow's nest where they were experiencing air temperatures around zero plus a windchill of more than twenty knots in their faces. In those conditions their effectiveness as lookouts would have been quite limited. That is something which should have been apparent to the officer of the watch at the time. There were two junior officers on watch plus a stand-by quartermaster and there was nothing in evidence to suggest they had urgent duties which would have prevented them from being used as supplementary lookouts as soon as it became dark. There were also plenty of other seamen available who could have been used for lookout duties right forward - on the forecastle head.

'No Moon', 'No wind', 'No binoculars'. These may have been factors but they were known factors. All of them were obvious, long before the Titanic approached the reported ice field. In other words, they were additional reasons to proceed with caution.

Although Lightoller stated that 'Everything was against us' - an objective assessment might reasonably conclude that there appears to have been an unusual degree of complacency, on the bridge of the Titanic, during that evening. That was the main thing that was against them. sgn J. Fowler - 1530 12th. September 2008
 * J. Fowler, your comment on the neutrality is quite valid. I have changed this line from:
 * "Although there were warnings, there were no operational or safety reasons to slow down or alter course." to:
 * "Although there were warnings, the crew found no operational or safety reasons to slow down or alter course.".
 * Jay (talk) 11:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Titanicpic1.JPG
The image Image:Titanicpic1.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --14:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Why no binoculars?
Section "13:45 - Iceberg warnings" says: "However, a combination of factors came into play, and with no moon, no wind, no binoculars and the dark side of the berg facing the ship". Why where there no binoculars? Jay (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I tracked the history of this one. The "Timeline of the sinking of the RMS Titanic" article was moved from article RMS Titanic. The information about the binoculars was added by anonymous user on 5 January 2007 (revision 98722582), based on information available in Frederick Fleet. Jay (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There were a number of reasons why the lookouts did not have a pair of binoculars on April 14, 1912, (even though they were standard equipment carried by the White Star Line's ships). One reason: a last minute change of the officer in charge of equipment.  David Blair (mariner) was replaced by Henry Wilde.  He was replaced because Henry Wilde was thought to be more experienced.   The replaced officer accidently took the key to the storage locker when he got off the ship. Apparently, once they were at sea, they could not find a duplicate key to the storage locker, or another pair of binoculars.  (The key to the locker was recently offerred for sale on E-Bay!). Another reason was given by polar explorer Admiral Robert Peary:  "Many things are forgotten during a ship's rush to its maiden voyage." "Some common items because of their very commonness are overlooked". From "The Titanic" by Wyn Craig Wade, 1979, pages 236 - 237.  In the Admiral's opinion, having a pair of binoculars could have made a difference as to when the iceberg was sighted.  The lookouts on the ship asked Second Officer Charles Lightoller in Southampton for a pair of binoculars and were told: "There was none for us". All of the lookouts agreed if there had been a pair of binoculars available, the iceberg might have been sighted a lot sooner, and there would have been enough time to avoid the collision. Ref. "The Titanic" W. Wade, pages, 233 - 236. Today, the British Navy uses a combination of binoculars and the uncovered eye to look for icebergs.  Another reference book which metions the lack of binoculars on the ship is: "Titanic The Death and Life of a Legend" by Michael Davie, 1986, pages 40 - 43.74.76.223.87 (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Bennett Turk


 * I had posted the question on the reference desk as well, where I have talked about the inconsistencies. Blair did lock the storage locker but were the binoculars in them? As per encyclopedia-titanica.org they were not, rather they were in Blair's cabin. Jay (talk) 10:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Another passenger who felt binoculars could have made a difference is Major Arthur Godfrey Peuchen, a Canadian manufacturer and yachtsman, who also critized the lack of experienced sailors aboard the Titanic, and the lack of drills from the time the ship left England, even though it was customary to hold drills every Sunday, (the very day of the week the ship hit the iceberg). Ref. "Story of the Wreck if the Titanic" by Mashall Everett, 1912, pages 287 - 288.74.76.223.87 (talk) 06:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Bennett Turk


 * The presence of binoculars making a difference could well be wishful thinking. Here is an abridged excerpt from the enquiry where Frederick Fleet, the lookout who spotted the iceberg says that binoculars were only a second option to confirm something seen by the naked eye:


 * Senator BURTON: There is one question that I would like to ask this man in addition to what I have already asked him: When you use the glasses or have the glasses to use, what part of the time do you have the glasses to your eyes and what part of the time do you depend on your naked eyesight?
 * Mr. FLEET: If we fancied we saw anything on the horizon, then we would have the glasses to make sure.
 * Senator BURTON: That is, if you saw anything on the horizon with the naked eye, you would use the glasses -
 * Mr. FLEET: You would use the glasses to make sure, before you reported.
 * Senator BURTON: Then you depend on your eyesight to see; before you use the glasses?
 * Mr. FLEET: Yes.
 * Senator BURTON: And if you have any doubt about it you use the glasses, then?
 * Mr. FLEET: That is it.


