Talk:Titanic/Archive 2

message: An interesting read: http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/item/4792/
:Link is broken. Looking for it. --Midnightcomm 00:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Open Letter to Ballard

message: I'm interested that the alternative theories regarding the Titanic disaster do not contain the information posited by Charles Pellegrino in his book "Ghosts of the Titanic."
Pellegrino makes a strong case that the coal-bunker fire, that plagued the Titanic from the time it left Southampton until shortly befored it sank, weakened the bulkhead against which the fire burned. Although the Titanic may have still gone to the bottom, Pellegrino's information indicates that, had the bulkhead not ruptured the ship may still have been afloat when the Carpathia arrived.
:It does not have the information in it because no one has put it in yet. Alternate theories needs a thorough going over that I would like to get to one day, it needs copyediting and, as you mentioned, the information is incomplete. If you would like to put the information in the article please do so, but don't forget to cite your sources. MechBrowman 19:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Coal fire

message: Article currently states "Not helping third-class passengers were gates kept locked by crew members waiting for orders to let the passengers up to the deck.", but at Titanic (1997 film)#Historical inaccuracies it is stated that "There is no evidence for closed, locked gates". Which is correct? --Stoive 16:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no evidence of locked gates as depicted in the film, but there are witnesses to the gates that led into second class from the aft well deck that said the gates were closed until very late. What is written here is simplistic and should be clarified.  I'll clarify it once I find an appropriate reference. MechBrowman 15:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closed gates? 

message: In belfast it is largely believed that the Titanic, being built in the Belfast docks by mainly Protestant / Loyalist workmen carried the Slogan "No Pope Here" and other sectarian graphitti.  Indeed some would say, or at least imply, that this provoked God into causing the iceberg to break off from the ice-sheets and head south just in time to crash into the anti-clerical ship (HE presumably being an angry and spiteful god).
There was certainly sectarian graphitti on the Titanic and as its such a compelling image and part oif the social history of the ship I think it would be worth a mention in the main article.
:What it sound like your mentioning is a curse where the ships number was supposed to read "no pope" when read backwards in a mirror. This is mentioned in Titanic alternate theories. MechBrowman 23:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titanic graphitti 

message: Shouldn't the main picture be of the ship, not of a newspaper? Would look a lot more appealing, I think.
:I like the image of the newspaper, it contains a headline describing the disaster, a drawing of the Titanic and the people involved. A newspaper is a symbol of the entire event and the Titanic's actual fame. MechBrowman 04:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Could this page be given a table of characteristics like most other wikipedia ship pages, detailing the ships career and specifications such as length, height, cost etc ... -M
:Most of those articles are for military ships and the information is located within the article, where it belongs. MechBrowman 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tech Specs 

message: Captain smith is shown as Captain Dude the Third pimp daddy of the titanic in his picture, and his name isn't linked to the wiki page.  I checked the edit and can't seem to see any problem with it other than it appears wrong.
:It was vandalism and has been fixed. MechBrowman 04:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captain Edward J. Smith 

message: What would happen if Titanic had a nose/front collision with the iceberg?  Would it still sink? After the water tight doors had been locked, I don't see how it could sink...given a lower impact as a result of slowing down. Any comments?
:This is common speculation and generally beileved would have likely saved the ship, but the general instinct would be to try and avoid any damage. This idea is mentioned in the Titanic's rudder and the ship's turning ability subsection. MechBrowman 04:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason this would save the ship is because it would only flood 1 or 2 of the water-tight compartments, thus keeping the ship afloat. --NYKenny 12:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Does anybody have a citation to support this? I find this thinking very dubious. A ship ramming an iceberg isn't like a car ramming another car. The ship wouldn't just stop dead in the water. Its enormous momentum would carry it forward, and the iceberg would have rolled off to one side or the other and scraped against the side anyway. It takes several miles for a large ship to coast to a stop. (That's probably why the captain didn't order the lifeboats prepared for another 45 minutes.) The claim has been marked "citation needed" since Nov 4. I'm taking it out. -- MiguelMunoz 08:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: head on collision

