Talk:Titanic (1997 film)/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2019

Change

Nominated for 14 Academy Awards, it tied All About Eve (1950) for the most Oscar nominations, and won 11, including the awards for Best Picture and Best Director, tying Ben-Hur (1959) for the most Oscars won by a single film.

to

Nominated for 14 Academy Awards, it tied All About Eve (1950) for the most Oscar nominations, and won 11, including the awards for Best Picture and Best Director, tying Ben-Hur (1959) and The Return of the King for the most Oscars won by a single film. 2A02:1811:CE1C:4C00:5C31:6EE8:D3F1:9057 (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It didn't tie TRotK because it hadn't been released yet. Later, in the body of the article, it does actually mention the latter. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Plot copy edit

The film plot is slightly over the 700 guideline, and although this is not a totally strict guideline, that doesn't mean we have to, or can, include extra things if we don't need them. The copy edit to the plot, to around 680 words, mainly improved wording and flow. I had also removed some assumptions and other insignificant moments relatively speaking given the main events discussed, such as the third-class dance or Cal's "deal" with Jack. These scenes are not any more significant than other events not included such as Jack's poker win, how Jack is freed, etc. etc. Including these events just because we can go over the guideline is not a strong enough argument to allow the plot to go over 700 words when it can easily be done without doing so. I do not think the copy edit was given a fair look and was reverted based on "Plot was already extensively cut and worked out." That does not mean things cannot ever be improved. You can see the revisions here. I invite page watchers to please provide their input. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 22:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see why you seriously want to debate this and this. Why is it so important to you to have this plot material be under 700 words when it is only at 707 (minus the hidden note, the refn note and two references)? Why is it so important to you to revert the expanded hidden note informing editors that WP:FILM and MOS:FILM are not as strict about the word count as you and a few others make them out to be? I also added the hidden note that is currently there, but, given your edits, it apparently wasn't enough. So I expanded it. This type of thing has been discussed various times at WP:FILM and MOS:FILM. And, yes, I disagree with you removing "Following dinner, Rose secretly joins Jack at a party in third class.", "Cal claims he can get himself and Jack off safely. After Rose boards one, Cal tells Jack the arrangement is only for himself.", and "and passengers are falling to their deaths." These three aspects are not trivial aspects in the film, and those are the main reasons I reverted to before this edit. You can find some other way to get the plot under 707 700 since it's so dire.
And regarding your latest revert, in addition to reverting extra wording to the hidden note, you restored "penniless" when "poor" will do, and restored "bodyguard" in place of "valet" and "she suggests to him" in place of "it is suggested" after this editor pointed out the errors. And, yeah, I stand by this edit summary. Thanks for the bravo. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
There are several "non-trivial" aspects of the film—including the ones I mentioned that are not included in the plot, but we can't include them all can we? Is there a specific reason for including those scenes? As I said, given the other information that is discussed in the plot, those events do not shape the overall outcome of the film and are a 'waste' of bytes. The "deal" doesn't even pan out for Cal himself, and this information is important, why? There are dozens of ways people die on the ship, and that one mentioned reason is of particular note, because? With regards to the hidden note, if people want to read up on WP:FILMPLOT they can as it is listed there, they don't need you to editorialize its meaning. Again, although 700 words is not exactly strict, it is preferred, and scenes that are irrelevant to the overall plot summary should not be included. Today it's 707, tomorrow it's 720, and before we know it, it reaches 900 with this type of "it's not strict" mentality. There is simply no reason to include things we don't have to just because, hey, it's only a guide. My ce also fixed those errors but you went ahead and restored back the full version—but suppose it's best to keep the plot as it was while this discussion takes place. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 00:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
What other "non-trivial" aspects of the film? And, of course, we can't include everything. You have seen Titanic, haven't you? You are asking me to justify including content that briefly addresses important aspects of the film -- aspects that are also discussed in film books -- and have been included in the article for years after being extensively discussed. Something like "Rose secretly joins Jack at a party in third class." is not only portrayed as a significant experience in the film, it's noted in film books as her making a decision to mingle with the lowercase. Please don't ask me to point to which film books. Including this bit lets our readers know that she associates with the lowerclass, not just Jack. Including it also discourages editors from coming along and adding extensive detail on the matter. Same goes for the other two aspects you removed. Since these were all big moments in the film, we will get editors adding content on them. This was seen for years. If the material is not there, they will add it, but in greater detail. At least the short versions of the content address these aspects and help combat extensive material being added about them. Yes, we can revert editors, but I see no need to exclude these aspects. And excluding these aspects will add to more addition attempts, not less. I've been with this article for a long time and have seen what editors focus on when they edit the plot section. Including brief versions of these aspects has helped.
And as for "and passengers are falling to their deaths" specifically? This is one of the biggest aspects of the film and documents the chaos going on at that point in time. The ship doesn't just sink and people drown. It splits apart and the stern rises, sending people falling. So many of the people fall to their deaths. And this relates specifically to the special effects aspect of the film. If any of the three aforementioned aspects should be retained when considering MOS:PLOT from a strict perspective, it's this.
You seem to be arguing that we are retaining material just to retain it. But when it comes to these three aspects, you are arguing to cut just to cut. You've offered no benefit to cutting the material or solid rationale to do so. Instead, you are offering a strict interpretation of WP:Film plot as though the material must be under 700 words. Furthermore, like I noted, the plot can be taken to under 700 words without cutting these three aspects. I'm fine with you restoring your other edits. I just disagree with these three aspects being cut. You stated, "Today it's 707, tomorrow it's 720, and before we know it, it reaches 900 with this type of 'it's not strict' mentality." I can also state, "Today it's 680 or 700, tomorrow it's 720." It's not going to reach 900 because we have watchers, including me, keeping the plot section from bloating. It's been kept a little over 700 for years. So your "we need a strict" mentality argument doesn't hold up. And debating retaining these three aspects is a waste of time. We can just move on.
As for the hidden note, making it clear that WP:FILM and MOS:FILM are not as strict about the word count as you and a few others make them out to be is not editorializing its meaning. Again, this has been discussed among WP:Film editors times before. And that we get editors coming along indiscriminately or unnecessarily chopping the plot sections of film articles in name of WP:Film plot is a problem that has also been discussed among WP:Film editors times before. Letting editors know that things such as a hidden note don't count as part of the film plot, which the hidden note currently does let editors know, is fine. And it has been helpful. But I am not hard-pressed on restoring the expanded wording. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I mentioned the other non-trivial aspects. Anyway, I appreciate your explanation of these two aspects, and while I don't necessarily agree fully with your points, I can see your perspective. I notice you did not include an explanation for Cal's "deal" - The "deal" doesn't even pan out for Cal himself? Out of the three things I removed, this seems the most trivial. I don't think simply stating that editors add this material back or that it's a "big moment" is enough justification for this point's inclusion - that could be said about several scenes (case and point with the editor adding the $20 part today). Just as an FYI, having something done "for years" is not an actual justification - things can constantly change and be updated if improvements exist. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 01:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I didn't specifically address the "Cal's deal" aspect because I noted "Same goes for the other two aspects you removed. Since these were all big moments in the film, we will get editors adding content on them. This was seen for years." As for "having something done 'for years' is not an actual justification", it is when it comes to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." I was explaining that this approach has worked for years. Since going over what aspects of the plot to retain or discard years ago, we've had no issue with keeping the plot from bloating. The "$20" thing has not been something that editors have repeatedly added. It's also not significant enough to note in the plot section. As a compromise with you, we can try losing the "Cal's deal" aspect and see how it goes. I'd rather retain the other two aspects. I'd rather retain all three, but dropping this piece is a compromise. I noted that I'm okay with your other changes. Should fix the "bodyguard" and "she suggests" errors, of course. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Now I remember why the "Cal's deal" (promise rather) piece was retained, besides it being something editors will want there. It's because it conveys that the only reason that Rose boards a lifeboat is because she thinks Jack will be safe. If we cut the "Cal's deal" aspect, it will leave readers thinking that Rose agreed to leave Jack to a fate that would likely ensure his death. So, on second thought, I don't think we should cut this even as a compromise. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
For a trim, maybe change "Cal claims he can get himself and Jack off safely. After Rose boards one, Cal tells Jack the arrangement is only for himself." to "While secretly intending to only save himself, Cal claims he can get himself and Jack off safely."? Or something like that? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Interesting perspective. I've incorporated that suggestion. I managed to get the plot to 700 words while keep all three pieces discussed here in tact, only focusing on word flow improvements. I hope this is satisfactory. Please let me know if anything should be adjusted. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 04:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
That is fine. Thank you. I apologize for being snarky before. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Heart of the Ocean

Hi all, I will be making a wiki page specifically for the HOTO. Does anyone have any objections? Uncoveringcelebrityhistory (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm rather curious as to how you plan to establish that it has independent notability outside of this film. DonIago (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I was curious too, and researching the matter, there does seem to be good coverage. The book Titanic: Anatomy of a Blockbuster has an entire chapter devoted to it: "Heart of the Ocean: Diamonds and Democratic Desire in Titanic", pages 155-168. It also appears that the book Empire of Diamonds: Victorian Gems in Imperial Settings talks about the Heart of the Ocean on five pages. This also mentions Heart of the Ocean throughout, including direct coverage in the paragraph starting with, "Ironically, the thing that comes to embody for Rose the structure of desire that shapes and determines the story of her life is the Heart of the Ocean." Uncoveringcelebrityhistory, for what it's worth, you may experience some resistance. This may be the kind of topic that other editors won't believe warrants a standalone article. Maybe start with a WP:DRAFT article and make sure there is substantial content to move into the mainspace? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I'll be the first to admit that's already more coverage than I was expecting. Good luck! DonIago (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I didn't see the above until the 19th and decided I'd reply later. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. Pinging Drmies since Drmies merged the previous Heart of the Ocean article here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Drmies cut material there and merged some of it here. I tweaked the merge. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I do not like material being sourced to personal websites. If there's good coverage, I'm all for restoring/rewriting. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Portal bar

The documentation for Template:Portal bar specifically says This template does not belong in the "See also" section.

Please remove the Portal bar from the See also section.

