Talk:The Twilight Saga: New Moon/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

Sorry, I should have included the source I was referring to. Here is it. Andrea (talk) 00:51, 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)

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)

Thanks for weighing in, Rocksey. I was not expecting you to comment on this, but I appreciate it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 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)

No problem, I noticed the change in the poster when I came to look up the release date of the movie. I debated whether or not I should revert it back or leave it be, then decided it would be best to start a discussion, but you beat me to it. Rocksey (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Yeah, I went through the same thought process as you before starting the discussion...although I was not looking for the release date; I was rather looking to see how much this article had developed since I last looked at it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:17, 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)

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)

 Fixed with this edit ς ح д r خ є 22:35, 20 November 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

They do seem rather biased ς ح д r خ є 14:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I did a little searching and there doesn't appear to be many negative reviews from notable sources. That may be why. Would you mind pointing some out? ς ح д r خ є 14:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

I think Roger Ebert's review is worth mentioning. He said "The characters in this movie should be arrested for loitering with intent to moan. Never have teenagers been in greater need of a jump-start," and gave the film 1 out of 4 stars. [2] Mgerb (talk) 16:55, 24 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)

I added Ebert's and Roeper's reviews. Andrea (talk) 06:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, great ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 06:51, 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)

~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 06:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

Ah, okay :P ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 04:09, 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.

I suppose we will see if logical quotation is brought up when this article is up for GA or FA. Right now, I will bring in another editor on this particular matter; this editor has largely been involved in the Wikipedia debates about logical quotation. Flyer22 (talk) 22:55, 21 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)

People come to the MoS talk page to alert them of disputes elsewhere all the time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and that's a different thing to contacting a single, specific editor. Ilkali (talk) 22:32, 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)

...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)

Good example. Thanks again. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

At Darkfrog's suggestion, I went ahead and alerted another editor, editor Finell, to this discussion; I take it that Finell's stance will be opposite of Darkfrog's on this. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

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 strongly oppose. 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)

I've mainly seen the film be referred to as New Moon but I guess it's equally known as Twilight Saga.... I'm kind of on the fence about it, should we create a more common move discussion? Such as tagging the article and polling? ς ح д r خ є 21:51, 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)

Ok, I went to see the movie tonight and the opening title is just "New Moon". I'd add that to my reasons for preferring the current article title. Andrea (talk) 06:14, 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)

Canvassing comments

Now he's turned to canvassing! See here and here. (and I'm not sure how many more, as these two are the only ones in my watch lists from previous discussions)--Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 01:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually 1 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. This is completely unnecessary. Anyone who cares about this will know about the move. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 02:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Outrageous! I think it's time for administrator intervention. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 03:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

We should remember to not go off-topic here ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 03:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh I figured him trying to push his own agenda about this matter to other people (that could probably care less) was on topic. This is all documented and if he keeps it up, I will report him. He's not above anyone else here and is subject to the very same guidelines as we are. He's already tried to rig the system once. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 03:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I never said we were currently off-topic ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 03:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There not in anyway influencing. If you coult point to the sentence that is, I will remove it, but I am just trying to get other editors a chance to put in for this discussion. I am sorry if it is influential and I will try to make it less influential (hopefully not influential at all).ChaosMaster16 (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

One minute you seem to be wanting to follow guidelines, then the next you blatantly break them. As you also did by adding SOMEONE else's name to one your opposing comments. Totally unacceptable. As for your ELEVEN different comments on user talk pages -- the whole FOUR paragraphs is canvasing. I think you should be taken out of this discussion as you are obviously trying to rig the outcome. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 20:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, all of the information that I have provided in their talk pages can be found here. Looking over it, I am just stating simple facts and WP guidelines, nothing more, I am not telling them "Vote Oppose" or "Vote Support". To me what I posted are simple converstations that are not secret, but (obviously) open to the public to also chime in. After reading Wikipedia:Canvassing, I just merely hit the border of canvassing and having a converstation. As for adding someone elsings name to an opposing comment, I am allowed to do that. I did not post on that board that he/she opposed or supported, I just used a comment that he/she used before you put the request in.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

These are not conversations, these are invitations.

ChaosMaster16's message

Both these two articles were recently submitted for a name change. I did agree with this name change in February, however, now I am a strong opposing factor in why the name should ramian New Moon and Eclipse with the signifigant other name in the first line of the articles.