message: This is just a personal question I have for any Titanic scholars who should stumble accross it...
With more than two hours between realizing that the ship was doomed and it taking its final plunge, couldn't some handy folk have broken up some tables and chairs and built some crude rafts?  Obviously they wouldn't have lasted long in the Atlantic waters, but didn't most victims die of hypothermia, and wouldn't have even an extra hour kept out of the frigid water saved at least some people?  I just always wondered about that... is there any evidence that anyone even tried to build themselves some kind of escape vehicle?
:An interesting idea with hindsight. But keep in mind that most of those people had never been at sea before. They had their lifevests and were sure these would keep them afloat. Few had any idea what the cold water would do to them. Even the surviving officers of the Titanic underestimated the speed people were dying in the water, when they were waiting for "enough" people to die before returning with a half-empty boat to pick up survivors. So according to all known reports nobody thought of making rafts. Nevfennas 23:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One more point. On most boats, especially ocean liners, the furniture tends to be bolted to the floor. It wouldn't have been easy to just flip a table over to make a crude raft. The chairs were probably mobile. Try quickly making a makeshift raft from some chairs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MiguelMunoz (talk • contribs) 23:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a thought 

message: hey its worth a mention that titanics anchor and chain was made by noah hingey and sons of netherton in the black country region of england, and was haulled by w.a Roe haulage, with twelve shire horses through the streets of netherton, where it was sent by from the northen railway line to the shore where it was ferried to harland and wolfes shipyard. 
                                                            
** the titanic task that put the town on the map
** titanics centre anchor.
** all about the anchor some good photos
** history of netherton
                                          
Paul from walsall
:That's a minor detail that doesn't really fit in the article, but the information is accesable here on the talk page. MechBrowman 02:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before throwing allegations of racism around you might want to check your facts. The edit history of this article is available for everyone to see. I removed the section about titanic's anchor (diff) and gave my reasons in the edit summary--the text that I removed was a direct copy of the text of an article at this website, which is clearly marked as being copyright. Wikipedia cannot include copyrighted material without the premission of the copyright holder.  JeremyA 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Only one of the links related to the Titanic, the others were more related to the town. MechBrowman 17:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  titanics anchor 

message: I stand by what I said. Modern day watertight compartments are indeed watertight. These, by definition, were not. No modern day ship is built as the Titanic was with bulkheads x ft above the water line, for just this reason. And, by the way, I totally don't want to get into an edit war here, but "MechBrowman (fixed recent edits, restored better words, just because they weren't watertight under your definition does not allow you to change what they were called)" is technically wrong, and just a little impolite. This is Wiki and by definition I can edit it. In this case I would argue that my words are better. The construction of the Titanic wouldn't be called 'watertight compartments' now. I don't think it was even then; even if it was the difference in then and now meanings of the word should be given. Let's discuss it here, shall we? Guinnog 18:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry I was rude, but what I was trying to say was that despite them not being completely watertight, they were called "watertight compartments". I changed the wording in the article to call them compartments, just compartments and called the bulkheads watertight, which would be accurate under both our definitions. What do you think? MechBrowman 17:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's a lot better now. Thanks Guinnog 17:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Watertight compartments?

message: When visiting the "Fisheries Museum of the Atlantic" in the mid 1990's, I remember reading a deathbed confession of a sailor who was on board the "mysterious ship".  Apparently the sailors were hunting seals illegally and thought the lights from the Titanic were authorities coming to investigate them.  They turned off their lights and sailed off.  I seem to remember the ship had been renamed, sometime after that point, to "The City of New York".  As this memory is over a decade old, perhaps someone could research this for accuracy?
Lent 20:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mysterious ship 

message: I edited artefacts (yes, I realize that is the British spelling and this was a British vessel) and replaced it with the American spelling (artifacts) because the latter option was appearing elsewhere in the article, and having the two different spellings of the word was inconsistent.  Considering en.wikipedia implies American english given that it is physically located in the state of Florida, I believe my change to be appropriate.
65.164.165.36 23:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  artefact vs. artifact 

message: "The investigations found that many safety rules were out of date and as a result numerous safety measures were not enacted.
Stealth graffiti? It seems to imply that although the U.S. Congress investigated, they did nothing. Which is contradicted by the rest of the section. Or is it just a poorly worded way of saying there were few useful rules in place, twice? 169.231.23.208 05:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this an error? 

