Talk:WALL-E/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Article is too promotional in nature

First of all let me apologise if I sign this wrong- this is my second comment ever on a discussion page, normally I stick to reading wikipedia and contributing rare edits. This page comes across right now more like an extention of either a fan site or a text portion of the commercial site. I've read MANY other film pages on wikipedia (including Disney ones) and this one stands out- I have to suspect, even, that perhaps employees of Pixar have come and editted this entry. First, obviously the plot section is way too long as the page notes. Secondly, and most importantly to me, the reaction section is not only bulky but also it comes across like someone basically used quotes as a way to talk up the movie. Yes, the movie reaction IS positive, but shouldn't this section come across a bit more like an encyclopedia and less 'promotional'? I think perhaps more summaries of what people have said should be used if necessary to help trim down the size. I think we have to try to balance quoting critics positive reaction with making the reaction section of the article look like it came straight from the promotional site, don't you guys? Coroloro (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as you say, the reaction has been overwhelmingly positive, so it will be difficult to get the reception section sounding anything less than a puff piece. However, and speaking as the editor who added the current version of the reception section, I entirely agree that the reviews should be paraphrased better, with fewer direct quotes. Steve ^{T • C} 23:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've reworded the section to look less like a straight lift from the two reviews. The Variety one wasn't too bad, but the Hollywood Reporter review looked like a borderline copyright violation. It could still do with some comments from other sources, which I won't get a chance to add until after the weekend, but let me know if you think the tone is still off. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 00:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Axiom Italics?

Because the Axiom is considered a ship and has a specific proper name, shouldn't the name be italicized? It's italicized when listing the captain of the ship but nowhere else in the article. Traditionally, the names of ships are italicized, so I think this one should be as well. the_one092001 (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note...

Electrocution is a shock that results in death. When WALL-E uses the umbrellas in the thunderstorm, he is shocked, not electrocuted. When AUTO does it (to WALL-E)... it could go either way. Just make a note of that in future edits. :) 71.253.199.254 (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

WALL-E and EVE's "kiss"

Just so I have this straight around the middle of the film while WALL-E and EVE are dancing through space a spark goes between their two heads. That is their "kiss". Their kiss is a temporary transfer of memory so when WALL-E loses his memory at the end of the film EVE having gotten WALL-E's memory from earlier is able to return the memory through another kiss. A scientific analysis to explain a seemingly impossible happening in the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.148.8 (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wall-E's memory is stored in flash memory and never leaves his body. it took time to reload after a cold boot, so thinking that the spark "kiss" restored it is a fallicy as all it was was good timing for the plot. This is also a scientific analysis to explain a seemingly impossible happening in the movie. SpikeJones (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WALL-E's memory was stored in the "static" in his recorder. Shortly before he's re-awakened, EVE presses play on his player. After the static finishes, his memory comes back. Perhaps he made an audio backup before he was crushed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.249.43 (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

i thought it was because he was damaged so much and his memory circuits wouldn't turn on all by themselves but when they "kissed" the power from their "kiss" reached wall-e's memory circuits and made it turn on81.108.233.59 (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"Voices"?

There are a number of contradictions about the robots' voices which it would be nice if we could clarify:

• There's the general statement, "There is little traditional dialogue in the film... To create dialogue, Burtt took various mechanical sounds, and combined them to resemble dialogue." But of course WALL·E's "voice" is credited to Ben Burtt, and EVE's to Elissa Knight.
• Specifically, we have at one point that "Burtt used old Maritime military sounds to express [AUTO]'s emotions", but at two other points, AUTO's voice is explicitly credited to MacInTalk.

—Steve Summit (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

the year 2815

The full-length trailer states the following: "700 years into the future, mankind will leave our planet, leaving Earth's cleanup in the hands of one incredible machine...". The way this is phrased has the Axiom leaving Earth in the year 2708 instead of 2118. Is this an inconsistency in the trailer vs movie, or are the dates entirely wrong in the article? SpikeJones (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is correct; the trailer is wrong (or worded poorly). I say this based on the movie itself. Mahousu (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the tense is wrong in the trailer in order to make it shorter and sound better to the audience. Correctly, it should have said "700 years into the future, mankind will have left our planet, leaving Earth's cleanup in the hands of one incredible machine." The second part is also incorrect, because when the Axiom departed, Earth was being cleaned up by likely hundreds of thousands (at least) WALL-E robots. Only one (that we know of) is functional by the time the movie starts, but at the time of the Axiom's departure, there were many more allocated to the task. The promotional taglines are meant to entice the viewer, so they're meant to flow together better at the expense of grammatical conciseness. The audience knows what the intent is and the movie clarifies this further. This is similar to the title for the movie Eight Legged Freaks. The lack of hyphenation would grammatically imply that the movie involves eight freaks that each have at least one leg. But clearly, the movie actually refers to freaks that have eight legs, in this case, spiders. the_one092001 (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"700 years into the future, mankind will leave our planet" doesn't mean the movie takes place exactly 700 years in the future. It just means that people will leave the planet in 700 years. WALL-E spends plenty of time alone on Earth before the movie's plot begins. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 03:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Closing Credits in plot?

I am for including the story contained in the closing credits within the "Plot" segment as a post-script to the story. At the very least if we start a segment of "Cultural References" it is of note to indicate that the closing credits create a story arc exemplifying key points in art history as well as the restoration of Earth after the Axiom returns.
Fashnable1 (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The story ended before the credits rolled. Interpreting graphics that accompany the credits as a *continuation* of the plot is incorrect. SpikeJones (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"Incorrect"? That's too black and white of an answer. The closing credits (with story characters described in cave paintings, then hieroglyphics, followed by Monet and Van Gogh impressionism) do indeed relate a postscript to the story. They tell of continued success in the process of humans and robots working to renew the Earth and of a further closeness developing between Eve and WALL-E. Only by the time the last 8-bit digital rendering style is picked up in the closing credits does the story run out and empty graphics begin. Binksternet (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A good plot summary should not say "At the beginning of the movie, blah blah blah... then, the film fades to black as blah blah blah. Finally, during the closing credits, the film is interrupted by blah blah". There should be no mention in any way that you are watching a film. The closing sentence of "With a renewed sense of purpose, humanity and robots begin to work together towards restoring Earth's biosphere." is enough.

It could be mentioned in production if we find a discussion of its design. The Monster's Inc. DVD has a featurette on the film's opening credits and how it set a fun jazzy tone, and likewise we could something. Alientraveller (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Children's Opening Weekend Gift

Not sure if this is of note for the article, but I was very put off by the fact that when I took my six year old to the theatre for the film she was given a rubber WALL-E watch as a free gift. A seemingly ironic gift given the intense undercurrent of environmentalism in the film. I felt a single potted plant seed set might be a better free gift. Not sure if this is of any interest, I just thought I would share it. Colecamplese (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. My daughter has one as well. It appears to me to be silicone, which is recyclable. FYI. --- It doesn't stick. (talk) 18:07, 7 July 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)

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)

I shortened the plot again. This time it shows all that is needed to know to have a basic understanding of the film. Immblueversion (talk) 01:48, 27 November 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)

The plot section here has to be one of the worst on Wikipedia - it's badly written with poor grammar and punctuation. A few months ago it was fine, but since then it's been edited and re-edited so many times that it's a complete and utter mess. It needs a complete re-write from someone who can write objectively, concisely and accurately. Any takers?--Gaunt (talk) 12:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If it was fine a few months ago, why not revert to that version or at least use it as a starting point? --AussieLegend (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

But that version is too long; this already had recent rewrite from scratch to make it shorter and concise. A better solution is to tell us what you think is wrong with the current text and fix it. --MASEM 13:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be quicker to rewrite the plot description rather than write down what is wrong with the existing one. It needs someone to rewrite it completely or simply revert to the old, long version. What's wrong with the old length anyhow? It seemed fine to me ......--Gaunt (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not look at a way-previous version that had been shortened up to see if there are any easy hits to remove (I see a few unnecessary portions; you should as well). I don't think reverting entirely is the correct course of action, but older versions can be used as a basis for condensing.SpikeJones (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ick! I guess this is what happens when you haven't edited the wiki in a couple of weeks: the whole place has changed, somtimes for the better, sometimes not. We're just going to have to work together to fix the article, I guess. When WALL-E first opened, it looked like this (because everyone and their cousin went to see it and had to edit the article because they enjoyed it so much), but we turned it around. No doubt we can tidy it up again. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 18:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The main problem seems to be the enthusiastic and well-intentioned edits of one particular person. Not mentioning any names of course, but I think we all know who he is.--Gaunt (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Being vague does not help with fixing the issue. Provide a diff to show where you think a poor edit was added, or make some changes yourself, or the like - it's a wiki, you're free to do that without worry, but if you don't fix it yourself or tell us what needs fixing, we can only guess what you're talking about. --MASEM 14:02, 15 October 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)

"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." - That's not really a point at all. It isn't a matter of WALL-A resembling WALL-E or WALL-E resembling WALL-A. They resemble each other so each statement is true. Both statements can be substantiated by pure visual reference, that's why I said the statement is uncontroversial.

"you should apply the same logic to your own edit to see whether it could qualify under the same terms or not" - My edit summary directly explains why your reason for removal was invalid.[3]

"Other robots bodytypes are not described, so why should WALL-A's be?" - As I stated in my last post, WALL-E and WALL-A are a unique pair. They're the only two robot types that resemble each other, which is more notable than the rest of that section. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Answer this simple question for us: "Does knowing what a WALL-A looks like add to a user's comprehension of the film, especially considering how minor a roll WALL-As play in the overall plot and how little they appear on the screen?" I'll grant that there could be a reason to include a description of how a passing character looks in an article; this is not one of those times. Heck, the Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope article doesn't even describe that C-3PO is a humanoid robot, or that Darth Vadar wears a helmet/mask. Why are those facts not included? Because neither points are required for comprehending that film either... and those are *major* characters. SpikeJones (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Answer this simple question for us: "Does knowing what a WALL-A looks like add to a user's comprehension of the film" - That's not really the issue. You're arguing that because the other robots aren't described then WALL-E and WALL-A shouldn't. I've pointed out that they are a unique pair so your argument doesn't really apply. I've also said that the whole section isn't needed. / "the Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope article doesn't even describe that C-3PO is a humanoid robot" - Actually it does: "C-3PO is a protocol and interpreter droid.'"