WP:NCCN and WP:PRECISION both state the title should be "terms most commonly used", "A good article title is brief and to the point", "Prefer titles that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles", "An article can only have one name; however significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph". "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."Source.

Also see WP:PRECISION. I quote from there: "Articles' titles usually merely indicate the name of the topic. When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but only as precise as is needed. For example, it would be inappropriate to name an article "United States Apollo program (1961–1975)" over Apollo program or "Nirvana (Aberdeen, Washington rock band)" over Nirvana (band). Remember that concise titles are generally preferred."

However, I personally do not think we have had enough input and would like input from people who might not like these movies, or just edit them to help wikipedia out. The pages are: Talk:New Moon (2009 film)#Requested move and Talk:Eclipse (2010 film)#Requested move. Any help/input would greatly be apriciated.

And you spammed multiple talk pages with it. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 01:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. Note I closed this discussion and not the person who actually tagged it as closed the first time. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

---

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)
• Weak Support I've never heard the film referred to as "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" other than in printed word. This title isn't incorrect per WP:NCCN. However, "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" is the official title of the film. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 20:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The Official name is NEW MOON. The Twilight Saga is used for marketing. Thus we have NEW MOON (MARKETED AS THE TWILIGHT SAGA NEW MOON) as the opening line. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
  • Unless you are saying that the company that MADE the movie is wrong, then the correct name is "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" (as stated on the movie's official website). You can't get more official than that. TJ Spyke 03:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    • It is called New Moon. Did you SEE the movie? The first ten seconds has NEW MOON only flash across the screen, no The Twilight Saga. As per WP:COMMONNAME, we should leave it New Moon. That is why we have (marketed as the tilight saga new moon) as the first line.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
      • AGAIN, the official name of the movie according to the STUDIO is "The Twilight Saga: New Moon". No offense, but I think the movie studio knows the correct name more than you do. COMMONNAME also supports "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" as all reliable sites use this title and it seems to be more common anyway. So both NAME and COMMONNAME support it. "New Moon" is just a shortened version of the official name. Your argument on the on-screen title doesn't work either, all 3 of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies do the same thing (i.e. the on-screen name would just show "The Two Towers" rather than "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers"). TJ Spyke 03:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support: A google search of "New Moon" shows all sources calling it "The Twilight Saga: New Moon". If most reliable sources name it that, then Wikipedia should too, per WP:NAME. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 00:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support An appropriate move. Will certainly help to distinguish the film from the other new moon films. Employing the full name is the more appropriate practice. (Ex: Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back instead of The Empire Strikes Back) --Labattblueboy (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Employing the Full Name? The full name is New Moon. What other New Moon films do we have? And even though YOU think it is an "appropriate practice", we have to go by Wikipedia Guidelines which state to keep the title of an article simple and to the point when we can. And in this case: we can. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
    • No, the full name is "The Twilight Saga: New Moon", as I have proven. First, the STUDIO says that is the full name (that is proof enough). It is also the nam used by all of the reliable movie sites.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ Spyke (talk • contribs) 22:40, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
      • Please do tell me where you saw the STUDIO call it The Twilight Saga: New Moon. And of course the movie sites list it as The Twilight Saga: New Moon. Its marketed as that and that is what they get paid for. And if you consider IMDB, please note that that is not a reliable source. Could someone also clear up the "Mild Supports" and "Semi Supports" and "Weak Supports". Either you support the option to move the article or you don't, you can't be two sided.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Actually, yes, you can be two-sided, otherwise known as neutral. Keep in mind, this discussion is a matter of reaching consensus, not how many votes you can get ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 23:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, "Mild Support" or "Weak Support" means you support something, just not very strongly. As for IMDB, I was just pointing out that that is one of the major movie sites and that all of the major movie sites are using the official name. As for the studio: right on their studios website: [12]. The official site of the movie alone is enough proof, now you also have the movie studios official site saying the official name is "The Twilight Saga: New Moon". There is no denying it now (unless you are saying the movie studio doesn't get to decide what the official name of their movie is). TJ Spyke 23:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I, like TJ Spyke said, support the move, just not very strongly. I'm a not neutral. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 23:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support, it's the name of the film, simple as that. kiac. (talk-contrib) 05:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, per WP:NCCN, also if you take a look at New Moon (disambiguation) you will see that it is really not a big deal to leave it as it is. BTW: when people search for New Moon, even Google knows that it is this film, so there is no much problem in understanding the title. Plus, does it really matter that much? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly support per WP:NAME. The film's official title IS The Twilight Saga: New Moon, this is clearly the common and reliable title per the bulk of reliable sources, the film itself, both official soundtracks, the official illustrated companion, and its pending DVD/Blu Ray releases. Yes, the book is just New Moon, but that does not negate the film's actual title. Per all relevant guidelines, we should use its real name. There is no valid reason not to0. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The official name of the New Moon soundtrack is.... New Moon: Official Motion Picture Soundtrack. Where is "The Twilight Saga"? Oh, that is right, the official name of the movie is New Moon! If we actually change the name, we have to go over about 20 pages of Wikipedia pages dedicated to Twilight and change the name multpile times. Not only that, but then the soundtrack page will be outdated. And why change that when the official name is New Moon?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

