Jump to content

Talk:Titanic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleTitanic is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 29, 2005.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 16, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
July 9, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
December 10, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
December 27, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
January 26, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
November 9, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
February 13, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 14, 2004, April 14, 2005, April 15, 2006, April 15, 2007, April 15, 2008, April 15, 2009, April 15, 2010, April 15, 2011, April 10, 2012, and April 15, 2015.
Current status: Former featured article

Ships are not women

[edit]

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

Female pronouns for ships is maritime tradition. It's not meant as a slur. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 11:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This argument has cropped up many times on this Talk page over the years (see the archives) - perhaps an FAQ should be added here I've just added an FAQ to the header here. Per WP:SHE4SHIPS: Ships may be referred to by either feminine pronouns ("she", "her") or neuter pronouns ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and exclusively employ only one style. (By way of comparison, Wikipedia also has many references to countries and cities as "she", e.g. "Britain and her allies"; "Tokyo and her sister city New York", etc.) Muzilon (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True 65.18.39.253 (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because she was known to be more faster and not like britannic she was know to travel the world she was gonna be a war ship but not.Rms Is Also A Meaning for "Royal Mail Ship" Royal Means Female in Most Cases.
Bryson Bryson W Johnson (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not True Because Most Ships Are Refered To As that because have you ever heard someone say luxury and Royal And they dont say male but in warships they say male. Strange
Bryson Bryson W Johnson (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just you wait until ships start to transition. Especially those big burly male warships. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NAHHHH not them bro In the next century Theres gonna be ships the size of a mountain. Bryson W Johnson (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could be right. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, for a moment there I thought that ship name ended with: " -chaser"... - \\'cԼF 02:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Big battle ships are already retired and obsolete there are carrier strike groups now and they don't include battleships because they are big slow and bulky. 64.184.72.83 (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought they didn't include battleships now because there are no more battleships... - \\'cԼF 02:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The death/survivor count and passenger count is outdated

[edit]

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

the uk flag at the top page is a not the uk flag i think

[edit]

well i guess Birdeater9000 (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not meant to be the UK flag, it's the Blue Ensign, but I can see how its use might cause confusion. WaggersTALK 11:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

coplane

[edit]

that is not the united kingdom flag Sammypower123 (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See above WaggersTALK 13:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The damage wasn't actually as significant as we first thought

[edit]

Based off the national geographic"digital twin" it's seeming as though the ship actually sank due to distance rather than catastrophic size. 98.118.242.167 (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National geographic isn't good at reporting on Titanic, so ignore it Boenav (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the post but the article is already clear that the damage wasn't huge. The article explains this and doesn't imply otherwise. I'm assuming that in "as we first thought", the "we" is referring to people who haven't read the article. I hope that the article helps them. North8000 (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Titanics "maiden" voyage isn't quite right

[edit]

Its "maiden" voyage is technically its 3rd voyage. But google says "maiden" is defined as its first trip from launch. Its "launch" is defined as from the construction site, to its first introduction to the water. So titanics "launch" was on april 1st on a test run. Its 2nd voyage was a 26 hour trip from Belfast to South Hampton, and its 3rd voyage was from South Hampton to where it sank on the way to New York. Now, there may have been a ceremonial launch in South Hampton making the first two trips technically not count, but these details need to be added in. JCRobertson88 (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maiden voyage is the first trip, in its intended role (i.e., operationally.) Its intended role was as a passenger and mail ship, and its first operational trip was from Southampton. Canterbury Tail talk 11:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That second trip, if true, should probably be added if you have a source. A 26-hour haul is a long trip even if unpassengered. The maiden voyage is still the Atlantic crossing, but the day trip seems notable to add to its full history. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like a source is unneeded, just google titanics trip from Belfast to South Hampton. It was constructed in Belfast, obviously its true, it didnt just warp to south hampton.
And i think there at least should be a side note or in parenthesis that its maiden was technically its third but because of ceremonial reasons it was its maiden voyage 139.60.198.15 (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/titanic-voyage-belfast-southampton-april-2nd.html
you'll have to read through this but it has all the trial runs and the trip from Belfast to South Hampton 139.60.198.15 (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop spelling Southampton like that, it's one word. That source is a user-generated content site so isn't reliable enough for Wikipedia. WaggersTALK 09:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And sources are always needed. WaggersTALK 09:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These details are already recorded in the Titanic#Sea_trials section. Do you have a reliable source to say it was a 26 hour trip from Belfast, instead of the "about 28 hours" we have in the article? WaggersTALK 09:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just nevermind, suddenly you're way off the subject i started with. All i wanted was when i search Titanic's 1st voyage for it to tell me about the trip from belfast because obviously it didnt just warp to Southampton. Unfortunately when i type 1st trip it acts like Belfast doesnt exhist. There should be something in parenthesis there. There should be a separation between its 1st trip and its maiden voyage. Instead i get the same result when typing either maiden or first. I wish it would say somewhere on the internet thats its 1st voyage was not its maiden voyage but it was in belfast. But ai and google and wiki doesnt know the difference. But youre worried about two hours between 26 and 28... holy airball man. Nevermind. 2600:387:F:6EA3:0:0:0:2 (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the sea trials section can be made clearer, suggestions are welcome; but all the facts about the pre-maiden voyage journeys are there. WaggersTALK 10:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that 26 hours or 28 hours probably needs a source. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic "was"

