Jump to content

Talk:Titanic (1997 film)/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

National Film Registry material in the lead?

As seen with this edit, an editor added the National Film Registry material to the lead and I moved it down since, per WP:Lead, the lead is meant to summarize the article. A little later, Fireflyfanboy added the material to the lead and I reverted, explaining that it's covered lower. Fireflyfanboy then reverted me, stating, "Most, if not all, NFR titles have reference to it in their intro paragraphs." I reverted again and noted that this is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument; I also pointed the editor to this talk page for discussion. Thoughts?

Yes, the content is now covered lower in the article and it being in the lead would no longer be a matter of having content in the lead that is not first covered lower, but the content lower in the article is a single sentence. Why should this bit be in the lead, given all of the other accomplishments the film has achieved but which are not noted in the lead? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

And for the record, I like the idea of this being in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this boils down to "is a film being added to the NFR such a distinction that it merits being noted in the lead"? Personally, I have no idea, but it might be worth considering that this is, obviously, a United States-specific honor, so there might be some grounds for saying it's a bit of bias. DonIago (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
There is literally so much precedence that this is a meaningless thing to be debating. Yes, OBVIOUSLY, the distinction is important enough that it merits being talked about in the intro paragraph, as is the case for LITERALLY EVERY OTHER NFR movie, from Citizen Kane to Top Gun. I will be removing the text from the "critical reception" section, and adding it to intro.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Done! Hope that resolves it! And for the recond, most articles don't mention it outside of the intro paragraph. Source: I've spent a lot of time editing articles for movies on the NPR.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Fireflyfanboy, do stop WP:Edit warring on this. You need to discuss and achieve WP:Consensus on the matter. Not simply make a comment, which is yet another WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and then re-add the material. You removed the content from lower in the article just so you could add it to the lead. That does not solve the issue; this is because, per WP:Lead, the material should not be in the lead if not also covered lower in the article. I will go ahead and query WP:Film about weighing in on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The NFR passage should definitely be mentioned in the article body if it is to go in the lead section at all. If other articles do not include it in the body, they need to be fixed. As for whether or not to mention in the lead section the selection for preservation (here or in general), I don't have a strong preference. I do see it plopped into the lead section a lot, but that does not necessarily mean it is a good practice. We should look at WP:LEAD and determine how the preservation matter fits the criteria for important information, especially since it is generally apart from the overview, production, and reception. Any ideas on how to reflect that the National Film Registry is a big enough deal to highlight? I know the NFR selects for preservation some lesser-known films, and mentioning that in their articles would be a highlight. Is the highlight any less warranted with a film like Titanic? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Guys, it literally feels like a mountain is being made out of a molehill right now. I did the edits for most every other NFR title announced today, and it was totally noncontroversial every time. The ones that had beaten me to it ALSO included it in intro sections. It's just the way things have been done. This is neither the time or place to discuss if this policy should be changed or modified, as Erik seems to want to do. You also can't cite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS when it's standard operating procedure AND it'd make Titanic the one exception to the rule. (That actually seems to run contrary to... a lot more WP: stuff than just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) I've had a bad week in terms of getting into nit-picky details with overzealous editors, so I would appreciate it if we could just let bygones be bygones. It is literally just this article that seems to have difficulty with including it in the intro...Fireflyfanboy (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
And for the record, this isn't worth querying WP:Film about. This is the absolute definition of a nit-pick, particularly in the face of SO MUCH precedence. In all my years for all my NFR editing work, Flyer22 Reborn is literally the only person to raise any kind of fuss. Flyer22 Reborn, please do what you have to do to make sure it's in the intro as quickly as possible. If that includes another mention later, fine. But this is getting absolutely ridiculous and becoming a waste of my time. Fireflyfanboy (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

If you feel it's a waste of your time, nobody's forcing you to make these edits, but it is clear that while you may feel this is a minor issue, other editors do not, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an entirely valid concern in this instance. I am curious as to why you seem to be so resistant to having a genuine discussion as to whether this material belongs in the lead. DonIago (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

