Talk:Sinking of the Titanic/Archive 3

Some comments!
Hi! I saw that this is at FAC and just had to read through the article. I'm going to leave some general comments on the candidate page, but these specific comments are probably better here (they're more like a peer review). If someone would prefer to move them to the FAC page, however, that's fine with me. -- Lobo (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that review! I'll add some comments below. Prioryman (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a quick comment here, but I put my detailed review comments over at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Sinking of the RMS Titanic/archive1. I don't want them to be overlooked, although I did include a link to my comments on the FAC page itself. (The delegates need that link to additional detailed comments, and actually they prefer such reviews not appear in the FAC page unless the reviewer is opposing based on the review comments.)  Imzadi 1979  →   23:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'm just getting through them item by item. Prioryman (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * "glancing blow" > slightly strange expression? I see it is used again later in the article: is this a technical term? It doesn't make entirely clear to me what happened.
 * I assume you know what's meant by a glancing blow? It's an impact at a very shallow angle. See for recent examples in the news. Prioryman (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well no I don't, that's what I mean. My boyfriend here tells me it is quite widely used, but I'd never heard it before...I think you may as well just describe the type of hit, especially in the lead. -- Lobo (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest I think "glancing blow" is the right terminology. It's the phrase that has often been used to describe what happened with Titanic. See for many examples. Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that it is a good term to use here. North8000 (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "The high number of casualties was due to the fact that there were only enough lifeboats on board for half the passengers, and that many of these lifeboats were launched partly full." I feel like this could be better phrased. Maybe, "The high number of casualties resulted from a lack of lifeboats: there were only enough on board for half the passengers. Many of these lifeboats were not filled to their full capacity."
 * Good suggestion, I'll make that change. Prioryman (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The article has a whole section on "Aftermath". Some of this needs to be included in the lead.
 * I've added more about the aftermath to the lead. Prioryman (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Background
 * "By the time she departed westwards across the Atlantic she was carrying 892 crew members and 1,320 passengers, only about half of her full passenger capacity of 2,435,[13] due to a combination of the low season and ongoing transport disruption caused by a coal miners' strike in the UK." > Recommend splitting this sentence in two.
 * Done. Prioryman (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Could we not have a little info about the first few days of the journey here? Some stuff about the luxury of the ship? How heavily advertised it was beforehand? etc. I don't feel entirely satisfied that I have enough background information here, before we get started on the night of the sinking.
 * When this article was started there was a substantial discussion to limit the scope so as to not be a duplication of the main Titanic article. Not sure where that leads us, but thought I'd mention it. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but I've compromise by adding a paragraph about the significance of Titanic when she was launched. Prioryman (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "The message never reached Titanic's bridge." > I know nothing about boats and this makes no sense to me. Who relayed the message, and what part of the ship did it not meet? Basically this needs to be clearer. You defintely need to tell the reader what the bridge is, because it comes up a lot more later on.
 * I've amended it to "The message never reached Captain Smith or the other officers on Titanic's bridge." The only thing you need to know about Titanic's bridge is that it's where the ship's captain and senior officers were. Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It has a wikipage Bridge (nautical), it should be linked. I think all these nautical terms should be linked. -- Lobo (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I'll do that. Prioryman (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Although the air was clear, there was no moon and with no swell, there was nothing to give away the position of the nearby icebergs." No swell? Maybe I'm dumb, but again - this means nothing to me.
 * I've added a bit to the end of the line to make it explicit: "had the sea been rougher, waves breaking at the foot of the icebergs would have made them more visible." Because the sea was dead calm there were no waves. Prioryman (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can "swell" not just be removed? The explanation does make it clear, but if that is saying everything anyway, then why not just remove a confusing word? -- Lobo (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, done. Prioryman (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Effects of impact
 * Hold on...first it says "the iceberg was long thought to have produced a huge tear", then it says, "No one could believe that the great ship was sunk by a little sliver". That's a bit contradictory.
