Talk:Wreck-It Ralph/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Music

Thomas Newman have to make Scores for this film and Randy Newman have to make Songs forf this film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.1.132 (talk) 07:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Where the characters are from

Do you mind if I put where the famous video game characters are from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.135.236 (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, I fixed up some of the characters's names. Do you mind if its like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.135.236 (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think it's necessary. The characters are linked to their games (or for major characters, to their own articles), so if someone wants to know who a character is, they can click on the wikilink and find out. That said, I'm not going to sweat it at this point. The main thing I'm concerned about is that character appearances are properly cited. As to how the names appear, I think those changes you made are fine. However, strictly speaking, Zangief didn't appear until Street Fighter II, although he is of course part of the overall Street Fighter franchise.

Lastly, please make sure you sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). --McDoobAU93 02:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Big Daddy?

Why did you delete Big Daddy from BioShock from the list of videogame cameos in Wreck-It Ralph? A few sites confirmed that he would be appearing in Ralph's group therapy session, so why did you delete him from the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.135.236 (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Because no reliable source was included with the edit to back it up. If one of these sites is indeed reliable enough for inclusion (i.e., it's not a fan blog, a forum or a rumor site), then please include it along with the edit. --McDoobAU93 15:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I will try to find a way to find proof of a reliable source that says that he will be appearing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.135.236 (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the people from the websites could have confused Big Daddy for that yellow robot that appeared in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.140.204.91 (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Characters and technical terms

Are the terms deuteragonist and tritagonist really necessary? They're highly technical terms used, in my opinion, unnecessarily. Euchrid (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I say no. We should generally limit the characters who get special descriptions to the protagonist and antagonist. Do you really know of any way to rank all characters in order of importance with protagonist, deuteragonist, tritagonist, tetartagonist, pemptagonist, hectagonist, and so on?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The order in which they're listed makes their significance to the plot clear. I'll leave it a while and remove the terms if nobody objects.Euchrid (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Not only are such pedantic terms unnecessary, they are flat out against the Film Project's MOS (including protagonist and antagonist as previously used in the cast list). See WP:FILMCAST. Millahnna (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Cameos

Just a thought, but in the new international trailer, you can see Asteroids, Battlezone, Space Invaders, Food Fight, Centipede, Star Wars Arcade, and TMNT machines, among others, and in the 2nd US trailer, one of the gates in Game Central Station leads to Tron, even though no characters from any of these games have appeared yet. Given stuff like this, and for the sake of cleanliness, maybe it would be easier to just list the games who are represented via cameo and not ID specific characters unless they're voiced. Then when the film is released, we can just pull the list of games mentioned in the credits instead of trying to spot every possible character appearance. Again, just a thought. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The cabs are impressive but the names are sometimes blurred out(probably for licensing issues) so you can't say these guys will have cameos. I will say that to any one who grew up in the 80s-90s the shapes of the cabs are unmistakeable(yay star wars cockpit) so if you want to make a section on "games in the arcade" it would totally fit.Darkcat1 (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Tapper

I sorta fixed the Tapper links and this is because in my opinion no matter what the edition it's still just Tapper which I think should just be used generically to describe the game. Also a couple of things from the trailers bothered me about specifically naming it "Root Beer Tapper": 1. The Bartender is not wearing the soda jerk outfit from the "Root Beer" edition. and 2. The game is named as "Tapper" in a clip of Game Central Station where you can see the entrance. Darkcat1 (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The female Dancer from "DDR" has a name

Resolved

 – The dancer is credited in the film as "Yuni" and is voiced by Jamie Sparer Roberts. --McDoobAU93 02:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A user just deleted the female dancer's name I put after looking at the DDR Wiki. For the last time Wikipedia users, that dancer's name is Yuni Berth. And here is an image of the character for proof. http://images.wikia.com/ddr/en/images/0/09/Newch_yuni_img.jpg --Joey108 (talk) 2:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Other wikis are not considered reliable sources for inclusion in Wikipedia, per WP:RS and per WP:VG/S. You are free to produce a reliably sourced article stating that this is indeed who is presented in the scene in question. --McDoobAU93 18:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the bar of the character's name of the link I just provided, you can cleary see the first name of the dancer Yuni on one of the Image links. Have you not...been...seeing...that reliable link source? The name deleting has got to stop before I have to provide better sources.--Joey108 (talk) 3:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

What link are you talking about? If you're referring to the link provided in this thread, it's a link to an image on Wikia, another wiki site. Per WP:VG/S and per WP:RS, wikis are not considered reliable sources. Even Wikipedia itself cannot be used as an edit for an article on Wikipedia. Secondly, as you are attempting to add the information, the burden is on you to provide the proof. --McDoobAU93 19:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If the character really does turn out to be Yuni (which seems likely based on what the wikia has gathered, though it wouldn't be the first time a fan wikia got it wrong), then it will be confirmed either upon release or in reliable sources we can actually use. Most of the time, we can't use wikias here as a reference. There are a few notable exceptions when such a site has a long standing tradition of being stable and reliably edited, itself, but those exceptions are few and far between. That wikia hasn't even existed as long enough (let alone been stable long enough, which it doesn't look like it is) to warrant a look-see to discuss its possible use as a WP:RS. Millahnna (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Millahnna. I'm pretty sure we will have reliable sources breaking down all the references in this film when it comes out. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Forgive us for thinking a recreation of a character should be named on this page, but then why does Clyde from Pac-Man not require an official name when Yuni needs a citation? If it somehow isn't Yuni, it's a blatantly obvious parody of her when you look at the two, exactly like Clyde (only named "ghost" in both articles). Letting a character go uncited is okay just because they're more popular? If you're going to be fair, whoever can edit this now-locked page should remove Clyde's name, because no where in the articles listed is he named. Then you would need to find the official article that says his name, right? Either name them both or remove them both. Of course, if the citations are somehow wrong, they need to be fixed; the Pac-man ghost isn't even mentioned in the 11th citation, yet it's one of the articles linked to. Papersak (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Um, Clyde's appearance is cited. The initial link to the source from Entertainment Weekly has a "Next Page" link before the comments section, and clicking through to Page 4 (link provided in this post) you'll see Clyde specifically mentioned. Also, Disney's site here also indicates this is Clyde. I would agree that these improved citations should go in the article where Clyde is listed, to clear things up a bit. --McDoobAU93 20:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The Dancer from DDR

