Talk:Another Cinderella Story

Another Cinderella Story was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 31, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed

Comedy

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film: Canadian / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Is Filming Finished?

Is somebody getting news for this movie? Why are there no additions here maybe 2 weeks after this was added?Altarep (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was perusing wiki pages and came across this one. It appears to be littered with grammatical errors left and right. Mindbender (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The extended plot summary

This comment is regarding the long plot summary that is repeatedly being added to the article. We already have sourced plot info that is short, sweet, and gets to the point. I don't necessarily think it would be a bad idea to include a longer plot summary (but I don't really find it necessary at the same time). If it's going to be added, unnecessary quotes and parts of the film that didn't advance the story need to be left out (do we really need to know that Dominique told Mary, "Let's be BFFFs?"). Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 00:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty happy with the one that's there, and consider it to be the best of the plot summaries of all the Disney stuff: it explains everything that a reader needs to know to understand the context of the article. That's what a plot summary is supposed to do. It isn't intended to be a replacement for watching the movie, or serve as some kind of Cliff's Notes.—Kww(talk) 00:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The plot that PokerDance had edited is just too short but, the other reversion was too long can we just make it towards WikiFilm guideline's, it is supposed to be 400 to 700 words long also there need's to be primary source's for the plot. So what do you think, should go ahead and fix it, problem is I dont know how i'm not good at my typing skill's and really dont know how to make a good plot summary. I really need help on this so it would help if you guys helped me on this.^{(talk/contribs)} 08:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think it's too short at all, and suggest that you leave it alone. There's no need to retell the Cinderella story.—Kww(talk) 01:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell Me Something I Dont Know Genres

The reason I got rid of Bubblegum Pop is cause that has more to do with love like Baby One More Time by Britney Spears or 7 Things by Miley Cyrus. I think what your thinking is Bubblegum Pop instead of Teen Pop. Teen Pop is the right one cause it has to do with teens singing. But I guess since im disscussing this I should tell you what else I edited. The reason I put R/B was because I thought this was the ACS Album not Tell Me Something I Dont know Single. Cause the Album had R/B in it from Drew Seely. Anyways The song is Teen Pop because it has to do with teens singing and it Electropop because it got those type of vocals and last but not least it s Dance Pop cause it has that dance beat to it. And thats all the genres of that song.^{(talk/contribs)} 04:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With an upbeat sound, and the fact that it was marketed towards preteens and teenagers, this song - along with most Disney Channel songs - is considered bubblegum pop. Teen pop does not necessarily mean that a teenager is singing the music (for example, "Girlfriend" by Avril Lavigne). I think the song is both bubblegum and teen pop, and as you can see, teen pop was listed in the final edit which you unnecessarily reverted. Drew Seeley's contributions were pop and not R&B. Perhaps pop with R&B influences (similar to Jesse McCartney's recent work), but not R&B. The song does not have the type of vocals or instrumentals to be considered electropop. Electropop has robot-like voice effects in the vocals ("Poker Face" by Lady Gaga is a great example). And the song is not dance pop. Dance pop is the kind of music that plays in the dance clubs. Is this song danceable enough to be played in a club? Most likely not.