"or that Darth Vadar wears a helmet/mask" - Why would it? It's obvious in the separate Darth Vader article. None of the "other robots" in Wall-E are notable enough to rate a full line and only one has a separate article. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(double sigh) Please answer the question that was asked: "does describing the robot as a larger sized version of Wall-E add anything to the user's comprehension of the movie?" By saying that's not really the issue, then you need to go back and refamiliarize yourself with what makes a quality article. As for the C-3PO piece, "a protocol and interpreter droid" does not describe C-3PO's looks (as his appearance is inconsequential to the plot, which is my point here), and if WALL-A warrants a separate article as Darth Vadar does, then in THAT article you could describe WALL-A's appearance. SpikeJones (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(resetting indent) "Please answer the question that was asked:" - Your reasons for deletion were specifically about which WALL unit was first,[4][5] not the value of the statement to the reader. As such your question is tangential to the conversation. However, as I previously stated, twice, I see no value in the whole section.[6][7] I answered your question before you even asked it.
"By saying that's not really the issue, then you need to go back and refamiliarize yourself with what makes a quality article" - I'm saying nothing of the sort. What I am saying is that your stated reason for deleting the text was invalid, and it is.
""a protocol and interpreter droid" does not describe C-3PO's looks " - What exactly do you think a droid is? For those of us not limited to the Star Wars universe and who use dictionary, rather than proprietary definitions, as we should in Wikipedia, "droid" is a shortened form of android. An android is a humanoid robot. ""if WALL-A warrants a separate article as Darth Vadar does, then in THAT article you could describe WALL-A's appearance." - Clearly it doesn't warrant a separate article so the place to put such information is here.
""(sigh)"" and "(double sigh)" - The condescension implicit in these comments is inappropriate and does you no favours, especially when you screw up people's edits[8], use words that don't exist (eg disambiguous), demonstrate a lack of understanding of the English language and try to push the conversation off at tangents. It's also uncivil. Let's try to keep the discussion civil and on track, please. Although, the conversation should really have finished here. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) was an indication that we have been through this before (not specifically you and I, but that these types of minor edits become overblown). Consolidating your multi-paragraph entries into a single paragraph did not change the content of your edit, as no words were deleted. Nitpicking spelling/grammer(sic) errors is not a civil way to discuss things when I have been very clear in explaining why I feel your need to physically describe a minor robot in this article is unnecessary. I have asked a very clear, simply question regarding your edit that has yet to be answered directly. I have pointed out the existence of at least one film article that has uniquely-constructed major characters, where the characters' appearance is not discussed in the associated article. I have been more than fair and upfront in engaging you in open conversation, only to be rebuffed, have questions ignored, only then to be called uncivil. I voluntarily joined this conversation, openly admitting that my edit comment was made in order to point out that the removed statement was ambiguous at best and therefore did not belong. We'll ignore edit summaries I have made that were more precise regarding that edit in the past. As for I answered your question before I even asked it, I would appreciate it if you could repeat it so that it won't get lost in all this chatter you and I have engaged in. Droid, to the casual reader, does not define that C-3PO is a golden human-like metal robot. R2-D2 is also referred to as a droid, so your suggestion that "droid" represents a humanoid is inaccurate in the Star Wars world. Don't get me wrong, I thank you for participating in this discussion... however, related to the importance of the edit we're discussing, it has gone on way to long, and I have yet to see you provide supporting evidence/argument as to why your edit should remain.SpikeJones (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"Consolidating your multi-paragraph entries into a single paragraph did not change the content of your edit, as no words were deleted." - It did, however, make it harder to read. Editing another editor's comments is not appropriate.

"I have asked a very clear, simply question regarding your edit that has yet to be answered directly." - As I have said, I answered it before you even asked the question making the question unnecessary. I've even linked to it. There should be no need for me to have to repeat myself, again, just because you are unwilling to read the thread. Ironically, my answer to your question is immediately before your first post in this discussion. It's only the third comment made so it's not as if it's hard to find.

"openly admitting that my edit comment was made in order to point out that the removed statement was ambiguous at best and therefore did not belong" - And I've pointed out that your edit summary did not do that. It didn't even come close.

"As for I answered your question before I even asked it, I would appreciate it if you could repeat it so that it won't get lost in all this chatter " - It's not lost. It's the third post made in this discussion. If you can't find that highly visible comment, why should I waste my time repeating myself again, again?

"Droid, to the casual reader, does not define that C-3PO is a golden human-like metal robot." - Nobody said it defined him as being gold. It does, however, identify him/it as a human like robot, as I explained in my last post.

"your suggestion that "droid" represents a humanoid is inaccurate in the Star Wars world." - As I've indicated, Wikipedia is not the Star Wars world. It's the real world, where "droid" identifies something as being a human like robot.