When you've edited as many intros for as many NFR titles as I have, and literally for every one of them except this one it's been a non-issue, something doesn't smell quite right.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Fireflyfanboy, regarding this, why would you think that adding the content to the "Accolades" section resolves the issue when you still added the text to the lead and when the text being in the lead is contested here on the talk page? Right now, that piece in the lead, which you've given its own paragraph, sticks out like a sore thumb. It is WP:Undue. We are not trying to change the rules; we are trying to follow them. WP:Due is an important rule. And why do you think this text fits better in the "Accolades" section than in the "Critical reception" section? I thought about placing it in the "Accolades" section, but I decided against it because it is not an accolade. You need to learn how to collaborate with editors. What you have done with the latest revert of yours is make me want to take this issue to the MOS:FILM talk page, where there will be a significant change concerning the inclusion NFR material in the lead. What say you, Erik? MOS:FILM or a WP:RfC? It's clear that we have an editor here thinking that this bit is automatically supposed to go in the lead of our film articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Fine, I changed it. Jeez. I've done everything you've asked, obeyed every request. Christ, If this ever resulted in a change of policy for the entire NFR, I would quit editing Wikipedia all together. I'm so over this bureaucratic bullshit, and you can quote me on that.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Fireflyfanboy, like I stated, "You need to learn how to collaborate with editors." It's not about doing everything that I have asked, and I haven't asked you to do anything anyway except discuss. You keep popping in on the talk page and making changes to the article as if that resolves anything. None of your edits, including the latest one, has resolved anything. Editors are trying to have a serious discussion, and you are being dismissive and doing what you want. You have made it so that the article is currently held hostage by you because reverting again would put me over WP:3RR. MOS:FILM is not a policy, by the way. Neither is WP:Lead. They are guidelines and they cover best practices. It is not best practice to have the NFR piece highlighted in the lead when it is not extensively covered lower. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but it does have rules. WP:Due is a policy. If you don't want to follow the site's rules, you should not be editing here. And, yes, I will be taking this matter to MOS:FILM either today or tomorrow since the article is currently being dictated by you and you are not open to discussion. If you quit editing Wikipedia, we'll just have to manage without you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Wow, abrasive much? You come off like a complete asshole dude. And your talk page is nothing but explaining your behavior is a result of the environment you grew up in...? Dude. Go outside. Read a book. Make friends. This shit doesn't matter this much. People like you ruin Wikipedia.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Fireflyfanboy, you ask "abrasive much?" and yet you are the one cursing and throwing a temper tantrum. You are the one who has just engaged in a WP:Personal attack. As for my talk page, you have clearly misread what is at the top of it. And I think it's clear to many that I read books. As for ruining Wikipedia for you, Wikipedia is not your playground. And if "this shit doesn't matter this much," then why are edit warring over it and being so stubborn and dismissive? You can make your case at MOS:FILM, where I will ping you. I'm female, by the way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think there is a fairly good case for including the NFR selection for preservation on a consistent basis. It tends to come off badly because of the editing approach of merely tacking it on (and not putting it anywhere in the article body, which is the worse practice). However, it does not need to be "extensively covered lower". It does need to be mentioned in the article body, but there is not really much more to say about it. A film that wins the Oscar for Best Picture may not always have more than a sentence in the article body saying so, and we would include that. Reading WP:LEAD, I think the NFR passage can count as part of "a summary of its most important contents", "cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article" (though more applicable for fleshed-out articles), and "summarize the most important points". MOS:INTRO says, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The challenge is that the selection for preservation is somewhat an afterthought to the production and contemporary reception. It's important, yet hard to place in a summary if it is not fleshed-out or lacks any other legacy-related content. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Erik, I'm taking this to MOS:FILM because the above editor thinks that NFR material should automatically go in the lead of our film articles. I disagree. As for "extensively covered lower," I don't see this as the same as a film winning an Oscar. It is but a single sentence covered lower, and is not something that is necessary for the lead. A film's Oscar reception should be in the lead. As for a Legacy section, the Commercial analysis section somewhat resembles one, but I haven't gotten around to making a Legacy section yet, partly because it will overlap with the Commercial analysis section, unless I arbitrarily divide the content into two different sections. And we certainly should not have a Legacy section that consists of one sentence (the NFR stuff). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm fine with it being in the lead (as long as it's supported by sourced text in the body) and just as fine if the consensus is that it shouldn't be in the lead. My primary concern thus far would be it being added to the lead without supporting body text. Well, that and the fact that I consider "every other article does it this way and it's never been an issue before" a very poor argument to make in any content dispute. Just because there's a precedent for something being done in a given way doesn't mean that that's the best or even proper way to handle it. DonIago (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I've posted this elsewhere, but it deserves to be said here, as well (albeit slightly modified): I would like to state that, for the record, there seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding about the importance of the National Film Registry. Unlike User:Flyer22 Reborn I have done many edits of movie titles on the NFR, and if I ever encountered an article of a film included on the Registry that DIDN'T include its Registry status on the intro paragraph, I have forgotten it.
What User:Flyer22 Reborn has failed to mention in these arguments is the obvious answer to the question of is "a film being added to the NFR such a distinction that it merits being noted in the lead?" That answer is a resounding yes. The National Film Registry is the only federal governmental recognition of film in the United States. It is one of the only laws of the United States that governs film at all, and studios (and also George Lucas) face penalties if they don't surrender film copies to the Library of Congress (which only comes up in cases of... George Lucas). Films must be at least 10 years old, and graded on their "aesthetic, historical and/or cultural" value. No other award body does that, and no other entity picks movies specifically for the purpose of long term preservation. Only 25 movies get in a year from the entirety of American film history (which spans 100+ years), and these can include narrative features, documentaries, animated movies, shorts, and many other different types of films. The National Film Registry is arguably the most prestigious film award, at least in regard to American film, because unlike the Oscars, which are contemporary and come from an independent, non-governmental entity, The National Film Registry comes from the US Government exclusively and is only awarded to films that have stood the test of time, not simply what present consensus is in any given year. Movie reels are transferred for preservation in the Library's bunker in Culpeper (which I have been to). This isn't merely a critics award, or some minor recognition. Only 725 movies have been selected... ever. That's the equivalent of the all the Hollywood movies that came out in a single year for about the past 30 years. If movies as acclaimed, famous, and influential as Star Wars or The Wizard of Oz can have it mentioned in its lead (and have it be a pretty significant part of the lead's text, BTW), I think that's a pretty significant indicator. And those were two just off the top of my head. The actual article of the National Film Registry list is a featured list, meaning the consensus about the way Registry titles have traditionally been treated is significant enough to be featured as being one of the best on this site. It would be the equivalent of not mentioning that someone had won a Presidential Medal of Freedom in the lead of an article.
As a major cinephile and as a Wikipedia editor, I have a lot more experience with the National Film Registry and a much deeper understanding of what it is, which includes the prestige multiple major publications/websites/entities, including Wikipedia, award it. I understand this policy about including it the leads of films listed to be standard because, as someone who has seen the articles of a good chunk of Registry titles, it is, if not universally applied, than almost-universally applied to all Registry titles, not just because of the way the articles are organized, but it is considered that prestigious an honor. Today's announcement was covered by multiple publications, the way an Oscars would be. But unlike an Oscars, where one can talk about the contents of a show or a host or a surprise win or a surprise snub or mishap, the only news is about this honor specifically, and that is due only to its prestige and overall importance. The US government is vowing, under law, to preserve these films for time immortal.