 * The quote is from Titanic's (re)discoverer, Robert Ballard. It's not really contradictory - people thought that Titanic had suffered a massive hole in its side rather than a small puncture, even though the evidence at the time pointed to the latter. (If it really had been a massive hole the ship would have gone to the bottom in minutes rather than hours.) Prioryman (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ohhhhhh I see what you're trying to do now. This is initially confusing though, because the Ballard quote is the first time it's even been said (explicitly) that it was only a sliver. I think it would be better organised: 1) What people used to think, 2) ultrasound results etc., 3) Ballard quote. -- Lobo (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Prioryman (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "This was what now began to happen to Titanic" > I'm really not a fan of jumping to the present tense like this. I've changed it to "This was what happened to Titanic" for now, but I think it could be said better. I am changing any other occurrences of present tense when I come across it.
 * "The ship was listing five degrees to starboard and was two degrees down by the head within only a few minutes of the collision." > A bit technical. I can understand what it's saying, but the word "listing" initially threw me. This is definitely "ship talk".
 * Not really, "listing" is the standard term - in regular English - for describing a tilting ship. See e.g. for recent usage in relation to the Costa Concordia disaster. Prioryman (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well...I'll leave it to you, but you've had input from someone who knows nothing about boats - like many of the readers of the article, I'm sure - and I've told you that it threw me. It seems to me that all instances of this could very easily be replaced with "tilting", and be more user-friendly without changing the meaning. But it's up to you. -- Lobo (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that "tilting" simply isn't the right term to use where ships are concerned. It would certainly be picked up and corrected by others. Prioryman (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Preparing to evacuate
 * "The mail sorters were engaged in an ultimately futile attempt to save the 400,000 items of mail being carried aboard Titanic, and the firemen in the forepeak could hear the hissing of air being forced out by inrushing water." Hmm, I find it a bit weird to link these two incidents.
 * I've reworded it a bit and split the two items. Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "a few noticed that she was listing." > Huh?? Jargon.
 * See above... Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "nor was it because of cost, as an extra 32 lifeboats would only have cost $16,000, a tiny fraction of Titanic's $7.5 million cost." Says "cost" three times in one sentence.
 * Good catch, I've reworded this. 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "One historian of the disaster has commented" > why not name him?
 * Done. Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't the last paragraph here fit better in the next section?
 * Hmm, no. Someone seems to have changed the times at the start of the next section. It should have read 00:45, not 00:15. I've fixed the chronology now. Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant it would be better moved down because the last para is talking about launching the lifeboats. You can always just change the times again. -- Lobo (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Departure of lifeboats
 * "climbed down a rope into the lifeboat; he was the only male passenger Lightoller allowed into a lifeboat." Anyway to avoid repetition of "lifeboat" here?
 * I've reworded it as "he was the only male passenger who Lightoller allowed to board during the port side evacuation".


 * "– and in some cases losing them – " I personally don't think this is needed.
 * OK, I've taken it out.


 * "Further aft," ?
 * See below...
 * Benjamin Guggenheim > hasn't he already been linked? Check that people aren't linked more than once.
 * De-linked. Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Launching the last lifeboats
 * "had developed a heavy list to port." ??
 * See above... Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Among those aboard was stewardess Violet Jessop, who was to repeat the experience four years later when she survived the sinking of Titanic's sister ship, Britannic in the First World War.[105]" > Could be cut.
 * Possibly, but Jessop is one of the most famous survivors, because she served on all three of the Olympic-class ships - Olympic, Titanic and Britannic - and survived the serious accidents which all three ships suffered. She was both incredibly lucky and incredibly unlucky... Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have removed the quote about the band from a block quote - it's too short for that, and it's clearer to keep all these comments together.
 * OK, I'm fine with that. Prioryman (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Phillips aft" ?
 * "Archibald Gracie was also heading aft" Seriously, what does this "aft" mean?!
 * Okay I've now been told what "aft" is, lol. I've heard of stern and starboard and port but never aft! I don't know why, but that term meant nothing to me. The article is meant to be accessible to anyone though, so I'd suggest giving a quick explanation on first occurrance for other ship-dunces like me.
 * A good way to think of it is bow=pointy bit, aft=arse end. :-) Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've linked the first iteration of the term. Prioryman (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sinking
 * "It now seems probable that the "great noise" heard by witnesses and the momentary settling of the stern were caused by the ship breaking in two." > I think this idea may need to be attributed.