 * Jay (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The tale of the 'missing' key for the binocular locker is certainly one of the intriguing points in the legend. The story may simply have been an attempt to fudge the issues because it would be a strange thing to find a locker, on any ship, which couldn't be opened by anyone with initiative. If it's essential to get at the equipment inside a locker and the key is missing, there are other ways to solve the problem. As a last resort,it's always possible to use a crowbar on the lock. signed J.Fowler  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.200.186 (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact here is that the lookouts didn't know they had binoculars on board for them to use. Also they were made to understand that they didn't require to use binoculars on the Southampton to New York phase of the voyage. So they didn't have a need to open the locker, bu force or otherwise. Jay (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Given the circumstances of the time - (i.e. it was a time when modern prismatic type binoculars were not commonly available for general use on ships, plus the more significant point of the freezing conditions which the Titanic's lookouts were experiencing on that particular night) - it does seem unlikely that the availability of binoculars would have assisted in preventing the collision. However, it's a basic tenet that, if aids to navigation are there, then they should be used for the purpose intended. That would seem to be a key point in this debate. Whether the binoculars were in a locked box or lost somewhere among the other stores - they weren't being used for the purpose intended.Norloch (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It has been several years since I read Wyn Craig Wade's book, but I seem to recall a comment, made by one of the persons who testified at the United States Senate inquiry, that binoculars could actually be a detriment, as some lookouts would keep them "glued" to their face, and thus diminish their ability to be observant. John Paul Parks (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am very certain the person who testifed under oath that binoculars would have made no difference was in fact Second Officer Charles Lightoller, the very same person who said there were no binoculars for the lookouts, when they asked for them in Southamton. I think it is probable that before the collision, there was a feeling that nothing serious could happen to the ship, and that the lookouts did not need to have a pair of binoculars.  After the accident, there was probably a "cover your a--" attitude to justify why the lookouts did not a piece of equipment they asked for several days before the incident. Having a pair of binoculars could have acted like a pair of goggles and shielded the eyes of the lookouts from the cold weather, and improved their vision that way.  The bottom line is No one will ever be able to say with 100% certainty whether or not binoculars would have made a difference as to when the lookouts saw the iceberg, and if a pair could have helped to avoid the accident by giving a few needed seconds of advance warning to the bridge.  Nevertheless binoculars were Standard equipment on White Star Line ships and the lookouts should have been given a pair.  It's almost like saying most of the people who died did not drown, but, instead froze to death in the icy water, therefore, they did not need life jackets which were also standard equipment.204.80.61.110 (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Bennett Turk


 * Here are the final reports of the U.S. Inquiry and the British Inquiry. While the U.S. Inquiry report did not mention anything about binoculars, in the British Inquiry, the finding of the court was that binoculars would not have made a difference:
 * ''11. (a.) Were binoculars provided for and used by the look-out men? (b.) Is the use of them necessary or usual in such circumstances?
 * Answer:
 * (a.) No
 * (b.) No
 * Jay (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Another point to bear in mind is that ship's binoculars were/are not that good. The magnification has to be kept down so vibration doesn't affect them, and that restricts the size of the objective lens. 7x50 is common. And optics have come a long way since 1912. The evidence given about keeping a lookout with naked eye and looking through binoculars when something was spotted seems about right to me. Rumiton (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Iceburg Right ahead section
This section appears to be nothing but the script from the Movie, i would suggest the conversation in this section be removed unless a source can be provided? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.157.153 (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

12:45 AM - First lifeboat lowered
Why are we having seemingly arbitrary changes of this time from 12.27 to 12.40 am, etc, etc, when no verification is offered? Without reliable citations, none of the times are valid and maybe all should be deleted. However, the relevant official inquiries will surely be a source for such citations, so why can't the interested editors dig them out for us? Cheers Bjenks (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's unlikely that the precise times of specific events can ever be conclusively established. We have the estimated times of events given by a variety of witnesses but it has to be remembered that they weren't working to one standard co-ordinated time. At the moment of collision, different individuals would have been keeping different clock times - because we know the official ship's time was being altered each day as it progressed to the west. The 'official' logbook time was normally changed at midnight and all the ship's clocks should have been altered at about that time - or, at least, that would have been the normal routine - if the ship hadn't struck an iceberg, shortly before midnight! It's possible that some individuals changed their timepieces, from 'old' time to 'new' time, some hours before the official midnight change. Others may have decided just to leave their timepieces on 'old' time, until the following morning. It was also customary for those working shifts or watches to divide the minutes of the daily time change evenly between the different shifts to avoid arguments. Some watchkeepers may well have adjusted their personal timepieces to allow for that sub-division as well. The 1912 investigations made some attempt to establish a standard time for events but there can never be a certainty that the times given by individual witnesses were co-ordinated to that standard. The differences would only have been a matter of minutes but - of course - it's the precise minutes which we are discussing here.Norloch (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then, shouldn't the article say, near the top, that all times are approximately local mean solar time rather than GMT or other widespread standard, and most are subject to unknown or imprecisely known adjustments? Otherwise we are giving a false indication of precision, seems to me.  Jim.henderson (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Number of passengers
As per RMS Titanic the passenger total was

