Talk:Titanic (disambiguation)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED since it made no sense to have the main title redirect to a parenthetically titled dab page. If consensus is ever established that the base name should redirect to the ship, or to the 1997 film, then we can always move this back. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Titanic (disambiguation) → Titanic — this disambiguation was moved away from the base name in June but no concensus on what the base name should redirect to (movie or ship) has been established JHunterJ 13:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Weak support See discussion. Septentrionalis 20:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:titanic is a great ship

If this is the only way to prevent a redirect war, fine; but it would seem obvious that the ship is primary usage relative to everything that refers to it. Septentrionalis 20:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not issue with Titanic (ship) being moved to the base name instead of this dab, so long as something is moved to the basename; there's not point in having a basename redirect to a parethetical title. -- JHunterJ 02:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what is decided, Titanic should never redirect to Titanic (disambiguation). Either the disambiguation page should be located at "Titanic" (with "Titanic (disambiuation)") redirecting there, or a primary topic should be located at "Titanic", and link to "Titanic (disambiguation)". -- Natalya 16:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[Weight]

the titanic also weighed 15,000 tons (300,000 lbs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volkn (talk • contribs) 23:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

List of sub-articles

Here's a question I posted for guidance at the wp:disambiguation page talk page: Are sub-articles inappropriate for a disambig page?

I'm involved with a topic/article (RMS Titanic) where the main article is huge and the topic is huge (lots of sub-articles and related articles) with the sub articles mostly (or all) linked in-line or as "see also" in the individual sections. I think that it would be useful to communicate which sub-articles exist, I've been at the article for a half year and am still learning which exist; it's very hard to see this from in-line links and notes in the section headers. I first thought of listing them in "see also", but I think that the guidelines for that clearly exclude articles that are already linked in the article. So I though of using the disambig page to list them and then listing the dis-ambig page as a "see also" in the main article, there being no specific exclusion of this here. I was reverted at both, the person saying that dis-ambig pages are only for listing where there is true ambiguity and that the "see also" section should be used for this. I was thinking that folks here would have more of persepctive on this than I do on this. Is it a common or OK practice to list sub-articles on the dis-ambig page? If so, possibly a mention of that could be added. And if not, do any folks have experience on the best way to do this? North8000 (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

See my suggestion at WT:D#Are sub-articles inappropriate for a disambig page?.--ShelfSkewed Talk 16:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!North8000 (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"Titanic"

The usage of Titanic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for discussion, see talk: RMS Titanic -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)