 * OK, but it will be a couple more days before I can do this properly, as I can't get to the source I need until then. Prioryman (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In the water
 * "Others progressed through the classic symptoms of hypothermia: extreme shivering at first, followed by a slowing and weakening pulse as body temperature dropped, before finally losing consciousness and dying" > Is this based on eyewitness accounts? Can we attribute that?
 * It's already attributed. As for the list of symptoms, those are the standard symptoms of hypothermia; anyone in that kind of situation would have had the same symptoms. We don't need eyewitness accounts to state that. A comparable example might be that we don't have any eyewitness accounts of what caused the deaths of the people trapped in the World Trade Center on 9/11, but it's possible to be pretty certain about it. Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't just mean attributed with a ref, I mean WP:INTEXT attribution. Well if it's not based on eyewitness accounts, I think it needs to be phrased "Others likely progressed..." It's a bit much to make it sound like the person writing the article was right there, knowing everything that happened (something the article does suffer from a bit...) -- Lobo (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that really necessary though? I don't think "likely" is necessary because we know that's what happened. It's a straightforward physical process in which there's no possible doubt about what happened. If you or almost anyone else is immersed in very cold water for a prolonged period you will go through exactly the same symptoms. Prioryman (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's a statement of universal knowledge (rather than a direct observation from the Titanic) possibly it shouldn't be in the article? North8000 (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not universal knowledge, I think. It was certainly little understood at the time (the cause of death for the victims was invariably described as "drowning", not hypothermia) and it's necessary to explain (a) what exactly caused the death of those in the water and (b) what they experienced. Prioryman (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Do the collapsible boat names need to be put in quote marks ("A")? It's a bit jarring when the lifeboats don't do this (ie, looks inconsistent). Is that how all the sources refer to them?
 * Some do, some don't. I can take the quote marks out if necessary. Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the quote marks are necessary.-- Lobo (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've removed them. Prioryman (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "They did not go quietly." > I've cut this, I find it a bit journalistic/not the right tone. Add it back if you like though.
 * No, that's fine. Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "debated what, if anything, they should do to rescue the swimmers. No. 4 boat seems to have been closest to the swimmers; this enabled several to swim over and be picked up" The word swim comes up a bit too much here, see if you can recast it.
 * Good point, I've changed this to "No. 4 boat seems to have been closest to the site of the sinking". Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * " and the likelihood of their survival must have seemed increasingly remote" > Hmm, I'd rather see this deleted. It's a bit too...appealing to the emotions.
 * I'll have a look at the survivors' accounts to see if there's something I can replace it with. Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've now added a quote to replace this bit. Prioryman (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Aftermath
 * "The news hit hardest in Southampton" > not very keen on this phrase...
 * It's a pretty straight reflection of the sources. Southampton suffered more losses in the disaster than anywhere else, by some way. Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm sure it's accurate, I just find the phrasing a bit journalistic. -- Lobo (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reworded this. Prioryman (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "The disaster led to major changes in maritime regulations to implement new safety measures, such as ensuring that there were enough lifeboats, that lifeboat drills were properly carried out and that wireless equipment on passenger ships was manned around the clock." The consequences of the sinking, and the changes it bought about, are extremely important. I'd rather they weren't summarised in this rather casual way. I even think it deserves a paragraph - there must be a decent amount of information about this stuff?
