# Talk:The Nightmare Before Christmas

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

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
This is me but in the Plot section, "transport" does not seem to be the right word. No need for it to be changed, just throwing it out there. In the Production section, "In 1990" add a comma after "1990".
Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
In the Production section, I believe the link to "Francis Bacon" needs to be corrected. If not, that's my bad there. Same section, it would be best if "San Francisco" is linked once, per here. In the release section, it would be best if "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People" was followed by ---> (NAACP), I mean, I know what it means, but how 'bout the reader. In the release section, the link to "Ken Page" needs to be fixed. In the Critical analysis section, there's no need for "Rotten Tomatoes" and "Metacritic" to be italicized, since their websites and per here.
Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

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

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

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

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

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

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

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

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Alright, the comments have been addressed. I think it's ready. Wildroot (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to Wildroot for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not really contributory, so I am deleting if out of WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Wildroot (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Film Narrator is Patrick Stewart. It may improve this article to add him to the voice cast. --72.208.138.143 (talk) 04:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have proof? He is not listed in the closing credits. Wildroot (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This article would fall under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Halloween, which is currently proposed and seeking support.  Feel free to leave constructive comments.--otherlleft (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed there's no mention of the 3D version. I'd add information but I don' know anything other then it exists. 68.201.13.125 (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned like 5 times in the article. Wildroot (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Not it's not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.161.45 (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Could someone add some to the "Production" section about how the 3D version was created? 69.105.97.22 (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
That's mentioned in the reissue section, I think. Basically, Industrial Light & Magic was responsible for the 3D-release. That's about all you need to know. Wildroot (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm bumping an old topic, but this article still lacks any information on the production process for stereoscoping this film, which is the exact reason I came here. Someone must own the 3D Blu-ray and can provide a paragraph or two summarizing the process!    DKqwerty    17:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Disney Records recently released a remixed soundtrack of the songs from the movie, with bands like Korn and The All-American Rejects performing.  Should this be mentioned in the article? --138.237.169.27 (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be better in the Nightmare Revisited article. I'm sick of whiny of rock bands ruining the public image of this film. Oh well. Then again, I should not say that or the Wikipedia thought police will attack me! Wildroot (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think deletion is out of the question. Merging+redirecting possibly but we don't want Nightmare to get too crowded. If a redirect is done then we retain this hard-won info. Tyciol (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