To argue against the inclusion of this in the respective leads of NFR titles, as User:Flyer22 Reborn seemed to be doing, was personally offensive to me as someone who has devoted so much time and energy to both studying and making edits on behalf of the Registry. That was the reason I was so shocked and acted so negatively, and for that apologize. But I was dumbfounded that someone would argue that this was not some crucial thing worth mentioning in the intro paragraph. I know that the responsible thing will happen, and the NPR will be mentioned in the lead forevermore, as per the relative importance of this recognition. The NFR is, if not as big as an Oscar win, bigger, (again, have to stress: the US government is vowing, under law, to preserve these films for time immortal) and deserves inclusion in the lead for most (but if there's a case for not mentioning it in a lead, I have yet to hear it) films included on the Registry. If this was not the case, as a major cinephile who understands the importance and prestige of being included on the Registry, I would find myself questioning the value of Wikipedia as it relates to film, which would lead me to disengaging from editing and reading Wikipedia in the future. Fireflyfanboy (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't have any objections to it being mentioned in the lead, but perhaps it is being over-egged in the lead. I certainly don't think the quote is necessary that far up, especially since it is repeated later in the article. I would simply state it has been selected for preservation in the National Film Registry and leave it at that. Most films do mention it in the lead; it is mentioned at Gone with the Wind (film), for example, and I think we integrated it into the lead pretty well there. It's the quote that is the problem because we don't usually quote anything in the lead and it sticks out like a sore thumb. Betty Logan (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Completely, 100% put my backing into this. I'm all for modifying the language in order to integrate it more into the text and make it less clunky. I fully support wording it in a way similar to the way it is mentioned on the Gone with the Wind (film) article. But even raising the idea against inclusion of the NFR honor in the lead was deeply offensive and upsetting for me personally. This is the proper way to go about it, and I commend User:Betty Logan for being articulate about it, coming up with solutions, and not letting general ignorance about the NFR dominate the perception of what should and should not be.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
At MOS:FILM, I also offered solutions. I pretty much stated what Betty just stated about changing the text's presentation in the lead. Above, I also clearly stated that I like the idea of the material being in the lead. What I do not like is your faulty logic, as explained above and at the MOS page. You should not be basing whether or not to include material in the leads of our Wikipedia articles on whether or not it personally offends you, or on some "I'm a fan" basis. That is not how we are supposed to edit Wikipedia, and Doniago and I trying to explain this to you above has continued to be dismissed by you. This discussion has nothing to do with ignorance of the NFR. What to include in the lead should be based on the WP:Lead guideline, with very few WP:Ignore all rules exceptions. On a side note: There is no need to ping me, Doniago or Betty to this talk page; we all have this article on our watchlists. No need to ping me at MOS:FILM either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Flyer pretty much nailed my concerns, which had less to do with "should the information be in the lead" (people seem to agree that it's appropriate to include it there, at this point), and more to do with the arguments that were being presented. I used to be in a not-for-profit group, and people were resistant to making changes to how things were done, on the grounds of "it's tradition that we do it this way". I can appreciate the emotional investment there, but if there's a better way to do something, why not adopt the better way? Or to use a more extreme example, if it's tradition that everyone jump off a bridge, does that mean we should jump off a bridge as well? I'm happy to build a better tradition at that point. DonIago (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Flyer, if you can read my long defense for including NFR status in the intro and dismiss it as a "I'm a fan-basis," than this boils down to WP:I just don't like it on your part, discussion should be tabled and someone should modify the lead to accommodate the new consensus. You claim that "this discussion has nothing to do with ignorance of the NFR" but you questioned its importance and value multiple times throughout this discussion. That makes me believe you don't grasp the importance of it, and that is what is contributing to this conflict. At MOS:FILM, you offered solutions, but also claimed that you had offered these solutions before, which, now that I'm scrolling through and revisiting what was said, doesn't seem to be the case as much as you want it to be. Most of the discussion was about including it at all and what that meant for later in the text of the article, and NOT about specific ways to format the information in the lead. Please do not engage in historical revisionism by trying to reframe this discussion (and this argument) now that the powers that be are no longer on your side. Even Doniago believes it was about my original justification about it being "tradition" (admittedly, I was so flustered this conversation was happening in the first place that I couldn't articulate my thoughts the way I wanted until much later) that is the source of the contention, which proves to me that this was never about formatting. I have made my point, and agree with reformatting it in a way that is smoother. What else is there to talk about at this point? Fireflyfanboy (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
You can stick to calling me Flyer22 Reborn. What I stated with my "14:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)" post above and what Doniago just stated with his "14:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)" post above are things that have clearly gone over your head. It's a wonder you've lasted this long editing Wikipedia. It's clear that you have not been involved in enough vital Wikipedia discussions. If you had, you would not be thinking the way you are thinking (hopefully anyway). This is not about WP:I just don't like it for me, but (before you took the time to explain yourself) it seemed to be nothing but WP:ILIKEIT on your part. And it still seems that way when you are talking about this being such a personal issue for you. At MOS:FILM, nowhere did I state that I offered solutions before. You keep making questioning the NFR material being in the lead into an ignorance and personal issue. It's not. Doniago and I have been clear about this multiple times. An editor at MOS:FILM already told you that you have personalized this issue. There is no "historical revisionism" taking place. There are no sides, and certainly no powers that be on your imaginative side. From the beginning, I stated, "I like the idea of this being in the lead." This is seen above. I questioned the content being in the lead based on our rules, which you have called bullshit. I am not going to sit here and keep arguing with an editor who continues to personalize this issue and clearly has a lot to learn when it comes to editing Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm fucking done. Consensus has been met. You're a nit-picker and an obstructionist who would rather belittle me than admit she was wrong, or at the very least, had a perspective that changed before. You've been taking the moral high ground for so long by saying that I this is such a personal issue for me, but then you say to me like: 1) "things [are] clearly [going] over your head, 2) "It's a wonder you've lasted this long editing Wikipedia" (that has got to be one of the most insulting things anyone has ever said to me. If I don't say it now, fuck you.) 3) "It's clear that you have not been involved in enough vital Wikipedia discussions," (WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO SAY THAT!?!?!), 4) "I clearly has a lot to learn when it comes to editing Wikipedia." People like you ruin this website with your memorization of rules, spouting bureaucracy and your holier-than-thou attitude and I'm so over it. Talk to me again, I report you. I try to be concise and articulate in the recent discussion, and apologized my earlier behavior, whereas your behavior is the reason WP: No Personal Attacks exists. I can see why you've been banned before. Have a nice life. LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE. Fireflyfanboy (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with being a nit-picker and an obstructionist. You have a clear misunderstanding of how things works here. You not understanding the WP:Personal attacks policy is also an indication of that. I've just talked to you again. Now report me if you must. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
This was further worked out on my talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I reduced the piece in the lead per this article talk page discussion and the MOS:FILM discussion. I didn't remove the "Upon its release" bit, but if it's felt that it should be removed so that it makes more sense for the NFR material to be in that paragraph, we can do that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