 * There's an entire article about it (Changes in safety practices following the RMS Titanic disaster) and a section about it in the main RMS Titanic article. I'm trying not to duplicate that material and to confine this article, as much as possible, to the events of the sinking itself. Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I definitely think more of this stuff needs to be included in this article. It's extremeley relevant, and people shouldn't have to rely on going to another page (at the moment, there isn't even a link to that subarticle). And now that you've added more about the aftermath to the lead, some of the the stuff there isn't even mentioned in the main article (ie, the public outrage). The things you added to the lead are really interesting, they should be properly developed later on.-- Lobo (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit more but I'd agree with the point made below by North8000. I've also added "see also" links to the Aftermath section to provide the necessary linking to further information. Since I'm trying to keep the article size under 10,000 words (it's currently just under 9,800 but I'm going to use some of the extra 200 up next week), I really don't want to go into much more detail. Prioryman (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * When this article was started there was a substantial discussion to limit the scope so as to not be a duplication of the other Titanic articles. Not sure where that leads us, but thought I'd mention it. I also agree that one shouldn't have to read a second article to read an article, but we're talking about brief mentions of items that are outside of the scope of this article and within the scope of other Titanic articles. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I know a lot of people don't like pop culture references, but I think it is relevant that one of the highest grossing films of all time is based on this incident. And there have been a number of other films about it. The article mentions: "The ship's rediscovery led to an explosion of interest in Titanic's story[165] and the launching of numerous expeditions to film the wreck and, controversially, to salvage objects from the debris field." I was fully expecting this to lead into a sentence about movies based on Titanic, it would fit so well. And surely the Cameron film subsequently caused another resurgence of interest?
 * Fair point, I'll see what I can work into the article about that. Prioryman (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added a paragraph on the popular culture issue. Prioryman (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Explanatory notes
 * When I looked at the contents this heading made me think it was going to be a section explaining the reasons for the disaster, or something like that. I don't think it's the best name. I say just make a setion called "Notes and references", then put your notes under a subheading "Notes" and the citations under a subheading "References". And then the section you now have called References could become "Sources".
 * I know what you're getting at, but the headings seem to be prescribed; see Manual of Style/Layout. Prioryman (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to comment back here, I will watch the page.

Follow-up comments: I really like the additions to the background and aftermath sections. The article is now very nicely rounded. It stands fully on its own, not just as a branch of Titanic articles. Although, the lead currently says "The disaster caused widespread public outrage over...", but there isn't any mention of this in the acticle. I don't think the statement should be removed from the lead, I think a couple of sentences about this should go in the aftermath section. I understand that you're concerned about the length, but I think this is important enough to warrant adding 50 or so more words. How about my suggestion of moving the last para of "Preparing to evacuate" down to the start of "Departure of lifeboats"? Seeing as the paragraph begins "By about 00:20, 40 minutes after the collision, the loading of the lifeboats was under way", I definitely think this would be more appropriate. Keep up the good work, -- Lobo (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the MoS on notes and references doesn't suggest "Explanatory notes" as a heading. It says: "For a list containing both types of footnote: "Notes", "Footnotes". So perhaps implement this. I do think "Explanatory notes" is a bit confusing. -- Lobo (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Second follow-up: Prioryman asked me if all my conerns had been addressed. I'm afraid no, as you still haven't responded to 1) my comment about the lack of discussion on public outrage in the Aftermath section, and 2) my suggestion to move down a paragraph into a more appropriate section. I think the first one is a necessity, as it is mentioned in the lead, and the second one, while not a necessity, seems very logical and I can't think why there may be resistance towards it..? -- Lobo (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for highlighting these. Sorry I missed the first issue - the discussion has been going on in so many places that it's been quite hard to track it. I'll address it tonight or tomorrow. As for the second issue, it's not that there's resistance, I just haven't decided the best way of doing this. Again, I'll address it tonight or tomorrow. Prioryman (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reordered the lifeboats a bit - see what you think of it now. Prioryman (talk) 07:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well now we've ended up with some of the "Departure of the lifeboats" section moving up! I was suggesting that the final paragraph of "Preparing to evacuate" move down. I think I see where the confusing is stemming from now though: I thought it made sense for the loading of the lifeboats to also go in the departure section&mdash;I didn't really think of the distinction, I just felt it was logical for all the lifeboat stuff to go together. But I guess that loading them could still count as "preparing to evacuate"...it's awkward, it could fit in either section really. I don't mind, I'm not going to push the point (especially since no-one else has mentioned a problem with it), you do what you think is best. And I love the animation by the way, it really adds to the page. I'm very impressed you made it yourself. -- Lobo (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

