Film: American B‑class | ||||||||||
|
Novels: Twilight B‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Issues with the article
The plot violates WP:CRYSTAL to the fullest extent! Where is the source of this plot? (Which is necessary since the film is still in talks and a synopsis has not yet been released, as far as I'm concerned.) We cannot assume that the film will follow the book closely, as exampled by Twilight leaving out elements from the novel.- Done – Ms. Sarita Confer 23:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Some of the cast listing needs to be updated (e.g. I don't believe Angela would be considered a "new" friend of Bella's now). The character of Jacob Black needs to be removed until an actor is chosen to portray the role, or the "TBA" needs to be removed and Jacob's character described below the main cast listing, explaining that an actor has yet to be chosen.
Listing Chris Weitz as the director is speculation. The article citing this states that an "offer was out to Chris", not that he had actually accepted being the director of New Moon.- Done – Ms. Sarita Confer 23:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Citation templates need to be fixed and identical references need to be grouped under the <ref name=> tag.- Done – Ms. Sarita Confer 23:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The image of the novel needs to be removed or placed elsewhere, perhaps in a section mentioning the book. But it is in a place where it is misleading, since I highly doubt the theatrical/promotion poster will be the same as the novel cover. To my immediate knowledge, a novel cover cannot be used to depict a film adaptation.- Done – Ms. Sarita Confer 23:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I could go on and on, but then again, I have been needing something minor and new to work on. ;-) – Ms. Sarita Confer 01:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Here are the list of revisions I've made:
- I got rid of the plot section for the reasons listed above. There is no source for the plot, and we can't write a detailed plot based on the novel.
- I removed the image from the infobox. The cover of the novel is not representative of the film. Also, information regarding future films need to be sourced, so several names and listings were removed from the infobox as well.
- I revised the lead. It will need a little more work, but I will work on it later if no one else gets around to it.
- I formatted all of the references before the "Cast" section with the proper citation template.
I don't wish to step on anyone's toes. Please, if you have any questions, comments, or complaints, either leave a message here or on my talk page. – Ms. Sarita Confer 05:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the midnight showing record broken by New Moon, I actually believe that the previous record was held by Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, not The Dark Knight. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince broke The Dark Knight 's record in July 2009 with $22.2 million. 12.165.240.116 (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have a reference? The reference we currently have for this states the record was held by The Dark Knight. ς ح д r خ є 20:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Advice on making edits...
Please remember: The "Show preview" button is your friend! Use it often to make sure your edits are correct (e.g., fixing red links, spelling, grammatical errors, etc.). This will really cut down on the amount of time it takes to siphon through numerous amounts of diffs. – Ms. Sarita Confer 01:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Twilight 2
Since when has New Moon ever been called Twilight 2? I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think it should be reffered to as Twilight 2, as its proper name is New Moon 220.239.182.71 (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, New Moon is what it is most commonly known as, which is why that is the name of the article. However, no matter how "improper" some people may think the name Twilight 2 is, this alternative name should be included since some people do indeed refer to it that way. Simply doing a Google search of "Twilight 2" (in quotation marks) will show you that this name is sometimes used. Andrea (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Twilight Saga's: New Moon
There are many Sites that confirm that this is the film's final title. Check out IMDB as a ref.. --Twilight 90210 (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Before moving the page, we should try to reach a consensus on this. First of all, IMDB is not a reliable source. Second, while many sites do indeed refer to it including "The Twilight Saga's" in the title, many others also simply call it "New Moon". I would argue that the latter is used more often, and the title should thus remain as "New Moon (2009 film)" per WP:COMMONNAME. Also, one reference in particular specifically addressed this issue and said that, while the poster includes the longer title, the film's name remains as simply "New Moon". I wish I could find more sources that comment on this, but since it's the only one that specifically mentions the naming discrepancy, I count it as another point in favour of "New Moon". What does everybody else think? Andrea (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you Andrea. I think that per WP:COMMONNAME, the page should be left as "New Moon (2009 film)". – Ms. Sarita Confer 03:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it is called THE TWILIGHT SAGA: NEW MOON, not The Twilight Saga's New Moon. Jal11497 (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Meyer Sued
I've seen this story regarding Meyer plagiarizing Twilight's concept and production on this film has been halted... [1] -download | sign! 00:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Turns out that's just a rumour that has gotten out of hand. Meyer confirmed the story as false, and Summit Entertainment sent a message to some of the major fan sites stating it as false as well. Andrea (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Quil....
