Talk:WALL-E

Interpunct, bullet, or hyphen in official title?

The leading sentence says that the movie was marketed with an interpunct, but do we have any citation that it is not a bullet or one of other similar characters? The article itself is inconsistent; the lead paragraph uses U+00B7 MIDDLE DOT (WALL·E), but other parts of the article use U+2022 BULLET (WALL•E). Outside of graphic design, the hyphenated WALL-E is universal, but I've rarely seen that in marketing materials. One exception is the official web-site, which uses WALL-E in the HTML title, but the stylized bullet elsewhere. Other data points include IMDB, which elected to use the interpunct, Apple, which opted for the bullet, and Google, which has slightly more hits for WALL•E (59.6m) than for WALL·E (59.4m) or WALL-E (56.4m). The [Buy n Large] web site uses alternatively hyphens and bullets. Arrant Pedantry has an article on this topic, but reaches no conclusions. And then there is the Manual of Style policy on trademarks. Thoughts? Vectro (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to this page for the discussion regarding this. The consensus was that we keep it with a hyphen as WALL-E, so that's how it should stay. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 17:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, MOS:TM says to avoid special unicode symbols when at all possible. Since many (fair to say most) sources cite it as WALL-E, it should be kept as is. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 17:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, but in the article lead and body we are still using WALL·E and WALL•E. Body text should be consistent, though I suppose one could argue that the name of the character is not necessarily the same as that of the movie. Since I suppose I should take a position on this, I argue that we should do the following:

1. Change "interpunct" to "bullet" in lead text and link accordingly.
2. Change WALL·E in lead text to WALL•E.
3. Use WALL-E throughout article text (no bullet or interpunct).

Vectro (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

1. I have made every effort to assure that this is so; I really want to see this make GA and am determined to push it to FA status as well. If needed, I will add a hidden note at the top of the page requesting that this is not changed again, it is rather irksome that I have to keep reverting changes to swich all WALL-Es to WALL•E. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 06:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my edit summary a few hours ago when I corrected those that you hadn't changed, someone needs to deal with the various international links at the bottom of the article, as some use - and some use variations on •. Why not make sure that the article name is consistent across all WP...? SpikeJones (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately (as far as consistency goes), that's because, aside from a few core policies, each country is free to cast its guidelines (including naming conventions) in the way its community sees fit. Steve ^{T • C} 12:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think the bullet in the lead section should be changed back to an interpunct—the round dot used in the title card and on promotions could not logically be a "bullet", but an interpunct. The definitions of both bullet and interpunct given in their respective articles say that a bullet is used to start a list. This would not make sense the way it is used in the film's title. An interpunct however, based on the information I picked up from its article, would and seems more logical. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 14:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the above - an interpunct is an interpunct based on its function, not its size. The fact that many sources cite its title as WALL•E (as opposed to WALL·E), does not mean that it's correct. Is it not anyhow possible to make the title of this article be WALL·E? WALL-E is often used, but essentially incorrect.

If not, I believe the first sentence of the article (WALL-E (promoted with an interpunct as WALL·E)...) should be edited — perhaps to an disclaimer noting that the article is named to conform to Wikipedia Guidelines, and that the correct title should read: WALL·E.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.201.203.91 (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's WALL-E just as it's Disney / Pixar, not Disney [interpunct] Pixar as on the poster. Alientraveller (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(To anon) No, because I don't think the actual title was WALL•E. It's just a stylised hypen in the form of an interpunct. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 21:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no way to tell what the creators of the film would consider the correct spelling. We cannot assume that WALL-E is correct, because it makes no sense, just as the interpunct doesn't. If the robot's name stands for Waste Allocation Load Lifter: Earth-Class, Then WALL-E, means: Waste Allocation Load Lifter-Earth-Class, connecting the last three words into a hyphenated phrase where there really isn't one. If we're making up spellings and are so adamant against using the interpunct (why?), then WALL—E or even WALL:E is more correct. Dario1250 (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Then let's keep it how it is now. I agree with what you're saying, but consensus seems to say otherwise (or at least that we should keep it WALL-E to conform to guidelines). —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 21:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

IMDB rating

Anyway to include a small excerpt on WALL-E's unusually high rating on the IMDB? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.169.144.80 (talk • contribs)