While the reception is decent, there is absolutely no way that the rest of the content requires an article. The reception can be pruned and merged into the section in this article. TTN (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Notable characters from a notable franchise that includes a film that is continually rereleased theatrically in 3D, many toys and other replicas, video games, etc.  Yes, it requires an article.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
You really don't understand proper organization, do you? TTN (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Given that you admitted on your talk page you have no interest in writing articles and get  bored looking for sources, you are hardly in a position to lecture anyone else about what goes into to organizing articles.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Organization is much different than finding sources. As I said, I can spend an hour trimming and reorganizing a character list with ease. Getting information to the point where it can be actively worked on by someone who isn't a complete fan is something I think I do fairly well. Anyway, as I said, you do not know how to properly fit fictional topics into one another. The only thing you care about is the pure number of articles on this site. TTN (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I care about articles that our readers find helpful for understanding and appreciating the subjects that they are not interested, not in satisfying a minority who has a limited vision and lack of interest/knowledge in the subjects.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
See, if you actually knew how to organize fiction, you would know that nice, succinct articles are much easier to understand than unwieldy messes. That is not a lack of vision; it is proper organization to help insure that the topic is fully fleshed out. Articles only need to be split when the subtopic cannot possibly be reasonably described within the main article. This is not such a case. TTN (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
What is hard to understand?  If someone wants to see a brief summary of a character from this notable franchise they can come here and read it.  I cannot imagine anyone seriously having difficulty reading or making heads or tails out of a list of this nature.  Even an elementary school student would be able to handle reading through a discriminate list of this nature.  Wikipedia is not paper.  If people want a concise over view of the main subejct they can go to the main article, but many readers want some greater detail and read on for the split off topics.  Moreover, many of these characters appear in the game and other media beyond the film, so they are not only relevant to the film's article.  Rather, they provide information on how they are depicted in multiple media.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a franchise, this is a single film. Also, Wikipedia is not a fan club. If a person wants to read a more detailed description of characters, they can go to a fansite. You wouldn't open Encyclopedia Britannica to read a summary of every single character from a stand-alone film. BOVINEBOY2008 19:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
You are mistaken.  This is not just one film, but also video games, toys, other merchandise, etc.  See The Nightmare Before Christmas (disambiguation) for just some of them.  If a person wants to read a detailed description of characters they can come here.  Wikipedia is a comprehensive paperless reference guide.  As far as opening Britannica goes, it has limitations that Wikipedia does not have.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I support the merge; any sourced material would fit adequately into the main article--Gray Spot (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Not really.  In this case, the list serves an additional navigational and expansive purpose.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Have you looked at the list? It contains extremely short summaries, which are pretty much equal to the ones already in the article. Once the minor, two second characters are removed, the article is about equal to the section, minus the reception. TTN (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
It can easily be expanded further and we should allow our editors the courtesy of continuing to do so.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Per my statements on User talk:A Nobody, I too support a merge.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Even though there is no reason/benefit/need to do so?  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
What? I--gah I won't say what I want to right now. My reasoning is similar to what's been stated above: really very few character from this series achieve any proper notability (and they already have articles), and this isn't a franchise that requires this level of detail, when it can be covered in the body of the film. Nothing is gained by its existence, I'm sorry.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
By keeping it we provide greater context and go beyond what we have in the main article thereby providing a service to our readers who care about this notable franchise concerning chracters who are relevant to not just the film, but games, toys, etc.  We therefore gain nothing by removing it.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 14:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you ever tire of repeating yourself? Seriously, all that can be covered in the film's article. I'm well aware it exists, I just don't think there's a strong enough case for a separate article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
If we literarlly merged the ENTIRE contents of this page, okay, but if we are talking about only a minute amount then don't see a compelling case why we would want to deny readers a spinoff article of greater detail.  Besides, this page concerns the whole franchise, whereas the proposed merge is only to the film.  Sincerley, --A NobodyMy talk 20:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Merge the real world info, i.e. the design, marketing, and reception information, to The Nightmare Before Christmas. The rest is excessive, repetitive plot that doesn't belong and does not require merging. Despite what some are arguing, this is not a "spinoff" article as character sections are not appropriate in a film article anyway. Nor does merging require merging the entire article as is. Any game information belongs in the specific game articles, which have plenty of room. There is no "franchise" with two minor video games based on the game, which is common for pretty much any movie that does decently and is either animated or an action/adventure flick. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The books, toys, etc. beyond the film and video games do indeed make a franchise and this article serves as something of a table of contents navigational function to all the various articles concerning this acceptable spinoff that does not merely repeat things.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Merge - As I'm sure that at least one character (probably Jack) is notable by himself, I doubt the entire cast list is notable, and that we need a whole other page for them. The Reception section primarily talks about Jack. What I see there is stuff for Jack, and the rest really for the film as a whole. Even the "Marketing" stuff is about Jack. Really, I don't see why we have a character list, any individual articles for anyone except for Jack. He's the only one that appears to show any real notability outside of the film.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Sally and Oogie are both worthy of separate articles as well, but again, this article on characters concerns more than just the one film, but also the games, toys, books, etc. and as such one merge location does not really make sense.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Why are they worthy of separate articles? I've looked at their page. Other than excessive plot descriptions and original research, there really isn't anything there that cannot be said on the film's page. Sorry. The film spawned games, the characters didn't, because the film precedes the characters. As for the games, other than making an appearance in them, I don't see why they make much of a difference. X Character appeared in Y game. Ok, what else? Do you have some special, sourced info about how this character relates/is characterized/was received in this specific game? If not, then all you have is a sentence that says, "Character X appears in Game Y". That isn't a reason to have a separate article. Even lists have to meet some basic form of notability, otherwise they're just indiscriminate. That's all I have to say about this. My opinion is my opinion that this is where it's staying.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Because they are covered in reliable sources, appear as toys, costumes, etc.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Support merge.  Core topic for all the characters is the film.  Collective statements can be written at articles like the ones for the video games, "John, Jane, and Joe from the film The Nightmare Before Christmas are main characters in the video game."  The "Marketing" and "Reception" sections look good but as prose do not belong in a list article; merging them would improve this Good Article further. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 16:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Support merge. The separate article isn't warranted for the list of characters unlike other series/franchises.  The Reception page is redundant in content to the main page.  The minor characters could be collapsed as it's hardly notable information and characters with more description can be handled on the main page while their different voice actors can be addressed on the pages dedicated to the media in question.  I think if we brought this to a consensus, the merge would be approved.Luminum (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't add it because I can't prove it, but is it possible that Jack & Sally were inspired by Oz characters; Jack Pumpkinhead & Scraps the Patchwork Girl?

