Talk:Titanic (1997 film)
Titanic (1997 film) has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Art. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as GA-Class. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Titanic (1997 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. | |||
| Article policies | ||
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | |||
Titanic (1997 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication: Harvard Journal of Law & Technology |
Threads older than 3 months may be archived by MiszaBot I. |
Contents
References to use[edit]
- Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
- Barker, Martin; Austin, Thomas (2000). "Titanic: A Knight to Remember". From Antz To Titanic: Reinventing Film Analysis. Pluto Press. pp. 87–104. ISBN 0745315844.
- Palmer, William J. (2009). "The New Historicist Films". The Films of the Nineties: The Decade of Spin. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 24–37. ISBN 0230613446.
- Zizek, Slavoj (2001). "The Thing from Inner Space: Titanic and Deep Impact". In Gabbard, Glen O (ed.). Psychoanalysis and Film. International Journal of Psychoanalysis Key Paper Series. Karnac Books. ISBN 1855752751.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 19:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2019[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
- 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)
- (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)
- 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)
- 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)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2019[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2019[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change
Nominated for 14 Academy Awards, it tied All About Eve (1950) for the most Oscar nominations, and won 11, including the awards for Best Picture and Best Director, tying Ben-Hur (1959) for the most Oscars won by a single film.
to
Nominated for 14 Academy Awards, it tied All About Eve (1950) for the most Oscar nominations, and won 11, including the awards for Best Picture and Best Director, tying Ben-Hur (1959) and The Return of the King for the most Oscars won by a single film. 2A02:1811:CE1C:4C00:5C31:6EE8:D3F1:9057 (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Not done. It didn't tie TRotK because it hadn't been released yet. Later, in the body of the article, it does actually mention the latter. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Art
- Wikipedia GA-Class vital articles in Art
- Wikipedia GA-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia good articles
- Wikipedia CD Selection-GAs
- Media and drama good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- GA-Class film articles
- GA-Class American cinema articles
- American cinema task force articles
- GA-Class Canadian cinema articles
- Canadian cinema task force articles
- WikiProject Film articles
- GA-Class United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of High-importance
- High-importance United States articles
- Unknown-importance American cinema articles
- American cinema articles with to-do lists
- WikiProject United States articles
- GA-Class romance articles
- Top-importance romance articles
- WikiProject Romance articles
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
No comments:
Post a Comment