"I have yet to see you provide supporting evidence/argument as to why your edit should remain." - You shouldn't be looking for any. I haven't been trying to justify it remaining, As I've said, I see no value in the whole "Other robots" section. It should be removed for exactly the same reason that you now argue the subject statement should be removed. My opposition to the removal was, as was made clear in the opening post, because your stated reasons for removal was invalid. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You said earlier, Nothing in the "Other robots" section really adds a necessary part to the plot summary. If so, then you agree that the edit in question doesn't belong just as I do. You, however, would take the edit one step further and remove that section entirely, which I don't agree with as the "other robots" do interact with the main characters in the film and aren't just background. If you have been here long you would have seen that that section was merged in from a separate article which was deemed unnecessary to exist on its own. "Android" in our world may mean something different than "droid" does in the Star Wars world, but in the film when the word is used, it is clear that it refers to all robots, not just the humanoid-looking ones. "Droid" is not a word commonly used in today's world anyway, hence my belief that "droid" does not imply a specific look/feel. If you feel that "droid" should refer to human-only robots, then that's a discussion for you and I to take up on the Star Wars pages...though I believe you will find some strong pushback relating to that change. And to close, I'll reiterate that my edit summary was intended to (a) cause conversation; (b) was an exaggeration of "this removed sentence wasn't clear, as this statement is equally valid"; and (c) was said, as many edit summaries by many editors are, with tongue firmly in cheek. If your issue was not with the edit that was made but with the summary, then we should have moved this conversation elsewhere. SpikeJones (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

While the other robots may interact with the main characters, does the knowledge of what they are and their various quirks add a necessary part to the plot summary? Is it really necessary to even be aware that there are robotic rodents or robots that clean the EVE probes, let alone know their names? How does knowing this add to the plot? Before this edit, there actually was some point to knowing the names of some of the robots but now it's just a list of extremely minor chartacters that provides no useful information to the reader. If you argue that knowing that WALL-E and WALL-A units resemble each other is unimportant yet knowing the names of robots that really have very little to do with the plot is imporant, you're being inconsistent. Regarding droid, the fact remains that Wikipedia is not limited to the Star Wars, WALL-E, Star Trek or any other universe. It's an encyclopaedia and maintains a neutral point of view, using common, not proprietary terms (unless those terms are explained). Your argument was that the Star Wars article doesn't describe C-3PO as a humanoid robot. The fact is that it does, regardless of what universe the editors who added that information were in when they added it. If I was to write "A tripod has three leggs" you would automatically assume that a tripod has 3 supporting poles and that "leggs" was a typo, regardless of the fact that I was actually referring to a small blue device used for levelling each leg, which is know as a "legg". As for your edit summary, I'll take your word for it, although I don't understand why you didn't just write what you meant rather than something that was totally different. However, the correct place to discuss edit summaries that don't make sense is here, not elesewhere, since they are directly relevant to the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

You thought that the removal of the so-called "condescending play-on-words" was a detriment to the article? Interesting. I am not inconsistent - I didn't see the need for those terms myself, but recognized that some might need assistance in knowing name origins. But there is no need to identify that a WALL-E is a smaller form of a WALL-A (or vice-versa) in this piece. The term "droid" is used only in the Star Wars universe to represent all robots; in the Star Wars article, droid is misleading with its linkage, as the linked page says it is a robot designed to resemble a human, but the term is used first in a reference to R2-D2 who is clearly not humanoid in design. The editors of that article used the term correctly when referring to the characters in-universe, and the linkage is reasonable to show word origin, but the way the article is written in this manner - it implies that R2-D2 is a humanoid robot just as we know C-3PO is... yet nowhere in that article is a physical description of the two as the physical description does not lend itself to the reader's comprension of the film. As for your "legg" item, given the information you present as to what a legg is, I would question the use of "blue" in the description as the legg's color would not be a function of the product. SpikeJones (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"You thought that the removal of the so-called "condescending play-on-words" was a detriment to the article? "" - That's not what I said. The section was still unnecessary at the time but at least there was something in it other than pure trivia, as it is now.

"but recognized that some might need assistance in knowing name origins."" - That's part of the inconsistency. The section no longer explains the origins of the name. All it does now is give each robot a name and a brief description of the robots purpose and quirks. It's not essential to the article.

The only thing that was removed in that edit was the name description, and the edit summary for the edit you pointed out said that the removal was due to a condescending play on words. Your stated unhappiness with that removal suggested that the edit was a detriment to the article. That's all I'm saying you said, as I did not expand on it beyond "interesting". SpikeJones (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't state that I was unhappy with its removal. I certainly wasn't unhappy with its removal. I did and still do think that the whole section should be removed as it serves no useful point. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"As for your "legg" item, given the information you present as to what a legg is, I would question the use of "blue""" - You've missed the point. In the hypothetical I presented the description of the object was not used. It just stated what I said it did. The colour wasn't even mentioned. The point of the hypothetical was to explain why we use common terms rather than proprietary terms. Oh well. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears we're just going to go around and around, and will just have to settle to "agree to disagree", although as I stated above, I believe you and I are on the same page regarding good vs bad content, but differ on what qualifies for each bucket. I will continue to stand by the wall-e/wall-a comparison as being unnecessary in this article, as the physical robot description is not important *here*. If there ends up being a character-specific page of some type again, then the wall-e/wall-a comparison would belong on that page... but it should be a general statement that the two resemble each other without infering that one robot is the model basis of the other. I see you didn't counter my comment about the use of the term "droid" being a humanoid robot in reference to R2-D2. If you would like to continue to discuss that, I am willing to continue that aspect of our conversation... perhaps on the SW page as it is applicable there. SpikeJones (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to make this a battle, but I'm with Spike on this. Of course, there's always a way to compromise: why don't we just remove the phrase altogether—or, better yet—rephrase it in some way. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 18:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest something. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