We have to be careful that we aren't duplicating the RMS Titanic article
I have some concern that it is getting nudged by reviewers into doing this. We have a RMS Titantic article, and 80% of it is about the sinking. The intent of this new article (actually evolved from an article which was a timeline of the sinking process) was to expand on the sinking process itself, not be overall coverage of items related to the sinking. I suppose the title adds to that expectation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the fact that I asked for a couple more sentences? Because that's all I asked for. And the main reason I am now asking for that is because the public outrage is mentioned in the lead, and you aren't meant to write anything in the lead that isn't expanded on later in the article. Anyway, I really don't think it is a problem for articles to overlap a bit, so long as the material is definitely needed on each respective page. Which to my mind, this is. I don't think it is helpful to only think of this as an extension of the main Titanic article - the page should be able to stand alone as well (particularly if it's going to feature on the main page). But if the main editors don't want to do this, I'm not going to argue. You can obviously ignore my suggestions if you want. -- Lobo (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant my comments more as just something to keep in mind, and providing background info on this article. I think that your comments are quite natural and fine for an article with this title and also as you correctly pointed out about the lead statement.  I think that my comments come more from the fact that the title of this article (which, on the face of it, can cover 80% of the main article)  basically puts in on the edge of a slippery slope into duplicating the main article, and a couple of extra thoughts because of that.    So, thanks for your initial comments and for this additional info. North8000 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think both of you are right. :-) This article certainly does need to work as a stand-alone. At the same time, we do need to avoid needless duplication. I've been thinking about how the Titanic-related articles relate to each other and will post some thoughts on that tomorrow. Prioryman (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool. Again, folks should take my comments as just putting a few thoughts lightly out there, nothing more, nothing else. North8000 (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ismay
Ismay was the managing director of the White Star Lines shipping company.He was a man who named the Titanic.By S.Spence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.146.23.112 (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Number of lifeboats
The recent edit concerning current requirements for provision of boats on passenger ships is a little misleading. According to the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention, 1998: Section II – Passenger Ships (Additional Requirements) Regulation 21 - Survival craft and rescue boats: ''Passenger ships on international voyages which are not short must carry partially or totally enclosed lifeboats on each side to accommodate not less than 50% of total number of persons on board (in other words, the two sides together must equal at least 100%). Some lifeboats can be substituted by liferafts. In addition, inflatable or rigid liferafts to accommodate at least 25% of the total number of persons on board.'' Rumiton (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Today, there has to be provision for everyone on board either in a lifeboat or liferaft. That is not "just as in Titanic's day". Nor does anyone "have to take their chances with lifejackets". Everyone has a place either in a lifeboat or in a liferaft. DrKiernan (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm happy to defer to you on that point. Prioryman (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Alternate infobox
I don't know if the regular editors of this article knew that there is Infobox news event, which was designed for articles like this. I started a mockup using that template, as shown here. (Note that the coordinates aren't showing in the title here, but if copied to the article, that would have to be switched back.) One reason I'm preferring using the pre-made infobox is that it's more concise. Several of the items are collapsible lists consisting purely of timelines, which could be added to the article as tables or graphics. (I'm of the school of thought that the infobox is a summary of the article and doesn't contain anything that isn't in the main article itself, but it should be short and sweet.)

One last thought, but I'd move the glossary out of the infobox completely. We have List of nautical terms which can be used, or interwiki links to things like list as needed in the body of the article. Maybe I'm of the "less is more" when it comes to infoboxes; if you need to collapse lists to keep the overall size down, it's too long. Oh, and the infobox has a few options for things like the inquiries that aren't listed now.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that's not a bad idea. The existing infobox is by far the longest and most complex I've ever seen on a Wikipedia article; I honestly have to wonder who is going to bother clicking on the "show" links (or even realise that they're there). The design doesn't seem very usable to me. I'd be interested to know what other editors think. Prioryman (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems OK. Soerfm (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, which do you mean - the current one or Imzadi's proposed replacement? Prioryman (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh (embarrassing), the new one is far better than mine. Please replace it. Soerfm (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Soerfm (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Victims' tragic end.
