Template:Did you know nominations/We Are Your Friends (film)


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

We Are Your Friends (film)

 * ... that We Are Your Friends was an untitled film in June 2014?
 * Reviewed: Reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/EarthBound, fandom, fan translation, Marcus Lindblom (4th and final QPQ)

Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nominated at 03:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC).


 * It's not unusual for films to be untitled (or have an obviously preliminary title) even through editing. Isn't there something more interesting to say? EEng (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (ALT1) ... that We Are Your Friends, starring Zac Efron (pictured), is an upcoming film about Hollywood's electronic dance music scene? --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ALT1 is equally bad. It just tells the theme of the film. I agree with EEng that original hook is'nt good. But maybe you can make it funny or such. The film's co-producer is Working Title Films. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 11:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (ALT2) ... that We Are Your Friends, starring Zac Efron (pictured), was an untitled film in June 2014 and is now being produced by Working Title Films? --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * and .--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Look, it's not for me to say whether a hook's "good enough" but this is probably the best example ever of an article absolutely devoid of anything interesting. It's basically a press release. Of the three I'd go with ALT1 actually -- at least it says something about the film. EEng (talk) 04:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC) P.S. "Working Title" has been behind many films and won't be a surprise to many readers who enjoy films.
 * , obviously Working Title Films is notable enough to have an article. The point is sort of a joke by juxtapposing untitled with a company named Working Title.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah! That's what the fun part would have been. If you wish EEng, please rephrase it to make it a bit comic. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 09:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (ALT3) ... that Working Title Films' upcoming production We Are Your Friends was untitled in June 2014? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmadhyaksha (talk • contribs) 09:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

(Here, "was entitled" means "received the title" i.e. made the transition to having a title.) EEng (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ALT4 ... that a film untitled by Working Title was entitled We Are Your Friends?
 * ALT5 ... that an untitled Working Title film was entitled We Are Your Friends? --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am fine with any of the ALTs including my most recent.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you're playing with redundancy, here's an additional redundancy by unpiping the production company's name: ALT6 ... that an untitled Working Title Films film was entitled We Are Your Friends? M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  19:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * When is April Fools?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I move we strike all but ALT6. Now, can we make it a palindrome? Oh, wait!
 * ALT7 ... that what was an untitled Working Title Films film We Are Your Friends entitled was?
 * EEng (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am ready to go with ALT 6.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't we just let the promoter decide from among these alternatives?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We can, or we can decide which we think is best. I was mostly joking about ALT7. I agree with you in preferring ALT6.
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg EEng (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It's too short (it makes the cut off point by 2 characters but that would be reduced below the requirement by copy-editing). I'm sure there is more information available on it. The plot section needs a reference too as since it has not yet completed filming the film itself can't be the source for the plot. Also "he is faced with the choice of love, loyalty and his dreams"? That's Hobson's choice as phrased. Belle (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I added refs to the plot. There is not that much more about the movie at this time. The biggest news is that Efron goes jogging during the film and has been seen smoking on set (possibly marijuana), which may be a part of his role. I am not sure either of these facts belongs in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I agree. The plot section was a bit too close the wording of the sources and after copy-editing the article is too short, so I think this is probably going to be a "no" for DYK. (sorry, Zac Efron and Emily Ratajkowski, you should get your publicists to work harder). Belle (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We are at 1476 characters. Is there anything wrong with waiting for new news for this one over the next 6 or 8 weeks while this one queues up?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We aren't intentionally keeping the queues at 6 to 8 weeks and having articles sitting on the nomination page waiting until they might met the criteria won't help cut the backlog (nice idea though; you should have kept it in userspace as we all know that doesn't count). Belle (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I just added a fact to take it back over 1500.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Although you've put that the new addition is from the "movie's official Twitter account" the description on that account says "Unofficial twitter for the EDM-themed movie 'We Are Your Friends'" . I'd say that the statement was veering into original research even if it was the official feed anyway (they could be waiting for a bus). Why don't we leave this open for a couple of days in case any genuine interesting information comes in about the film (not for weeks though, that's taking the mickey). Belle (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I undid the Twitter info. I have also expanded the WP:LEAD. It remains over 1500 characters.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Go on then; pass, ready to go; I think this is getting through on technicalities rather than in the spirit of DYK, but maybe I'm too much of a dreamer (and at least the hook has a a bit of life in it). No copy problems; neutral; just over the line for character count; QPQ done; ALT6 good; image is usable and clear enough at DYK size (though he looks a bit chubbier at that resolution; I only said "looks", please don't kill me Zac Efron fans) Belle (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)