Alternatively you can use Template:Portal (portal box). Another option (again recommended by the documentation) is to put the Portal box in the External links section with the wikiquote and other boxes. -- 109.77.213.49 (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Please remove X "the portal bar" from the See also section (and replace it with "nothing" Y).
I checked to see if there was a delete/remove template instead but there doesn't seem to be one. -- 109.78.217.4 (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done, I moved the portal bar down to between the navboxes and authority control as indicated at MOS:ORDER. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 12 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved due to consensus. (non-admin closure) HeartGlow (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Titanic (1997 film) → Titanic (film) – This is clearly the primary topic among all films named Titanic given its Best Picture win and former position as the highest grossing film. It’s also 13 23 years old, so “recentism” shouldn’t be an issue. This move would is supported by WP:CONCISE and is explicitly allowed by WP:INCDAB (per this 2019 RFC). I should also point to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, “Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.” In other words, whether or not incomplete disambiguation is allowed is not up for debate here. -- Calidum 19:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  1. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states that a topic may be primary for a term if the topic is most likely to be sought when people search for that term.
  2. WP:INCDAB states that a qualified title that is still ambiguous should redirect to the disambiguation page (or to a section of it)
  3. WP:PRIMARYFILM rejects partial disambiguation for films and requires full disambiguation using years.
These are all guidelines in the manual of style. I only see a hypothetical contradiction between PRIMARYTOPIC and INCDAB, but one that is not likely to be borne out in reality. The contradiction only really applies if people are actually searching on the partially disambiguated term to reach the fully disambiguated title. I don't really regard this is as credible proposition, unless reliable sources start to adopt Wikipedia's title practices. To press home my point: the Titanic (1997 film) article gets over 8,000 hits per day, while Titanic (film) gets on average 3 hits per day, and Titanic itself has a daily average of 3,000 hits. If Titanic (film) was getting a similar number of hits to Titanic then there would be a legitimate argument it had thus established itself as term that people search on to reach the article in the manner described by PRIMARYTOPIC. If this were the case then you would have a conflict between PRIMARYTOPIC and INCDAB. However, at 3 hits per day is patently clear that Titanic (film) is not a primary search term and there is no conflict to reconcile in this instance. In the absence of such a conflict disambiguating film articles with ambiguous titles should default to WP:PRIMARYFILM, which would result in the status quo. Betty Logan (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Can you point to the RFC where the current wording you reference in NCFILM was made and explain how such a discussion isn’t an example of local consensus? -- Calidum 02:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
NCFILM is a Wikipedia guideline. Alterations to it are discussed on the talk page I imagine, which the whole community can participate in, so by definition is not a local consensus. But this is a tangential issue that would only be an issue worth resolving if there was an actual contradiction between PRIMARYTOPIC and PRIMARYFILM, which there isn't. PRIMARYTOPIC is essentially a guideline to resolve the conflict between two topics competing for the same title. As the stats show above virtually nobody searches on "Titanic (film)". It is not as though a significant number of people searching for the 1997 film are searching on "Titanic (film)" and ending up at the disambiguation page. Your RFC presents no evidence of this. Furthermore, the RFC at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_51#Primary_topic_and_Incomplete_disambiguation_conflicts states that the standard for making disambiguated titles such as Foo (bar) a primary topic among all Foo's that are Bars should be tougher than the standard for titles that don't have any disambiguator. So the consensus at the RFC certainly doesn't mandate a move to Titanic (film), it actually sets a high bar for such a move. Moving an article to a search title that on average only gets 3 hits per day doesn't sound like a high bar for me. By the same token Titanic (1997) gets 7 hits per day, so more visitors end up at the article through "Titanic (1997)" than "Titanic (film)". If the goal of PRIMARYTOPIC is to minimise clicks then surely Titanic (1997) is a preferable option to Titanic (film)? The argument for moving the article to Titanic (film) is unfounded because hardly anybody actually comes through that link. Surely the first test set by the high bar set at the RFC requires that Titanic (film) is a significant search term? Betty Logan (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
"Titanic (film)" gets very few pageviews is because the obvious primary topic, the 1997 film, is not at that title, so almost every single navigation method is actively diverted away from using "Titanic (film)". Google search results will directly link to "Titanic (1997 film)", internal wikilinks are actively edited to point directly to "Titanic (1997 film)", and the internal search won't even show "Titanic (film)" as an option until you type out "Titanic (f" because it's smart enough to know better. Pageviews for any title will adjust after a move. For example, see the pageviews for Parasite (2019 film) and Parasite (film) – the former title didn't magically become an unused search term over the course of two days, it's because the latter title became the article name so it instantly soaked up almost all the hits (except from 500 or so remaining wikilinks). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
It would be an invention by us that receives traffic only because we have made it that way, not because people use it as a legitimate search term. Yes, over time Titanic (film) would function much the same way that Titanic (1997 film) does, but what exactly do we gain from doing that? There are good reasons for full disambiguating, but what is the upshot from making the title partially ambiguous? When the fully disambiguated title is not causing problems what exactly is this rename supposed to accomplish? It seems like a solution looking for a problem to me. Betty Logan (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I didn't see the RFC, so thanks for linking it. "In other words, whether or not incomplete disambiguation is allowed is not up for debate here." Fair enough if you believe that. So instead I'll point to the RFC's close saying "should be tougher than the standard for titles that don't have any disambiguator." My view is that, for partial disambiguation to be justified, the other articles should be stubs viewed in the single digits with no particular value to anyone. When I look at Titanic (1943 film) and Titanic (1953 film), I don't think they fall into such a category. The 1953 film, in particular, occasionally gets close to 1000 views a day. Obviously, this is nothing compared to the 1997 movie, but this doesn't fit my strict standard. Most readers would find it odd to have 2 decent-sized articles with a date and then one without. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Can you point to the section of WP:DPT that supports your reasoning? -- Calidum 02:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Which part do you mean? The importance clause I'm referring to is at WP:INCOMPLETEDISAMBIGUATION and "the threshold for identifying a primary topic for such titles is higher than for a title without parenthetical disambiguation". Obviously, if these three movies were called The Titanic Movie or similar, I wouldn't disagree with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but that's not the same issue at hand. Nohomersryan (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
