Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Poster block

: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)

----

:Titanic (1997 film) → {{no redirect|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)

• 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)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC / WP:INCDAB. [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=this-year&pages=Titanic_(film)|Titanic_(1997_film)|Titanic_(1943_film)|Titanic_(1953_film)|Titanic_(1915_film)|S.O.S._Titanic|Titanic:_The_Legend_Goes_On|List_of_films_about_the_Titanic|Titanic:_The_Complete_Story 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)
• Support by far a primary topic. 750h+ 10:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support per nom and above. The 1997 film rides the door. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• 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)

: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)

• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYFILM, which disallows any kind of PDAB. Note that this has gone to RM 3 times before, with the result each time being "Not moved". 162 etc. (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYFILM. The same suggestion has been discussed in several prior RMs, and hasn't changed substantially, so I suggest it be considered a settled matter. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYFILM, which goes in line with the current wording of WP:PDABPRIMARY, since this is a film topic. Steel1943 (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYFILM. I haven't seen that particular naming convention before. I'm not sure it makes sense because it seems to conflict with WP: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 to Titanic and a move of the current article at that title to Titanic (ship). Because of Celine 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)
• Oppose per * Pppery *, Erik, 162 etc., BarrelProof, Steel1943 and Coolcaesar. Titanic (film) represents incomplete disambiguation and should redirect, as it currently does, to the Titanic (disambiguation)#Films page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Partial disambiguation is never a good idea. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)