Talk:Eclipse (Meyer novel)

Infobox

I put the infobox in and got rid of the extra picture, and comments? I don't know if I did something wrong for the infobox...I've never done an infobox for a book that hasn't been relesed yet. -Bella 20:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot Summary

Someone filled this section with "Whiny Bullshit" written over and over. I haven't even read the book but wanted to look it up and found that. Whether you like the book or not I found that to be completely inappropriate. I reverted it to what it was before --Samuronin (talk) 06:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The Summary is *horribly* written. I edited up to where I've read.

Who editied it so it's like what it is now? It looks great! I'd like to thank them..... Bella Swan 20:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I had actually edited it some time ago (before i created a wikipedia account), while it was only a few paragraphs long. I tweaked a few details in it a few minutes ago because some of the sentences weren't detailed or clear enough.Amalik914 (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not undo this edit or cut the article. It's fine the way it is, and cutting it down only makes the description of the plot unclear. Thank you. Amalik914 (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. The plot summary was around 1500 words before, which is much too long. Plot summaries are meant to give readers a general overview of the story, not to provide a detailed account of everything that happens. Please see Wikipedia:Plot summaries for the guidelines that I'm trying to follow, especially the section on length. Thanks. Andrea (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Novels asks users to create COMPREHENSIVE and DETAILED guide to books. The plot summaries section is mainly for movies and TV shows. The article is fine as long as it does not resemble a fansite. them's the brakes The man in the mask (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That is true, but it also says that the plot summary should be, in comparison, just as long as the rest of the sections in the article. There should be a 'reception' section of the article, not just a huge plot summary. ~ Bella Swan^? 01:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, even with Bella's deletions the plot summary is still far longer than any other section of the article. And the "plot summary" section of WikiProject Novels itself (right here) clearly states that a plot summary should be concise and not just a regurgitation of the entire work's plot. It should just touch on the major events that occur (that's what a "summary" is, after all) and some sort of "real-world" section should be added (such as "reception", as Bella suggested). I feel like the bad guy here, but I'm reverting the summary back to my much-shorted version. Andrea (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we comprimise and put forward a request for a medium-length summary? I don't own the book so I can't do it but there is some way to request it right? I think the current one is too short to cover enough detail to give a summary that can truly be called "comprehensive". I'm just trying to negotiate here Andrea, so work with me please, not create problems.The man in the mask (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not against it being a bit longer. I can work on adding to it myself, some time soon. Andrea (talk)

23:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Thanks for cooperating. I'll watch this one to see what changes are made.The man in the mask (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What other specific things do you think we need in the summary? I think Andrea did an awesome job with keeping the summary short, and keeping the details. I'm just afraid that if we add a little more detail, it will require further explaining to explain the detail, and then the plot summary is bloated again. ~ Bella Swan^? 13:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that not enough emphasis is placed on the emotional strains undergone by the characters in this book. Since this elemnt of the plot is so crucial, I belive that more emphasis needs to be placed on it. The man in the mask (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Mm, if you think so, then fix the plot summary up. For my opinion, I think the sum right now is fine. It's supposed to outline the events of the story, not supposed to have emotional strain which can be interpreted this way or that. That said, I'll take another look at the summary. IceUnshattered^{[ t | c ]} 23:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Eclipsecover.jpg

Image:Eclipsecover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The Volturri also came in on them around a fire with a surrendered vamp.- Bree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.184.129 (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Twilight Task Force

This is a note saying that a Twilight Task Force might be in the works. A poll is currently being held here to see who would be willing to join. If you would like to join, please participate in this poll. Thanks, ~ Bella Swan^? 13:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Critical Reception?

I was just reading over this page, and it cited Revish as a source of positive reception? Not that I have anything against the book, but from what I could discern isn't Revish a site where people write their own reviews?

I mean, as in, not proper reviews, just anyone. I couldn't really call this a reliable review when compared to say, the New York Times or something similar, or even an English professor. --Opacic (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about Revish, but regardless, the link was broken so I took it out and replaced it with other positive reception. Andrea (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Biased much, people? It said something extremely critical about the book OUTSIDE OF QUOTES!!!!!!!!! Stopped the bias, people, or I WILL delete it. ♠The Queen of Spades♠ (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2008

what is with the "heyy" at the end of the page before the references please delete that! md —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.111.92 (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that that is wrong because Edward preposes to her in new moon duh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.85.161 (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Per a decision in Twilight (novel) that LoveVampires is an unreliable blog, I've removed it, and I've tagged what appears to be another blog.--Pstanton (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC) and that emely despiau was supposed to be bree in eclipse but now she must audtion for breaking dawn

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/EclipseChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

I am half way through the book. I was just reading a plot review on here. Not happy! Whomever wrote it basicly gave away the ending. Should be just a taste of what the books about!!!216.82.180.21 (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Eclipse (2010 film)

I have began creation of the article for the film adaption here, feel free to add content as the section progresses, and soon can be moved to it's mainspace title. • S • C • A • R • C • E • 10:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to check the talk page for any pre-page creations, oh well. Either one wiil do! • S • C • A • R • C • E • 10:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Kellan Rices' blog post

From what I've been the article "Twilight Sucks and not in a good way" is a blog post in a non notable magazine. The author of the article is just sharing his opinions about the book. It isn't noteworthy like a newspaper or a porfessional critical review.Mo HH92 ^Talk 11:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Premise

A user keeps removing the Premise section of the Film Adaptation. However, the film can vary greatly from the source material (in this case the novel). The official synopsis of the film was released and it has not just been made up by me. Should we keep this section, and remove it when we make the film's Wikipedia page, or should we remove it and create the film's page now since filming begins in less than a week? ChaosMaster16 (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Well, we can't create an article until there is too much content for one section (probably a couple of more weeks), I'm fine with the premise I guess as long as it's not a direct, complete quote. • S • C • A • R • C • E • 01:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Eclipse (film)

Eclipse (film) can easily be moved to Eclipse (1994 film) as it is not the target page once we've created the article for the film. • S • C • A • R • C • E • 16:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

May even meet CSD for notability • S • C • A • R • C • E • 16:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

          Done. :) Fairweather01 (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Eclipse (Meyer novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081217092806/http://www.tulsaworld.com:80/lifestyle/article.aspx?articleID=070810_4_D3_spanc43808 to http://www.tulsaworld.com/lifestyle/article.aspx?articleID=070810_4_D3_spanc43808
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080905223652/http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6469272.html to http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6469272.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eclipse (Meyer novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100406011314/http://www.reelzchannel.com/article/901/eclipse-quiz to http://www.reelzchannel.com/article/901/eclipse-quiz
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217083257/http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6474707.html?q=eclipse+meyer to http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6474707.html?q=eclipse+meyer

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)