        • Nohomersryan, the normal PT threshold is “much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined”. If for three titles A, B and C A is getting twice as many as either B or C - say 67% for A vs 33% for B and C — that means A is “much more likely than any other single topic (generally twice as likely qualifies as “much more likely”), and more likely than all the other topics combined“ to be sought by a user. So we merely need a threshold higher than that. Well, per page views, the 1997 movie is FORTY times more likely to be sought than any of the others. Surely that qualifies as meeting a threshold higher than the normal mere doubling of the other two. Right? I mean if 4x, much less 40x, wasn’t a high enough threshold then INCDAB would use wording other than “higher than”. —В²C ☎ 05:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – Continuing what I said above, we really need to discuss WP:PDAB before continuing with this. These debates have little to no meaning if we all understand PDAB and PRIMARYFILM differently. We need to discuss these guidelines first, so that we can more clearly discern move requests like this one and Parasite. We need to decide whether PRIMARYFILM contradicts PDAB or if it means that PDAB doesn't apply to films even if it isn't explicitly stated there. Furthermore, we need to establish which is the "higher standard" for a partial disambiguation, so that the criteria is the same for everyone and it isn't just a personal opinion of whether the standards have been met. El Millo (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
    • WP:INCDAB has already been discussed; see the RFC I linked to. WP:FILM isn't a fiefdom that can pretend the RFC didn't happen. -- Calidum 02:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Then the wording of WP:PRIMARYFILM needs to be changed in order to make it clearer, and I still think we need to decide what that higher standard is. El Millo (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:INCDAB/WP:PDAB based on page views. This film dwarfs the other two in page views on the order of 40:1. If that doesn't meet the INCDAB higher standard, nothing can. It's way beyond the normal PT standard of "more than all others combined". Requiring the other uses to all be stubs is ridiculously high and I see no purpose that such a high hurdle would serve. As for WP:PRIMARYFILM, I call WP:IAR because it's inconsistent with how other partial disambiguations are treated per INCDAB (see also the many examples at WP:PDAB#List of partially disambiguated article titles). PRIMARYFILM needs to be updated to be consistent with INCDAB. It makes no sense to treat film article titles differently from all other article titles on WP. Until it's made consistent with INCDAB, that's good reason to ignore PRIMARYFILM per IAR. What we don't have is a good IAR reason to ignore INCDAB for this or any other articles. --В²C ☎ 03:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose multiple films with this title. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The articles for 1943 and 1953 films receive enough traffic that this fails to meet the appropriately very high bar for a PDAB. We would be misdirecting substantially more users than we would be helping.
INCDAB allows for partial disambiguation, but with a higher standard for determining a primary article. How much higher has never been settled. To answer that, it would be helpful to consider the concrete pros and cons on user navigation. As some rough metrics to work with, the most relevant articles here are:
  1. Titanic (1997 film): ~240,000 views per month
  2. Titanic (1943 film): ~4,800 views per month
  3. Titanic (1953 film): ~5,400 views per month
  4. Titanic (film) redirect to DAB: ~80 visits per month
About 95% of the users looking for a Titanic film are looking for the 1997 film. That means we can expect that about 76 of the 80 visitors to the redirect would be helped by being sent directly to the article instead of the DAB page (pro). The other 4 would be sent to the wrong article instead of the DAB page (con).
Some increased portion of the ~10,000 visitors to the articles for the 1943 and 1953 films will end up at the wrong article instead of the correct article or the DAB page (for example, by selecting Titanic (film) from the search autocomplete or Google search results, where they would not have selected Titanic (1997 film)) (con). What is that percentage? Hard to guess. Studies of user search behaviour show that most people very quickly click on the first link they see that might match what they are looking for, so we can expect it to be some non-trivial portion. Even if we estimate it as low as 1% of the visitors to those articles, it is a larger group of people than we aided reaching the 1997 film’s article faster. And being sent to a wrong article is more of a negative than avoiding a DAB is a benefit.
PDAB is appropriately reserved for cases where all other articles receive trivial amounts of traffic. That is the higher standard that should be applied.--Trystan (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Actually, it's very easy to guess the percentage, since it's probably close to 0%. We can safely assume that people who are aware enough of film history that they intend to find the 1943 or 1953 films would be aware that the hugely popular 1997 film exists, and would tailor their searches accordingly. For Wikipedia's internal search, the other films show up as suggestions once you indicate that you are looking for a disambiguated title by typing "Titanic (". Even typing in "Titanic" will show Titanic in popular culture in the search suggestions, which will ultimately take seekers of the other films to the right place. Google Search results are so dominated by the 1997 film that it won't always show the 1943 or 1953 film articles even if you search stuff like "older Titanic film", "historical Titanic film", "other Titanic film", so they would have to tailor their search. And if people are looking for the other films and end up at the 1997 film, that's why WP:HATNOTES exist, and one could easily be added. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this case does not meet the high bar standard of PDAB due to the high traffic other films receive. -- Netoholic @ 16:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Betty Logan; Nohomersryan; Lugnuts; Trystan and Netoholic. No partial disambiguation. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Trystan. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies to the parenthetical disambiguator. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose in a vain attempt to stave off a supervote close. Thriller (album) is a nonsense and should be avoided elsewhere whenever possible. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The minor reduction in string length would not be helpful to readers. Partial disambiguation is seldom helpful. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Because of the relatively high number of views the other films get, this page does not meet the high bar standard, and it should not be partially disambiguated. kennethaw88 • talk 03:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Trystan's pageview numbers. If 95% of 250k monthly pageviews in addition to the immense cultural heft of the 1997 Titanic film is not enough to meet the higher threshold for pageviews and long-term significance required by WP:INCDAB, then it seems that the oppose !votes are setting an impossible standard for a test that is obviously intended to be possible. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Not impossible, just rare, which is in line with both past practice and the views expressed in the 2019 RFC. I think most of the articles listed at WP:PDAB pass the test, where the other candidates for the partially disambiguated title are of marginal notability and minimal traffic compared to this proposed move.--Trystan (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per policy WP:PRECISION and Wikipedia project's guideline WP:NCF. WikiProject Film supports fully disambiguating all secondary-topic films from each other, and policy supports WikiProjects setting guidelines for the given subject matter. The fact that the status quo has been problem-free for many years shows how ridiculous it is to bake in unnecessary ambiguity. It is literally not an improvement in any way to pursue dropping the year from parenthetical disambiguation. If nothing will be improved, and the detriment of ambiguity will be added, then there is no reason to pursue change.
Furthermore, WP:INCDAB is improperly applied here. Per WP:PRECISION, we have Leeds North West and M-185, which are primary topics, being fully disambiguated per the respective WikiProjects' naming guidelines. If editors pushing for WP:INCDAB are actually correct here, then the aforementioned examples, supported by policy, should have their parenthetical disambiguation stripped to meet the guideline at WP:DAB perfectly and in total disregard of WikiProjects' preferences. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Heart of the Ocean

