Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHN Records

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)

I've been trying to shorten the plot summary a little, but because of all the edit conflicts that I am encountering, I now believe it is best that we refrain from shortening the article until further notice. To those with whom I have involved in this conflict, I apologize. Immblueversion (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see the third discussion archive for the results of the last plot length discussion. The length of this plot summary is not out of line with those of other Pixar movies, in fact it is one of the shorter ones. Plot summaries should be as long as they need to in order to accurately and succinctly describe the plot. If things can be removed while maintaining the integrity of the summary, then by all means do so. the_one092001 (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's far too detailed. I got more out of this article's summary of the last half of the film than I did actually watching it. We're currently narrating: we shouldn't do that. I'd be happy with a considerable drop in detail, expecially in the climax. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Of all the plot summaries that I've seen on Wikipedia, this one has had far too many major adjustments and re-writes. I realise that it's one of those films that you simply want to expound upon how good it is by putting in all the details, but in terms of a plot summary the amount of re-writes is somewhat overdone (to put it mildly). A few weeks ago it was fine, but now it's a bit of a war zone. I realise that many of the edits are well intentioned but a halt needs to be called while we take stock of what we have and what is needed.--Gaunt (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

WALL-E's is by no means too large, although I have been trying to simplify it (usually fruitlessly; it often gets reverted by the time I wake up next morning). There's no point in using ten words to summarise what one good word could. Other than that, however, the plot section is fine. The 900-word rule is not entirely set in stone and we can exceed it if need be. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 20:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Altered the situation with the WALL-A units. Fromthe previous text it seemed like these units were hutning WALL-E and EVE (and M-O), but they can be seen waving to them good-bye, after giving their working lights to illuminate the scenery (to help EVE saving WALL-E, their smaller cousin, so to say). Also changed the thing with McCrea, he did not override AUTO but totally deactivate him (he switched the controls to manual). Hope that is fine with everyone. -Aresius, Freelance-writer, 18.09.20,08;23:10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.188.215 (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

---

More on plot length

Once again, I find myself despairing about this article's plot section.

1. It is almost a complete narrative of the film, scene by scene. It is the largest uninterrupted block of text in the article.
2. It makes only cursory attempts to remain out-of-universe. We should be very clear that we are describing what happens in the film from the perspective of the real world, and not merely an abridged narration.

I fear that this will continue for years unless we take steps to seriously outline what we want from the plot section here. To me, that means ensuring that it doesn't read like a narration (which it is easy for well-meaning editors to arbitrarily expand) and instead hovers over the story and commentates on what happens in it. Ideally, this would be accompanied by references which do the same. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI - the plot section as currently written encompasses approx 1300 words (give or take a dozen or two). SpikeJones (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Also for reference, please see Film Wikiproject info on what the PLOT section should contain. SpikeJones (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have taken a good swath at cutting down the plot to the key elements - I have a feeling it can be condensed more by about 10%, but certain things need not be included (for example, ok, AUTO tilting the ship at the end to prevent activation of the detector isn't necessary to go into great detail - it is part of the general delay and prevention tactics that were used to stop WALL-E and EVE.) ---MASEM 17:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Home Release

Resolved

Who thinks that the heading for the DVD and Blu-ray release info should be 'Home Release'? Doesn't sound right to me, why not just call it DVD and Blu-ray release? Or, to compromise, Home video release? Or is the word 'video' now associated too much with VHS tape? Not trying to make an argument out of this, just airing my views in a mature manner in the interest of sparking some informed debat. :-) --Gaunt (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's only a matter of time before someone switches it to the overlong "DVD and Blu-ray release". :P I tend to use either "Home video" or "Home release", and video is fine considering it's a term for visual media, not just those who grew up with VHS. Alientraveller (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how about we change it to Home video ? It's far more intuitive and descriptive.--Gaunt (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No, because I think you were right when you said 'video' is too associated with the obsolete VHS system. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 23:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"Home media" covers things well, I reckon. Steve ^{T • C} 06:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea, I like that. Any opinions anyone?--Gaunt (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

