Jump to content

Talk:Titanic (1997 film): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 123: Line 123:
:"'''it''' was docked on '''its''' port side" to "'''she''' was docked on '''her''' port side"
:"'''it''' was docked on '''its''' port side" to "'''she''' was docked on '''her''' port side"
per [[WP:SHE4SHIPS]]. [[Special:Contributions/192.41.131.250|192.41.131.250]] ([[User talk:192.41.131.250|talk]]) 22:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC) [[Special:Contributions/192.41.131.250|192.41.131.250]] ([[User talk:192.41.131.250|talk]]) 22:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
per [[WP:SHE4SHIPS]]. [[Special:Contributions/192.41.131.250|192.41.131.250]] ([[User talk:192.41.131.250|talk]]) 22:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC) [[Special:Contributions/192.41.131.250|192.41.131.250]] ([[User talk:192.41.131.250|talk]]) 22:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
:Btw, although the above-linked section says either feminine or neuter pronouns may be used, it also says that an article must be self-consistent, and the article [[RMS Titanic]] and other sections of this article use feminine pronouns (for example, "[[Titanic (1997 film)#Editing|the SS ''Californian'' was close to the ''Titanic'' the night '''she''' sank but had turned off its radio for the night, did not hear '''her''' crew's SOS calls]]"). [[Special:Contributions/192.41.131.250|192.41.131.250]] ([[User talk:192.41.131.250|talk]]) 22:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
:Btw, although the above-linked section says either feminine or neuter pronouns may be used, it also says that an article must be self-consistent, and the article [[RMS Titanic]] and other sections of this article both use feminine pronouns (for example, "[[Titanic (1997 film)#Editing|the SS ''Californian'' was close to the ''Titanic'' the night '''she''' sank but had turned off its radio for the night, did not hear '''her''' crew's SOS calls]]"). [[Special:Contributions/192.41.131.250|192.41.131.250]] ([[User talk:192.41.131.250|talk]]) 22:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:15, 25 March 2019

Template:Vital article

Good articleTitanic (1997 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 25, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
February 28, 2008Good article nomineeListed
March 7, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 9, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 19, 2009.
Current status: Good article


References to use

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

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

RfC about the nude Rose image

Opinions are needed on the following: File talk:Kate-winslet titanic movie pencil-drawing.jpg#RfC: Should we use the cropped version or the non-cropped version?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

My understanding is that the genre is currently listed as "epic romance and disaster film", with the words "romance" and "disaster" separated by an "and" (in order to avoid a Sea of Blue). However, I fail to see any precedent for listing the genre in this way. I cannot find a single other film that lists its genre in this way. Every over film article I've read would list the genre as "epic romantic disaster film".

Here are ten examples to illustrate this:

...and these are just ten examples that came to mind. As I said, pretty much every film that mixes genres list their genre in this way. We can see this format used in TV shows as well, as these five examples demonstrate:

  • The Americans: "period spy thriller television series"
  • Stranger Things: "science fiction horror web television series"
  • The Leftovers: "supernatural mystery drama television series"
  • Maniac: "psychological dark comedy-drama web television miniseries"
  • Twin Peaks: "mystery horror drama television series"

...so, as I've said, separating the genres with an "and" is something that seems to be unique to this article. Lacking any real evidence to support leaving it like this, I can't see a reason not to change it to "epic romantic disaster film".Whovian99 (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments are often weak. Any other article that has a WP:SEAOFBLUE issue should try and fix or reduce it as well. You haven't offered a strong argument for why "and" should not be used. Any strong grammar argument? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That editors, especially inexperienced ones, get excessive with adding genres to the lead, is another reason why the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument in this case is weak. Also see the #How to categorize the film in the lead sentence discussion above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2019

This edit should be undone as it's replaced a good poster with a washed out poster for no reason. 90.249.104.162 (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: The poster came directly from the source on the image up there now; the other images is edited to have more reddish hues. Not to mention, PNG is the preferred format. Not to mention, it also matches Amazon, which is a highly-reliable source. livelikemusic talk! 19:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Livelikemusic: Thanks for explaining. I have no problem if the reinstate the change, though the ip might want to explain their reasoning more fully --DannyS712 (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: It sounds like they just preferred the other one, and felt it was done with "no reason," yet it was primarily explained why. livelikemusic talk! 20:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Livelikemusic: Nevermind then --DannyS712 (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: I think it was merely them preferring another image over the [properly] sourced one. livelikemusic talk! 20:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a case of personal preference. The JPEG copy matches the original poster that I own, and the PNG copy is lopsided and does not match the Amazon copy (which is not a reliable source for images, anyway). If PNG is really the preferred format (says who?) then why not replace the JPEG with this correct copy? 90.249.104.162 (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Stuart missing from infobox

I believe Gloria Stuart should be added to the list of actors in the infobox. The reason she is not included is apparently this line in the WP guidelines: "starring: Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release.[1] If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits." Fine, let's assume she is not (I cannot read the names in the poster!) but even if true, the very next sentence says "Other additions by consensus." So let's try for some consensus here to add her. Personally, I have no idea why she wasn't include in the poster' billing block, and an actor playing a minor character (Danny Nucci) was. But please explain WHY we should not add this actress. She played such a prominent role in Titanic as the older version of the main character Rose -- on screen as well throughout the film in voice-overs. Why is that not deemed worthy of being included in the infobox? RobP (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it has ever been discussed before, so she seems to have been omitted by technicality rather than "worth" (judging by the hidden note). However, as you point out the guideline does make provision for a consensus based alternative. I have just checked the end credits at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgyeUnTX7Dw and Stuart appears 6th in the credit order, so it's not really clear why she has been left out of the billing block. The billing block does seem inconsistent with the actual film credits in this instance which give her due prominence. I think the problem with your approach is that just arbitrarily inserting her into the list isn't exactly an objective way of resolving the issue, but I will happily support switching the infobox over to the actual film credits. Betty Logan (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2019

Please change:

"during its ill-fated maiden voyage" to "during her ill-fated maiden voyage"
"it did not sink until the following day" to "she did not sink until the following day"
"it was docked on its port side" to "she was docked on her port side"

per WP:SHE4SHIPS. 192.41.131.250 (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC) 192.41.131.250 (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, although the above-linked section says either feminine or neuter pronouns may be used, it also says that an article must be self-consistent, and the article RMS Titanic and other sections of this article both use feminine pronouns (for example, "the SS Californian was close to the Titanic the night she sank but had turned off its radio for the night, did not hear her crew's SOS calls"). 192.41.131.250 (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Titanic_(1997_film)&oldid=889471195"