Jump to content

Talk:Ralph Breaks the Internet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Wreck-It Ralph 2)

Gamora gus&jaq and Mary

[edit]

For the other characters said to cameo there's a source but not for the one in this subject title. Does someone have a source for them?

Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC) Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right actor

[edit]

Bill Hader voice as Spamley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.77.110.33 (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theatrical release

[edit]

The lead sections says that this was the first sequel to have a theatrical release since Fantasia 2000, which came out in 1999. But what about Return to Neverland? That came out in 2002. 2600:1700:BF30:81F0:853E:47C9:C901:1DA3 (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's for the Disney Film Animation division. Return to Neverland is by Disney's TV animation division. --Masem (t) 18:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Box office???

[edit]

Box office??? Mohamadwolf (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate???? - Purplewowies (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See § Box office. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Princesses spinoff

[edit]

There’s a sentence in here about speculation of a spinoff featuring the princesses, sourced to an interview in which they speculate. Do we need this here? In my opinion, either we should decide it’s worth discussing beyond a single sentence, or remove the sentence. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cast list is exhaustive

[edit]

Our current cast list seems a tad excessive. There is no need to pretend we’re IMDB and list every single actor and role, is there? —67.14.236.193 (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think people just... keep adding people? It didn't used to be this bad. The Disney Princesses used to be dealt with in prose, though, and I think that's a better treatment for their role at the least. - Purplewowies (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2018
I’ve pruned it to leave only important and otherwise noteworthy characters. If anyone objects and cannot find a happy medium on their own, I’m sure we can talk it out here. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it appears a number of bit parts are notable Internet celebs, these can be listed out in a prose sentence. Same with the Disney Princesses. The ones in the bulleted list should be those that are essential to discuss as part of the plot. --Masem (t) 02:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This describes what I attempted. I hope it describes the result. Edit 03:21: Actually, do you mean we should list out all the Princesses in prose, as previously? That was blue-name soup. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even if was blue-named, it gave proper credit. They don't need to be bullet-listed though. --Masem (t) 03:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No no, I mean it was difficult to read a sentence with so many names (and wikilinks) clustered together, basically an entire bullet list in sentence form. But I have no objection to listing out the reprising Princesses in bullet form. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The princesses are given more screen time than Litwak, especially thanks to the climax. And who thought it was a good idea to remove Felix and Calhoun from the cast list?--Fradio71 (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Screen time is not necessarily representative of importance to the plot, but Litwak gets a bullet point and the Princesses get prose in my edit. The Princesses function more as a group unit than individual characters in this movie, hence my above 3:21 20-12-18 question. About Felix and Calhoun, I don’t recall any plot beats in this sequel beyond the subplot that "would have worked better as a pre-movie animated short"[1]; what did you have in mind? —96.8.24.95 (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: How’s this?

:[cast list ends]

All of the Disney Princesses appear; most of them are voiced by their original actors from Disney's animated movies, except for Snow White, who is voiced by screenwriter Pamela Ribon:[1][2][3][4][5][6]

  • Jennifer Hale as Cinderella
  • Kate Higgins as Aurora
  • Jodi Benson as Ariel
  • Paige O'Hara as Belle
  • Linda Larkin as Jasmine
  • Irene Bedard as Pocahontas
  • Ming-Na Wen as Mulan
  • Anika Noni Rose as Tiana
  • Mandy Moore as Rapunzel
  • Kelly Macdonald as Merida
  • Kristen Bell as Anna
  • Idina Menzel as Elsa
  • Auliʻi Cravalho as Moana

Several characters from other films and media also cameo …

Except now I’m wondering if all this shouldn’t be merged into the following section about cameos (and maybe make that a subsection of Cast?). —96.8.24.95 (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Felix and Calhoun, I feel like their billing order on some level suggests that they should be included in the cast list, even with their relative lack of screentime/non-importance to the plot. They're listed fifth and sixth respectively, billed higher than many other people still in the cast list. On the Princesses, I think we should stick to credit order rather than chronological (which is alphabetical by actor last name, i.e. Pocahontas, Anna, Ariel, Moana, Cinderella, Aurora, Jasmine, Merida, Elsa, Rapunzel, Belle, Snow White, Tiana, and Mulan). Also, we can't use the sentence "most of them are voiced by their original actors from Disney's animated movies, except for Snow White" specifically, because it implies that the other two replaced actors were not replaced (or their replacements are the original actors); Aurora's and Cinderella's actors are their current "stable" actors in all properties including the characters AFAIK, but they're not the original actors for the films. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn’t realize that about Aurora and Cinderella. Or I’d forgotten. Hm… replace “original” with “existing,” maybe?
I honestly hadn’t given any thought to order (it’s an unordered list, after all). It’s obviously a concern in the industry, but—genuine question—does it matter in a simple list in an encyclopedia article? As to including them at all, I’d be more inclined to consider due weight, particularly regarding the plot and discussion thereof, and in my view these two don’t have much. I could be totally wrong, of course, but there’s my rationale. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just always heard billing used as a rationale because of its use in MOS:FILM though I don't remember the exact text of the guideline and am taking a look now. (ETA 22:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC): Gasp! Billing is only one tenet that can be used but it doesn't have to be! Hmm... I think there are merit filled arguments for and against Felix/Calhoun inclusion... hmm...) - Purplewowies (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do keep in mind with regard to the Disney Prinesses, Anna and Elsa are not official ones, but obviously were in the film, and they should be noted too. --Masem (t) 22:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Better? Or else please someone else rewrite it. And again, listing out all their characters and actors seems like overkill to me for individually small roles in the movie, but I can shut up and do it if that’s the consensus. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sequels

[edit]

The lead sections says that this was the first sequel to have a theatrical release since Fantasia 2000, which came out in 1999. But what about Winnie the Pooh ? That came out in 2011 witch is a sqeuel to The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh witch came out in 1977.Fanoflionking 13:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People have flip-flopped between the two. I don't know if there's a metric people are using to change it to Pooh or back to Fantasia or if there's not a strong consensus, but maybe it should be discussed? (I... have no idea either way. I looked at the Pooh article and saw the sequel sentence there when I noticed it was changed to Pooh once and didn't consider it worth changing back, but...) - Purplewowies (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the time being, someone seems to have removed any version of the claim. If it remains so, that solves the problem here. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was removed a few days ago after someone expanded it to list every one of Disney's theatrical sequels, for reference to anyone reading. (Or, well, The Rescuers Down Under, Fantasia 2000, Winnie the Pooh, and I think one other?) - Purplewowies (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
“Time since last (qualified) sequel” seems a rather silly factoid to me, anyway. Do we need it? —96.8.24.95 (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do know that the press kit for this film mentioned the Fantasia part, "The follow-up to 2012’s “Wreck-It Ralph” marks the first feature-length theatrical sequel from Walt Disney Animation Studios since 2000’s “Fantasia 2000,” which was a sequel to 1940’s “Fantasia.”" --Masem (t) 21:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cameo list

[edit]

If anyone truly feels an encyclopedia needs a list of every single character cameo in the movie regardless of significance… why? —96.8.24.95 (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A short with the film

[edit]

This is the second time when the film was released without a animated short. It's similar to Zootopia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.255.216.208 (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Internet packets containing Ralph, Vanellope

[edit]

Before the hero and heroine are injected into the internet, their bodies are wrapped in Internet packets (their heads are visible). Perhaps this could be worked into the article. This implies they were side-loaded from the arcade? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2020

[edit]

Remove all the train stuff like "East Japan Railway Company" at the end of the article, has nothing to do with the movie? 2001:A61:4F3:8201:351F:C935:C450:A9B3 (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for noticing that, remnants of the vandalism that got this article protected in the first place. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"WiFi Ralph" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect WiFi Ralph. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 21#WiFi Ralph until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Dominicmgm (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ralph Breaks the Internet/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 02:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]
@Chompy Ace: Sorry about the delay. I'll be adding some suggestions soon... Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 01:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Chompy Ace 01:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