Resolved

 – The dancer is credited in the film as "Yuni" and is voiced by Jamie Sparer Roberts. --McDoobAU93 02:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that the dancer from Dance Dance Revolution (the one who says "All clear!" in one of the trailers) is Yuni Berth. 96.42.112.136 (talk) 08:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! Would you have a reliable source that proves this statement? Unfortunately, we can't take a user's interpretation of the character's appearance, no matter how right they probably are, as that would be original thought. --McDoobAU93 14:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

http://www.dancedancerevolution.wikia.com/wiki/Yuni_Berth It isn't that hard to do a little searching. >_> 96.42.112.136 (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Please remember the key phrase from my response ... a reliable source. Other wikis, including Wikia and even Wikipedia itself, are not deemed reliable enough to support an edit. If it were deemed reliable, it would have been included by now, probably with that very link you provided. --McDoobAU93 13:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Not what TV Tropes says. Oh well, to each his own. *continues viewing TV Tropes and ignoring you* 96.42.112.136 (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting statement when one first visits TV Tropes: "What is this about? This wiki is a catalog of the tricks of the trade for writing fiction." (Italics from original; bold emphasis is mine.) Please refer to the answer I gave previously ... and yes, you can choose to ignore it. --McDoobAU93 17:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat characters

The junior novelization of the movie's been released, and I noticed that all the licensed characters like Zangief and Clyde are not present in it. However, the characters we've all assumed to be Kano and Smoke do in fact appear in the book, which suggests to me that they're not in fact the characters in question. More likely, they're meant to be homages to the MK characters like our Cyril lookalike, but not the characters themselves (which also explains the differences in character design and voice compared to their traditional MK incarnations). I'm giving Smoke the axe from the list since he doesn't talk and is most likely just a generic ninja, but unless there are any objections, I'll leave Kano in as "Cyborg", similar to how we treated Cyril. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with both counts. Every other major licensed character we've mentioned has a citation confirming their identity, either from Disney itself or from a reliable source qualified to make the distinction. There is no reason that these characters, which may or may not be from Mortal Kombat (as they belong to arch-rival studio Warner Bros. ... and I don't know if relations between the two would support another crossover akin to Who Framed Roger Rabbit?), should be treated any differently. If a reliable source cannot be found definitively stating that these are who the characters are, they should be described generically. --McDoobAU93 04:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I also support the removal of the Smoke character, as he is a non-speaking character, and Kano should be left as Cyborg, similar to how we treated Cyril. They're meant to be homages to the MK characters, but not the characters themselves. There's absolutely no reason that these characters should be treated any differently. If a reliable source verifying this information can be found, then we can describe them generically. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Aren't you spoiling yourself the ending of the movie by reading the junior novel? 96.42.112.136 (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not a forum to discuss that particular topic (whether or not the plot is "spoiled"). --McDoobAU93 13:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, I didn't actually read the book; I just pulled a page from it that someone else had posted. That said, however, since the book has been released already, should we toss up a larger start-to-finish plot summary based on that, or should we just wait the remaining week and a half for the film's release before writing something up? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Books based on movies tend to embellish a bit, filling in details that never appear in the film. Since this article is about the film and not the book based upon said film, I think we might run into problems.

In about 3 hours, I'll be watching the movie itself (advance screening) and should have answers to many of the questions that have been posted here on the talk page. As to the plot summary, I certainly could develop one, although I'm not sure how people feel about posting plots to movies that officially haven't opened yet. The only people who could check my work would be other editors who have attended similar advance screenings, at least until the movie opens next weekend. --McDoobAU93 20:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The cyborg from the book looks nothing like the cyborg we see in the movie, who looks identical to Kano. I'm not buying it. Yes, "Smoke" looks like just a generic ninja, so I can stick with that, but not Kano. 85.210.182.57 (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It's very clearly meant to be the same character. Same clothing, same metal arm, same cyborg eye and goatee. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It very clearly is not. They look nothing alike. How about looking at the trailer, looking at the picture and THEN writing? The cyborg in the book clearly does not have a cybernetic eye for one thing. 85.210.176.207 (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The eye is still there. It's the same character. And for the record, it does NOT look identical to Kano. Kano in the games has a robotic right eye (the cyborg's is on the left), has very different clothing, has never been bald and had facial hair at the same time, and does not have a robotic arm. Unless you've got better evidence, there's no reason to believe that it's actually Kano. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, I do have evidence, having seen the full feature. I will reveal it here if desired, although I don't like spoiling jokes/plots without some warning about it. --McDoobAU93 23:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Donkey Kong

The game featured in this movie seems to heavily reference Donkey Kong, as Ralph is the bad guy who continuously tosses things down to stop the hero. In fact, the hero even does look like a plumber, much like Mario, albeit with a different color scheme. This may in fact be reinforced due to the fact that more than 10 years later, Donkey Kong starred as a protagonist of his own game in Donkey Kong Country (although stated in-game that he is the succesor of the original Donkey Kong). 201.186.245.146 (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm intrigued to hear your opinion, but unfortunately it's just that, your own thoughts. And also unfortunately, the article talk page is not intended to be a forum for discussion of the subject; it is intended to discuss how to improve the article. If you can find some published, reliably-sourced analysis that makes the same statement, then it should be included in the "Development" section of the article. --McDoobAU93 17:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are direct references to the fact the game was based on the Donkey Kong arcade game. In fact, the way the hero dies is the exact same way Mario does in that game (see Trailer number 2). Unfortunately, the only way of knowing for sure would be asking the creators themselves, but I'm quite sure they will confirm it. 201.186.245.146 (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

... or find a print/online article from a magazine, newspaper or website where the interviewers asked the same basic question, with the animators responding appropriately. As sure as you might be, unfortunately it's just not enough upon which to base an edit. --McDoobAU93 18:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the director said in an interview that Ralph is indeed kind of an amalgamation of Donkey Kong and Bluto from Popeye [1]. 201.186.245.146 (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

That's just what I was looking for ... an interview where the question is asked and answered. Feel free to add in Moore's specifics, that Ralph is a combination of a number of characters, and use the link as the source. Thanks for finding it! --McDoobAU93 03:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 November 2012

I suggest changing "Voice cast not confirmed yet" to "Unconfirmed voice cast" for coherency issues and grammar issues. Turtleey (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Done: Minor CE request only. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 November 2012

please add ---> Skrillex to cameos. He is the DJ at Fix-It Felix's anniversary party.

Source, just saw the movie 99.52.125.253 (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sources must meet the reliable source guidelines, and your personal observation does not meet it. RudolfRed (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Skrillex is already listed in the voice cast section, with the appropriate citation. --McDoobAU93 04:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Primal Rage

Did anyone notice Sauron from Primal Rage in the background in one of the scenes in Game Central Station? --69.248.250.136 (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I hear that the design was used from Tiny the Tyrannosaurus from Meet the Robinsons. Rtkat3 (talk) 3:15, November 29 2012 (UTC)

Plot summary

As advance screenings are now taking place, at some point the plot summary is going to start being added to the article. I know that Wikipedia officially has a policy that discourages providing spoiler warnings. However, I would like to provide a place to work on the plot away from the main article, then we post it in article-space at midnight UTC on November 2 (that would be 8pm EDT November 1). I've seen one of the advance screenings (great movie, BTW) and will be glad to host the plot summary in a sub-page in my user space. Any editors who have seen the film can help correct me and cull down the plot to appropriate length, and editors who wish to help out and aren't worried about spoiling their viewing can certainly do so as well. What do other editors think? --McDoobAU93 04:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