How about a sentence stating "WALL-E and WALL-A units resemble each other, differing primarily in WALL-A unit's greater scale." It avoids the issue of which one is original and which one is derived, and sticks to the necessary facts. Picklegnome (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

When I saw this film, I just thought 'Oh look, those giant WALL-A robots are just like WALL-E.' Why is this such a big discussion? If it looks like it, it looks like it! Wikiert (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

Heavens above! Its perfectly obvious that the Wall-A robots resemble "big Wall-E" units. The editor should not waste time obstructing AussieLegend's attempts to contribute in a positive way. Utunga (talk)

Ok, I tried "Large trash-compactor robots, similar in design to WALL-E, who work on the Axiom's lower levels.". This doesn't say that any one robot is based on the other, simply points out the similarity between them - this being useful identifying information for anyone trying to find out which robots are which.118.208.49.111 (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see above discussions. Using your argument of "this being useful identifying information for anyone trying to find out which robots are which", I suggest that you begin at the top of the list in identifying the other robots' characteristics before editing wall-a's description, as those other robots are equally in need of identifying information. Also, as mentioned previously, we do not know if wall-a is similar to wall-e or if wall-e is similar to wall-a. That they are similar in look is not vital to the casual user's understanding of the plot or the robot's overall function (which is implied by their name, just as other robots are). SpikeJones (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

They were named for the places they were stationed. Wall-E...E for Earth. Wall-A...A for Axiom. Duh. Nza please (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Nza please

How about a statement which reflects the ambiguity while also conveying the information? "As another member of the WALL class, the WALL-A shares many design elements with WALL-E." 15:24, December 1, 2008 ConcealIP

Okay...answer this: why is THIS robot's description more necessary to include when a description of what M-O looks like is not in the article at all? Or EVE, for that matter? Because it's unnecesary for an understanding of the robot's role in the story. SpikeJones (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not have it say "Wall-E and Wall-A resemble ONE ANOTHER" (without the caps). That's all that needs to be said, it places neither robot above the other and I think it fits the criteria each group is looking for. Good luck finding a reasonable solution guys.

Its really starting to upset me that one person can make all of Wikipedia look so stupid and at the same time turn away potential contributors. Who really cares about Wall-A vs Wall-E ... but what *is* upsetting here here is that one person's mean spiritedness on this point has knocked back at least 5 different contributors - who seemingly attempted to describe the completely uncontroversial, and relevant point of similarity. This is behavior is anathema to the principle of Be Bold described on the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. If we want to "encourages users to be bold when updating pages" then we need to behave with a lot more respect for other people's attempts to contribute. If things are un-sourced, inaccurate, off topic, etc etc.. sure, knock them back but if you have some sort of epistemological difficulty with the transitive nature of 'similarity' then for goodness sake can't you just bow to the feelings of the majority ? 38.96.153.66 (talk)

Hello, thank you for joining the conversation. There is nothing bold about adding a line that describes one specific character if there is not one line of character description about any of the other, more plot-significant, characters. Adding a line that, in essence, duplicates what is implied by the similar names of the robot (with the key difference being "axiom class" vs "earth class") does absolutely nothing to enhance the article for the casual reader. As for mean-spiritedness, I have openly engaged in discussion on this topic and requested others to do the same. I, like you, am amazed that there is such an interest in this minor topic. SpikeJones (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Spike, I have added back the information. Reading this entire discussion shows that you are the only one opposing this information. Please stop and accept that others just want the information included. It doesn't break any rules, so this boils down to a content dispute, in which you seem to have trouble accepting consensus. Until it does violate some policy, this information is perfectly acceptable. — Edokter • Talk • 15:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

All of the WALL units were created together. The A in Wall-A stands for Axiom class and Wall-E is Earth class. Watch the DVD extras and commentary and educate yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.38.182.134 (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Guys, your silly little dispute made it on /Film. I hope you're impressed. I'm also considering adding it to WP:LAME. But Spike, you asked for my opinion and I'll respond I have none: that whole robot list will probably be blanked eventually per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Alientraveller (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, kids. Just take out the stupid comparison, and describe the wall-a as a large trash compactor. DONE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.224.226 (talk • contribs)