[edit]
  • Infobox looks good, but the cinematography differences between Nathan Detroit Warner and Brian Leach probably needs a reference.
 Done added ref Chompy Ace 02:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference after "...new cast members added in 2018" isn't working for me, so it should be marked as dead.
 Done Chompy Ace 02:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim in the lead that this is the "first sequel from the studio after Fantasia 2000" seems like a lie, as this is the studio's third sequel (after The Rescuers Down Under and Fantasia 2000), so I suggest changing the word "after" to "since", to make the statement true.
 Done Chompy Ace 01:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

[edit]
  • Plot is 662 words.
 Done Chompy Ace 02:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the comma between "scrap Sugar Rush, and unplugs".
 Done Chompy Ace 02:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a hyphen in between "video sharing".
 Done Chompy Ace 02:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the plot section, the first sentence should probably have a link to the first film.
 Not done per MOS:EASTEREGG (example: Special:Diff/983398711) Chompy Ace 02:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's possible to rephrase the sentence to say something like "In the six years since the first film" or "In the six years since Wreck-It Ralph" but I'm on the fence as to whether the link is needed. I like the phrasing of "in the six years since" better than "six years after" (hence why I wrote the hypotheticals that way, but I don't know whether or not the link is needed. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done reworded sentence Chompy Ace 21:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "Inside the Internet, depicted as a place where websites are buildings in a sprawling city, avatars represent users, and programs are people" seems entirely off to me, as it was supposed to say something else, but just stopped mid-sentence. It should either be rephrased or merged with the previous sentence.
 Done merged Chompy Ace 02:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and brought to the deep web" --> "and is brought to the deep web"
 Done--also removed a comma splice just before the "and". - Purplewowies (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentences ending with "vendor Double Dan" and starting with "Dan provides" should probably be merged to avoid repetitiveness.
 Done: It's possible it could be further rephrased to be slightly better, but I went for what felt best between changing "Dan" to ",who" (what I went for) vs. "He" (would have left it as two sentences). - Purplewowies (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

[edit]
  • Add "Sergeant" in front of Calhoun, per the reference provided.
 Done: Technically she's listed as Calhoun in the cast list (on both movies), but her credit is listed similarly on the first movie's page. - Purplewowies (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the topic of KnowsMore, I couldn't find any mention of the "UPA "limited animation" films", "Professor Owl", or "Adventures in Music" in the citation provided".
 Done: I think I remember vaguely seeing UPA get added at a time when I was indisposed and couldn't confirm its addition so it was probably WP:OR by someone. Rephrased to match actual influences mentioned in source. - Purplewowies (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reason why Ed O'Neill's character, Mr. Litwak, can't have a reference to a secondary source (like this one), rather than one in which he appears in a basic cast list.
 Done replaced with secondary source Chompy Ace 01:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Chompy Ace 01:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs in this section heavily rely on this primary source, which I find troubling as there are various secondary sources that would be better to use per the good article criteria and WP:RSPRIMARY, such as this one that contains most of the information in the paragraphs listed.
 Done PDF Press kit (primary source) reference being replaced with the British Film Institute and Fandango Media references in their respective paragraphs. Chompy Ace 02:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • References to mere mentions of a character, but not the voice actor, such as this one, should be replaced. Luckily, I found a reference that can be used instead.
 Fixed replaced with Fandango Media reference instead, WP:RS/CBM shows Comicbookmovie.com WP:USERGENERATED Chompy Ace 21:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are there citations to the literal movie when there are plenty of other secondary sources, such as the one listed above?
 Fixed replaced with Fandango Media reference Chompy Ace 21:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim that "recordings of Tim Allen as Buzz Lightyear are recycled from Toy Story" needs a reference.
 Fixed merged Chompy Ace 22:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  • No mention of "Kong Ralph" or "Ralphzilla" in either of these two references.
Comment: This is a quick "what I can find on a first-page Google search" and I haven't looked into its reliability or use as a source, but "Ralphzilla" at least was used in this academic (I think) source discussing the process of creating him. (I haven't looked around for Kong Ralph to figure where that one came from. (EDIT 01:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC): Kong Ralph is used on some concept art, but unless it's in the movie art book the only published sources I can find are Tumblr blogs (admittedly ostensibly belonging to Disney animators but)....) - Purplewowies (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done as of Special:PermanentLink/999620065#Popular culture cameos and references Chompy Ace 03:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the cameo from Imagine Dragons, replace the primary source with a secondary one, such as this one.
 Done Chompy Ace 21:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of one-sentence paragraphs in this section. Try merging them into two or three larger paragraphs.
 Done Chompy Ace 22:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change "During the production" to "During production".
 Done Chompy Ace 00:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the (parentheses) around "after Godzilla".
 Done Chompy Ace 00:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Production