IMDb user ratings are generally frowned upon in reception sections, as per the Wikipedia film style guidelines. Polls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner may be used, but user ratings at websites such as the IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew. Thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 22:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Steve is right; not only is the Internet Movie Database considered a generally unreliable point of reference, but is not a good source for film ratings as well, especially since it's primarily user-rated. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 15:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Steve as well. The "unusually high" rating is clearly a result of the vulnerabilities. Even Transformers was in the Top 250 (!) of all films on IMDb when it came out last summer. It's better to cite a controlled report of what audiences thought. In fact, here's an example: "And it succeeded on the strength of near-universal adoration from critics and audiences (it drew a solid A CinemaScore grade from an crowd that tilted toward younger ladies)." The CinemaScore grades, I've found lately, seem appropriate and static enough to report without any concern for vulnerabilities. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Title

What's wrong with having an interpunct in the article title? 89.240.59.140 (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's improper because of Wikipedia's guideline on trademarks. See MOS:TM for information, and /Archive 1 for the relevant discussion. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 06:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

GO-4

Okay, this seems silly to me, but there's been enough re-editing of this to necessitate a discussion, IMO. The bot is called "GO-4", that's a given. It's pronounced "go-for". The established term for this bot's apparent function is a mutated version of that term, which already has an article here (gofer) and is generally well known. So what's the problem? - Denimadept (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree, per conversation on my talk page. Gofer is more logical than Go for IMHO, so let's just keep it as it is unless reliable sources (i.e., from Stanton, Pixar, etc.) say otherwise. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 01:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:WALL-E/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Well done.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the Plot, "Ben Burtt" is linked twice.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the above statement can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay done Gary King (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything further to be done? I'd be glad to help out, as I'm one of the major contributors. Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 20:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that's it. I would have un-linked it myself, but I think just one edit change wouldn't hurt. ;) Congrats, this article a GA now. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 20:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Is mentioning what "WALL-E" stands for necessary for the summary?

I believe that mentioning what WALL-E's name means should be left for articles that describe him instead of in the plot summary of this article. But if anyone thinks otherwise, please tell me. I don't want to start a war, and I'm positive you don't either. Immblueversion (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I say keep it the way it is; it made it to GA class that way and it'll likely pass Featured in that same fashion. One shouldn't have to go to a separate article just to find out what "WALL-E" stands for, and this is the main article, anyway. If we want to provide as much useful information as is possible (and encyclopaedic), why not leave it? —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 01:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So be it. I shall never touch that aspect of the article then. Immblueversion (talk) 02:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it — it's by no means anything against you, Immblueversion. Also, that's just my personal opinion, if other editors think it should go, no problem; I just think it would be easier and more pragmatic to leave it where it is now. Cheers, —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 02:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It should not be in the plot summary, as it is not critical to the plot. It can, however, be in the CAST section where the characters are summarized. SpikeJones (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur, and it'll look better once List of WALL-E characters is merged. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 06:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.18.76.220 (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree that the explanation of Wall-E's name should absolutely remain in this article. How could it not? It seems pretty critical to understanding both the character and the title of the movie itself- and why it is spelled the way it is. Wall-E's entire purpose of creation is summarised in his name- it is the sort of knowledge that I would expect to obtain from a thorough source like Wikipedia.Coroloro (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

On Commentary- should defense get the last word?

I've noticed that in the commentary section it seems that while a variety of criticism is mentioned, there is always a defense for it and it always gets 'the last word' though I am sure there would be a response to that 'last word' as well. This kind of weights the article in the defensive direction on Wall-E's behalf, not a neutral stance, doesn't it? I've noted that articles where the public reaction is generally negative, defense is often less (even if it exists)- but in big blockbusters like Wall-E, you rarely see a criticism listed that does not have a rebuttal. This, to me, seems to imply there might be a bias infiltrating the article. Coroloro (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like what's presented, then re-write the paragraphs that are questionable to you. I see nothing wrong with "critics say this, filmmakers say that" format. To add another line of criticism rebuttal would make it 2:1 instead of 1:1 balance that currently exists. During your rewrite, be sure to use proper citations that show the 2nd point does, in fact, come after the filmmakers' comments. SpikeJones (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It's impossible to completely balance out the arguments in something like this, because there are inevitably more criticism than the film makers will respond to. The standard format for a debate though is that the defending team gets the last word to respond to the attacks though. This article is about WALL-E and how it was recieved though, not about how the director and other people got into a debate. Say what the criticisms are, then what the director's response to those criticisms is. The defense has the last word BECAUSE it is the defense; it has to answer other questions that people ask, and thus it can't go first. the_one092001 (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

