Talk:Wonka (film)

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: British / American This article is supported by the British cinema task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Novels: Roald Dahl Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Roald Dahl task force (assessed as Mid-importance). United States: Cinema Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance). United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened: December 10 to 16, 2023 December 17 to 23, 2023 December 24 to 30, 2023

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Film and TV Projects Going Into Production – Wonka

The intro says it was "reported" that Ryan Gosling, Donald Glover and Ezra Miller were considered for the titular role. Reported by whom? Later in the article we have a report allegedly from the director of the film that Chalamet was the only choice for the role. Then it says Tom Holland was also a front runner. All of these cannot be true at once. The first (re: Glover, Gosling and Miller) isn't sourced at all. Some clean-up and sourcing here may be called for. BatmanManchesterUnitedFan (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

 Done Mike Allen 00:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article mention that the film has stylistic references to the 1971 film? I saw the trailer yesterday and I clearly heard the Oompa Loompa song leitmotif from the '71 film. Think about it, Oz the Great and Powerful had stylistic refs to the 30s Wizard of Oz film, right? Visokor (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable secondary source that discusses that, possibly. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The listed plot seems nothing similar to the trailers or anything said about the movie. It seems ai generated and has no source 166.70.20.45 (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been removed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opening this as a notification because obsessive fan edits are trying to fill the page. The BBC source shows praise and criticism for Chalamet's singing, and "miscast" info, it doesn't state that his performance was widely praised and got only minor criticisms. However, some people (unaware that this is an encyclopedia) try to change it by claiming that the source does not actually say such a thing and even try to justify their edits by adding the Guardian review included in the report, which doesn't mention anything about the overall reception for his performance, as a second source. ภץאคгöร 07:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are no obsessive fan edits here. You have reverted several users already and are engaging in edit warring. Claiming that he received mixed reception is unequivocally false and misleading information. If you wish to just use the BBC report, perhaps it would be best to not include more negative criticisms than positive ones seeing as it contradicts the reception being headlined by Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic at the start of the section. And the use of the Guardian article is fine because it adds information that is not included in the BBC report. There's nothing wrong with including more than one source. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one is claiming "mixed reception". You keep adding the Guardian review (that the BBC quotes) without in-text attribution and you still claim that it is not included in the BBC report, as if other editors cannot see it. And now you write that we should remove the BBC report's content because it is not appropriate to RT and MC scores? What are you even talking about? You have done nothing but try to use a single review to

synthesize/generalize and delete the parts you don't like from the source. I will report you if you continue to disrupt the page. ภץאคгöร 18:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

As a matter of fact, you did make the claim of "mixed" reception here. But now you are writing the section in a tone that insinuates Chalamet received mixed reception by singling out a big portion of the negative reviews from that BBC article and including them. This implies that his performance was not mostly positively received (which it was). The purpose of the Guardian article is to serve as an in-text citation for the portion that refers to his performance as "charming." Mind you, this edit wasn't my doing. This was another users' contribution (which you also chose to revert).[1] In fact, I included the Guardian article to begin with because your reasoning for the revert was "We follow the statement from the source," which I presume meant that what was written before did not reference what was said in the BBC report. Therefore, I went to find one that did and yet you still reverted it in addition to removing my source.[2] I also never stated we should remove the BBC report. My argument was that including more negative comments than positive ones from that report contradicts what Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic's general assessment of his performance are. And yes, it matters what RT and MC say because we include their scores in the first two sentences of the section. In fact, others actually agreed with me about the imbalance perception here and here, until you reverted those too of course. Also, threatening to report me for disruptive editing when you have A) ignored my initial suggestion to take this to the discussion page B) ignored the warnings on your talk page C) already reverted several users' edits [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and D) a lengthy history of edit warring warnings in just the last few months maybe isn't the best approach. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I get warnings from users and IPs like you all the time. The diffs you've presented mean nothing, they don't show "mixed reception", they don't make a generalization and summarise the reception that the performance received, even RT and MC say nothing about "general assessment of his performance" (which, again, you totally fabricated). You and another editor are the ones who prefer to make things up by creating content that is not stated in the sources and misinterpret the guidelines and

WP:OR, you will continue to be ignored, reverted or probably just blocked. ภץאคгöร 08:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Getting multiple warnings for edit warring in just the last few months proves my point about your behavior. Again, you falsely claim "things were made up" but the Guardian article specifically sources what was previously written. You refusing to read the source is not my problem. Are you open to discussing a solution to make it more balanced? I don't have issue with just using the BBC report but the summary should reflect the general consensus of critics, not the general consensus of the BBC report itself. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think sounding like a broken record and still not giving a valid reason will help you. ภץאคгöร 07:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed a single thing I said. I can't tell if you're being obtuse on purpose or...Kokaynegeesus (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've said my piece, I'm not going to waste my time responding to every invalid argument you come up with. My replies are clear and state why your changes are inappropriate. You are the one who has to provide a valid reason here, but for some reason you fail to pay attention to the actual subject and do so. ภץאคгöร 17:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't know what reality you're in. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have NO idea what's going on and, reviewing all the replies this post has, you have a losing argument here. 3.14 (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on: Kokaynegeesus has made several points that I believe are valid, yet you choose to ignore those points. AND, I have reason to believe you are attacking them in your replies to this matter. If the latter is to be believed, There is solid, concrete evidence pointing to the fact that you, Wikipedian, are violating the 4th pillar of Wikipedia's 5 pillars. 3.14 (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further into this, you have violated the "Assume Good Faith" part of the Wikipedia Etiquette. You have failed to remember the Golden Rule, you have failed to be polite, and there are more violations that you just have to dig up yourself. 3.14 (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is 3 months old. What are you talking about? Mike Allen 00:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's already resolved? 3.14 (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. We never came to a resolution because Nyxaros only engages in bad faith arguments. If you look at their talk page history you'll see they have a history of bullying, edit warring and refusing to engage in civil conversations. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The points I have made might be a pretty good resolution. 3.14 (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The chocolate cartel is named "Medilin" or "Medillin", for which I could not find evidence in the quoted ref. 11. In any case the spelling should be unified to whichever is correct. Pkoppenb (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 08:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Paul King, the director of Wonka, said he gained "about 50 pounds" from all the sweets he ate on set? Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6166392/trivia/
  • ALT1: ... that the scene in which Wonka drops his last sovereign is a callback to how Charlie Bucked found the money for the Wonka bar that had the golden ticket? Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6166392/trivia/
  • ALT2: ... that Timothee Chalamet got sick for all the sweets he had to eat? Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6166392/trivia/
  • ALT3: ... that the contract that gets Wonka trapped in the Washhouse is a callback to the contract from the 1971 film? Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6166392/trivia/
  • ALT4: ... that Wonka's ingredient bottles are actually reused dream bottles from "The BFG"? Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6166392/trivia/
  • ALT5: ... that Abigail, the giraffe, is a reference to The Giraffe and the Pelly and Me, another book by Roald Dahl? Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6166392/trivia/
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Just a lot of Wonka facts.

Created by 3.14159265459AAAs (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

3.14 (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• General eligibility:
• New enough: - Has not been expanded five-fold or made a GA recently.
• Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral : Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - IMDb is not a reliable source.
• Interesting: - Not particularly interesting to a broad audience.
• Other problems: - All of the hooks are not present in the article and not particularly notable.

QPQ: None required.

Overall: The article would need to become a GA to be eligible for DYK. Please consider nominating an article that you put in substantial work to improve or create. SounderBruce 02:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]