[edit]

Development

[edit]
  • The claim that talk about a sequel started in "October 2012" has a reference from March 2013.
 Fixed Chompy Ace 22:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reference is needed for the claim that Moore said they "barely scratched the surface".
 Done added reference. Chompy Ace 22:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two sentences in this section mention that Mario was going to appear, and then, that's it. Was there a reason the character wasn't included?
From memory, Rich Moore is on record in a more recent (read: 2018) interview saying there just wasn't a good place to fit him (like, as in, they tried and it didn't work tonally). I don't have time to look right this moment, but that's a breadcrumb for anyone else, in case it gets done by someone else by the time I go snooping for the source. - Purplewowies (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC) (EDIT: I think I'm confusing it with a source describing why he wasn't included in the first film. There were a lot of articles (of varying reliability) discussing his potential inclusion in the sequel, but no reason was divulged concerning his lack of inclusion there that I can find. - Purplewowies (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
 Done removed Mario found in sentences and references Chompy Ace 22:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ralph leaving the arcade and wrecking the Internet" isn't mentioned in this reference. The quote is actually "Ralph leaves the arcade and wrecks the Internet". Swap them.
 Done Chompy Ace 22:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chiming in to say I provided a copyedit here, because all the ways to keep "focus" in the sentence were really weird. - Purplewowies (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noticing that the norm in this article is that once a person is mentioned in a certain section, the next time only their last name will be used. So in the second-to-last sentence, Phil Johnston should be changed to just Johnston.
 Done Chompy Ace 22:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new reference from IndieWire is from January 2013, so I suggest looking for other references and updating the first sentence of this section to correctly state when talk about a sequel first began (Here's an early reference from December 2012).
Comment: For reference, using Wreck-It Ralph Wiki's page for the sequel (purely because it's largely a copy of a much earlier revision of this article, right down to many of the references), the October 2012 claim from earlier is probably connected to this interview. I don't know how or if that one should be used (and there are likely other ones), but I wanted to add that context before I went digging deeper. (EDIT 23:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC): That source connected to a similar "October 2012" sentence on the original article, before the section there was gutted once the sequel actually came about. In fact, I think the phrasing and sourcing there was directly copied to this article.) - Purplewowies (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article from September 2012: /Film interview that references earlier ideas for the sequel than the internet one (might have time to look later for more similarly old sources but am getting pulled away). - Purplewowies (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the /Film source above might be the best to use as it's the earliest. However, there's no need to go through its content, but instead, just mention that in September 2012, Rich Moore said that there were already ideas for a sequel. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 00:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Chompy Ace 00:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link the first mention of Rich Moore.
 Done Chompy Ace 02:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Writing

[edit]
  • The sentence "In 'Ralph Breaks the Internet,' any person who uses the internet has a little avatar version of themselves that does their business for them" seems irrelevant to what Jim Reardon was trying to say. The first two sentences are already enough, so remove the one I just mentioned.
 Done Chompy Ace 02:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of the word "wanting" in the same sentence twice seems repetitive, so I suggest swapping it with something else.
 Fixed Chompy Ace 02:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The design of the scenes within the Internet was based on tours" --> "The designs of scenes within the Internet were based on tours".[a]
 Done Chompy Ace 02:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim that One Wilshire serves the "most traffic around the Pacific Ocean" needs a reference.
 Done removed "most traffic around the Pacific Ocean" sentence Chompy Ace 02:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "remains mostly intact through production" --> "remained mostly intact through production."[a]
 Done Chompy Ace 02:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final sentence in this section has related information about the writing process but looks like it would fit better in #Animation. It should either be moved or merged.
 Done moved sentence to the first paragraph of the section Animation Chompy Ace 02:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The designs of the scenes" --> "The designs of scenes".[a]
 Done Chompy Ace 04:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence ending with "intact through production" needs a reference.
 Done "intact through production" removed, added reference as sourced, trimming sentence Chompy Ace 04:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence news feels incomplete and needs to be rewritten.
 Done rewritten sentence Chompy Ace 13:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casting

