Jump to content

Talk:Passengers of the Titanic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articlePassengers of the Titanic was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 6, 2007Articles for deletionNo consensus
March 5, 2008Featured list candidateNot promoted
October 1, 2008Featured list candidateNot promoted
July 12, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
May 20, 2014Good article nomineeListed
November 16, 2018Articles for deletionKept
November 30, 2018Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Titanic which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese passengers?

[edit]

The article mentions the documentary about the six Chinese survivors - but the later list of third-class passengers is colour-coded in a way that indicates only five of the eight Chinese passengers survived. Also, I think some of their names are spelled incorrectly, e.g. 'Ali' Lam should be Ah Lam. Muzilon (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the table per Schwankert (2025). Muzilon (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Titanic Victims

[edit]

This article uses the Encyclopedia Titanica for its source for the 2,208 number aboard the Titanic when during the sinking, but uses a different source, the British Wreck Commisoner's Inquiry from 1912 for the number of victims (1,503 as listed in the article). This 1,503 number is not listed in the source, but is presumably a result of subtraction (2,206 total - 703 survivors = 1,503 victims). However, Encyclopedia Titanica has a list of all the victims, listing 1,496 of them. Should we not use the more recent source, that is a verfied victim count for more internal consistency and accuracy? Jbrill05 (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Third-Class Passengers - Botswick Gates or "Grilles"

[edit]

@Omnis Scientia, you removed a section of the article relating to the "Grilles" and class segregation aboard the Titanic. You claimed in your edit summary, "there were likely on two 'grill' doors, in non-passenger spaces like in the cargo hold. they weren't passenger spaces according to plans and not on any other ship." However, there is no source provided for this information. A quick look at Encyclopedia Titanica's Deck Plans on E Deck confirms that there was a Botswick Gate at the top of a staircase forward on the ship on the starboard side. This is right next to several 3rd-class accommodations. There was another gate by the potato room further aft on the same deck, but that is not a passenger area. There is no indication on these plans for those kinds of gates in the cargo hold.

The section you removed overemphasised the effect of these Botswick gates, and the reference was for the bibliography section of a book, for some reason? I believe it warranted removing, however, perhaps replacing it with another source referencing passenger class-based segregation on the Titanic, and/or a section referencing testimony of people locked behind gates (not Botswick) would be preferable? Jbrill05 (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbrill05, hello! How are you?
I know about the Encyclopedia Titanica deck plans, in fact, I'm a member of that wonderful website and have had discussions on the matter. I felt it better to remove the outdated and misunderstood/misinterpreted information because we actually don't really know if those gates were installed at all or just in the plan. It is agreed by historians though, that, regardless of time of day, third class was free to move in their own spaces and indeed a lot of them were on deck that terrible night.
I would say it's not necessary to replace that information since its not related to Titanic but quarantine laws, a seperate topic all together and concerned all ships, not just Titanic, and the small gate you mention was a relatively minor affair at best since it was easily fixed. This specific article is, after all, about passengers, not the ship.
The reason I removed the paragraph - not a section but a paragraph, a SLIGHT difference! - was because a) it was completely inaccurate and b) not well cited at all, as you noted. The information left behind is more than sufficient, I think.
Hope you're having a good day! Regards, Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnis Scientia, I'm doing fine, thank you! You make some fair points. I didn't know that it was possible that those gates were not installed! I understand the inclusion of that anecdote involving the gate during the sinking would likely not be appropriate for this article, which concerns itself with the passengers of the Titanic, hence the name! However, even though the article is not explicitly about quarantine laws or class segregation, and these subjects applied to all passenger ships of the day, I believe that, because it was a major aspect of the passengers' lives on the ship, and because it isn't present in contemporary ships, it is worth at least a mention. To my knowledge, references to class segregation are now completely absent from the article.
It is also important to note that pop culture depictions of the ship, such as the 1997 Hollywood movie, often inform (correctly or not) the widely held beliefs about the ship. These depictions often neglect to consider this ever-present aspect of daily life aboard ships, even to the point where the plot depends on it being absent! Due to this, perhaps it is worth mentioning, even if briefly, about class segregation and quarantine measures. These details also seem to be largely absent from articles specfically about class on the Titanic too. Sorry for the confusion over section vs paragraph, a rather careless mistake by me. Jbrill05 (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jbrill05, if you think so then go for it! :) I don't have any objections but people tend believe these things only happened on this ship but they were on all ships of the time, not exclusive to this one. But I do agree people believe a lot of stuff which is wrong because of the 1997 film so its good to clarify!
And no worries about the confusion over section and paragraph! Just me defending myself a little bit! :P Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy words only

[edit]

one of the crew members yelled at exactly 10:04 happy words only bearaly any people know she did it but she later passed away due to hiprothurmia ~2026-27670-85 (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to add this to the article, please find a reliable source. This seems vague and perhaps nonsensical to me. Jbrill05 (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]