Jump to content

Talk:Titanic (1997 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]

Requested move 12 September 2020

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

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

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

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

Portal bar

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

Please remove the Portal bar from the See also section.

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

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

The Heart of the Ocean

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

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

Should major fictional characters have their own articles, be in a list article, or JUST be in the main article?

Atlantis77177 recently created Jack Dawson (character).

Rather than creating articles for each fictional character and risking the page failing at WP:AFD, I think Wikipedia would be better served by un-redirecting List of characters in Titanic (1997 film) · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions], which was turned into a redirect to Titanic (1997 film)#Cast on 29 August 2009 by Erik with the edit summary of "Redirecting list to main article; list had only fictional detail and no real-world context".

I don't think a formal WP:RFC is needed, but there should be some discussion before a major change like this is done. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose removing the redirect until the issues that led to it being created have been addressed. We don't need another fancruft article. DonIago (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I've redirected the Jack Dawson article to Titanic (1997 film)#Cast. If I'm reverted, I will simply take it to AfD. We've objected to these characters having separate articles and a "List of" article times before. Why? It's simply not needed. If one wants to argue that Jack and Rose are notable enough for their own articles, it's still a WP:No page matter. I'll alert WP:Film to this discussion. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose particularly if these are going to focus on the fictional biography (which is basically working around WP:NOT#PLOT) A standalone character article must be based on significant coverage of the character's creation and development and reception, and generally for a character appearing in one single film, that's all tied to the film's creation and reception, and not standalone. Thus, makes no reason for neither a separate standalone or a list article here. --Masem (t) 22:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support. It depends on the amount of coverage available for a given character. A character appearing in one film does not necessarily mean that coverage can (or is required to) be isolated to only the film's article. When a character has their own standalone article, the scope is redefined to focus more on them, which can mean sorting existing content and/or adding new content. For example, most film articles' "Cast" sections focus on the writing, casting, and development, where their "Reception" and "Themes" sections may be too broad to really talk about how a specific character has been received or analyzed. Considering this is one of the biggest films of all time, with a lot written about it, I find it likely that standalone articles of at least some of the characters is possible, but it involves advanced-level researching and editing. The last-attempted version here is not sufficient, though. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Would take a lot to persuade me that any of these characters, which only appear in a single work, have been covered in enough depth by independent sources to deserve separate articles. The version linked by Erik above falls far short of the mark. Popcornfud (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Popcornfud. I can see it for Hannibal Lecter, Aragorn and Steve Rogers, but a 1-movie character would take some convincing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - these aren't "major fictional characters". --Khajidha (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Titanic_(1997_film)&oldid=989196892"