Talk:Titanic (1997 film)

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.

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.[1][2] 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)

Rose pregnant??!

Hi, Would it not have been a much better plot if Jack had made Rose pregnant 'by mistake'? Then she would have bore him a son!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.9.202 (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Please note that Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:22, 2 February 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: [3].

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)

Academy Awards Records

The only Three famous films reached an equaled record and won 11 oscars in the past of the Academy, Ben-Hur, Titanic and The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King, but, beetween this three films Titanic reached above nominations for 14 categories, Ben-Hur and The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King achieved 12 and 11 nominees respectively.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, but you cannot use the language that was stated. It violates the WP:PEACOCK policy. It's extremely verbose and is wholly unnecessary. It's up to the reader to decide which adjectives to use for the film's succcess. That said, the prior revision clearly stated the accolade. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with BalticPat22 and Betty. I don't see how this version is better than the current version. The current version already makes everything clear. Further, your version removed production/debut information...and Titanic is not the only film to be nominated for fourteen Academy Awards. There is also All About Eve, as the Accolades section acknowledges. Flyer22 (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Bakhshi82, you have to stop adding statements such as "Titanic turn into the most successful motion picture in the history of the Academy Awards, the only film that received most winners and nominees," not only because it is bad wording (typos or whatever), and weasel-wording, but also because it is unsourced and inaccurate. How is Titanic "the most successful motion picture in the history of the Academy Awards" when there is also All About Eve? I see you haven't even responded to the All About Eve bit I mentioned. Why are you so adamant on saying that "Titanic was the best movie ever" in the lead, when its success is already adequately summarized? If you continue this unconstructive editing which goes against WP:Consensus and other Wikipedia rules/guidelines, and without discussion, I will be reporting you. Flyer22 (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Manual of Style (film)

I made this edit with the following reasoning: (Ring Cinema, it should not be in the first paragraph, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film)#Lead section. Further, it doesn't adequately summarize the film's awards success or say what it "equaled." Not trying to anatgonize; only following WP.

Editor Ring Cinema reverted me, with the following reasoning: That's your 2d rev Flyer and I hope your last. Please note this edit is already accepted by editors here. The fact is very notable. Thanks.)

As Ring Cinema's edit above makes no sense in comparison to my argument, I feel that this is a clear case of reverting out of spite. Ring Cinema and I got into a previous disagreement recently (see #Supporting roles and Cameron's intentions in the lead above), and it became very heated and uncivil. His edit above goes against the film style, and I cited why it does, and that it is inadequate; it doesn't say how it "equaled" other awards. And leaves out the film's 14 Academy Award nominations, which is just as important to mention since only two films (including Titanic) have been nominated for that many. The 11 wins are pretty rare too. He says "Please note this edit is already accepted by editors here." He assumes that just because Editor Betty did not revert him that this means she agrees that the awards should be mentioned so early. The only other editor he could have been referring to is Editor Bakhshi82, who has displayed unconstructive editing in the lead, and is what led to this new dispute between Ring Cinema and I (see #Academy Awards Records above).

