Talk:Titanic (1997 film)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Cast/Casting

There is a lot of material in the Cast section that is about casting. Perhaps the Cast section could be focused on the characters -- who they are in the story -- with a separate Casting section under Pre-Production that covers the process of casting, organized by chronology. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point, Ring Cinema. This is how a lot of good and featured Wikipedia film articles are done, such as The Dark Knight (film). Personally, I don't like bullet-point Cast lists that have nothing on why the person was cast as the character. I don't see the point in having both a Cast and Casting section, and feel that it should be one or the other. Simply put, having the casting information right there alongside the character/portrayer makes the most sense to me...instead of having the reader search elsewhere for that information. Plus, in this case, we currently only have casting information for a few of the characters (Jack, Rose, Old Rose and a tiny bit on Cal). And I can imagine how long a Casting section (meaning bullet-points are excluded) would look if we had casting information on all or most of the historical characters. But I won't make much of a fuss if you rearrange it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:FILMCAST the emphasis should be on the casting rather than the characters. I don't think we should have a section just about the "characters" per se; however, I can see the logic in having a section about the real-life counterparts and detailing any notable differences to their interpretation in the film, since it is debatable whether we should be mixing contemporary casting with real-life historical context. I can envisage readers being interested in something like that. Betty Logan (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You are probably right but Titanic is a special case where we could gain clarity by separating the fictional world from the production world. A discussion of what "she did" is a little nebulous when there are actually two she's (i.e. the character and the actress). Titanic is somewhat unusual since there is an added layer: the historical reality. So that's three baselines: the past, the story, and the making of. It is possible we could make the article better. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Nominations and Wins

There's room for compromise on this issue. The current edit doesn't quite say that no other film tops both lists -- nominations and wins. The film that is tied with Titanic for most nominations is not the film that is tied with Titanic for most wins. So it is true that no other film can make this impressive claim. If we want to avoid peacockery, we have to give the evidence and this is some evidence. And of course this slightly more complex matter cannot be captured with quite the same brevity without other changes. Perhaps this: "It equaled Oscar records held by two different films in receiving fourteen nominations and eleven wins, awarded the prizes for Best Picture and Best Director."

replacing: It equaled records with fourteen Academy Award nominations and eleven Oscar wins, receiving the prizes for Best Picture and Best Director.

Might work okay? --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that adequately sums it up either. It equalled a record held by just one other film with 14 nominations and shares the record of 11 oscars with two other films. I can see what Bakshi is trying to say, but they are separate records and we need to keep that distinction, since all the sources do. Maybe we could implicitly state it using context: "It tied All About Eve's record of 14 Academy Award nominations, and shares the record of 11 oscar wins with Ben-Hur and Lord of the Rings: Return of the King." This is already explained in the appropriate section though, so I'm far from convinced this much detail is needed in the lead. I don't mind adjusting the wording if it really does improve the article, but I don't think we should compromise with Bakhshi just to appease him, since he has a history of interjecting peacock language and a record of disruptive behavior. I mean, Bakshi himself refuses to come to the talk page and work through this so we have no guarantee of coming up with something he will agree to. Betty Logan (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. I'm not trying to appease Bakshi. I think it's correct that this distinction is worth mentioning in some form. It is a distinction and I was somewhat surprised when I first learned that the two records were held by different films. Above, I was trying to avoid naming all the films involved because the paragraph gets out of control. Another try: "It equaled separate Oscar records held by different films in receiving fourteen nominations and eleven wins, and was awarded the prizes for Best Picture and Best Director."--Ring Cinema (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I would be ok with that, and wouldn't mind it going in (provided Flyer is ok with it). Betty Logan (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps she will weigh in. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind it much, though it's still not the best wording (needs tweaking, as it sounds a bit confusing). In fact, listing this article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests is a good idea, I feel.

My complete feelings about all of this? I don't like going back on consensus unless it is needed; I don't feel that this change is needed. I am in complete agreement with Betty about Bakshi. Why should we compromise with him every time he objects to the wording (and he does object to every alternative we come up with, eventually if not sooner), when we have already established consensus and he rarely takes part in that consensus-building process? If he does, he eventually changes his mind. I'm tired of it. He wasn't a part of consensus last time. But so what? Consensus is not always unanimity. I'm really tired of it. And since I am beyond tired of it, I suppose I am not opposed to you trying to compromise with him one more time. You should even ask him on his talk page if your compromise works for him.

My being tired of debating the lead does not mean I will not debate something about it the future (however much longer I continue to edit Wikipedia).

Peace for now. Flyer22 (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have a problem with the following wording by Fanaction2031? I'm speaking of this: tying it's number of awards won to Ben-Hur and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.

The only problems I can see are the misspelling of "its" and the fact that it was The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King that tied with Titanic, not the other way around. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King came afterward. Therefore, this sentence is inaccurate because it is speaking of what happened at the time: It equaled records with fourteen Academy Award nominations and eleven Oscar wins, tying its number of awards won to Ben-Hur and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, receiving the prizes for Best Picture and Best Director.

Only Ben-Hur should be mentioned if we're going to word it that way.

I'll ask Fanaction2031 to weigh in and explain that the lead has been extensively debated. Flyer22 (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your decision to take it out; the lead is supposed to give an overview of the article. The important thing is that it tied the records (which I think warrants a mention) but we don't really need to name the other record holders in the lead. Other record-holders are clearly secondary information. Betty Logan (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Fanaction2031 has responded and doesn't seem to want to pursue the edit or anything similar to it in the lead.[1] Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 8 November 2011

Hallo! I'm Chris! I draw the Rose like Leo diCaprio, in the german wikipedia you can see it [2], I upload the file to Commons [3]. Do you wanna put the picture in the english wikipedia? Sorry for my bad english, I'm from Germany :D J-bay (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: The image is currenty tagged for speedy deletion on commons. Reactivate if/when that's taken care of. --NYKevin @869, i.e. 19:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I tagged it and it was deleted. mabdul 10:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The guy she didn't love was Callum Heartley. (Not Hockley). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve558 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. If you disagree, provide a source. Doniago (talk) 05:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Tentative friendship