I looked up both soundtracks and their official titles are The Twilight Saga: New Moon Official Motion Picture Soundtrack and The Twilight Saga: New Moon Score - other wrongly named Wikipedia articles are not valid reasons not to fix this one and those. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • In actuality, the official name of the soundtrack uses the full title of the film, as seen on both the cover art and in the text at the offical soundtrack page. What part of "Official Soundtrack for The Twilight Saga: New Moon" up there at the top of the page did you miss? TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support - the film's official titles include The Twilight Saga: prefix, as evidenced by references on the film's prodcution company website and MANY media mentions. It's time to drop this, ChaosMaster16 - you are incorrect in your assumptions about the title. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support - I'm kind of ambivalent to this. I don't follow the series, but my opinion is that if the official name of the film is "The Twilight Saga: New Moon", then that is what the article should be. The fact that people shorten it to just "New Moon" because the actual name is a mouthful isn't what MOSTCOMMON is all about. No one says, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, they just say Borat. That's the most common identifier for the film, but the reality is that the film's official name is Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, and that is what the article is listed as. So, if the official name is The Twilight Saga, then that's what it should be. If the official name is just New Moon....then that is what it should be.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support move to The Twilight Saga: New Moon as this is the full and correct title of the film. This shouldn't even be an issue. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

May I also add a comment regarding the survey / discussion sections of this - what's that all about? It's all a discussion, and should be in one section - so confusing like this. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The comments are for those comments not related to the !vote you have just expressed. To stop massive threads becoming outdented to the point where the !voting stops dead and people get stuck arguing over one person's vote. As a RM needs a clear consensus the !vote part is there to give clarity to the intentions of each user's opinion. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support it's the name on the poster, and New Moon is just the shortened name used by those too lazy to indulge the makers of this film ("The Twilight Saga" is a stupid name, these films are not a saga). Darrenhusted (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

All we needed was the vote ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 22:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? Doesn't stop the films from being utter dross or the title from being stupid, though, does it? Darrenhusted (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I never said your vote did. I'm just saying... ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 00:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support move It is obvious that the official name is "The Twilight Saga: New Moon". Movie theaters use it, but most importantly, it is used by the OFFICIAL SITE, so there is no arguments against it. Please note that a redirect is always available so we can stop with this nonsense. Ricardoread (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are so many people using this as a rationale? We know it's the official name, no argument there. We're discussing the move from it's common name ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 01:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

When you say "common name", who uses "New Moon" to describe the film? The people? If someone were to ask me if I watched the "New Moon", I might think they are talking about the moon literally. So if New Moon is your way to identify this movie, good for you, but for the people who have no idea what the "New Moon" means, like me, it is appropiate to use a more neutral name, like the official name. Wikipedia poilicies clearly states that we should use common names used by major media outlets and encyclopedia, not by the people. Hmm.... I'll make a list of major media outlets who use "The Twilight Saga: New Moon".... CNN, Rottentomatoes, IMDB, Reelz Channel, MTV, Newsday, Movieset, Movietickets.com, boxofficemojo.com, the OFFICIAL SITE, and so on. So, if you tell me and find evidence that both the people and media outlets use "New Moon" to refer to the film, I will gladly change my opinion. That's why fellatio is used as a title in wikipedia, because media outlets and encyclopedia use such term, rather than blow job, a slang mainly used by people. Ricardoread (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm... this may be the first time I've ever heard New Moon being compared to oral sex. Anyway, it's so-called common name is also a part of the discussion. It is only referred to as TS:NM (The Twilight Saga: New Moon) in articles about the film. Such as "Robert Pattinson, star of New Moon" instead of "Robert Pattinson star of The Twilight Saga: New Moon", I've never seen the use of TS:NM that way. Interviews... the cast will always refer to the film as New Moon. I think something similar to "(also simply known as New Moon)" should be included in the intro. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 02:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