but as per this article they are

Which is correct --Bkopicz3 (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And neither of them agrees with the figures in the 1912 official report as presented here (but at least the numbers in the chart in RMS Titanic add up to the totals given, whereas the ones in this article don't). The figures in the chart in this article also don't agree with those given in the article's running text. Someone who is familiar with the most reliable sources on the topic really should sort the matter out once and for all, supplying good citations. Deor (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Mount Temple section
While all ships deserve credit for their role in trying to rush to the Titanic, does the Mount Temple really need a section? Both the Mount Temple and Carpathia were almost the same distance away(about 50 and 58 miles respectively using the position the Titanic sent out) Both ships were heading for the same position that the Titanic had given. While the Titanic's actual position did put it a few miles closer the Carpathia, it's hard to play alternate history and known who would've gotten there first. For starters the Carpathia broke over 18 knots that night by diverting nearly all steam into the engines. The difference in speed reached between the Carpathia and Mount Temple alone makes up for the few miles difference between them and further throws into doubt who would've arrived first. Also in Titanic: Triumph and Tragedy, there's a breakdown of the messages sent out that night, and while the Mount Temple and La Provence both are listed as first hearing the CQD at 12:15 with the Carpathia hearing it 10min later, so again the times are nearly exactly the same. TheMadcapSyd (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the Mount Temple section is a useful contribution to the article. In agreement that we shouldn't speculate too much on alternate histories, but the Mount Temple evidence does highlight the confusion that resulted from the incorrect S.O.S. position which was transmitted from Titanic. The evidence of uncertainty about the true position of Titanic is an unexplained feature of the 1912 Inquiries. Why the evidence from both Carpathia and Mount Temple was ignored in the Inquiry conclusions is something which has still to be revealed.Norloch (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think 4th officer Boxhall stated in testimony that he was asked to get a position for the ship and did 4, though quickly and in regards to longitude taking for what speed he assumed the ship was going. The original position the Titanic sent out was 41.44N 50.24W before given the "correct" one some minutes later of 41.46N 50.14W —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMadcapSyd (talk • contribs) 04:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

At the US Inquiry, Captain Moore (S.S.Mount Temple) stated that his navigators had obtained an accurate longitude from sun sights, on the morning of April 15th. (Mount Temple's longitude was 50.09W, if I recall correctly.) Captain Moore also stated he had observed the Carpathia's rescue operations - well to the east of that longitude - on the other side of an intervening ice field. This evidence, when considered in conjunction with the evidence from Captain Rostron (S.S.Carpathia) at the British Inquiry, should have raised some doubts about the accuracy of Titanic's S.O.S. position. For unknown reasons, the Inquiry conclusions apparently chose to ignore this evidence.Norloch (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Samson
I corrected the spelling of the Samson - and then explained that its participation in the events of that night has long since been debunked. JonestheDragon (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Third picture
The third picture, is inaccurate and actually easily shown to be inconsistent with the others. Should I write an article about refuting this picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.234.66 (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Which picture are you talking about?TheMadcapSyd (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

00:45 – First lifeboat lowered
Lightoller is quoted as saying he had difficulty communicating with Capt Smith but we don't say why. The shriek of blowing steam release valves made conversation impossible on the bridge, but this paragraph made it sound like Smith was stunned or preoccupied or something. Rumiton (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing from book not yet out
This edit added material from The Economic Times, New Delhi, in turn offering a story from the Daily Telegraph, London, reporting on research due to be published in April 2012. My point: should we wait until the definitive version comes out? It will be ISBN 0752462105, if anybody wants to reserve their copy. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, no dissenters: removing pending publication. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Revision of some details
First of all, i think this page is becoming a VERY good page in Wikipedia, as most opinion is being fazed out. Only a couple things, i believe the animation of the sinking should be removed, because it has been discredited in recent years. and much new info has come forward, also discrediting the fact that rivets snapped. I guess we'll never really know, but we do have more understanding now. more info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glman99 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Number saved/lost
The British inquiry gives two figures in different places in the report. In one place it says 1490 were lost, and in another 1514. The American inquiry says 1517 were lost. We know the British inquiry figures are not reliable because they say all the first-class children were saved, but we know Allison was not. So, I don't think selecting the British inquiry's figures as a definite number is wise. DrKay (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The range of figures 1,490 to 1,635 is attributed to Walter Lord (1976), i.e., a source from 60 years later which is a landmark source. Your sole example is of the sole first-class cum second-class child to have died, i.e., an instance where the British commission missed ONE person. Therefore, your reasoning is skimpy. Now, what we need is for WP editors to address this issue. What does Lord (1976) say, and how has his research on the issue been superseded? Hurmata (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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