[edit]
  • New section, so make Reilly's name full, and link it to John C. Reilly.
 Done Chompy Ace 02:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • First sentence seems incomplete with the date(s) of when each of the voice actors was cast.
 Done Chompy Ace 02:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should probably be mentioned who Alan Tudyk voiced in the first film in prose.
 Done Chompy Ace 02:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Chompy Ace 02:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done sentence moved to casting Chompy Ace 04:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after previously voiced" --> "after previously voicing"[a]
 Done Chompy Ace 04:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The team" --> "The production team on the film"[a]
 Done Chompy Ace 04:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Animation

[edit]
  • First sentence feels too short, so I suggest merging it with the second.
 Done merged Chompy Ace 14:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentences starting with "One of the Disney animators" and "He was also the original" can be merged by making it "...Mark Henn, who was also..."
 Done Chompy Ace 14:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference provided also mentions that he helped on Ariel, so that should be included as well.
 Done Chompy Ace 14:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as many viewers had pointed out that she was given" --> "as many viewers had pointed out that she was also given"[a]
 Done Chompy Ace 14:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This reference doesn't mention that the "pancake" scene was "one of the initial scenes created for the film".
 Done see below Chompy Ace 14:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The phrasing is weird on that now in relation to coming off of the previous paragraph, which is about a different scene (it makes it sound like the bunny/kitty scene is the same scene as the princess scene)... but I'm having trouble determining the best way to phrase that it's different. (Also, possibly relevant, possibly unimportant aside: It was definitely released early on even if it wasn't created early on, but I don't know if there's a source that covers that. (D'oh, the existing source does.)) - Purplewowies (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to rephrase to make the scene sound distinct from the prior one but don't know if that makes the sentence structure confusing at all--it was the best I could come up with. - Purplewowies (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The way it is now is 99.9% perfect, so no changes needed. Thanks for the improvement! Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 14:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change "and was heavily discussed in the buzz about the film; however, the scene was cut in the film" to "and was heavily discussed prior to the film's release; however, the scene was eventually cut from the film."
 Done Chompy Ace 14:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Music and soundtrack

[edit]
  • "The soundtrack is composed" --> "The soundtrack was composed"[a]
 Done Chompy Ace 14:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Release

[edit]
  • The claim that the film was released in "3D, 2D, Dolby Cinema, IMAX 3D, and 4DX" needs a reference.
I think some sources exist for 3D and/or IMAX, though I'm combing for what may be reliable or best (Dolby is in this boat as well). 2D is a given... 4DX has a blog post review mentioning it exists, but I think the closest to reliability is this post by the verified 4DX Facebook page. (Is that good enough, in the absence of a more secondary source?) - Purplewowies (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplewowies: The Facebook citation is fine as long as other references are added for the film's 3D, 2D, Dolby Cinema, and IMAX 3D releases. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 19:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done removed "3D, 2D, Dolby Cinema, IMAX 3D, and 4DX" claim, the same way as Wreck-It Ralph#Release Chompy Ace 22:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation after "Purple" is subscription-only, so it should be tagged accordingly.
 Done - Purplewowies (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

[edit]