I'm with Alientraveller, the entire "Other robots" is inapprorpiate and fails both WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and goes against the WP:MOSFILM. The section should be removed completely. Actually, most of the cast section should go as well and the voice actors moved into the plot section. A cast section is for providing background/casting information, not additional plot summary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Edokter. I think this shows how the process of Wikipedia really works actually. The shame of it is - well as stated by someone on the /Film thread -- "Sheesh. Every now and then, I think I'd like to give editing Wiki stuff a shot, and it's inanity like this that makes me think better. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go argue about moon landings for 3 hours on IMDb." Hmmm - ah well moving on. Utunga (talk)

Just thought you guys might like to know that this argument is so idiotic that it made http://www.collegehumor.com. Way to keep the Internet entertaining! AndyHuston (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this place is reaching critical mass of loser! 67.77.137.19 (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't you see how magnificently important this conversation is and that every shred of time, effort, and thought spent on it is critical to the quality of information pertaining to such a monument of fiction? The discussion members would certainly be depriving the world of their most useful contributions if they were to sink to the depths of such petty and frivolous activities as spending time with their children, learning something new, helping the underprivileged, reading a book, or going outside and enjoying the world around them. No, it's evident that these individuals truly have nothing better to do, and for that they deserve our utmost respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.59.104 (talk) 10:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but in the initial iteration of the plot as seen in the deleted scenes section of the DVD, the similarity of WALL-E to the WALL-A robots plays an important roll in that WALL-E uses their similarities to try and get the WALL-A robots to help him save EVE. I'm not sure how Wikipedia deals with deleted/omitted plot progressions but the relevence of the similarity is very clear in that particular scene.

REM-E

One of the robots was called REM-E, which is a robotic rodent. Could this be a hint towards Remy, a rat, in Ratatouille?

If there is a rodent-like robot in WALL·E called REM·E, and there is a rat in Ratatouille called Remy, then I would say YES.

I would say NO unless we can prove that it is a reference. Any "suggested" references and cameos cannot be listed unless they are confirmed beyond reasonable doubt to be an explicit reference, and not an accident. Is there any such proof? the_one092001 (talk) 07:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the robot rat is named "REM-E" by "accident", and not after the Rat character named "Remy" that exists in another movie by the SAME studio. Please note sarcasm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.80.226 (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. We don't deal in suggestions no matter how obvious. Unless it is conclusively stated by a credible source, it isn't going in. Wikipedia is not a "Look what I noticed!" journal, it is a factual encyclopedia, and anything without direct confirmation cannot be included. We use CITATIONS for a reason. the_one092001 (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, this is the incorrect page for the question - it should be posted on List of Pixar film references. SpikeJones (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Other robots

Do we need this section WALL-E#Other_robots?--SkyWalker (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As you can see above, there are some editors who believe that the section is useless (either in general, as previously written, or as currently written). There are also editors who believe that the section should exist. The argument against is fairly obvious, as it generally doesn't add anything to a reader's comprension of the movie in that there is no need to know specific about other robots to follow the plot. The argument for is more involved; for example, BURN-E appears in the movie for a moment... but will have appear in a short on the WALL-E home release. The reject robots do play roles in the film, similar in some ways to the monster toys in Toy Story - not enough to warrant individual articles, but enough to be recognized in some manner. The problem is that there isn't enough material to spin off a separate "Characters in WALL-E" article as there was for Toy Story (which is where the misc robot information should live). So until there is a place to spin the material off, there is no harm in keeping it here in the meantime. SpikeJones (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Disney starts Best Picture nomination campaign

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/movies/28stud.html

How can this be incorporated into the article? dogman15 (talk) 05:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out: I have incorporated it. Alientraveller (talk) 10:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Micro gravity?

The article states that humans have lost bone mass due to micro gravity. But in the movie, gravity aboard the Axiom appears to be Earth-like. So how could this be? Ksabers (talk) 11:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

How does it appear to be Earth-like? I am by no means saying you are wrong, but as the movie isn't in theaters where I am the majority of us have no way of verifying this until the 18th when it's released. Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 00:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

It appears to be Earth-like because objects do not float, because "up" and "down" are clearly defined, because persons are able to roll on a sloped surface, because actually there IS a sloped surface... and so on. So I don't understand why "micro-gravity" should be the cause for the loss of bone mass. I think a better reason would be the total absence of physical exercise and the fact that everything is done by machines. Ksabers (talk) 09:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't know the "G" status of the gravity used on the Axiom. Is it "one-G", ie Earth? Is it 1/6th-G, ie the Moon? Does everyone have magnetic shoes to keep them grounded to the floor ie 2001? Was the gravity amount decreased over time as people became less and less active, requiring a miniscule amount of gravity to keep them afixed to the ground? The movie mentions "microgravity" - to infer anything beyond this without citable support from the film and/or filmmakers is considered original research and is not appropriate for WP. SpikeJones (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This problem has now been resolved in the director's commentary on the film. He explained that the bone loss was due to both Ksabers' explanation and due to the fact that the Axiom's gravity system is not perfect. If you look at how long each captain was in command you can also assume that people were alive longer and had more time for the bone loss to take effect, although this is mostly speculation. Derekristow (talk) 07:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You could also state that him using the term "microgravity" was just to keep from saying your all fat and its our fault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.203.215 (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

more on Robot Names

Interesting read over at the official Wall-E script, provided by Disney. In the script, WALL-E is called "Wally", M-O is a Brush-Bot. There's a VACU-BOT, SPRAY-BOT, BUFFER-BOT, etc. The question is whether their appearance as such in the script, which is citable as an official Disney resource as it is on go.com, is applicable here? The way the script reads, "Wally" is a specific "WALL-E robot", just like "M-O" is the name of that specific Brush-Bot.SpikeJones (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a hole in the plot!