I think we can do better if we instead answer the question, "How do we know they have a tentative friendship?" and include that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can just say "start to bond"? Whatever wording gets across that they bonded before meeting again, I'm fine with. I just want it to be clear that when they met at dinner, this was not their second meeting and that they had developed a closeness before that point. Flyer22 (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah okay but how do we know they started to bond? I really don't remember. --Ring Cinema (talk) 07:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Rose met Jack somewhere on the deck and decided to get to know him; this is where she learned more about his life and was introduced to his drawings. After that, they talked about how they would experience things together, like riding a horse. This is why the sentence before the last at the end of the Plot section says, "the photos on her dresser are a visual chronicle that she lived a free life inspired by Jack." Flyer22 (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Cast list

An editor keeps adding cast members that are non integral to the plot (see [4]). This is supposed to be a GA article, and yet the editor is adding cast members in a manner that doesn't comply with WP:CASTLIST i.e. no sources, no background content on their casting, and in non-essential parts. I've removed these cast additions several times and asked the editor to consult the Film style guidelines but it seems to no avail. I'm getting tired of it now, so are we going to permit these cast additions or should I take it to ANI? We need a consensus either way, so what are other people's views on it? Betty Logan (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Betty, long time no type at. Unless something drastic has changes with the project since I've been around regularly, I 100% agree with your reversions and the rationale behind them. I'm still rather light wiki so I doubt I can help much with keeping it cleaned up. If the editor has been warned sufficiently to look at the relevant guidelines, I'd go to ANI. The edits are disruptive and non-constructive, though it looks like the editor means well, at a glance. Millahnna (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is problem editing. For one thing, the bar is too high to say that someone can't be listed unless there is background on their casting. That would lead to many anomalies, especially with older films. Perhaps anyone with a speaking role can be included for a film of this prominence...? Then maybe another editor sees a name for which some background exists and is prompted to include it. But maybe I don't understand the purpose of restricting the list instead of trying to be punctilious that it is complete. Am I missing something? --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I can understand the logic in listing actors who played real life counterparts, and as a 'bar' everyone who is mentioned in the plot summary should probably be also covered, along with any other casting that is noteworthy, but if you list every single person in the film then you effectively turn the article into one giant cast list. The bottom line is that it isn't consistent with WP:CASTLIST, so if the guideline is no longer relevant then we should actively ditch it or revise it; while it stands it should probably be adhered to since it presumably represents the consensus of the film project. Betty Logan (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, Titanic has special problems, and maybe the cast deserves its own article. (It's a little strange that the link is named castlist when a cast list is supposedly not so good.) Isn't there an issue of completeness here or do you think the rest of the internet covers it? Where to set the bar is not simple, but there are several ways to do it (every character mentioned in the plot summary, everyone who speaks, everyone who has a name, everyone who appears, everyone who is spoken to, everyone in the credits). To me it's odd that on one hand IMDb is considered unreliable yet the rationale for leaving the cast list incomplete has to be that they cover it for us. I believe that IMDb was labeled unreliable for critical reception and somehow that bled on its rather complete coverage of the movies. And my view is that only including the cast in the plot section is a mashup. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

With the exception of characters like Fabrizio, I agree with removing characters who are unimportant or very minor to the plot. We don't list "Woman who made [so and so] comment," for example. That's just not how cast/character lists are supposed to be on Wikipedia, or else such lists would be filled with things like "Boy #1," and so on. Ring Cinema, there used to be a characters list for this topic, but it was redirected here after being deemed unneeded and too difficult to manage (the rampant original research and vandalism that plagued the article). In fact, that list must have been deleted because List of characters in Titanic (1997) and Characters of Titanic (1997), which are redirects, don't show the edit histories or talk page discussions I saw back then. Flyer22 (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Protection?

Is it really necessary to protect this page? Its a movie. Its not an article like Politics, Grass, etc. Ruler of Coasters  Talk  19:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles don't get protected for jollies. If it has been protected there is obviously a reason for it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Its a movie! Why don't we go protect the Hugo article, then? If were going to partly block a article on a movie, then Wikipedia should only be able to be edited by users, then. Ruler of Coasters  Talk  19:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the distinction you are making. If there are problems on a page, a block sometimes helps. It's normal. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

New user account, created in the last couple of weeks. My guess is that Kata89 is either very unfamiliar with the practices of Wikipedia, or very familiar with them. Betty Logan (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is my problem...Were locking a page about a movie. Pages like WWII, Politics, or the original Titanic page makes sense. I don't get why we are protecting a page about a movie. Ruler of Coasters  Talk  13:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The only disinction we make between articles is those about living people and those that aren't. If a film article is more subsceptible to disruptive editing than the WW2 article, then there is a stronger case for protecting it. Betty Logan (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Kata89, even articles about movies fall victim to vandalism or other such disruptive editing and need semi-protection. The semi-protection usually does not last too long for film articles, though (a couple of weeks or a month at most), and will eventually be unprotected. In some cases, long protection is issued. This article's protection-rationale, for example, states that it will be unprotected on September 5, 2012. If editors agree to unprotect it before then, unprotection can be done. Sometimes it is done by an administrator who happens upon the article and feels that unprotection should be given another try. But I want to be very clear that this article has endured a lot of vandalism and other disruptive editing. The same goes for the Avatar (2009 film) article. That is why these two articles are locked. Yes, we can simply revert disruption, but that is tiresome when it is consistent. And since we can somewhat stop/avoid such disruption by semi-protecting, semi-protecting makes a lot more sense. Flyer22 (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that makes a lot more sense. I just thought since it was a classic film, were protecting it so anonymous contributes can't edit it. Ruler of Coasters  Talk  20:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 February 2012

Bernard Fox as Colonel Archibald Gracie IV: The film depicts Gracie making a comment to Cal that "women and machinery don't mix", and congratulating Jack for saving Rose from falling off the ship, though he is unaware that it was a suicide attempt. While the film depicts Gracie with a British accent, he was in fact American. Archibald Gracie survived the sinking on the overturned Collapsible B. Fox also portrayed lookout Frederick Fleet in the 1958 film A Night to Remember.