I ask that other editors weigh in on this. It is clear that Ring Cinema and I will continue to be at odds with each other at this article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The film's accolades are almost unique, so I think as a matter of editorial judgment that we should not bury that information. It is highly notable. Naturally, the peacock language has to be avoided. My idea is to put this important information about the film's honors above material that doesn't place the film in its historical context. This is in keeping with the guidelines. Unfortunately, Flyer's response to my edit was needlessly personal and seemed to suggest I am not editing in good faith, which is incorrect. While opinions may differ, I think this way of handling the material is the right one. Are there other opinions? Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It is highly notable, just as the fact that the film became the highest-grossing film of all-time is notable, which is mentioned in the final paragraph. There is no valid reason that the film's success should be split into two different parts of the lead. And as I stated above, your revision doesn't even clarify how it equaled records for both Academy Award nominations and Oscars. And it being "highly notable" does not mean it should come first. We have style guidelines here at Wikipedia that should be followed. I have reason to suspect you are revering out of spite. You claim otherwise. Oh well. Flyer22 (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you think it's necessary to place the Oscar accolades in the first paragraph of the lead? I think the reading flow would be much better if the wording were to be placed alongside the film's box office accomplishments, as it is in the last paragraph of the lead. The wording that is there right now is fine IMO, but I don't see why it needs to be in the very first paragraph of the lead section. That's usually reserved for summarizing the film, itself and it looks rather weird and out of place. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It's important to note its historical place to recognize the reasons for its notability. Its honors are almost unique. Cameron's story design, while it belongs in the article somewhere, doesn't really have that and seems a bit tone deaf to the film's historical place. Perhaps the box office record should be at the top as well. That makes a certain amount of sense, too. Do you think that would do a better job of showing the film's place in history? Thanks for your thoughts. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's not overlook that the film's records for Academy Awards have not been surpassed, while its box office mark is no longer number one. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It being the first film to gross 1 billion at the box office is unique as well. Why should the awards information be separated from the rest of the film's success at the box office? You haven't given any valid reason for reverting me or going against the film guide. Cameron's story design is not what this discussion is about. That discussion is above if you want to continue it there, but I have already stated my thoughts on that, and why it belongs in the lead. This discussion should remain on-topic. Flyer22 (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It is important to note historical importance, but as far as awards go what makes the awards it won more important than the money it earns and the records it broke at the box office? It seems odd that since a lead should reflect a summary of the page that information in the lead would be in a different sequential order than the rest of the page. It seems as though more weight is being placed on the awards it won than any other part of the article, and that's certainly not keeping a neutral eye about things (IMO). Also, given the fact that only Academy Awards and Oscars are mentioned over any other award. That's rather American-centric instead of English-Centric as we should strive to be. I don't believe that treating this page like every other page is (or is supposed to be) treated hurts this page at all. There is a reason we try and aim for consistency in certain areas, and I don't see how this film is special enough that we need to ignore the guideline.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm mostly in agreement with Bignole here. To clarify my position, I felt the original structure was superior, bringing in the oscars along with the box office at the end of the lead, and we just needed to clarify the nature of the records. The oscars aren't any more notable than the box office records (in fact the box office was peerless while the oscar records weren't), and I would argue that box office takes precedence over award ceremonies anyway, so I don't see the argument for promoting them to the opening paragraph. That said, I thought Ring Cinema's edits were an acceptable compromise if it put an end to Bakhshi's disruption, but if other editors are not happy with the changes then it should go back to how it was and Bakshi should come to the talk page and discuss his edits. Betty Logan (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, Bignole and Betty. On the first objection (why awards instead of box office?), there are two things I would consider. First, the box office record has been surpassed, so it's less important today. Secondly, awards usually get more prominence because it is recognition by experts who have themselves taken popularity into account. Is it Americentric to mention Oscars? Well, obviously it is, so if there are other equally prestigious awards, by all means let's mention them. The Oscar wins were already in the lead so apparently there is some existing consensus on that. All that said, I was looking to improve the article and find a compromise that gives the reader a sense of the very high position the film occupies in history. I'm sure that's what Bakhshi's concern is and to some extent he has a point. The truly weird thing about the lead right now is the prominence given to Cameron's story design. That completely misses the point about the film's prominence. But sometimes we have to compromise. Thanks for your thoughts. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If you agree with Bignole and Betty, then you also agree with me and BalticPat22. And four editors agreeing, even if we were without your agreement, means your edit should be reverted; and I will do that after seeing if more editors weigh in. I just stated this above, but though the box office record has been surpassed, the film still stands as the first film to gross 1 billion. It is also one of the rare films to be nominated for 14 Academy Awards and win 11 of them; that should be mentioned in the lead as well, but your edit took that away. Bakhshi82's concern is without merit, as the lead already "gives the reader a sense of the very high position the film occupies in history." Bakhshi82's edits included inaccuracies, POV-wording/weasel wording, and unsourced material. And as for Cameron's intentions for the story being in the lead, no, that is not weird, per the past discussion about that. Nor is it given a lot of prominence. It is the same thing done on other GA and FA film articles. We've been over that. And this discussion is not about that. This discussion