If you would like to help on the plot summary, you can visit it here. Be forewarned that this is a complete summary of the plot, so if you don't want to spoil the movie, I would suggest waiting. If it doesn't bother you (or you've seen it too), go right ahead and help me cull it down to appropriate (400-700 words) length. --McDoobAU93 16:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Now that people are seeing the movie, please remember to keep the length of the plot summary below 700 words, per WP:FILMPLOT. We don't need to cover every single plot detail, just the general flow of the story. If you believe a plot point needs to be covered that isn't already covered here, please discuss and see what other editors think. Thanks! --McDoobAU93 16:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added an article page notice that will appear when one edits the page that warns of plot expansion. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the recent edits with "extraneous details"

As mentioned in the history, my edits were in good faith, but I was adding several necessary details that, while I thought they were important, could've been left out. Nevertheless, I do have a couple suggestions:

- The current version of the plot section does not initially establish what the cy-bugs are; they're first mentioned when Ralph gets the medal and suddenly hatches one. I kept adding "Ralph tried to fight and survive the game's enemies, a swarm of parasitic aliens called Cy-bugs..." mainly to fix that, and the "causes a game over by interfering with the user interface." part because I couldn't think of a better way to end it.

- Likewise, the character Turbo is established early on in the movie, and his reprogramming of Sugar Rush is a fairly important plot point. As it is now, he seems to come out of nowhere, though I can't think of a way to seamlessly work him into an earlier paragraph. At the very least, I believe the fact that he altered the game's code should be mentioned by changing "...who took over the game." to "...who took over the game by altering its programming."

Again, I'm sorry for causing trouble - I tend to be somewhat of a stubborn perfectionist and can hyper-focus on things like flow, clarity, etc. I'll stop messing with the page and try to be more mindful of the editing guidelines and policies from now on. I'd very much appreciate if the above points would be given some consideration. :)

EDIT: I just noticed the "Plot Summary" section. I'm going to go ahead and raise these two thoughts on the sandbox page and leave the rest to more experienced contributors. Mack151 (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You're not causing trouble at all, and your contributions are appreciated. However, I would direct you to read this section that explains what we're looking for in a plot summary. It's not important to cover every plot point or twist in the film. This allows readers to understand the general flow of the story without knowing each detail. A good analogy, appropriately, is how we handle video game articles. Per WP:GAMEGUIDE, articles on video games focus on how the game is generally played and don't devolve into strategy guides. For example, explaining how a given level of Angry Birds is played isn't appropriate, while describing the general flow of the game is appropriate. In the case of this article, note that very little discussion is given to the subplot of Felix's flirting with Sgt. Calhoun; while it's important, it's not important to the main plot of the story. I'm not saying this current plot summary is the final result. On the contrary, you're more than welcome to bring up these points and see if other editors agree with you (or you can sway still others to agreeing with you). This is part of a philosophy called "bold, revert, discuss", and it's an important part of how Wikipedia articles evolve ... it's also a part all editors play, be they new or veterans of the Wiki-trenches. --McDoobAU93 02:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I read through the plot summary guidelines. Regarding the sandbox page, is that still being used, or is it common practice to stop using them after the full synopsis goes live? Is the live version on the article ever reverted back to the version in the sandbox? Should I go ahead and post my suggestions on there or should they stay contained in this discussion?Mack151 (talk) 03:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The sandbox version will be deleted soon now that it is no longer necessary. The reason for the sandbox was to avoid unintentionally spoiling the film for many of the article's editors. Since the movie is in wide release, and since Wikipedia has no problem with spoilers, the plot can now be edited here instead. To that end, if you have suggested changes that are reverted because an editor disagrees, bring them up here, potentially with a new section header (click on "New section" above). --McDoobAU93 15:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

IPv6 editor

He seems to be IP hopping, so please be aware that my edit-summary comment to 2602:30B:82C8:799:A0CD:35C3:9897:3DC1 is directed at both that recent edit and also to the edit by 2602:304:CD48:1F09:A180:A98C:A5BE:7631. In a more general sense, it also applies to all the regular anon IPs who cannot or will not read WP:FILMPLOT nor even the simple directions embedded right at the top of the plot section. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok

Regarding release dates this puzzles me, October 29 is for the early worldwide release, November 2 is for the US and Canada and February 15, 2013 for the UK. I checked the Japanese article of the film and said the Japanese version is in March 23, 2013. Is this a release error for their country?--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe so. I've seen at least one website us the Japanese film poster as its background (wish I could remember which one it was) and I recall seeing March 23 as the date on it. --McDoobAU93 15:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Vanellope von Schweetz

Vanellope von Schweetz hasn't long to live! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

And understandably so. There's barely any information there, and none having to do with the character's reception or overall significance outside the world of the film. There's a reason most movie characters don't get their own articles. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. It was my first character article, so I had no idea. It it doesn't survive, that's okay. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I have launched an AfD discussion here for any/all interested parties to voice their opinions. --McDoobAU93 06:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Content

Please add it to the article if appropriate.

Vanellope von Schweetz is a main character and is voiced by Sarah Silverman.

Vanellope von Schweetz is a 9-year-old girl who lives in a racing cart game called Sugar Rush. As she is a computer glitch, she is not allowed to participate in the race. She meets and befriends Wreck it Ralph, and together they build a cart. She eventually participates in the game and crosses the finish line, revealing that she is actually the lead character in the game and restoring her position as princess of Sugar Rush.

References

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Reminder on cameos

There were several cameos that were sourced to the film's trailers; unless these are explicitly called out by a reliable source, including this has a bit of original research (since for most we're talking 3D representations of 2D characters, and not all such characters may be intentional) and further is leading to trivia cruft. Let other sources identify these for us to include. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Frogger was in "Wreck-It Ralph" and there were two reliable sources in the film itself. One of the arcades at Litwack's Arcade that can be seen briefly was the Frogger arcade game. Also, you can specifically spot Frogger himself at Game Central Station and if you hear very closely, you can hear the iconic 8-bit hopping noise he makes as he jumps away from Ralph. Also in an interview with the cast and producers, Rich Moore confirmed that Frogger was in the movie himself. Watch the film in theaters and you will see that I am right.--Joey108 (Talk) 14:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Also to clarify other cameos Masem, one of the portals in Game Central Station was BurgerTime, a reliable source which proves that Peter Pepper made a cameo in the film, plus the fact that the chef's hat initial had the letter "P" on it and he can be seen in multiple crowd scenes. I don't think Rich Moore confirmed if that chef really is Peter Pepper. Also other portals include Dig Dug and I know for a fact that I saw Dig Dug, a Pooka and a Fygar in the station. For some strange reason, Moore hasn't confirmed if it those three are them but did confirm in an interview that the frog was indeed Frogger. Let's just put Frogger back in the list and leave the others away from the list until they are confirmed. Agree with me on that?--Joey108 (Talk) 33:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