Bernard Fox as Colonel Archibald Gracie IV: The film depicts Gracie making a comment to Cal that "women and machinery don't mix", and Congratulating Jack for saving Rose from falling off the ship, though he is unaware that it was a suicide attempt. Born in Port Talbot, Glamorgan, Wales, U.K., which accounts for his British ascent, Archibald Gracie survived the sinking on the overturned Collapsible B. Fox also portrayed lookout Frederick Fleet in the 1958 film A Night to Remember.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Fox_%28actor%29 Wfpenn (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Archibald Gracie IV was American. This is a summary of the historical person, not the actor. Betty Logan (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 February 2012

Bernard Fox as Colonel Archibald Gracie IV: The film depicts Gracie making a comment to Cal that "women and machinery don't mix", and congratulating Jack for saving Rose from falling off the ship, though he is unaware that it was a suicide attempt. While the film depicts Gracie with a British accent, he was in fact American. Archibald Gracie survived the sinking on the overturned Collapsible B. Fox also portrayed lookout Frederick Fleet in the 1958 film A Night to Remember.

Bernard Fox as Colonel Archibald Gracie IV: The film depicts Gracie making a comment to Cal that "women and machinery don't mix", and Congratulating Jack for saving Rose from falling off the ship, though he is unaware that it was a suicide attempt. Born in Port Talbot, Glamorgan, Wales, U.K., which accounts for his British ascent, Archibald Gracie survived the sinking on the overturned Collapsible B. Fox also portrayed lookout Frederick Fleet in the 1958 film A Night to Remember.

Wfpenn (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

See above. Betty Logan (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 February 2012

Please change paragraph 1 to paragraph 2

Bernard Fox as Colonel Archibald Gracie IV: The film depicts Gracie making a comment to Cal that "women and machinery don't mix", and congratulating Jack for saving Rose from falling off the ship, though he is unaware that it was a suicide attempt. While the film depicts Gracie with a British accent, he was in fact American. Archibald Gracie survived the sinking on the overturned Collapsible B. Fox also portrayed lookout Frederick Fleet in the 1958 film A Night to Remember.

Bernard Fox as Colonel Archibald Gracie IV: The film depicts Gracie making a comment to Cal that "women and machinery don't mix", and Congratulating Jack for saving Rose from falling off the ship, though he is unaware that it was a suicide attempt. Born in Port Talbot, Glamorgan, Wales, U.K., which accounts for his British ascent, Archibald Gracie survived the sinking on the overturned Collapsible B. Fox also portrayed lookout Frederick Fleet in the 1958 film A Night to Remember.

Wfpenn (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)william

Request denied. Fox was Welsh, NOT Gracie. This is a summary of the character, not the actor. If you are dissatisified with my decision, then re-set the template answer to 'no' and someone else can review your request, but please stop spamming the talk page with edit requests. Betty Logan (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Main Page appearance on 15 April

Please note that I have nominated Sinking of the RMS Titanic to appear on the Main Page next month on 15 April. In conjunction with that, it is proposed that this article will also be linked from the Main Page on the same day. Please see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#April 15 for details. Prioryman (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Can someone update the line, "The film is due for theatrical re-release in 3-D on April 4, 2012" - this is no longer a future date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.150.183 (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I've done it a few hours ago ;-) --Sofffie7 (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Plot bloat

Resolved

Will someone revert the plot boat added by Teamsats1994?[5] Editors worked hard to keep the plot section of this article under control, and then Teamsats1994 shows up and just throws all that out the window. 176.227.199.34 (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

New article on Titanic in popular culture

Editors here might be interested to have a look at a new article that I've contributed, RMS Titanic in popular culture, which will be linked from the Main Page on the centenary day. Please leave any feedback at Talk:RMS Titanic in popular culture. Prioryman (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate 3D re-release heading

Resolved

 – Sections merged and unsourced content reverted

Will someone remove the duplicate heading about the 3D re-release? And1987 added a section about its box office gross under the box office section,[6] but that information would fit better in the 3-D conversion and 2012 re-release section that already exists. The Avatar (2009 film) article does the same thing for its re-release information. I don't believe that we need two sections under the release section about the 3D-conversion. The re-release box office information doesn't need to be placed with the original box office total, especially not under a separate heading.

I'm also not sure that this edit about the film's budget,[7] by YingYang2, should remain. It's unsourced and out of place. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The fictional death of Officer Murdoch

I am sure this has been said before, but this article still tacitly defends Cameron's decision to show Murdoch blowing his brains out. After looking at the article on William Murdoch, it is quite clear that he most likely died while trying to free Collapsible A, an assertion supported by three notable witnesses.

However this article continues to cast doubts by asserting:

in reality, it is not clear how he died.

That's wrong, he most likely he died trying to free one of the Titanic's collapsible boats as the ship went down. It must be made clear that the suicide scene is fiction based on rumor. Otherwise this article defends Cameron's artistic decision with its "well you know" position, ignoring the statements of three witnesses that make the suicide rumor highly implausible. The suicide of this officer, who was a real historical person, is about as offensive one can be about the memory of someone, who as his article notes, who died a hero. This has all the hallmarks of the fallacy of Russell's teapot. A philosophical viewpoint that neatly surmises: the burden of proof lies upon a person making [...] unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others. Meaning, there is evidence that proves Mr Murdoch did not die by his own hand, however this article's protective attitude towards the American director, justifies the reasoning that the burden proof of whether this is true lies with those like me that say Cameron was grossly wrong to portrait Murdoch in this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.43.185 (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Has Cameron made any statement on this for the record? Maybe he agrees it's pure fiction but did it for artistic reasons. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is any harm in clarifying that the film's depiction of his suicide is not corroborated by any of the known facts, and that the last substantiated account of his actions was that he was trying to free lifeboats; it only requires an extra sentence or two. Betty Logan (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And, in response to the IP, it's actually not wrong to say "in reality, it is not clear how he died." It's not wrong because "not clear" in this context means "not known for sure." How he "most likely" died does not equate to "he did die this way." The "in reality, it is not clear how he died" line is not used to defend Cameron's artistic decision; it's used to combat Cameron's artistic decision. The paragraph says:

Ewan Stewart as First Officer William Murdoch: The officer who is put in charge of the bridge on the night the ship struck the iceberg. During a rush for the lifeboats, Murdoch shoots Tommy Ryan as well as another passenger in a momentary panic, then commits suicide out of guilt; in reality, it is not clear how he died. When Murdoch's nephew Scott saw the film, he objected to his uncle's portrayal as damaging to Murdoch's heroic reputation. A few months later, Fox vice-president Scott Neeson went to Dalbeattie, Scotland, where Murdoch lived, to deliver a personal apology, and also presented a £5000 donation to Dalbeattie High School to boost the school's William Murdoch Memorial Prize. Cameron apologized on the DVD commentary, but noted that there were officers who fired gunshots to follow the "women and children first" policy.