is about whether or not your edits are good enough to go against the Wikipedia film Manual of Style. Flyer22 (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What we're discussing is how to improve the article and find a way that accommodates several views. Today I offered a compromise to an ongoing disagreement where it seemed there was something of merit in the claims of both sides. I tried to balance things in a way that would improve the article. I think it is a pretty good try, and when Betty changed it, I didn't revert her but offered an edit to her edit. Maybe she didn't like it, but that's the process and I think it worked out okay. But again one editor refuses to compromise. I'm not sure if everyone is mindful of WP:OWN, but it might be worth reviewing. The process at Wikipedia involves finding a way that accounts for different opinions. As it says in the policy pages, "If you do not want your writing to be edited... then do not submit it here." I'm working honestly within the process and to best of my knowledge am not violating any guidelines or the manual of style. Although the compromise I'm offering might not be perfect, in some ways it improves the article, so that's probably a plus. Thanks again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I ask that you stop changing the heading, per WP:TALK: "To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial." This is the heading that best describes this discussion, as you actually were going against the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film)#Lead section. To state that you weren't violating it is false. Plain and simple. This is the heading I also linked to elsewhere, which is also why it should be maintained. This discussion is clearly about whether or not your version should be employed over the Wikipedia film Manual of Style. WP:Consensus says that it shouldn't be. You act as though I refuse to compromise with you, when I have compromised with you time and time again in our recent interactions; even today when restoring two of your edits. It is not WP:OWN to follow Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Flyer22 (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and shortened the title to just "Manual of Style (film)" (and will do so elsewhere), since you feel that the previous one with "Going against" in it is too antagonizing/accusatory. Flyer22 (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Film's "Lead section" guidelines are not binding. They are recommendations of how to write the lead section. We can look to the general lead section guidelines (at MOS:LEAD), and WP:MOSBEGIN says, "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific." I think that saving mention of the awards for later is more appropriate. It is not any less notable when placed later, and it is arguably better-placed because one has an idea about the film's background before learning that it won awards. I think that it is typical to have a definitive first paragraph and to have a rough chronological flow for the rest of the overview. If controversy happened during production, it would be in the middle paragraph about the film's making. If controversy happened upon release, it would be in the last paragraph as part of the reception. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's a guideline and not a policy, Erik. I just happen to agree with that guideline, and Wikipedia style guidelines should generally be followed. There are not many valid arguments to go against them, such as headings of sections, etc. And I don't see any other film article placing the awards information first, unless it describes the film as Award-winning (which shouldn't be done either). And, of course, I agree with your opinion on this matter. That is exactly why I prefer the critical reception/commercial success/awards information to come last. Thank you for weighing in, as always. Flyer22 (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Erik. A couple things you said aren't exactly right. First of all, it's incorrect to say that a later mention is less notable. More important things come before less important things and I think that's so well understood that there's no good reason to deny it. Maybe you meant something else. Secondly, it's not accurate that awards do not belong in the first paragraph. In fact, the guidelines contemplate that sometimes awards will be noted in the first paragraph (they state that later paragraphs "should cover important aspects of the film... not mentioned already," including "awards"). Thirdly, you seem to say that readers can't understand the importance of a film being the most honored by the Academy in its history without learning something else about the film first. That doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny; an obituary wouldn't delay mentioning an actor's awards until we know more about him. In fact, it's well known that as a rule Academy Awards are mentioned in the first sentence of actor obituaries. But the main point here is that we are trying to find a way that accommodates differing views. My compromise was to eliminate the peacock language (per Betty and Flyer) but give the award material more prominence (per Bakhshi). And, in fact, the exceptional accomplishment of the film's honors probably shouldn't be buried in a paragraph about its release since it's a pretty distinctive thing to have a share of that record for Oscars (they are still considered the highest honor for a filmmaker). Thanks for your thoughts, but your reasons for rejecting my compromise don't hold up. Do you have a better compromise? --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning, your interpretation of the Manual of Style, or why you're still debating this. Above, you said that you agree with Bignole and Betty. Well, they pretty much stated the same thing that myself, BalticPat22 and Erik stated. Five editors have now given valid reasons for why the awards should not come so early on, and why mention of the film's success should not be split into two parts. And even if we were to put all the critical/commercial/awards success together in the first paragraph, I'm still not seeing how that would make more sense than it coming last. All that stuff coming last ends the lead properly, with sort of en exclamation mark as to why the film is such a success. It makes more sense to give the introduction first, go into the inspiration and production detail next, and end it with the film's achievements. Erik said the material is not any less notable when placed later, and he's right. In fact, it finishes off the lead in the best possible way. His, my, and others' arguments hold up because of that and because they comply with the Manual of Style for film articles and is exactly how every other film article is formatted here. Why you always feel the need to have this article deviate from what is expected of film articles here at Wikipedia is something I don't understand. It's like Bignole said above, "I don't believe that treating this page like every other page is (or is supposed to be) treated hurts this page at all. There is a reason we try and aim for consistency in certain areas, and I don't see how this film is special enough that we need to ignore the guideline." Flyer22 (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Approaching disruptive editing

