Jump to content

Talk:Wreck-It Ralph

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mz7 (talk | contribs) at 15:31, 1 March 2017 (→‎Proposed merge with Wreck-It Ralph 2: withdrawing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleWreck-It Ralph has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 7, 2013Good article nomineeListed

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Wreck-It Ralph. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Store links weren't dead, exactly (and I'm not sure their archive links count as working), but I've checked. magicaldefinition might not count, either, as I suspect the actual source is in the (non-archived) mp3 of the podcast. - Purplewowies (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tapper's

Tappers was originally made as a beer serving game. Later, it was changed to root beer, but relatively few machines were converted. Why do some editors here insist on the root beer version? There's nothing in the movie that I've noticed which specifies either way. To my mind, that means it's best not to specify either way. - Denimadept (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it's the same editor each time (it always seems to be an IP, almost always editing the exact same parts of the article). The cabinet in the movie is actually somewhat interesting, as it's mostly pulled from (beer) Tapper (the player character's appearance, the cabinet, etc.), though the back of the room when the camera cuts to the real-world perspective is emblazoned with the "root beer" icon. (This can be most clearly seen on this image at the Wreck-It Ralph Wiki on Wikia.) I personally think the reasons for "root beer" to be included were to expunge what would have been Budweiser references on a standard Tapper cabinet, since that's the only way they're included and the rest is fairly faithful to (beer) Tapper. But to include it one way or the other without clear in-movie evidence or a reliable source stating which it is would be OR, so best to keep it to what the movie does state. (That is, they call it Tapper... but that's really about all they do.) - Purplewowies (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also in favor of just leaving it as "Tapper's". I don't see any reason for any extra wording here - "Tapper's root beer game" would be unnecessarily verbose, and a little clunky, even if it were perfectly accurate. The link to the Tapper's article is perfectly sufficient. --Fru1tbat (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fake history

Please -- someone with far better editing skills than me: please add something to address this:

http://www.ageekdaddy.com/2013/03/there-really-is-fix-it-felix-jr-video.html

http://wreckitralph.wikia.com/wiki/Fix-It_Felix,_Jr._(game)

supporting reference thingie: Disney is Rewriting Your Childhood With Nostalgia For a Game That Didn't Exist

a video where the guy talks about how it's not from actual 1982: Fix It Felix Jr arcade cabinet at home

It would just be nice for Wikipedia to, with neutral voice, clarify that even though there is apparently a Fix It Felix actual arcade cabinet in the wild, with a (C) 1982 in the game, the game did not actually exist in 1982.

In fact, this whole history re-write thing feels creepy-- like something from the book 1984.

PragmaticallyWyrd (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I emphasized the fictional aspect by inserting the word fictional in three more places. It already appeared in one, to describe the fake Disney game cabinet. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the need to point out as someone who has edited Wreck-It Ralph Wiki that that page is written from an in-universe perspective--sometimes far more than it should be. That, of course, has little to do with this wiki's information, I just felt like pointing it out. (Particularly since that article's not only rather in-universe but also seems like it could be conflating the real-life promotional game that came out in 2012 with the in-movie fictional game from 1982.) In terms of re-writes being creepy, though, I'd say the Garlan Hulse mockumentary they made for the movie is far creepier because of the sheer lengths it goes to. :P Kind of strange the fictional nature of the game wasn't yet clarified enough yet... - Purplewowies (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Wreck-It Ralph 2

WITHDRAWN
I still think that the information would be better presented in the context of the original article at this time, but I recognize that is not the consensus here. Mz7 (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It is still too soon to have a standalone article for the sequel at this time. The relevant guideline here is WP:NFF, which states that In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced. In this case, we don't have evidence that the film is in this stage of the production. If anything, recently released sources (unsure of their reliability) seem to indicate that the cast of the film is still being finalized: [1][2][3]. This will almost certainly be notable in the future, but for now, it is better to present the information that we do have right now as a section in the original film's article. Mz7 (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Definitely will probably be notable in the future, but it's definitely too soon even though there's a release date out. - Purplewowies (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, its release date might be delayed to a year like 2024?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They could move the release date, yes (it's not unheard of, though 2024 is a bit far out), but I was saying that the release date (presuming it doesn't move) is one of only a few concrete, specific things we know about the movie. There's no evidence of where it is in production, very little concrete plot information, little about casting, etc. It's WP:TOOSOON. There's not enough coverage at this point in time to merit the article being separate yet. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: No it's not to soon for an article of its own. There is sufficient information to warrant an article. I see no reason to believe it would be better to keep the informatin stuck in the Wreck-It Ralp (1) article. --Maxl (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It'll need its own article one day, but for now, I don't think there's sufficient content that requires its own article. Everything there could be easily merged into the existing article without loss for readers. MidnightObservation (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support: I suppose per the guideline, it's premature, and I suppose the line has to be drawn somewhere, but otherwise, it seems like unnecessary work to merge it just to have to separate it again in a week/month/whatever. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The film warrants it's own article, considering that the film comes out in just over a year, meaning most of the voice acting is done and animation is being completed. If this was done four months prior, I could understand the warrant, but not now. If it were something like Frozen 2, which is similar in terms of amount of knowledge but farther off, than I could understand. but this film has more information and a closer release date. --Zorbo678 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, February 13, 2017 (UTC)
But we don't have reliable sources confirming that it's out of that production phase. Assuming so is WP:OR. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zorbo678: I'm not sure about that. From what I can tell by the sources I listed above, it seems that they are still figuring out what the cast is going to consist of. Are there any reliable sources that confirm that "most of the voice acting is done and animation is being completed"? Extrapolating this based on how far away the release date is would be, as Purplewowies notes, original research. We really don't have that much information at all about the film beyond what is already listed in the "Sequel" section of the first film's article. Mz7 (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the article has already been written, has plenty of valid sources, as far as we know it will be released in a year. Really overthinking this one. CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This seems good enough as a standalone article, considering where it's at right now. (TheJoebro64 (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose: The article clearly meets WP:GNG, is well-sourced, and will receive ongoing attention in the near future.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 03:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose: Since this article has already been created, and we know it'll be needed at a point in the future, I think there's not too much harm in keeping it there. I don't think we should preemptively create sequel articles for every movie that has the slightest hint of a sequel coming, but since this one has already been created, it may as well stay. JaykeBird (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The film has enough sources to meet the general notability standard, which trumps a special standard like WP:NFF. While NFF has value to avoid proliferating articles on speculative movie projects, this film has an official release date about a year from now so is beyond the speculative stage. And if at this point the project gets cancelled, the project would still be notable at this point. Rlendog (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wreck-It_Ralph&oldid=768061347"