But then again, if we change "Upon its release on December 19, 1997, Titanic achieved critical and commercial success." to "Titanic achieved critical and commercial success.", that would be leaving out its release date in the lead. And if we change it to "Titanic achieved critical and commercial success when it was released on December 19, 1997." or something like that, that's mostly the same as what's currently there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's better, Betty. Thanks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

This is good too, SummerPhDv2.0. I didn't like "celebrated" either, which is why it wasn't in my version. It's still currently used lower in the article, but that can also be remedied. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Murdoch

I suggest that the cast note regarding Murdoch be rewritten. For example, it reads, "Cameron apologized on the DVD commentary, but stated that there were officers who fired gunshots to enforce the "women and children first" policy." I have heard the commentary and what Cameron, along with a historian, say is, that there is multiple eye witness testimony of an officer shooting passengers/himself. It may possibly have been Murdoch; there is no evidence to rule him out. Cameron gave no apology. We must remember that Mr. Cameron is a film director, not a historian, and his comment certainly does not change the historical fact that whether First Officer William Murdoch committed suicide or not is unknown -there is not enough evidence to prove either line of theory. So even if he feels it was a little dangerous to portray the First Officer as shooting passengers and himself in his film, based on some eyewitness testimony, it still remains a possibility that it in fact really did happen.