As per the last TWO times this discussion was brought up, the general consensus wasto leave it as the common name per WP:COMMONNAME. To bring this up AGAIN would be rather pointless.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

First, the official name is "The Twilight Saga: New Moon". Every notable or reliable movie site uses that as the name (which would cover COMMONNAME). It's almost impossible to do a Google search (due to the fact that "New Moon" can mean the astronomy term and the book), but searching for "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" (in quotations, so it only brings up results with that specific term) brings up 737 million hits. TJ Spyke 04:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by hits? Results? Because I only get 141 million ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 05:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, what are you talking about? I just clicked your link and it also said 737 million hits. TJ Spyke 03:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm... must have been an error with my browser ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 03:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, Google trends say "New Moon" totally outranks "The Twilight Saga New Moon". Also, Google News results for "New Moon" are roughly double than "The Twilight Saga New Moon" ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 05:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Scarce, Google results can't really be used reliably here since search results for "New Moon" will include hits that have nothing at all to do with the movie. TJ Spyke 03:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean you oppose the name change?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Yes, TJ, I am very aware of that. I'm not implying it be used that way, just an example of the common usage of "New Moon" ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 03:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• I saw that you said "no relaible source" has proven the name is just NEW MOON. Well, here is that reliable source. [[13]]ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

That is not a reliable source. Also, it's ten months old~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 21:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol, not a reliable source?!! You're hillarious! EOnline is defently a reliable source. And So what if it's ten months old? That doesn't mean we don't use it.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

It's outdated and now incorrect info. The studio that made the movie has said the name is "The Twilight Saga: New Moon". TJ Spyke 22:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A better place for it right now would be New Moon (film) (currently a redirect to here). Rich Farmbrough, 23:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC).

There is already two other new moons i believe.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

[comments about canvassing refactored to a separate section] Rich Farmbrough, 18:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC).

Yes, I suggested that above, so are you saying you oppose the move to "The Twilight Saga: New Moon"? ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 00:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There are already other new-moon films, and if the the page New Moon(film) was a dab page a case could be made for having it here, but since that page redirects to New Moon (2009 film) and one needs to use the hat note to get to the dab page, removing the extra qualifier would be justified. Rich Farmbrough, 18:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC).

I think we have reached a concensus: rename both articles, and have (also known as [film[) in the opening line. Can anyone else support this? I think its a good comprimise, I feel the arguing has gotten waay out of hand (thats pretty much my fault and I take full blame).ChaosMaster16 (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Again, this discussion was a successful attempt to reach consensus, not to compromise. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 02:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a consensus to rename the articles. There is absolutely no support for shoving in your personal preference for the titles in the opening of the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I might understand that move if consensus was to name it New Moon, then we may add the entire title to the lead. But no not this way, just no. kiac. (talk-contrib) 04:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, way too much effort and antagonism have gone into this discussion. The only purpose an article name has is to identify the subject in a way that readers will be able to recognize and find. Both New Moon and The Twilight Saga: New Moon do this, and that should be the only real concern. The official name is definitely The Twilight Saga: New Moon, although, if there were not two other New Moon films and this page did not need to be labeled "2009 film", I would not support per WP:COMMONNAME (WP:NAME does not link to a specific policy, but rather a list of policies related to naming).

As it is, I do support the name change and would comment above if I was comfortable doing so (Chaos reached me through mass commenting, although I'm assuming good faith and believing that s/he was simply trying to spread awareness rather than trying to meat puppet; I do edit this article occasionally and I don't believe my edits would lead someone to believe I would lean one way or another). I do feel that since the article refers to the movie as New Moon in the actual text, ("New Moon also opened with the third...", "handed in the draft for New Moon during...") the opening line should say something like, “The Twilight Saga: New Moon (also referred to as New Moon)… . Liqudluck✽talk 00:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cast Section (s)

Opinions on if the cast table should be cleaned up? I'm going to wait to weigh in with my opinion to see what others actually think.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

I despise cast sections that are lists. I feel the section should be removed and replaced with a casting section that tells about the casting, such as Taylor Lautner gaining weight for the role. So yes, the section does need a cleanup ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 20:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