There are contradictions regarding the victims' final circumstances. Aldridge 2008 p.56 claims almost everyone in the water died very quickly ("within minutes") of cardiac arrest, etc. Whereas Everett 1912 p.167 claims "For an entire hour there had been an awful chorus of shrieks, gradually dying into a hopeless moan". -Should some further clarification of these contradictory accounts be made in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Holden 08 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There's already a lot of material in the section Sinking of the RMS Titanic. DrKay (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes there is, but I'm suggesting less information, not more, by shortening the article through removing the contradictions and deleting the conflicting statements. Let's have one consistent viewpoint, instead of differing statements within the same article.Greg Holden 08 (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing much in the way of contradiction: most people died quickly, some didn't, the last dying about an hour later. The length of the section seems justified to clarify this point. Aldridge doesn't deny there were people who lasted longer; Everett doesn't deny that many people died quickly. But even if it were contradictory, we cannot present our own interpretation or select one viewpoint over another. DrKay (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

game of soccer.
I changed this bit: passengers played a game of 'soccer' to the proper term for the sport, 'football'. This is a British ship, there is no way to know who was the players of this impromptu game. British or US. So let's assume as it is a British ship that they played 'football' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.135.0 (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Since "soccer" is universally understood and unambiguous (it is used in the UK, where the term originated), it is far clearer than a word that is clearly ambiguous. DrKay (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Addition of 13500 tonns within first 45 minutes
Added by Prioryman at 01:45, 18 February 2012 Does someone has source of that statement? Thanks 86.62.89.225 (talk) Integral


 * Check the reference - it's from page 112 of Halpern, Samuel & Weeks, Charles (2011). "Description of the Damage to the Ship". In Halpern, Samuel. Report into the Loss of the SS Titanic: A Centennial Reappraisal. It's a pretty simple calculation - a water intake of 5 long tons per second (actually a lower estimate than some I've seen) gives you 13,500 long tons after 45 minutes. Prioryman (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've got the idea(45*60*5=13500). I thought it was kind of modeling, or something like that. Now it seems very, very rough estimation. Such estimation seems strange for me, beacause:
 * Stream speed should be decreasing while level of water increasing in compartments.
 * Stream speed should be decreased nearly to zero when all first compartments became full — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.62.89.225 (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are right of course that the ingress rate will be proportional to the difference between the height of water inside compared to the external depth of the hole, and this is constantly decreasing, but the total amount given over 45 minutes seems reasonable. Rumiton (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, Titanic was designed to survive first four compartments filled. Thus, first 4 compartments should cause settling by bow no more than 3.4 m (11 feet). BTW, does anyone know, which height was required for bulkhead E, to survive that night? It seems to me, that additional 1-2 meters could save ship, or at least save it until rescue. 86.62.89.225 (talk) Integral
 * Don't forget that it was a dynamic process - the ship was constantly settling by the bow, allowing the water to penetrate steadily further into the ship and cascading down over bulkheads, which didn't extend all the way up to the top deck. See the diagram below, which shows the bulkheads as red lines. Their presence meant that the flooding wasn't linear but progressed in a series of spurts as each successive compartment was flooded. It also meant that the weight of the water was concentrated at the bows, causing the ship to pivot vertically bow-first rather than simply settling on an even keel. Prioryman (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't really agree about the "spurts." Flooding a compartment is just like adding weight to that compartment. If it is 5 tonnes per second, then that is the rate at which weight was being added to that compartment. When it overflowed, the 5 tonnes per second just started to be added to the next compartment aft, which has slightly less of a tipping effect (being further from the bow.) Quite a smooth process, really. Rumiton (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Inflow rate depends on difference between inside and outside water levels. Such difference steadily decreases untill first 5 compartments became full. 86.62.89.225 (talk) Integral