With the above said, I suggest keeping the 1:1 ratio, for neutrality's sake. WALL-E just passes GA, let's not ruin it by tainting it with anything that could be perceived as a WP:POVish element. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 00:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

International Box office

Is that right? 3 million dollars seems awful low, considering how just about every other Pixar has done well over 100 million internationally. Does it just need to be updated? 67.183.40.4 (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's just not been updated - WALL-E was only, for example, released in the UK 48 hours ago, and hasn't yet been released in that many countries outside of the USA.--Gaunt (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Boxofficemojo is terribly out of date with the International box office totals - is there not a better site where this information can be extracted?--Gaunt (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know of, that is a reliable source. I've never worked with a film article that didn't use boxofficemojo, so I wouldn't know. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 19:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that we're using http://www.the-numbers.com as the source for the revenue. If you look at the figures, you can clearly see somebody cant work a calculator. It staes the worldwide gross is $279,537,000, when in fact its only $200,737,000 (See bottom of table on the webpage) Mc8755 (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the Domestic figure. $279,537,000 is the Worldwide figure which is what we're after. --Gaunt (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think WALL-E has begun running worldwide yet—only in the US and UK. It's no longer playing where I am (Alaska), but it's still showing in other states and from what I've read, it's not yet opened in Asia or other parts of Europe. If it had, the total gross would've skyrocketed relatively quickly. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 20:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but it's still been running in a few countries outside of the US 'Domestic' market, therefore the figure of $279,537,000 represent the Domestic plus worldwide screenings to date. The old BoxOfficeMojo figure was mainly showing the Domestic gross as the site seems to be having a problem with many of its International totals for some reason.--Gaunt (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be right, let's stick with whatever site we're using now; it looks to be more correct. I think it prudent to use more than one reference if possible however, because someone's numbers are majorly screwed up. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 20:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy about 'fattist' satire...?

Looks like a number of blogs and news outlets are picking up on thisstory - the F-Word site, which the article quotes, also maintains that "Pixar reworked the film to tone down its negative and discriminatory portrayals of fat people", which we can report as an allegation(?) but might not be able to verify? Looks like this probably deserves a mention, in any case. --86.133.5.197 (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the commentary section, and inclusion of this allegation would be undue weight. Alientraveller (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If you've listened to the interview with Staton himself, he did not intend for the movie to be "fattist" satire. The portrayal of the obese humans is based on NASA's research into the long term effects of microgravity on the human body. The F-Word article has it wrong and was making inaccurate guesses as to the director's intent. The concept of the obese people, like the concept of WALL-E itself is much older than this relatively recent obesity epidemic, and stretches back to the early 90's at least. Stanton "reworked" the film only insofar as he gave the humans shapes again, since they were originally supposed to be blobs until Stanton did more research on the effects of microgravity. the_one092001 (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, right now we're not discussing whether the movie *was* "fattist".. we're discussing whether the *genuine (agree with it or not) controversy* over whether the film was "fattist" should be addressed in the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.227.104 (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, the movie provides quite a bit of social satire about unbridled consumerism. The future people are glued to video screens, get zero exercise, and suck down liquefied junk food all day. The fact that they're out of shape symbolizes this. Afalbrig (talk) 06:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia is not a place for users to say what they interpreted the movie as. It is fine to say that some reacted to the movie as "fattist" satire, but the article should be written in such a way as to also note that such was not the stated intention of the movie. Interpretations, even those by recognized sources, aren't necessarily correct when it comes to guessing what the director or writer's intentions are, especially for an idea that has been stewing as long as WALL-E has. The F-Word blog may think that the movie is a satire of consumer culture, but it should also be noted that such is not Stanton's stated intention; his ideas are older than the obesity epidemic sweeping the nation and the movie just happens to depict fat people at a time when a large debate is raging over obesity. The controversy should not be stated directly as the intent of the movie unless evidence from the director, writer, or other heavily involved figure is found and cited. the_one092001 (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Finding a solution to the WALL-E and List of WALL-E characters page problem

