Talk:Titanic

Ships are not women

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)

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)

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)

True 65.18.39.253 (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Just you wait until ships start to transition. Especially those big burly male warships. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

You could be right. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yikes, for a moment there I thought that ship name ended with: " -chaser"... - \\'cԼF 02:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

I thought they didn't include battleships now because there are no more battleships... - \\'cԼF 02:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The death/survivor count and passenger count is outdated

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

The inquiries found that the ship seen by Californian was in fact Titanic and that it would have been possible for Californian to aid rescue; therefore, Captain Lord had acted improperly in failing to do so.[

The statement is correct and well footnoted: but it doesn't seem to be noted that, following the discovery of wreck, the position is now known, and not what the enquiry accepted, so the enquiry and 'subsequent arguments' are now seen in a different light. 124.187.219.128 (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Why not just get a tugboat as it was sinking and just pull it? Bryson W Johnson (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

They were in the middle of the Atlantic ocean there were no tugboats around. 64.184.72.83 (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing and Literacy in the Digital Age

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2024 and 13 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vanillacashewmilk (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Vanillacashewmilk (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Colorized newsboy photo

Why use a colorized (faked) photo? Does it feel more "poignant" that way? 2A02:AA1:164A:86B:44BF:B570:1CCE:589A (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 14 December 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. per WP:SNOWBALL... It's crystal clear we're not reaching any consensus (closed by non-admin page mover) RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

---

• Titanic → RMS Titanic
• Sinking of the Titanic → Sinking of the RMS Titanic
• Wreck of the Titanic → Wreck of the RMS Titantic
• Crew of the Titanic → Crew of the RMS Titanic
• Passengers of the Titanic → Passengers of the RMS Titanic
• Memorials and monuments to victims of the Titanic → Memorials and monuments to victims of the RMS Titanic

– I think the "RMS" should be in the main articles at least which would be in line with the article names other famous sinkings, like the RMS Lusitania. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose the latter five. I think Sinking of the Titanic or Sinking of RMS Titanic is the usual idiom and I see no reason to add an extra word when one is not required or usual. DrKay (talk) 08:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Should be added, at least, to the main article but was floating around if it should be on the others. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose all. Titanic is the common name, familiar enough to retain its one-word title. RMS already exists at the first mention, and I'll add the 'RMS' to the infobox caption (which should contain the full name). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose all Per WP:COMMONNAME. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose with one alteration however Per WP:NC-SHIP. We should not be using the definite article in front of a ship name per WP:NC-SHIP so the article titles with "the" in front of Titanic should be moved to article titles excluding the definite article. So "Wreck of Titanic", "Crew of Titanic" etc. Canterbury Tail talk 13:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  The article is required in British English, which is what this is written in. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose – per common name GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support I can't see any reason for this to be inconsistent with all the other ship articles (e.g. RMS Olympic) also the name is ambiguous, Titanic is also the name of a blockbuster film. G-13114 (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  In fact at least eight feature films? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  And yet if I say "Titanic" in a sentence, most people will think of the actual ship before the film. The ship's popularity exceeds that of the film itself, so it is not a valid argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I tend to agree. Furthermore, unlike RMS Lusitania, there's no confusion with a region in modern day Portugal etc., to deal with. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, and per WP:NC-SHIP the prefix is optional but may be used for disambiguation or if it is more commonly known with it. However this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC so no disambiguation needed, and it isn't more commonly known with the prefix, so the addition is not needed. DankJae 20:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per the common name policy, and I suggest a WP:SNOWBALL close here (let's be honest – I'm sorry – but we're going nowhere with this). RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME. Theparties (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Snowball close? Nah. Iceberg close! Randy Kryn (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Britannica I've never known it by this name and its the primary topic so we don't need the longer name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. WaggersTALK 08:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 14:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2025

In Survivors and Victims - the Richard N Williams paragraph reads: "His farther, who was beside him in the water, was on the other hand killed by a funnel." Should be FATHER. 2A00:23C7:CAB9:6501:CDC0:5640:6873:EA28 (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done LizardJr8 (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Spelling

This might be British English but percent is spelled in a section with a space in the middle of the word. Cookiesandpickles (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Per cent is the correct British English spelling. Canterbury Tail talk 22:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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)

coplane

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

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

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

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)