Talk:Titanic (1997 film)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

The painting scene

"They enter William Carter's Renault traveling car and have sex"

This happens after Jack Dawson paints Rose in the nude if I recall correctly, however I am unable to find mention of this important scene, which is actually more important to the movie than the two having sex (which is actually only implied... maybe they just kiss naked for a while, lol). But seriously, if it is there I'm overlooking it, can someone post an excerpt so I know what to look for? Or else, please add it in? It's kind of important to the movie. Tyciol (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the painting scene was a huge part of the movie... It seemed to me that at this time was when Rose fully showed love and trust to Jack, and also showed she was giving herself to him not just physically but emotionally as well..174.17.107.27 (talk)Jewel174.17.107.27 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC).

Why has Titanic not been prosecuted as child pornography in Canada?

If Rose is 17 when she boards Titanic as the introduction describes, and she does not have a birthday on the boat prior to getting painted and the steamy car scene, then would it not count as child pornography? It doesn't really matter if the actress portraying Rose isn't, because the character she plays is portrayed to be a minor. Furthermore, it does not matter what the age of consent was on the Titanic (would that be determined by British Law or American law at the time?) because it only matters what the age is in Canada where it is being shown. The only reason I would presume is has not been prosecuted are because no one noticed it, or because the police knew it would win an 'artistic merit' defence. However, avoiding prosecution based upon the artistic merit defence doesn't invalidate its being child pornography. Tyciol (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you joking or serious? If you're serious, I'll offer many corrections pertaining to what you posted here. 142.166.205.150 (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what the laws are in Canada, but in the U.S., a simple simulation of child pornography (ie. animation or even photoshopping a child's face onto an adult body, for example) is not illegal. As long as Kate Winslet is over the age of 18 when the movie was filmed is all that counts. Again, not sure of the law is similar in Canada but that's why it's okay in the U.S. Bill shannon (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

{This is the same person as 142.166.205.150} The thing is, this movie isn't pornography which, if you read the article which you yourself linked to : ) it says that it involves explicit sex and children. It's legal and quite common to have actors in their 20s portray a teenager and do nudity and sex scenes in movies. Where I live, in the Maritimes, the film would only be banned if the character portrayed (or the actor themselves) was under the age of 16 and the sex was explicit and exploitative. This should answer your question, Tyciol. 142.166.205.101 (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I presume you're referring to the link (child pornography) in the heading - some users can't see links in headings. Brian Jason Drake 06:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that's what I was referring to. : ) 142.166.132.223 (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I laughed a bit at this discussion, mainly because Rose is not a child...in the physical development sense. Sure, she would be a child under some laws (since 18 is usually the age of majority), but 17 is hardly any physically different than 18 development-wise. It's one of the reasons I find it silly when an 18-year-old man, for example, is facing child pornography charges for having naked cell phone pictures of his 17-year-old girlfriend. When I hear or see the words "child pornography," I automatically think of prepubescent children or at least pubescents around the age of 13, not late teenagers. But I know that the law works differently.

As others have stated, Winslet was in her early 20s (age 22) when she filmed that scene, and it is common for people in their early 20s to portray late teenagers...especially since most people in their early 20s still look like late teenagers. The two age groups are usually indistinguishable age-wise, just basing on physical appearance. I would have been very surprised had this film been "prosecuted as child pornography" at any time. Flyer22 (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Plot bloat and cleanup

The plot sections is gaining excess weight again. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot recommends 400-700 words. The plot section is not a treatment, or a substitute for watching the film. It should contain only the basics. Please help to keep it down. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I have tagged it as such, as it is now just under 1300 words. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(Added to section heading to go along with new concerns.) AnmaFinotera, as for tagging this article as needing cleanup to meet Wikipedia standards, and as needing additional references, where do you feel the problems are (besides the Plot section)? This article does not look too differently than when it reached GA status only a year ago. Flyer22 (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Main things are the inconsistent citation formats, the cast section is mostly unsourced and seems rather long (most of what's there is plot repeat), the AFI table seems unnecessary and easy to state in a single sentence or two, and the DVD image is unnecessary. The "3D conversion" section seems oddly placed and somewhat random. Also, if the article is using footnote system, General references should be labelled References and the Specific should be Footnotes, if I remember correctly. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for specifying. I see what you mean. Hmm. I may take care of those concerns, if no one else does. No promises on my part, however, since I am rather lazy these days on Wikipedia and usually busy off-Wikipedia (though obviously not these past few days, with my editing of the Avatar (2009 film) article).

I am not sure how much of the Cast section needs sourcing, since most of that is the film's plot and the film's plot serves as the source for plot detail. We can do without some of that plot detail, though. As for the AFI table, I am unsure if I should remove it, but that information certainly could be formatted into a paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have cleaned up the article, better referenced it, and added more information to it. I will do more later, and more as time goes on. Flyer22 (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not seeing what else you want done to the Fictional characters section, unless it is to remove all information about the plot. Right now, it only gives a bit of detail about each character. And the Historical characters section is about their fictional and real-life actions, as we know. It only has a bit about their fictional roles...and then a bit about their real-life roles; the real life information is either sourced or does not need sourcing because that general information is already covered in their individual articles.

Everything else that needs to be sourced in this article is sourced. Anything about this film making special lists or ranking whatever is either sourced or covered in the related linked articles.

Restoring all the tags as if I have done nothing to improve this article, or as if it is in that desperate need of help is something I clearly do not see being a valid action. Others did not even see this article as being in that bad of shape before my improvements. Flyer22 (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The plot itself is already nearly 1000 words, plus the character section. That is just too much plot. Most of it is not real-world detail, just seemingly random notes, most of it unsourced. Why is it important to even list "Gregory Cooke as Jack Phillips: Senior wireless operator on board the Titanic whom Captain Smith ordered to send the distress signal." or "Scott G. Anderson as Frederick Fleet: The lookout who saw the iceberg. Fleet escapes the sinking ship aboard Lifeboat 6." or "Martin East as Reginald Lee: The other lookout in the crow's nest. He survives the sinking." They are clearly not major characters in the film at all, and their being historical in real life, does not make them any more worthy of attention here in an article about a fictional work. "Suzy Amis as Lizzy Calvert: Rose's granddaughter, who accompanies her when she visits Lovett on the ship." Another very minor character (in the "fictional" section), that has neither real world information nor any major relevance to the plot. And why is the character separated into fictional and historical? These are fictional characters. There should be a single list of the major characters, and that's it. Only a few of any of the characters have any real world info, which would seem to indicate that yes, the section could be dropped all together and the real-world info merged into production as a casting section.

Sourcing in another article is not sourcing. Sources must be in this article. The characters section is largely unsourced, "Filming" has unsourced bits, "Music and soundtrack" has unsourced bits, most of "Awards and honors" and "Home video" are unsourced and the home video section is excessive in detail, and only the first sentence of "3D conversion" is sourced. Also, the clean up in general is not done. There are many wrongly formatted references, including a bare URL which is not in keeping with the GAC. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

In your edit summary, you stated, "a GA should not have unsourced content; see talk page notes as well as the tag says; should not be removed until all issues are addressed; and it has nothing but unsourced "plot" which is not appropriate."

My reply is that the storyline plot does not need sourcing. The film is the source. This is clear practice among all Wikipedia television, film, play and book articles. If it were not the case, film Plot sections would have references a plenty in them. The only thing that needs sourcing is real-life information, such as information about what the cast did or did not do. I have sourced all the needed real-life information, and removed the unsourced real-life information. If the fictional details needed sourcing, then all of the Cast information would be sourced in the Avatar (2009 film) article as well; the same goes for any other GA or FA article that does not have its storyline details sourced. Exactly how do you expect me to source these plot details? I should not have to, since the film is the source. The only choice you leave me with is to remove all the plot information from the Fictional characters section, and just leave it as Leonardo DiCaprio as Jack Dawson, etc. Because I am most certainly not sourcing plot information. Additionally, I do not see how the bit of plot information about the characters in the Cast section should count as part of the Plot section. That information would still be there, even if backed up by real-world perspective. Plenty of GA articles have a bit of character information in the same way, and that information is not counted as part of the Plot section.

I understand why the characters are divided into Fictional and Historical, since Cameron made a point of portraying real people in this film. The editors who separated the sections that way clearly wanted to stress that point, about which characters are completely from Cameron's mind and which are based on real people. Some are definitely worthy of attention in this article. I sourced the parts that needed sourcing for that section, taken from their very articles.

As for sourcing in another article not being sourcing, that is not always true. That is done often on Wikipedia, GA and FA articles included. We do not have to provide a source that Edward Smith was the ship's captain, for example, when that very obvious information is the basis of his article. "Filming" does not have unsourced bits; a reference does not have to be duplicated after every sentence. People often request citations for things that are already sourced, because of that mistake. "Music and soundtrack," I am also not seeing the problem. "Awards and honors" and "Home video" are sourced, but I will go ahead and source everything in them. The home video section being in "excessive in detail" is an opinion. And, no, not only the first sentence of "3D conversion" is sourced. There are three sources in that section. Just because those three are placed at the first sentence, instead of at the statement made by Cameron, does not mean that the statement is unsourced. It is clearly sourced. Again, there is that over-looking I was talking about, that a lot of editors here do. The "many wrongly formatted references" is a minor thing, but I will fix it.

I am not a mind-reader. I cannot keep improving this article, all on the basis of what you feel is or is not good enough. But I do appreciate your taking the time to explain your reasons further. Flyer22 (talk) 07:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries are not long enough, and I meant the Cast section not the plot, as noted above. The plot summary itself does not need sourcing, so long as it is straight summary. The "Character"/Cast does, and it is all still plot summary. Just as many GA and FA film articles have no cast section at all. If most cast can't have anything said about them but name, role, and reiterating the plot, then no, it isn't needed. See the MoS. The characters can be merged to the plot, the minor ones removed, and real-world info merged to production. The point of depicting fictional versions of historical people can be made far easier and with less clutter in the production and reception sections. Taking sourcing from their articles, that you have not verified yourself, is not really proper. Remember, other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, even when they are sources. And yes, this is always true. No FA article would ever pass without its own sourcing, and no GA one should be passed. It may have been allowed in the past, but that is not true now and if any such one has passed in such shape, it should either be fixed or delisted. There is absolutely no guideline saying "you don't have to source this article because it is sourced in some other article." Again, sources must be in this article, and it is not a mistake at all to demand such sources HERE rather than in some other article. And direct quotes need a source directly after them, not "oh, just look at the sentence." It isn't overlooking, its basic application of Wikipedia guidelines and a dislike of what I'd consider "lazy" sourcing. Sources must be clear. And yes, the Home video section is excessively detailed, but at this point, that is the least of this article's problems. And no, it is not just "my opinion" - during its rather brief and sad FAC, it was noted that the article goes into excessive details on minor things and trivial content, while missing more critical information (such as noted below). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, the storyline details do not need sources. I already knew what you were/are talking about there -- the Cast section (I mentioned that), and what I stated still stands. Nothing on Wikipedia states that storyline details noted in the Cast section need to be sourced. If that were the case, many articles would not be GA or FA right now, including this one. This one was passed as GA not that long ago, just like that. Obviously, it is not a matter of the GA criteria having gotten stricter. Just as the plot summary itself does not need sourcing, so long as it is straight summary, the same goes for the fictional plot details in the Cast section. The Fictional characters part of the section does not only mention plot, and certainly not the Historical characters section. There is not always going to be real-world information about each of the characters in the Cast section. This goes for The Dark Knight (film) article, the Avatar (2009 film) article and many others. The ones without real-world information to their names does not mean they should be removed. I may add a bit about the portrayers' roles in this film, but I am not adding any source to obvious plot details, such as "Jack is a penniless Wisconsin man who has toured parts of the world, primarily Paris. He wins two tickets onto the RMS Titanic in a poker game and travels as a third-class passenger with his friend Fabrizio." It is a mistake to demand sources for things like that. And the Historical characters part? The point of depicting fictional versions of historical people is not made far easier and with less clutter in the Production and Reception sections. For the Production section, we should not note all these characters there, and there is no need to note even some of them there, in the same way that there is no need to note the "fictional-fictional" characters there, unless in relation to certain things. And including them in the Reception section is different, but certainly not all of them would be included there. Taking sources from their articles? It is perfectly proper, especially when I have verified them for myself. Some of them are easily verified, such as information about Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon or even about singer Sissel Kyrkjebø (which I easily verified with this source: "In Titanic's Wake: A Voice to Remember . . .".).

I find it silly when sources are requested far parts that can easily be found in the linked articles. Though the WP:BURDEN is on the editor who did not add the source, I feel that the editor requesting the source should simply check in the linked article and see if the information is already sourced there; they can take the source from that article, if easily verified. I do not need a reminder that other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, because I did not use Wikipedia articles to source that information. Using Wikipedia articles as a link-to, though, to verify that the ship's captain is the ship's captain is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. His article exists because he was the ship's captain. Remember that Wikipedia also goes by common sense. Everything does not need to be sourced, in the same way that the sky is blue during the day does not need to be sourced here on Wikipedia. Only likely to be contested information needs to be sourced. That is what I took care of. And direct quotes do not always need a source directly after them, though I usually do that. But you know what? When I duplicate the same reference, sentence after sentence, I sometimes come across editors who feel that it is over-referencing. They state that the reference is only needed once for one paragraph. Not six or seven times in one paragraph when the paragraph is coming from the same source. I have also encountered this with Bob K31416 on the Avatar (2009 film) article, who believes in over-referencing. Many editors feel that it is over-looking and laziness when an editor requests a citation for any higher part of a paragraph that is already attributed to a source at the bottom of that same paragraph. They state that the editor should click on the source, and verify if what they are requesting a citation for is already sourced. And I still feel that the Home video section being "excessively detailed" is an opinion; I will not be cutting anything from that section.

I will go ahead and further fix up this article, as stated, but your opinion about this article cannot be the only one I rely on regarding this matter. If you are not satisfied with my further improvements, that is an "oh well." I will not continue to fix up this article, all on the basis of whether or not you feel that it is good enough not to be tagged as needing cleanup. You are the only one demanding all these edits for this article, when others have even removed your tags. Your view of whether it needs to be tagged as needing cleanup for not meeting Wikipedia's quality standards is an opinion. I agree that the article needs further work, which I will take care of, but these tags are completely unnecessary in my opinion.

All that said, I hope you do not take any of my words too offensively. You already know that I appreciate and respect the work you do around here, and I would hate to let this leave any sort of hostility between us. Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Missing history about the film going over budget, etc.

Clicked on this wikipedia entry to learn more about the troubled finances of this film during production, and found..... NOTHING!

The film went WAY OVER BUDGET! It was the MOST EXPENSIVE movie of its time when finished.

Didn't Cameron have to give up some of his director's salary or his percentage points, whatever, to get the film finished? The studio had absolutely no faith in this project earning its money back.

Weren't there all these predictions of doom, that this would become his Waterworld, or Heaven's Gate?

Isn't this why Cameron raised his Oscar up high in the air at the Awards ceremony and yelled "I'm the King of the World!" I recall news articles of the time saying that he was clearly crowing about his triumph, and getting back at all his critics who were predicting utter doom.

Why is there nothing in this Wiki article about all that? The overall tone of the article is so reverential, as if it was known from the beginning that this would be the #1 grossing movie of all time. That was far from the case. There were all these metaphors written about Cameron sinking with the ship on this movie.

I note this with some interest because with "Avatar", despite the enormous budget, Fox studio has from the beginning been very quietly supportive of Cameron to do whatever he wanted with that movie, which was delayed tremendously and is probably now the most expensive movie of all time. They learned their lesson from "Titanic" not to bet against Jim Cameron. DarthRad (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And, your reliable sources for this are? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I remembered reading most of that in Time magazine and in the LA Times, so I did some internal website searches on those two sites for "James Cameron Titanic" and did some other Google searches and came up with the following articles from various news sources:

1. http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-movie971230-17,0,634482.story (LATimes critic Kenneth Turan's review panning the movie, to which Cameron would respond later, after "Titanic" proved to be wildly successful, by demanding that the LATimes fire Turan)

2. http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/01/opinion/journal-king-of-the-world.html?pagewanted=1 (NY Times article describing the contretemps between Cameron and Turan and the LATimes)

3. http://www.jacknicholson.org/art33.html (website which reprints an AP news article summarizing the tumultuous making of "Titanic", describes the give backs that Cameron had to make to complete the movie)

4. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,987508-3,00.html (Time Magazine article, written on the eve of the release of the movie, describing the cost overruns and problems in the making of the movie, including a few comments about Cameron's givebacks in order to finish the film).

5. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,985588,00.html (Time Magazine article, written during the production of the movie, describing the cost overruns. Note the title "Glub, glub, glub" - and predictions of doom for the movie)

6. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,987510-2,00.html (Time Magazine piece in which Cameron strikes back at his critics, answering rumors about his movie)

7. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/11228499.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Mar+11%2C+1997&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&startpage=1&desc=%27Titanic%27s%27+Rider+of+the+Storm%3B+There%27s+no+doubt+director+James+Cameron+is+captain+of+this+voyage--though+it%27s+been+a+rocky+one+at+times+as+production+costs+keep+rising. (this is just the abstract of a larger article from the LA Times about the movie - I remember reading this article, don't have access to it now, but local libraries usually carry this for free. It talks at length about the problems with the movie production and cost overruns, in somewhat greater detail than the Times Magazine articles).

8. http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/dec/17/james-cameron-david-thomson (interesting article from the Guardian in the UK, making similar prediction of doom for "Avatar")

9. http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2009/12/which_line_from_avatar_should.html (Photo of Cameron at the moment of raising his Oscar and yelling "I'm the King of the World!". The photo unfortunately is from Getty Images, so it can't be used on Wikipedia. The article also has a Top Ten List of suggestions for what to say should Cameron win an Oscar for "Avatar" )

10. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJp7Wd6Af2A (Youtube video from the 1998 Oscars - James Cameron accepting the Oscar for Best Director and shouting "I'm the King of the World!") surely this belongs in this article.