 * RMS Titanic - 430,012 page views
 * Sinking of the RMS Titanic cscr-featured.svg - 177,040
 * Titanic (1997 film) Symbol_support_vote.svg - 132,054
 * Passengers of the RMS Titanic - 38,273
 * RMS Carpathia - 33,952
 * Wreck of the RMS Titanic - 30,051
 * Lifeboats of the RMS Titanic - 13,270
 * List of films about the RMS Titanic - 10,226
 * Crew of the RMS Titanic - 9,541
 * RMS Titanic in popular culture - 8,418
 * Changes in safety practices following the RMS Titanic disaster - 4,095
 * Total page views for Featured box articles - 886,932

Well done to everyone who contributed to making Wikipedia's commemoration of the Titanic such a big success! Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow! North8000 (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Rewriting some things
The history channels Titanic at 100 has shown new pieces of evidence on the break up theory. It shows that big chunks of deck came loose instead of a flaking away effect. It also shows evidence that the stern did indeed rotate like a helicoptor blade as she sank to the ocean floor, as shown with the sea floor being fanned out near the stern wreckage on the sonar map. The pieces of the double-bottom hull clearly show signs that it was the last piece holding the ship together, shown with the stretching of metal at the fracture point. Though i cannot find website sources, I believe that this atricle should be updated with the new findings. Zyon788 (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Last moments
This section puts forward the notion that the ship broke in half on the surface before sinking, and that the eyewitnesses who didn’t see this happen were “mistaken”. It also uses phrases like “clearly indicated” and “evidently caused” which are inappropriate in a neutral account. I presume this is based on Ballard's findings (and popularized by Cameron's film) and is their theory explaining why the wreck is in two pieces on the ocean floor, but it is still a theory, not undeniable fact; and as it contradicts the findings of both courts of enquiry and all reliable sources from then until recently, it should be presented in a neutral fashion. It isn’t the role of WP to pass judgement on the matter. Also, it would also be useful to know how well received, and how widely accepted, their theory about this is. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Inquiries articles
Posting a brief section here to point out that there are two new articles on the inquiries into the sinking. See United States Senate inquiry into the sinking of the RMS Titanic and British Wreck Commissioner's inquiry into the sinking of the RMS Titanic. Only a start so far, though others are helping to expand, and I'm hoping some here will also pitch in and help out in whatever way they can. Also, if anyone has good sources on the more obscure hearings (e.g. the New York court case - known as the Limitations of Liability hearings, and the 'Second Bulkhead Committee' that reported in 1915), those would be greatly appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC) PS. For those in the UK, the SOS: The Titanic Inquiry dramatisation of the British inquiry is well worth watching, only broadcast in Northern Ireland, but available on the iPlayer.
 * I've added them to the template; good work! Xyl 54 (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Caption of infobox image
Please see my discussion on RMS Titanic talk page, re: Untergang der Titanic by Willy Stöwer, 1912. (That description does not accurately describe the image, nor even a reasonable facsimile thereof). Also: this image is/was not a "painting". (noun: 1. a picture or design executed in paints.) ~E22:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Caption clarified accordingly

Suggested image:

Someone with upload privilege[not me] could upload the following, and make a case for fair use / public domain; (description: detail from Untergang der Titanic by Willy Stöwer, 1912) ~E 01:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ...In addition, I don't see how coloring the sky blue and the funnels red (image used) is considered a "Quality-Update" (File history) -- since both serve to provide historical inaccuracies. (Actual: golden-yellow funnels, night sky) ~E 20:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.225.106 (talk)
 * Another very fair comment. I was amazed to see what I had assumed was an image from a children's encyclopedia had in fact started life as a true work of art. I'm not even sure the present image is better than none. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * NOTE: image has been reverted to original file (b/w) -- caption modified accordingly ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Totally misleading description of flooding!
There are several wrong points regarding the description of how Titanic flooded. It is a bit astonishing that, although there exist reliable and scientifically advanced sources dealing with the flooding (a good overview is given in the section DESCRIPTION OF THE DAMAGE TO THE SHIP of the new book of Sam Halpern which is already used as source in this article) sources were used which are - at best - very inaccurate regarding the flooding. The major flaw is that it is stated that only five compartments were damaged by the iceberg but in fact there was also a leak in the forward coal bunker INSIDE the 6th compartment. Already in the BOT report it was summerised There was damage in: - The forepeak, No. 1 hold, No. 2 hold, No. 3 hold, No. 6 boiler room, No. 5 boiler room. So this has to be corrected here in any way. In fact, there was also a slight damage in No. 4 boiler room, but as water initially entered there in a trickle only this damage is often neglected. Nevertheless, water there came over the stokehold plates about 100 minutes after the collision. This detail is probably too much information for the article but it hints to its second flaw (as water came from below and not from above): Several authors made a misinterpretation of the flooding-by-compartment sequence present by Edward Wilding to the BOT inquiry in that way, that they claim Titanic flooded like an ice cube tray. This is at best an oversimplification. Contrary to the holds, the boiler rooms were relatively tight because the fumes and hot air from these spaces had to be prevented from reaching the passenger spaces. Hence, the water which spread along the Scotland Road on E deck could flow down easily to F deck only. This is illustrated in a diagram on page 21 of Quinns book Titanic 2 a.m. which can be viewed online:.

Consequences: 1. The damage description must be changed from 5 compartment damage to 6 compartment damage! 2. Statements like and water would spill from one compartment to the next in sequence, rather like water spilling across the top of an ice cube tray should be omitted. Although this kind of description sounds easily understandable it does not describe the actual flooding of the vessel, because the vast majority of the flooding water in the boiler rooms Nos. 5 and 4 came NOT from other compartments! Instead something less specific like ''If too many compartments were flooded, the tops of the bulkheads became submerged. Subsequently, the flooding became uncontrollable.'' could be used. 3. The sentence Water was spilling over into No. 5 boiler room,[59] and crewmen there were battling to pump it out. has to be changed! I don't have source 59 but cannot believe that this is a direct citation. It sounds like that the water entering No. 5 boiler room came from the leak in No. 6! Even in the ice cube tray description this would have been impossible when the water had a level of 14 feet only in No. 6 as written in the sentence before. No. 5 had its own leak (see point 1) which lead to severe flooding after the coal bunker which contained the water gave way.! --DFoerster (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, boiler room 5 had its fwd coal bunker damaged (not 6). This was the most aftward damage. Halpern p. 100. -DePiep (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I said. Above I've written "damage in the 6th compartment" which is No. 5 boiler room! By the way: The slight damage to No. 4 boiler room is also mentioned in the Halpern book (p. 110 and 111) --DFoerster (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't you write: The major flaw is that it is stated that [...] a leak in the forward coal bunker INSIDE the 6th compartment. 6th? -DePiep (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem. The compartments were counted from bow to stern, the boiler room from stern to bow: compartment 1 was the part before the collision bulkhead, compartment 2 was No. 1 hold, compartment 3 was No. 2 hold, compartment 4 was No. 3 hold, compartment 5 was No. 6 boiler room, compartment 6 was No. 5 boiler room, compartment 7 was No. 4 boiler room and so on. As the leak was in the coal bunker of No. 5 boiler room it was in the 6th compartment. --DFoerster (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither do I see a problem. But still you wrote a mistake, even using capitals. It was #5 coal bunker damaged (relevantly), not a #6 coal bunker. Agree? -DePiep (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you see a problem which does not exist: You say I wrote a mistake, but I didn't! I wrote 6th compartment. As I explained very detailed in my last posting No. 5 boiler room was the 6th compartment! So these are two different denominations for the same areas. And if you look on the diagram inside the article where the damage is indicated by green lines you can see that No. 6 boiler room (compartment 5) was damaged to a much larger extend than No. 6 boiler room. Hence, at least the aft starboard coal bunker of No. 6 boiler room was also damaged. But, as most water entered this room in the stokehold area this detail is not really important. --DFoerster (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, #6 boilerroom is #5 compartment -- although compartment numbering is rarely used (I did not find it in the source). -DePiep (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleting material in a cited source
Some of the material removed in this edit is directly supported by the cited source: "Glasses (as sailors call binoculars) of 1912 vintage would not have helped spot the berg sooner. While their optics were sharp and their magnification powerful pre-World War I binoculars lacked the modern coated lenses that actually “gather” and thereby increase the amount of light seen by the observer. The optically inefficient glasses available…would have “seen” less light than he human eye alone." The bit about the ship's light bulbs didn't seem to be covered. I'm looking to restore, close to the reference. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I know that you three folks have been addressing this from a standpoint of whether or not it was in the reference.  I don't have knowledge on that.  But my recommendation is to leave it out even if it was in a source.   From a technical standpoint, this text (optics related) is a misleading tangent and rambling at best.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A further thought: I've not seen it mentioned in any other source, so I have to wonder if it's the author's personal theory. In which case WP:REDFLAG would apply. Prioryman (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Brown's statement that coated lenses were not available is accurate: Zeiss brought them out in 1935. AFAICS the difference in light gathering would have been only a few percent and the improvement slight, but that's my take on the figures, and thus WP:NOR. To say that this few percent wouldn't have made any difference is, again, opinion: deleting reliably sourced material because an editor disagrees with the author's "technical standpoint". That's my point: it is in the reference—see the quote—and an editor's decision to leave it out is in itself a form of original research, and so not allowed. On the one hand the WP:RS, on the other an editor's opinion. Which do we go with? --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, just a minute. Please excuse my intrusion, but you seem to be debating what would have been the advantage, if any, if the look-outs had had binoculars, with or without modern coatings. The simple fact is they had none. I'm sure there were lots of things the ship did not have which might have affected the outcome, e.g. more lifeboats, different pattern of hull rivetting, etc. etc. But there has to be a limit to the amount of speculation and counter-speculation that is really relevant and that will not confuse a new reader? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a valid point but it needs to be in, to some extent, because the issue has been raised so widely elsewhere, starting with both the UK and US official enquiries. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As a sidebar, I have to disagree with Old Moonraker on one policy point. Deciding to leave out material is not OR nor is it prohibited. It is a normal function of editors. The only policy which sometimes mandates inclusion wp:npov in specific types of situations.
 * There seems to be some goalpost relocation going on here: the original reason for the RV was "that bit doesn't appear in the book", not that someone is "[d]eciding to leave out material" from the book. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was viewing the question as just whether or not to include the material, and I gave an opinion/recommendation on that. I think that Martinevans123's point about it being just speculation also weighs in on the side of leaving it out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm more persuaded by User:Martinevans123 than "that bit doesn't appear in the book"; it does appear in the book, and that was the reason I put it back. However, as nobody much seems to like it, I'm happy to let it lie. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Break up between 2nd and 3rd funnels
I changed the part about Titanic breaking behind the 3rd funnel to in front of the 3rd funnel as new evidence has been discovered which means the break up must have occurred before the 3rd funnel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsBarLover (talk • contribs) 07:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As the base of the third funnel lies between the bow and stern sections on the wreck site, and the stern section is thought to be more directly below the site of sinking, isn't it more likely that the split occurred aft of the third funnel and that the third funnel was then ripped off the bow section during its descent? Either way, as the base of the third funnel lies separated from both the bow and stern sections, it is clear that splits occurred both aft and forward of the funnel at some point in the sinking. DrKay (talk) 08:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