comment: Aside from my general opinion of supporting 99.5% of Alientraveller's edit decisions (have to leave room for some disagreement :) ), the question is not one that should be answered here. Whatever decision should be made regarding what that section should be called should come from whatever Movie project oversees that type of thing. That way we can ensure that all movie articles are treated the same way (even those films that do not/will not have a DVD or Blue-Ray release any time soon). SpikeJones (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so which Movie project oversees WALL-E then? I do agree that they should all tie-up.--Gaunt (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You accidentally wiped my last comment out. This is what it said: You're in luck. The manual of style for films names the section "Home media" here. While not set in stone (tailoring section names to the most appropriate for individual articles is to be encouraged), it was indeed what I based my recommendation upon. Steve ^{T • C} 13:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about wiping your last comment, must have been a lag on Wiki as your last comment wasn't showing when I typed in mine. Anyhow, thanks for that bit of info - does anyone have any objections to changing 'Home release' to 'Home media'?--Gaunt (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) No, looks good to me. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 17:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but "home release" is just plain dumb. "Video" doesn't mean VHS; ask any professional. While some uninformed people may associate the term exclusively with VHS, Wikipedia doesn't need to enable the ignorance. --99.230.113.223 (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You're correct in that video doesn't mean VHS but I wouldn't rely on professionals to support you. Technically video refers to the vision component, as distinct from the audio component, so if you want to push for "Home video release" then I expect you to add a "Home audio release". Of course that would be silly since both are obviously released at the same time. "Home release" is more correct technically than "Home video release" and far more descriptive than "Home media". Of course that's just my professional opinion. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what sounds better to you on this article, the consensus on film articles has been reached and discussed as part of the film wikiproject. If you would like to debate the "home media" vs "home video" header text, please do so on the link provided earlier in this discussion. Cheers! SpikeJones (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Charity preview screening

Today, 31 August 2008, a charity screening of WALL-E occurred in Australia. 52 simultaneous showings across the country, several weeks before the movie is released commerically in Australia (if it ever is released, the way they keep pushing the date back), with all proceeds going to the Camp Quality kids cancer charity. This info I got from the speech at the start of the movie. Here's a selection of not-very-good sources, I've been unable to find any good ones as of this moment (some more substantial ones -if any- will probably be out in the next day or two as a recap of the event)[1] [2] I leave it to the court to decide if this information is worth incorporating into the article in some form. -- saberwyn 12:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The question you have to answer is "is this info encyclopedic, and give the casual reader any insight into the film that they wouldn't have before?" There are plenty of charity screenings for tons of films, but they aren't notable because of the films but rather for the charities' fundraising options. If you want to include the info in WP, you will be better served seeing if it could be added to the pages devoted to the charities, rather than trying to add it here. SpikeJones (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought it might be worth including on the "distributed several weeks before official national opening" tack as in a two-sentance addition of: "The film was officially released in Australia on insert release date here. Preview screenings were held across the country on 31 August to raise money for Camp Quality". However, current article content does not appear to support content on releases beyond the initial US premiere, and as I said before, I leave it to those who work on the article to decide if the content is worth including. -- saberwyn 23:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Many films have preview screenings before general release (some for charity, some not). As stated previously, it has to do with whether your addition adds anything for a casual reader who is interested in this film. For example, Pixar hosts annual charity events where their films are often shown ahead of the premiere as an enticement for donors to attend. Stating as such on each film's page is useless, as it is a Pixar event, not a film event. The question then stands as to whether the Pixar events are notable additions for the Pixar page for anything beyond the fact that many companies do charitable work and similar activities (99% of the time, no). Similar to your request, any addition to WP regarding these fundraising events would go on the page devoted to the charity, not to the company hosting. Besides, regardless of the reasons behind a preview screening, preview screenings and sneak previews are seldom encyclopedic. SpikeJones (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Puzzling phrase

(who hops on star liners "Axiom")—Sorry, I can make no sense of this. What does it mean? Does "hops on" mean "boards" or "takes short journeys on" or something else? Are there a number of star liners called "Axiom", and does he make a habit of "hopping on" them? This is the only meaning I can get out of this ungrammatical phrase, but it has to be wrong. I've seen the film, and it sheds no light here. Koro Neil (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I had the same issue with Stanton felt that Pixar achieved believable water physics. It needs clarification as to how that applies to this film. I've tagged both phrases. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Buy n Large

I've been gone for a good while due to being very busy with school, but I noticed "Buy n Large" in the sypnosis is now italicised. I have no problem with this, but I was wondering about any discussion that had led to this being changed (if any). What have I missed? —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 19:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

WALL-A units resemble giant WALL-E units.