DarthRad (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

[COPYVIO REMOVED]

Kate Winslet and Leonardo di Caprio are bankable stars now, and "Titanic" is the #1 grossing movie of all time, so the idea that people were worried that this movie would flop seems ridiculous. But if you read the contemporary news articles during the making of the movie and the early critical reception, it was anything but a sure thing. In fact, it seemed that most people thought the movie would crash and burn and take down James Cameron, if not Fox studios, with it. The news articles I referenced were the authoritative reference points during that time period, and much could be added from those articles to this Wikipedia article about this aspect of the movie, as well as Cameron's gleeful yell at the Oscars when he won.

DarthRad (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as noted in the section above this one, this film article needs a little fixing up. It could also do with some information on how people thought this film would flop, and with an expansion of the Critical reception section. I was already planning on doing this, but I am busy with other things. If you know how to properly add this information into this article, then go for it. (By "proper," I mean correct wording, not adding in information word for word unless in small quotes, and correctly formatting references.)

On a side note, people had good reason to think that Avatar would flop. But, yes, they have surely learned again not to bet against James Cameron. Flyer22 (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Your best bet for all the dirt on the Titanic production and its budget woes is Titanic: Anatomy of a Blockbuster by Sandler and Studler. There are some excerpts on Google books: [1] Betty Logan (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Betty. There was already some information about Titanic's production woes in the article. I added more to certain parts of that, including a little bit about its over-budget woes, some days ago. But the above information you have provided should help to add more. Flyer22 (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

2011 3D Re-Release

Ok so I just have a small question, It's pretty obvious that Avatar is going to end up become the #1 highest grossing movie of all time, but my question is that when Titanic is re-release next year and it makes enough money can it surpass Avatar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enanoj1111 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is quite possible...which is why I added mention in the Performance analysis section of the Box office section that Titanic will be re-leased in theaters (even though there is a section about that further down). But, remember...Wikipedia is not a forum, per WP:FORUM. Flyer22 (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Short scale billion

There are many readers around the world who will not be aware whether short scale or long scale is in use. Even if the MOS stipulates that the short scale must be used, there are many readers who will not be aware of this and read it as a long scale billion. There is no harm in linking it like this to make it clear. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be clear and precise in what it is saying. The suggestion in the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_10#Short_scale_billion isa sensible suggestion, and the whole point of being able to link works and phrases is to offer more information or clarification. It's silly to object to the link, since it removes a potential source of confusion. Betty Logan (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I reiterate that simply talking about something on a talk page doesn't make it policy. You keep re-adding this by citing various discussion you've started on talk pages, including this one. You are clearly aware of the current policy and that it hasn't changed, but you continue to insist on making this change. I won't change it back now because I've already walked the 3RR line in this, but so have you; you're also violating WP:BRD. I don't care very much about this, it's just annoying that you refuse to get the point. DKqwerty (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If you check the revert history you will see I have not violated 3RR. I also made a null edit inbetween my reverts which didn't alter the article, so my actual number of reverts stands at three. MOS clearly doesn't prohibit linking billion, it just stipulates which form should be used in the articles. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be clarified for readers. According to Wikipedia:MOSLINK, Wikipedia:MOSLINK#What_generally_should_not_be_linked states

Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions, common units of measurement,[3] and dates (but see Chronological items below).

Wikipedia:MOSLINK#cite_note-CommonMeasurements-2 [footnote 3] states

Units of measurement which are common only in some parts of the English-speaking world need not be linked if they are accompanied by a conversion to units common in the rest of it, as in 18 °C (64 °F), as almost all readers of the English Wikipedia would be able to understand at least one of the two measures. Some units of measure, like "ounce" or "pound" can be misinterpreted because they are ambiguous.

MOS clearly makes the case that linking is acceptable if the unit of measurement is ambiguous. Since "billion" is a common unit all over the world and has two different meanings then it looks to me linking it is acceptable because its usage to many readers could be ambiguous. I really don't know what the problem is here, a reader may wonder if it's a short scale or long scale billion and the link clears the issue up. There is a lot of over-linking on Wikipedia that serves no purpose, but it is useful here and you haven't offered a valid argument other than "it's not in MOS". Betty Logan (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've asked MOS to clarify this so we'll wait on that. In the meantime I've returned the article to its most recent stable state. If they say that linking is not necessary or against their guidelines I am happy to draw a line under this, but I expect the decision to be respected by both parties. Betty Logan (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

the cropped handdrawing of Rose

I remember it being a wider angle with her breasts. Has it been cropped to avoid offending certain people who might find the sight of drawn breasts offensive? NorthernThunder (talk) 07:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I selected the close-up version (which leaves out the whole body), partly for the reason you stated but also because the close-up version shows the face and the Heart of the Ocean better. But I am not opposed to using the full version. If you want to switch it out with that instead, go for it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This article in 2005 was much better

This is article typifies what is happening to Wikipedia as it's just a long story about the film based on lots of pre-published source. Ironically, as this is a work that cannot use original ideas or content from its editors, it is composed of the opinions and views of others who have published their thoughts in non-Wikipedia domains! The article in 2005 is much, much better because it's written in good faith, with inventiveness and with scope for discussion. Whereas this article is just a long story about the film and how it was made. There is no information that aids the viewing of the film, it's all ancillary stuff about how Cameron made the movie and what the critics thought. In recent years, there has been a real drive to add meaningless stuff that could be paraphrased in two or three lines, for instance the section entitles Reception. Going by box office receipts, most people seem to be uninterested in critics, that can be evidenced by how bad films e.g. Transformers 2 tops the charts, yet the critics hate it and yet people still go. Why write reams and reams of flannel about how professional writers felt about a movie? Instead focus on the film itself| There is nothing mind numbing about the 2005 article! My suspicion is that due to the laws that now pervade Wikipedia, the emergence phenomena has resulted in articles that require information but can only use "facts" from published sources.

I don't think I am unusual but when I watch movies I don't care about who wrote the script, or how long it took to film, or they sued a special lens for that scene. I care about the story, its characters, and the film's themes. This article does none of that because they have all been deleted and replaced with dry material on behind-the-scenes stuff is hardly innovative or helpful. Therefore if it's not been addressed in a pre-published source, you can't say it here. My advice to anyone, if you want to learn anything positive about the film and what you can see on screen, read versions of the 2005 article. It tells you about the Historical Inaccuracies, the films deleted scenes and interesting stuff about the film, (which now is classed as Trivia). This article's need for neutrality paradoxically makes it inaccurate. For instance, by not challenging the source material (sic Original Research), the suicide of Officer Murdoch implies he could have done it but we don't know. Whereas it should state it's uncertain how he died but Cameron decided to portray him blowing his brains out. Conversely if a film showed band leader Glenn Miller being stabbed in Parisian brothel and not in a plane over the channel, would it be prudent - using this page's tone - to state the film's version is not fact but we just don't know, so maybe? This article fails because it is not allowed to question!

It's a pity as lots of people have worked hard on this article but that does not make it any good. In many ways this article is a fine example of where this site is going. LOL I have to read old versions. Wikipedia professes to be an open-source project "where everyone can edit" but in the past few years it's become insular as rules have taken precedence over imagination, good faith and free choice. This article's block is also a testimony to the siege mentality that now pervades Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.224.179 (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This article being better in 2005 makes no sense to me. How is an article worse off by having information about how the film was made and the film's reception? It is not just reception from critics that have been documented here...but also ones from viewers and fans (as the Commercial analysis section shows). If Wikipedia went by your standard, this article would be full of all kinds of fluff and many, many random or drive-by opinions, with a lot of disorganization (and likely a lot of misspellings); it would also be full of plot only. Not a better article at all. Flyer22 (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is allowed to question; that is what countering one source with another one is for. And this article is on lockdown because we receive so many IP editors who look to vandalize this article. Flyer22 (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Is there a reason why it's disambiguated in such a way? Are there any examples of films that are even remotely as well-known?

Oddly enough too, upon putting in Titanic (film), I'm directed to an article that mentions a spoof of the Titanic sinking on The Simpsons Movie, but not the film that more people know about than the event it's based on. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 12:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The way it is, perhaps Titanic (film) might be better redirected to the list. I agree that it's odd that a brief Simpsons parody is given a mention over Cameron's film, or even Raise the Titanic. I suspect that delving into the article's history will show a better version. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Cut Length of "Backlash" part in critical reception

We can trim down Cameron's response a little bit. It's like they published the whole article on here.Thedeparted12345 (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I agree. I will go ahead and cut one editor's add. I believe this will suffice. Flyer22 (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Will this do, in your opinion? Flyer22 (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Neil deGrasse on how he fixed the sky

Neil deGrasse Tyson talks [[2]] about how his repeated inquiries about the inaccurate sky in the scene of Jack's death made James Cameron have the responsible Special Effects person call him to (presumably) replace it with the proper one on the 10 years - Special Edition. -- 131.188.24.20 (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for that, IP. Now I just have to find a proper way to source it, since we generally cannot use YouTube as a source on Wikipedia. I will add that information eventually. Flyer22 (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Casting / Cast

