Talk:New Year's Eve (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Valentine's Day

I see New Year's Eve (film) as a sequel to Valentine's_Day_(film), with a few actors playing different roles this time around. The introduction to the article claims actors playing different characters this makes it not a sequel, but even if we take this at face value then the film is very definitely a Spiritual successor, a sequel in all but name, and was preceeded by the other film. As such it makes sense to me, and I think it is helpful to the reader and improves the article to use the "preceeded by" field in the infobox.

I wasn't the editor who made the change, but I think it should be retained. I'm sure more than one editor will make this change in good faith as this article develops. Deleting the "preceeded by" field is a bad idea and asking for an edit war.
If you strongly disagree with including the information and are not trying to cause edit wars you must not delete it but keep the field and put a comment there, warning good faith editors that it is deliberately left out and give them a good reason not to add it back in, such as pointing to an explanation on this Talk page. -- Horkana (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

A warning is in place advising editors to see Talk page. Do not delete without discussing here first. If an editor deletes the field ignoring the message and without discussing here first then good faith cannot be presumed and they will be quicly reverted. At the very least the editor should follow the above advice to keep the field but provide a warning comment telling other editor not to add the information back in again.
The preceeded by field is still appropriate and should not be removed without prior discussion. -- Horkana (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm so hoping these fields get deleted completely... —Mike Allen 01:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I ask myself "what serves the reader" but I draw the limit at long lists of international broadcasters (it may be useful but this isn't TV Guide). More to the point if an editor is too lazy to even add a warning comment then you cannot expect good faith editors to know something has been deliberately left out. No matter what the text (and probably the intro) will need to mention the preceeding film in some way or another. -- Horkana (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

From the discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_film it looks like those fields will be gone soon. It may not give the same semantic machine readable meaning but prose is generally preferably anyhow so it's all good.

I'm going to wait until it is officially deprecated and no longer visible before I remove it though. -- Horkana (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Word of advice, to Horkana...

I suggest you actually read some of the source links. You want to be the almighty who knows exactly what's right, so should actually be aware of what you're linking to. Where is Sara Paxton even mentioned? Why remove the legit character descriptions of certain characters (sourced from Hollywood Reporter or Variety), and yet keep character names that are entirely unsourced? Where has it been said that Sienna Miller plays a photographer, for example?

It's ridiculous to so swiftly undo my changes when I actually put some research and effort into them. The decisions you've decided to keep are lazily sourced, mostly fictitious, and it's pretty strange.

If you want to run the page, at least do it correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxpower03 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Try to avoid personal comments.

Provide edit summaries. That I expect editors to follow the WP:SIMPLE rules is nothing more than asking them to show good faith WP:AGF. That you did not provide edit summaries is a big problem.

Try to make small edits. That way your changes will be clear. That made your edits more difficult. By trying to make a lot of changes in one big edit it was not clear what you were doing.

It eventually became clear that you were adding two articles from The Hollywood Reporter by Boris Kits. The second article was better but the earlier article was like many others very speculative, actors were "in talks" or there were plans. You did not use named references, instead you repeatead the same reference over and over. Your references did not provide date or author details. You reverted my carefully formatted citations replacing them with references of less detail. You added character descriptions but strangely put your references before the descriptions, leaving it unclear where those descriptions had come from.

My edits were hardly perfect but your edits were also flawed in other ways. I made a serious good faith effort to incorporate the best parts of your edits. I may not have gotten all the good bits, but when I madea revert you ignored it completely and reapplied the exact same edit with a brief description instead of trying to make it clearer.

I may have been a little strict but if we get an adminstrator involved they will be only more strict, require edits summaries, smaller edits, and discussions over every small point. That is even more than I'm asking you. Making small edits and providing summaries is easier in the long ru so please follow the WP:SIMPLE rules. -- Horkana (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed some of the weak sources. I was hoping the other editors who added descriptions might improve their references but after a few days they can be removed. If you want to challenge any others I'll probably remove them too. It was not clear where the descriptions came from. At least in the case of your edits the descriptions were in the sources, it was just the misleading position of the references after the name instead of after the description that suggested the source only confirmed the not but not the description. Also the lack of edit summary, named refernces or smaller references made it less clear what you were trying to do. -- Horkana (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Zac Efron

Sources from OK! Magazine [1] and the Daily Mail [2] report that Efron is in film. I know it's not from Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, or Entertainment Weekly -- but the images they provide prove he's on the set filming.... —Mike Allen 02:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hadn't seen this comment before. I'd go with the Daily Mail article, it has more text and decent pictures of Pfeiffer too. -- Horkana (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Movie Poster isn't real.

The link for the movie poster says it's a "concept", which means it's just an idea for what the actual poster will look like. The Zac Efron poster seems to be from Charlie St. Cloud (although I can't confirm it, but that picture has been floating around for a year) and Lea Michele's looks like the Glee Season 2 photo shoot. Michael.gomez.hidalgo (talk) 07:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded the poster from the Joblo site. Now the site says "The posters listed above have been removed at the request of Warner Bros." I've removed the poster from the article and thus it will be deleted in a week. —Mike Allen 07:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)