If the Titanic had broke aft of the third funnel the deckhouse would be attached to the bow section but its not - it's lying far from the wreck. You should watch "Titanic: The final word with James Cameron" for the most accurate sinking simulation to date. Also, the survivors who claimed to see it break said they saw it break between the 2nd and 3rd funnels, not the 3rd and 4th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsBarLover (talk • contribs) 11:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't follow that logic, since if the ship broke forward of the third funnel, the deckhouse would be attached to the stern section, but it isn't - as you say it's separated from both bow and stern sections. DrKay (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsBarLover (talk • contribs) 14:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean the wreck of the bow section comprises the front half of the ship with two funnels, and the wreck of the stern section comprises the rear two-fifths with one funnel. Hence, the wreck is split on either side of the third funnel. The middle bit, often called the "deckhouse" or base of the third funnel, lies between the other two major bits of the ship, though it is nearer the stern section. DrKay (talk) 08:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Lightoller's granddaughter
Anybody familiar with claims by Louise Patten? Perhaps a cited mention should be included somewhere (?). ""The granddaughter of senior officer Charles Lightoller claimed the man at the wheel of the Titanic either did not hear an order or responded incorrectly; he turned right instead of left, putting the ship on a collision course with the iceberg. Louise Patten says her grandfather -- who survived the sinking -- lied about the mistake to prevent lawsuits against his employers and to protect his job. Patten also says that the chairman of the White Star Line ordered the ship to continue sailing on its intended course to reach land, in the hope of avoiding negative publicity, which may have increased the amount of water flowing into the ship.""

The story can be found here: BBC News - Family's Titanic secret revealed and: Telegraph - Titanic sunk by steering blunder, new book claims However:"Meanwhile, Sally Neillson, the great granddaughter of Robert Hichins, who is also working on a Titanic book -- “Hard A-Starboard” due to be published before the centenary anniversary of 2012 -- totally rejected the claim.