It certainly seems to me that the paragraph makes clear that the suicide scene is fiction and is not saying "Cameron may be right that Murdoch died this way," especially with Cameron apologizing for how he portrayed Murdoch's death. But if you feel that an extra line or two is needed to make this clear or that something (like the "in reality, it is not clear how he died" line) should be subtracted and reworded, let us know what you specifically propose. Flyer22 (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to bring all that in. So, actually, the Murdoch of the film is essentially taking the part of an officer whose name we don't know. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be the case, Ring Cinema. Flyer22 (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Although I'm not sure if any suicide is documented as having happened that way on the Titanic. Flyer22 (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

As for your change to accommodate the IP, I don't feel that "fictional" should be placed in that spot. That part of the paragraph is already detailing the fictional account, so "fictional" is redundant. It would be better placed in the "a depiction that met with some objection" part of the line you added, but reworded as "a fictional account that was met with criticism." I'll add that now. Flyer22 (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. I realize it's redundant but now this way (with your change) it is open to the same criticism in that it attributes to "Murdoch" actions that we would not attribute to Murdoch. (At least, with a literal reading.) That kind of bothers me a little. You? --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You mean that by saying "a fictional account that was met with criticism," we are saying that the Murdoch in the film didn't do those things in the film? That he was acting? I'd momentarily considered that, but then got over it when I realized that anyone with comprehension skills is going to know that we are not saying that the Murdoch in the film was putting on a fictional account and received criticism for his portrayal. But to remedy this, since it bothers you and isn't all that great to me either, we could end the sentence with the film's plot for Murdoch, and instead follow that up with "This was a fictional account that was met with criticism." Flyer22 (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

As you wish. I just realized that it's because we have it under "Historical Characters." We say it's fiction, though, so that does cover it. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

So do you feel that we should change it to my latest suggestion, Ring Cinema? Does the current wording still bother you? Like I stated, I'm A-okay with changing it. Flyer22 (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. I think we're fine. For the record: because we say it's "Historical" we imply that the depicted incidents are truer than the fictional characters' actions. That is why the original dissent above was brought. Actor, character, and history are together. As a matter of fact, the original was spot on true: it is not known how Murdoch died. Also, it is reported that some officers killed themselves. Who, then, killed himself? Apparently it was Murdoch or Wilde, since others are accounted for, I read somewhere. So, is there a line to cross where the historical becomes the fictional and it's inaccurate to categorize it that way? --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course the film is probably incorrect about this. Unfortunately, it is yet another way that history is being twisted and characters maligned by this film. Wallie (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Antique towncar

We see a crane lowering a towncar limousine into the cargo hold. Then we see the same type car drive up, on the dock, and Cal, Rose, and Rose's mother step out of the car. In the movie, its supposed to be two separate cars, but it looks to me like Cameron used the same car for both shots. Also, from the slanted slope of the front end, it looks like the car was a Franklin Automobile. Car enthusiasts: any comments? Marc S. Dania Fl. 74.166.156.250 (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Flash lights

Did you notice in the movie, onboard the ship, they showed the big-box flashlights that they had in that era. But then on the lifeboats, the lifeboat officers had regular tube flashlights like we use today. Was this an error? Or did the smaller tube flashlights also exist back then? Marc Smilen, Dania Fl 74.166.156.250 (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

When Jack rips the bench from the floor

What was the construction method of the decks? Was it wood planks and plywood laid over the steel beams? or did they lay sheet metal over the deck beams? When Jack rips the bench from the floor to crash thru the locked gate, we see a piece of plywood ripped from the floor. Is the plywood accurate to the construction of the ship, or was it just a piece of broken movie-set floor that stayed in the shot? Marc S., Dania Florida 74.166.156.250 (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible contradiction

Perhaps I'm missing something but it appears that there is an apparent contradiction in the production section. The paragraph talking about the PCP poisoning starts out by saying that an "angry crew member" did it but concludes by saying the assailant was never caught. If s/he was never caught how can we know it was an angry crew member? SÆdon^talk 21:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Only the crew was around. And it couldn't have been a joke, so the crew member was likely disgruntled. 31.193.133.160 (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Father Francis Browne

Maybe somebody might want to add a paragraph on Father Browne? He was a jesuit priest who took a lot of photos of people on Titanic, before getting off the ship in Ireland. He wanted to sail to America, but his church superiors messaged to him to get off the ship. A bunch of stuff in Cameron's movie were re-enactments of people and things seen in Father Browne's photos. The young boy spinning a top on the deck, while his father watches, was one of James Cameron's recreations of things from Father Brownes photos. Marc S, Dania Fl206.192.35.125 (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

We'd need a source that talks about Father Browne's pictures in relation to the film. Doyou have one? Doniago (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There are many websites on Father's Browne's photos. Marc S. Dania Fl. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

...such as? If there's a reliable source that discusses the pictures in relation to the film, then pertinent information can be added to the article, but simply saying that sources exist doesn't really help. Doniago (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Doniago. Can't you just accept things? Please do not keep removing stuff you don't agree with! Wallie (talk) 08:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Nearer my God to Thee

Doniago seems to be intent on removing stuff he disagrees with. There was a note that Nearer my God to Thee was not necessarily the last song played. Further, the actual tune is in dispute. This is well mentioned in the article "Nearer my God to Thee". It is more likely that the actual tune was "Horbury" as depicted in "A Night to Remember" rather than "Bethany" as shown in this film. Doniago has accused me of making this up - to use his expression "original research". I find this term to be a sneaky way of calling one a liar. Nasty! Wallie (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Donagio hasn't asked you to do anything unreasonable. It's a GA rated article, all factual claims should be sourced. Betty Logan (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"NEARER MY GOD TO THEE" WAS REPORTED AS AS SONG PLAYED DURING THE SINKING, IN THE NEWSPAPERS OF THE ERA. Marc S., Dania Fl. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you're yelling, but you're welcome to reinsert the information and list an actual newspaper as a citation. See WP:Citing sources for information on how to do this. I'm sure editors here would be happy to help as well. Doniago (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