As you can see from my previous edit, I narrowed it down to genres that previously have been agreed on - pop and teen pop. Please do not revert my edits again without a better reason than your own opinions. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 22:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but it's like take (Britney Spears Womanizer) for instance it's Electropop and Tell Me Something I Dont Know is just like it only softer there's many kind's of genres. Not every Electropop is supposed to sound the same and TMSIDK still sound like there's robot sound in her vocals a bit. And besides its not just Pop and Teen Pop cause pop is very soft Like (Sometimes by Britney Spears) thats just main pop with no other genres and teen pop is just teen versions of pop and this song is defintaly not bubblegum pop because (main reason) I read most the article and bubblegum pop has to do with a teens love and affectionate in song and said may have sexual refernce like (Britney Spears Baby One More Time) Edit New:By the way I wasnt talking about Drew Seely song New Classic I was talking about his other song 1st Class Girl although you may be right about the R&B influences.^{(talk/contribs)} 04:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you believe it to be electropop isn't really the question. Can you find a reliable source that describes it as electropop?—Kww(talk) 23:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 00:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can prove all these you guys might think your all high mighty like I cant find these so called reliable sources Ive already found them and put them out tommorow There are alot of genres I doubt I can find sources that say this so called song is whatever But luckly I the sources for all the genres for the song as I said luckly^{(talk/contribs)} 04:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources in your last edit to this page were reliable. A reliable source would be allmusic, Billboard, Entertainment Weekly, etc. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey at least I got resources what makes you think you can just change genres of music and your 14 what make you think you know so much about music they may not be reliable resources but there resources. And how do you get around everything I change one thing its like WOW you dont have reliable resources for pop or teen pop how do you know its that. And by the way Yahoo Music is a reliable resource for Teen Pop —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprite7868 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if you have resources, if they are not reliable. Yahoo! Music is NOT a reliable source, as I said, that would be allmusic, Billboard, etc. As I have said previously, pop and teen pop were previously agreed on and non-controversial genres, unlike your constant re-additions of dance-pop and electropop. My age is of no matter in this, thank you. If you continue to re-add unreliable sources and original research, which you have also done to other articles, you will eventually be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I advise you learn the policies around here and change your ways, before you wind up in trouble. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Start Class

I really would like too upgrade this film article too a start class article. But I ask of you is there any improvements that need to be made to this article. Thats why I was thinking of expanding the plot. Maybe there could be a sub plot and a main plot. But back to the point is there any improvements whatsoever that need to be made. I need to know whats wrong with this article and why its still a stub. Sprite7868 ^{(talk/contribs)} 08:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and marked it "start". It's actually pretty close to "B" class. I'd clean up that "notes" section, because it borders on trivia. I'd delete it, myself, but there may be a way to improve it. A good section summarizing the financials would make it B class easily: production costs, ratings, revenue from DVD sales, etc.—Kww(talk) 01:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B-Class

{{Call| |B-Class-1= Yes |B-Class-2= Yes |B-Class-3= Yes |B-Class-4= Yes |B-Class-5= Yes

Do you know how to get to B-Class? Well, I'm confused about how to do the improving article template and what it says? I'm not sure how to add the code to the following call template as it says. It's telling me I have to edit with the grammar and all the other stuff. So i'm not sure where to start first the production is kinda hard cause I cant find any reliable reviews. So I dont think I'll do that. And the trivia I'm just gonna delete that Its not that important. It has to do with different charaters that are alike but from different areas. But anyways tell me what you think?Sprite7868 ^{(talk/contribs)} 09:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those checkboxes can be checked "yes", and I can take care of that. Focus on broadening the material. There's some material on the soundtrack album here. I didn't notice the ratings sections down at the bottom, so that part is done. Nobody reviewed it? That surprises me, but I searching around, I can see your point. These three look halfway promising.

I normally wouldn't list the "christiananswers.net" review, but they actually seem to have taken the time to review it carefully, and they give a detailed comparison with "A Cinderella Story", and find a lot of similarities, even though eyeforfilm.co.uk says the films have nothing in common. You can write a few sentences about how "Eyeforfilm says the two films are completely unrelated, but christiananswers noted x, y, z, and especially q".

Put those two sections in, and you will definitely meet the B class, and might even pass a good article review.—Kww(talk) 03:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I decided to put all three sections. Now I put it in the ratings section of the article. Is that correct, is that where I was supposed to put it. Anyways now we can move on to B-Class Article. We can move on to B-Class. Right. Sprite7868(talk) 11:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA-Class

I think we can go ahead and mark it GA-Class. Because the banner has all the checks in it for B-Class Critera. But still feel free too tell me what I can do to improve this artcle a little bit more.Sprite7868(talk) 12:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That requires an independent review from someone that hasn't worked on the article. You can put it on the list at Wikipedia:Good article nominations if you want.—Kww(talk) 17:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, is something wrong, PokerDance took off my submisson to the Wikipedia:Good article nominations. He said I need too add a template too this talk page in order to place a nomination for ACS at Wikipedia:Good article nominations His exact word's were (→Theatre, film, and drama: Removing Another Cinderella Story (template not placed on talk page).). Im confused what did I do wrong?^{(talk/contribs)} 06:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read the directions: there's a three-step process at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations, and you didn't do either step 2 or step 3.—Kww(talk) 00:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, All taken care of. Now we just have to wait till we get a reviewer too review the article.^{(talk/contribs)} 06:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Another Cinderella Story/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'm afraid I'm failing this article's GA nomination. There are a number of significant issues which need to be fixed before the article can be promoted:

The introduction doesn't adequately summarise the entire contents of the article (read WP:LEAD)
The plot section should be a somewhat detailed recount of all of the film's events, not just a brief synopsis
There should be a "Production" section, describing how the film was made
Some information is missing references, such as for soundtrack CD sales
The references should be correctly formatted (read WP:REF/ES)
Subheadings should be laid out in an order similar to MOS:FILM (that page will give you a thorough explanation of what each subheading should contain, too)

These are just the main issues; there are also some smaller problems, such as grammar and formatting. You should have a look at other GA-class film articles (Category:GA-Class film articles) to see what a good article should look like, in addition to MOS:FILM. When you think that you've fixed all of the problems above, you should re-nominate the article at GAN. Good luck with improvements. —97198 (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot expansion redux

The GA review mentioned multiple things wrong, and I agree with all of them except the plot. If you want to go for GA, then fix the rest of them, and go for review again. The plot summary we currently have is adequate. An 1800 word one was ridiculous.—Kww(talk) 02:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split of content to Tell Me Something I Don't Know

Oppose. The song may meet WP:NSONG as having "ranked on national or significant music charts," but there is simply not enough verifiable content to warrant its own article. I think the song should remain merged to this article. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 20:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in principle. In practice, I've found this kind of conflict to be unwinnable. Since the people creating the article have the letter of the guideline on their side, there's no effective method to keep the redirect in place.—Kww(talk) 20:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, the guideline also says, "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." POKERdance ^talk/contribs 20:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's subjective, and most single articles are about the size of that one, so most people will argue that it isn't a stub. This is one of my pet peeves: to me, an infobox, chart, and video summary is a stub. If the article can't be bigger than that, the single should be discussed with the album. You won't find many that agree.—Kww(talk) 20:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Selena Gomez said, the song is remix and re-recorded for her album. The content of the single page will be increasing by adding a "New Version" section.—96.249.147.36(talk) 20:31, 8 August 2009 (ET)

A re-recording of this song does not make it any more worthy of an article. That can be mentioned in one sentence on this article. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 00:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-recording means the song is not part of the movie, it is an individual. I think we should split. DantODB (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's re-released as a single, I'd say you have a point. If it just stays an unmarketed track to fill out an album, I'd disagree.—Kww(talk) 14:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help Me On The Plot

I'm just wondering if I could make the plot a little longer. The plot's like this:

This movie is a retelling of the fairy tale Cinderella, with Mary Santiago (Selena Gomez), a high school student working as a maid, fulfilling her ambitions of becoming a dancer. Now that her long time celebrity crush Joey Parker (Drew Seeley) has arrived at her school for his senior year, she and her bestfriend Tami (Jessica Parker Kennedy) must do all they can to fulfill her dreams and prevent her celebrity supervisor Dominique Blatt (Jane Lynch), Dominique's daughters Britt (Emily Perkins) and Bree (Katharine Isabelle), and the school's popular girl Natalia Faroush (Nicole LaPlaca), from stopping her. Meanwhile, Joey's bestfriend Dustin "The Funk" (Marcus T. Paulk) develops a relationship with Tami.

Please comment this section if you agree to use this summary as the plot. - FDJoshua22 (talk) 14:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)loe it[reply]

DETAILED PLOT is here

Since Disney employees are constantly deleting the plot from the article I add wikilink to it here so that everyone interested could read it. 78.131.137.50 (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split the content of Tell Me Something I Don't Know

I think "Tell Me Something I Don't Know" should be splitted off of the "Another Cinderella Story" Soundtrack section. I think "Tell Me Something I Don't Know" should be its own seperate page. 21 October 2010 by RickyYayo3

How does the song meet the general notability guidelines? Where has the song—not the album—received significant coverage in reliable sources? —C.Fred (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This comes under the qualifier in WP:NSONGS that says Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. There just isn't enough meat here to warrant a separate article. It fits nicely in this this (also quite small) article about a fairly unimportant movie that doesn't have much coverage either. Together, they make a reasonable size article.—Kww(talk) 17:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]