Talk:RMS Titanic

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Guide and FTT?[edit]

What's still missing from the article to make it a guide, because this is another article that could make a cool FTT? Per Wikivoyage:Travel topic status a guide article:

  • "Effectively covers most aspects of the topic with no obvious omissions. (maybe?)
  • If practical, it should contain a listing of relevant destinations. Yes
  • The format should closely match the manual of style. Yes
  • Should have a custom page-banner." Yes

The article already has suggestions for present-day travel between the listed destinations, though some of them lack that information and it needs to be added to make it a complete itinerary. Should there be more details about the ship's first and only voyage? --Ypsilon (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for looking closely into this article! It's written in the present tense, which I don't think you brought up. The present tense feels odd to me. Also, there are not many details about the sinking of the ship, which seem to me like key details needed for context about the whole topic. Otherwise, as you say, it looks like quite a good article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did notice the use of present tense in the Understand section and the lead. Maybe the author at some point wanted to write the itinerary from a kind of live-action role playing game point of view, i.e. the reader would be a passenger onboard the Titanic. --Ypsilon (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, but I think past tense would be better. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. Ypsilon (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sinking content added. --Ypsilon (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Travel topic not Itinerary ?[edit]

Do not see this as a single journey someone could make, more a Historical travel topic. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you look at Titanic#Go, the destinations are arranged in order along the ship's route. I think that makes it more of an itinerary, but the line is hard to draw in this case. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diving the wreck?[edit]

Another travel guide claims Tourists will be able to dive the Titanic shipwreck starting as soon as 2021 Pashley (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Listings on this page are out-of-date duplicates of those elsewhere. It looks like Belfast, Cobh and Southampton pages are up to date while Liverpool and Cherbourg need work. Would it help if the listings here became explainer markers, with detail like admission prices and hours left to the primary page? Grahamsands (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. Duplication almost always results in only one of the duplicates being updated at a time (some people updating one and others the other). I believe we treat destination article listings as the primary ones, so details like those should be included here only for attractions that for some reason don't have and should not have listings there.
I have sometimes linked the listings to the specific listings in destination articles, using the Article#Q12345 syntax (or Article#See etc. for listings lacking Wikidata item). Having listing names bluelinked isn't common – should it be the norm in itineraries and region articles?
LPfi (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What sort of page?[edit]

This is starting to shape up as a Historical travel page (endorsing Traveler100's view above) and looks less and less like an itinerary. Views please, as that will affect the work still to be done here. It could feature as a Dotm theme or OtBT under several guises. Grahamsands (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is supposed to be an itinerary which unfolds chronologically. It begins at the shipyard in Belfast, then the grand pronouncements about how this luxurious liner is most certainly unsinkable, then the grand departure from Southhampton, the ports of call in France and Ireland, then the historic trans-Atlantic journey. Only once we get within radio contact range of Marconi's station at Cape Race should the panicked "CQD CQD DE MGY MGY MGY" begin to crackle out onto the airwaves. The "it sank" garbage belongs at the end, not way up top in "Understand" and "Watch", as this tells a story and that story is meant to unfold chronologically. No one posts the story's ending on the first page of any chronological tale, as that sort of 'spoiler' breaks the sequence.
The whole point was to retrace the original voyage. Chronologically. Geographically. In order. That has been lost, as someone broke the sequence by adding all manner of off-topic commentary about every ship that has ever sank with great loss of life. If there's to be an epilogue, be it about the two enquiries (one US, one UK), the memorials, the efforts to find the sunken ship or anything else - that belongs at the end. The article is itinerary because it's sequential, east to west, same as the original voyage.
There should be an "epilogue" created and all of the spoilers and references to events which took place after the voyage moved there. "Stay safe" has also gone badly off-topic and "go next" telling the reader that no aircraft has ever been hit by an iceberg? I'm beginning to have second thoughts about this article being nominated for anything. The original premise was good, but the recent additions both break the sequence and throw the article badly off-topic. 15:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason people are fascinated by Titanic is that they already know it sank on its maiden voyage with great loss of life. So there is no question of spoilers, the task is to assemble the elements that explain that enduring fascination, and the page largely does follow the chronological and geographical sequence. But one section that jars as out of sequence is the film treatments, "Watch". These came years later and were often laughable, so they interrupt the mood of build-up to a tragedy. I propose shifting that section nearer the end. Grahamsands (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Yes DoneReply[reply]

Lost ships[edit]

In Stay safe, there is a list of some other disasters. Should Estonia be on the list? The lives lost were 852, less than a thousand, which seems to be a limit on the list, but she is an example of a modern disaster in Western countries, and might be relevant as such. She also prompted several improvements in safety. The worst problem at that disaster was that the ships arriving to help didn't dare to launch man-over-board boats and lifeboats (~5 m waves, 8–10 Bf), so they were unable to help efficiently: only 34 were saved directly by the ships, while a single helicopter (the one arriving first and landing on the ships despite the sea state) saved 44. –LPfi (talk) 11:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's only so much that can usefully be covered here - maritime safety would be a whole separate page. Estonia was lost in 1994 so to illustrate the point that well-developed nations still suffer calamities I added a mention of Korea's Sewol in 2014. You can see where I was going with this section, to build to a crescendo of loss that the world has forgotten. To do next: more intro on why we remember Titanic and not these others. Grahamsands (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC) Yes DoneReply[reply]
OK, fine. –LPfi (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You do realise that this article was created as a joke? It's supposed to be an itinerary in which the voyager boards this fine ship amazed by the sheer luxury of the White Star Line and emboldened by the assurances that the ship is indeed unsinkable. Everything else follows in the order a passenger would have seen it unfold, with the joke being that the reader probably already knows how this ends. That's why this was featured on 1 April this year. There's no other reason this silliness should be on the front page. It's doomed as doomed can be. 21:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]