I am watching for one of our editors to propose a compromise that recognizes the good points made by all. Can he do it or is it too hard for him? Some people aren't smart enough to handle the challenge. Perhaps he has learned to compromise or perhaps he is too intransigent to be a good Wikipedia editor. Let's see if he can pass the test. In the meantime, Erik, I am waiting for your response. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure who you're speaking of, though I think I know who (unless by "he," you mean us in general). If you're speaking of me, I remind you that I am female, and also won't respond to such a tone. If you mean Bakhshi82, then, yes, he (maybe even she) should weigh in. But what Bakhshi82 wants in the lead is completely different than your proposal. Bakhshi82 is all about stating that Titanic is the most awarded film in the history of the Oscars, with the most nominations ever, disregarding (and now ignoring) that this is not true when taking into account All About Eve. Bakhshi82 just seems very unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, and clearly needs more Wiki-training. His inexperience should not hinder this article. For example, I stand by the fact that the film being nominated for 14 Academy Awards and winning 11, which is such a rare feat for any film, should specifically be mentioned in the lead. And Bakhshi82 most definitely wanted mention of this in the lead, but with the inaccurate and hyped slant to it. But, yes, despite the current consensus on this talk page, we can wait and see if Bakhshi82 has anything else to state on this matter or edit-wars some more. Flyer22 (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I changed again based on the how wiki works. Buddies, if each of you have any objection let's talk together--Bakhshi82 (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia especially does not go against WP:Consensus. And unlike what WikiProject Film says should be done, WP:Consensus is a policy, not a guideline. Did you even read what I stated above? I clearly stated:

Bakhshi82, you have to stop adding statements such as "Titanic turn into the most successful motion picture in the history of the Academy Awards, the only film that received most winners and nominees," not only because it is bad wording (typos or whatever), and weasel-wording, but also because it is unsourced and inaccurate. How is Titanic "the most successful motion picture in the history of the Academy Awards" when there is also All About Eve? I see you haven't even responded to the All About Eve bit I mentioned. Why are you so adamant on saying that "Titanic was the best movie ever" in the lead, when its success is already adequately summarized? If you continue this unconstructive editing which goes against WP:Consensus and other Wikipedia rules/guidelines, and without discussion, I will be reporting you.

Yep, I will be reporting you now. And Ring Cinema, like I stated before, your version of the lead clearly has no connection to Bakhshi82, as even he disagrees with it...as I knew he would (due to seeing his edits/rationale clearly and past experience with such newbie editors). I told you what he wanted, and that edit shows it. So waiting for Erik's response is irrelevant. Bakhshi82 cannot be reasoned with on this. If you plan to go against WP:Consensus, reverting me again once I restore the lead to the way it should be, let me know now. Because as WP:Consensus is a policy, it is not a matter of debate. Flyer22 (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Flyer, you are attributing views to others to pretend that you have agreement with your view. You even try to claim that I agree with editors when I said I didn't. Not only is that dishonest and impolite, it indicates the poverty to your argument. Since there is no consensus we have to work toward it. We need to hear a compromise that's acceptable to all. That's the process here. Since you, Flyer, rejected my compromise that was otherwise acceptable, I think you have to offer something better. I look forward to that. Until you do, my offer is the best on the table. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no pretending going on. Five editors have clearly agreed with me that the awards do not belong early on in the lead, and that the film's success should not be split into two parts in the lead. You said you agreed with two editors who pretty much stated the same thing (you said, and I quote, "I agree with both of you, Bignole and Betty."), even though it is clear that you do not agree and are now claiming that I am lying about something that you clearly stated above. If you did not agree with them, you shouldn't have stated it. Furthermore, editors have agreed that Bakhshi82's edits do not belong in the lead, for various reasons. There is clear WP:Consensus, on both fronts, and to claim otherwise is what is dishonest. We do not need to compromise with Bakhshi82, as it is clear that Bakhshi82 is unwilling to compromise. Violating WP:3RR in the way that he has, and all the while going against WP:Consensus, is unacceptable, and I am in the process of reporting that. Saying that your offer is "the best on the table" when five editors (six, if you count Bakhshi82) disagree is also dishonest. Flyer22 (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems that it is generally accepted a compromise of some sort is required, and it is just the prominence and wording that is the point of contention. However, do we have a clear consensus to reject Bakhshi's rewording in its entirety? It is poorly written and peacocky, and it seems to me we should be trying to find a compromise between RingCinema's and Flyer's versions. I'd like to take Bakhshi's version out of the equation if possible, because this is developing into a Mexican stand-off. If we have two clear alternative versions that we can put to impartial editors, then maybe we can move this thing forward. Betty Logan (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Betty, Bakhshi is clearly not willing to compromise. I saw his message on your talk page. He is a huge fan who wants inaccuracies and POV/weasel-wording in the lead. And, yes, consensus is clearly against that. Even if it wasn't, guidelines and polices are against it. And as Bakhshi has rejected any edits but his own, five editors are against or would rather avoid Ring Cinema's version, I am not seeing why the article should not be returned back to the way it was. Flyer22 (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted him again because there is no clear support for his version, and he constantly refuses to discuss the issue. WP:CONSENSUS requires an editor to discuss their edits when they are challenged, and until he does his version lies beyond consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, Betty, I noticed that Bakhshi altered the wording away from "the most," to "one of the most successful motion pictures in the history of the Academy Awards" (though I had to tweak his typos), so maybe he is listening more than we think; his version no longer had the inaccuracies in it; it's now become just weasel-wordy, because of the "one of the most successful" and "in the history of" parts. I'm not sure what will work for Bakhshi other than that, since even the original wording of "was an enormous critical and commercial success" was not enough for him. However, though I disagree with his edits, his new version is a lot closer to the consensus reached on this talk page regarding the lead. So I would have preferred a revert back to the original wording, or the "was released to critical and commercial success" wording...instead of this. Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be best to restore the lead to the last stable version and hammer out the wording here, because none of the alterations have gained support so far. Betty Logan (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of the alterations, such as the one you restored to, haven't gained support, but the original version -- no awards so early on in the lead -- has support/consensus. Whether the original version or my alteration. This discussion has not been a straw-man vote. There were valid reasons given. There is no valid reason, however, that I can see for keeping this "awards at the top" version over the version that five editors support. It's not even a compromise for Bakhshi. So leaving that version in, as though it is still some attempt at a compromise with Bakhshi, is without merit. I understand your reasoning behind waiting. I'm just saying that I don't see that we need more editors to say, "Yes, remove the awards from the top," especially since I doubt any more editors are going to weigh in on this matter. Maybe one more at most. Flyer22 (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Flyer, I'm looking for your compromise. Where is it? --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, a compromise for what? It is clear that no one is for your version. No one. Five editors are against it. And so is the style guideline. A recent editor even thinks it's weird. You claim that maintaining your version of the lead was to appease Bakhshi. Well, Bakhshi has rejected your change and is not willing to compromise. So why are you still trying to compromise? Why does there need to be a compromise? There is nothing wrong with the original version, and five editors support that original version. It seems now you're asking for a compromise with you, seeing as everyone else is okay with the "no awards at the top" version. Flyer22 (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Flyer, I didn't revert to RingCinema's version because I necessarily agree with his version, or that I believe his should stay in place in lieu of a consensus, but because his version was the last version that didn't violate policy. If your version had been the most recent I would have reverted to that. Bakhshi has been reported for edit-warring, so it needs to be clear exactly what we are reverting for the investigating admin. If massive chunks of Ring Cinema's legitimate (albeit currently disputed) edits are reverted then it just looks like a content dispute rather than policy infringement. Ring Cinema still needs to obtain a consensus for his edits, but let's deal with one issue at a time. Betty Logan (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Betty, I know your stance on this, and understand your reasoning. I was just stating my feelings. Flyer22 (talk)