In the 'Plot' section, the mention of the Heart of the Ocean is hyperlinked, but the link merely takes on to the Titanic (1997 film) page. Can someone please undo this hyperlink. I don't seem to be allowed to.2001:8003:4C47:5B01:9D72:29DC:7EEC:5361 (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I removed the link. It takes readers to a section on the topic. Per WP:Manual of Style/Linking#Section links, we do sometimes point readers to a section within an article. But since the "Heart of the Ocean" section concerns real-life content, it may not be best to point readers there from the plot section. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Barker, Martin; Austin, Thomas (2000). "Titanic: A Knight to Remember". From Antz To Titanic: Reinventing Film Analysis. Pluto Press. pp. 87–104. ISBN 0745315844.
  • Palmer, William J. (2009). "The New Historicist Films". The Films of the Nineties: The Decade of Spin. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 24–37. ISBN 0230613446.
  • Zizek, Slavoj (2001). "The Thing from Inner Space: Titanic and Deep Impact". In Gabbard, Glen O (ed.). Psychoanalysis and Film. International Journal of Psychoanalysis Key Paper Series. Karnac Books. ISBN 1855752751.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 19:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Cal and Ruth" instead of just "Cal"

First of all, I can't see why merely including Ruth's name in the sentence has become such a courtroom drama. Secondly, I don't appreciate my edits being reverted as "unsourced" when this is exactly what the movie's final script says, and third, Ruth being in first class was the main reason Jack and Rose returned there, because Ruth was Rose's mother, they wanted to warn her and Cal about the collision. The line in the film was, "We should warn mother and Cal", not "we should warn Cal". Adding two words to the synopsis does NOT make it excessive. I don't see what the big fuss is, its not like an innocent man's life is on the line. Jienum (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding Ruth's name was not the only change you were making [1], but I personally think the bigger issue is that your additions made those sentences harder to read. If you do not see this as a big issue, and four other editors have removed the content today that you were trying to add, then it may be easier to just not worry about it anymore. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I mean what's the big fuss for all the other editors that they have to revert it for the sake of two words. I'm just adding that they were warning Cal and Ruth because that was what the SCRIPT said, but its reverted and the reason is that its "unsourced". One user said Ruth was not in the room, so that means they clearly have not seen the film, they are reverting based on speculation, not facts. Maybe for those who have not seen the film, it seems harder to read, because its like reverting "2 + 2 = 4" because there's no source even though the whole world knows its true. I'm putting it back, and if anyone has an issue, they can bring it up here. This article is not a sacred text. Jienum (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