"Hichins had 10 years experience, seven of those as a quartermaster. He sailed the Titanic for four days before the accident, during which he did shifts of four hours on, four hours off. He would have steered the vessel during these times, so been familiar with the systems,” Neillson told UK TV Channel 4."

~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Modified:74.60.29.141 (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Patten's claims were examined to death here a couple of years ago and found to be nothing more than publicity for her book. Rumiton (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Here is part of the discussion. Rumiton (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what I suspected - dueling books to stir up controversy (and sales). 74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

SOLAS
SOLAS is mentioned in the lead but not in the body...shouldn't it? ~ Soerfm (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's in the Aftermath section. Rumiton (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I see (I just made a search on "SOLAS"). - Soerfm (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
More details of Smith's actions that night including his last reliable sighting. You find out in 12 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.34.202.158 (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What? Rumiton (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Wording propriety
I remember hearing at one time that it is at least improper to use the word "the" before a ship's name, even if the name is preceded by a hull designation (such as "RMS"). Therefore, in my opinion, this article should be renamed as "Sinking of RMS Titanic" (with "Titanic" italicized, as per ship naming standards). If it is agreed upon, could someone add the appropriate template(s) for the renaming to the page? I have never done so before. Also, this discussion should be extended to all ship articles across Wikipedia. Thank you. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You brought up this concept before, here, where it was thoroughly studied and I think thoroughly exploded by all the reference works that do place 'the' before ships' names, preceded by a prefix (not a hull designation, which would follow the name) or not. The instances where 'the' is generally not used is only when the full usage would create a grammatical inconsistency. For example, 'the HMS Victory' would read as 'the Her Majesty's Ship Victory'. But 'the United States Ship' and hence 'the USS' and other examples are fine. As, in this instance, is 'Sinking of the RMS Titanic'. Benea (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * To further clarify, the use of the definite article usually depends on simple grammatical rules. When the ship is the subject, it might be left out, when it is the object it is usually included. In one of the examples I used in the above discussion; Brian Lavery's Churchill Goes to War, he has "Renown had settled into a routine..." and "The Renown's idyll ended..." In the first instance the subject is the battlecruiser Renown and the definite article is not used. In the second, the subject is the idyll that the ship is experiencing, and the definite article is used. Similarly in Jan Morris's Fisher's Face, which has on the same page "...in the Warrior he introduced the order 'still'" and "Donegal was his first ship..." The first it is Fisher who is the subject, and the ship Warrior as the object is given the definite article, in the second the ship Donegal is the subject and doesn't use the definite article. In the case of this article title, the grammatical subject is the 'sinking'. The RMS Titanic is the object, and is correctly referred to with 'the'. Benea (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that very lucid explanation. Prioryman (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Benea's quite correct grammatical rules aside, there is a further complicating factor, which I think I have mentioned before. From a seaman's point of view, Royal Navy ships have always been just HMS Warrior or simply Warrior. Merchant Navy ships have always been The Cargomonster or The SS (or MV) Cargomonster. It sounds weird to leave out the The, though I have heard that starting to happen, on documentaries etc, where the journalist may be unaware of the convention. Rumiton (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Misleading claims of steerage deaths
The article currently repeats the old, long-debunked saws about steerage class survival rates, such as: the vast majority of those who had boarded lifeboats were first- and second-class passengers; the relatively few male steerage passengers to survive; and so on. Simple consultation of a table of survivors is all it takes to show that these statements are false.

Contrary to the vast majority of those who had boarded lifeboats were first- and second-class passengers, in fact first- and second- class passengers made up only 45% of the survivors, less than half. And contrary to the relatively few male steerage passengers to survive, the number of male steerage passengers to survive exceeded 1st and 2nd class male survivors, put together. Even in percentage terms, the survival rate of 1st and 2nd class men was 21%, compared to 16% for 3rd class men and 22% for male crew. Differences, certainly, but not enormous ones.

In terms of percentage survival rates, there is a dramatic difference between women and children versus men -- as one might expect from the "women and children first" policy. Across all classes and crew, women and children had a 70% survival rate vs. 20% for men! But there was also a large difference in geneder composition of classes: only 23% of 3rd class passengers and 3% of crew were women, vs. nearly 50:50 split in 1st class. This substantially skews the relative survival rates: 2nd class passengers overall were more likely to survive than 3rd class passengers (by about 65%), but 2nd class men were actually less likely -- much less likely -- to survive then 3rd class men.