Flyer, I am simply trying to edit the article the way we're supposed to. As far as I can tell, there were some objections to my proposal but I've answered them adequately. There's no perfect solution and nothing we do here is final. If you have made a compromise proposal I missed it, so I am asking for it. I notice that you have repeatedly misstated the views of other editors, including mine, which reflects badly on your claims of support. (I notice you recruited editors to support you too, which also makes your claims of support somewhat suspect.) Still, if you have a better compromise, I am open to it. That's how the process works here. So, please, offer your proposal that will be acceptable to the editors of the page. That's your job as an editor here. And give up the hostility, which is not productive. Thanks very much. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are all for editing the article the way we're supposed to, then you would have followed the style guideline. You keeping going on and on about compromise...when Bakhshi is not willing to compromise and when consensus has already been reached. So the only person we could quite possibly be trying to compromise with now is you. Your version has already been rejected. I have repeatedly misstated the views of others by saying they said the lead should not have the awards at the top? That's what they stated! You stated you agreed with two of them. Don't say it if you don't mean it. Clearly, I have not lied about/misstated anything! Are we supposed to pretend to be blind for you now? The statements are right there above. The fact that you are willing to be dishonest in the way you are being now speaks volumes about your character. And as for recruiting others to support me, I asked the film project to weigh in, which is what you're supposed to do. They did. I had no way of knowing if they would support me or not. I asked one editor, Bignole, to weigh in. I did not tell him to support me or see things the way I do. He just happens to agree with me, like four other editors. Your job as a Wikipedia editor is to follow guidelines and policies. Five editors have already stated a version that is acceptable. 5 to your 1. Just because you disagree...does not mean we have to come up with a version that will please you. Flyer22 (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As has been pointed out repeatedly, my proposal does not violate the guidelines. So that's just wrong. If that's what's bothering you, you can rest easy. My edit is fine on that. As far as I know, I have answered the other objections adequately. Concerning Bakhshi, it's not relevant to our discussion that he doesn't want to compromise. We are still free to be good editors and do what's required. When you were the lone editor objecting, we listened to your views and offered ways to accommodate them. So, you see, just because you disagree doesn't mean we have to come up with a version that will please you. Per WP:OWN, none of us is the final arbiter. I would like you to offer a compromise that you think will be acceptable to everyone, because that is how this process works. Or, if you think my version below is acceptable, I'm pretty sure we can move forward with it despite the fact that both of us dislike certain elements included. What's your preference? --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep denying that you violated the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film)#Lead section? You clearly did, as displayed by myself and others. Bignole, like me, outright states that you have. Read above, where he makes this clear toward the end of his comment. No amount of your interpreting the guideline will get around the fact that if you were correct, all other film articles would have the awards information in the first paragraph. But they don't. They all have that information last. All other editors would have agreed with you. But they didn't. They have clearly agreed with me that the awards should not be placed in that first paragraph, and that success of the film should not be separated into two separate parts. The way Wikipedia works is that you try to gain consensus for your changes if those changes are disputed. I have gained consensus for wanting to restore the lead back to the way it was. You have not gained consensus for your versions. Continuing to act as though there is still debate to be had, or a compromise to be made, is detrimental, I feel. If Bakhsh is not relevant to our discussion anymore, then why are we still having it? Because it is now about compromising with you? If it is now about compromising with you, as I stated that it must be, then make that clear. I have never been the lone editor at this article objecting. Even in our previous discussion/debate about the lead (supporting roles and Cameron's intentions), I had support. You had support as well, and, yes, we compromised. A compromise does not always have to be made, however. In this recent discussion/debate about the lead, I listened to your points again, and I have disagreed with them. I am not willing to compromise if it means having the awards information first. That's my preference -- the awards not being so early on in the lead; that they be beside the film's other success instead, in the final paragraph.