Finally, there is the line, "Fox vice-president Scott Neeson went to Dalbeattie, Scotland, where Murdoch lived, to deliver a personal apology". 20th Century Fox (not Cameron) simply donated £5,000 to Dalbeattie High School along with a silver tray. No apology was ever given, despite the media misinterpretating this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.17.72 (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you did not see my response to your very similar question 3 months ago or simply disagreed. Please see Talk:Titanic_(1997_film)/Archive_7.
As for the Murdoch question, it seems to have been discussed fairly extensively at Talk:Titanic_(1997_film)/Archive_5#The_fictional_death_of_Officer_Murdoch. - SummerPhDv2.0 19:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... It looks like you are currently blocked from editing as 149.254.235.27. - SummerPhDv2.0 19:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

We should note that "discussion" on the archive is full of errors, and not good research materiel. In the book, "The Night Lives On", by Walter Lord, a sequel to his book a "Night to Remember", the author notes that two passengers, Eugene Daly and George Rheims, each in private letters written to family members, both described witnessing an officer shoot at people rushing a lifeboat and then shooting himself. These passengers provide powerful, corroborating evidence that an officer, likely Murdoch, did commit suicide. Neither passenger knew each other, and they were writing private letters to family members; these were not letters intended for publication. There has been no evidence to rule out Murdoch. Whilst it's true Lightoller refuted the rumors and claimed he saw Murdoch being swept into the sea by the wave washing over the boat deck, we must remember that Lightoller was known to have protected his job, and his fellow officer’s and employer’s reputations by ‘whitewashing’ his testimony in the disaster inquiries, and he changed several aspects of his story. Several highly respected Titanic historians, including George Behe have even pointed out, that Lightoller's testimony at the US inquiry, suggests that he was not in a position to witness Murdoch being swept into the sea. If Murdoch did shoot passenegers/commit suicide, this does not detract from Murdoch's heroism, however. If an officer shot passengers, they were only doing what they were doing in a terrible situation. As for suicide, we should remember that suicide, back then, especially on ships, could have been seen as heroic, not cowardly; as George Rheims called the officer who killed himself, "What a man"!.

Finally, as for the portrayal by Cameron, as he made it clear, his intent was not to vilify Murdoch. He was portraying him as an "flawed hero" in a "hopeless" situation. 20th Century Fox (not Cameron) simply donated £5,000 to Dalbeattie High School along with a silver tray. No apology was ever given. williammurdoch(dot)net has more to refer to on this matter. It is a terrific website and really underrated, it has more sources for Murdoch that you cannot find in most books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.17.72 (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

To repeat: Hmm... It looks like you are currently blocked from editing as 149.254.235.27.
The website you are referring to seems to be a self-published source, of no use here. Further, you have a lot to say that is not about improving this article.
To add information, we need reliable sources directly discussing the film. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit

Any opinions on this recent edit by Deezbuttz, who stated, in part, "Paramount pictures and 20th century fox Don’t produced the film." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a source present which says otherwise and the billing is in line with Template:Infobox film. Deezbuttz has made several edits to this article in the last month, all of which have been reverted by different editors. I suggest he comes to the talk page and a build towards a consensus for his proposed changes. Betty Logan (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2018

Please can I edit the page82.16.65.11 (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Merchandising section