 * Sorry, I probably expressed myself badly above. What I meant was that the flooding didn't progress evenly from the bottom up, but cascaded from compartment to compartment, bow to aft. That's why the engineers were able to keep the lights on until the last few minutes - their compartment was dry up to the point that the water began cascading over the top of the bulkhead from the next-door compartment. The intermittent nature of the process was illustrated by the angle the ship took as it sank. Note the penultimate paragraph of "Effects of the collision" (with my highlighting): "The flooding did not proceed at a constant pace, nor was it distributed evenly throughout the ship, due to the configuration of the flooded compartments. Her initial list to starboard was caused by asymmetrical flooding of the starboard side as water poured down a passageway at the bottom of the ship. When the passageway was fully flooded, the list corrected itself but the ship later began to list to port by up to ten degrees as that side also flooded asymmetrically." As the following paragraph makes clear, the rate of increase of the ship's down angle similarly fluctuated during the various stages of the sinking. It was a complex process due to the ship's internal architecture. I recall seeing computer modelling of it around the time of the Titanic anniversary a couple of years ago. Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't you know, is this modeling available to wide audience? I want to understand, was it possible to save ship by increasing bulkhead E height. And if was, which minimal increasing was nessasary for this. 86.62.89.225 (talk) Integral
 * The modeling was shown in one of the innumerable documentaries shown on British TV around the time of the centenary. Increasing the height of bulkhead E probably wouldn't have helped, as the iceberg damage extended into compartment F. There are a few other considerations to bear in mind. One whether the bulkheads and watertight doors were strong enough to hold back thousands of tons of water. They weren't, at least in some cases; a couple of engineers were killed in boiler room 5 after the door to the flooded boiler room 6 burst. Another is that the effectiveness of the bulkheads relied on all the watertight doors being closed (most were manually operated), and this does not seem to have happened. A third issue is that some of the flooding was reported to have come in from below the bulkheads, as happened in boiler room 4 - perhaps a sign that the ship's underside was also pierced by the ice. Prioryman (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * By points:
 * iceberg damage extended into compartment F - yes, but damage inside compartment F was small, and they could control in with pumps.
 * bulkheads and watertight doors were strong enough to hold back thousands of tons of water - Seems very strange. Bulkheads and watertight doors were designed to deal with all those tons of water. 86.62.89.225 (talk) Integral
 * I found some more information about this. The documentary I mentioned was the Discovery Channel's Titanic: Anatomy of a Disaster. They got a naval architectural firm to model the stresses caused by the sinking, which identified where the maximum points of stress were. In particular, they found that the stress on the hull caused the forward bulkheads to be compressed vertically as they were squeezed between the keel and the decks, which contributed eventually to their rupture. So although they might have been able to withstand the outward pressure of water, they couldn't withstand vertical compression. Prioryman (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

That sounds right. When a ship's hull first takes on water, it is just like loading a bit more cargo...the ship settles comfortably. But when the weight increases and the hull starts to bend, the internal structure starts to deform. Steel plates bow out and crumple and lose their designed strength. The original strength figures aren't relevant any more, it is no longer the same ship. Rumiton (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

sea creature feeding opportunity?
Have there been any predatory sea creatures reported that were drawn to the ship's sinking and maybe killed and eaten some of the victims? like with the USS Indianapolis (CA-35). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.186.22.193 (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In the high latitude in which Titanic sank, there is not the same density of marine life, including sharks etc. If there were any at all, it doesn't seem likely that any people were killed by them, the freezing water would have beaten them to it. Rumiton (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Just checking in

 * Hi all. Just thought I would introduce myself, as I will be co-operating on the article in future, so please don't mistake me for a newbie. Check my user page and talk for my usual editing areas. Member of Wikiproject Ships and longstanding member of MILHIST. Always been fascinated by, and have knowledge of the Olympic class and especially Titanic. Hope to be of some help. Cheers colleagues. Simon a.k.a. Irondome (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome aboard. I think you'll find most of the issues have been hashed out, but new sources could pop up at any time. Rumiton (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Socket distress signals or flares, and Samuel Halpern as a WP:RS