The article would benefit from separate Casting and Cast sections. Casting is part of production and could include anything on the process of assembling the cast (including those who were not cast). The cast section covers only the characters, who played them, and who they are in the story. This improves the clarity of the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, per the MOS casting information should be included in the Cast section, which was always intended to primarily focus on the actors, not the characters. Doniago (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Casting is different from Cast. If the Cast section is about Casting, that's what it should say. It's possible the MOS is mistaken since that's frequently written by people unfamiliar with the limits of their knowledge. The difference is obvious when we include an actor who does not appear in the film or the story of how an actor came to play a role. That's Casting, not Cast. When we describe the characters and their relationships, that's Cast (or Characters, for clarity). For a major film, separate sections are logical although not necessary. Titanic might benefit from the full treatment for the sake of clarity, which after all is the aim here. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Ring Cinema. Thank you for sharing your thoughts; I am sure they will be considered in future guideline discussions. Doniago, WP:FILMCAST is one of the oldest sections of the guidelines, so take it with a grain of salt. Organizing information about actors and their roles can be done in different ways; it depends on the information available. We have the options of presenting in list or prose, and organizing them in the appropriate sections or subsections. My initial impression of this article is that there's an awful lot of mixed information in the "Cast" section. It may be worth listing actors, their roles, and brief descriptions, while putting background information together in prose. It might make the list of characters more digestible, and once they are identified, some of them can be discussed more thoroughly in prose. I don't think we have to separate the tidbit about who wasn't cast; it's part of the background of a role and the actor who played it. What do you think, Ring Cinema? Do you have anything to add to my limited knowledge? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Erik, for the timely clarification. I'm in agreement with you by and large. There could be a difference of opinion about when to include the history of casting decisions. I believe you are taking the view that this tends to trivia but for Titanic I'm pretty much clueless about the process of casting. Editors who know will have to say something. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Casting information was added to the Cast section by me, per the #Plot bloat and cleanup discussion above, and what I saw with other good or featured articles. I do not really see a need for both a Cast and Casting section, when casting information could simply remain next to information about who was cast for the part. The casting information just answers "why?." Considering as many characters as this film has, it would seem redundant to me to have a Casting section and introduce a lot of these characters all over again and then how these people were cast as the characters, but I am open to other viewpoints about it. Flyer22 (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

GOCE

• All redirected & disambiguation links fixed.
  

Mlpearc Public (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

HaHaHa

No one looks at this article. Why is that? The Titanic is a good movie. That's real weird. Okay. Now let's get to my pointless question.

In the movie, Mr. Murdoch shot himself, right. And you know how people say that if you kill yourself, you go to hell. Well he killed himself. At the end, Rose was walking into Titanic Heaven. How and why was that. He killed himself. Well I know that they were trying to give a happy ending, but..., I hust wanna know!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.81.219 (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong, check the archives. And your comment is...well...pointless. They're showing a happy ending for everyone. Incidentally, the man who shot himself and others is Mr. Murdoch. Good day. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 04:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

He didn't get to heaven because no such thing exists. Your body rots. The end. ;) The JPS^{talk to me} 13:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's quite rude of you to say that one's body rots. Jesus, what's happened to people these days? BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 01:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, we do look at the article; it's on our watchlist for changes. ANYWAY, when people say all that, it's speculation. We don't allow speculation. And on the other hand, we never wrote it was in heaven, because it's supposed to be neutral. We know it was in heaven, but it's just to show that all who died truly live...if you get my saying. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 04:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Granted, this is not a general discussion forum for the extent of God's forgiving nature, or whether Rose died. The original poster's question appeared to be general really. Alientraveller (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe since he couldn't stand to kill any more innocent people like when he shot someone who was pushed toward the life boat than he shouldn't have gone to 'hell', I thought that was a noble thing to do and I'm Atheist so yeah I founds this pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.204.227 (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Still serious narrative problems

There are still disconnects within the narrative that I mentioned in the last, failed FAC. I'm surprised and disheartened that nothing has been done to address them:

• The lead section refers to the "Akademik Mstislav Keldysh, which Cameron had used as a base when filming the actual wreck." It is in the section "Writing and inspiration"--which is obviously ill-named, as will immediately become clear--where the filming of the actual wreck is described. (Pretty darn important, yes? Well beyond writing and inspiration, yes?) Nowhere in this section is the Akademik Mstislav Keldysh mentioned. That's a glaring omission.

• In "Cameos", we discover, "Several crew members of the Akademik Mstislav Keldysh appear in the film, including Anatoly Sagalevich, creator and pilot of the Mir Deep Submergence Vehicle." Is the Mir Deep Submergence Vehicle somehow important to the story? Was it, perhaps, used in the filming of the actual wreck? The reader of this article would never have a clue, because the sentence I just quoted from "Cameos" is the one and only time we ever hear of the Mir Deep Submergence Vehicle.

Honestly, these are the sort of basic narrative errors that should not be found in a GA. DocKino (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The first criticism is ill-founded. The section "Writing and Inspiration" is correctly designated. Repeating the name of the boat Cameron used after it's mentioned in the lead section is optional; the matter is covered once, and for something marginally trivial, that's sufficient and a reasonable editorial decision. It's just the boat, after all, and the section is not a separate article. The filming of the actual wreck is not "pretty darn important." Rather, it's an aspect of pre-production scouting that would be one of the first things to leave out of an article about a movie. However, it's interesting background that seems pretty well covered by the article as written. That said, if DocKino has some changes he'd like to make that he thinks would be an improvement, he should be aware that good edits are always welcome. --71.63.236.131 (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If the Mir's role in the filming should be mentioned, DocKino, mention it. As written, the information is there to designate who did the cameo in the film, which is what the section is about. There's a link for those who want more information on the Mir. That said, there is a question if a submersible pilot merits inclusion in an article simply because he appears in a movie. Personally, I could live without it, but there's no compelling reason to include information about the vehicles used to perform pre-production research. --71.63.236.131 (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above editor, particularly in light of the fact that I wrote the postings and accidentally filed them anonymously. Apologies. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Any content in the lead section that is not directly cited (I.e., all or nearly all of the lead in any article) must be backed up by well-sourced primary text. This article glaringly fails that basic standard. On the basis of that and other failures, if it was brought up for Good Article Review right now, it would almost certainly be stripped of its GA status if considerable work was not done on it.

"If the Mir's role in the filming should be mentioned, DocKino, mention it." Watch your attitude, RC. I don't have to mention a damn thing. I've given solid advice on how to improve the article. It's been ignored. I don't intend to do one more thing than oppose this article if it is brought again to FAC in anything like its current, mediocre state. If you care about the quality of the article, you do something. If you don't recognize poor narrative construction, I'm afraid I don't have time to hold your hand. DocKino (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

DocKino, you're making me laugh! This is going to shock you, but I don't care who you think you are. You're just an editor like anyone else, with good edits or bad ones. You're trying to blackmail me because I treated you like a regular editor? Wow, let's document this one. Attempted blackmail and intimidation because I correctly pointed out that you made a mistake and absurd insults because I suggested you lift a pen? Laughable.

Now, let's look at the substance, which is what we're here for. You made three criticisms, I believe. (1. "Writing and Inspiration" is misnamed; 2. Cameron's boat is not rementioned later in the article; 3. The Mir is not explicated after its mention in Cameos). I mentioned my exceptions to them. Now you're rebutting with nothing but a principle: lead section content requires a citation.

Maybe you won't think it's polite to mention this, but that is completely not what your criticisms were about. You didn't say the article needed a citation. You said something else altogether. So I'm interpreting you now to be saying that the high dudgeon you visited on the supposed misnaming of the Writing and Inspiration section was actually simply wrong. Noted. I'm interpreting you now to be saying that you agree with me that Cameron's boat can be mentioned in the lead section and not referenced later in the article. Noted. Apparently you and I are in agreement now that it is correct to identify the pilot of the Mir in Cameos for the purpose of making the reference clear. Noted. In other words, you have adopted all three of my assertions about your earlier criticism. All of your previous criticisms cannot be defended. Understood.

In their place you are substituting one criticism: lead section content requires a citation. That's probably good advice, although in all honesty I have to double check to be sure this isn't the fourth in a series. I'll look into it. Do you have a citation for that? Many thanks for your effort to make the article as good as possible. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Ring Cinema. I do have a hard time accpeting that most of his criticisms are justified. I personally think that some of his criticisms are being stripped to nitpicking. Secret Saturdays (talk to me)^{what's new?} 21:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the article can be improved. Striking a pose is not my idea of editing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And whining, and calling people names, and being too lazy to correct your errors is not anyone's idea of good encyclopedia writing. Since no one cares to put in the work to address these long-standing problems that have been highlighted multiple times, I'll be bringing this article up for for Good Article Review in seven days.—DocKino (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

DocKino, I don't see how this article is not up to GA standards. What I see is your opinions about how some things should be. "Writing and inspiration" is a fitting title in my opinion, for example, and not just because I gave the section that title myself but because it describes what that section is about; it is about writing and what inspired Cameron to write this story. I do agree with mentioning the name Akademik Mstislav Keldysh, although the name is also mentioned in the Cameo and Filming sections. But we took care of the "serious problems" regarding this article during its FA nomination. People did not even cite the same issues as you. Now what's left are the minor "problems" or issues -- and none of them are what kept this article from reaching FA status (I didn't even feel this article was ready for FA status when it was nominated a few months ago anyway). These remaining problems/issues are not so serious as to keep it from being GA. Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've asked an uninvolved editor, also with much experience/skill in editing Wikipedia film articles -- Erik -- for his take on this matter. This is what he stated:

Regarding Titanic, I think DocKino has some points, even though the overall discussion is rather impolite. What he is saying is that the last two paragraphs of "Writing and inspiration" are more related to filming. There is a lot of information in that section, and it may help to reorder it. For example, there could be a "Conception" section that would basically combine the inspiration and the writing. For the last three paragraphs starting with "Cameron met with 20th Century Fox", perhaps it could be a "Development and pre-production" subsection? These changes could be a start, at least. As for the Mir item, I am okay with mentioning Sagalevich's cameo. Identifying his relationship with the Mir answers readers' question of why he's relevant without having to leave the film article. How these suggestions help.