As long as you have a source from Moore mentioning Frogger, that's fine. But here's my concern. There is a fine line between "cameos" (such as Pac-Man and the Q-Bert characters) and trivia for a movie that's filled with video game references. When they are mentioned in sources, we're not bringing in any perceived biased or the like. But when we are pulling them from trailers or even the film itself, and no one else has brought those cameos to the forefront, we start getting into trivia. Again, for example, there's a funny FF7 reference throughout GameCenter but that I've yet to see reliable sources mention. It's imappropriate to include as it implies bias towards it. There's also a few "cameos" that I beg the intention, such as the Pong paddles (since there were many many many many variants of Pong so we have no idea if these were "those" "characters". (note, I'm speaking from experience in editing Doctor Who episode articles, where you can flood "Continuity" sections with truthful, non speculative info but this becomes overly bulky. --MASEM (t) 01:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I managed to find the video were Rich Moore, Clark Spencer and John C. Reily confirmed Frogger's appearance in the movie. Please don't delete that reliable video source Masem, because as you probably don't know I actually remembered playing the game in my childhood. --Joey108 (Talk) 59:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Video interviews like that are perfectly fine sources, since we have Moore et al. confirming that, there's no OR step there. I'm pointing out taking the trailers and asserting cameos that way. --MASEM (t) 01:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Zangief and Ryu from Street Fighters?

Why are they not mentioned? Is this intentional?--Krystaleen 04:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

They have voiced roles, so they are listed in cast. --MASEM (t) 04:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right, silly me.--Krystaleen 05:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Games at Litwak's Arcade

When the people who have seen the movie had seen the shots at Litwak's Arcade, there were some other games that were seen in the arcade besides Fix-It Felix, Jr., Hero Duty, and Sugar Rush. The video games include Battlezone BurgerTime, Cyborg Justice, Dance Dance Revolution, Daytona USA, Dig Dug, Dragon's Lair, Frogger, Joust, Pac-Man, Paperboy, Pitfall!, Pong, Sonic the Fighters, Sonic the Hedgehog, Street Fighter II, Super Mario Bros., Super Monkey Ball, Tapper, Undead Apocalypse 3, and Whac-A-Mole. There were also some games that were deemed out of order and ended up unplugged ranging from Q*bert, RoadBlasters, and Turbo Time. Just letting you people know that since they won't allow this info on the main article page. Rtkat3 (talk) 3:46, November 29 2012 (UTC)

You forgot about Asteroids, Centipede, Food Fight, and two Star Wars arcades being shown also at Litwak's Arcade. Joey108 (talk) 7:08, January 18 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. Asteroids, Centipede, and Food Fight are the other games that have been unplugged. The main page wouldn't even list the arcade games. Rtkat3 (talk) 10:15, July 23 2013 (UTC)

Edits to the summary

Here are my concerns with the summary:

• It seems incoherent and portrays the subject matter as having numerous deus ex-machina's and unexplained issues, leaving the narrative unsatisfying or confusing.
• I re-wrote the summary to incorporate those plot points, indicating them as narrative pay offs while removing extraneous information that does not move the narrative forward or necessarily advances reader understanding, keeping the final summary at 694 words:

• • Ralph reveals his desire to stop being a bad guy; The movie makes a clear delineation of what a "bad guy" means, i.e. a game villain, rather than a "bad person". This statement is vague and fails to convey that idea. Is Ralph a bad guy (i.e. bad person) who wants to make a change to good? No. He's a good person, who's "job" is to be the game villain.

• • Returning to his own game, Ralph finds the other characters celebrating their game's 30th anniversary without inviting him. Felix reluctantly invites Ralph to join them, but the others refuse to accept him, prompting Ralph to leave in search of a medal to prove he is as worthy as Felix.; The details bout the party are unnecessary, as the bigger point is that the characters shun him and exclude him from everything. Shortening it will remove word counts. The desire to suddenly earn a medal is unexplained, including why a random medal would prove anything about him compared to Felix.

• • While visiting Tapper's, Ralph meets a soldier from the first-person shooter Hero's Duty, who tells him the game's winner receives a medal.; Tapper's is unnecessary to the narrative, as is the soldier from whom Ralph learns this information. The point is that he learns that a new game allows someone to win a medal.

• • Since the beacon and the nature of Cy-Bugs is so crucial to the ending, it's strange that it's never mentioned here to pay off later when Ralph creates a new beacon to save the day.

• • Meanwhile, with Ralph missing, a girl reports to Litwak that Fix-It Felix, Jr. is malfunctioning. Since broken games get unplugged, leaving their characters homeless, Felix sets off to find Ralph. The girl and Mr. Litwak are extraneous characters. Explaining that Ralph's absence causes the game to be labeled as malfunctioning and what that means explains why characters become homeless (why can't they live in their games when it's unplugged?), why Ralph is important to the game, and why Felix leaves to find him, are probably better uses of word space that contribute to the narrative.

• • As he searches for his medal, he meets Vanellope von Schweetz, a glitchy character who makes off with the medal, planning to use it to buy entry into an after-hours race. King Candy and the other racers refuse to let Vanellope participate, claiming that she is not really part of the game. Ralph helps Vanellope build a kart. At her home, Diet Cola Mountain, he discovers that she is a natural racer. You can distill Ralph and Vanellope's interaction to her taking and using his medal, expand her identity and treatment, which is a crucial plot point, explaining why Ralph and Vanellope bond, which explains why he ultimately wants to help her (superficial reasons aside). The natural racer part is unnecessary. That she trains to proficiency is sufficient, unless you want to actually link her natural abilities as a pay off to her true identity later. Leaving out information about Diet Cola Mountain only makes the mention of it later as the saving device of the narrative strange and random.

• • Back in Hero's Duty, Felix meets Calhoun, who warns that the Cy-Bugs are capable of taking over any game they enter. As the pair searches for Ralph and the Cy-Bug in Sugar Rush, they separate when Felix, enamored with Calhoun, inadvertently reminds her of her previous romantic relationship, which ended tragically. This is a good explanation of Calhoun and Felix's romance, but their romance is really unimportant to the larger plot, and in lieu of other things, could be cut.

• • Calhoun finds hundreds of Cy-Bug eggs underground, and Felix becomes imprisoned in King Candy's castle. Even Felix being imprisoned is unnecessary. In the end, Ralph gathers all three cast members together to fight the Cy-Bugs.

• • King Candy finds Ralph's medal and offers it to Ralph in exchange for keeping Vanellope out of the race, claiming that allowing her would be disastrous for both her and the game. Fearing for Vanellope's safety, Ralph wrecks the kart and returns to his own game, Ignoring the character reactions also removes the pathos of the narrative between Vanellope and Ralph.

• • but finds it deserted, as everyone has evacuated in expectation that it will be unplugged in the morning. This is a good explanation of the situation at Ralph's game, but I would suggest adding what that implies to the character--that the medal is a hollow victory.