.... is not the last Quiluete to learn of his wolf heritage. Collin and Brady are as of the end of the series.
96.49.66.117 (talk) 04:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Hawke 10 May 2009
Eclipse
Since we are quickly aproaching the date when Eclipse starts filming, My profile has the rough draft for Eclipse. If you can help edit that, we can use that as the film page when it does start filming. User:ChaosMaster16/Eclipse 00:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
WE ARE NOT IT'S IN LIKE 2010 OR 2011!!
(Coke12 (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)) :)
- As a friendly reminder, please remember to assume good faith. ChaosMaster16 isn't suggesting we create the article today, just to work on it in Chaos' subpage if we have time. That way, when Eclipse starts filming, we can just move the information from the subpage and make it a real article, with most of the work already done. Liquidluck (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Budget
How can this film possibly only cost 50 million dollars. The first film cost 37 million and had shitty effects. Did you see the wolf effects in the first trailer. I'm betting the budget has increased substantially since half a year ago, when the budget was first projected. Remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.148.8 (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually you're right, I know I read somewhere that they long ago surpassed the budget that was originally promised for the film. I'm going to remove it until a more recent source can be found. Andrea (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
According to this article: http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/film/twilight-fans-hungry-for-more/2009/04/17/1239475042640.html?page=2 - the movie's budget is $51 million. I know this really isn't a recent source - but a recent article in Yahoo! Movies said, "While "New Moon" is a bigger production than "Twilight," the budget is still below average for a Hollywood blockbuster". So, I guess the average budget of a blockbuster is $100 million, so umm $51 million is right.
The Yahoo! Movies article can be found here: http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/movie-talk-new-moon-new-actors.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mo HH92 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
~ Mo HH92 Talk 09:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- The reason I removed the $50 mil budget is that this is the estimate that was made a long time ago, at the beginning of pre-production in December (see here). In February, Catherine Hardwicke commented that New Moon had already "gone way beyond" the budget she had initially been promised when asked to do the film (see here). It seems unlikely that $51 million is what she meant by "way beyond"; of course, Hardwicke isn't necessarily the best source on this either. For these reasons, I thought it best to remove the budget while we are still guessing and to readd it later when we can be sure. Andrea (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
In a recent article on E! Online, it says that the budget of NM is between $50 - $70 million. http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/ask_the_answer_bitch/b148487_what_new_moon_sucks.html
Thoughts?Blytonite (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- I say we add the range into the infobox for now. Once we know a more exact number, we can change it to be more specific. Andrea (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Andrea.Blytonite (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I have seen several sources that cite the budget as $50 million, so I guess that *is* the exact budget, so I'll just change it to $50 million and add that it is an estimade. Another source I just found is this: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-newmoon21-2009nov21,0,7638993.story Mo HH92 Talk 07:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Victoria
There was a recent report that Rachel Lefevre will not be reprising her role in Eclipse, she'll be replaced with Bryce Dallas Howard. But she IS starring in New Moon, there's no need to change her from the cast list of Nomads. Jo Cullen (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Poster
Shouldn't the poster centering on the love triangle, uploaded by Sergay, be used instead of this new image, since it (the love triangle one) is the main promotional poster for this film and since the love triangle is a significant part of it? Flyer22 (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. The previous poster is much more appropriate since it represents the film best. All of the characters in the current poster, except for Bella Swan and maybe Edward, have a relatively minor part in this film. The plot is about Bella's growing relationship with Jacob and her continued feelings for Edward. Using an image with just the Cullen family is misrepresenting the film. Rocksey (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'd have to agree as well. The poster that is being used now was released along with 2 others, with all 3 featuring a different set of characters. Seems like this was done for the purpose of releasing new images of each group of characters. The previous version is the poster that tends to be used when advertising the film. Andrea (talk) 05:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for weighing in on this as well, Sergay. I went ahead and reverted to the original image. If the uploader of the other image wants to debate it, he or she is more than welcome to do so here on this talk page (of course). I invited that person here to discuss it when I invited you. Flyer22 (talk) 09:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I’m stunned.