[edit]

This is a silly talk to be honest.. however, I think it should say "The Titanic is a ship blah blah that sank in 1912 etc etc" the ship still exists but just on the ocean floor. Olympic for example does not exist anymore due to her being scrapped. 2A00:23C6:F1A:D001:E5E:C5A3:2CA3:F12E (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between "was" and "is" is defined by the distinction between "ship" and "wreck." The wreck is on the bottom of the ocean. The wreck of the Titanic was a ship until it sank. Otherwise, every ship that ever sank would be described in the present tense. Acroterion (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantic but...

[edit]

There's a seeming inconsistency in terms of how hyphens and capitalisation is handled for terms such as "second-class library". In some cases it's (just as an example) First Class room, First-Class room, first class room, first-class room, etc. There should be some internal self-consistency. Personally, I see no issue with it being capitalized or not, though I lean for it not being capitalized outside of headings. I would, however, prefer hyphen usage when it's used adjectively such as "second-class library". Please discuss and amend accordingly. Electricmaster (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They should absolutely not be capitalised, they are not titles. I don't really see the need for hyphens; "first class room" is fine. For what it's worth, the article on first class travel has the same problem; 25 occurrences of "first-class" and 76 of "first class". WaggersTALK 11:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2025

[edit]

The article should use "she" and not it and it was changed without discussion at some point, even though it had been extensively discussed. Someone needs to change it back as the rules in Wiki say that "she" should be used for ships if they were created with that standard. As a ship nerd it disappoints me that people can make such changes based on political viewpoints. 2600:1016:B07A:965C:ECCE:73CD:B424:B902 (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. where specifically in the article are you seeing the ship referred to as "it"? Cannolis (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2025

[edit]

See above edit request. The ship is referred to as it because it just is called "Titanic." And in the edit notice it says that "Per SHE4SHIPS it should be referred to as "she." This should not be changed without consensus." And that's exactly what happened. Someone removed all the "she" and replaced those pronouns with "Titanic" and "The ship". This should be changed back as this was a change made without consensus and unilaterally. 2600:1016:B0CB:9647:2D9D:657F:78EB:EF82 (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: I don't know which editors you're referring to, and in any case, I won't revert their edits. If you have a specific edit request, please mention it in a "change x to y" format. M.Bitton (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2025

[edit]

See the above two edit requests. Please undo this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titanic&diff=prev&oldid=1218967441 edit which deletes all the "she" pronouns against guidelines. 2600:1016:B0E1:CCF8:ADEC:6E74:C4CD:3056 (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one seems to understand what I'm saying here but the guidelines in the article say to use SHE4SHIPS in the editnotice and on the talk page. I think that edit might be too long to undo but the request is to change all the "she" pronouns that got removed back to what they were because that edit clearly violated the rules. 2600:1016:B0E1:CCF8:ADEC:6E74:C4CD:3056 (talk) 03:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Your concern is too old at this point. If you'd like to revert something that was performed a year ago, you'll need a new consensus. (CC) Tbhotch 02:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]