So what? "Was reported" means nothing, and you know it. There are at least six tunes that "Nearer My God to Thee" can be set to. One of them is "Bethany". The Independent says the Cameron's version might be "Further my God from Thee". [8] It is a pity that you Doniago have to remove anything that disagrees with your own POV, and call me a liar also. Pathetic!! Wallie (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If you have such a problem with me take it to WP:ANI; this isn't the place for it. If you're planning to do that I'd recommend that you review the previous ANI filing made against me for my removal of unsourced material in the past; a link to said discussion can be found on my Talk page. As Betty already pointed out, I am well within my rights to remove material for which no reliable source has been provided. This has everything to do with Wikipedia's verifiability policies, which I've already strongly recommended you review, and nothing to do with a POV...exactly what POV would I be trying to enforce, anyway? Unless you can provide a diff, you have no right to accuse me of calling you a liar either; frankly you sound hysterical. The next time you make such unwarranted accusations I will consider it a personal attack. Doniago (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You said what I did was "original research". That is a coded way saying I made it up, or calling me a liar. The whole thing is that the tune played in Cameron's film is Bethany, NOT Nearer my God to Thee. As stated in the Wikipedia article: Quote "Wallace Hartley, the ship's band leader, who like all the musicians on board went down with the ship, was known to like the song and to wish to have it performed at his funeral. He was British and Methodist, and would have been familiar with both the "Horbury" and "Propior Deo" versions, but not with "Bethany"" . And yet you call what I am saying "original research" going further calling my "hysterical". Just because Cameron uses "Bethany" as the tune, doesn't mean that it is so. You accuse ME of original research, but not Cameron. You are not accepting anything I say or provide as proof. You just remove text. When I disagree, you bring up all sorts of bogus rules, like providing "verifiability". You would not accept the testimony of a person there or their relatives, as that would be "original research" in your view. Again, my accusations of you are not unwarranted. You did attack me directly accusing me of "original reseach" and well aware of what that would convey to others about my character. You have also repeatedly removed what you call my "original research". Wallie (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand that "original research" is standard phrasing on Wikipedia for "unsourced material presented". It means that rather than posting the results of someone elses research, properly cited. you have looked at the matter and come to a conclusion yourself. It's not an accusation fo lying, so much as an accusation fo you posting your own conclusions rather than those of a recognised source. You may well be right, but until you have a source it has no palce on wikipedia.SPACKlick (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth". It doesn't matter whether the information you would like to contribute to an article is true if readers cannot confirm it via third-party sources...and if they could confirm it, a citation should be provided so that they know where to look. Wallie - I noted that you once again added information without provided a reliable third-party source. Please stop doing this. If you continue to do so I will be forced to conclude that you are intentionally being disruptive. At this time I would very much like not to believe that. Doniago (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It is you who are being disruptive. It is very easy to question everything. You say "veritablility not truth". They are the same, are they not? It something is verifable, then it is also true, ie, the truth. Don't play games!!!! You will cancel anything I put in now. It is easy to say that a source is not valid. I quoted the Independent, and you do not accept that as a valid newspaper. Why? You are playing games and enjoying it, I'm afraid. With people like you on Wikipedia trying to thwart well intentioned editors like me, what hope is there? I find your whole tone unhelpful and confrontational. Wallie (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No, verifiability and truth are not the same thing. Again, please review WP:V, which goes into this at length, and stop making personal attacks. You did not properly cite any sources while adding material. If you're not going to look over Wikipedia policies, is it really surprising that your edits may not be accepted because they're violating the very policies you're apparently not reviewing? Doniago (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I give up. Now you talk of "violation". I am not a "violator". This is sick. How dare you use such loaded words. Wallie (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

To all out there. I have tried to be reasonable, and all I get is the so called Wikipedia rule book thrown at me. This is about writing an article, not legal stuff. There are too many people acting as policemen and clobbering the work of well meaning editors. As for the case in point, I provided the reference [9]. It goes into the whole discussion in great depth. A lot of people don't realize that "Nearer My God to Thee" is a set of words, not a tune. The words are set to many tunes, including ""Propior Deo", which is and English (methodist) tune and is also inscribed on the tomb of the band leader on the Titanic. "Horbury" is another English tune, and is a possibility. "Bethany" is played in this film and is American. This is important, as it shows up limitations in this film and its authenticity. Wallie (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Having seen the source you provide above, I believe there is room in the article for a cited reference to the tune being Mason's Bethany as opposed to other versions. With Inline citation. None of this has been personal attack Wallie, it's just Wiki Policy SPACKlick (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Have found several more sources. Most appropriate 2 included in the article (although I may have misformated one of them). I think the verifiability and Original Research issue is settled now, yes? SPACKlick (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks good (though I can't speak for the possible misformatting)! Thanks for your help! Doniago (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy

Other Titanic films such as A Night to Remember have a historical accuracy section, wouldn't it be a good idea for this page to have one too? Apart from anything this would be a good place to thrash out the historical inaccuracies of the film.Gymnophoria (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Such sections are okay if listed inaccuracies are sourced to third-party reliable sources, not only for verifiability, but also to establish that they're in some manner considered significant. What happens too often is that they become a laundry list of items with no sourcing or indication that they are anything other than trivial inconsistencies. Doniago (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Titanic Love Story

Hello, i just received new informations concerning the Titanic film based on the love story. I have found that there really was a similar love story on board of the Titanic by 2 Lebanese people who were in Love: Zahia (Rose) & Boutros (Jack). Just like the film,when the ship was sinking, zahia went 3 times back to her lover Boutros to be with him but was forced again to return to the lifeboat and when the ship finally sank and Boutros was in the water, Zahia jumped from the lifeboat and died with him in the ocean. Her sister who was in a lifeboat and saw what happened documented this back in 1912. The following is the link of the video and an Arabic article about this, plz watch and read them carefully: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkhkaayvRBA&feature=share http://www.aljoumhouria.com/articles/view/38135/375

