Talk:Aftershock: Earthquake in New York

message: Infobox tag has been removed as article already has one.  If you have any problems with this please post a message on my talk page. RWardy 22:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox Tag

message: As there seems to be some debate as to the value of including some of the information about Jennifer Garner's involvement in this film, I thought I'd better set out my views on why this information should be included in this article.
While it's true that actors and actresses often change their appearance for specific parts, and that this is usually not all that notable, some changes can be notable for various reasons. For example, if an actor or actress temporarily changes the length or color of their hair for a role, then that's probably not notable - unless the change is very unusual for some reason (such as women completely shaving their head for a role). However, if they gain or lose a significant amount of weight for a specific role, then that surely is notable and worthy of mention, isn't it? And isn't that also true for other things which may be outside of the accepted societal norms at the time? 
So, the reason why I believe mention of Jennifer Garner having her ears pierced for her part in this film are as follows:
1) The accepted societal norm (at least in the USA and Europe) is that women typically have their ears pierced as children or teenagers, while Jennifer didn't have her's pierced especially for this role until she was in her late-20s - Which places her outside of the societal norm and is therefore slightly unusual, and may be considered by some users here to be worthy of note.
2) Jennifer had her ears pierced for the very first time ever specifically for her role in this film. She didn't get them done because she'd decided that she wanted to - she got them done because she needed to have them done specifically for this film. Again, the fact that she had them done specifically for this film is something which is directly and uniquely related to this film, and therefore may be considered notable by some users.
3) Having had her ears pierced, she then let them heal up again after filming was completed, and did not keep them open - Which is again slightly unusual behaviour, as most women will keep their ears pierced once they've had them done, and so could be considered notable in relation to this film.
4) The information comes from a properly referenced article from a Sunday suppliment to a major UK-based newspaper, and so meets the guidelines for verifiability, referencing and sources. Unfortunately, as the magazine does not have a dedicated website containing the article, the only online source available is scans of the article on a long-established Jennifer Garner fan site, which cannot be used as a reference due to copyright issues. However, the scans do exist, and can be viewed by anyone who does a few minutes searching for them if there are any doubts as to the genuineness of the information.
So, to summarise, I believe the information merits inclusion because this was something slightly unusual that Jennifer did specifically for this film, and the only reason she did it when she did appears to be her role in this film. To me, that makes this information notable and worthy of inclusion in this article. If you have other views on this, I'm happy to hear them, although I think you'll have a hard time convincing me otherwise!! Sandi saraya (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I already noted: the material still isn't appropriate nor necessary for Wikipedia. Someone getting their ears pierced is not notable in any way, shape, or fashion. It doesn't matter how unusual this one editor believes this is, there is no reliable source saying it is some insanely unique thing that only Garner has done. It is pure WP:TRIVIA that is completely irrelevant to the film. At best, it should get a side note in Garner's article, but I suspect it would be removed from there as the trivia it is. It is something for laughing about on IMDB, but not for an encyclopedia to cover. Actors and actresses frequently change their appearances to match their roles, including getting piercings, learning new skills, shaving their heads, gaining/losing weight, etc. And no, it is generally not notable unless it is extreme and getting one's ears pierced is not. It is just not worthy of inclusion, nor are the other two statements, both of which are completely unsourced. Both projects have been notified to request additional views.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there is something significant about the ear piercings in the film itself, I have to agree that it's very trivial. Actors often have to do things "for the first time" on set, because the role calls for it. Only when that is something important to the character itself is it really worth mentioning here. "Especially", when that information is copied verbatim from IMDb's trivia page. Let them deal with the trivia.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I'd say it's trivial, but on the other hand, this article is so far away from GA quality that it's still in the "let's collect every trivial production fact and see where it goes" phase in my eventualist mind. Not much harm done by leaving a trivial sourced fact in a sub-quality article (removal is not going to improve it much), but if more information about make-up and costumes comes up to build a nice paragraph, it'd be wrong to remove this fact now. – sgeureka t•c 09:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there's no real harm done by leaving this information in the article, and that removal doesn't actually improve the article in the slightest. And if you'd ever seen the film, you'd know that the earrings (or rather the loss of them) is a fairly notable event for Jennifer's character, as they have a sentimental value, and so Jennifer getting her ears pierced for the role probably does rate a mention of some kind here. So I agree with Sgeureka above that it'd probably be wrong to remove the information at this time. Maybe it can be reworded to make it distinct from IMDb's reference, but that's probably the only change I'd make for now. Later on, if more information about costuming and make-up does come to light, all of that could be combined into a dedicated section (or sub-section) along with this information, which would be an improvement to this article, and the information would then at least be in a more appropriate section. (And, unlike some of the other "information" in the "Production" section, which genuinely IS fairly meaningless trivia, it is at least properly sourced and referenced.) Gidz (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen the film, and love it, but having minor sentimental value in the film does not mean her getting her ears pierced is notable in the least. And yeah, the article IS in bad shape, but it can't be improved if it isn't first cleaned up of cruft, copyvio, unsourced info, and trivia. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

text: If a reliable source thinks it's important enough to mention, then it should be included.  If not, then not.  Other than that, its just our opinion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As the News of the World is a long-established UK newspaper, then I'd say that it (and any associated magazine from the same publisher) probably qualifies as a reliable source. As the information in question comes from a magazine interview with Garner herself, and the magazine thought it significant enough to print, then I say it should be included - even if some users believe it to be trivia (which is simply their own individual POV anyway, as one person's trivia is often someone else's useful information...) Despite what some users here seem to believe, deletion of this information does not improve the article in any way, while retaining it does not harm it in the slightest. Emma white20 (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A passing mention in an interview is trivial and trivia. Just because she mentioned it in an interview does not mean it is notable nor useful. It is NOT about the movie, its about her, and retaining it does harm the article as it encourages other trivia to be added. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

text: You mean articles on movies you consider "good"? Good is totally subjective, of course, and just because it wasn't a box office smash or a huge ratings hit is not a valid reason to ignore it. Obviously it had some fans if someone would even notice something like a woman piercing her ears for it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jennifer Garner 

message: *'Shock' Treatment at Entertainment Weekly
*Aftershock: Earthquake in New York Review at Variety
* (That is all the citation has, FYI.)
Hope these are of use. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks! I plan to do some searching as well tonight. One of my articles I decided to revisit from my early days ;-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

text: All incorporated, thanks! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations to use 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Aftershock: Earthquake in New York. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0%2C%2C271539%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327070323/http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms21.htm to http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms21.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified