Talk:New Moon (novel)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Newmoon2.jpeg

Image:Newmoon2.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I beleive I have added a fair use rational. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thank You. -Bella 18:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

User IP numder 84.39.69.159 seems to have done this. Which I'm pretty sure is vandalism. I'm not sure how to handle it, so just so everyone knows, here it is. ~Bella 22:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that too. That is vandalism. As of now, it wouldn't be all that big of a deal, but if the user does it again, you can create a talk page for that user if he doesn't have one already and post a vandalism warning. That's usually how to handle the situation. Spottedstar 02:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary

Hmm... it's very long. Ashleyy osaurus (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright I cut it down, but it's still quite long. I'll work on it more some time soon. Andrea (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

i like the plot summaries to be long. i mean, i'm always wanting info, and little wussy plot summaries drive me crazy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.247.189 (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

...then just read the book. SoulReaverDan (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It sort of spoils the entire book = doesn't it? The marriage comment is way over the top - it totally recks it when you read it. Can we descale it a little?Heytaytay99 (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As said here, if you don't want the book spoiled, then don't go to the article page. It's necessary to have an overview of the plot, but we don't need to take away from it to take away spoilers. ~ Bella Swan^? 11:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is a really shitty Plot Summary. Shy.Emo.Eyes. (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Motorcycles

I just want something to be changed. When Bella first bought the motorcycles she wasn't intending to hear Edward's voice. She thought the delusion had been triggered by Deja Vu. She got the bikes to break her promise to him (since she felt he had broken his promise that it would be "as if he never existed" since she could not forget him). When she heard his voice on the bike she realised she only heard it when she was in danger. She was not aware of this fact until after her first time riding it.

P.S. Bella did not find the bikes on the side of a road. She saw them for sale outside of a boy's house, and they were in such bad condition that he gave them to her for free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlowerQueen (talk • contribs) 18:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

we need refs....Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}About Me 18:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Intro?

There was a sentence in the intro - "This book, unlike the previous entry, is about losing true love." that made me sort of cringe. I was about to click that "edit" button and remove it, as it seems to me a possible interpretation that is unsourced and does not represent the book as a whole. However, I thought that it might be better to get some community feedback. Anyone? IceUnshattered^{[ t | c ]} 23:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a reference for it: the video where Stephenie Meyer herself says that New Moon is "about losing true love". Definitely cringe-worthy though... Andrea (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Twilight Task Force

This is a note saying that a Twilight Task Force might be in the works. A poll is currently being held here to see who would be willing to join. If you would like to join, please participate in this poll. Thanks, ~ Bella Swan^? 13:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What's a task force? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.95.200 (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

after reading twighight,i am diff hooked to this book lik literally addicted to this book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.56.136 (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

New Moon movie

I think it's high time the New Moon film got its own page. They're going to start announcing the new cast soon and the section is already long now. That's just my opinion- I thought I'd give it since I have no idea on how to create a new article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.16.242.44 (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The film did have its own article for a short time, but due to the notability for future films guideline, it was decided that the article should wait until filming actually begins. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 17:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see New Moon. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster

I heard on my twilight movie there making it in November of 2009 I 'm really exited but really I think that It should come sooner because not naming names or usernames but some people are getting a little mad and I really don't know who. (Twilight578 (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)) (edward cullen)

"Cover and title significance" section necessary?

Is the Cover and title significance section absolutely necessary? This part of the article just looks stubby. I believe we can work these into the rest of the article to organize it a little more. What does everyone think? – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 21:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the information should remain, but it definitely doesn't need its own section. Maybe some sort of "Background" or "Origins"-type section should be made about how/why Meyer came up with the story, using information from here, and the cover and title stuff can be included in there as well? Andrea (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I will work on this later this week if someone else doesn't take care of it. Thanks for your input. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 23:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the section. The sentence of the title significance is now at the top and the part about the cover significance is gone since it only told us that it wasn't significant. Koweja (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As odd as it sounds, I think the lack of significance is actually significant. The reason being that all of the other book covers in the series actually do have a meaning, and so people naturally wonder about the meaning behind this one as well. Andrea (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I still don't get the cover on the novel a dying flower I don't really get it can someone explain? (Twilight578 (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)) (edward and bella)

I think it represents the fact that when Edward left Bella (as it says in the book) she dies inside. And, to Edward, Bella is as soft and precious as a rare and beautiful flower. Is anyone else seeing the connection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.101.103 (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Meyer has stated on her websitethat it represents nothing, and was chosen by the publisher for visual effect.70.75.0.221 (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Dakota Fanning

Should we be incorporating information about the offer made to Dakota Fanning? The casting of Fanning is still in talks and no deals have been finalized. I think we should wait until everything is said and done and Fanning has officially been added to the cast, but I want to get other people's thoughts. Thanks. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 23:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I really don't think we should be adding "in talks" information; Fanning can be added to the article if/when she is actually confirmed as being in the movie. However, I have no doubt that if we remove it, people will just keep trying to readd it (though the page is protected right now, so who knows). So I guess you could say that I'm in favour of removing it, but that I'm also bowing to the inevitable. :) Andrea (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I do think that users (anon users, especially) will keep trying to add it in. However, I will take it upon myself to remove the information if it keeps being added (until it's official that she will/will not be a part of the movie) and keeping the page protected (as I have done twice so far). Thanks for the feedback. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 00:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

New Moon Movie

I have a page layed out for New Moon and Eclipse. You are welcome to use it and change it however you want. Thanks!ChaosMaster16 (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

I also think that we should leave the movie information on here, even when filming starts. We should get conformation of the name by more than just one reliable source and then move the information in the correct area. That will eliminate moves and such. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Casting Rumor's for the Film in 2009.

The rumor's about Dakota Fanning playing Jane (from the Volturi Guard) are true. It has been announced and confirmed that she is to be portraying Jane in the film. Another rumor is about Ben Barnes playing the Volturi leader Aro for the film. They are supposedly false, but no one knows absolutlely. Two 90210 stars were rumored to be portraying another Volturi member, Heidi and the werewolf Jared. In some magazines the two stars will be playing the parts they are rumored to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StbrRunette (talk • contribs) 23:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Blogs used as sources

I've tagged 2 blogs that are being used as sources in the critical review section, anyone else care to comment? --Pstanton (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Upon looking into the two sites, they are definitely not notable. I support removing them both (as well as the DearAuthor one on the Eclipse (novel) page). Also, would the Kellan Rice blog in the Eclipse article be acceptable, since it is affiliated with Blast Magazine? Andrea (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I removed them. Andrea (talk) 03:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Reception

There are lots of people who hate New Moon because in this book, Bella is as helpless, obsessive, miserable, masichistic etc. as is humanly possible. Nothing to that effect is mentioned in the article. Would adding it count as original research? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.33.174.133 (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To add this opinion on its own would be original research, but it would be acceptable if reliable sources were provided. Andrea (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler Alert?

Quick Question: Is there any reason, whether it be rules/policy or otherwise, that a template cannot be placed at the beginning of this article stating that there are 'spoilers' within the article (I.e. what happens at the end)? And if so or if not, either way, would anyone object to such a template being placed? --Amaraiel^{Send Message} 09:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER outlines why we do not use spoiler warnings. Hope this helps. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Synopsis

I feel that the synopsis should be edited so to express that Bella took part in cliff diving, with the wording of '...through a series of miscommunications, Edward believes Bella has killed herself, as a result of her appearing in a vision of Alice's when recreationally cliff diving....' I am unable to do so as I do not qualify to edit this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Eviscerator (talk • contribs) 11:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)