Waiting For your reply, Thank you very much, Marc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.68.231 (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't read the article unfortunately, and am in no position to judge whether the source is reliable. Is this film specifically mentioned in the article? If not, we need a source establishing that this is anything beyond coincidental. Doniago (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Page views on the centenary day

This article was one of eleven Titanic-related articles linked from the Featured Article box on Wikipedia's Main Page on 15 April 2012, the centenary of the Titanic disaster. I thought editors here might be interested to know the level of usage the articles got on that day:

• RMS Titanic - 430,012 page views
• Sinking of the RMS Titanic - 177,040
• Titanic (1997 film) - 132,054
• Passengers of the RMS Titanic - 38,273
• RMS Carpathia - 33,952
• Wreck of the RMS Titanic - 30,051
• Lifeboats of the RMS Titanic - 13,270
• List of films about the RMS Titanic - 10,226
• Crew of the RMS Titanic - 9,541
• RMS Titanic in popular culture - 8,418
• Changes in safety practices following the RMS Titanic disaster - 4,095
• Total page views for Featured box articles - 886,932

Well done to everyone who contributed to making Wikipedia's commemoration of the Titanic such a big success! Prioryman (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Critical reception for 3D

Resolved

 – Sections and spin-off article merged

There should be a critical reception section about the re-release mentioning whether people thought it was necessary or not, the special effects etc... Reviews are already coming in: The Washington Post,The Boston Globe,Rolling Stone,TIME,WSJ, etc...

A new section? A new section or subsection isn't needed for that. It can be added to the critical reception section that's already present or to the 3-D conversion and 2012 re-release section. Wikipedia film articles aren't supposed to have two reception sections. While a subsection going over the reviews for the re-release could be added as part of the critical reception section, that doesn't seem necessary when there is already an area in the release section discussing the re-release. Just like the 3D box office information doesn't have to be placed with the original box office information (see the section above), the reviews for the 3D conversion don't need to be placed with the reviews for the original release. 176.227.199.34 (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I started gathering reviews and put them in the "3-D conversion and 2012 re-release" section but I don't think the subsection is alright for now so if someone could give it a look... --Sofffie7 (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You added the critical reception heading as simply bolded words.[10] Now someone changed it into a solid heading (one that shows up in the table of contents),[11] which almost always happens when someone adds a section title the way you did. This is unnecessary and makes the release section look sloppy. We just got through removing the duplicate 3D release heading from the box office section, and this one should also be removed. There isn't a need for it, just like there isn't a need for a 3D box office subheading, because all of this information is relatively small and fits fine in the 3-D conversion and 2012 re-release section without any qualifiers. The title of the section already tells us that everything about the 3D release is going to be found there, so why is division needed when this is the case and when the information isn't so big that it requires subsection division? I don't believe it will become big either, unless someone adds a lot of repetitiveness, because there isn't much to say about the 3D version. Besides the heading being unnecessary, when editing that section, it will redirect editors to the main critical reception section after edits are saved because the main section has the same exact title and exists before the duplicate. So please remove the duplicate, unnecessary heading. 31.193.133.160 (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I've merged the sections and removed some of the dated info while I was at it. If I missed anything/removed something that you feel should be in let then let me know. Betty Logan (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Someone added a link to the main article for the 3D version - Titanic in 3D - and that article can be used for a lot of additional information about the 3D version. I'm not sure that it should exist, since it's the same film, only in 3D, and I said before that I don't believe that there is much to say about the 3D version, but maybe that article can mostly serve as a holder for the 3D effects that went into the film. 31.193.133.160 (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, if we're to keep that article, maybe the box office material in the infobox of this article should be restricted to the original box office run while the 3D article deals with the original run combined with the 3D run as it currently does? Or is that too difficult to manage? Nonsensical? 31.193.133.160 (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is much point to that other article, at least not yet. No other film with a 3D release or a reissue has its own article and there was a huge overlap between the two articles. I think it is probably better to keep it all in this article and if the section becomes too big we can consider an article split then. Betty Logan (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I know that you redirected the 3D article here, Ms. Betty, but there is something that should be saved from it. It's the following: The only scene entirely redone, for the 3D re-release, was Rose's view of the night sky at sea, on the morning of April 15, 1912. The scene was replaced with an accurate view of the night-sky star pattern, including the Milky Way, adjusted for the location in the North Atlantic Ocean in April 1912. The change was prompted by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson (commentator for public television science shows), who had criticized the scene. He agreed to send film director Cameron a corrected view of the sky, which was the basis of the new scene.

I'm not sure if the picture that was used for that text should also be included here. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

My redirect was reverted anyway. The article fork is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Titanic_in_3D; if it is decided to reinstate the redirect we can merge that paragraph into the 3D section in this article. Betty Logan (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with not having duplicate headings, although, at full disclosure, the above IP is related to me. Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Taking out the cast in the intro and infobox

I can understand taking out the stars in the intro,[12][13] although this is the only article where I've seen the intro limit the number of stars that way. But why remove them from the infobox?[14] I can agree that a few shouldn't have been listed. But then there are the ones that had significant roles in the film, like Old Rose. I believe some editors may be looking at the word "starring" in the wrong way. The actors don't have to be the biggest stars in order to be "starring." 31.193.133.159 (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing personal, but Old Rose's role is minor and less significant than many other parts. I'm not sure what you mean about "starring" though. The lede section covers the high points, right? So the major roles belong there and the others are covered later, just to make it readable. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, and I'll admit I don't know whether it's germane to this specific argument, current consensus seems to be that we go by the names featured on posters for the movie. If Old Rose is listed, I say keep her in. If not, remove her. Doniago (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

How is she less significant than many other parts? And while she may be less significant than many other parts, she's not less significant than many other roles in the film. Without her, the story doesn't come together as well as it does. Cameron's been explicit about that. There are high points that do include her character. The four main characters that are really the centerpiece of the story are Rose, Jack, Cal, and Old Rose (which is still obviously Rose). But I'm not arguing about the intro right now. Why can't some of the other actors, especially Gloria Stuart and Billy Zane, be listed in the infobox like additional casts are listed in the infoboxes of all the other film articles on Wikipedia? Why does one editor get to come along and remove them with some vague edit summary about MGM (I suspect his belief about what true stars are), when the article has been just fine the other way for most or all of its existence? When I said that some editors may be looking at the word "starring" in the wrong way, I meant that actors don't have to have a lead role in order to be "starring." When sources refer to Gloria Stuart or Billy Zane, for example, they say they starred in Titanic. Not just that they were in it.