Flyer22 (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

DocKino is engaging in invention, not editing. He should respond to the substance as I did. The rest is irrelevant posing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ring Cinema, do you feel that we should implement any of Erik's suggestions? Or is the article better left as is? Flyer22 (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a bad suggestion. Perhaps the sections get small...? --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm worried about any section being too small as well, and was thinking that. I'm sure we could get around that, though. Flyer22 (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

On the Mir: to me, there is no right answer. It's somewhat trivial but it's hard to tie off the end once it's mentioned and it seems to be an interesting mention. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Writing and Inspiration could be just Pre-Production, but that's a slight misnomer. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but I like the more specific title "Writing and inspiration" a lot better. We could just place the second to last paragraph (the "crew shot in the Atlantic Ocean twelve times in 1995" stuff) in the Filming section. The last paragraph of the "Writing and inspiration" section, though also about filming, has more to do with inspiration...as far I see anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent idea. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"After filming the underwater shots, he began writing the film's screenplay." last line of that paragraph. Perhaps out of place is the paragraph that Erik mentioned. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2010

Looking over these two sections, perhaps it would benefit from a more chronological treatment. The first graph has general remarks about Cameron's thoughts on shipwrecks, interspersed with the decision to make the movie, which came later. Next graph we have more general remarks, discuss the storytelling strategy (writing, so it should appear later?), following which we go to the pitch meeting (development) and undersea work (preproduction). Instead, let's go with Cameron's thoughts on wrecks (concluding with the decision to make a movie), pitching (concluding with beginning of writing), and only then storytelling notes and the process of writing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm making no judgments about what belongs or doesn't belong, obviously. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The Design section could be included in the PreProduction section and moved above Filming. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Good ideas. I'm still for the Writing and inspiration, though, and for the shipwreck stuff being a part of it because his love for shipwrecks is the main reason he started writing the film -- his main inspiration. The second to last paragraph should be removed from that section, as I suggested above, as well as the line you mentioned. But, yeah, definitely for chronological order. And if it turns out that the title Writing and inspiration is better left out, then we can go ahead and discard it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

We are on the same page. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Excellent job. Flyer22 (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Glad to have your endorsement. I hope I didn't jump the gun on you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean implement the edits before I did? Or implement them without my go-ahead? You already had my go-ahead, so you must mean the former. Well...it's not like you had to wait for me to begin, LOL. You stuck to what we agreed to, and also perfected some things. Yeah, excellent job. Flyer22 (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your input which was essential. There are still some things to improve. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"Pre-production" vs. "Pre-Production"

Hi, I've changed the section heading "Pre-Production" back to "Pre-production" - I don't want to get into a revert war over a single hyphen, so I thought I'd bring it up on the talk page so it can be discussed here, if needed.

I've searched all through MoS and I was unable to find any style guideline on the capitalisation of the second word in pairs of hyphenated words, which is odd. But I figured the next best thing would be to find any FAs where the first word of the title is hyphenated, and a look through WP:FA offers (among a few others) Same-sex marriage in Spain, Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany, Anarcho-capitalism, Cardinal-nephew, First-move advantage in chess, and another "pre-" prefix, Pre-dreadnought battleship.

The oversight of this matter by MoS is strange, but I hope you'll see that if it gets through FAC (on numerous occasions, and in the title of the article!), then it's probably correct. Thanks, 97198 (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, 'Pre-production' is wrong. If the word is capitalized, both P's are capitalized. This principle is well known and not controversial. For example:

Hyphenated Words in Titles

A general rule of thumb is to always capitalize the first unit and capitalize the second unit if it’s a noun or adjective or if it has equal balance with the first unit.

Right:

“Twentieth-Century Poets in South America” “City-States in Nineteenth Century Europe” “Non-Christian Religions in North America”

The second unit should be in lower case if it’s a participle modifying the first unit or if both units constitute a single word.

Right:

“English-speaking People throughout Asia” “Medium-sized Companies with Unions” “E-flat Minor Melody” “Re-establishing a Youthful Outlook” “Self-fulfilling Prophecies in Small-Town America” --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, maybe it's not as clear-cut as I thought, but I don't want to repeat mistakes. If the first word of the title is capitalized and Production is the first word (Pre is not a word), that seems to be a case where you capitalize both P's. Capitalizing 'Pre and not 'production looks silly. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"Looking silly" is your opinion. In my opinion, "Pre-Production" looks silly. I'm not sure where you're quoting those rules from, but on Wikipedia we generally follow Wikipedia's own guidelines for style, which are often different to other rules quoted elsewhere. For the rules of thumb applied on Wikipedia, once again I point you to the FAs I linked above. No, "pre" is not a word, but look at Pre-dreadnought battleship. 97198 (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you think 'Pre-dreadnought is correct or incorrect? It could be mistaken. --Ring Cinema (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a Featured Article (and there are several similar others) - I'd say there's no way these articles could've reached FA status if the grammar in the very title of the article wasn't correct. 97198 (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sensible thought, but, as you and I have learned, this detail is not explicitly covered in WP style sheets. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

So how about we follow the rule of thumb that has already been established in numerous FAs? If you're really concerned that it's missing from Wikipedia's MoS guidelines, perhaps you should raise the topic on a MoS talk page and request that it be explicitly addressed in the guidelines. 97198 (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's only one example that we know of, not numerous. The others you mentiond are different cases. And there is nothing in a WP style sheet about it. The only very very slender reed you have going for you is that consistency matters. But if we did it differently there would be two cases that are contrary. Not much of a precedent. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Internet Movie Database (IMDb) is sometimes accepted

For future reference, I want to point out that while IMDb is generally not accepted by Wikipedia as a reliable source, this is not always the case. It is accepted on Wikipedia for box office information, news information, and information regarding awards and nominations. On the awards part, we use it in this article for Titanic's awards and nominations, and this has been done for other Good or Featured Wikipedia articles.

I'm addressing this issue because of editor 142 and 99's removal of IMDb from two parts.[3][4] Some editors calling IMDb unreliable or "not a Wikipedia-approved source" have led a lot of editors to reject IMDb even in the cases where its use is perfectly acceptable. This type of thing has also gone on with editors saying blogs are not allowed as sources on Wikipedia, without those same editors checking WP:Verifiability#Newspaper and magazine blogs and what WP:BLOGS says specifically. I'm not certain how unreliable the IMDb sources editor 142 and 99 removed are, but since the IMDb awards and nominations source was not removed, I'm thinking 142 and 99 considers some IMDb instances are okay. Either that, or the source was simply overlooked. I have removed the statements left uncited by the IMDb removals. I might add them back with better sources later. Flyer22 (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues here. About the specific IMDB citations I removed: One was for the claim that "After shooting the sinking scenes, the ship was then dismantled and sold for scrap metal to cover budgetary costs." The other was for this claim: "Today, his [Joseph Dawson's] grave stone (#227) is the most widely visited in the cemetery." In both cases the claims seem plausible enough, but if they are true then there should be some other source that supports them. After all, users who add information to IMDB must get it from somewhere, and either those sources are reliable or not. These claims are not ones about basic film information (like cast lists or release dates), so if IMDB is the only source with these claims, they might be suspect. Also, as I noted in the edit, the use of the present tense in the second claim is problematic, because what might be the most visited grave last year might no longer be the most visited this year.

About the issue of IMDB's reliability for any information. I must confess I had thought that Wikipedia did not regard it as ever a reliable source. I should add that this might be because I think that is a prudent position to take. IMDB (so far as I understand it) relies on users to add information and does not offer sources for most of what is on the site. This means it is hard to ever know what is information that has been vetted and what has not. Even cast lists and release dates (especially for small roles or for older and more obscure films) can be in error due to honest mistakes. I have seen more than a few of those at IMDB. So it seems to me wise to take the position that if a claim is made by IMDB either (a) it can be independently verified by some other source, and thus is reliable or (b) it cannot be verified by any other source, and thus is suspect. But that just is to say that we should be looking for sources other than IMDB to cite claims.