Thank you for your input DrKay. As it stands, the information given in the article is factually incorrect. As this is a F/A I would expect accuracy in basic facts, including technologies used at the time. The information I am using comes from Samuel Halpern who I believe is a reliable source. The website Titanicology http://www.titanicology.com/ appears to be Mr Halperns own research site, largely made up of essays by Mr Halpern and others who appear to be respectable sources. The information I reproduced is from the testimony from various crew members who appeared at the British enquiry. The presently presented information in mainspace is incorrect. The distress signals were socket mortar fired - shells, made by the Cotton Powder Company of London. I would welcome comment on these points by other colleagues. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You'll have to be more precise about what is "incorrect" in the article, because I don't see it. DrKay (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Flare (pyrotechnic), which links to the relevant article. It was incorrect also, so I corrected it in terms of Titanic usage. In that the link now leads to the correct information it is resolved. Quite independently, the existing citation given there also led to Sam Halpern's piece on the pyrotechnics used, which was removed here. I would like your opinion as to Titanicology as a repository of reliable sources. I am not referring to http://www.Encylopedia-Titanica which may be more problematic in terms of content. Regards, Irondome (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue is not whether titanicology is a reliable source. It is whether it meets FACR criterion 1c for high-quality reliable sources, that would usually mean something published by a third-party or peer-reviewed for a subject where such sources are available. DrKay (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, many of Halpern's articles are published by http://www.titanicinternationalsociety.org which has as it's trustees Charles A Haas and John Paul Eaton, both leading authors on the subject of the Titanic. I am sure they would not lend their reputations to a society which does not strictly adhere to some academic rigor. It also publishes a quarterly journal, Voyage dealing with maritime history, with an accent on the Titanic. It appears to be a respectable journal. Both Eaton and Haas are frequent contributors to its content. In addition, many of Halperns articles appear to be extrapolated from his two books, one of which is used as reference material in this article. I think his work passes muster, within the small community that represents Titanic academia. These articles, Halperns, as well as Eaton and Haas's work, would be useful additional sources to further improve Titanic articles on WP. No article here is set in stone, as I am sure you would agree. The whole project is a work in progress. We just need to clarify their fitness for use under FACR 1c. Regards, Simon Irondome (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Cultural impact and wreckage
Hi DrKay, it is a small matter in the great scheme of things, but why do you feel cultural impact and wreckage belong in the same section? Rumiton (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * They are already in the same sentence: "[an] expedition led by Robert Ballard found the wreck of Titanic, and the ship's rediscovery led to an explosion of interest in Titanic's story." Per Manual of Style/Layout, sections should not be too short nor should every paragraph be given a separate sub-heading. As this article is on the sinking not the wreck or culture, which are covered by the other articles in the series, it is sufficient to summarize the main points and direct readers elsewhere for the details. DrKay (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I accept those points. The two subjects still seem at odds to me, I'll try to find a better way to group them. Rumiton (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Did the stern go vertical?
I remember watching a documentary on TV a few years ago where they talked about the keel, saying that the ship didn't actually split in half until after it had submerged and that it wasn't, therefore, pulled vertical after detaching. I think it was Discovery or Nat Geo but I can't remember. The closest I can find is this article here: which references a book by Richie Kohler and John Chatterton called "Titanic's Last Secrets". Is there any reason this isn't included in the article? Tiller54 (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The link you gave doesn't say that, it says that it broke up at a shallow angle rather than rising high into the air before breaking up like it did in the film. Either way, the stern would have still been pulled up to a near vertical angle before sinking. G-13114 (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

There was a documentary just a few weeks ago "Draining the Titanic" which I believe aired early May 2016 on either The History Channel of NatGeo, where they indicated a possibility that the actual break-up didn't even occur at or near the surface, due to the size of the debris field: had the ship broken up at or near the surface, the debris field would have been more spread out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.104.186 (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Five or six flooded?
The "Annotated diagram of RMS Titanic" shows green lines on six compartments, meaning six were holed. This is discussed in Walter Lord's book, as well as below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.128.48 (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Edward Smith's actions - conflicting accounts
I just noticed that this article (great job, btw, it certainly deserves its star) contradicts the one covering captain Edward Smith. The "Sinking of the RMS Titanic" describes Smith's actions as indecisive and it claims that he displayed a lack of crew management skills in the aftermath of Titanic hitting the iceberg, but his biographical article on Wikipedia states the exact opposite - that he performed his duties in an admirable fashion given the extraordinarily difficult circumstances and never lost his cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.151.225 (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)