Talk:Wreck of the Titanic

OceanGate expedition

I've started a draft for the June 2023 SAR for the lost submersible Titan to the wreck. At DRAFT: OceanGate Titanic Expedition , feel free to edit or move to article-space, as you'd like. It would probably be better to detail that expedition in a different article than here. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

DSV Limiting Factor

The article mentions the wreck was visited by DSV Limiting Factor in August of 2019. However the Wikipedia page for that vessel has no mention of such an expedition despite listing several dives in the month of August of that year. Also, I would point out that the link for the page on DSV Limiting Factor, in this article, is incorrect. 97.96.252.165 (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

US Postal Service claim on mail

I read somewhere (but now cannot find it) that during legal proceedings to decide ownership of artifacts, the US Postal Service filed a brief (or whatever it's called) with the court. They asserted that any mail found in the wreck is still US mail and should be turned over to them. My memory is that all parties agreed. Can anybody find information about this issue? 75.109.28.175 (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Possible redirect?

I think a redirect from Titanic shipwreck to this article might be useful. Thoughts? Fork99 (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Pronouns

As far as I can tell, this article used she/her for many years, at least since 2015. In this edit [1] an anonymous editor changed two instances in the lead, but left the rest of the article alone. So I would say we should revert the recent change and go back to she/her. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. It sounds anachronistic and pretentious. This is an encyclopaedia, not a seafarer’s manual from 1850. Asperthrow (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:SHE4SHIPS. We can change to it/its, but not without first getting consensus on the talk page. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m aware. I’m seeking consensus for this. Asperthrow (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The Titanic's article uses she/her pronouns.

I am unaware of any Wikipedia guidelines for consistency across closely related articles, but I don't support changing the pronouns unless they're changed on the Titanic's page. FunLater (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Location might be wrong

In this edit [2] an IP editor changed the location from 370 nmi off Newfoundland to 325 nmi. I reverted because it says 370 nmi in two other places, one of which has a source citation, and the editor didn't touch those. The source is Gibson 2012, which I do not have a copy of.

I just checked the coordinates myself, and not only is the location 325 nmi off Newfoundland, it's also 370 statute miles, which suggests to me that whoever put in "370" may have been confused. To further muddy the waters, here is a source that says 400 nmi: [3] GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Pressure at depth

The pressure at 12,500 feet is not over 6000 psi. See Talk:Titanic#Pressure at depth. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Pronouns/manual of style concerns

In a series of edits today, Fisher girl81 replaced feminine pronouns with neuter pronouns. Their stance is that using "she" and variations for an inanimate object is offensively sexist and outdated. In a discussion at their user talk page, they reiterated this stance and also claimed that feminine pronouns' use here is not in line with the manual of style's expectation of in-article pronoun consistency.

On the first matter, I agree that using feminine pronouns to refer to ships is an outdated form of speaking and writing. I also agree that it's sexist but I don't know if I feel as strongly about it as Fisher girl81. I also know it's not worth a back-and-forth here because the MOS isn't going to get changed as a result of what's happening at one article.

On the second matter, the issue regarding consistency is compelling. To my reading, a majority of pronouns used in this article to refer to the Titanic are neuter and given the manual of style's strong preference for consistency, a preference both MOS:SHIP and WP:SHE4SHIPS emphasize, feminine pronouns should be replaced. It's possible this article's writers have tried to split the difference by by using feminine pronouns to refer to the ship and neuter pronouns to refer to its wreck but even typing that out feels silly and such a consideration definitely isn't worth more than what the MOS says. (Not to mention, if ship/feminine and wreck/neuter is the unwritten rule, it's one this article violates plenty of times.)

Pinging users who have, either today or in the past, weighed in on this: @Asperthrow, CycloneYoris, Fisher girl81, FunLater, and GA-RT-22: thoughts? City of Silver 20:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not convinced feminine pronouns are outdated. They are still in use in many of the current (within the last year) sources I checked. I would prefer to stick with ship/feminine and wreck/neuter. I wouldn't say it's an unwritten rule, I would say it's written in the MOS. MOS does not specify she/her for things that are not ships, and a wreck is not a ship. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@GA-RT-22: The MOS requests pronoun uniformity, which this article doesn't have. It matters that, contrary to your claim that "a wreck is not a ship," the MOS doesn't differentiate between ships and wrecks. I might not understand but are you saying that a ship undergoes some sort of rhetorical sex change once it sinks? On its face that reads as silly so unless we had a reliable source for it, I won't edit in accordance with that. This article contains several neuter pronoun references to the ship along with several feminine pronoun references to the wreck so no matter how this shakes out, it needs the sort of work Fisher girl81 was doing. I don't know about citing the unwritten rule I mentioned because that was a total guess on my part, it might not even exist, and even if it does there's no reason to pretend like it's part of any policy or guideline. City of Silver 02:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

We've been through this. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_159 . Regards   Aloha27  talk  00:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Titanic

What strategy did Ballard use for finding the sunken ship? 2601:204:E701:9730:2DBE:A5A1:F04:3E9B (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

That information can be found here Regards,   Aloha27  talk  03:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Collided v Allided

Re: the 2nd paragraph: I believe 'collided' should be changed to 'allided.' In maritime law, a collision is when two ships, both moving, strike one another. Allided is when a ship under power strikes a stationary object. The iceberg was not under power and adrift, therefore, the Titanic allided with the iceberg. Dan Bollinger (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says Titanic allided with the iceberg? As far as I know you can only allide with a stationary object. The iceberg was adrift, not stationary. The source you cited last time you brought this up gives the examples of a bridge, pier, or dock. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)