I reverted the Merchandising section created by Jamesluckard because of poor sourcing, poor formatting and the section not being needed. Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I believed I had articles and links sourcing all the facts in the section, and I thought it was interesting and relevant information. All the items I mentioned were officially licensed. The fact that so few tie-ins were available at first, because the film was expected to be a financial failure, and the huge success of those few items, helped illustrate the film's unique cultural impact, especially the J. Peterman marketing tie-in with the necklace replica, which generated a fair amount of news coverage at the time. jamesluckard (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Some of it is ok but the first paragraph is especially problematic. Linking to a shopping site like Amazon does not establish the encyclopedic value of the merchandise, nor do they back up the claim that the film was "expected by many to be a costly flop". Betty Logan (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The links to Amazon were only to document the exact release dates of the various items. I don't think it's really fair to call it a claim that the film was expected to be a flop, it was reported constantly at the time and is mentioned here in the Wikipedia article, pretty much all the media coverage before the film came out predicted financial disaster. What's interesting, to my mind, is that so few tie-in items were planned, and that when the film became a cultural phenomenon, they all became hugely and unexpectedly successful. The J. Peterman items are especially interesting, because they are such an unusual example of tie-in merchandising, as documented in the linked article.jamesluckard (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I think it is an assumption that the lack of marketing tie-ins was due to the fact it was "expected to flop". There were few marketing tie-ins compared to what, exactly? What is the yardstick here? The fact is this wasn't Jurassic Park; it was a period drama based on a true story in which lots of people tragically lost their lives. I think it is an assumption—and therefore original research—to declare that the lack of marketing tie-ins was directly down to the film's dwindling prospects. Such a claim needs to be directly sourced. Betty Logan (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The "Commercial analysis" section already covers the fact that the film was expected to be a flop. I'd rather not have a small, unnecessary Marketing section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Flyer 22 Reborn - I understand not having a separate section for merchandising, but I don't understand why the information about the tie-in items and the J. Peterman merchandising, which generated a fair amount of media coverage, for the necklace in particular, can't be included in this "commercial analysis" section. It illustrates how successful the film was. Betty Logan - I think we're actually arguing the same point here:) I totally agree that the film had very few tie-ins because it wasn't expected to be the next Jurassic Park, however it ended up grossing far, far more than Jurassic Park, and as a result the very few tie-ins that had been approved ended up doing record-breaking business, like the book, which became an unexpected bestseller. This illustrates the unique nature of Titanic's financial success. It wasn't a franchise or a branded property, and it didn't have fast food tie-ins, like Jurassic Park. It was a once-in-a-generation hit.jamesluckard (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

film/TV show = "video production"?

In the Post-production: Effects section, we have a photo caption reading "Cameron's film was the second Titanic video production to show the ship breaking in half; the first was the eponymous 1996 television miniseries.]]"

The phrase "video production" is an awkward one, meant to combine theatrical movies, direct-to-video movies, made-for-TV movies, miniseries and TV shows (presumably). It isn't perfect, but I personally can't come up with anything better. (I can't really imagine anyone referring to the movie as a "video production".)

I think I know what it is trying to say. Prior to the miniseries, all other depictions showed the ship sinking in one piece. After the miniseries, the next depiction of it breaking in half was this movie. I strongly suspect this is original research. If no reliable source can be found stating the case, it should be removed.

If we do find a source for the claim, I would welcome a better phrase. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Reverted and removed. I remember someone adding the Titanic (1996 TV miniseries) piece but that I never reverted it because I didn't see it as something worth reverting. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Dramatization? Betty Logan (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
That might've fit. The claim was removed as unsourced. (Secretly, I kinda hoped a source for the claim would have given us a suitable word/phrase.) - SummerPhDv2.0 18:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 9 March 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: clear consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Titanic (1997 film) → Titanic (film) – per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The highly superior notability of this film is undeniable compared to other films titled Titanic. This article is also considered a "good article" by Wikipedia and is listed on media and drama good articles, and is a fairly popular article that is considered of high importance by the Wikipedia community. – AgWoolridge (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

No – I would have thought that redirecting to the disambiguation page (which is currently the case) would be most appropriate. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 12:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
4TheWynne, see the Thriller (album) redirecting to Thriller (Michael Jackson album) example. As noted by Bkonrad here and here, editors have been trying to change that for years. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@AgWoolridge: good faith but the nom is actually contrary to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, per WP:SNOW perhaps you could withdraw and close? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I do think that readers seeing "Titanic (film)" will most likely think that it's about the 1997 film, but consensus is clear on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
    Readers shouldn't be seeing disambiguated titles though unless they are on a disambiguation page or at the disambiguated page itself. In the case of Titanic (film) readers shouldn't be seeing it anywhere because we don't actually have a page with that title. Since no article actually links to it then the link currently serves no purpose. The only reason for having a redirect there I suppose is in case an editor accidentally links to it. Betty Logan (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
    In all likelihood, no article links to it because editors are continuously cleaning up ambiguous links: WP:DPL. Dekimasuよ! 04:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2018

Please add the following in the commercial analysis section's paragraph which talks about popularity. Currently, it is mostly focused on American popularity. Feel free to copyedit and remove ambiguous wording. "Titanic was also popular in India, and is credited as the first foreign-language film to succeed in the territory.[1] A 2012 Hindustan Times report attributes this to the film's similarity and shared themes with most Indian films.[2]" This part is important for inclusion as Titanic was the first film to open the Hollywood market in India, the country with the world's largest movie-going audience (as mentioned in the NY Times report).

