This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject 20th Century Studios, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of20th Century Studios and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.20th Century StudiosWikipedia:WikiProject 20th Century StudiosTemplate:WikiProject 20th Century Studios20th Century Studios
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance inliterature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to thegeneral Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theLibrary of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress
This article wascopy edited byDavid Rush, a member of theGuild of Copy Editors, on 14 August 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Was thepiece of wood that Rose climbs on to during the sinking 'small', as stated in the plot, or of medium size. In essence, would there have been room for another person on the wood or was that precluded because of its size and would have sunk it.Here's an interesting article on the piece with a photo, which says it is 8 feet long and 41 inches wide, not 'small' but maybe sinkable with two people (how high in the water was it riding with Rose aboard?). Thanks.Randy Kryn (talk)12:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have changed it to 'a floating broken door' which seems more accurate.Mythbusters proved that Jack could have been saved as well by getting on the door, although others disagree.Randy Kryn (talk)13:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's getting stupid now, it should just be restored to small piece of debris, debris covers "broken door", there's no need to be so specific about it or mention its floating, how else or why else would he be helping her onto it?.Darkwarriorblake (talk)21:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I came to this article to learn about the film's relationship toA Night to Remember, but noticed how many textual problems have crept in since it was a good article. Rather than tracing through the history, it may be simplest to edit out phrases like 'Often regarded as one of the most talked film in the history', unreferenced and where the meaning is unclear in any case.
The convention of including a genre in the first sentence results inTitanic being described as an 'epic romantic disaster film'. The running time could be mentioned instead of a meaningless 'epic', and 'romantic' applied instead to the fiction in the next sentence. This is not a film about an epic romantic disaster. --Cedderstk08:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of arequested 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 amove reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support perWP:PRIMARYTOPIC /WP:INCDAB.Pageviews show that around 90% of readers looking for a film titledTitanic want this article, more than enough to meet the criterion at INCDAB. That said, pageviews also show that only 2 or 3 readers per day are being inconvenienced by the current title, so a move is not critical.Station1 (talk)05:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose perWP:PRECISION,"Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects... M-185 is precise enough to be unambiguous, but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways) specify adding the qualifier M-185 (Michigan highway) with a redirect from M-185."WP:PRIMARYFILM is in line with this and applies here and is extremely minimalist disambiguation, despite ridiculous claims about inconvenience. There is no such thing as "Titanic (film)" in the real world, and it is false to claim that layperson readers commonly search for anything with disambiguation terms involved. "Titanic (film)" has had single-digit daily average page views for its entire existence. For comparison, "Titanic" has 13,436 daily average page views, and "Titanic (1997 film)" has 9,940 daily average page views. There is literally no problem here, and pushing for a move is just window-dressing that perpetuatesmore window-dressing later where editors will want to tackle other sets of secondary-topic films to push for unnecessary hierarchies.Erik (talk | contrib)13:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To add on,WP:DAB has this language aboutsearching:
"Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing English Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead."
"Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be."
"A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term."
IfTitanic (film) has single-digit daily average page views, it is objectively not a searched term. "Titanic" is the only search term in play, and the 1997 film is highlighted in its hatnote, and that is totally fine per hatnote guidelines. Nothing further is needed.Erik (talk | contrib)13:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose perWP:PRIMARYFILM. I haven't seen that particular naming convention before. I'm not sure it makes sense because it seems to conflict withWP:COMMONNAME. But I don't care enough about that issue to start that fight. It is clear under the terms of WP:PRIMARYFILM that when we have a primary topic that shares its name with multiple films, then the primary topic takes the unqualified title and the titles for the articles of all the films are qualified by their year of release. However, in the alternative, I would support a move of this article toTitanic and a move of the current article at that title toTitanic (ship). Because ofCeline Dion's work (specifically,My Heart Will Go On), the word "Titanic" is more commonly used to refer to the film, not the ship. --Coolcaesar (talk)00:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Guys! Do you know that I improvedTitanic? I improved it because there are many subcategories in the page, so I remove some of this and added in other subcategories (such as I added three subcategories in one subcategorie, the "Reception" one).— Precedingunsigned comment added byGuy Without Name (talk •contribs)18:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After another editor mentioned this article, I took a look and was struck by the length of the "Cast" section. I think this is far too much detail, with too many cast members listed and too much of each character's back story included, both for fictional and historical characters. Should this section be trimmed?Z1720 (talk)17:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It seems like this section is used to flush out further plot points, many of which are not necessary and affect the flow of the list. Anything to do with casting should be in a casting section under the production section.Vaselineeeeeeee★★★03:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is ratedGA-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