• • Ralph then notices Vanellope's image on the Sugar Rush cabinet and realizes she is an intended part of the game, not a glitch. This is confusing, since I wouldn't know that characters can see the real world outside of their games. How would Ralph see the Sugar Rush cabinet?

• • Ralph returns to Sugar Rush, finds Felix and Vanellope, and asks Felix to fix the wrecked kart. As the race proceeds, the hatched Cy-Bugs attack and Felix, Calhoun, and Ralph battle them. When Vanellope catches up to King Candy, he reveals that he is actually Turbo—a character from an old game who is notorious for having sabotaged a newer game, causing both to be unplugged, and has since taken control of Sugar Rush. Vanellope escapes from Turbo, who is consumed by a Cy-Bug. The group flees the doomed game, but Vanellope cannot pass through the exit. The first part of the description is good, but the sudden introduction of Turbo comes off as unexplained and absurd.

• • Calhoun says the game cannot be saved without a beacon to attract and kill the Cy-Bugs. Likewise, with no earlier indication to result in the pay off, the beacon becomes a confusing deus-ex machina. (What is a beacon? Why do they need it? Where did that idea come from? How do we know that would work?)

• • Ralph heads to Diet Cola Mountain, where he plans on collapsing its Mentos stalactites into the cola at the bottom, causing a blinding eruption that would attract the bugs. Likewise with Turbo and the beacon, the sudden appearance of Mentos becomes a deus ex machina. (There are Mentos? Ralph knows that Mentos and diet cola will cause an explosion?)

• • Before he can finish, Turbo, merged with the Cy-Bug that had consumed him, carries him away. One can assume that with an explosion that big, being in its proximity would be a danger. I would suggest just indicating that he fights King Candy and causes the explosion.

• • Ralph breaks free and dives toward the mountain, hoping his impact will start the eruption. Vanellope in turn uses her glitching abilities to save Ralph. The eruption starts and draws the Cy-Bugs to their destruction, including Turbo. In its present form, it sounds like Ralph dives down in order to create the explosion, but whether he has or hasn't by the time Vanellope saves him is unclear. Her seemingly newfound glitching ability is never explained, (for though her status as a glitch is mentioned, what it implies or what it allows her to do is never mentioned.) As a reader, I don't know what it means to be a glitch, which I would otherwise understand from watching the character glitch out on screen. I would suggest either explaining what her glitching ability allows her to do early, or just reduce it to her saving him, without more detail.

• • Vanellope crosses the finish line, restoring her memory and status as the game's lead character while keeping her advantageous glitching ability. Same. What about her nebulous glitching ability makes it advantageous after it's been explained to be a bad thing to be a glitch? So far, the only thing associated with being a glitch is the dangerous inability to leave the game if necessary. The resolution is also a bit confusing, since it is never explained how Turbo managed to turn her into a glitch or why no one knows who she is, only that Turbo came in and usurped the lead character role.

• • Felix and Ralph return to their game in time for Litwak to see it still works, sparing it from being unplugged. Felix marries Calhoun, and the characters of Fix-It Felix, Jr. gain a new respect for Ralph. Finally, and this is a personal preference, Ralph achieving respect is one part of the protagonist's journey, but the last line indicates that the deepest satisfaction he has is from knowing that he is a hero to someone (Vanellope).

Take my comments as constructive feedback. If my edits were lacking, then I entrust the multiple editors who made the previous version to exercise their best judgement in improving them.Luminum (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow. This is very impressively detailed and wonderfully collaborative of you. I appreciate your taking my points on your talk page in the collegial and constructive spirit as they were meant, and I call on this page's fellow editors to help go through this and incorporate / adapt his concerns into the article. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

On the whole, I actually think Luminum's version of the plot reads very well, in most places better than the previous version (which, despite or possibly because of being the result of lots of editors' work, could be thought of as somewhat fragmented/choppy). There are a few spots I might touch up, but it emphasizes all the right points, and if I had to choose between the two, I'd support replacing the previous one. --Fru1tbat (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think theres two things to consider: First are the actual content points, and second, the way they're expressed. I'd like to address the content points first, and we can collaborate on how they're expressed. For now, I think it's more in keeping with Wikipedia procedure to stay with the version that's the consensus of many editors thus far before changing it wholesale to any one editor's version. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur. When we were working on this at the outset, I was for leaving out the Felix/Calhoun romance subplot since it really doesn't drive the story at all. After the two separate, it really isn't brought up again until the epilogue of the film (for lack of a better term). There's no plot point in the main story that would not have occurred because of their feelings for each other, unlike why Ralph plans to set off the eruption (for fear of losing Vanellope). The plot summary should focus on the main story, not its subplots. --McDoobAU93 19:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I've adjusted the opening of the plot to address Luminum's concern about a bad person versus someone whose job it is to the bad guy.

To his second point:

Returning to his own game, Ralph finds the other characters celebrating their game's 30th anniversary without inviting him. Felix reluctantly invites Ralph to join them, but the others refuse to accept him, prompting Ralph to leave in search of a medal to prove he is as worthy as Felix.; The details bout the party are unnecessary, as the bigger point is that the characters shun him and exclude him from everything. Shortening it will remove word counts. The desire to suddenly earn a medal is unexplained, including why a random medal would prove anything about him compared to Felix.

I adjusted this slightly to avoid having the word "game" twice in one sentence. Otherwise I left it alone. I think saying that the game is 30 years old helps explains why they're having a party and why the in-game graphics look primitive, but most importantly because it establishes that Ralph is not being petulant or capricious but that his desire is serious and has been simmering for a long time.

Secondly, I'm not sure it's necessary to explain the convoluted background, which is that one of the characters is just making some excuse by saying, "Look, we gave Felix a medal to show he's a hero, and where's your medal?" The salient fact is that Ralph believes a medal will make him a hero. I think the context makes it clear that a medal or anything else is simply his holy grail. We don't need to know the specifics of why he's on a quest for the grail, but only that he is. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Stuff related to Qbert.

