Talk:List of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory characters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


In the willy wonka section it mentions that he is an owner of a "Candy" factory. This term is never used in the book, it is always reffered to as a chocolate factory. sillybillypiggy 17:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That may be true, but Wonka produces a vast array of confections (everlasting gobstoppers, to name just one), so it would hardly be incorrect to describe it as a candy factory. PurpleChez (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The "Everlasting Gobstoppers" and other candies seen during the tour are all projects he is working on. The only thing I recall being sold (i.e., produced in large quantities) in the book is chocolate bars. The title, after all, is "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". - SummerPhD (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
It’s also unusual to the British eye to see candy used where they would normally see sweet; the fact that the book title defines the type of factory as SummerPhD mentions, probably makes “candy factory” original research. Jock123 (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Arthur Slugworth[edit]

There's already a page for Arthur Slugworth that goes into some detail about his various incarnations in film. Either that should be merged into this article, or, since his transformations between adaptions were quite notable, limit this to a summary of his novel character, and indicate that for the movie adaptations, the reader should examine the main Arthur Slugworth page.

--Cosmocatalano (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


Is it worth noting that a veruca is a type of wart? Surely Dahl would have that in mind when he named the character. Of lesser importance, is it worth noting that a pop band took the name Veruca Salt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The first one is a definite yes. That is an interesting fact that is not entirely provable. (Just remember to write it in a way that suggests that it could be just a coincidence. Otherwise, it's a violation of WP:No original research). For the second one, I'd say no, unless you can provide a reliable source that confirms it 100%. Nick1372 (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
There is, most definitely, a fairly well-known pop band named "Veruca Salt." I'd say that's a significant "legacy" and should be noted. Wikipedia's disambiguation page for "veruca" and the page for the band "Veruca Salt" each report that the band is named after the character. PurpleChez (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
RE: Nick1372's response above. Your response is completely backwards. The first is a definite "no": "an interesting fact that is not entirely provable" is trivia and original research. It may not be added no matter how it's phrased, and advising someone to "write it in a way that suggests that it could be just a coincidence" is instructing them to use weasel words, which are usually indicative of unsubstantiated opinion. The WP article on the band Veruca Salt does indeed claim that the band is named after the character, but no source citation is offered, making it OR. If it becomes sourced in that article, it can absolutely be added to this one if there is a "legacy" or "pop culture" section. Otherwise, it's trivia; the source of the band name is amply described in the relevant article on the band and does not necessarily belong in this article, which already needs substantial rewriting to meet quality standards. (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Chapter 14- "My dear Veruca! How do you do? What a pleasure this is! You do have an interesting name, don't you? I always thought that a veruca was a sort of wart that you got on the sole of your foot! But I must be wrong, mustn't I?"

Has anyone editing this page actually read Willy Wonka in the last 20 years? Several important characters are missing. There were five children (10 in one of the original storylines per the official Dahl site) who found tickets. Much is missing from this page. A good kid lit prof needs to get ahold of it and flesh it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The first graf in Veruca's section refers to squirrels in the 2005 film and the second graf states that the squirrels are replaced by geese in the 1971 film. Since the 1971 film most likely preceded the 2005 film, why wouldn't it read that the squirrels replaced the geese? Perhaps the grafs should be swapped or, more simply, the word "replaced" should be replaced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:0:ED97:D076:9ED4:29D:80E8 (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I just changed it to "In the earlier film it is not squirrels but geese that instead lay special golden chocolate-filled eggs for Easter." Hope that is acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:0:ED97:D076:9ED4:29D:80E8 (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm disputing the claim that Veruca is depicted in both films as upper class. Roy Kinnear played her father in the first film as upwardly mobile working class. He made himself wealthy by operating a number of sweat shops but retained an urban accent. Just because he is rich doesn't make him upper class. In any case, claiming that the character belongs to this or that class requires a reliable source or it's or. Canonblack (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Book vs. Films[edit]

I think it would be appropriate to differentiate between characther details taken from the original book and those coming out of one of the films. I'm thinking of Violet's being from Atlanta and her many trophies. PurpleChez (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)