First, it needs shortening, at the minimum. The cast list should not have every minor character from the film, only the major ones. See the manual of style and its talk pages for the consensus on this. Further, if there is nothing to have in the cast list beyond X played Y which is Z, with no actual prose information on the casting and actor's methods of playing the characters, then the actor names should be moved up to the plot and the section removed all together. I'll refrain from commenting on the inappropriate cast list article beyond noting that it is inappropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean particular parts of the article are inappropriate or it's existence? ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 21:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Its existence, really. Most such lists don't survive AfD, as they really aren't necessary and lead to excessive listing of minor cast. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you'll see List of Harry Potter cast members, it has made it far past AfD and into FL and lists a few minor characters such as "Newspaper vendor" and "TV Weatherman". The article can also limit the casting sections for the films ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 21:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

HP is an extreme example, with more than twice as many films as this series has. And, in all honesty, I doubt it would make FL now or even survive AfD (that occured back in 2007 and 2006, respectively). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I have been wondering about that cast section. I'm like surely all these aren't major characters. Question, what is the best way to determine who is a major character from a minor character. It seems the last time I tried to sort a cast like that (The Scream film series article, that is a big mess, but anyways.) that guy told me that was original research for me to pick who the main or minor characters are. I figured the characters that appeared in all the movies were the 'main' and the 'minor' would be.. ugh a random Reporter or deputy that had very few scenes.. duh? I did not agree with it, but I accepted it and moved on before I violated 3RR, which wouldn't even be worth it. Would be good to know how one would legitimately determine such. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 21:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There is actually a discussion about that happening now on the MoS talk page :) My usual method is - if they are major in terms of being mentioned in a well-written plot summary more than once, they are major. Its actually one reason having the cast in the plot makes excellent sense - only those worth mentioning will be mentioned without extraneous cast at all. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix has been classified as a GA artilce with Top Importance, and has the same format of the cast section, which when I created the article (New Moon} I tried to copy that and Twilight's format. I actually would think it is better with a character description because not everyone are big Twilight fans and could visit Wikipedia to gain information about a character in a movie; we would already have the information here. Separating the cast section into Vampires and Humans exc. I feel is a good way to inform the readers that visit this page what each is, because again, not everyone is a huge Twilight fan, and it gives an overall feel of organization because this is a type of movie where we CAN classify actors and their characters. Now, going to who is a major cast member, I can sit here and argue that Rob Pattinson is NOT a major cast member because he was not present for 3/4's of the movie, which I THINK is why many movie pages try to move away from aranging the cast by who is a major cast member and who is not. I remembered that the Harry Potter pages order their cast by the amount of sceen time each person recieves, but I do not know how they currently do (I'll check and get back to you guys about that).ChaosMaster16 (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

GA is fairly meaningless in this context, as GA does NOT check against the manual of style for films. Further, this is NOT HP. This is this article and it is not useful. It clutters the article and is purely useless for anyone who isn't a fan of the series. It violates WP:WAF by being in written in a in-universe fashion, and it goes against WP:MOSFILM. You are a fan of the series, that's great, it works for you. But Wikipedia is NOT a fansite. The cast list should be about the cast, not the characters, and should be brief and limited to the major characters, not listing every little minor person who has a five second appearance. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the way you put it. :) Should we also do this to the Twilight article since it is written in a similar format?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

"New Moon"

How should the film be referred to in other articles? In the infoboxes for the films, I would say "New Moon", but as for the actors and crew, I would say "The Twilight Saga: New Moon". Such as filmograhies and career sections ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 03:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That want I was wanting to discuss....ChaosMaster16 (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

It should always be referred to by its full title, and not just New Moon. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to just make another argument, just read and think about it. According to WP:COMMONNAME, other names should be cited in the opening of every article. Now, as for TTS:NM, New Moon is the common name, and we (obvisously) had a vote on weather to keep it as a common name or switch it to the full name. With that being said, (also known as New Moon) and Eclipse should be added to the article (more than likely right after TTSNM and TTS:E). I would NOT be making such a big deal about this, BUT in 99.9% of the movie related articles there are, we list TTS:NM and TTS:E, but throughout the article, we say "New Moon" or "Eclipse". If we are to leave it that way, then the common name should be added to the first line. If not, then we should add The Twilight Saga to all of the New Moons and Eclipses there are.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Yes, you are, and its long past time you stop trying to invoke commonname as an excuse to use an incorrect name. "New Moon" is NOT another name, its the same name shortened and it is not a common name. You're the only one who really pushed for it even keep that name. No, it should not be added to the lead, it is ridiculously redundant. All of the movie articles and this article itself should only use the full name. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