Mr. Doniago, if that were typical/consensus, then I'd see it in most other film articles on Wikipedia. I don't. It's not even that way in Cameron's followup Avatar (2009 film). 31.193.133.159 (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - that other articles handle something in one way doesn't mean that they're correct or in accordance with current consensus. I stated my understanding of the current consensus when disputes arise about this sort of thing. If we have a better idea we're not bound by that consensus. I'm not even necessarily advocating going by that consensus; frankly I'd like to hear from other editors and consider "go by the poster" as a fall-back position. Doniago (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the poster (the original one sheet) is a solid source for the infobox. For the lede/intro, I believe it should be the highest standard: major roles only. Listing Gloria Stuart ahead of the cinematographer is not a good sense of proportion. And if our consensus differs from other articles, I am fine with that, too. We have good editors here. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. Doniago (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Doniago, you used WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS first and it can be a valid argument to use as it even says. I believed that I used it in a valid way here.

Mr. Ring Cinema, I disagree with your assertion about what should go into the intro and it's apparent that most other Wikipedia film articles don't follow your practice either. Gloria Stuart is certainly ahead of the cinematographer. We're talking cast/characters here. But, like I said, I'm not arguing about the intro right now. What about the infobox? Look at my initial and subsequent questions regarding the infobox. Look at the link I provided to an editor removing all the additional names. I said that I can agree that a few shouldn't have been listed, but I don't agree with removing the ones who are the centerpiece of the love story. The editor who removed them isn't a usual editor of this article and someone will eventually add them back to the infobox anyway. But I'll drop the topic since it's clear that having this article deviate from others for no apparent reason other than you prefer it this way is just fine with the both of you. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you on the infobox but I don't mind it this way, either. (Are we deviating from other articles or are they deviating from us? The other articles are probably good, too. This isn't a tax form.) Thanks for your thoughts. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm certain that the above IP is my brother, just to let you guys know. He likely read a past discussion I had with Ring Cinema about the intro and felt I'd want Old Rose and Cal noted there. While I do, Ring Cinema and I had already compromised about that. Someone else added them back months later. I agree about the infobox, but, like Ring Cinema, I don't mind it the way it is. It's not difficult for people to scroll down to the Cast section, after all. Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphan reference.

There is a reference, currently [21] "Ballard, pp. 40–41" (Historical characters, 3rd paragraph) -- and there is no "Ballard" to which this refers.

Also: it would be nice to have hash-links to specific lifeboats, where appropriate, to article: Lifeboats_of_the_RMS_Titanic ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Ghosts_of_the_Abyss

Some mention should be made referring to Cameron's filming of the wreck being made into the IMAX documentary: Ghosts of the Abyss -- Perhaps paragraph 3 or 4 of the 'Writing and inspiration' section?
~Thanks, Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Or, maybe not. Most of the footage is from Cameron's 2001 expedition. Maybe a footnote? ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Footnote of what? The (Ghosts of the Abyss) film was a completely separate endeavor. SpigotMap 00:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Cast section

The cast section, the historical part anyway, seems to be a combination of extensive retelling of the plot, comparisons to real world events, and in the case of the guy named Cosmo, a historical novella about things not to do with the film. It could do with a thorough cull to realign it with the fact the film is not a historical documentary. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

What you are suggesting specifically, Darkwarriorblake? It makes a lot of sense to me to contrast Cameron's film versions with the real-life versions, and most of the text doing that isn't much. Anything that is irrelevant should definitely be removed. Flyer22 (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Not many of them are contrasting information. As an example:

• • • Martin Jarvis as Sir Cosmo Duff-Gordon: A Scottish baronet who is rescued in Lifeboat 1. Duff-Gordon's conduct was much criticized in the years after the disaster. He and his wife were among only 12 people in Lifeboat #1, whose capacity was 40. It was suggested that he had boarded the emergency boat in violation of the "women and children first" policy, that the boat had failed to return to rescue those struggling in the water, and that his offer of five pounds to each of the lifeboat's crew might be viewed as a bribe to keep their distance from those still in the water. The Duff-Gordons at the time (and his wife's secretary in a letter written at the time and rediscovered in 2007) stated that there had been no women or children waiting to board in the vicinity of the launching of their boat, and there is confirmation that lifeboat 1 of the Titanic was almost empty and that First Officer William Murdoch was apparently glad to offer Duff-Gordon and his wife and her secretary a place (simply to fill it) after they had asked if they could get on. Duff-Gordon denied that his offer of money to the lifeboat crew represented a bribe. The British Board of Trade's inquiry into the disaster accepted Duff-Gordon's denial of bribing the crew, but maintained that, if the emergency boat had rowed towards the people who were in the water, it might very well have been able to rescue some of them.[30][31]

The bold is nothing to do with the film but instead a history lesson about that character in reality, not contrasting his role but merely expanding upon it with out of universe, unrelated info. So basically the entire bold section can and should go.

• • Simon Crane as Fourth Officer Joseph Boxhall: The officer in charge of firing flares and manning Lifeboat 2 during the sinking. He is shown on the bridge wings helping the seamen firing the flares. - Bold is plot
  • Jonathan Hyde as Joseph Bruce Ismay: Ismay is portrayed as a rich, ignorant upper-class man. In the film, he uses his position as White Star Line managing director to influence Captain Smith to go faster with the prospect of an earlier arrival in New York and favorable press attention; while this action appears in popular portrayals of the disaster, it is unsupported by evidence.[22][23] After the collision, he struggles to comprehend that his "unsinkable" ship is doomed, later sneaking on board a lifeboat to escape. - The first I'd just argue is OR, the second again is just plot.
  • Eric Braeden as John Jacob Astor IV: A first-class passenger whom Rose calls the richest man on the ship. The film depicts Astor and his 18-year-old wife Madeleine as being introduced to Jack by Rose in the first-class dining saloon. During the introduction, Astor asks if Jack is connected to the 'Boston Dawsons', a question Jack neatly deflects by saying that he is instead affiliated with the Chippewa Falls Dawsons. Astor is last seen as the Grand Staircase glass dome implodes and water surges in. In reality, Astor died after being crushed when one of the ship's funnels collapsed.[24] - Plot again.