I noticed the flag-up for such a discussion but couldn't find it so I have decided to start one. Firstly, there are not a great deal of characters in this film and therefore, one could argue, it doesn't merit a single article just to list the few characters involved in the film. I propose two suggestions. Obviously, these are not the only two solutions that I, or anyone else for that matter, could come up with. My suggestions are as follows:-

1. Reduce the overall size of the article and merge, as suggested, into the main WALL-E
2. Expand on the interesting and unusual fact that there are so few characters in the movie

My own personal feelings on the matter lean more to my latter suggestion because merging the article with WALL-E would result in a inappropriately long piece. But trimming it would ruin some ones work. Alternative, I think it would be simply marvellous to turn this article into a broader piece about the media response and critics response to the severe lack of characters as well as expanding the description of each one. Please post any other suggestions or thoughts about this here and also, a word to those Wikipedia users more wise than I, please don't be shy in letting me know I did something wrong- I welcome it.

--rab random (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There hasn't been any commentary about the "lack of characters". If you know of one from a reputable, 3-rd party citable source, then post one here please. The biggest problem is that that page is practically useless and does not expand on the information already in the WALL-E article. Worst case, the main article would end up with an additional section highlighting minor characters, as the sections on WALL-E, EVE, etc are already fleshed out. (robots? fleshed out? HA!). I will wait until I hear any additional dissentions before acting, but as of now, there has been no compelling argument for keeping it as a separate article. SpikeJones (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"but as of now, there has been no compelling argument for keeping it as a separate article."

-SpikeJones15:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with you on this one... I personally have never seen a commentary on "lack of characters". It was just my imaginiation running away with me!! ha. Besides, it was only an example of the kind of expansion which could merit keeping this page.

--rab random (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Rem'd Hello, Dolly! references?

I've been rather busy this week, so I haven't been able to catch up much on what's been going on with the article while I was away. I recently noticed that the mention of references to Hello, Dolly! was removed from the plot. Why was this done? I would think something like that would at least warrant a talk page discussion first—if it doesn't belong in the plot section, should a "Popular culture references" section at least be added to the article and mention the Dolly references? I think this information is plenty noteworthy and sufficiently verifiable (anyone that's seen the musical film can verify this themselves by going to see WALL-E, so there's no need for a citation, if that's the problem). Best, —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 18:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My thought about it is that the "Hello Dolly" bit is not central to the plot. I didn't remove the text, but I don't see that the Plot section has suffered for this. - Denimadept (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so either, but it should probably be mentioned somewhere in the article as it's an important motif; WALL-E would have never learned the meaning of holding hands if not for the tape, after all. That's just my thought on the matter. Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 18:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC).