My two cents: reverting Jienum's edits on the basis of the information being "unsourced" is pretty ridiculous given that we're talking about the plot summary. However, per WP:BRD, this page should have been Jienum's next stop, at least once multiple editors were involved. I had no plans to be involved in the situation, but I saw Jienum make an edit summary in which they threatened to blank the plot summary entirely, which led me to contact them on their Talk page, with discouraging results. I never did make any edits to the article itself, as at the time there didn't seem to be a need for me to get involved on that level. In any event, this is probably a moot point given that Jienum's now taking an enforced vacation, but I am somewhat curious aso to why anyone was reverting their edits using "unsourced" as the basis, as that doesn't seem proper either. DonIago (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I actually didn't know about that since I was a new user to Wikipedia. I'll keep it in mind on not reverting in the plot summaries of film or book articles. Hayleez (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hayleez. As discussed at WP:FILMPLOT, usually sources aren't required for plot summaries as the film itself can be assumed to be the source, though if an editor is interpreting the film or such, sources may be required. It's unfortunate that Jienum didn't reach out to you, as this whole situation might have been resolved more amicably at that point...of course, once they started edit-warring that became a moot point. DonIago (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
OK now that I'm back and had time to cool off a bit, I would like to bring the point up again. As I've stated before, the line in the script is "we should tell mother and Cal". Why is the film plot implying that the main reason was to warn Cal when Rose didn't love him at all? She wanted to warn her mother, and obviously she would be warning Cal in the process. Question one: why was it removed as "unsourced"? Question two: why did another user say that Ruth wasn't in the room when she clearly was? Question three: what's the problem with just adding two words to the plot summary to make it more clear? I'm not touching the article, I'm doing my part in trying to resolve this matter, now please, everyone else do the same. Jienum (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree with adding "Cal and Ruth". I struggle with the "but is later admonished" part because it is half-eluded to in the next paragraph through mention of "disapproval". The next paragraph says "Aware of Cal and Ruth's disapproval, Rose rebuffs Jack's advances...". "Aware" sounds like she intuitively sensed their disapproval when in fact both of them voiced their disapproval to her. This could read "After Cal and Ruth voice their disapproval to Rose, she rebuffs Jack's advances...". Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 13:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea too. Maybe the "admonished" bit is too much detail. Jienum (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I also think it would be fine to add "and Ruth" to the sentence. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
So now what? It seems like most are in favour are adding it to the article. Jienum (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Implemented. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 13:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Plot and Script Errors

There should perhaps be a section in the Article dealing with plot errors, of which there are at least two major examples. First, Rose and Jack are responsible for the ship hitting the iceberg, which of course led directly to the sinking, as they distracted the lookouts by kissing and making out in public. "Cor look at that..." said the lookout, spending crucial seconds looking the wrong way as the iceberg came unavoidably close. The ship almost missed the berg and these seconds would have been determining. Second, we must remember that the entire movie is in flashback and what we are really seeing is Old Rose telling the salvage crew what happened. Part of what she tells them is that Cal says to the detective, "I put the jewel in the coat, and I put the coat on her!" In other words, Rose is telling the salvage crew that she has the jewel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.130.236 (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Only if there are independent reliable sources that discuss that aspect of the film. Schazjmd (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Lack of HFR showings in the USA

@Schazjmd‬

I'd love to be wrong, but there appears to be no showings for this film in HFR in the US. A few weeks ago, ticketing sites showed many showings as being HFR compatible. Now they are nowhere to be found. Other markets such as Europe still offer the HFR option, though.

Technically there's no source in terms of an article, just Fandango & other ticketing sites. Tytygh55 (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

(FYI, you have to include the ping and sign the comment in the same edit for a ping to work. If your ping works, you'll get a notification.) @Tytygh55:, if no reliable sources have noted or even mentioned it, there's nothing to say in the article. We don't do original research. Schazjmd (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
It's showing in HFR at the Chinese Theater in LA. I saw it there tonight. It's playing in 3D IMAX HFR through the morning of Thursday 2/16:
https://tickets.tclchinesetheatres.com/Browsing/Movies/Details/h-HO00000472 Jamesluckard (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Runtime

A user named Betty Logan and I have been going back and forth on whether the runtime is 194 or 195 minutes. The user claims it is 195 minutes because that's what the BBFC says, but the DVD cover of the film says it is 194 minutes. I believe a DVD cover published for the film is the final say on runtime over a film classification board, correct? TheKingLives (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd question that assertion. DVD covers could be construed as marketing material that may or may not be entirely accurate (though I'll admit I don't know whether there's a broader consensus on that). Did you (or anyone) check a broader range of sources?
I also don't know why you don't seem to understand that when it comes to measures of time, anything over 30 seconds would round up to the next minute.
Lastly, tagging Betty Logan (talk · contribs) to ensure they're aware of this discussion. DonIago (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:FILMRUNTIME is crystal clear on this: "Use a reliable secondary source, such as the BBFC classification site, to cite the information; do not time it yourself, and for upcoming releases, do not take it from theater chain or ticketing service websites...Home video packaging should only be used to source run-times for direct-to-video films or for films that may not have been classified; reliable secondary sources are still preferable in these instances if at all possible." Also, it should be noted that for films actually released on film the BBFC is unique in that it actually measures the length of the film and calculates the run-time. Also, TheKingLives has now crossed into edit-warring territory; he should observe WP:STATUSQUO and obtain a consensus before changing the time again. Betty Logan (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
The BBFC would have given their rating to the overseas version, with the Fox logo at the front. The US version has the Paramount logo at the front. It's entirely possible the Fox logo ran a couple of seconds longer, pushing the length over that 30 second mark into the next minute... Jamesluckard (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

James Cameron did not hire Leonardo DiCaprio for his acting ability

In the "Cast" part, in the "Fictional characters" part, in the "Leonardo DiCaprio" part, it says in line 13 "Cameron strongly believed in DiCaprio's acting ability", there is a mistake, James Cameron never said that he has hired Leonardo DiCaprio for his acting ability, here the reference, he says it in paragraph 4 "But I met him and I started to love him, basically. He is capable of dazzling a group of people without doing anything obvious, so As soon as I met him I was convinced" https://www.antena3.com/objetivotv/cine/james-cameron-noqueria-leonardo-dicaprio-titanic_2023022563f9e50941fd7c0001b2f612.html Miguelmendez55 (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Jack Dawson has nothing to do with James Stewart

In the "Cast" part, in the "Fictional characters" part, in the "Leonardo DiCaprio" part, in line 14 it says "Cameron envisioned the character as a James Stewart type", that's false, you should remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguelmendez55 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not false, James Cameron has said this in many interviews, including these:
https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/titanic-leonardo-dicaprio-really-rubbed-james-cameron-wrong-way-audition.html/
“Then Leo decided he didn’t want to do it. It wasn’t quirky enough for him. He wanted, I don’t know, warts or a hump or a cocaine addiction. I said, No, that’s not the guy. He’s like a Jimmy Stewart character, pure of heart. Then, there was a moment the lightbulb went on for Leo, and he realized that that would be a really hard thing to make great,” Cameron recalled.
https://www.thewrap.com/leonardo-dicaprio-titanic-jack-james-cameron-traumatic/
"I said, ‘Look, you’ve done all these great characters that all have a problem, whether it’s addiction or whatever it is, I said you’ve gotta learn how to hold the center and not have all that stuff. This isn’t Richard III. When you can do what Jimmy Stewart did or Gregory Peck did – they just f—king stood there, they didn’t have a limp or a lisp or whatever – then you’ll be ready for this. But I’m thinking you’re not ready. Because what I’m talking about is actually much harder. Those things are easier, those are props, those are crutches. What I’m talking about is much harder, and you’re probably not ready for it.’"
https://www.yahoo.com/now/leonardo-dicaprio-wanted-titanic-character-151305067.html
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/11/how-leonardo-dicaprio-almost-lost-out-on-playing-jack-in-titanic-twice Jamesluckard (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes it is false. In the article it says "Cameron envisioned the character as a James Stewart type" implying that James Cameron was inspired by James Stewart to create his character Jack Dawson, which is false, James Cameron created Jack Dawson without being inspired by a specific actor. In these statements, James Cameron is talking about characters played by James Stewart and what he does is use them as examples of characters other than those previously played by Leonardo DiCaprio, with the aim of convincing Leonardo DiCaprio to accept the role of Jack. Dawson. Miguelmendez55 (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Cameron literally spoke the words "He’s like a Jimmy Stewart character," as quoted above. I think you're fighting a losing battle. Jamesluckard (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
That "I think you're fighting a losing battle" was read as an insult and provocation, I remind you that respect must be maintained at all times. The James Stewart thing, if that is the case, the name of Gregory Peck should also appear, James Cameron said it literally "When you can do what Jimmy Stewart did or Gregory Peck did – they just f—king stood there, they didn't have a limp or a lisp or whatever – then you'll be ready for this. But I'm thinking you're not ready", in the Wikipedia article only James Stewart's name appears and not Gregory Peck's despite that James Cameron also mentions it. Miguelmendez55 (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
It was not my intention to insult you or provoke you. If I did, I apologize. It was merely my intention to state a fact, which is that you're contradicting direct quotes from the film's writer/director, James Cameron. The existing text: "Cameron envisioned the character as a Jimmy Stewart type," literally means that Cameron imagined the character as the type of character played frequently by Stewart. And that's exactly what he says in dozens of quotes. I don't think most readers would take the text to mean Cameron envisioned the character being like the human being that Mr. James Stewart actually was in real life. And there's nothing wrong with adding Peck into the mix too. Cameron uses his name often too in interviews. Jamesluckard (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
How about this, we can change it to: "Cameron envisioned the character as being like those played by James Stewart or Gregory Peck." That way there's no way a reader could possibly confuse the fictional character in Titanic with either of those men as actual people. Jamesluckard (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Ok. Miguelmendez55 (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Re-releases

Titanic was initially released in 1997, then re-released in 2012 (100th anniversary of the ship sinking), 2017, 2020 and 2023 (25th anniversary of the film). Shouldn't these get their own subheadings under 'release' with the relevant information (tickets, grossing, premiers, etc)? Pabloh94 (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I think so. Rlendog (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree. A film with this magnitude of impact should include the re-release details. 2600:1700:9E10:EC0:55C7:6ABD:9334:FAE1 (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 1 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved early since this request is a revert of a move that should have been discussed due to clearly being controversial. (This would have been a request I would have accepted on WP:RMTR as a request to revert an undiscussed move.) (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

James Cameron’s Titanic → Titanic (1997 film) – Revert to original article name. Or better yet, Titanic (film). 92.40.197.121 (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles for Rose and Jack?