message: The current picture is too low-res.  Klosterdev 06:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a better picture 

message: All: I am just wondering if it is worth it, even here in discussion, to examine the differences between the RMS Olmpic and Titanic? A lot of hype is given to the Titanic because of its infamous sinking, but as the Olympic had be underway for some time before and was the same length, what distinguished these craft from one another? Was the Titanic more ornate? More technologically advanced? Designed with a higher class of clientelle in mind? Why were people (if they in fact were) people in awe of the Titanic when the Olymic was already afloat and looked, at least to me, to be equally impressive in size and stature? These are just questions I have as I often wonder what would people have remembered if it was the Olympic that had gone down and not the Titanic. Thanks, in advance. Madmaxmarchhare 04:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: VS. Olympic

message: I noticed that TitaniC (with the capitalised T and C) redirects here. Is there some significance to writing it with an upper-case C like this? If so, perhaps it should be noted; if not, perhaps that redirect should be deleted? Phirst 08:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TitaniC ?

message: This is a pretty good article. I have a few comments. In nautical terms, tonnage comes in many varieties and the tonnage given for Titanis is ususally the measurment "gross tonnage" which is a cubic measurment of enclosed space. Displacement, the amount of water the ship displaces is used to measure weight. I revised the tonnage listed to correct this and added the displacement. I was not sure which one to put, ( design, verus departure weight, etc) so I put an approximation of the various figures.
Also, there was not Northern Ireland when the ship was built, so "... in what is now Northern Ireland, UK" might be appropriate. Some parts of the article are not neutral. The punctuation and sentence structure of some paragraphs is confusing. Not all of the bulkhead doors were operated from the "bridge switch". The section describing the anatomy of the damage should be cited. All figures of the number of passengers should be noted as known figures since steerage (third class) passengers were not all listed on manifests.The part about the head-on impact is false and should be substantiated. The experts who have said such a collision would have saved the ship and only a minor length of the bow would have been crumpled This has happened many times before ( ie Andrea Doria versus the Stokholm and the Arizona in 1879). There is a solid history of head-on collisions and no sinikngs.(Gary Joseph 11:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments ?

message: Perhaps we could add something about the mystery surrounding the "Unknown Child" who was the fourth body recovered by the Mackay-Bennett? He's been identified now, but it was one of the most endearing stories of the more unknown victims of the disaster. Morhange 22:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Unknown Child" 

message: It says that "the British inquiry had determined mathematically that the damage to the ship could not have comprised more than twelve inches square". I own a Discovery Channel documentary about the expedition that solved many of the mysteries. In it, they say that the damage they found was about twelve square feet (the surface area of an average sized person). Also, do we mention the fact that they found about 60 square feet from the third piece of the hull? One more thing, are we going to get images of all the ship's deckplans?- JustPhil 18:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy 

message: I've added the section about Collins' book and conclusions, but I'm also wondering whether we should alter the main text to reflect the uncertainty it brings up over what sort of ice the ship actually hit.  Personally having read the book I'm convinced it was pack ice, but since the general consensus from the enquiries is that it was a berg this obviously isn't something that can be altered with debate. MartinMcCann 18:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iceberg/Pack Ice? 

message: Belfast, Ireland?  Shouldn't this say Belfast, Northern Ireland?  It was a British, not an Irish vessel after all. 84.69.106.119 17:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ireland?