Are Slick and Sam the Same person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.112.249 (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question Slick and Sam are not exactly the same character, but they are related to each other, sort of like cousins if you think about it. Slick is a little taller than Sam and has sunglasses while Sam is smaller and has no sunglasses on. Joey108 (talk) 3:08, 9 November 2012

But don't they serve the same purpose, to recolor blocks Q'bert steps on? And is Wrong Way present? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.215.115 (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Other villains

Okay, can somebody tell me who is the yellow robot with the buzz-saw hand, that devil-like villain, and that blue elf-like villainess with the red dress that was in the trailer? Please, I would really like to know if they are actual video-game bad guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.140.204.91 (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the devil villain is the Horned Reaper from Dungeon Keeper (IMDb is the source I got it from). That could also be Blackhorn from The Astyanax. The robot is from Cyborg Justice. The elf 'im not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.140.204.91 (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a forum. --Niemti (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with User:Niemti. This page is not a forum, and also, don't assume that those characters in this page are the same villains from games you might know. Just wait until the film comes out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey108 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There was a scene of the film shown at the 2012 Sonic-Boom convention. The video was posted on YouTube called "Wreck-It Ralph - Sonic The Hedgehog Scene". Here are some good ways you can find the characters. You can spot the three other ghosts from "Pac-Man" in the right hand corner as Ralph is walking along the Game Central Station with the Pac-Man cherries in hand and as he is going to give the cherries to the homeless Q*bert and his enemies, look what passes by Ralph behind him, and you can spot what appears to be Deku Link from "Majora's Mask" talking with another character.--Joey108 (talk) 4:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

And to prove that I am not lying about the three ghost's cameo in the film, I made a screen shot that is very blurry to see. I even circled where they are. http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120716131632/pacman/images/1/14/Newshowingofghosts%27scameo.png

That "Deku Link" that keeps getting brought up turns out to be a small bear wearing a hat similar to Link's, as seen in the new trailer at the 47-second mark. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Is Shredder at the Bad Adon convention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.215.115 (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

But there's there's a man to the right of Satan that looks like him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.215.115 (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. The guy I'm reffering to is a ninja.

GLaDOS from Portal is referenced when Venelope calls Ralph GLaDOS when they break in to the kart factory. the only source i've seen confirming it was the Disney wiki page saying valve had confirmed the reference was to their character. here's a link. its at the bottom of the list of references. i'll also include a link to a clip that shows the reference at about the 32 sec mark. http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Wreck-It_Ralph/List_of_Cameos http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RelbXXdP2uM

Bad-Anon-related

I have noticed that besides Wreck-It Ralph, the other members of Bad-Anon are Bowser from Super Mario Bros., Doctor Eggman from Sonic the Hedgehog, Zangief and M. Bison from Street Fighter II, Clyde Ghost Monster from Pac-Man, Neff's Rhinoceros-Man form from Altered Beast, Cyril from The House of the Dead, a cyborg that looks like Kano, and a character called Satine (who is said to be based off Diablo from Diablo). Other characters at Bad-Anon that the people who have seen the movie recognized (yet with no other official links confirmed unless you count this film's cameo page on the Disney Wiki) are a ninja (who resembles Smoke from Mortal Kombat II), 1011001 (who resembles a yellow cyborg from Cyborg Justice), a sorceress (who resembles Mishaela from Shining Force), and a creature that resembles the Beholder from Eye of the Beholder. Just letting you people know that if you plan to find official sources for these cameos to improve the cameo section. Rtkat3 (talk) 3:32, November 29 2012 (UTC)

Fix needed in cameo section

The main character of Dig Dug is not named Dig Dug, it's Taizo. 70.49.84.243 (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Our own article on the game says that Namco's official name for the character in Dig Dug is Dig Dug. If you have a source indicating that this appearance of the character is meant to represent the character from another game where he's given the name Taizo, please provide it. --McDoobAU93 23:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Home Media Again

Why was the home media section I created deleted? If you're gonna give me the "we don't use retail as a source of blah blah blah" crap then let me tell you this, Blu-Ray.com is a third party website. They don't sell stuff. They give people info of when movies will be released and direct them to places where they can buy or preorder if they so wish. Would anybody care to explain? Seeing how McDoob is very active in this article or at least talk page, I'll direct this question to you.--Packinheat2u (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Blu-ray.com is completely a commercial site: "The best Blu-ray deals online. Don't miss out on these great deals." We don't drive traffic to commercial sites. Wikipedia is not advertising. There is no deadline, and when disinterested journalistic sources cover the home-media release, we'll cite them. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Voice cast far too long

In film articles, only the major characters should be listed as cast (otherwise we technically could go on for miles in any film). Understandably, with the video game cameos, this will necessitate more for this film, but if you discount those, we're getting some awfully trivial characters and their VAs listed.

I'm going to suggest that 1) the video game speaking cameos be moved into the video game section below such that we are focusing on the video game refs (for example, we would say "The movie includes several appearances of Sonic the Hedgehog (voiced by Roger Craig Smith)...", so that we don't lose who the voices are. and 2) of the current cast that would not be split off to the VG section, that up through Sour Bill, the rest of the cast give are trivial/minor characters that we don't need to name (we link to sites like IMDB so that the full cast list can be determined for those that want it). There's a few of the characters before Sour Bill that I'd remove like some of the minor Nicelander characters. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Lara Croft

I would just like to note that Lara Croft was also mentioned in the dialog when Ralph used a false name to try and get passed security. She isn't listed in the references section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.17.49 (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Find a reliable third-party source that confirms that and include it with the edit. Thanks! --McDoobAU93 16:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Plot length

The synopsis is probably too long. The previous one had problems, but my rewrite is too long. I will make a shorter version.Kurzon (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Instead of doubling the length of the plot, how about explaining the problems you have with what's there? --McDoobAU93 19:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I just read through the changes. While I appreciate your attempt, unfortunately your edits added a LOT of unnecessary detail to the plot. --McDoobAU93 19:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the details are irrelevant. The previous summary had a lot of mistakes and plot holes. The movie isn't out yet on DVD so it's not surprising people have faulty memories (I have a cinema pass and have seen it five times).Kurzon (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes they are. We are summarizing the work, so we only need to give a high-level gloss of the plot so that the rest of the article makes sense to those that haven't seen it. That's why film plot summaries are limited to about 700 words. --MASEM (t) 19:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)I'm all for fixing plot holes, but not for adding extraordinary levels of detail, interpreting characters' motivations for actions, etc. Please remember that this is the summary of the basic story of the film and it is not intended to cover every single plot point. For additional details, please be sure to read WP:FILMPLOT, which goes into a large amount of detail as to why we keep this limited to under 700 words, a note that you have removed now twice. --McDoobAU93 19:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You make some good points. I've trimmed my summary, removing character motivations except where strictly necessary. I cover only the key plot points. It's fallen to 900 words, still above limit, but I'm working on it.Kurzon (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while I appreciate your efforts, you have also violated the three-revert rule. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I've made a plot edit that is shorter and more correct than the previous one. Why am I being reverted again?Kurzon (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Because you went right back to the same behavior you engaged in to bring about the block in the first place. You have been asked to work with other editors here on the talk page to explain why we need the details you want included in the plot summary. Instead of doing so, you went right back to edit-warring. --McDoobAU93 21:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

a strange homage of a cameo

No one here pays attention to me when I tell them that Mr. Litwak's appearance is based on Walter Day the founder of Twin Galaxies. It's basically pretty darn clear cut if you've seen the movie and the documentaries "Chasing Ghosts" and "The King of Kong". The young version of Mr. Litwak looks even more like Walter when he was around the same age. Darkcat1 (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a lot of subtle details that are references to video games and its history, but because we want to avoid trivia, any such references need to be identified by a reliable source before they can be added; this assures we aren't engaging in original research. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Home media