That this article hasn’t received even close to the level of vandalism other Twilight related articles have. But you can bet this wont last when the film is released…It will be all out war between its (Sad) haters and its (Equally sad) super fangirlz. Just keep an eye out…--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Environmentalism
When will this article discuss the fact it's considered rubbish pseudo literature that endorses fictionalized threats of environment issues? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.109.106 (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- There's literary criticism on the Twilight series pages, and you're welcome to leave any links to reviews criticizing the environmentalism in the film. If the reviewer is a notable film critic, the review will be added. Liquidluck (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Parental Ratings
Shouldn't we add a section detailing the children ratings for this movie worldwide? I was expecting this info when I came to the page, had to go to IMDB to get it. --Cumbiagermen (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Unless there is a significant reason to (for example, the studio worked to achieve a specific rating), the model of style for films says not to. Since each country has a different system, it would become a very long list of stats. There's a link to IMDB with its parental advisory section at the bottom of the page. Liquidluck (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Critical reception
I've added a few more snippets from reviews in the "reception" section and assembled and re-organized the entire section.Mo HH92 Talk 09:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to me that for a film that got a 30% Rotten rating, the critical reception section consists mostly of cherrypicked positive reviews, with only a single, 'mixed' review to show the negative reception. Just feels biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.168.116 (talk) 13:15, November 21, 2009
- Here are the reviews used in this article
- The Vancouver Sun (good)
- The Cleveland Scene (good)
- Daily Mirror (good)
- The Washington Post (good)
- Seattle Post-Intelligencer (good)
- The New York Times (good)
- Variety (good)
- Time Out New York (mixed)
- San Francisco Chronicle (mixed)
- Digital Spy (mixed)
- Rotten Tomatoes (bad)
- Well I'd have to agree with the above comments that the critical reception section seem biased. Surely with only a 30% Rotten Tomatoes rating there are many notable negative reviews out there. I'll do some searching as well. UPDATE: The Vancouver Sun review was written by a teenager, not a critic who works for the newspaper. I am therefore removing it. Andrea (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Scarce, if it's notable bad reviews you're looking for, look no further than Roger Ebert (1/4), Richard Roper (2/5), UGO (C-), BET (C), The Associated Press (no rating system)...I could go on and on and on, but these are some of the most notable I could find. No doubt there's more, though. --ToyoWolf (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with what ToyoWolf said, and the critical reception currently is horribly biased. I would like it if the Critical Reception section mentioned a review from Film School Rejects. Something like: 'Film School Rejects gave it a C-, saying that aside from appeasing the fans and a few action scenes it was "poorly structured, poorly paced, [had] poorly executed CGI," and unlikeable characters, calling Bella "a caricature of an overly dramatic, perpetually confused teen."' If someone could insert that sentence for me, I'd be grateful. Awegbaweafwefa (talk) 08:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, I came to the discussion page solely to see if this section was serious - a cursory glance at Rotten Tomatoes before visiting this article made me choke on the obvious bias. Could someone try to work some of ToyoWolf's suggested reviews into this section? Mkubica (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- In response to Mkubica, I'd be more than happy to make the additions, but alas, the page is locked. Awegbaweafwefa (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Here's an update on the reviews
- Cleveland Scene (good)
- The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (good)
- Variety (good)
- Time Out New York (mixed)
- The Washington Post (mixed)
- San Francisco Chronicle (mixed)
- Digital Spy (mixed)
- Rotten Tomatoes (bad)
Yahoo Movies has compiled a list of reviews from some respectable news sources, including the Chicago Sun-Times, the New York Times, etc. Almost all of them mixed and negative. Awegbaweafwefa (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- And?... ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 01:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- And... more valuable sources for the critical reception section? Awegbaweafwefa (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:Logical quotation