Oh, agreed. I just keep tripping over the "fact" that a VHS tape survived 700+ years in apparently pristine conditions. :-D - Denimadept (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it unbelievable that mention of Hello, Dolly! has been removed from the plot description - the sequences from the film AND the music from it is CENTRAL to the whole meaning of the film! Did those who removed it not GET the film??? It's utter madness to remove the references, kind of like a plot description of Jaws that fails to mention the shark! --Gaunt (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Not central to the plot"?? It's a primary influence (one of very few explained in the movie) on the main character; how is that not important to the plot?--Dp76764 (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't seen (and don't plan to see) "Hello Dolly!" so I can't speak to what it's supposed to be doing. As such, it's not central to my understanding of the film. To me, it's a side-issue to help show how lonely the main character is. - Denimadept (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't seen Hello, Dolly! either yet it's blindingly obvious to me just how important it and its music is to the film. Heck, even the director has stated its importance in numerous interviews, you can't get more authoritative than that.--Gaunt (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• I can't argue with that! Darn it. - Denimadept (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Aha. So we've reached a consensus, then? :D (Anyone who needs some verification from someone who's seen the film can just ask me, and I've seen a lot of musical films in my short time.) Glad we could come to an understanding. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 05:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I suppose we have. Who removed the refs in the first place? We might want to ask them why they did that. - Denimadept (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, I found it. See [1] by User:Immblueversion. Immblueversion, are you reading this? If so, what's with that change? - Denimadept (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll just ask him/her, since I don't know whether or not Immblueversion watches this talk page. —Mizu onna sango15^Discuss 17:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind that—just take a look at the edit summary. Apparently Immblueversion thought it could be better explained in another article (which, IMHO it really wouldn't). —Mizu onna sango15^Discuss 17:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Even putting it into another article would be a pointless exercise as, within the context of the plot summary, it needs to be detailed as it happens in the story. I still find it hard to believe that anyone would remove it, what with it being the main event behind WALL-E's emotional development! --Gaunt (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, I won't even touch that aspect of the article anymore. I can't say I won't make any more changes to this article, but I don't want to start a fight. I just need to know things better. Immblueversion (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Besides, I feel realy touchy around starting controversies, because I hate getting the feeling that people don't like what I do, even though I can't avoid it. I know what I removed is key to the plot, but I just wanted to see if others felt it should be there. But then I remembered that's the whole point of the talk pages. I'm not THAT experienced of an editor. Just tell me what does and doesn't need to be in the plot summary, and I swear on my obsession off all things I obsess over that I will do everything in my power to uphold that. Immblueversion (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's upset with you, Immblueversion, but they don't agree with that particular change. - Denimadept (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Genre

Someone's described WALL-E as an "adventure-comedy-romance-science fiction film". This is a bit silly, surely "animated science fiction film" will do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.59.211 (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. "Anime" would do. The description you list is more specific, not at all silly, IMO. - Denimadept (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Anime" is probably not appropriate for this movie. Anime typically means Japanese animation. But "animated scifi" would be just fine. Dp76764 (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Sounds fine to me. —Mizu onna sango15^Discuss 23:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Animesouth's constant editing to support his 'Silent Running' stance

The user Animesouth seems to have a need to state that the film Silent Running was a major influence on WALL-E and cites two poor examples. Does anyone think he has a point and, if not, how do we prevent him from constantly editing this page? From looking at his Wiki page it seems he has annoyed others by doing similarly tenacious edits on other pages and, for reasons unknown to us, will not back off and admit he was wrong.--Gaunt (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As I stated to AnSth on his talk page, Specifically, you are misinterpreting AS's comment on Silent Running as being an influence on Wall-E. His comment was a direct response to what *others* are saying about the film, not the other way around. The AICN interview leads the witness by asking Stanton what he thought of critics who compared Wall-E to Silent Running, and Stanton provided an answer that helped explain why the critics would think that way without addressing whether there was an influence or not. It's a rather weak assumption to draw a line between that answer and it being an influence, especially compared to how Stanton was more verbose surrounding his use of Hello Dolly. It's along the same lines as the Short Circuit fanboys claiming that Wall-E is based on Johnny, when it's absolutely clear that Wall-E is based on the robots that Jawas showed to Uncle Owen by the Sandcrawler. (in other words, interpretation by the viewer doesn't mean there's any basis of citable, supportable fact behind it) SpikeJones (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• The 'references' were also added in on the Silent Running page (none of them supported the statements as written in the article). If he continually re-adds these, Administrative intervention can be requested. Dp76764 (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• I concur with excluding Silent Running as an influence until reliable sourcing can be found. The information should be excluded from the other film article as well. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that I have told AnimeSouth if (s)he continues adding it, it'll be considered vandalism; we have asked them enough times to stop. If they insert it again, I'll just report them to AIV. It may sound a little bad faith-ish, but when you've asked nicely three times and they deliberately continue there's not much more to do. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 20:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the best solution, thanks.--Gaunt (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wall-E as an allegory for the Problem of Evil (spoilers!!!)