A well-intentioned editor has added a source stating that the film will be released to home video in June 2013. The source appears to be an online retailer's product page, which I think doesn't rise to WP:RS standards. What are others' thoughts about this site as a source? --McDoobAU93 15:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Well i have used the sources from Blu-Ray.com on a few pages of movies like Frankenweenie, ParaNorman, The Amazing Spider-Man, and many others and they all turned out to be the right release date so i would say its right. --'Koala15

At the video games project, we express forbid the use of vendor sites for future release dates. The vendors want your pre-order, so they need to slot the title into their database and that means they need to slot a date. The date could be correct, but it could also be a hopeful date just so they can secure the orders. For VG's we expect a more reliable source - usually the developer or publisher who actually know this date. I would expect the same should be required for home media of movies. --MASEM (t) 20:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not video game it's a DVD i always use Blu-ray.com sources and there never Wrong. --'Koala15

It's still home media, and retail websites would fall under the auspices of WP:NOTRS as they "lack meaningful editorial oversight". --McDoobAU93 04:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Update: Found this edit from the same person who swore up and down that Blu-ray.com was never wrong. This would be the perfect object lesson for why we don't use retailer websites to confirm future release dates. --McDoobAU93 03:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Amen. WikiProject:Comics disallows the use of company solicitations to retailers for similar reasons: When it comes to marketing, things frequently change and nothing's definite until it's on the shelf. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

it havent been in norway yet

i live in norway and there havent been any disney movies here for a while.(the last was tangled.) could be that norway release all new disney movies at the start of the year.(just trying to explain things.) it is therefore wrong to say to it had a world premiere at a specific date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

A "world premiere" in this case is like a store's "grand opening", when it officially opens for the first time. I can tell you that I saw Wreck-It Ralph a full week before the world premiere, so it's not like nobody had seen the film until that point. At the same time, the world premiere is not meant to represent the worldwide release date. If I remember correctly, Japan won't get Wreck-It Ralph until March 2013, the same month the film is rumored to be released to home video in North America. --McDoobAU93 15:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Sequel predictions

I removed the WP:CRYSTAL claim about a sequel, which was cited by a two cast-members predicting there would be one, and director Moore saying what he wanted to do if there were one. Obviously, the cast and director would want there to be a sequel, and would hope there would be a sequel, but until one is formally greenlighted, that's all this is: non-notable predictions and hopes. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Awards season

We need to establish pretty quickly how/if a given award/accolade is truly notable enough for inclusion. I've seen several city-based critics associations added, but outside of New York and Los Angeles (and, perhaps, Chicago), are these awards really that noteworthy? Anyone can hand out awards, but those awards do have to mean something. Even the Razzies, the parody they are, get significant coverage in the media and are thus notable. --McDoobAU93 18:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Cyril is Cyril from House of the Dead

http://www.thewebsiteofthedead.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Cyril.jpg http://www.thewebsiteofthedead.com/?tag=disneys-wreck-it-ralph-cyril-the-house-of-the-dead-cameo-in-a-movie It's the same clothes, 2 axes and it's name CYRIL, do we need more evidence? 85.241.125.57 (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, yes we do. "The Website of the Dead" says it is an unofficial fan-site, therefore it fails WP:RS. Thus we have no idea if this something official from Sega, something official from Disney or an over-eager fan's interpretation. --McDoobAU93 19:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

See, by that logic, if every site posted the trailer but didn't list Bowser or Eggman by name, then does that mean we'd have to list them as "Spiked Turtle" and "Red Mustached Character"? We have the trailer itself to verify the characters' appearance, and people have been providing side-by-side comparisons to help confirm their identity. Take "Zombie" versus Cyril for example: same outfit, same hairstyle, same skin color...the two even are both dual-wielding axes. Same thing with Neff. Look at this side-by-side comparison. The resemblance is unmistakable. Even Paperboy, who only shows up for a split second, is easy to identify on sight alone. It's not a WP:CRYSTAL issue where, say, we've only got a silhouette to work with. These are full physical appearances with no effort made to hide their identity that can easily be identified by anyone with knowledge of the franchise.

Even if Website of the Dead isn't RS, any site that is (i.e. Wired, Entertainment Weekly) that posts the trailer will work just fine as a source for their inclusion. The rest is just a matter of common sense. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question about "that logic", the answer would indeed be "Yes, we would", and here's why. You're assuming that the average reader of this article knows something about video games, knows some of the major franchises, and knows some of the characters on sight. However, we need to be writing this article for those who may have never heard of these characters before. If you sampled 100 average people of all ages, I doubt you could get anything close to 100% recognition for Bowser, Robotnik and even Clyde, much less any of the more obscure characters (Paperboy, Neff, etc.). Without concrete analysis provided by reliable sources (the IGN article used for many of the characters, such as Neff and Paperboy), then what we have is original thought. Even IGN is waffling on the Zombie character, saying it looks like one of the models from House of the Dead but not definitively saying it is (like they did with Neff), and the Segabits images would be from a fan-site with no known way to verify authenticity. --McDoobAU93 18:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The scans from Website of the Dead are from "The House of the Dead: Official Guide," a Japanese strategy guide for The House of the Dead that was published by Sega themselves. Have an ISBN number or two: ISBN-10: 4797306203, ISBN-13: 978-4797306200. I don't have an exact page number for what page Cyril is on, but I believe that is sufficient "proper" sourcing for at least the image of the dual-wielding, balding zombie, minus the whole "covered in blood" part that would be inappropriate for a Disney film. I get the feeling that it's no coincidence that the aforementioned zombie bears such a close resemblance. Even if it isn't a full-fledged "We asked Sega for this cameo!", it's at the very least an intentional nod. --96.250.226.97 (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.226.97 (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm 6 or so months late to this discussion, but I thought it would be good to add a note about the reliable-sources policy, as I understand it at least: The detailed info about that Official Guide you posted there is EXCELLENT information for a citation to the guide itself, but here are the problems about how that source applies to this conversation:

• You would want to cite the official guide itself as the source of the image scan, not the website that the scan was posted on.
• The guide is a good citation for information about the zombie character itself - if the zombie has its own notable article, this guide would be great for that article. However, being a cameo in Wreck-It Ralph doesn't lend all that much independent notability to the character, nor does it mean the guide (which describes the character itself) would be a good citation for the character's use in a mostly unrelated movie.
• Bearing a close resemblance is not quite the same thing as being instantly recognizeable. I have never played Resident Evil, only once played House of the Dead, and I've seen scores of other zombie-related games that all feature zombies that look very much like the one being discussed here. When I saw the movie, I knew it was a zombie, but I didn't recognize it as any particular zombie - unlike most of the other characters in that scene, this character struck me as a generic villain.
• Following the verifiability and sourcing policies, the kind of citation you'd need to identify the zombie in this article would be either an official interview or production note from the cast or crew of the movie explicitly stating the character's identity and where it came from, a citation from the movie's credits (admittedly not available when you were discussing this), or (as I did for M. Bison) a review site that meets the reliable-source criteria.