What do you all make of WP:Logical quotation? Most people who edit here do not know about it and subsequently do not follow it. I applied it to the Reception section (well, in the way some editors here interpret it), but was basically reverted by Sergay on that front. Sergay reasoned that I was wrong because periods are a part of the quotes I changed. But I point out that when doing sentence fragments, Wikipedia seems to prefer that the period be outside of the quote. The explanation of what logical quotation is even states that "[w]hen quoting a sentence fragment that ends in a period, some judgment is required: if the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside," which I feel makes Sergay right on having reverted me. But notice that it says "can be," as if a person would not be wrong to do the opposite of that. My main point is that I still see plenty of articles, when up for good or featured article status, changed to have periods outside of the quote for any type of sentence fragment in order to achieve good or featured article status; some Wikipedia editors state that the period should always be outside of the quote when dealing with any sentence fragment. This has been debated time and time again at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, and has been called American vs. British style. Flyer22 (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry about that revert. I read WP:Logical quotation after you made your change, and I guess I interpreted it differently than you did. Personally, I have always thought that it makes more sense include a period inside the quotation marks if that period is indeed part of the quote. Otherwise, you are just cutting the quotation one character short for the sake of it, only to put a period at the end of the sentence anyways. Obviously people have different opinions about this though. Since there appears to be no consensus on Wikipedia over which method is best, could this really prevent the article from reaching GA or FA status? Andrea (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- No need to apologize for the revert, Sergay. I am not sure if a thing such as how editors interpret logical quotation would keep this article from reaching GA or FA status. But, as I stated, I have seen articles here up for GA or FA where the editor/editors reviewing the article will state that the article is not in logical quotation format; the editor/editors working on it will then, of course, alter the article to comply with the logical quotation idea (meaning...the period outside of the quote when dealing with any sentence fragment). There was a recent debate at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style about changing Wikipedia's guideline about logical quotation, but the logical quotation formatting won out. And now I see that there is currently another debate about it there.
- FYI, it's not good practice to go outside of a discussion to specifically 'recruit' people who already agree with you. Ilkali (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- People come to the MoS talk page to alert them of disputes elsewhere all the time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- FYI, I did not go outside of discussion to specifically 'recruit' people who already agree with me. I follow the logical quotation guideline and am for following it until it is changed. The editor I 'recruited' is not completely for following it, and largely objects to it. Furthermore, I sought out this person because I am familiar with this person and know that this person has been involved in plenty of these discussions. Flyer22 (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Better to do what Darkfrog24 mentions above. Don't go to a specific user, go to a relevant talk page. Ilkali (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Better to do whatever works best. People here at Wikipedia go to a specific editor for thoughts on matters all the time...and in the way that I did...without bias to "their side." If I am looking for a single take on something that is opposite of my take on that something, then that is what I set out to do and is what I feel is best. If I want to pull in more than one person on something like this, in order for it to most definitely be some long, drawn-out debate, then I will seek out more than one person (either individually or through a relevant talk page). Clearly, I was simply going for a single person who feels differently than I do on this matter. Sometimes, when asking for assistance on a relevant and very busy talk page...you still get no assistance. Asking it of someone or of people you know will most likely respond is sometimes best, as long as you are being fair. All in all, I was trying to be fair to Sergay. I have seen so many editors decide not to follow the logical quotation guideline when informed of it, that I truly considered Sergay's thoughts on all this. Flyer22 (talk) 09:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Better to do what Darkfrog24 mentions above. Don't go to a specific user, go to a relevant talk page. Ilkali (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- FYI, it's not good practice to go outside of a discussion to specifically 'recruit' people who already agree with you. Ilkali (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- ...and that other editor would be me. To clear things up, American punctuation places periods and commas inside adjacent quotation marks almost all the time, but British punctuation can put them inside or outside depending on whether they're part of the quoted material (like Americans do with question marks). Wikipedia adopted "logical" quotation, which is similar to the British style, but for not for good reasons. The main argument against American punctuation is the idea "People will get confused if we put the commas inside," except that this confusion doesn't happen in practice. That's why the system has worked for 150 years.
- When I write that Bruce Springsteen, nicknamed "the Boss," sings "Born in the USA," does anyone in their right mind think that the comma is part of the nickname or the name of the song? If I write "The prime minister said that the treaty was 'reasonable,'" does anyone get confused about what the prime minister said? No. It's understood that that's just how the language works. It's just like how British spelling doesn't make people think that "centre" is pronounced "senn-treh."