Furthermore, if it really is Wikipedia policy to allow citing IMDB for some claims but not others, I find that puzzling. Maybe IMDB works in some way I am unaware that makes some of its information reliable and some not, but I know of no such partial credibility status for any other source. Some sources are reliable - full stop. Some sources are not - full stop. This half-and-half idea seems strange and almost certainly untenable. So I would strongly recommend looking for other sources for any claims cited to IMDB, and if none can be found then maybe that is reason to think they got it worng - even when it comes to awards. As it is, the two claims I removed citations from were from the "trivia" page at IMDB. None of the claims there are cited and surely if anything at IMDB is unreliable, it would be claims about film trivia. 142 and 99 (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand why you removed those IMDb sources; it's part of the reason I removed the statements. Some of the statements in the trivia source are backed up by some sources here, such as Stuart having to be made up to look older for the role of Old Rose...and Cameron drawing the nude sketch of Young Rose, but the two instances I cited you as removing above, like you stated, were not backed up by additional sources.

As for the "citing IMDb on Wikipedia" issue, it's not a half-and-half matter. Like I stated above, citing IMDb is generally considered unacceptable by Wikipedia. "Generally," but not always. See WP:RS/IMDB. This IMDb issue has been discussed many times on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 25#IMDB as a source? and Wikipedia:Citing IMDb (a rejected proposal) for examples. Generally speaking: "Anecdotes, trivia, and unreleased film information from IMDb do not meet the reliable sources guideline. The IMDb should only be used as a tertiary source for 'hard data' on released films." This does not take into account news articles from IMDb written by "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (a quick reference from WP:BLOGS). I have seen plenty of Good and Featured Wikipedia articles using IMDb news sources, with editors saying IMDb is okay for use in these cases. But, yes, by editors who know the rules, IMDb is not typically acceptable on Wikipedia, except for in the cases I mentioned above...and when it comes to External links sections. The only reason I brought up IMDb not always being unacceptable on Wikipedia is because it seems most experienced Wikipedia editors are unaware of this. Flyer22 (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Supporting roles and Cameron's intentions in the lead

Note: Most of this discussion was copied and pasted from User talk:Ring Cinema, with additions afterward:

...Secondly, the fact that the central roles and love story are fictitious, while some characters are based on genuine historical figures belongs in the lead to me, and so does the fact that Gloria Stuart portrays the elderly Rose and narrates the film in a modern-day framing device. Billy Zane is also a prominent part of the film as Cal Hockley. As for Cameron seeing the love story as a way to engage the audience with the real-life tragedy, it seems especially relevant to mention in the lead. The lead is supposed to summarize the concept, and the best leads also give detail on why the story was created. In this case, since the love story is a big part of the story, it seems relevant to mention why it was created. Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

...On the second, I don't entirely agree. The main concept is there: it's a love story set on the maiden voyage of the Titanic. The rest of it is not main concept material, really, so it should be taken up in its section. I certainly don't mean to diminish the importance of the items I cut. In a first draft of the article I can see why they might have been included. Now, though, we cover that material quite completely later and it's just not the main concept. The real/fictional basis is even a little bit obvious and clicheed, used many times in many different forms. Not really part of an overview. Cameron's intentions about the purpose of the love story is particularly trivial. Many things could be mentioned before those technical modalities of story construction and writing craft. We don't mention the main cinematographic or sound design elements or the intentions of the artists who put them there. They are just not important enough to be in the lead. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a revert war with you, and respect you, so let's try to work on something regarding my second point. As I stated in my edit summary, I feel it belongs there because, "The film is based on a real tragedy, and as such...it is important to acknowledge early on that some of these characters, especially the love story, are fictional in every sense." It's not obvious that some of these characters never existed aboard the Titanic. After all, this film is based on the real tragedy. Because of that, I gather that a lot of people would assume that all of these characters are based on real people. I have encountered people who thought so before they read up on the film, or before they were told the truth, especially in regards to the love story. Yes, this is covered later (lower in the article), but not every reader moves past the lead, and the lead is supposed to summarize all significant aspects of a topic (per WP:LEAD). The fact that the love story is fictional is a significant aspect that needs to be addressed early on, in my view. I'm not seeing how it doesn't belong in the lead. And information for why it was created seems only relevant, as well as professional, after mentioning that it is fictional.

As for the actors, as stated before, I feel that Gloria Stuart (Old Rose) and Billy Zane (Cal) should be mentioned in the lead as well. But I am open to removing Cal. Having those two in the lead the way it is now also keeps people from adding them to the lead in some trivial way, which has been done in the past. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I respect your judgement, so there's no possibility of a revert war. With respect, I don't think you're completely correct on this one although as usual you have your reasons. First, it seems to me that it goes without saying that we can't cover everything in the lead that someone might be mistaken about or not be able to easily glean from a superficial contact with the film. That's an unreasonable standard. What's more, we say it's fictionalized so I am pretty sure for the purposes of a quick tour of the main points we have covered it. Readers will find the details later.

I'm sorry, but it is not a good exercise of editorial judgement to mention the framing device (which actually could be skipped without missing the main story) or anyone who's not a lead at this point in the article. When it comes to summarizing the main concept of the film, that should be accomplished in one sentence, and we do that. As I already mentioned, and I stand by it, Cameron's thinking qua screenwriter is of no more moment than the intentions of the other significant production designers. These are interesting devices to be sure -- and that's why we have other sections to the article -- but I think it's completely sufficient to cover the material later and there's no reason to do it twice.

No harm is done with the article as is. But now we have the chance to improve it and we shouldn't be wedded to decisions made when the entire shape of the article was unknown. This is just part of the process. Thanks again. I'm sure we both want the article as good as possible and I hope you accept my reasoning. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Even people who respect each other get into edit wars. And I don't expect you to always let me have my way with edits you disagree with, no matter how much you respect my reasoning for them. And back to the debate: Although "we cannot cover everything in the lead that someone might be mistaken about or not be able to easily glean from a superficial contact with the film," it seems pretty obvious that we should acknowledge that some characters and the love story are/is fictional after we state that the story is based on the real Titanic tragedy. The lead is not supposed to tackle and summarize everything; it's supposed to tackle and summarize the most significant aspects of a topic. The love story is pretty significant. And it's not already covered that the characters and love story are/is fictional from the start simply because we state that the story is a fictionalized account of the sinking of the Titanic. Of course it's fictionalized. It's fictionalized because it's a writer/director telling the story in his way, one who has added fictional characters like Broc to help tell that story. Of course people know Brock isn't based on a real person (at least that was clear to people from watching the film back in 1997, while the film starts off in 1996). But the same cannot definitively be said of the characters aboard the Titanic in the film.

I believe mentioning why Cameron created the love story right after we mention the love story is a good enough reason to have it there. Including the reason a story/aspect of a story was created is carried out in many (if not most) good and featured Wikipedia film articles these days. I wasn't really arguing for mention of the framing device, however; it was more about mention of Old Rose; people recognize her as Rose just as much as they recognize Kate Winslet as the character. But as for what devices helped to create the film, look at the Avatar (2009 film) article's lead (for example). I also partly disagree that "When it comes to summarizing the main concept of the film, that should be accomplished in one sentence..." While that is true, it is also true that the main concept, such as a summary of the plot, should be addressed in the lead as well. And about covering things twice, that of course happens with leads (as leads are supposed to summarize the article's content).

Improving the article to me is not so much about cutting back helpful details, especially not perceived needed ones, that do not bog the article down in any way. The only reason (as far as I could see) this article did not make it to Featured article status in August 2010 was/is because it lacked some "comprehensiveness." Steve stated, "Very few, if any, film articles have successfully passed at FAC in the last couple of years without some kind of themes or interpretations section, something that goes into detail about the levels of analysis the film has attracted from academics. Obviously, not all films will get this treatment, but something with the visibility of Titanic is not one of them. Just a couple of minutes throws up several potential sources, which I'm certain are not even close to the tip of the iceberg..." So I say if we should be working on anything regarding this article, it's that. Everything else is fine. But as a compromise with you, what do you say we just leave the debated material as this:

Although the central roles and love story are fictitious, some characters are based on genuine historical figures. Gloria Stuart portrays the elderly Rose, who narrates the film in a modern-day framing device. Cameron saw the love story as a way to engage the audience with the real-life tragedy.

or

Although the central roles and love story are fictitious, some characters are based on genuine historical figures. Cameron saw the love story as a way to engage the audience with the real-life tragedy.

I realize that you would prefer Option 2 out of these two options, but let me just state that something about the film being narrated seems like detail that should be mentioned in the lead, to me anyway. We could also take this to the talk page, so others can weigh in. In fact, it's best that we take most of our disagreements about the article there. We could also go with some sort of dispute resolution. Flyer22 (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you've made your case. We mention it's fictionalized. Done. Leave it at that. The lead is no place for details. We definitely shouldn't be including minor characters, so Rose is out. Seriously, she is nowhere near prominent enough. Similar case: the prologue to Romeo & Juliet. No way you would mention the character of the prologue in the lead to the article on that play, even though Prologue reappears to close out the action. It's just a framing device. Agreed? --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't insist on including Cameron's dramatic intentions. Its proximity to our mention that it's a love story is utterly irrelevant. We take it up later, as we should. It's not a main point or even close to it. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have made my case, especially why mentioning that the story is fictionalized does not leave it as "done." The word "fictionalized" means what in this case, that we should expect that some characters aboard the Titanic are made up? How are we to say that the reader should conclude that all on their own when this story is based on a real-life tragedy? See the definition of a fictional character. All these characters are fictional, and, because of this, "fictionalized" does not make clear that some characters aboard the Titanic within this film are not based on real people. This information is completely relevant to mention, which is surely why it was added to the lead in the first place and why it has remained in the lead for so long (I wasn't the one who added it; I am only the one insisting that it stays). I am not understanding how you do not agree with this being relevant to mention in the lead, or why you are so against it. The lead is for details -- summarized details. Cameron's dramatic intentions are a main point in this regard, because this story is largely a love story and the story's success is largely attributed to Cameron engaging the audience in this way.