Why does God allow evil to exist? A traditional answer is that freedom (free will) necessitates the possibility of evil. In Wall-E, the characters that best display the range of human will and emotion are actually the robots. It is Wall-E that "wakes" John and and Mary from their electronic wombs to experience the world as it is. The captain wrestles with his robotic keeper, Auto, and finally manages to switch to the ship's controls back to manual. The history of the people aboard the ship moves from being one written by a perfect (perfectly secure?) robot guide to being a messy, painstaking labor on the earth. The captain's desire to know his origin leads directly to an exit from paradise and an arrival back on earth. But the humans are not alone in their new, old world. The robots will be with them as they forge a new future, one with a balance struck between man and machine. 192.251.66.254 (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not a forum for general discussion. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 07:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

New "See Also" section

Someone added this section, and it includes links to Dystopia and the Brazil film. Is this neccessary, or is it innapropriate? Your thoughts. dogman15 (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Seemed inappropriate and un-sourced. Was also added along with some 'commentary'. I removed both. Dp76764 (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Dash in title

Per WP:DASH, shouldn't this be moved to WALL–E (currently a redirect)? If I'm interpreting this right, the aformentioned MoS section states that articles which would normally have a hypen in its title should use an en dash (–), and if that's true, I'll have to speedy the appropriate title so it can be renamed. Thoughts? —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 07:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Aside from the historical discussion on consensus (see archive), your interpretation is misguided as you also have to take into consideration the proper use of hyphen in the preceeding section. As a hyphen is used as a conjunction. In this case, the difference is clear between WALL-E vs WALL-A ("lifter-earth" vs "lifter-axiom") in the same context as the proper WP usage of "little-used car". SpikeJones (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Aha, I thought that was a little strange. Thank you, Spike. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 19:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Link on top of page

Shouldn't the link on top of the page go to the disambiguation, not the video game? 71.249.158.250 (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, because there is no disambiguation page to provide a link to. Only the video game article has a similar name, so a direct link is preferred. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 14:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Should we really have one anyway? There are only two works by the name of "WALL-E"—the film and the video game. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 16:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Is this still protected? Anons seem to be editing just fine, it must've expired already. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 17:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured

Assuming I'm not being too bold here, who—if anyone—wants to go for FA, and what more needs to be done before nominating it? I've found film articles to be among the easiest to promote, so why not give it a shot? —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 05:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a little too soon, as it would fail on comprehensiveness. Film articles are generally not considered such until they complete their theatrical run and until after the DVD has been released (the DVD will almost certainly contain a lot of information that could be incorporated into the article), as we do need some retrospective commentary. There are also a bunch of citations listed above that might yield useful information. I know I wrote it, but the current version of the reception section is also a little weak. Three critics is not enough for a good reviews section. See Hancock (film)#Reception for a reasonable example. That article's release section (Hancock (film)#Release) might also be a good format to follow. Another point to consider is the awards the film is likely to receive. And finally, not all film articles warrant it, but there might be scope here for some kind of expanded "Themes" or "Analysis" section. Hope this helps, Steve ^{T • C} 08:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I understand. Nothing wrong with getting started, however (it comes on DVD in about three months!). Thanks Steve, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 21:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC).

EVE's name

I just realised that EVE stands for Extraterrestrial Vegetation Evaluator, and that this is wrong! Of course they wanted an E to form that name, but the actual name should be TVE (Terrestrial VE), because it examines earth, not other planets. Should there be a note on this in EVE's character description/page?190.31.237.127 (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No! She's designed to examine all planets, including Earth. This is why you need sources for information. Alientraveller (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

One could also say that she is an "Extraterrestrial" Vegetation Evaluator because she is an extraterrestrial herself. She does not inherently come from Earth, thus she is extraterrestrial. Regardless, there is no use pointing it out without some kind of source about how it's an error or how Pixar intentionally changed the spelling. the_one092001 (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I choose Controversy

I don't know a better way to contact you, but I think the section on Wall E should be Controversy, not commentary because the film was also not about love, but about the earth and how humans left it and how a pile a crap it turned out to be when they left which got a whole fuss of critics and etc. So please stop changing it, Its very annoying and it shouldn't really matter to you anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLight14 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not that big a deal, so please calm down and assume good faith. :-) With that said, I belive it should be "commentary" for reasons expressed earlier, but I'll wait for more imput before getting into an edit war (we shouldn't be doing that anyway!). I kindly ask you to do the same (by the way, you could've used my talk page like I requested). Regards, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 01:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC).