message: There's contradicting pieces of info in this section. Consider:
The worst peacetime maritime disaster happened on 21 December 1987, when the passenger ferry Doña Paz sank in the Philippines after colliding with the oil tanker Vector and catching fire. The sinking of Doña Paz claimed between 1,500 and 4,000 lives.
and Although "Titanic" is the best known peacetime maritime disaster, the worst one comes from the MV Joola, a Senegalese government-owned ferry that capsized off the coast of The Gambia on Sept. 26, 2002. The disaster resulted in the deaths of at least 1,863 people, making it the deadliest peacetime maritime disaster known.
Well, which is it? Maybe the latter section was added later and the editor missed the earlier text. Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення), 11 May 2006
:If you look at the article about the Doña Paz, that article states that the official death toll for the Doña Paz was only 1,565 but had been 'reported' to be as high as 4,000. Since the 4,000 figure was an estimate based on un-confirmed reports, thhe MV Joola retains the record as that has been confirmed to be higher. I do accept that the section about the Doña Paz needs to be edited to reflect this though. JonEastham 11:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparable maritime disasters #2 

message: Although the RMS Titanic did carry binoculars, the lookouts were not supplied with them, and why they were not has been the subject of much speculation. It has also been asked: If the lookouts had binoculars, would the field glasses have made a difference?  The book; "Titanic, the Death and Life of a Legend" by Michael Davie, 1986, pages 39 to 41,  goes into great detail discussing the subject. According to the book, no one knows why the binoculars were not issued. Fredrick Fleet, a lookout, argued,(at the inquiry), if he had binoculars, he would have seen the berg sooner. 2nd Officer Charles Lightoller argued,(at the same inquiry), they were not important. However,(to quote the book); "In the British Navy, lookouts are taught to look for icebergs first with their eyes and then with binoculars." Both naked eyes and binoculars are used. Binoculars were standard on White Star ships and there was a locker for binoculars on the RMS Titanic, which was empty on April 14,1912.  At Titanic-titanic.com [], it is stated that the reason the lookouts were not issued binoculars, is because there was a change in the officer in charge of the equipment from David Blair to Henry Wilde, and this mixup was responsible for the lost binoculars. If this is the real reason, it sounds like incompetence on behalf of the officers, especially since the accident occured 5 days after the ship left port. The officers should have found and issued the binoculars to the lookouts by then. 24.195.52.131 18:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Binoculars and the Titanic

message: A while back when setting up subheadlines I used the name Amerika from the article which was the Hamburg line ship that first warned of icebergs.  Somebody changed it to America and I changed it back so everything is consistent.  But on further research I see that America is also correct (although a real #*@! to use as a keyword search on the topic).  I was curious if there is strong opinions one way or the other or what the wiki way was on this.  The ship probably deserves a full fledged wiki entry.  Thanks! Americasroof 18:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Amerika/America?

message: The world's largest passenger ship, Royal Caribbean International's Freedom of the Seas easily dwarfs the Titanic, being approximately 3.4 times the Titanic's displacement.
This is wrong. Freedom has been estimated as displacing 75 to 80 thousand tons. Titanic was just over 50. How is this 3.4 times? Do not confuse displacement and gross registered tons. It has been mentioned in this article and mentioned elswhere in Wikipedia.
(Gary Joseph 06:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia Incorrect

message: The unrealized scheme to replicate the liner is really not relevant here.  This is an encylopedia article, not a collection of any and all references to the ship, no matter how speculative or far-fetched. There are other places people can go read about this stuff.
This section should be deleted.  Kablammo 02:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titanic Replica; Titanic Remembered; Trivia 