An editor has been removing "that resemble giant WALL-E units" from the description of WALL-A on the basis that WALL-E was based on WALL-A. We don't actually know that, it's not stated in the movie and appears to be an assumption, and therefore original research. The definition of "resemble" is "to be similar to somebody or something in appearance or behaviour" and this is true for both WALL-A and WALL-E. WALL-E resembles WALL-A nd WALL-A resembles WALL-E. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that is true. Although I must wonder if it is absolutely necessary to keep the reference; does it somehow add a necessary part to the plot summary? The WALL-A's don't do much of note, so their appearance and resemblance shouldn't be that important. the_one092001 (talk) 07:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in the "Other robots" section really adds a necessary part to the plot summary. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As you said, WALL-A resembles WALL-E just as much as WALL-E resembles WALL-A. The point is that the WALL-A definition specifically says that WALL-A's resemble giant WALL-E units. You have no proof this statement is more valid than one that says "WALL-E resembles tiny WALL-A units". It's a disambiguous statement either way, and since we do not know the history of which product came first, we have no way of making a definitive case of one over the other. As none of the other robot descriptions in that section discuss anything about how those robots look, it's also inconsistent with info in that section anyway. (my edit summary was meant to imply that there was ambiguity, not that there was a supporting argument) SpikeJones (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Stating that WALL-A and WALL-E robots resemble each other is really an uncontroversial statement. There is no need for proof that either of the two statements about resemblance is more valid than the other. Both statements are true so it doesn't matter which one is used. The statement that they resemble each other is certainly not ambiguous (or even "disambiguous"[sic]). It's very clear in it's meaning. It's also not inconsistent with other content in this section. Whoever initially included the statement probably did so because of the obvious similarity between the two. No other pair of robot types in the movie are that similar. WALL-A and WALL-E are unique in this way so there is no reason why a statement unique to this pair can't be included. I'd argue that the statement is probably the most notable part of this whole section which is really just trivia under another heading. Moving to your edit summary, I'm afraid it didn't achieve your aim. In fact it was ambiguous because whether or not WALL-E was based on WALL-A is is irrelevant to the statement because resemblance has nothing to do with the order in which things were created. Your edit summaries have been arguing the opposite. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) The statement that is in question is that WALL-As are robots "that resemble giant WALL-E units". My point is that you have no way of knowing if WALL-As resembles WALL-E units any more than someone else saying that WALL-E resembles tiny WALL-A units does. They're useless filler words that can't be substaniated one way or the other -- by questioning my edit (which I expected someone to do, thank you for noticing), you should apply the same logic to your own edit to see whether it could qualify under the same terms or not. Besides, describing the WALL-As in this section serves no purpose in adding to a reader's comprehension of the movie. Other robots bodytypes are not described, so why should WALL-A's be? SpikeJones (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a point of OR we do want to avoid. We can't say "WALL-A units are giant WALL-E units" as that implies that WALL-E came first or other meanings that we can't confirm with sources. But, the statement "WALL-A units resemble giant WALL-E units" does not lead to the same fact - it's using a known point of visual reference to provide a visual description of the other in as few words as possible, nor hints at which came first (beyond that WALL-E is the first on the screen, so the WALL-As appear as larger versions, still not OR). Is the visual description important? Well, the fact that WALL-A and WALL-E are similar names imply a similar purpose, and by stating that "WALL-A units resemble giant WALL-E units, compacting waste from the Axion" gives a very clear picture that they are related (they are just different classes) and thus happen to look similar. --MASEM 14:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)