Thanks, 31.215.115.201 (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

That might be more relevant in the initial Box office section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Alright, then. Initial box-office it is. Please look into the request. 31.215.115.201 (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 Done I added it to the Commercial analysis section. I didn't think it fitted in the Initial theatrical run section as the addition doesn't specifiy numbers, just popularity. Feel free to adjust/move if you disagree. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 15:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Changed for now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Per MOS:Paragraphs, I'm not a fan of single-sentence paragraphs, or otherwise very small paragraphs, especially when just tagged on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/26/movies/why-titanic-conquered-the-world-new-delhi.html
  2. ^ https://www.hindustantimes.com/more-lifestyle/to-titanic-the-most-bollywood-hollywood-movie-ever-made/story-LkO22T5Pa5Hl2rh6MKFX2H.html

How to categorize the film in the lead sentence

With this edit, Slightlymad streamlined the genre, pointing to WP:FILMLEAD, and restricted the genre to a romance drama. I reverted because I think that the film is also a disaster film should be mentioned in the lead sentence. I also don't think we need the additional names in the lead sentence.

Betty Logan and Doniago, thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The listing of names seems a bit like overkill to me, especially for a single sentence, but I'd want to review other film articles as well before I'd be comfortable reverting that. As for the genre, Slightlymad did provide a source; do you have one for disaster film? Instinctively I would say that "diaster film" isn't the primary genre, though it's arguably a primary genre. Personally I watched it for the disaster, not the drama, but I'm well aware that I may be in the minority there, having been a Titanic buff for a decade before the film was released. DonIago (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Leaving out the "disaster" part seems rather counter-intuitive to me so I looked at some other sources: Allmovie goes with romance/drama as the primary genres (with "disaster film" as a sub-genre). Same for the BBFC too. While not a reliable source IMDB also goes with drama and romance. The general consensus does seem to be that "romance" and "drama" are the primary genres; the reason I think this is the case is because the "disaster film" genre is essentially a sub-genre (Allmovie also lists other sub-genres such as "sea adventure", "period film" and "romantic epic"). Looking at it again though I don't think omitting the "disaster" genre is too detrimental because the second sentence of the lead is very specific that the film is about the sinking of the Titanic. Betty Logan (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Wasn't really expecting this edit getting challenged. I am not really accustomed with a chained-together, word salad genres like how the opening sentence was structured before I streamlined it. After looking through some RS, including the aforementioned BBFC and Allmovie, I decided to use the BFI instead since AFI (my ref of choice when it comes to genres) doesn't have a report of what the movie's primary genre is; they all agree that it's primarily a romantic drama. Secondly, the names might be overkill, but reading "co-edited and co-produced by" is too intimidating, at least to me. Per MoS, these name can be mentioned in the opening sentence since they're notable by the fact that they have articles. Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Doniago, nah, considering that a lot of people watched the film for the spectacle it is (with what were groundbreaking special effects at the time), I wouldn't state that you are in the minority with regard to having watched the film for the disaster aspect (although, obviously, many girls and women watched for the romance in addition to the disaster). The disaster aspect, rather than the romantic aspect, is what a lot of men cite as reasons for having watched and/or liked the film. For example, in this 2017 The Atlantic source, David Sims states, "I didn’t really process the final sequence when I saw Titanic in theaters on opening weekend for the first time. I was so spellbound by the movie’s staggering scale that the romance, to a preteen boy (I was 11 at the time), seemed of secondary importance. Jack’s death was sad, to be sure, but felt appropriate given the larger tragedy of the shipwreck." Of course, our Wikipedia article does address why some men don't readily admit to liking Titanic.

Betty, thanks for looking around. Given the content in the article about the film being a disaster film, it (to me) seems important to mention this in the lead sentence or at least somewhere in the lead. Regarding sources that call it a disaster film, examples are the aforementioned The Atlantic source, this 2017 source from the Miami Herald, and this 2017 source from Vox, which calls it "the epic romance, wrapped around a disaster movie." This 2012 The Guardian source also calls it a disaster film, but it soon states, "Titanic is not a disaster epic or an action film. Call it a love story or a $190m art film, whatever, but Titanic is not a road map to the future. It's meant to be a singular picture." It analyzes what category best fits the film. This 2001 journal source, which analyzes the film, notes it as one of the "ship-disaster films."