Since it's clear we disagree, and you are not open to compromising on this matter, should I take this to the talk page and have other film editors weigh in or open an RfC? Flyer22 (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to bring in someone else that's fine, but I'm in no rush. 1) The lead is not a place to bring in speculation about why the story works. Please find examples of top film articles that do that. Perhaps you are unaware that there are design intentions at every step of the filmmaking process. Design intentions do not belong in the lead unless there is not a later section to handle them. 2) You're making a factually incorrect statement when you say that the lead includes details. False. And the attempt to make up a new category of "summarized details" seems like a Hail Mary. If you need to do that, perhaps you should admit that I'm making a point you can't answer. 3) Since you don't respond to the Romeo & Juliet parallel, I assume you agree that's a telling point. If you don't agree, please explain why the Prologue to R&J belongs for sure in the lead to that romantic tragedy. 4) Again, on the fictionalized point, you are falling back on the argument that we have to answer every possible mistake a reader might make about the extent to which a fictionalized account is fictional. The lead is not there for that purpose. We tell them it's fictionalized.

I don't mind discussing this with you, but if you can't answer my arguments point for point I'm going to assume you are conceding them. My mind is open but you have to make a cogent argument that draws on something outside your opinion, as I have done. Compare this article to another that makes your point, for example. Attempts to redefine something as its opposite (summarized details?) don't persuade me. Many thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no speculation in the lead. There are facts about why Cameron created the love story, and the fact that his creation of it is largely attributed to the success of the story, which is all cited in the article. Perhaps you are unaware that saying "Perhaps you are unaware that there are design intentions at every step of the filmmaking process." is snide and uncalled for. As a screenwriter, I am more than aware of this. But you seem to be unaware of what leads of GA and FA articles typically encompass. There is no factually incorrect statement in saying the lead includes details. That is a fact. You and I must have different definitions of what "details" means, because leads most definitely include "summarized details," which I will demonstrate in a few moments below in my second paragraph. Saying "Design intentions do not belong in the lead" is what is false. As I've made my points, there's no need for me to address the Romeo and Juliet "point" you made. You don't address every aspect of my points. And, again, I did not state that we have to address every possible mistake a reader might make. My points are clear as to why it should be mentioned in the lead that some characters in this film are not based on historical figures.

Basically, I don't understand your reasoning, and ask that you try not to talk down to me. I have answered your arguments point for point (disregarding Romeo and Juliet). I addressed each and every one of them. And outside my opinion? You have only stated things based on your opinion. No where does Wikipedia style guidelines state what you have stated. I cited WP:LEAD to help get across my point that the love story is a significant aspect of the topic and why the creation of it should be summarized in the lead. I have compared this article's lead to another one -- Avatar (2009 film), which mentions several characters and talks about some of Cameron's intentions with the story (special effects and language, as that story relies heavily on special effects...while this one relies heavily on both, but more so on the love story). But you want other examples? Sure. There's also The Dark Knight (film), which mentions more than two characters in the lead and the director's inspiration for the film. There's also the lead of Halloween (2007 film), which mentions the director's intentions for the film. Both are GAs. There's also the lead of FA Changeling (film), which mentions what the film explores, the writer's and director's reasons/preparations for/during creating the film, and that most characters are based on real people. There are various other good or featured film articles with such detail. So, clearly, such detail is argued as belonging in the leads of Wikipedia film articles, and are perfectly acceptable. Ideally, comprehensive leads are "in." Flyer22 (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

...I see that you accepted one of my compromises (Option 2), and I thank you for that. Flyer22 (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't accepted any compromises, although I am watching for you to revise your ideas in response to my proposals. It's part of the process. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I won't be changing my mind, but I did ask editors from the film project to weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Section break

• I'll make my points in regards to this edit: [5].

1. "Although the central roles and love story are fictitious, some characters are based on genuine historical figures" – It is described as a "fictionalized account" in the preceding sentence, so it's maybe pointing out the obvious that some of the characters are "based on genuine historical figures". At the same time it is probably important to explicitly point out Jack and Rose do not have real-life counterparts. Maybe this sentence can be merged with the preceding sentence and elaborate on the fact that Jack and Rose are fictional characters?
2. I think it's ok to include the fact that it is framed within a modern day setting and told as an extended flashback, since it's an integral part of the plot structure. I also think it's ok to mention Gloria Stewart and Billy Zanes since they are both integral to plot structure (as the narrator of the flashback) and plot archetype (as the antagonist in the love triangle).
3. "Cameron saw the love story as a way to engage the audience with the real-life tragedy." – Personally I wouldn't include this since it isn't a "fact" about the film; a statement like this usually requires a context: Was Cameron primarily interested in documenting the sinking? In what ways did the previous versions of the story fail to "engage" audiences with the tragedy? It's an incredibly subjective statement to include without clarification. Betty Logan (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Betty. Yes, for your third point, I was thinking of adding in Cameron's inspiration for the film (his being fascinated by shipwrecks and wanting to convey the tragedy as realistically as he could, disregarding his talk of "fuck you" money) and then combining that with why he created the love story. Cameron feeling that the love story was/is essential in engaging the audience may seem subjective, but it is Cameron's belief and is indeed why he created it. That is why I view it as a fact about the film. Flyer22 (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, Betty, going back to your first point: I agree that it's clear that some characters are based on historical figures; that was my point on that particular matter, actually, citing that the story is based on a real-life tragedy. My argument was that without mentioning it, it is not obvious that some of the characters aboard the Titanic (such as Jack and Rose) are completely fictional (although it has been stated that there was a real-life Jack Dawson aboard the Titanic, just not Cameron's version). But, yes, that sentence needs to be reworded. Flyer22 (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Betty, for your always sensible input. Actually, I'm afraid I can't agree about including the elder Rose. That is about like including Prologue from Romeo & Juliet, or perhaps the Duke who closes the show. Exactly the same structure -- a framing device -- and she's not a star of the picture. Clearly doesn't belong in the lead. Thanks again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The work of nailing down exactly who is and is not a fictitious character is handled in the body of the article. We mention it's fictionalized. That should do it for a summary. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Not seeing how Old Rose is not a star of the film, when she is cited as one in various sources. Nowhere does the general Wikipedia guideline or Wikipedia:WikiProject Film state that only main stars should be included in the lead. In fact, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film)#Lead section states: The first paragraph of the lead section should also identify the director and the star or stars of the film. If any writers or producers are well-known, they can also be identified in the paragraph. If the film is based on source material, that source material and its creators should be identified. If possible, convey the general premise of the film in the paragraph and identify actors' roles in the premise. That is why Old Rose and her part as narrator in a modern-day framing device belongs in the lead, pretty much what Betty stated. And with as big an impact as Old Rose has in the film, she is considered a main star anyway. There is enough analysis on both Roses in academics and screenwriting books that identify Old Rose as pretty significant to the structure of the film. And, finally, addressing your Romeo and Juliet comparison dead on, the narration of that play simply does not have the same impact as Old Rose; Old Rose is a prominent character in the story, one half of the love story. I thought that was already clear.