- In fine, this is an article written in American English about an American movie that's based on an American book. We should use proper, correct American punctuation and put the periods and commas inside.
- And as for GA and FA, plenty of GA/FA articles use American punctuation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Why is this even a discussion? Articles on Wikipedia should follow the MoS. Simple. Ilkali (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- The MoS is a guideline. This doesn't mean that we should ignore it, but Wikipedia's rules allow us to write the article differently if we can get a consensus that there is a good reason to do so. The MoS having no logical reason to prevent American articles from following American punctuation rules is a good reason. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for weighing in on this, Darkfrog. Your help has been much appreciated, in showing us that it is not absolutely necessary that Sergay be reverted on these changes. I am aware that plenty of GA and FA articles here at Wikipedia use American punctuation, sometimes because an editor changed it that way after the article reached GA or FA status, but I was simply presenting the reasons I changed the Reception section in the way that I did (regarding this matter) and whether it should most definitely be followed. After all, it is a pain to have to go through the whole article and put it in logical quotation format due to the insistence of editors reviewing the article's quality. Flyer22 (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- The Portal article showed a lot of American punctuation the day it was featured on the front page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for weighing in on this, Darkfrog. Your help has been much appreciated, in showing us that it is not absolutely necessary that Sergay be reverted on these changes. I am aware that plenty of GA and FA articles here at Wikipedia use American punctuation, sometimes because an editor changed it that way after the article reached GA or FA status, but I was simply presenting the reasons I changed the Reception section in the way that I did (regarding this matter) and whether it should most definitely be followed. After all, it is a pain to have to go through the whole article and put it in logical quotation format due to the insistence of editors reviewing the article's quality. Flyer22 (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- The MoS is a guideline. This doesn't mean that we should ignore it, but Wikipedia's rules allow us to write the article differently if we can get a consensus that there is a good reason to do so. The MoS having no logical reason to prevent American articles from following American punctuation rules is a good reason. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Your "logical reason" amounts to 'the MoS is wrong, so I'll ignore it'. Articles on Wikipedia should follow the MoS, unless there's some specific, overriding reason why that article should have special treatment. There is no such thing here. Ilkali (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Correct. The MoS does happen to be wrong. Just look at almost every American English style guide from Chicago to MLA to APA. Wikipedia supports going outside the guideline when it will make for a better user experience. That is what will happen with American punctuation on this article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Your "logical reason" amounts to 'the MoS is wrong, so I'll ignore it'. Articles on Wikipedia should follow the MoS, unless there's some specific, overriding reason why that article should have special treatment. There is no such thing here. Ilkali (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, the use of the logical quotation, as prescribed by Wikipedia's Manual of Style, has long been the practice on Wikipedia and has broad community support. The style is not familiar to some editors educated in American English, although it is used in some American publications (especially technical journals and in technical writing); this style is widely used in the other national varieties of English. The reasons Wikipedia has adopted this guideline are explained in the guideline itself, and as stated there are not based on the choice of one English variety over another.
Every few months, an American editor comes to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to question this guideline and occasionally challenges it; these discussions have always ended with broad community consensus to retain this guideline. Also, this is not one of the many matters of style for which the Manual of Style authorizes alternative usages. The MOS is a Wikipedia guideline because it has broad community support, and editors are expected to follow it unless there is a strong reason not to in a particular instance. The personal preferences of some editors is not a sufficient reason to depart from a community guideline. Likewise, the fact that some pages in Wikipedia do not comply with this guideline is not a justification for deliberately departing from it.
Darkfrog24 has long been campaigning to change this guideline, but consensus has been strongly against him. In fact, Darkfrog24 again just proposed changing this guideline to vary the usage based on which national variety of English an article uses. However, again, his proposal was overwhelmingly rejected: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Proposed new text. His remarks here should be viewed in light of that background. —Finell 23:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
PS: Darkfrog24 points to the fact that a featured WP:Portal does not fully comply with this guideline. However, the Manual of Style "is a style guide for Wikipedia articles" (emphasis added). It does not apply to other Wikipedia namespaces. —Finell 23:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, wrong Wikilink. I was talking about the article for the video game Portal, which used American punctuation the day it appeared on the front page. It's a good example of how using American punctuation on an American subject is not a barrier to GA/FA status.