Rose and Jack are Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio's most well-known roles respectively, they should get their own articles HiGuys69420 (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

According to whom are those their most well-known roles? And even if they are, do you have sources that have extensively discussed the characters themselves? DonIago (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
https://www.dexerto.com/tv-movies/titanic-rose-jack-dawson-real-people-2195654/ HiGuys69420 (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
That's...one source, with information that can be added easily enough to this article. DonIago (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 3 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:PRIMARYFILM is pretty definitive here, and WP:PDAB#(film) carves out an exception for films. The pageview ratio is also relatively low for a PDAB (only 17:1), but regardless, PDAB apply here. There is one IAR !neutral, but it's just one, which is clearly not enough to override consensus from both previous RMs and a guideline in PRIMARYFILM. (closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Titanic (1997 film) → Titanic (film) – Opening this discussion since it was an alternative option presented at Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Requested move 1 July 2023 prior to me closing the discussion. My guess is that the IP proposer suggested that destination per WP:PDABPRIMARY. (Looks like this was previously discussed in March 2018 with no consensus to move.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Nominator is neutral oppose. For the record, I am neutral oppose in this as I don't care either way since this has been discussed multiple times, and the claim could be seen as WP:RECENTISM due to the OceanGate event. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing has changed since Talk:Titanic (1997 film)/Archive 9#Requested move 12 September 2020, where this exact move was rejected. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
    Dang ... been discussed at least twice ... okay, change my vote. Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
    In fact, I'm okay with WP:SNOWBALL if it comes down to it as I didn't see the 2020 discussion, and if I did, my conscience wouldn't have allowed me to open this discussion after closing the previous one. Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
    Comment: @Steel1943, per WP:RMCI, you can simply withdraw your nomination and close it yourself. No need to wait the 7 days. WPscatter t/c 20:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
    I am aware of that, but I wasn't the one who originally proposed this. I put this discussion here since I closed the most recent discussion early without allowing the previous nominator's alternative proposal to be taken into consideration. Now that it's here, it's here, regardless how apparently perennial this request is. Steel1943 (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
    Fair enough, and I see your point. Personally I think you'd still be acting within policy to withdraw and close early, but there's no harm in keeping it open of course. WPscatter t/c 20:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:PRIMARYFILM. @92.40.197.121: Perhaps you should read this naming convention, which clearly supports the current title. 162 etc. (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment — while I oppose moving this page to "Titanic (film)" per WP:PRIMARYFILM, perhaps maybe "Titanic (film)" should just redirect to Titanic (1997 film). Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
    I don't think there is any benefit to doing this. Google searches will go directly to a disambiguated page. I doubt anybody would type 'Titanic (film)' into Wikipedia search, especially with autocomplete suggesting Titanic (1997 film). –CWenger (^ • @) 01:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
    Looks like a case where two guidelines, WP:PDABPRIMARY and WP:PRIMARYFILM, contradict each other. With that in mind, even though I oppose this move for different reasons, it doesn't seem the answer is so cut-and-dry when it comes to comparing those two guidelines. Steel1943 (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
    Strongly oppose this primary redirect idea. If Titanic (1997 film) and Titanic (film) are the same article, why would we keep the unnecessary disambiguation? Either it's a PDAB or it's not. 162 etc. (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are numerous films known as Titanic. This is adding more confusion with no upside. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose again Nothing has changed since previous RMs. The other films aren't going to ever disappear. Moratorium on requesting this move per WP:PRIMARYFILM. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Regarding the Titanic (film) redirect, I think a better target would be List of films about the Titanic, the lede of which could be edited to more prominently feature the most popular example of a "Titanic film". The current redirect to the dab gives little additional information on which film is which, so unless readers already know the director of the film they are looking for, it's possible they will get stuck on the dab. Of course, that could be decided at WP:RFD rather than here. Dekimasuよ! 03:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose the 1997 one has 1,214,479 views but the others have 72,748[[2]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Neutral - The 1997 film is clearly a primary topic for the film by pageviews. Even if WP:PRIMARYFILM would appear to discourage this move, I can't think of a clearer case for WP:IAR. Be that as it may, I think that this move would probably cause more problems than it would resolve and just isn't worth the trouble. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is an alternate NATURALDAB title available, James Cameron's Titanic; there are film posters with that name that were distributed -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. Pageviews show that readers looking for a film titled Titanic overwhelmingly want this article, more than enough to meet the criterion at WP:INCDAB. That said, pageviews also show that only about 4 readers per day are being inconvenienced by the current title, so a move is not critical. Station1 (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Titanic_(1997_film)/Archive_9&oldid=1204941090"