Talk:Snow Day (2000 film)

message: It seems that this page should be at 'Snow Day (film)' so it follows convention used for other films, especially those with titles similar to other events or things. For this reason, I am moving this page to Snow Day (film) and establishing this page as a redirect. Freedomlinux 16:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: :Image:Snow day poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Snow day poster.jpg

message: :Image:Emmanuelle chriqui mark webber promo still snow day.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Emmanuelle chriqui mark webber promo still snow day.jpg

message: Since the plot section seems too long and could be condensed by removing minor details, I have added the "long plot" template to the top of the "Plot" section. Msoul13 (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , I checked the page history, and the excessive wording was added in November 2019. I reverted the plot section to before that wording was added. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thank you ! Msoul13 (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

text: If we are going to expand the plot to the required length, we must find a way to not leave anything important out of it. Right? Rtkat3 (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Given the plot length framework it should not be an intricate play-by-play account of each scene either. I am fine with other editors working on this, as it's been a long time since I've seen the movie. :) Msoul13 (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long plot 

message: There is a 2022 remake of this movie. I suppose it can its own article.Cwater1 (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it should have it's own article. ACase0000 (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

text: While it's true that the 2022 film should probably have its own article, I don't see why a "split" discussion is necessary as part of the process — this article uses a grand total of three sentences to acknowledge that the 2022 remake exists, which is about the same amount of content that the article would still need to retain about the existence of a remake after the remake had its own separate article anyway, so there's not really anything to "split". Just create the article about the remake, and then we can move this to a disambiguated title since there will be two films, and none of that requires a discussion about "splitting" an article that doesn't really contain much content to "split". Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

text: I agree that the remake should have its own article as well. I've added the remake reference to the Snow day disambiguation page and added an article request. Msoul13 (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: good news i just created a draft article for the remake go ahead and start adding to it  Flyless Kyle (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article for 2022 film