- WP:IDONTLIKEIT is how American punctuation got banned in the first place. None of its opponents have ever been able to provide a logical reason for why it is not allowed. Wikipedia is not a democracy. It is reason that should prevail, not the greater numbers of editors who just don't happen to like American punctuation. "Campaigning" is too strong a word for what I do. Whenever someone brings up the subject of correcting the MoS, I support it. Case in point, I did not just jump in and propose changing the guideline this past month. User JPFay brought it up and I support it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am glad that you have weighed in on this matter, Finell. Also, in using the logical quotation guideline, should the period go outside of the quote for any type of sentence fragment (as I mentioned above)? Flyer22 (talk) 09:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. —Finell 09:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Releases - Box Office
I think it should be clarified that all numbers are for the US release as it is clear in some places, but not others, and so the fact that it was only the highest midnight release and single day gross in the USA and only the USA, not Internationally, needs to be specified, especially since it's being compared to movies that grossed higher numbers internationally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanotam (talk • contribs) 19:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right. I missed that. Okay, Fixed now. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Plot redirect
Er, with respect to the directors of the film, it is likely that the film isn't exactly like the book - any more than Twilight was. e should probably remove the novel redirect in the plot section for the film. - 207.181.229.217 (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- I left the book link, but added a complete film plot. Liquidluck (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Move to The Twilight Saga: New Moon
The official title of the movie seems to be The Twilight Saga: New Moon.[3][4] Also, we have precedent set by other similar movies (The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back). Any objections (or supports) to moving this article? TheCoffee (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- I
very, very stronglyoppose. Per WP:NCCN. ς ح д r خ є 15:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)- What title comes onscreen in the opening titles? Makes logical sense to use that. Although i think the first star wars(ep 4) uses the episode thing, and not what originally appeared onscreen. Plus there's the fact that its only called the twilight saga so idiots know that there in the same series. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- WP:NCCN says "In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article". Looking at this article's references... the movie is called "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" by most web pages and news article published in the last month or so. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] TheCoffee (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Mild Support. I do not think that The Twilight Saga: New Moon will confuse anyone. Let's have the official article title match the official name of the movie and have a redirect from New Moon (film). Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- What title comes onscreen in the opening titles? Makes logical sense to use that. Although i think the first star wars(ep 4) uses the episode thing, and not what originally appeared onscreen. Plus there's the fact that its only called the twilight saga so idiots know that there in the same series. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The Twilight Saga: New Moon is a great title, since it after all is the real name, and there's less confusion with all the New Moon articles. 68.109.162.199 (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I, like Scarce, see it referred to as "New Moon" more often, but maybe that's because I mostly hear about it within the fandom. It seems like fans of the books tend to call it "New Moon", and people less familiar with them use the full title since that is how it's advertised. My main argument earlier about changing the name of the article from "New Moon (2009 film)" was a quote from this article: "And despite earlier reports that the movie would be known as The Twilight Saga's New Moon, the title will remain New Moon according to the movie's rep. They just have Twilight Saga in the artwork to identify it for anyone less devoted than your average fanggirl." But I wouldn't strongly object to a change. Andrea (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- yeah. it seems that while it was marketed as twilight saga etc... if the title that comes onscreen really is just New Moon. Than I strongly agree with sergay, and that the title of New Moon (2009 film) should be left as it is.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 03:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- However, it should be moved to "New Moon (film)". The only reason we should have it with "{2009 film)" is if the "(film)" is a disambiguation, which it isn't, seeing that there are only 2 other articles which are currently in a hatnote in this article. ς ح д r خ є 03:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's true, New Moon (film) just redirects here. Andrea (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- you're forgetting New Moon (1930 film) and New Moon (1940 film) tho. I thought the first film with the name is just meant to be (film) if the name is already taken, but then the rest use the dates to distinguish. isn't that how it works?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, it has nothing to do with which article was created first or which film was made first. The article named "New Moon (film)" should be the one that is covered most on Wikipedia/the one that people will most likely be looking for under that name (see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Without a doubt, that would make this article the primary topic. Andrea (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" is the correct title. It's the name used in all marketing, it's the name used on the official website, it's the name used in all of the notable/reliable movie sites (IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, Box Office Mojo, Metacritic, etc.), it's also from my experience the name used more often in casual use (that or "Twilight: New Moon"). The fact is that the current name of the article is wrong since the movie's name is NOT "New Moon", it's "The Twilight Saga: New Moon". It doesn't really matter what appears onscreen since movies don't always use their correct names onscreen. TJ Spyke 03:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Caius - A Key Character?