I started discussion about this (your version of the lead) because I wanted to gain consensus. I did. Are you now going to fight that consensus? If so, then maybe we should bring in an authority figure to look at the discussion and make the call. If I go and restore to the consensus version and you revert me, then what was the point of even having this discussion...if WP:Consensus, a policy, will not be adhered to? You act as though we should keep on debating until there is consensus for your version instead. The thing about WP:Consensus is that not all editors are going to get their way. If an administrator must be brought in to make this call, as to whether or not consensus has been achieved and should therefore be upheld, then I will do that. Either way, since your version is disputed, it does not belong in the lead until it has achieved WP:Consensus. The old version should be restored because it is the version prior to all this most recent debating about the lead, and is one that is not disputed. Flyer22 (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I took this matter to Wikipedia talk:Consensus#WP:Consensus at Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Manual of Style (film), and if they don't help, I'll take it somewhere else. Bringing in a lone administrator is not the best idea, as all they can usually do in content disputes is give their opinion. But if they recognize policy and say it should be upheld, and revert any edit that goes against policy, then that may not be a sour option after all. Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me say again, I offered a compromise on two separate occasions that tries to account for all the viewpoints. If anyone wants to offer a draft that does a better job, I think most of the editors here are open to that. I believe that is how we should proceed. It doesn't work to say that no compromise is possible or necessary. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me state this again: No one is for your version of the lead, which is why it should be reverted back to the version that most editors here are okay with. Your version is disputed and should not be there at all. You have to gain consensus for your version! You haven't! That is the way Wikipedia works. That is why your version (either version) is not the best alternative. The best alternative would be to go with the version most editors here agree with. And if I were to restore to the consensus version, I would be following policy. If you were to revert me, on the other hand, you would be violating policy. Really, what valid reason would you have for reverting me? What would your edit summary say? "Tsk, tsk, Flyer, we must compromise, per talk"? If so, that would be without merit. In what way is it valid that your version should stay in over the consensus version? If you do revert me, I will report it. Plain and simple. Call it a threat or whatever, but I will report it accordingly -- as a violation of WP:Consensus. I'm not sure what you think WP:Consensus entails, but it does not entail that one must compromise first or at all. If we go by your rules, that I cannot restore the article to the consensus version, that five editors agree with, all because we must first satisfy you, then the WP:Consensus policy would be pretty much moot, wouldn't it? What would be the point of achieving consensus if no one followed it, or if one editor was allowed to keep it from being carried out because they disagree with it? Right now, you are blocking the consensus version of the lead. Again, I ask how does a compromise need to be made? This discussion all started because you said you wanted to make a compromise with a different editor. Now it is clear that that editor rejects your compromise. Now you are saying that we must compromise with you? Why are you acting as though consensus lies with you? That it is not consensus until you agree? That we have to discard the current consensus because you disagree with it? You are always challenging something about Wikipedia's setup -- whether it be the style guideline (headings, other formatting, etc.) or policy. You always act as though those things don't matter, and that we must make our own editorial judgment. And the first instance I saw this of you on this talk page was at #"Pre-production" vs. "Pre-Production". That, plus your recent debates/arguments, is why I know you don't follow Wikipedia precedent, guidelines and policies all that well. Flyer22 (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I only read as far as "no one is in favor of your edit." If you mean the everyone finds something in it they don't approve of, then you're right. But I think you're still falsely claiming that I'm the only editor who is okay with my proposal. You don't like it, but I don't like your edit, etc. It's a compromise. When are you going to offer your own compromise? Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This is going in circles, as usual with you. You keep ignoring WP:Consensus, which is what I was looking for when I started this discussion. And is what I got. I wasn't looking for a compromise. I don't have to offer a compromise. The fact that you keep saying one is needed to satisfy you pretty much says we cannot restore to the version that has consensus because you are dissatisfied with it. That's not how Wikipedia works, as I have stated more than once now. You can bring up "okay with your version" all you want, but "being indifferent to" is not the same thing as supporting it. And it is clear that no editor here supports your version over the original one. The consensus version isn't even "my edit" (all I did was tweak it); it is the version that has been in this article for the longest now, based on the Wikipedia film style guideline and precedent set in all other film articles. You have yet to provide a valid reason for why your disputed version should remain over the consensus version. I will be restoring to the consensus version. If you revert, I will be reporting that, I'm letting you know now; and it can only be a good thing because then we will get some editor assistance in dealing with what are and what are not guideline and policy violations. Flyer22 (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus. My edit has the advantage of attempting to include all viewpoints. If you can do better, let's see it. If you can't, then this is the best edit we've got. Please show what a great editor you are by putting together a compromise edit that attempts to incorporate the main concerns. That's what I did. Until you do that, you're not doing what a good editor does. You seem to be violating WP:OWN, which I do not recommend as it is policy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:Consensus. When editors get together to decide on what is best for an article and most agree on the same thing, that is WP:Consensus. How many times do I have to state that five editors have agreed on one version? They did. You cannot sit here and say that they didn't. All of them (myself included) said that the old version is better, or is the "far more superior one." I got consensus for restoring the lead back to the old version. You will need to gain consensus for your version before implementing it, per policy. How does your version have "the advantage of attempting to include all viewpoints," when five of those viewpoints are not for your version, including the editor's viewpoint you claim you were originally trying to include? Your version only has the advantage of pleasing you. If others other than yourself were saying they were dissatisfied with the lead, I would see your point. But right now, it is only you. I am not violating WP:OWN by upholding policy. Flyer22 (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Redundancy in the introduction

It's redundant to say "The film equaled records for both Academy Award nominations and Oscars" because the 'Oscars' are a common informal nickname for the Academy Awards. I will volunteer to make these changes.JRC3 (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2011

There are two distinct records here—nominations and wins—and neither were broken, they were just matched. I'm all for removing redundancy, but it's important not to alter the underlying meaning. I see where the misunderstanding came from though, it should distinguish between nominations and wins a bit more explicitly. Betty Logan (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

An Oscar is only given for a win, so the only way to think that it's redundant is not to know the meaning of the words. How could it be more explicit? --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, an editor misinterpreted the sentence so it's something we should at least consider. In the previous version it was explicitly stated that it received 14 nominations and won 11 oscars which probably helped clarify that they are two distinct records. Betty Logan (talk) 06:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but isn't it redundant to say they received Oscars and that they won them? That one editor misunderstood it overlooks the many who didn't. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Compromise proposal for the lead

Titanic is a 1997 American epic romance and disaster film directed, written, co-produced, and co-edited by James Cameron. A fictionalized account of the sinking of the RMS Titanic, 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. The film equaled records for both Academy Award nominations and Oscars, receiving the prize for Best Picture and Best Director, and was the first film to gross a billion dollars at the box office.[7]