message: Is their any evidence for the statement that insufficient lifeboats were provided for primarily economic reasons? Would it not be that if economics had prevailed then only the minimum number of lifeboats required by the British Board of Trade would have been provided?
- I have never once heard that it was done for economic reasons.  From my readings, it seems that the lack of lifeboats was that White Star Line did not wish to crowd the boat deck and the promenade with the clutter caused by the additional 20 or so boats that it would need for the number of passengers on the maiden voyage.  It would have taken an additional 40 lifeboats to the 20 it had with it on that voyage to take care of the maximum occupancy (3,000+).  White Star's arrogance in assuming the ship was unsinkable only contributed to their comfort in not adding any other boats. President David Palmer
::I agree ClemMcGann 20:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some thoughts on the lifeboat question
The question of lifeboat regulations was under review at the time of the sinking. This review had been ongoing from some years and does not seem to have been considered urgent.
The ship owners in general had opposed 100% provision of lifeboats. They presented an argument that lifeboats would be ineffective in many emergency conditions, and to provide trained crews for all boats would be prohibitively expensive. Essentially their (somewhat flawed) argument was that as full provision of lifeboats was not a sufficient condition of safety it could not be considered a necessary condition.
Also increasing the number of lifeboats on existing vessels would be expensive, and possibly (by increased top hamper) make these vessels less seaworthy, and increase the risk to passengers.
If the Olympic class had 100% provision, this would have undermined the ship owner’s position. It is a viable (but untested, and probably untestable) hypothesis that White Star did not fit the additional lifeboats as an act of solidarity with the other ship owners, and to prevent them being forced to refit their existing fleet. WhaleyTim 13:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifeboats 

message: It's time to revisit the discussion on this section.  This site is about Titanic, not other ships.  With the possible exception of the first two sentences, this whole section should be in a separate article.  Kablammo 19:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparable Maritime Disasters 

message: Should this section not list passenger capacity, rather than passengers on board on the maiden voyage?  The title after all is "General Characteristics"; such tables are used to compare ships, and the number of passengers on board in 1912 is set forth in the text.Kablammo 21:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox/General Characteristics

message: Can someone please explain to me why my carefuly 'crafted' Career tag on the side bar has been removed, as well as the all-important Blue Ensign. Other ship related articles, such as Cunard's Queen Mary 2, have these features in their respective articles (although usually with the Red Ensign), so I dont see why this article should be any different, considering E.J Smith served with the Navy in the Boer War, and that it was only 3rd Officer Pittman who was not in the Navy Reserve. 
Also I really cant understand why the fact that the Titanic was a British ship has been emitted, and when it is included in the article, it is constantly removed. As a respected Titanic Hstorian (whom wishes to remain anon) as well as a proud member of the United Kingdom I can't understand why such details which, in my opinion, add to the richness of this fine article are 'vetted' by members of this website. Can someone please provide an answer in the space below. Regards and many thanks!
:While I don't know why this has been changed, perhaps it is to avoid the issue of IMM's nationality.  You may get more response by moving this to the bottom of the page, which is where new subjects are typically raised.  Kablammo 13:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In looking through the history, it looks like the items you added were removed unintentionally during other edit reveresions. I've put them back. As for issues of nationality, there is no question. The ship was British...has to be to carry the RMS prefix. Yes, IMM is a different story, but that doesn't change the flag the the ship was flying under. Akradecki 15:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blue Ensign & Nationality

message: I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 20:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you're mistaken. Try clicking on "Site Map" on the main page and you will see that the site has a wealth of information related to the Titanic. —dustmite 15:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs.  Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
*The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.See footnote
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
*Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.See footnote
*There may be an applicable infobox for this article.See footnote (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.See footnote
*Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.See footnote
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
*As per WP:MOSDATE, dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
*Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
*Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL. 
*Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.See footnote
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.See footnote
* article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail. 
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.  See footnote 
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 33 additive terms, a bit too much.
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
*Please provide citations for all of the s.
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. See footnote
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 08:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto Peer Review 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
*The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
*See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
*There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 50 miles, use 50 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 50 miles.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 10 ft.
*When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
*This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**some people sa
**is considered
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] '''
*Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), meter (A) (British: metre), recognize (A) (British: recognise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), signaling (A) (British: signalling), travelled (B) (American: traveled), any more (B) (American: anymore), sulphur (B) (American: sulfur).
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*Avoid using contractions like: wouldn't.
*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
*Please provide citations for all of the s.
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 10:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: APR update