"Jamie Campbell Bower as Caius, one of the leaders of the Volturi and a key character in the plot of the film."
I've just seen the film and I fail to see how Caius can be considered a central character. He may be of more importance in the book, I don't know as I've never read it, but he only had a few lines in the film and they didn't affect the storyline at all. In fact, as far as I remember his name wasn't even mentioned. Blessedarethesick6659 (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Concur. He's a key character in the book but barely has any time in the film. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree too. The movie does not focus on Caius to be as bloodthirsty as the book does. He's just there, without playing as significant a role as in the book. Aro is the central character in the movie. (Dodger gurl91 (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC))
US$
Who keeps adding US$ in front of the the gross and budget? Uh this film is an American film, of course it's US dollars! It's redundant and I have removed it once again. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 05:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- uhh me, and other logical people. It's not redundant. You need to understand that there's more to the world than USA. Oh and btw, "Uh this film is an American film, of course it's US dollars!" over 44% of this films gross is in foreign currency, that bom has converted to US dollars, stop removing it, it's just blatantly annoying. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- By that logic why not add £, or €? My point was that the film was made in the US, but thinks for twisting my words and cocking an attitude. I mean really, ONE US$ is enough.. I don't see GA's/FA's adding US in front of every dollar sign. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 07:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- WP:$ says to use "US$" the first time and then just "$[quantity]" every time after that. It also says that U.S. dollars are to be Wikipedia's standard for articles that are either about U.S. topics or without national ties because U.S. dollars are, at the moment, the world's reserve currency. So it's not that Americans are ignoring the rest of the world; it's that we're acknowledging the way other countries treat the U.S. dollar. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- By that logic why not add £, or €? My point was that the film was made in the US, but thinks for twisting my words and cocking an attitude. I mean really, ONE US$ is enough.. I don't see GA's/FA's adding US in front of every dollar sign. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 07:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
A native american who can change into a wolf is a skinwalker not a warewolf
I have not read the book, but does the author use the word warewolf or skinwalker? If the former, the links should direct to the latter as it is more correct. --Squidonius (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Because "werewolf" is the term that the characters in the book and movie use, it is correct that the article about the movie use it too. If you want to include this distinction, you could do it with a Wikilink. Wikipedia has an article on Skinwalkers. Find an appropriate phrase in the article, like, say "turn into a wolf," and turn it into turn into a wolf using brackets [[ ]]. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
3rd Highest Domestic Opening Weekend?
This Film was not the 3rd biggest domestic opening weekend even though the article says so. It's a lie I tell you, a scandulous lie! Check the list of biggest opening weekends article! You'll see! You'll all see! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewman13 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hm... it doesn't appear talking like a Bond villain is against the talk page guidelines so I checked it out, and according to our source, New Moon coming in third is correct, it's just that the article is a total mess and especially the domestic section ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 21:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Two endings to the movie
There are actually two different ending to New Moon. One is when Edward ask Bella to marry him and then it cuts straight to the credits. The other shows her surprised reaction after being asked and then cuts to credits.Cajoiner (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Requested move
New Moon (2009 film) → The Twilight Saga: New Moon — This is the official name of the movie. Now only does all marketing for the movie use this name, but the movie's official website says this is the name. In addition, it's also the name used by IMDB, Rotten Tomatores, Box Officie Mojo, Metacritic, etc. I have not seen any reliable source say the movie is just called "New Moon". "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" is not just being used for marketing, it's the correct name of the movie and it's a no-brainer that the article on the movie should have the correct name too ("New Moon" is just something people use when they are too lazy to say the full name). TJ Spyke 03:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Survey
- Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
*'''Support'''
or*'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with~~~~
. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
- Support. Disambiguation. See also Talk:Eclipse (2010 film) for the same thing. Simply south (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
- Any additional comments: