Talk:Wreck of the Titanic/Archive 1

Title

 * I've moved this to The wreck of the RMS Titanic, rather than The wreck of RMS Titanic, for consistency with other subpages - "the RMS" is correct. However, should it be simply at Wreck of the RMS Titanic, no leading article? I am ambivalent... Shimgray &#124; talk &#124; 14:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Brevity is normally commendable, but in this case I think there is more dignity in retaining both "the's". Rumiton (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd much prefer to stick with the current name, with only one "the". We now have a very consistent naming convention for Titanic articles - "x of the RMS Titanic" - which assists searchers, provides a standard form of article naming and just looks better. I might add that WP:MOS specifically deprecates using an initial "The". Prioryman (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Rumiton (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Shimgray &#124; talk &#124; 12:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Bow section
We have here a fringe theory by a controversial author Charles R. Pellegrino about a giant column of water descending on the ship and crushing the superstructure. I am not sure if this theory is well-respected enough for inclusion. Personally I would think not. Rumiton (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's cited favourably by Ballard in his 1987 book; he seems to think it has some credence, so I thought it would be worth including. Prioryman (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I recall Pellegrino went along on one of Ballard's expeditions, so maybe Ballard copped an earful on the night watches. If you read up on Pellegrino he has quite a serious lack of credibility. He specialises in gee-whiz new theories about well-known subjects and appears to have lied about his qualifications. Here he is presenting the idea that a sinking body can generate a down-current sufficiently powerful to destroy the body when it comes to rest. Nobody else seems to think so. I think this will get challenged somewhere along the line. Rumiton (talk) 10:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Cameron in 2001, not Ballard in 1985 or 1986 (and Ballard's book was published in 1987). I can't really judge how controversial Pellegrino's theory is because I've not actually found anyone disputing his idea. However, I've made some copyedits to attribute the idea more specifically to him. Prioryman (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe no one thought it was important enough to dispute. But it isn't doing any harm there, I guess we can watch to see how it is received. Rumiton (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Benthos glass spheres
What are these? Rumiton (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See here. They're used for floatation and instrument housing. Prioryman (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. Should we link to this? Or would that be advertising? Rumiton (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:MOS discourages external links in the body of articles, I'm afraid. Perhaps a footnote instead? Prioryman (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Might be worthwhile, no? Rumiton (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Prioryman (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Tone?
I'm a bit concerned about the tone of significant portions of this article, variously adulatory (esp. of Robert Ballard), summarily dismissive of early efforts, and breathless (e.g., "showbiz" in the account of the lifting of the hull fragment—I removed that). It's important to keep an encyclopedic air about these articles.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How is it "adulatory" of Ballard? Prioryman (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Main Page appearance on 15 April
Please note that I have nominated Sinking of the RMS Titanic to appear on the Main Page next month on 15 April. In conjunction with that, it is proposed that this article will also be linked from the Main Page on the same day. Please see Today's featured article/requests for details. Prioryman (talk) 23:18, 23 March 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) 23:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

debris field section?
I was just wondering if there should be a section about the debris field under "description of wreck"? Since there is a detailed map of the wreck i think that important artifacts laying around the two sections of the ship should also be noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyon788 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Lew Grade and Raise the Titanic!
What, no mention of Lew Grade's famous comment after the financial flop of the film Raise the Titanic: "Raise the Titanic? It would have been cheaper to lower the Atlantic." 

2000 to present
The last 3 paragraphs of the "2000 to present" section seem to have an odd grammar, appears to to inject quotes using italics, and has a truly excessive use of parenthetical phrases and commas. JeramieHicks (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I tried to address the issue on the actual image's page, but have yet to receive a response. I'm therefore bringing the issue up in here, as the image is a part of this article. This is concerning the image of the ship, the iceberg, and the depth of the wreck in relation to a section of Lower Manhattan.

I absolutely love the image's core idea of showing what 3800 m really looks like, as the human brain is unable to accurately understand with precision this part of deep-ocean floor (a phenomenon that Richard Dawkins has called "Middle Earth", as the human brain has evolved in a world and lifestyle where things don't go too fast or slow, or are too big or too small).

However... I have noticed that this image appears to be inaccurate in its claim of being to scale. The RMS Titanic had a total length of 882 ft, and using the depth shown in the image of 12000 ft, this should mean that the ship could be stacked end-to-end about 13.61 times to equal the same depth/length. Without even measuring the image exactly, it is obviously inaccurate in its depiction of the ship both at the surface and at the bottom, as to stack end-to-end the image's ship and wreck would require many, many more than 13.61 ships. The iceberg also depicted in the image in relation to the very small ship would mean that the iceberg would be as high as a mountain. While icebergs may be very large, the iceberg that the RMS Titanic hit was much, much smaller.

I hope that a person on here with more graphics experience than me, or a particularly good nose for information could maybe correct the image or find an alternate image. I love the idea of the image and think it would be worth it to make a new one or edit this current version.

Thanks, Jjfredregill. Jjfredregill (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hidden shouty comments
So apparently there is a paragraph in the lead that is so outlandishly unbelievable that people keep removing it. But apparently someone feels that the best way to deal with that is not to simply add citations to reliable sources, but to add a hidden HTML comment in full caps, yelling at people to not remove it. There are several problems here:
 * 1) Prioryman has barely bothered to explain why they are doing what they are doing. The first thing that vaguely resembled a reason came only on their third revert.
 * 2) Their "reason" doesn't make sense: the supposed problem of people deleting a paragraph in the lead does not seem to exist. The history reveals one editor a few days ago commenting it out with a specific request for citations. A year and a half ago, someone else also specifically requested citations. I could not find any examples of people deleting it.
 * 3) Even if the problem did exist, the incredibly obvious solution is to add citations. The material comes from reliable sources, the sources are given in the article later, so simply add them to the lead. Verifiability policy mandates that any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be cited to a reliable source, preferably with an inline citation. This material has been challenged, so it should have an inline citation. The reverting user thinks that would be "inconsistent", a terrible misunderstanding of the priorities of the encyclopaedia.
 * 4) Hidden comments carry zero authority anyway. The content of articles is determined by consensus and the policies of the encyclopaedia. A hidden comment left by one angry editor does not embody any kind of consensus.
 * 5) Even if it did carry any authority, it's a shoddy way to behave. Someone believing that the information is implausible could, if citations are given, see right away that it is verifiable. But you prefer to let them decide it's implausible, decide to take the time to edit the article to improve it, and then shout at them in an obnoxious hidden comment? That is not a sensible way to behave.

Summary: inline citations accord with all policies of the encyclopaedia and benefit the article. Hidden shouty comments don't. 109.180.164.43 (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking advice. I will say this first you both are in wrong letting it get that far cooler heads work better keep it civil and don't swear. That being said. Hidden comments do help. Also there is no need to source material that is sourced in the main article. The lead is just a summary. My opinion since that is the case if there is an issue just take it out of the lead. It's in the main body and is sourced. I think that will be the best option. Reb1981 (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. There is no policy that says that a hidden comment is an acceptable substitute for citations to reliable sources. Stop vandalising the article now. 109.180.164.43 (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is accepted practice though that the lead need only summarise what is already stated elsewhere, and that if those questionable statements are properly sourced there, then there's no need to re-state the same citations in the lead.
 * There is also a view here that it is either citations or a hidden comment. There is no such dichotomy. Each of these could be added, or not, separately. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's another example of "shouty comments": It's needed for the same reason - people have deleted verifiable information because they didn't believe it. I added the comment in this article a long time ago because people repeatedly deleted the subsequent content. It's still needed, as this edit (ignoring the comment!) made only a few days ago shows. As for citations, you are of course correct about accepted practice. I wrote this article; I got it up to GA status, I'm aiming to get it to FA status, and I'm pretty sure that the FA reviewers would not want to see citations being duplicated that way. They haven't in the past, in my experience. Prioryman (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Issues
Point by point:

Depth image
§ The depth vs. Manhattan image. Should it be used?
 * What's wrong with this? On the whole I like the idea of it, but is it accurate?  If not, it should go from here, and from Commons too. Otherwise (if accurate) I see no reason to not use it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think it's a very good image. I've seen more useful comparisons, like the depth of the Titanic compared to multiple Empire State Buildings stacked on top of each other. That's more intuitive. But comparing it to the street plan of Manhattan is only useful if you're familiar with the scale of Manhattan, which most people on the planet won't be. Also, from a usability point of view, the street plan portion of the image is very faint and hard to see, and isn't really visible at thumbnail size. So the image doesn't really add anything. Prioryman (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Do we have such an image available? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately no. I've seen similar images in magazines like National Geographic. Prioryman (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Then in the absence of anything better (and assuming it's accurate), then why not use it until such time as a better image (of Eiffel Towers or Empire States) becomes available? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I deleted the image because its own caption said it was inaccurate. 109.180.164.43 (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So is it inaccurate? Why? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Salvage
§ The outlandish salvage proposals.
 * § Do they need to be included specifically in the lead?
 * Do they need to be re-stated in the lead, and should this be individually or as a simple blanket statement? I've no strong opinion, but individually works for me. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think they do; salvage was for decades the aim of those hunting for the wreck. I agree that individually works better. Prioryman (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * § Do they need to re-state their sources in the lead?
 * No. We don't require this. However an inline link to the later section could be useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We could add a link, though I doubt it would be needed. It's not the usual practice. Prioryman (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * § Do we need a hidden comment saying don't delete these?
 * I hate hidden comments. They're an admission that normal practice isn't working. That said, I've no objection to them, as they're largely harmless. If they become harmful, such as the passive-aggressive edit-warring here today, that's blockable edit-warring.
 * Also the idea of "keeping" the proposals in the lead, but hidden (see ) is dreadful. We absolutely should not do this. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You hate them but you don't mind them. Interesting.  Note that the diff you provided does not show what you claim it does.  109.180.164.43 (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The hidden comments are only necessary because people have deleted that paragraph because they think it's a hoax, as mentioned above. They function as a tripwire to make people think twice before editing. It was pretty successful up to the last few days. Totally agree about hiding the salvage proposals being a bad idea. Prioryman (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Christ almighty this is not difficult. If people have deleted that paragraph (and you've been asked for evidence and failed to provide any) then citations should be provided.  This is mandated by the verifiability policy, from which lead sections are not exempt.  You have failed to offer any reason not to add inline citations.  There is no reason not to.  Hidden comments are just an arrogant attempt by one editor to circumvent normal methods of obtaining a consensus.  They do not help editors and they obviously do not help readers.  Citations do both.  Your desperate desire for hidden shouty comments is weird in the extreme.  109.180.164.43 (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to waste my time trawling through edits made several years ago just to satisfy a disruptive IP editor about the veracity of my statement that the paragraph was repeatedly deleted in the past. I'm not in the habit of adding hidden comments to warn editors and only added this one because it was needed, and apparently still is. As Andy has said, inline citations are not required here and even if they were added, which they shouldn't be, they will likely be stripped out in an upcoming featured article review as being needless duplicates. Adding them would be a waste of time. Prioryman (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * They are required. The material has been challenged or is likely to be challenged.  No policy or guideline mandates the use of hidden comments instead of citations in such circumstances.  Whatever purpose you believe your arrogant hidden comment serves, inline citations serve it far more effectively according to the policies of this encyclopaedia.  But as I've demonstrated below, the problem that you claim exists, doesn't. 109.180.164.43 (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Relevant guideline: Inappropriate uses for hidden text: Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing guideline or policy against that edit. Thus, the hidden text contravenes the manual of style.  And to repeat it again as some people clearly have not understood it: The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. 109.180.164.43 (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You are not understanding the lead is just a summary. The information is sourced just below in the main body. You refuse to WP:LISTEN. Every editor has given the view of policy but you are insisting on what you believe in rather than taking the advice of editors that have been doing working this for a very long time. Like I said even on multiple occasions the lead is long enough as it is. It could be trimmed down. Again please refer to WP:Civil because the way you type is not that. Reb1981 (talk) 01:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. What is it that you don't get about that? 109.180.164.43 (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read further: The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. The consensus has been saying there is no need for citation, you are the only one that objects. I have stated what has been said. I refuse to waste my time anymore. Reb1981 (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just saying the same thing over and over is what took you to 3RR in the first place. I see no reason to repeat cites in this lead that are already in the main body. I would support an inline link or footnote that takes readers to that section. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Please use threaded comments if you have anything to add. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I came here originally due to working a pending change review. That's how it all started with my part. I even gave some advice on IP's talk page. Me personally I think the lead is too long. That one section I think can be just summarized or removed from the lead. Reb1981 (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe so. I was already working on shrinking the intro and prepping the article for an FA nomination when this IP editor decided to start edit warring with multiple editors. Prioryman (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that the IP editor involved has now been blocked, effectively indef. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I had a feeling that the editor was someone with a questionable track record. Thanks for letting us know. I'll ask EdJohnston to unprotect the article now that he's gone. Prioryman (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

A question of the time zone
Sorry I'm not familiar with en-wikipedia.Could anyone please tell me which the time zone it is in this entry ？ --NickNYCN (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Idea to save the wreck
Can we put walls around the wreck and then suck water to protect the wreck? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.211.2.144 (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this talk page is for discussing the article itself, not a forum on the topic. —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 04:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Raising the titanic?
"Many schemes have been proposed to raise Titanic, including filling the wreck with ping-pong balls, injecting it with 180,000 tons of Vaseline, or using half a million tons of liquid nitrogen to encase it in an iceberg that would float to the surface. However, the wreck is too fragile to be raised and is now protected by a UNESCO convention."

This is uncited and feels like vandalism or a joke edit to me. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

QuadColour (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Titanic which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Radio retrieval plans and subsequent controversy
Plan to retrieve Titanic radio spurs debate on human remains (October 18, 2020) Where can this be added in the article? Mapsax (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

History Channel
History Channel did a documentary with James Cameron and other noteworthy experts they said that the Titanic will still be recognizable for at least another hundred years. It aired last night. At the end they said the wreck will be completely gone in 500 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:C880:3D7:88A6:7CEA:4A6A:77A9 (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)