message: 1:45 PM - Amerika iceberg warning
"On the night of Sunday, April 14" this section is supposed to be going on about daytime?
:Yes, the wireless warning was received on the afternoon prior to the night it sank. Akradecki 18:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1:45 PM - Amerika iceberg warning section requires cleanup

message: I'[ve noticed that my 'timeline of events' article was deleted due to speculation, what was so speculative? The article was based on footage of a test carried out by N.I.S.T (National Institute of S tandards and Technology)if u don't believe me, search titanic on the internet and u'll find this info B06Todd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by B06Todd (talk • contribs) 18:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seconds From Disaster article 

message: The Titanic used the Blue Ensign and NOT the Red Ensign. Whilst she was indeed a merchant ship, E.J Smith had served in the Boer War (1902) with the Royal Navy, and it was only Third Officer Pittman who was not in the Navy Reserve. So in terms of British Maritime tradition, a ship under the command of such a crew is permitted to fly the Blue Ensign in recognition of these facts, and it did.
Please stop with the use of the Red Ensign. --Jbryant500 10:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think part of the problem on both sides of the issue is the lack of information. No one is citing sources. You've at least provided a plausible explanation, but it would have helped if you cited a source for the statement "and it did". Akradecki 14:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that I have found a source and that the explanation given by the unsigned user above is indeed valid (at least in my view).  Have a look at http://flagspot.net/flags/gb-blenr.html  Which states: British merchant ship would be allowed to fly the plain Blue Ensign providing that the ship's master was an officer of the Royal Naval Reserve (RNR) and it just so happens that Edward Smith was an officer of the Royal Naval Reserve.  And while there where some other restrictions regarding the number of crew which must also be RNRs, that requirement seems to have been relaxed over the years before the ship sailed. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 19:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I found some more information that seems to confirm that the blue ensign was used;  and . -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 19:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic...now that's the type of research that will be helpful in justifying the way the article is presented. Akradecki 19:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue Ensign 

message: The section "Investigation, safety rules and the Californian" reports the findings of the Smith Inquiry (U.S.) and Mersey Inquiry (U.K.) concerning the Leyland liner Californian and its captain, Stanley Lord, at face value.  This is extremely misleading and one-sided, repeating popular misconceptions and ignoring a sizable debate that dates back to the time of the inquiries and has been in front of the general public at least since Peter Padfield's book Titanic and Californian was published in 1962.  This section also seems a bit naive, as it overlooks purely political reasons for the actions at least of Lord Mersey, whose role as a hatchet-man for the political authorities is more transparently on view in his handling of the inquiry into the Lusitania sinking, a case where questions of state were more directly involved.  In the case of the Titanic inquiry, he may have been motivated by a desire to distract attention from his ruling that the captain and owners of the Titanic could not be held liable for their actions with respect to the safety of their passengers and crew.
It may not be possible to settle the argument over the actions of the Californian once and for all in this space.  However, with all their vehemence, partisans for the popular version of the Californian story can not explain away the several inconsistencies and flaws in the documentary record they use to justify their convictions.  At the very least, an acknowledgement of the extent to which prominant historians have revised the originally politicized findings of the official inquiries with regard to the Californian is required to bring this section to a minimally respectable level.  As it is, it is a merely perfunctory retelling of discredited popular disinformation.208.100.231.173 02:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  californian 

message: Current red links listed below with the section of the article in which they can be found, for discussion. --Mal 05:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Red links

message: *RMS Titanic#Unsurpassed luxury
This part of the ship doesn't have its own article. Should it? Is there an article on it with a different spelling? --Mal 05:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Café Parisienne]]

message: *RMS Titanic#Passengers
Described in the article as a "pioneer aviation entrepreneur". There is also some information in the notes at the bottom of the page. --Mal 05:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pierre Maréchal Sr.]]

