Talk:Titanic in 3D

Restored after redirection
I have restored the article after it was blanked and redirected to "Titanic (1997 film)". There was a misunderstanding that overlooked this article refers to "Titanic in 3D" which includes other film articles about the ship RMS Titanic in 3D. That broader consideration places this article in a disambiguation split, with hatnote linking the less-notable meaning as film Ghosts of the Abyss, while also covering the 2012 re-release of 1997 film Titanic. Typically, a re-release of a film would not split to a separate article, but this is a special case, based on disambiguation, where the film was also re-made with a new scene and new formatting. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See talk in Film discussion; there does not appear to be consensus to have a separate article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC).

Purpose
Multiple films of RMS Titanic in 3D: When I created the article "Titanic in 3D" the intent was to cover films about the RMS Titanic in 3-D format. The only other 3D Titanic film, which had an article, was Ghosts of the Abyss (also by director James Cameron), so that became the hat-note link. More sources were discussing the remake of Titanic (1997 film), so then that became the bulk of the article, due to IMDb referring to the film aka "Titanic in 3D" (but movie sites just say, "Titanic 3D"). However, in the new article, someone added the Plot section, and then someone copied(?) the whole plot from the original film article. I was concentrating on the remake in 4K resolution and the night-sky star scene from astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. Also, my intention was to expand the new article to cover "how they did the 3D" based on numerous sources explaining the 60-month process, and using the extra space in the new article to really clarify the "depth map" and other concepts used for the 3D conversion. Several major websites have reviewed the results as impressive, despite the darkened polarized light. Anyway, there are multiple problems to solve, since a redirect to the original film does not handle the other Titanic films in 3D. There are some other 3D underwater films which I have not researched fully, due to limited time and the focus on the remake, which readers seemed more interested in, as evidenced by high pageviews for the new article, since 4 April 2012. Meanwhile, readers are finding the article due to being a separate page listed in search engines Google/Bing, and when the title was redirected to the 1997-film article, then "Titanic in 3D" no longer matched any Wikipedia page in the search-results. Likewise, outside searches for "Titanic 3D" did not match to Wikipedia. Does anyone know what major 3rd film is about the Titanic in 3D, and when was it made? -Wikid77 (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Combine with main Titanic article
This article is clunky, and says very little that the main Titanic article doesn't already say. Merge it with the original article on Titanic, keep the sections about the 3D conversion. But the cast list and the plot are identical to how the appear on the original. There is no reason whatsoever to make this its own seperate page. 24.127.120.119 (talk)
 * Combine/Merge The article is overtly a review of the original film; anything that is unique could exist as a section on Titanic (1997 film). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Merge. Already stated as much on WT:FILM.  GRAPPLE   X  17:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. There is only one paragraph that is distinct from the main article. This page should be turned into a disambiguation page if Ghosts of the Abyss is referred to as Titanic 3D/in 3D in reliable sources, or redirected if it isn't. Betty Logan (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge: More than half of the article is from the original one, and the latest release info is already mentioned in it. Go ahead to merge. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge, unnecessary forking of content, most of which is covered in the original article.yorkshiresky (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge, with the new unique text on this page becoming a new section on the main Titanic article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge, almost everything in this article is present in the original one. --Babar Suhail (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge. A majority of this article is found on the main article.--Breawycker (talk to me!)
 * I just saw this discussion and I was thinking that "Apocalypse Now Redux" has it's own page, and all of that information could merge to the original film and the "new/extended scenes" could be in a their own section about the Redux just like how for example some movies based on books, on the movie page they might say the differences. But I just saw that people think this page should merge with Titanic, well I also looked at the Apocalypse Now Redux page and (I'm not suggesting we talk about it on here, I'm just using it as an example) that all that information could be merged with the theatrical one, but no one is thinking about doing that.
 * I personally think that this 3D re-release should stay, because compared to other 3D re-releases or even films that are converted from 2D to 3D, there is more information on the Titanic 3D re-release for there to be an article. What I'm thinking is that we could just move all of the 3D re-release information from the original page onto this on, and just link it to "Titanic 3D main article".
 * That's all I've got to say. Charlr6 (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, the existence of a feature across articles does not necessarily validate its extension here. It is certainly more popular than the rest, but to write an article, you need sufficient material, which I'm afraid, is not present for this one, despite its level of reach and response. A merge would certainly be the only solution here. Secret of success 13:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not starting a discussing on this page about this matter, but Redux should then be merged with the original article. It's the same film, just edited and extended. Doesn't matter if there is a lot of information or not. Charlr6 (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Then what is your opposition for this article? Please clarify. Secret of success 05:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep/Expand, I said above what my opposition would be. Please read.
 * But I did say that compared to most, if not all re-releases and 2D to 3D films, Titanic 3D has more information so I believe it should have it's own page. And instead of moving all of the information from here to the original page. We move Titanic 3D information from the original page onto here. So if the readers want to find out about the 3D film, they will have to come here.
 * Or we create an entire page for information about Titanic, in 2012. As it is the 100 year anniversary we mention the 3D re-release, the ITV1 Titanic show, the HBO Titanic: Blood and Steel show, the 100 year memorial of the people on the ship travelling the same route as the Titanic and holding a service at 2:20AM where the Titanic went down. Charlr6 (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge. The relevant content should be taken to the relevant section in the original article, per above. Secret of success 13:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge - Agree with the above concerns. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge the little that may not already exist in the original article. pablo 14:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable re-release of the second highest grossing film of all time. All the article needs is expansion. — Statυs  ( talk ) 20:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)