Talk:Iceberg that sank the Titanic

Why is this article not a part of the Titanic page?
"The iceberg played a role in the cultural reception of the disaster." Is the sentence's inclusion in this article really necessary when we know that most likely the overwhelming majority of people who visit this article will already be aware of this fact by virtue of visiting this page? By the way, I am not saying this because I am assuming that most people have heard about the tale of the titanic, I am saying this because this is the type of page someone would visit if they already knew basic information about the event surrounding the titanic and wanted to learn more as if they did not know, why would they not just visit the article on the Titanic? If you vote to keep this sentence in the article, could we at least add vital or important to emphasize the iceberg's role in the sinking of the titanic seeing as it is the object the titanic crashed into?

Ps. I do not know how to edit the talk section correctly, could you please inform me of how to do so in your reply?
 * Hello . New talk page sections should go after the last section (it can be moved after you've read this). Please sign comments with four tildes ~. I'll format your section title so it's obvious it's a new section. I've edited the sentence you point out, does it seem better? As for not being in the Titanic article, that page is already very large and it is not unusual to breakout topics into their own pages where more detail can be added and read. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * At first I had a negative opinion on how you edited but I think it is because I read it wrong. Thank you for changing the sentence I pointed out. Also, how do wikipedians know whether or not to ask if their idea for an edit is valid in the talk page before actually editing or just edit the article? Isthisusernamefine? (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks . If you feel good about an edit just add it, but initially not too many at once (for other editors to go through one by one) until you get the hang of what works, which you are so far doing really good at and leaving better explanations than the vast majority of editors. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Title
My apologies for being pedantic, but the iceberg didn't strike the Titanic; the Titanic struck the iceberg. Suggested title: Iceberg that the Titanic struck -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I came here to say the same thing. I am trying to work this article title link into the prose of another article, and I can't. It doesn't work because it reads nonsensically.
 * The sinking was caused by an Iceberg that struck the Titanic
 * It would be like saying:
 * The crash was caused by a mountain that struck Delta 756
 * I never knew icebergs attacked ships, or mountains attacked airplanes. A better title is: Iceberg that sank the Titanic. It skips the language of kinetic violence ("struck") which is unnescary drama and raises philosophical questions. It simply states it was an iceberg, specifically the one that caused the Titanic to sink was the proximate/immediate cause of the Titanic sinking.  --  Green  C  17:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Ship hit the iceberg
It is interesting the article never states that the ship itself was responsible for hitting the iceberg. It hedges. The first sentence says:


 * An iceberg and the passenger steamer Titanic collided on 14 April 1912

In the collision section:


 * On Sunday 14 April at 23:40 board time, the Titanic came into physical contact with an iceberg

Is this intentional POV, or an attempt at neutrality? -- Green  C  18:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)