Box office

[edit]
  • The first reference after "five-day opening weekend", gave me the following error message: "503 Service Temporarily Unavailable". Mark the citation as dead, or remove it.
 Done: Page was actually still live, so I updated its url so it wouldn't hit an error. - Purplewowies (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • References are needed for the claims that the film made "$18.5 million on its first day" and "another $10.3 million on its second".
 Done and comment: Removed as I couldn't find a reliable source for those numbers. (Side note I noticed while poring through some sources: This reliable reference (AFP) was removed at some point for no clear reason and cites a higher weekend total of 56.2 mil which the article also used to say. (And it's from after the weekend is actually over (9pm EST November 26 (from a Daily Mail syndication of the story) is the earliest date of publication I can find for it)--the Deadline source cited for 55.7 is actually before the end of the weekend (morning of November 25) and appears to be an estimation of how the weekend was going to finish.) Should that source be reinstated and the number changed, or should 55.7 be left as-is? - Purplewowies (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplewowies: I don't think the removal of both claims was a good idea as film articles normally have their first-day gross. Luckily, I managed to find both numbers on the film's official Box Office Mojo page, so they should be brought back. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 19:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How did I not come across that when looking? Readded (and used the weekend page at BOM to support 56.2 once more since it appears more sources are using that count vs 55). - Purplewowies (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done though that article contradicts itself; the top says 93.5 (probably where this article gets it) and says 93.6 lower down. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per above, this reference should be swapped with a different citation as it contradicts itself (you can use this or this).
 Done: Changed to the first (though I still need to round up archive urls and such). - Purplewowies (talk)

Critical response

[edit]
  • "describes" --> "described"
 Done - Purplewowies (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change "...Disney films" and "soars when it..." to "...Disney films", stating that it "soars when it..."
 Done - Purplewowies (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last sentence in the first paragraph, change "4 out of 5 stars" to "4 stars out of 5" as it just makes it sound better.
 Done Chompy Ace 22:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Chompy Ace 22:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the word "also" included in the sentence "also gave the film"? It's the first 3/4 rating given in the paragraph.
 Done removed the word also Chompy Ace 22:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chris Bumbray didn't actually say the film was better than Ready Player One, he just compared the films positively to one another.
 Done changed Chompy Ace 22:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Chompy Ace 22:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "gave the film 2.5 score" --> "gave the film a 2.5 score".
 Done Chompy Ace 22:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades

[edit]
  • Shouldn't this list be sorted by name, rather than by date to make it easier for readers?
 Done now sorted by name in alphabetical order Chompy Ace 03:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "(as Vanellope)" per consistency.
 Done Chompy Ace 20:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Academy Award citation, Clark Spencer isn't mentioned, so I would look for a reference in which he is or just remove his name.
 Done replaced with Oscars reference, this mentions Spencer Chompy Ace 20:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, per the Spider Man 2 GAN, I suggest replacing (or adding) references to mere "nominations" to those containing actual verdicts.
 Done Chompy Ace 22:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Satellite Award ceremony took place on February 22, not February 17.
 Fixed Chompy Ace 20:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change "San Diego Film Critics Society Awards 2018" to "San Diego Film Critics Society Awards" per consistency.
 Done Chompy Ace 22:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change "Tom Macdougall" to his actual name, "Tom MacDougall".
 Done Chompy Ace 23:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could "rowspans" be added to the references column? No need to have 3 or more consecutive citations of the same thing.
I specifically removed those because of possible accessibility concerns (diff) (sometimes screen readers (old ones, particularly), as well as text-based web browsers, can present row/col-spans in ways that make it confusing which cells apply to what, especially when they come after non-spanned rows). (Granted, the guideline I followed was a "bonus" criterion (i.e. it's a "cool, but you don't HAVE to push it" guideline), but nonetheless.) Mentioning that caveat so that it's known, whatever happens. - Purplewowies (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done per above Chompy Ace 00:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per consistency, other nominee lists with multiple nominees should have an "and" in between the second to last, and the last, nominee.
 Done Chompy Ace 23:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the commas in between "Joyce Tong, for 'Ralphzilla'" and "David Hutchins, for 'Virus Infection & Destruction'"
 Done Chompy Ace 23:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done added Chompy Ace 23:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done added Chompy Ace 00:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only the "Favorite Animated Movie" Kids' Choice Award nomination is mentioned, but the film was also nominated for "Favorite Female Voice from an Animated Movie".
 Done added Chompy Ace 00:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Future

[edit]
  • No problems at the moment in this section, but this reference seems like it could also be included, along with its content.
 Done, reference is not needed Chompy Ace 00:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other