i would not recommend adding it if your not sure. signed by:cool n` crasy --Cool `n crasy (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the sequel section, as it was small, had errors/no facts (missing reference link) and contradicts with the "Abandoned sequel" section.
Stuart  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.15.166 (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC) 

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

All right. This article is looking good enough and I believe it is almost time for it to get peer reviewed and then to FAC. Few things to consider.

Lead section - needs to be expanded into three or four paragraphs, but that is an easy fix.
Plot section - thanks to everyone for the solid consolidation.
Soundtrack section - looks good.
Cast section - looks good as well.
Release and reception sections - they look perfect here.
Other sections - looks perfect so far.
Any other suggestions or comments are welcome in improving this article. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you think that the article is comprehensive enough? WP:FA? says that the article should be comprehensive and well-researched. The "Further reading" section that is not used in the article at all. In addition, while I see that a Burton bio is referenced in the book, there are several other bios about him that cover the film too. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The article is not yet comprehensive enough. As for the Further reading section, we should find other Burton books that describe the film's production and also use one of the books in the further reading section. Can you please give me some ideas? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
These are what I found: 1 and 2. The coverage may be similar to what is in Burton on Burton, but it may also have new details. In addition, there may be periodicals that talk about the design and animation of the film. It is old enough that not all articles, especially from magazines, will be available online. One example I found is Cinefex. Featured Articles are tough to write for this kind of reason; research is a difficult aspect of such a push. Are there any major libraries nearby whose databases you can use to find such coverage? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
There may be some major library databases nearby. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

British movie?
The opening of the article states that Nightmare is  British film. Can anyone back this up? As far as I can tell it was an American production.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.224.45 (talk) 11:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC) 

I know that the villains in The Nightmare Before Christmas are Oogie Boogie, Lock, Shock, and Barrel, but is Dr. Finkelstein also a villain? Because some merchandise of him refer to him as a evil scientist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.56.37 (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC) 

In the movie he helps Jack by allowing him to use his home for his experiments on the xmas decorations. He never does anything negative to anyone but the lady he made. If you want to knit pick then we could see the whole town of Halloween was evil.PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's Wikipedia's place to apply moral judgements to fictional characters. We should avoid terms like "hero", "villain", "good" and "evil" when describing them. —Flax5 14:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a contentious line in the article, and since wikipedia requires multiple high quality sources for this I will be removing it unless someone is obliged to find another high quality source. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

In the plot summary, Halloween Town is described as a dream world. The words link to an article on the "dream world" plot device. I feel that the description offered there does not match Halloween Town. According to the article, a dream world has no existence apart from the "dreaming" character. Halloween Town seems more like a fantasy world.
If "dream world" in the summary is meant to be descriptive rather than a technical term, then perhaps the link should be removed.  71.14.99.26 (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I just came across this article through my work for WP:DYK (it was mentioned in a hook). I have no knowledge of the film, and wonder if it is animated (a cartoon) or done with puppets in some way? Way down in the article, it mentions puppets, but I think something should be said in the lead if the visual effects were truly as spectacular as Roger Ebert said they were. Yoninah (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's a list of references that can be used to add to help improve the article. Wildroot (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Daly, Steve (October 29, 1993). "Tim Burton's ghost in the machine". Entertainment Weekly. {{cite news}}: Text "accessdate" ignored (help)