The plot mysteriously [sic] doesn't include how WALL-E got his memory back. Why is this omitted? Dalekusa (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, yeah, it's there. Check the last section in the plot one more time. --Kaizer13 (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Awards and Nominations

Is it just me or is this section rather unclear? I mean that there is variable distinction given as to whether a nomination has garnered an award or not. It also seems somehow 'wrong' to list all the nominations that were lost with a bit of text saying 'lost to xxx'. How about sectioning it off and having a Nominations list and an Awards list. This would be far clearer and, for those nominations which become awards, then the section can be edited accordingly.

Of course, you could always just put the information on the page already designed for it. SpikeJones (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Random tidbits from the Blu-Ray disc

We'll incorporate these somehow into the article...

• Wall-E was originally called WAL-E, but could have been pronounced "whale" by mistake
• The city is loosely based on san francisco
• The original title was "trash planet"
• The roach's full name is "Hal Roach", after the film director

...somehow. SpikeJones (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Bullet?

I am fully aware that we are not to replace the hyphens in WALL-E's name to any of those "dot" symbols, but I feel that it should mention that the title is promoted with a bullet rather than an interpunct because the text of several other sources give it a resemblance to a bullet which, on this site, is larger than the interpunct.

Example:

WALL·E (interpunct)
WALL•E (bullet)

I don't know, the bullet just seems right to me. Of course, we'll still keep the hyphens normal to meet the guidelines of Wikipedia. I just feel that the interpunct should be a bullet. But this is entirely trivial. Immblueversion (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

WALL-E vs. Number 5 (Short Circuit)

It's a bit funny to hear that Stanton denied a link between Number 5 (aka Johnny 5) and WALL-E's design. Perhaps he has some legal reason to say that. In any case, whether he is willing to admit it or not, here's just a small set of resemblances between the characters:

• both have a head consisting only of camera lenses in a roughly binocular shape
• both have "eyebrows" that they can wiggle (in WALL-E's case, it's not clear what functional purpose they serve, if any)
• both express most of their personality through the eyes and the way they perch their head
• both ride on tank tracks in a triangular shape, which are physically separated from the body, and they can "rear up" on them
• both can move much faster than would appear on their treads (including "getting air")
• both have similar degrees of freedom on the head mount
• both have lasers mounted in the head area

There's probably other similarities I missed. There's definitely also similarities between WALL-E and Luxo Jr., but that doesn't discount the debt that WALL-E owes to Number 5. I think it's important to recognize that debt, given that there are massive variations in robot design in fiction, and wall-e is pretty unique except for the strong resemblance to Number 5. For pictures of lots of robots and in particular some good shots of number 5, see [9] Sbwoodside (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, "deny"? From the Development section: The director also acknowledged he may have been subconsciously influenced by Johnny 5 from the film Short Circuit, which he once saw. — Edokter • Talk • 00:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

While there are of course similarities, I would say that WALL-E is far more similar to Spielberg's 'ET' than Number 5 - putting aside the fact that WALL-E is an intelligent robot, he shares a lot of similarities with ET, including the limited way in which he speaks. His general body design is also far more like ET (replace the extendible stubby legs with tracks, squat body with WALL-E's body and the head and neck with WALL-E's 'binocular' eyes and neck and there you have it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaunt (talk • contribs)

Great minds (Spielberg and Stanton) think alike. Alientraveller (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

By "deny" I mean that Stanton is putting down the connection to a minimal "subconscious" level which I find hard to believe. When designing wall-e they would have pulled all of the source material available. Short Circuit was released 22 years before wall-e making it a good source (although since it was not a blockbuster like E.T. there might be quite a few wiki editors who haven't seen it). Yes, I agree that there are also strong similarities with E.T. which maybe should be mentioned somewhere. The point is, wall-e looks to me like a strong derivative work with loads of clear references to previous robots (especially Number 5) (and also clearly to E.T. too). There isn't much about wall-e's design that's actually original, maybe just the trash compactor/turtle thing, which is cool. As far as derivative work goes, I like it, it's great, there's nothing wrong with it. It's important and seems to me to pass some kind of obviousness test (see google [10]) so it should be mentioned in the article with more than just Stanton's "subconscious" quote. Sbwoodside (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with any argument like this is that anyone can argue that something "seems like" something else and list a series of similarities. As impeccable as your series is the fact that it is your series or my series and not anyone connected with the film's series, equals speculation. The key phrase here being "looks to me like a strong derivative." Such interesting speculation is best kept in fan-made wikis and discussion groups. Ccs4ever (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless Stantion publicly says that Short Circuit was his inspiration, we cannot assume that it is. He stated that it might have been, but we cannot say for him that it was. What if E.T. was his inspiration instead? He already said the eyes were inspired by a pair of binoculars and the way they could show "emotion" based on their various positions. This issue has been brought up before and ultimately comes down to this: regardless of how much WALL-E may resemble Johnny-5, without a direct acknowledgment, we can't include it since then we are inventing influences while they may not actually exist. It is quite possible Stanton did not think at all of Short Circuit but instead designed a simple treaded robot with binocular eyes that coincidentally turned out like Johnny-5. the_one092001 (talk) 05:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The roach