[edit]
  • The only reference that needs to be archived is the one from Metacritic.
 Done Chompy Ace 09:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's common for a film to have a hatnote to its soundtrack, so to be consistent, I would remove it.
 Done Chompy Ace 09:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No images? Not even for a notable actor in the film (main or cameo), writer, or director? This is optional, but it would [look] better if this article had some images...
 Done added image which is Alan Tudyk at Casting subsection per Special:Diff/999486186 Chompy Ace 12:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some references have their dates in "dmy" form, so I suggest adding the "use mdy dates" template at the start of the article to fix this.
 Done Chompy Ace 14:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 21, currently placed in the voice cast section after the sentence ending with "Katherine Von Till", has an archive link that, somehow, redirects to the original article.
 Fixed removed reference Chompy Ace 23:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The archive for reference 59, currently placed in the "music and soundtrack" subsection after the sentence ending with "Imagine Dragons' YouTube channel", is unusable as it was excluded from the Wayback Machine. A new archive should be created, probably from another archiving website like archive.vn.
 Fixed Chompy Ace 23:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same thing goes for the archive for reference 85, currently in the "Critical response" subsection, after the sentence ending with "our apps and, yes, our brand".
 Fixed Chompy Ace 23:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both parts of the cite bundle for the "San Diego Film Critics Society Awards" should be archived, including this press release.
 Done Chompy Ace 23:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

[edit]

Final notes

[edit]
  • The following websites should not be italicized in the references they appear in:[b]
 Done - Purplewowies (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following website should be italicized in the references they appear in:[d]
 Done Chompy Ace 01:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change the uses of Slashfilm to /Film.
 Done Chompy Ace 01:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Chompy Ace 01:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Chompy Ace 01:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark the reference for the Detroit Film Critics Society Awards as dead so that readers are sent to the archived link from 2018, rather than the current one from 2019.
 Done Chompy Ace 01:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Purplewowies (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GAN table

[edit]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Notes

  1. ^ a b c d e f g Wanted changes are in bold
  2. ^ This can be fixed by swapping the reference's "website" parameter with "publisher".
  3. ^ Also fix the # featured in the reference.
  4. ^ The following website is already italicized in some references, but not in all of the ones they appear in.

Requesting change to sequel classification for Fantasia 2000 and Winnie the Pooh (2011 film).

[edit]

I spoke to an admin about this already and I was given the go-ahead to make an edit request.

There is currently a sentence on the introduction page for Ralph Breaks the Internet where Fantasia 2000 is claimed to be the last previous Walt Disney Animation Studios sequel. There is currently a consensus to leave this sentence as it is and to not change the sentence to say Winnie the Pooh was instead the last previous sequel from the studio. Despite what the production notes say, I feel it is fair to argue that Winnie the Pooh (2011) fits the classifications of a sequel (perhaps more than Fantasia 2000), and there are existing sources that can back this up. Given the context of how the production notes made their statement, I feel it is more plausible that the writer of this source made an honest mistake; writers are fallible. Many of them fail to remember the film exists simply because it was not an extremely successful movie amidst much more successful, original computer-animated Disney films (and perhaps the fact that it was released direct-to-video in a few territories has something to do with it). Nevertheless, it is still a franchise property produced by the studio, and it can be argued that it is a sequel.

I have many points as to how Winnie the Pooh (2011) qualifies as a legitimate sequel, but hopefully I won't need to share those. Instead, I would like to propose modifying the sentence being discussed. Currently the sentence reads as "It is Walt Disney Animation Studios' first animated film sequel to be created by the original film's writing and directing team and is the first sequel from the studio since Fantasia 2000", while citing the source for the production notes. My request is to remove the phrase "and is the first sequel from the studio since Fantasia 2000" so that the new sentence reads "It is Walt Disney Animation Studios' first animated film sequel to be created by the original film's writing and directing team" while still using the production notes source to back up that part of the sentence. I feel this would be best because not everyone agrees with the current statement and one can provide sources to refute it. It should also avoid unnecessary drama or edit warring from persistent editors and allow each person to decide for themselves how they want to classify the other films. The part that I am proposing to remove is (arguably) also irrelevant to insist on mentioning even if it were true since Ralph Breaks the Internet is not the first of its kind in that regard, and Fantasia 2000's supposed status has no real impact in relation to this film. Thanks.DESERTSCHo0L20 (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ralph_Breaks_the_Internet&oldid=1236990653"