While New Moon is a shortened name, it is also its COMMON NAME because New Moon and The Twilight Saga: New Moon are two totaly different titles, no matter how you look at it. And how we have this article is fine now. We just have the cast article and the Twilight Saga (film series) articles to fix. Thanks AnmaFinotera for switching the names. LiquidLuck has a good point. When looking at the references on proper news stories, New Moon is used. Changing the name from the reference to the article does make me second guess everytihng. While TTS:NM is the proper name, a common name would suffice in an article like this. There is no Wikipedia rule that I know of, correct me if I am wrong, that states that we HAVE to have the FULL name used throught the ENTIRE article, especially if the common name is mentioned in the opening line of the article. For an example, See Harry Potter (film series); Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is often shortened to Chamver of Secrets because of the common name. But unless an admin comes and complains, I think having TWS before every title in the articels would be fine. In the film series article, I think we should have (also known as) so we can talke TWS out of the infobox and the other boxes at the bottom of the page. Having this will tell the reader that the name New Moon is also used for the movie and therefore can identify the New Moon from the infobox and the rest of the article.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

You keep raising "COMMON NAME" as if it excuses you from edit warring and disregarding the rules - it doesn't. Whatever you personally believe doesn't actually become true. Following your reasonings, we should be adding "Also known as 'Order of the Phoenix'" to the intro of articles such as Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film) - but we don't do that. Abbrieviated names are fine on occoasion, but NOT as official names. We don't do it for the Lord of the Rings films, or many others. Please stop your edit warring and WP:POINT edits about this before someone blocks you again. Please. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Its not an OFFICIAL name its a name that many other people usually use. Having this put in the lead after the OFFICIAL name, and then refering to the common name throughout the rest of the article then makes less confusion.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

The official name is the official name. Get over it already. We all get you hate that they changed the name, but these are NOT your articles and you've already been warned repeatedly about edit warring and trying to push your minority view. TWS does not need to be out of ANY info boxes as it IS the official name which should be used throughout ALL of the articles. Trying to hide it like you continue to do is inappropriate and needs to stop. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera, please remember to "Comment on content, not on the contributor" per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. That said, above you referred to WP:NAME as the reason you supported moving- since WP:NAME is actually just a link to a list of policies related to naming, which policy on the page were you referring to?

I agree that the common name is "New Moon", while the official name is certainly "TTS:NM". As AnmaFinotera noted, the officials changed the name from "New Moon", and of the first five links from reliable sources on google news, (MTV, US mag, LA Times NY Daily News, EW) 3/5 referred to it as "New Moon"- of the two that didn't, LA Times was talking about the soundtrack and referred to the film version as New Moon, and EW later called it New Moon (though that could be a shortened version). LA Times, EW, and MTV (through a link) all stated the official name. I supported the move from New Moon (film) because there were already two disambigs at New Moon, and it seemed unneccessary to redirect to a disambig page when this title was available. Since it is now at this page, I think it should consistently use the full, official title. Liqudluck✽talk 01:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Production and Cast

I was just wondering if there was any particluar reason why the Production and Cast sections were switched? MOS states the oppisite. Never mind, lol.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Bold?

The bolding for the Novel and Screenplay for the infobox is not incorrect. WP:BOLD does not state anything against it. If it did, 98% of the articles would be incorrect; the bolding should be implied into that section only. Does anyone else have comments about this?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

No, WP:MOSBOLD does. Also, just because other stuff exist is no valid reason to include something. —Mike Allen 09:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSBOD does not say anything about bolding in infoboxes. It does not say its good, but it does not say its bad either.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

So bolding will improve the article? —Mike Allen 21:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

How will it not improve the article? Its for consistancy with the other articles on Wikipedia AND the other Twilight articles. In that specific area, I would say boldng is more apropriate than making the text smaller and in parenthsis. I mean, its understandable for the release dates, as bolding the countires would be unimportant, but the Novel and Screenplay should be bold as its more important for the reader to see who wrote what.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)ChoasMaster16

Reviews: "Mostly Negative" or "Mixed"?