Cameron's inspiration for the film was predicated on his fascination with shipwrecks; he wanted to convey the emotional message of the tragedy, and felt that a love story interspersed with the human loss would be essential to achieving this. Production on the film began in 1995, when Cameron shot footage of the actual Titanic wreck. The modern scenes were shot on board the Akademik Mstislav Keldysh, which Cameron had used as a base when filming the wreck. A reconstruction of the Titanic was built at Playas de Rosarito, Baja California, and scale models and computer-generated imagery were also used to recreate the sinking. The film was partially funded by Paramount Pictures and 20th Century Fox – respectively, its American and international distributors – and at the time, it was the most expensive film ever made, with an estimated budget of $200 million.[3][4][5][6]

Post-production delays pushed back the film's release to December 19, 1997.[8] It was the highest-grossing film of all time (worldwide over $1.8 billion) until Cameron's next directorial effort, Avatar, surpassed it in 2010.[9][10] Titanic is also ranked as the sixth best epic film of all time in AFI's 10 Top 10 by the American Film Institute.[11] The film is due for theatrical re-release in 2012 after Cameron completes its conversion into 3-D.[12] --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This version is hardly different from your current one, and is still ripe with the issues five editors have with it, if not more so. Putting the billion dollar mark information so high, to go along with the awards stuff, doesn't help matters at all. I am obviously against it, per my and others' statements above. And as I stated there, why do we need a compromise? Five editors are for a specific layout, which includes no awards or success information mentioned in the first paragraph, no awards/general success information split up in two different parts. We are adhering to the style guideline, precedent, and practicality. What are you adhering to, besides what you want? As I stated above: "You claim that maintaining your version of the lead was to appease Bakhshi. Well, Bakhshi has rejected your change and is not willing to compromise. So why are you still trying to compromise? Why does there need to be a compromise? There is nothing wrong with the original version, and five editors support that original version. It seems now you're asking for a compromise with you, seeing as everyone else is okay with the 'no awards at the top' version."

I will eventually be restoring the consensus version, seeing as I created that discussion above to gain consensus, and I did. Flyer22 (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I took this matter to Wikipedia talk:Consensus#WP:Consensus at Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Manual of Style (film), and if they don't help, I'll take it somewhere else. Bringing in a lone administrator is not the best idea, as all they can usually do in content disputes is give their opinion. But if they recognize policy and say it should be upheld, and revert any edit that goes against policy, then that may not be a sour option after all. Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think currently restoring the original version is the best course of action. MOSFILM intimates that reception should be covered later in the lead: "Succeeding paragraphs in the lead section should cover important aspects of the film...These include milestones or major events in the film's production, prominent themes, reception of the film by critics and audiences, box office grosses and milestones, controversies, summary of awards and honors...". Five editors (Flyer, BalticPat, Bignole, Erik and myself) all have a preference for abiding by MOS and bringing in the awards and box office much later. Titanic is a unique case so obviously there are grounds for treating everything differently, but the case has to be made for doing so and only one editor (Ring Cinema) wants to move the information. Bahkshi's issues are with the wording, not with the prominence of the information within the lede; if Bahkshi wants to make changes to the wording, then he should discuss them here first so we can make sure that the tone is encyclopedic. Given the heated nature of this discussion it is probably best that all changes in regards to this issue follow the WP:BRD protocol — make a change, but if that change is reverted don't restore the edit, take it to the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Bakhshi seems to be compromising now, instead of restoring to his disputed wording. And though his edits are still a bit weasel-wordy, at least they are minor. I can live with his adding "particular" to the beginning of "critical acclaim." Flyer22 (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If that's your preference, Betty, that's fine with me. I'm surprised you're not troubled by Flyer's violations of policy. An editor who can't offer a compromise on a tough case isn't worth much. That's not going to be helpful in the future until she turns over a new leaf. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I haven't violated any policy. You cannot cite one that I have violated. Your opinion that I violated WP:OWN is without merit, especially since upholding policy is not a violation of it in any way. I, however, can cite that you violated the film style guideline on leads, and was attempting to violate the consensus policy. I have also displayed more than once that I can compromise, as I have compromised with you farther back, and recently (both in our previous debate about the lead and in your recent removal of the original release date from the lead). I have even now just compromised with Bakhshi. Just because I was not willing to make a compromise that keeps the awards information at the top, which only one editor wanted (you), does not mean that I cannot compromise. There is no guideline or policy that says compromises must always be made, that both sides must get their way all the time. What's not helpful are your antagonizing, insulting, and demeaning statements, like now, which is what you always do in debates and especially when you are not getting/don't get your way, and your refusals to follow guidelines/and or precedent. The fact that it took Betty stepping in and stating pretty much the same thing I already stated for you to say "that's fine with me" further shows that your insistence on your version of the lead and long-winded, redundant circling of guideline and policy was nothing but an attempt to spite me. Flyer22 (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)