These are just a few examples but you can see just with them a big block of text can go. And for at least several of them, they could quite easily be turned into prose like:

Other characters based on actual figures include: Paul Brightwell as Quartermaster Robert Hichens, One of the ship's six quartermasters and at the ship's wheel at the time of collision. He is in charge of lifeboat 6. He refuses to go back and pick up survivors after the sinking and eventually the boat is commandeered by Molly Brown.; Martin East as Reginald Lee, a crow's nest lookout The other lookout in the crow's nest. He survives the sinking.; Simon Crane as Fourth Officer Joseph Boxhall, a ship officer : The officer in charge of firing flares and manning Lifeboat 2 during the sinking. He is shown on the bridge wings helping the seamen firing the flares.; Gregory Cooke as Jack Phillips, the ship's senior wireless operator on board the Titanic whom Captain Smith ordered to send the distress signal.; Craig Kelly as Harold Bride, a junior wireless operator on board the Titanic.; Terry Forrestal as Chief Engineer Joseph G. Bell: Bell and his men worked until the last minute to keep the lights and the power on in order for distress signals to get out. Bell and all of the engineers died in the bowels of the Titanic. ; and Kevin De La Noy as Third Officer Herbert Pitman.: In charge of Lifeboat 5.

The strikes are all the unnecessary plot regurgitation stuff, the rest turned into simple and neater prose, again just from a selection of the entire list. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Some of the Sir Cosmo Duff-Gordon information was added by Nandt1, who edited the article from August 23 through August 28 of this year. You might want to invite Nandt1 to this discussion. I am okay with you being WP:BOLD and fixing that section up in the way you see fit with respect to our guidelines and policies. Anyone who objects can always state their case here on the talk page or use the WP:BRD process specifically.

With regard to contrasting information, though, see Talk:Titanic (1997 film)/Archive 5#The fictional death of Officer Murdoch and Talk:Titanic (1997 film)/Archive 5#Historical Accuracy for why it's important to mention, especially since there are reliable sources that contrast the differences. I believe that it's best to note any inaccuracies in their respective sections instead of creating a Historical accuracy section, which would leave such areas lacking in a way. Not to mention, editors, especially IPs when the article is not semi-protected, adding the inaccuracies back to the Cast section (and IPs usually do that without sources; if they do add sources at all, chances are higher that such sources will be unreliable). Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion may also be of interest with regard to the topic of inaccuracies: Talk:Titanic (1997 film)/Archive 5#Nearer my God to Thee. The editor who tried to repeatedly add that text simply needed to cite a reliable source. Flyer22 (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with the retaining of information of relevance such as significant differences between the character and teh real person, such as the guy who they had to pay out $5000 over. But a query over the song seems like an issue for a "differences between the event and the film" section or something rather than pointing out in the cast that the musician played one song in the film and this in reality. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I can see why you feel that wouldn't fit in the Cast section. I'm not sure if that's where the editor tried to place that information; I'll have to look in the edit history to see. But I definitely don't feel that we need a separate section just to address that topic in this article. A "Differences between the event and the film" section is generally a "Historical accuracy" section, and I'm against such a section because of what I stated above about noting any inaccuracies in their respective sections...and the rest of my comment on that. Flyer22 (talk) 08:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

What's with this reconstruction story? Also, please delete reference #40g

For years, I have heard about the movie being shot on a Titanic reconstruction or replica, 90% the real size according to some. Today, I decided to find out the truth about this - and so far found nothing. Googling "Titanic reconstruction" only leads me to videos that reproduce the Titanics sinking, and "Titanic replica" only leads to news of a projected "Titanic II" clone. So, I came to the Wikipedias article about the film, and there it is a photograph of an alleged Titanic reconstruction at Playas de Rosarito, Mexico... but then, when I tried to check its two references, I couldn't. One (#44 at present) cryptically refers to "Marsh and Kirkland", which I guess it must be some book by some Marsh and some Kirkland but which I wouldn't be able to find because, for starters, its title is never shown. The other reference (#40 at present), an interview by Maria Realf, it's a failure as a reference for the Titanic reconstruction - it doesn't even mention the facts for which it is a supposed reference. As a contribution to the articles rigor, I would delete this reference - not reference #40 in its entirety, but only its use related to the Titanics reconstruction (letter g at present). But as the article is protected, I am not able to do so - I am supposed to ask for it at the talk page and expose the justification for it. So there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignacio.Agulló (talk • contribs) 10:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

 Ref 40g pulled. Betty Logan (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Film plot sentenced removed

I removed the sentence saying that Lowe was unable to rescue Jack before he died of hypothermia - this is not strictly true. Rose heard Lowe shouting for survivors and released Jack's (now dead) grip on her hand and he sank. She then swam to the dead Chief Officer Wilde and used his whistle to alert Lowe that she was alive.

I've replaced the original finishing with a more accurate finishing. - MarsBarLover 21:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Lowe was unable to rescue Jack before Jack died of hypothermia (remember, Lowe and other men got on a boat to look for survivors before Jack died), but I see how this wording you changed it to is better...seeing as the wording "He saves Rose, but is unable to reach Jack before he dies from hypothermia" could be taken by readers to mean that he saves Rose and then searches for a still-alive Jack (assuming a reader would believe that Jack somehow got separated from Rose soon after he found a board for her). Flyer22 (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked your change, because, as noted, Jack was not dead when Lowe started searching for survivors. While your text didn't directly state that he was already dead and was simply noting that Lowe had already started searching, "By this point" can give the impression that Jack was dead when Lowe began the search. Flyer22 (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. - MarsBarLover 14:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Flyer22 (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Main Titanic poster

User:Kbabusr changed the official and most commonly used promotional Titanic poster to the April 2012 theatrical poster for the Titanic in 3D (2012). I reverted. This user is going around changing a lot of posters, and I can only imagine that they are being changed to versions that shouldn't be used as the main poster. Flyer22 (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

And, oh, the user apparently doesn't respond to statements on his talk page or anywhere else, and continues on with image changes, so asking him to stop is fruitless. Flyer22 (talk) 07:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)