Talk:Titanic (disambiguation)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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. 

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)". -- Nataly a 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.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  16:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! North8000 (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

""
The usage of is up for discussion, see talk: RMS Titanic -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)