message: *RMS Titanic#Disaster
Michel was one of the leaders of the team, along with Robert Ballard, who discovered the wreck in 1985. Ballard has his own article apparently. Should Michel have one? --Mal 05:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jean-Louis Michel (Oceanographer)|Jean Louis Michel]]

message: *RMS Titanic#Investigation, safety rules and the Californian
Shipping company that doesn't have its own article. Can we contact any WikiProject group who can offer to write one? --Mal 05:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Leyland Line]]

message: *RMS Titanic#Rediscovery
Do "historian Don Lynch and historical artist Ken Marschall" have their own articles? --Mal 05:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Don Lynch]] and [[Ken Marschall]]

message: *RMS Titanic#Rediscovery
What is this process? Is it explained in any Wikipedia article that already exists? --Mal 05:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ductile-brittle transition]]

message: *RMS Titanic#Current condition of the wreck
Robert Ballard's book. Is it notable enough to deserve its own article? Is it mentioned in  Ballard's article? If yes, then is there enough information to create a new article? --Mal 05:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Return to Titanic]]

message: *RMS Titanic#Popular culture
This musical (from a book with its own article in Wikipedia) apparently prompted a book of its own by Peter Stone (needs article?). The lyrics and music were done by Maury Yeston (needs article?).
It won five Tony Awards and starred several actors that have articles about them on Wikipedia. --Mal 05:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 
[[Titanic: the Musical]]


message: *RMS Titanic#Popular culture
Notable enough actors in the aforementioned musical to warrant their own articles? --Mal 05:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jennifer Piech]] and [[Martin Moran]]

message: *RMS Titanic#The last ten survivors
The 12th and 11th last survivors of the disaster. --Mal 05:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bertha Watt]] and [[Helen Shine]]

message: Who wrote the novel about a great ship, Titan, which have sank the same way as Titanic, a few years earlier (1911 as I can remember)?--Alex:Dan 02:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Morgan Robertson, (possible inventor of the periscope), wrote Futility, or the Wreck of the Titan in 1898. I do not know how he responded to news of the Titanic disaster.204.80.61.10 21:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The novel predicting Titanic's fate

message: "Encyclopedia Titanica" - http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org specifically the forums offer a place where both "novice" and "professional" Titanic hobbiests and researchers are able to share resources, discussions and theories.
A particularily interesting article on that website titled "The Grounding of the Titanic" written by David G. Brown and Parks E. Stephenson brings new evidence that the generally accepted "bumping glance that crumpled a few plates/poppped a few rivets" may not have taken place with the ship instead striking an ice shelf protruding from the iceberg - resulting in signifigant deformation of the ships structure eventually leading to structural failure and the eventual breakup of the ship.
Other noteworthy topics include an article regarding the steering of ships which questions the maneuvers performed just prior to the collision.  Ships don't steer like vehicles such as a bus which have tires at the front which rotate - they steer using a rudder at the stern.  Therefore they have a pivot point that is further back.  At the distances involved, had the ship been steered to shift the bow to the left, the stern section of the ship would be pivoting towards the iceberg making the "glancing blow to the starboard side" nearly impossible - the iceberg would have continued to hit the ship all the way aft (which is not the case) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rpeloski (talk • contribs) 23:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would like to draw reference to a community website 

message: "The Titanic could stay afloat with any four of her compartments flooded, or with eleven of fourteen possible combinations of three compartments flooded, or with the first/last four compartments flooded: any more and the ship would sink."
The above sentence cannot possibly be correct, but I don't know how to correct.  Maybe others can take a stab.
If any FOUR compartments could be flooded that would logically have to include all possible combinations of three compartments, as well as making the last phrase redundant since the first four or last four are included within the statement of "any four."  Furthermore I am not convinced that 14 is the correct number of 3-compartment combinations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Albertod4 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Error 

message: A substantial duplicate article, R.M.S Titanic, was created on 28 Jan. I redirected it. Could someone with an interest in the topic please look at the history of that article, weed out any new material and add it to the main article? Deb 16:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate article

message: I asked Chief Officer Alex about his edits on his talk page. Posted here for informational purposes JPotter 22:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kiehl and Hawkins