I know all this is kinda moot now that the movie's out and we have production notes, credits and reviews to work from, as opposed to speculation. I just thought some clarification about the policies might help for future discussions. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Summary problems

• We should explain why Vanellope is excluded from racing, and King Candy's actual reason for excluding her. This is a crucial plot point.
• We should mention how King Candy can hack Sugar Rush's code, and how he used it to restore Ralph's medal and sabotage Vanellope.
• We should include Ralph's interrogation of Sour Bill, as this sets him against King Candy.
• Turbo's backstory should be explained earlier.

Kurzon (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Sour Bill is such a minor character that there's little need to mention him in the main plot. The first and third points are connected, but to go into too much backstory on Turbo detracts word count from the rest of the main cast; we can simply write King/Turbo as the bad guy and be done with that. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for finally presenting your points on the talk page instead of edit-warring. Now, to your individual points. As to the first, we've provided what was necessary at the point in the story when that point is introduced - that the other characters say she's not really part of the game. The plot point where Ralph sees Vanellope's image on the cabinet links the two together.

I agree with the second point, and in earlier revisions the mention was there. However, that appears to have been removed in favor of mentioning the Calhoun/Felix romance subplot, which to me isn't that important to the overall story. It's funny, yes, but not critical.

I agree with Masem on the rest. There's no need to cover every single plot detail, even if it is within word count, and in some cases it may even cause a problem. For details on that, please see this section on plot summaries.

--McDoobAU93 17:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

What the summary is missing is the villain's motivation, which is really key to any story. It should be included.

• Turbo craves popularity and power and doesn't care about the well-being of the games he invades.
• Turbo hacked Sugar Rush's code, usurped Vanellope and made himself ruler.
• Turbo doesn't want Vanellope to race because that would reset the game and cause his deception to collapse.

If I cannot include these points in some form, then the summary is incomplete. Sour Bill is a minor character but his interrogation scene is where much of this is revealed. Kurzon (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

That motivation, as you put it, is included in the summary at an appropriate point. Again this need not cover EVERY detail and twist of the plot. Please read the section I linked to above for an explanation. --McDoobAU93 17:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

What would be really helpful is if we can get details on the principle characters' inspiration/development from the producers, we can flesh out the cast section to describe a bit more about the characters (in addition to their development) there. For example, without this, the most we can really get into King/Turbo is that he took over Sugar Rush from Vanellope. With the ability to expand the character section, we can then start talking a bit more on Turbo's backstory. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

In fairness, the most recent modification - moving Turbo's description up to the point in the story where it first appears - is actually a good one. It doesn't change the word count, and it makes sense. I agree that we need more details from the producers before we start ascribing motives to the characters, which at this point would be based purely on personal interpretation that's best left to the readers/viewers. --McDoobAU93 18:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh please, this is Disney, not Jane Austen. In kiddie films the writers do their best to make the characters' motivations pretty damn obvious, because kids are stupid and anything nuanced will just fly over their head.Kurzon (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

And this is still Wikipedia, where original interpretations are not appropriate. Let's leave character motivations to either (a) the producers (who know the most about it) or (b) the viewers, so they can make their own decisions. --McDoobAU93 18:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no "interpretation", the characters' motivations are explicitly stated in the dialogue. Turbo is a jealous attention-whore because Felix explicitly says so in the flashback. You cannot fault me for writing "Felix says Turbo grew jealous of the new racing game" or "Sour Bill says that King Candy doesn't want Vanellope to race because that would reset the game."Kurzon (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're ignoring the section I cited for you. Please read it and get back to me here. To extend further, you're edit-warring again. Two editors have issues with this and have undone your work, which normally means it's time to discuss here in the talk page and wait to see what happens. --McDoobAU93 18:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about the original research page? I am citing an original, reliable source: the very movie we're summarizing.Kurzon (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm referring to this one. --McDoobAU93 19:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay... so, you think I'm using too much detail? I think the villain's motivation and basic scheme is too critical to the plot to leave out of the summary. It is not excessive detail. I see what now what is worrying you, but we can't afford to leave this detail out.Kurzon (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Besides, the plot summary already contain a lot of superfluous detail that I didn't put, such as Ralph's support group and the anniversary party. How about I delete those? WE can certainly afford to lose those points.Kurzon (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

We only have 700 words; while it is likely the case we can non-interpretatively give Turbo's motivation, the full details would take up a good deal of plot when all we need to know is that Turbo took over the game from Vanellope, became King Candy and altered memories, and wants to prevent Vanellope from winning to keep it that way. --MASEM (t) 19:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

So you suggest removing Turbo's backstory? The problem with this is that when Turbo's disguise collapses, Turbo is then introduced to the reader out of nowhere and that can be a little jarring without at least a little exposition.Kurzon (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

First, Kurzon, it would be extremely helpful for you to not try to edit the article (at least the plot section) until a consensus has been reached. You are approaching edit war violation again and it would be best to wait until we have a clear way of going forward.

As for Turbo, if you start delving into his back story any deeper than "a jealous character from an older video racing game", you have to go to a certain level that is far too much detail for a 700 word plot. As I've noted, if we can discuss character conceptualization, we can then discuss more depth of the characters within the cast list section as per Up (2009 film). Leaving it as a short line still makes it clear he's villainous and gives enough motivation of why he's against Vanellope. --MASEM (t) 20:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea. So I should put Turbo's backstory in the character section?Kurzon (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

We can't expand the cast section until we have conceptualization/development information about the characters, otherwise it is just excess plot that spilled over, and would not be appropriate. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

So... are we going to just sit on our hands while we wait for somebody at Pixar do eventually do an interview or release a book that explains all this? How long will that take?Kurzon (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no deadline. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This is weak. We're supposed to wait for some sort of word from the maker to confirm details that are blinding obvious and unambiguous.Kurzon (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not that we are waiting on the creator to talk about something obvious; it is that if we talk about that obvious factor (Turbo's history) without other justification, we are putting undue weight on the history of the character that we don't need to include without this information. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

We really need to explain his backstory, or else everyone will be as confused as I was when I saw him at the climax. (I thought his was Dig Dug.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.43.79.189 (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did some relatively minor editing and touching up on the plot section before I read this discussion. The version I put in place doesn't substantively change the exposition - if anything, it removes the statement that Turbo had taken over Sugar Rush, but frankly I think that's pretty obvious considering he was "King Candy". I agree with Masem and McDoob that it's not necessary to go into detail about Turbo's backstory for people to understand the plot.

Also, Sour Bill says he literally doesn't know what's going on, since his memories are locked up, so his story only says that King Candy has control of the game and that it'll reset when Vanellope crosses the finish line. The point where we learn what Turbo did to Roadblasters happens much earlier in the film (to explain what "Going Turbo" means), but at that point the story doesn't foreshadow (in any obvious way, anyway) the fact that it's Turbo who took over Sugar Rush. Therefore, I agree that it's not truly necessary to go into that in this article - doing so would make the plot section too long and not add much real value. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)