In fact out of the real statistics, rather than the myths, the single most glaring figure that jumps out is the extremely low survival rate of 2nd class men. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Good points. North8000 (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have changed the vast majority of those who had boarded lifeboats were first- and second-class passengers tp the vast majority of passengers who had boarded lifeboats were from first- and second-class, since 330 first and second class passengers were saved compared to 178 third-class. I have removed relatively few since the sentence seems to read OK without it. DrKay (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

New comment
Why not show Robert Ballard's Photo of the engraved letters of RMS Olympic and the fallen Titanic letters that covered over the name 'Olympic' as part of J.P. Morgan's Insurance Fraud? Robert Ballard, U.S. Navy, discovered the RMS Olympic wreckage on the ocean floor. today is the 101st anniversary. of that deliberate 'ghost-ship' sinking on 15th April 1012. The movie Titanic - The Shocking Truth, spells out a compelling case for this major crime at the start of the 20th century. There should be a 'Conspiracy Theory' section. There is a wealth of damning evidence like the so-called Titanic photographed on her maiden voyage with two extra portholes. written testimony like the letter penned by Chief Officer Wilde, formerly of RMS Olympic wtiting to his wife, Florence, after being on board the so-called Titanic, saying "I still don't like this ship..." JP Morgan a 65% majority shareholder of the line that owned SS Californian, that left port empty, except for 3000 woolen sweaters, and 3000 woolen blankets, ready to wrap up so-called Titanic survivors. Bruce Ismay's wife Florence Ismay's last minute cancellation to go on a motoring holiday in Irelans, 50 of JP Morgan's close friends cancell at the last minute. as well as JP Morgan.... etc. Plenty of scholarly references and damning under-sea photographs by Robert Ballard U.S. Navy. R.I.P. 1514 victims of manslaughter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.168.182 (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is Robert Ballard officially claims he found the Titanic, not Olympic. Some mysterious conspiracy sites claiming otherwise isn't really thrust worthy and this particular conspiracy theory has been debunked several times. 81.225.25.140 (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Bacteria eating the ship - can we please get rid of this?
I attempted to edit the section in "Aftermath", but I'm not good with references. It's in McCarty and Foecke (I'm Foecke) where we did the analysis of what's happening to the wreck. Bacteria don't eat the ship. They are using the iron oxide to build rusticles (along with fungi) and the presence of the rusticles changes the local oxygen content and pH and has a slight effect on the corrosion rate, but the bacteria aren't "eating" the ship - they are eating what they were eating before the ship got down there - floc from the surface. This is something Roy Cullimore has been flogging for years. He claims that all corrosion is biological, and the corrosion community thinks he's wrong. He's a microbiologist, not a chemist nor a metallurgist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.105.38 (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you efforts!  My first guess is that you are right.   But you replaced a sourced statement with an unsourced statement based on your own expertise.   That's not how Wikipedia works.  Can you find a source for that?  If you wrote something that is published, that would do it.   If so, I'll help you put it in. North8000 (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's no reflection on you.  Roughly speaking, if Einstein were alive, he could not write anything about relativity in Wikipedia unless he provided a cite from a published source (such as one of his books). Hang in there....I'd be happy to help. North8000 (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Roy and I discussed this many times. I asked him, if ALL corrosion is biological, why can I corrode gold in 5 mega-ohm (aka ultra ultra high purity distilled) water with the application of a large enough voltage? His reply - there were still bacteria there. Consensus amongst my community of metallurgists and corrosion specialists on this topic? He's nuts. He gets on all the cable shows recently because he doesn't mind lending his name and reputation (and misinterpretation of corrosion processes) to them and their rapidly declining quality of content. I quit a number of years ago when it was clear that the producers didn't care at all about the science any longer. They once did. So we are left with ridiculous results being put out there like Roy's.

I see I've been beaten to the edit. Ref is Hooper McCarty and Foecke (2008) pp 196-199. That's where we put this to rest. 96.255.105.38 (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand, I don't see an edit. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I put it in. Will need fine tuning.   Do you have any more info on the book?   Title, Publisher, Date, ISBN # etc? North8000 (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, if someone could put that reference into the sfn format used in the article, please do.....I only did those once and forgot how they work. North8000 (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It's already reference #46. 96.255.105.38 (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As you have access to the book, could you please clarify the page number of ref 46 and the units used for the corrosion calculation. Thanks, DrKay (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Page 83 among several places. Units used for the corrosion calculation - not sure what you mean.  Accepted value for marine corrosion of mild steel is 0.1 mils per day (mil is a milli-inch), times the estimated surface area of the ship (very rough - I had my students at UMD do it) times the density of iron gives you 0.5 to 1 ton of iron per day.  Lots of give-or-take.

96.255.105.38 (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thayer sketch
I have included the Thayer sketch on Commons (not sure about copyrights). Could it be of use? Soerfm (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Editnotice
The editnotice for this article is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships. DH85868993 (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)