I say that it should remain "Commentary" because listing it as "Controversy" could make the entire issue larger than it is. Compared to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the controversy surrounding WALL-E wasn't too big. A few people misinterpreted the intent of the film, and Stanton publicly stated what his real intentions were. "Controversy" would imply that the movie caused a major stir or did something terribly provocative and that such was at least in some way the intent of the director, like a Michael Moore documentary. Many pointed out the depiction of fat and lazy humans and called it commentary, but relatively few lined up to rail against the movie. Further, I don't think that unilaterally changing an article just because "other shouldn't care" is a valid reason. You might choose controversy, but as I hope you've seen, others disagree, and they (or at least I) care. the_one092001 (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you The one, and I care also (for the record, when I said 'not a big deal' I meant not worth getting 3RR-blocked over :P). I agree completely, and I've asked Alientraveller to comment on the matter also. Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 01:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC).

It should be kept as commentary, not controversy. The commentary section is about viewers' interpretations beyond evaluating it as a good film (like the professional reviewers), and "Controversy" is an inflamatory term. Not all these observers to themes in the film are attacking it. Alientraveller (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I also say it should be Commentary - as Alientraveller says, Controversy is an inflammatory term, plus it's also somewhat limiting in its scope.--Gaunt (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok fine, let it be commentary instead of controversy , since all you guys ganged up on me about this, but I still think Controversy is close. you win mizu onna sango15. By the way, I'm still a little new here, so I don't know how to get to talk pages.

Cheers! WikiLight14 (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't ganging up, it's called consensus. That's how Wikipedia works, not through arbitrary individual decisions but by majority agreement by users. User talk pages are accessed by clicking on the user's name in their signature (or finding the user's page through a search) and then clicking the "discussion" tab on their page. For instance, to access my talk page, you'd click on my username in any of my signatures, then at my main user page you'd click "discussion" and see my user talk page. Hope this helps, and please don't get discouraged from editing! the_one092001 (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason the humans aboard the Axiom are obese

After centuries of living in micro-gravity, the humans aboard the Axiom have lost considerable bone and muscle mass, rendering them too obese and weak to stand or move without robotic assistance

Should this line contain a mention of the fact that the humans are also obese because of laziness and sloth, and because robots have been doing everything for them their entire lives? The film condemned such things as materialism and excessive consumption, and the portrayal of humans as lazy, obese, slug-like beings was meant to represent the effect of a society where people grow lazy due to automation; the film's message had nothing to do with low gravity.

Wikiedia is not meant to further a film's agenda, but how about a reference for the sake of accuracy? The humans grew fat not only because of the gravity, but also because of their lifestyles, an exaggerated representation of what already exists in real life. EvaXephon (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

We've been through this a number of times, just check the archive. The official line is that microgravity caused it; Stanton admitted that the designs were based on NASA's data of what people would look like after extended periods of microgravity exposure. The concept is older than the recent obesity epidemic, and the film does not explicitly condemn materialism and excessive consumption. Be careful when interpreting the movie, since the interpretations of reviewers is NOT necessarily what the director intended. Certainly, such condemnation can be guessed at and interpreted, but without a source from the director or writer saying that humans are obese because of overdependence, we have to stick with what already has been explicitly mentioned: microgravity. the_one092001 (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

the_one092001 is right, it's not because of laziness, but because of the effects of microgravity. We should really have a notice template on the talk page because of this; it's causing almost as much dispute as the hypen versus interpunct debate. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 04:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Plot too long?

I have once seen an edited version of the film's plot, and it said that the plot summary appeared to be too long. The person who changed that suggested the summary should be around 700 words long. Should we do that? I wouldn't mind. Immblueversion (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I would not mind if the plot summary should be 700 words long according to the guidelines. Greg Jones II 19:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT seems to say that if it's needed to convey the point of the whole film sufficiently, it can even exceed 1,000 words. I think we can get by just fine if we keep it in the 800-1,000 area. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 22:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. :) Greg Jones II 22:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Just make sure it doesn't go too far over the limit. My eyes are already sore, so I don't want to go throught the trouble of counting each and every word in the plot right now, but I'm sure it's fine where it is. :P —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 22:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)