You already know what I think of your opinion of the fictional character bit, and I have stated pretty much all I have to state on that matter. Flyer22 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that if Stuart were nominated for an award it would be in the supporting actress category. Let's not torture our definitions, okay? --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Not my point, or the points Betty and I were stressing above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is the point. (And Betty can speak for herself.) A supporting actor is not a star. And obviously the framing device is not the main focus of the film (unless you think the Prologue is the main focus of Romeo & Juliet...? Is that what you believe?) As you know, I am always ready to change my mind when a reasonable alternative is proposed. I pride myself on keeping an open mind. Your arguments are tortured and you've started to resort to tortured definitions. I'm sorry I can't agree with you, but you are not persuasive and I'm starting to suspect you might just be incorrect. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it's not the point I was making, and you cannot proceed to tell me that it was. My points are clearly stated above, backed up by the lead policy, guidelines, and precedent set in other Wikipedia GA and FA film articles. That this article should be different in its approach does not hold up. A supporting actor is not a star? Care to provide a reliable source or Wikipedia guideline stating that? Because, as I stated, Stuart is called a Titanic star in plenty of reliable sources, and the Wikipedia film guideline says nothing about having no supporting characters in the lead. If your argument held up, so many Wikipedia articles would not have been promoted to GA or FA with supporting characters mentioned in the lead. It's not about the framing device being the main focus. It's about what Betty and I stated above regarding the framing device and Old Rose as the narrator of the film/one half of the love story. It's not the same as your Romeo and Juliet comparison at all. That comparison is what is tortured. My arguments do not need to be persuasive in regards to you anymore, as this topic is now open to a wider audience. It is your opinion that I am not persuasive anyway; first time I've ever been called that (I'm usually called the opposite), but there's a first time for everything. And at least one editor so far already agrees with me on some points, and sees them as reasonable. Flyer22 (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid the Romeo & Juliet analogy is quite apt. It's a framing device in both cases. Sorry. You are trying to elevate a framing device to a main point. Not good. But if you have to deny that to keep your argument from collapsing, I'm satisfied. Even now, I'm prepared to be persuaded and in the past have changed my mind based on your thoughts. As things stand, it's a little unfortunate, because the article suffers from your intransigence. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not the same thing, despite being a framing device, no matter how much you try to stress that it is. Two completely different formats -- one is a play where anyone can narrate, and the other is a film where the narrator is also a prominent character in the film. You are trying to elevate a framing device as the main point of this discussion, which it is not, and keep eluding my points about WP:LEAD, the film guideline on leads, and the various examples of other GA and FA film articles that do exactly what this article was doing before your cut (and still partly does in spite of your cut), examples you asked me to provide. The one trying desperately to hold onto their argument here is you. I don't need to try -- Wikipedia and one editor thus far are on my side. For example, the article suffers from "my intransigence"? Wow. Again, not judging by all the other GA and FA Wikipedia film articles that do the same exact thing. Flyer22 (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, out of the two of us, "intransigence" does not apply to me on this matter, as displayed above. I often try to compromise, and did here in this discussion as well. Insisting it has to be your way -- no mention of the debated aspects in the lead -- is not a compromise. Flyer22 (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I’m inclined to agree with Ring Cinema in this case. You’re talking about a major film. The framing device is just that, a device. It’s going to be mentioned practically first thing in the body anyhow, but in the scheme of the plot or the film’s commercial success I think you’d find it hard to argue the frame story setup is particularly important to the overall film. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is not simply about the framing device, David Fuchs, though Ring Cinema has made it about that. It's more about whether or not supporting roles and Cameron's inspiration/intentions for the film should be in the lead. Not to mention, whether or not it should be made clear that some characters (Jack and Rose being the prime case) are completely fictional. Plenty of other GA and FA film articles include supporting characters and the writer's or director's inspiration/intentions for the film in the lead. As I pointed out above, GA The Dark Knight (film) article and the FA Changeling (film) article are examples. And Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film)#Lead section seems to suggest the same thing. Ring Cinema's insistence that the lead should not include these things is just his opinion -- not carried guidelines and is in opposition to precedent. Flyer22 (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to say that MOS:FILM#Lead section encourages mentioning the stars, the director, and so forth because these would otherwise be major omissions from a film article's lead section. Additional information is up to the editors, but the information should be highlights from the article body. Any of the approaches are fine with me as none of them are detrimental in inclusion or omission. While I see that Stuart has been nominated several times, the film itself garnered a lot of awards in different areas, which the lead section only goes over briefly. If I had to choose, I could do without mentioning Stuart. As for Zane, the actor and the role do not seem to be key enough to warrant mention. The main characters falling in love despite being from different social classes to me implies that there are going to be obstacles which do not matter that much -- it could have been an overbearing mother as much as the fiancé. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, Erik. It's about preference in this case. The way the article is now, no mention of the framing device/Stuart or Zane, was actually one my compromise proposals. But Ring Cinema is not satisfied with that alone and feels that Cameron's intentions for the film should not be in the lead, which is what I disagree with most. I feel that a summary of the writer's/director's inspiration/intentions for the film, if there are any, should definitely be in the lead of GA and FA articles. Examples show the same thing. As for the line "it stars Leonardo DiCaprio as Jack Dawson and Kate Winslet as Rose DeWitt Bukater, members of different social classes who fall in love aboard the ship during its ill-fated maiden voyage," are you saying we shouldn't describe it in exactly that way? That there should be more added to it? If so, the mention of Cal previously clarified one obstacle -- the overbearing fiancé. Flyer22 (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with the synopsis sentence as it is. So with Stuart/Zane put aside, I assume the passage in question is some form of the following: "Although the central roles and love story are fictitious, some characters are based on genuine historical figures... Cameron saw the love story as a way to engage the audience with the real-life tragedy"? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. For the fictitious part, I feel that it should somehow be mentioned in the lead that some characters, such as the ones involved in the love story, are not based on genuine historical figures. Considering that this film is based on a real incident, it seems only natural to me that we point this out. I also noticed earlier on that the same thing is done for the Changeling (film) article, which I cited above. For Cameron's belief on the love story being integral to the success of the film, I've been thinking of taking Cameron's intention for the love story and combining it into a new paragraph (which would then become the second paragraph) about his inspiration for the film; it would just be a brief summary. Or just adding a bit more about the intention of the love story at the end of the sentence already there, and leave it in the first paragraph, since the Writing and inspiration section only says a little about it. MOS:FILM#Lead section prefers that stuff such as this be in succeeding paragraphs, though. Adding more is pretty much about what Betty stated above -- that more is needed on this aspect in the lead (Cameron engaging the audience through the love story). If put into a separate paragraph, we could also mention how critical analysis also largely attributes the success of the film to the love story.

Going back to choosing mentioning more awards over mentioning of Stuart, do you feel the following line "Titanic was an enormous critical and commercial success. It was nominated for fourteen Academy Awards, eventually winning eleven, including Best Picture and Best Director." is not sufficient enough? I would think we should only summarize the awards as briefly as possible. That is why I would choose mention of Stuart over adding more details on the awards. Flyer22 (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: Okay, I edited the lead to this. I removed the fictitious part, since I feel that the "fictionalized account" wording and brief mention (or rather hint) that Cameron created the love story gets the point across that some characters are completely fictional. The second paragraph that was already there now begins with a bit on Cameron's inspiration for the film, which also touches on his reason for creating the love story. I added the framing device/narration part to the Cast section (at the beginning of Old Rose's description), since it fits well there and is presented differently at the end of the Writing and inspiration section (not to mention it's at the end of that section).

I still feel that the most prominent supporting roles should be in the lead, just like other GA and FA articles, Transformers (film) as yet another example, and that it should mention that the film is narrated, but I am semi-okay with the way it is now. Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Import from another page

From Erik's talk page:

It was really helpful of you to weigh in last week. There's a little bit of a problem there since Flyer isn't listening very well. Could become a problem for the article, which is not a trivial one. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A little bit of a problem there? I'm the one who fixed that article up as thoroughly as it is. I'm the one who kept it from being demoted of its GA status the first time around. The second time around wasn't even close to serious, as it was just about headings and material placement (and had no chance of being demoted), but I was the one who came up with the solutions (including asking Erik for his solutions, which, following suggestions made by you, you carried out...after you'd argued with and belittled the editor who expressed the concerns). And now, in the present, you state that I am not listening? To an editor (Erik) you feel doesn't even respect others' opinions? Ridiculous. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I was/am not listening. Further, by saying "not listening," you act as though such a trivial thing as mentioning co-stars in the lead, which just about every Wikipedia film article does to some degree, is hindering the article. And, really, no one agreed with you that co-stars should not be mentioned in the lead. One editor agreed with me about the framing device. One editor agreed with you about the framing device. And Erik simply stated that he wouldn't mention Old Rose over the mention of more awards, and that Cal isn't a necessary mention at all. That is not the same thing as saying "co-stars should not be in the lead." The other matters -- the "some characters are fictitious" part, and Cameron's inspiration/intentions for the film -- weren't even weighed in on by the others, with the exception of Betty (who agreed with me on the fictitious information regarding Jack and Rose anyway). So stop pretending that you were justified in your edits, which are not based on any guideline and actually go against the precedent set by other GA and FA film articles, and as though I am the one harming the article by wanting it to comply with the same informative standards of other GA and FA film articles. I compromised with you; as you know, there is now no mention of Old Rose, the framing device, or Cal Hockley in the lead. The "some characters are fictitious part" is not even in the lead anymore. Cameron's inspiration/intentions will stay, however, as that is what a compromise is -- both sides getting their way in part -- and it is pretty silly to say that a summary of the director's inspiration/intentions for the film should not be in the lead. So suffice it to say, I listen; I just don't always agree.

And, hi, Erik. You already know I truly respect you (from our past interactions, etc.) and that I wanted you to weigh in. Thank you for doing so. Sorry that this mess has been brought to your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Erik. I appreciate you weighing in with a difficult editor. Thanks again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The only one who has proved themselves difficult is you, Ring Cinema. You don't respect other people's opinions. Cannot compromise even on the smallest of things. And when you don't, you condescend to and belittle people, and accuse them of the exact thing you were being/doing, as was in the case of Erik and now me. I saw that you even did the same thing to Bignole. Only when they/we agree with you...do you act all friendly. I cannot believe I ever stated that I respect you. And out of the two of us, Erik knows who truly respects him; he's not an idiot. Flyer22 (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Instead of trying to justify yourself -- which simply reiterates the problem -- start thinking about adjusting your relationship to the other editors. I'm optimistic you will reflect on that positively. Some of your ideas are good but not all, to put it kindly. Be aware of that. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have to try and justify myself. It's called defending oneself against complete absurdity. And it's quite clear from above that what you consider problems are not what others consider problems. It's also quite clear from above which of the two of us needs to work on their people skills. Flyer22 (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)