There has been a lot of back and forth lately on wether we ought to summarize the reviews as "Mostly Negative" or "Mixed." FWIW metacritic explicitly calls the reviews "Mixed or average reviews"[14] and Rotten Tomatoes top critics give it an average rating of 5.2 out of 10 [15] so that looks like "mixed" is a better description than "mostly negative" to me. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes but RT has 72% of reviewers giving it a negative review. That is explained in no other way than "mostly negative". It is not a sentence explaining the ratings given by reviewers, it is simply a general summary. You can announce the technicalities all you like, but the fact is most reviewers were negative, sure there was positive reviews but they're not even prevalent enough to be represented on an even scale - "mixed".

Perhaps it would be more wise to find sources stating the critical reaction, rather than aggregators summarising scores, ratings and positive/negative reactions? Panned, panned, has not wowed critics, has not won over critics, that's after a Google News search - not one mention of mixed. The negative reaction even lead the director to refuse to pay attention to critics, instead listening to fans. kiac. (talk-contrib) 15:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think of it this way: Either mixed or mostly negative will suffice for this article. I personally think it is mixed because there are many negative reviews with positive statement about the movie, and there are some positive reviews. Mostly negative would be okay also because 28% do like it which means there are 72% that don't. I think the only justifiable way to solve this is come to a concensus.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

How about "generally negative". Will that suite both sides? :) —Mike Allen 16:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

38% of the "Top Critics" gave it a positive review according to RT, even if all the reviews can be averaged to a 5.2. "Mixed" with no qualifier is definitely misrepresentative. At best, maybe something like "Reviews were mixed but tended towards the negative, with 28% of critics and 38% of "Top Critics" giving the film favorable reviews, according to Rotten Tomatoes." Whatever wording is used, at least one of those specific numbers (28% or 38%) should be provided as supporting information. Propaniac (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think "mixed" sounds better because you read the reviews carefully, the negative ones talk about some positive things in the movie and at the same time, a lot of positive reviews talk about the negative aspects of the movie. "Negative" sounds too biased and judgmental. "Mixed" sounds best since the reception *has* indeed been "mixed".Blytonite (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Well, New Moon has been voted as the favorite movie of 2009 by the general public if you see this article: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/2009/12/29/2009-12-29_the_public_has_spoken_new_moon_top_movie_of_09_and_megan_fox_is_hot_but_cant_act.html. So, critical reception *has* been mixed and not "mostly negative".Blytonite (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Since when is the general public "critical"? —Mike Allen 20:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Fan reception is not critical reception. Its mentioned, by all means but its not a critical view that this topic is about. Overall reception might be mixed, but the wording over mixed and negative is for what critics thought and mixed is not correct for describing them. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware of that. I'm just proving the fact that critical reception of the movie AS A WHOLE is mixed and certainly not "generally negative".Blytonite (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are aware of that then why have you said that you've proved CRITICAL reception has been mixed with your link on FAN reception? Critical reception means what film critics thought of the movie, not fans/general public. What some editors are discussing is that this article says that critics were mixed but argue that it was negative. No one is arguing what fans thought. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think how we have it is fine.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

