Jump to content

Talk:Titanic (1997 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'Small piece of wood'

[edit]

Was the piece 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]
HiGuys69420 added back 'small' as a description of the door. At 8 feet by 3 feet 5 inches this is an above average size door, although broken at one end. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uh sorry about that, should I point out that it is not buoyant enough? HiGuys69420 (talk) 21:25, 26 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]
Fixed HiGuys69420 (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's worse. A "small debris fragment"? Just look at the thing, an 8-foot slightly broken door. Maybe debris, but not a "fragment" ("fragment" of what?) and not all that "small". Randy Kryn (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
uh ok i'll just say small debris piece then HiGuys69420 (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HiGuys69420, seems to have been recently fixed with an easy edit, thanks for putting attention of this. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ur welcome HiGuys69420 (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also quick question should I add the word "Some" so it says "some floating debris"? HiGuys69420 (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not needed, the descriptor is clear enough. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Needs cleanup volunteer

[edit]

I came to this article to learn about the film's relationship to A 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 in Titanic 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. --Cedderstk 08:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if you're bothered about the text content the best thing to do would be to list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests as they will do a full copyedit. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 April 2025

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested 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 a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per cosensus. – robertsky (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic (1997 film) → Titanic (film) – The 1997 film is considered the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. We should add {{About|the 1997 film|other films with the same name|Titanic (disambiguation)#Films}} at the top of the page as well. 2600:1700:6180:6290:9166:760B:763B:2730 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose No evidence anything whatsoever has changed since the previous move requests in the header. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC / WP:INCDAB. Pageviews show that around 90% of readers looking for a film titled Titanic 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]
  • Support by far a primary topic. 750h+ 10:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – no reason we should inconvenience readers by following a frankly weird guideline. WP:IAR is a policy. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and above. The 1997 film rides the door. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP: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 perpetuates more 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 about searching:
  • "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."
If Titanic (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]
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.

My edits on Titanic

[edit]

Guys! Do you know that I improved Titanic? 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). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Without Name (talk • contribs) 18:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Titanic_(1997_film)&oldid=1288720707"