WP:FILMLEAD states that the opening sentence "should identify the the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified." And also that, "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." A number of reliable sources identify Titanic as a disaster film, but it does appear that a lot more identify it as a romance film. Well, a romance epic. Still, given that WP:FILMLEAD states "genre or sub-genre," which can be read as an "inclusive or," and that a number of reliable sources identify Titanic as a disaster film, I don't see why both "romance" and "disaster film" shouldn't remain in the lead sentence. Including "epic" might seem like overkill, but a lot of reliable sources call Titanic an epic as well. In fact, it seems there are more reliable sources that call it an epic than there are calling it a disaster film. Sources commonly state "epic romance," "romance epic," or "romantic epic." As for "word salad," Slightlymad, I understand what you mean and it's not my doing. The wording has been changed by different editors over the years. I could be okay with "romance" and "epic" without "disaster" in the lead sentence, even though I prefer "disaster" to be there (I think the wording "epic romance and disaster film" was used in the lead before the hyphen was eventually added and the word "and" was removed). On a side note: Looking at sources on this topic reminds that there is work to be done on this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I would still add "romantic drama" there as several RSs classify the movie on this genre as well. I think "epic romantic drama" will suffice; adding "disaster film" would be redundant as epic movies generally involve elements of tragedy anyway. Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Why go with "romantic drama" instead of "romantic film"? Also, I dislike how "romantic drama" currently redirects to a section of the Romantic film article instead of straight to that article. But I see that it seemingly does so because of what MOS:BOLD states about linking to a section that includes alternative or related terms. As for this article, as you saw here, an editor recently removed the hyphen and unnecessarily changed the "romantic film" link to "romantic dramatic." I then changed the lead so that it includes "and," like I stated above, reads as "epic romance and disaster film." Again, I do not see what is wrong with this description. It's accurate and supported by reliable sources. "Disaster film" is not redundant, considering that elements of tragedy do not automatically make a film a disaster film. But, like I stated above, "I could be okay with 'romance' and 'epic' without 'disaster' in the lead sentence, even though I prefer 'disaster' to be there." You never got back to me on that. You didn't go ahead and change the lead to that. Instead, days passed and I figured that perhaps you'd moved on. Just now, I was going to state "feel free to change the lead sentence to 'epic romance film' or 'epic and romance film,' the latter helping to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE." But now, since my tweak, I'm leaning even more toward keeping "disaster film" in the lead sentence. Even if we remove "disaster film," it will eventually be re-added back, again and again, by different editors. But for more opinions, we can ask WP:Film to weigh in. On a side note, regarding this, pings only work with a new signature, and I prefer not to be pinged to an article I'm watching. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Plot Clarification

The Plot section mentions that Jack and Rose are being "applauded by those who died" at the end of the movie. I think there needs to be some clarification because from what I heard, everyone we see in "Titanic Heaven" besides Rose are those who died on the ship. So I propose it should be extended to "applauded by those who died on the ship" OR "applauded by those who died on that faithful night" if you want to get technical.

Ehh123 (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@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)
@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)
@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)
@Livelikemusic: Nevermind then --DannyS712 (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: I think it was merely them preferring another image over the [properly] sourced one. livelikemusic talk! 20:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
 Done. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 22:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
OK thanks. Please can someone go through the article and check carefully that all pronouns referring to the ship itself are in the feminine form? The above examples are just a couple I found from skim-reading 192.41.131.250 (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Done read the entire looooong thing and found no other instances. RobP (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Vaselineeeeeeee, I reverted. There is no need whatsoever to use the gendered pronouns, which many will find odd or sexist. Yes, see the past discussions about it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. WP:SHE4SHIPS clearly states, "Ships may be referred to by either feminine pronouns ('she', 'her') or neuter pronouns ('it', 'its'). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and exclusively employ only one style. As with all optional styles, articles should not be needlessly changed from one style to another without clear and substantial reason." Regarding what the IP stated about consistency, I do not see the guideline stating that all articles or related articles must employ the same style. Otherwise, it would not state that "either usage is acceptable." By consistency, it means that the article should be consistent. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
That's fine, as long as it's consistent within this article. But regarding whether they find it odd or sexist (ridiculous) is not our problem, that is how ships are often referred. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 13:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
(OP comment) The use of feminine pronouns to refer to ships (or for that matter, countries) is common in standard English. It is not (merely) poetic but is a remnant of the grammatical genders that were a pervasive feature of Old English. Its continued use in modern English may be partly due to its perceived poetic appeal, but the use of gendered pronouns to refer to objects is near-universal in languages with grammatical gender. The idea it's sexist or somehow objectifying to women is ludicrous. It's clearly doing the exact opposite of objectifying a person – it's personifying an object. And however odd it might seem, it is surely far odder for the article on RMS Titanic itself to use "she" to refer to the ship while this article sometimes uses "she" and sometimes "it". 192.41.125.254 (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I was going to say that MOS:GNL seems to adequately cover this, but then I noted that it does include a paragraph saying that referring to ships as feminine is acceptable. However, if there's going to be a dispute over whether to refer to Titanic as a she or an it, I'll come down on the side of "it". Obviously that should be applied consistently. DonIago (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2019

Can we add that it is the 3rd highest grossing film of all time? 2A00:23C6:5492:4300:59A8:AA00:ADBC:4340 (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC) 2A00:23C6:5492:4300:59A8:AA00:ADBC:4340 (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Who is "we"? Jannik Schwaß (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Titanic_(1997_film)/Archive_8&oldid=1073171465"