There is no mention of the roach in the article. It should be mentioned as WALL-E keeps it as a pet or friend (I'm not sure what), another expression of his humanity (or personality, whatever you want to call it) :) --Aksnitd (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is identifying how Hal's presence is integral to a plot summary. As you can see, there is also no mention in the plot of other characters that WALL-E interacts with, as those interactions are also not integral to understanding the plot. SpikeJones (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's probably too trivial to mention, but didn't EVE first become "friendly" with the roach, and then cease firing at wall-e when the roach demonstrated that it's friends with wall-e? Sbwoodside (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The roach is at least certainly more notable in the movie (for helping to establish Wall-E and Eve's characters and personalities) than any of the miscellaneous robots listed in the "Other Robots" section. Kjl (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe it could at least be mentioned in the cast section? I agree it is trivial but its a 'human' quality none of the other robots have. --Aksnitd (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Spelling the corporate name & logo

Resolved

Extremely trivial topic, but here it is: There have been disagreements about how the corporation's name and logo should be written. I have watched my own DVDs repeatedly, and every single instance both onscreen and even on the caption-subtitles have written them as "Buy N Large" and "BNL", with a capital "N". If this is all a matter of proper writing structure, then someone would also argue that "Buy N Large" should correctly be written as "Buy 'N Large", but it's not written that way anywhere in the film. In fact, the special features includes a (faux) history of the corporation which describes how it used to be spelled as "Buy 'N Large", but dropped the (') eventually.Machine Patience (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Official Disney documentation, shown in footnote #20, has it listed as "Buy n Large". SpikeJones (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Granted, but even "oficial" documentation can be wrong. The movie and DVD extra's do use a capital N. — Edokter • Talk • 00:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I would assume that the movie itself would be the most credible source? In that case, the capital N should be used, since the movie was created by Pixar, with Disney being only the parent company and distributor. the_one092001 (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 20 is material provided by Pixar. The onscreen references, if you are talking about the stylized "Buy" "Large" with the "circle N" in the middle, is not source enough. While closed captioning has been used as a source for dialogue, it may not be a reliable source for capitalization possibly due to how closed captioning transcription systems work. As there is inconsistency in usage from the film notes to the film and elsewhere, this may be one time where there may not be anything sufficient enough to change. Yet. SpikeJones (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There is an instance in the film itself where the initials "BnL" appear directly and lowercase is shown. You can see it on the DVD from the frame at 05:42 through 05:47, when a video depicts the BnL CEO waving to a departing starliner, stating "Because at BnL, space is the final fun-tier!" Below him appear the words "Shelby Forthright" and "BnL CEO" with a lowercase "n". --AzureCitizen (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That's good enough for me, a text version of the name in the film, without the stylized "N". I'm marking this one "resolved", with "Buy n Large" continuing. SpikeJones (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

question

Anyone else think that one of the sounds of the 'hydrolics' when eve first comes out of the spaceship sounds the same as the 'energize' sound from the video game Descent? Is this a possible hidden reference? Dezmo (talk) 09:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, just you. Alientraveller (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Box Office

I would like to add the information: The movie crossed the $200 million mark for the first time in its sixth week with a total gross of more than $204 million on the first weekend in August 2008. Any objections? Sha-Sanio (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Pre Release Screening

I went to a pre-release screening of the movie last spring in Portland, Or. Almost half the movie was just storyboarding drawings, I don't know if it deserves a mention in the article or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.86.90 (talk) 05:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It'll be mentioned once I finish my Production rewrite. Stanton changed a few things after the screening, like the addition of the end credits animation. Alientraveller (talk) 11:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Most all pre-release screenings for animated films are in a mix of storyboard/test animation/wireframe, etc. The 40 minutes of UP that showed at "NBAT" in Austin a few weeks ago was like that as well. Not necessarily encyclopedic for an individual film, but could be an interesting factoid on a page about how a CGI film is prepared. SpikeJones (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Other robots revisited

Is there a reason why we have the "Other robots" section? It strikes me as highly indiscriminate, especially considering that as opposed to a live-action film with an extended cast, the bullet points do not provide any navigational purpose. Can we remove this subsection and move BURN-E into the above section? —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Plot reordering

I've reverted a change by AzureCitizen which reorganized the plot to be in line with how the movie is presented, thus adding about 500 more characters to the plot. We are aiming to keep the plot concise as possible, and since we don't use spoilers or other means of hiding information, and that we are to tell the story from an out-of-universe perspective, the plot as current is (which introduces what happened to humanity at the start) is the best, most concise way to present the story for the purposes of an encyclopedia. --MASEM 05:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)