"The Twilight Saga: New Moon director Chris Weitz['s] take on author Stephenie Meyer's fantasy franchise was still met with mixed reviews."[16] Starblueheather (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I rather look at RT than some news article. HOWEVER some other wiki articles have NOT stated the film being positive, mixed or negative. They just simply state "on Rotten Tomatoes, % of critics gave the film a positive review etc..." Stabby Joe (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Stabby Joe. The "mixed reviews" quip at the very beginning should probably be deleted in favor of just having the aggregated RT score as the lead-in. It would work much better, in my opinion, as it gets to the down and dirty facts, nothing more or less. --ToyoWolf (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got to come back to this one, I just can't think of why 28% is a mixed number. Traditionally 40s to 60s would be mixed. The only reason such a LOW number can be mixed is hardcore fans of this movie trying to advertise it as something better (we already know fan reception was better). Stabby Joe (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The source used for the statement "critical reception was mixed" is http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/newmoon which says "Mixed or average reviews." Starblueheather (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing about it is, is we can't just go by what MC and RT says. We have to take all the reviews listed into consideration. What does the NY Times, LA Times, USA Today, etc say? Do most "praise it" or "dislike it", etc? —Mike Allen 06:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the thing about it is, we ought to go with what the source (Metacritic) says based on their research rather than do our own original research. If you're personally curious as to how Metacritc came to the conclusion that reviews were "mixed or average", USA Today gave it 2½ out of 4 stars, Washington Post gave it 2½ stars, Chicago Tribune gave it 3 stars, Rolling Stone gave it 2 stars, etc. Thanks. Starblueheather (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What about other reviews? Metacritic only post 35, tops. What about Rotten Tomatoes (not what the site says, but the reviews). That's not original research, that's giving due weight on all reviews, not just a few. This is the same reason why we don't post that Metacritic claims it was "universal acclaim" or RT claims it was "Rotten" or "Fresh". —Mike Allen 22:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Metacritic has only a quarter at most of the reviews that RT has, an RT is less favorable than MC. To give all weight to a source that is significantly weaker isn't proper conduct. Stabby Joe (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all clear on what "properly conducted" distinction you think you are making between Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic and which one you think is "significantly weaker" or "less favorable." The two sources say virtually the same thing, with Metacritic assigning a 44 out of 100, and Rotten Tomatoes assigning a slightly higher 4.6 out of 10. Those are mixed or average reviews. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Its very simple what I'm saying, Metacritic was significantly less reviews than Rotten Tomatoes, making the latter the more noble source to use. Now I'm not saying what is mixed in terms of "average scores" and I should quickly point out that 40s mixed score is what Metacritic thinks (40 being worse for music and games on the same site), not RT or any other reviewer. If very few critics, as opposed to half and half disliked the film, mixed is not the right term. But since some can't handle the film being branned as such, I'm proposing there be nothing of the sort because of this issue IE reception would just state the RT average with the focus on critic remarks and the opening line to just read less favourable, which could mean mixed or negative, depends hat the reader thinks of it, we're not supposed to be biased. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

razzie

can you put the razzie nominations... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.227.146 (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Despite the many other films that were ever nominated or received a razzie having it mentioned, I know that the fangirls that constructed this article will protest since it puts a negative slant (which it has regardless) on their beloved film. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

...the Razzies are already mentioned in the article, Stabby. Andrea (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a fan of Twilight and I added the Razzie noms a couple of days ago to "Critical reception". I don't believe it's important to the intro. However, we could add something like "The film was well received by fans..." and add mention of the Moviefone poll and then "but critical reception was less favorable" and mention the Razzie noms. Also, we should change it to "but negatively by critics" since it seems to be that way. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 06:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem then. Stabby Joe (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Who do you think is the little girl in Volterra that saw Edward sparkling is?

Well, I have a personal theory. I think it may be Renesmee, who time-traveled there from the future. Cm-on,its fiction! Sleepingfawn (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Preceded by - Twilight Followed by - Eclipse

Where are they at? The other movies dont have it either. Fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.187.131 (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The parameters were removed from the infobox after a discussion. We can link to the preceding and succeeding films in the lead section and in the navigation template at the end of the article. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Twilight Saga: New Moon. 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/20081217082845/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/film/news/e3ifc7bb2290700c27f4a0ada4363d9b59e to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3ifc7bb2290700c27f4a0ada4363d9b59e

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} 07:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Twilight Saga: New Moon. 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/20100122015520/http://www.ainow.org/index.php/tidbits/1370-see-qnew-moonq-a-hear-new-allison-iraheta-tracks to http://www.ainow.org/index.php/tidbits/1370-see-qnew-moonq-a-hear-new-allison-iraheta-tracks
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/65olbBrXC to http://www.saturnawards.org/nominations.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 08:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Twilight Saga: New Moon. 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/20100819045403/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/08/08/winners-of-teen-choice-2010-awards-announced-teens-cast-more-than-85-million-votes/59453 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/08/08/winners-of-teen-choice-2010-awards-announced-teens-cast-more-than-85-million-votes/59453
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.saturnawards.org/nominations.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012070515/http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms31.html to http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms31.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223171500/http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/02/twilight-eclips.html to http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/02/twilight-eclips.html

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) 21:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

anyone know why footnote 44 has an error?

Foot note 44 has Cotta Vaz 2009, p. 28 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCotta_Vaz2009 I can't figure out what it means. Any ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FootToeFungus (talk • contribs) 13:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

English

6. Is the story of this film unique to [name the culture of the story shown in the film], or could the story of this film have taken place in another country or setting? 136.158.1.7 (talk) 06:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)