Is it possible that the dance during "This is Halloween" has been inspired by the French movie "Rabbi Jacob" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.242.138.111 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

He is listed in the credits only as "Evil Scientist"
If this is the case for Doctor Finklestein then how do we know how to spell his surname? Couldn't it also be Finkelstein or something? Ranze (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Nightmare Before Christmas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051028044452/http://www.timburtoncollective.com/ to http://www.timburtoncollective.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I changed the link for premier to that of a film and not that of a prime minister. Please correct me if I made any mistakes, I am a new user.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AwesomestUser (talk • contribs) 22:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC) 

The long debate of whether this is a Christmas or a Halloween movie must end. I propose to start the topic to find the answer. 2601:644:4201:B290:7E3D:BFF:7A3A:D6F8 (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Can't it be both? Drsruli (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this not? Drsruli (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The article says this...
"The 2007, 2008, 2009, 2020, and 2023 reissues earned $15.8 million, $2.5 million, $2.3 million, and $4.6 million, respectively"
...but something must be missing, because there are five years there and only four box office numbers. Alphius (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I come here with my concerns about the "Legacy" section being too short for this GA article. More information could be included about the fact that it is now a cult film, cosplayers and the great fan base it has. Also at the beginning it is mentioned as one of the best movies by various means that can also be put here. One could also add what was archived by the National Film Registry last year. That is why I ask the users @Ecangola:, @Mushy Yank:, and @Nyxaros: to please solve the problem. 2801:1CA:E:1411:62C:D6C:9D57:C071 (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I don't remember working on the page but thanks for pinging me. I have no opinion about that section and probably will not contribute to the page, let alone to that section, in the near future. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
It's been almost a week and that section hasn't been improved. So I'm calling on user @Ecangola: who has been working on the article to improve that section so it can remain as GA. 2801:1CA:E:1411:62C:D6C:9D57:C071 (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are outlined below:

There are uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs.
I agree with the above editor about the "Legacy" section: I think it is far too short and needs to be expanded.
Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Not interested, but perhaps worth comparing to when it was nominated to GA at the time. The original page is here. Could compare to see what has changed to see what can be easily reverted. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
I prefer not to remove uncited information without checking for sources first, as the information might be valid for the article. This, however, requires a lot of work to complete. Z1720 (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)


### The Nightmare Before Christmas
Hi @Andrzejbanas:, I see you're doing a great job keeping this article from losing its GA, so I was wondering if you could add the following sources to the "Reception" section: IGN, The New York Times, The Arizona Republic, and MovieWeb. I'm not sure what you think about expanding it, but I think it's necessary to maintain its status. I'll also help you by adding sources to sections where they don't exist. 191.95.33.93 (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: I've already added article sources where there weren't any. Don't worry, they're reliable; you can check them out if you want. Well, I'll leave you with the rest now. I hope you do a good job and that the article doesn't lose its GA status. 2803:1800:1113:E073:8067:4B10:40C7:7818 (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Honestly, at this point the article doesn't need more sources, it needs pruning. Endless excessive me tions of anything related to the film do not really make it a useful read.Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
@Andrzejbanas: I included the sources because the user who posted it on GAR commented the same thing. It's true that the article needs extensive rewriting, including the introduction, to better summarize the content. Well, if you think the article needs rewriting, feel free to do so, as my work on it is complete. 191.95.50.228 (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: Still, despite the above, I'd like to know if you'll rewrite the entire article to prevent it from losing its GA status. 186.103.4.101 (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Unlikely. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I've reviewed the article, and although it's categorized as GA, I think it has enough potential to be featured. The article is much more comprehensive than the approved version, and I believe it's now much longer and meets the requirements. Let's see what users think about the proposal. 181.33.182.54 (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)