Talk:Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (film)

message: Thank you first of all for all of your contributions to the article. I've looked into it as well and it seems as though the recording date of the score is not verifiable. Unless we find a reliable source that explicitly states "the score was recorded between 2004 and 2005", we might as well scratch the "recorded" parameter in the infobox. Would you agree? Throast (talk | contribs) 21:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. And you're very welcome for the edits! Ethanhart129 (talk • contribs)  — Preceding undated comment added 21:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Score recording date

message: Regarding my edit removing the hatnote: , from my experience roaming Wikipedia, hatnotes are usually used when the titles of two works or names of two people are either the same or very similar. I thought that the distinction between the two film titles was clear enough since the 1971 adaptation has a unique title compared to the book and the 2005 adaptation; I assumed most people are familiar with this. Perhaps, there's evidence that the 1971 film is sometimes mistakenly referred to as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? If so, I wasn't aware of it. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's very possible that a casual Wikipedia reader might confuse this film's title with the other one, and as hatnotes are a cheap investment, I don't see the harm in having them in this instance. I'm perfectly content to be overruled if other editors disagree, but obviously at least some folks shared my concern or the hatnotes wouldn't have been there to begin with, so a discussion seemed prudent prior to removing them. DonIago (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: 1971 adaptation hatnote

message: I propose that the section Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (film)#Music to be split into a separate page called Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (soundtrack). The section is individually too lengthy and off-topic and can be large enough to make their own page. 122.162.75.39 (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem particularly lengthy to me, but I'm willing to defer to the opinions of other editors. DonIago (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the music section is looking quite good as it is. Apart from a few reviews of the album, coverage mostly concerns the production aspects, which are imo more relevant to the film in general rather than to the soundtrack in particular. The section gives readers just the right depth of coverage they can expect from a good film article. For these reasons, I oppose splitting off Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (soundtrack). Throast  me! (talk | contribs) 18:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your perspective, but the article could be influenced with chart performance and reception, so that it could be manageable enough to split and move in its entirety to the music section 223.178.84.154 (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the soundtrack charted in any significant way. We already include a few select reviewers in this article, I don't think more need to be added. Throast  me! (talk | contribs) 18:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Throast there could be additional tracklists and awards to be added, with more information 223.178.84.154 (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There could be, or there are? We shouldn't split an article based on hypotheticals. DonIago (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Additional tracklists strike me as WP:CRUFT, and awards already fit well into this article's award section (there aren't that many after all). I'm opposed to this trend of splitting film soundtrack articles by default when they can be efficiently covered in their respective film articles. I don't see enough standalone significance here. Throast  me! (talk | contribs) 11:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting proposal 

message: It seems unreasonable to compare this film's box office returns, which is nearly 20 years old, to those of Wonka (2023). Adjusted for inflation, the 2005 film would have grossed over 700 million in today's US$. Individual sources comparing the two without acknowledging inflation whatsoever should not be be used per WP:RS imo. Throast  me! (talk | contribs) 21:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem a bit off to compare the two without making any adjustment for inflation. DonIago (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Adjusting for inflation ourselves would probably violate WP:OR (and open a Pandora's box in terms of which calculator to use as a source; it would need to be regularly updated, etc). I suggest removing any such comparisons altogether. Throast  me! (talk | contribs) 22:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree with and have removed it from the Wonka page. Mike Allen  23:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparing box office to ''Wonka'' (2023)