Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 12:31, 6 February 2023

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Consensus is that the article is original research. If the table was a sourced summary of a publication by Roald Dahl (or someone else) that noted the differences between the book and film versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, that may have turned the deletion argument since it would have been Dahl's research rather than a Misplaced Pages's research. As it is, the source for this article is concluded by consensus to be original research. -- Jreferee t/c 21:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Differences between book and film versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

Differences between book and film versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article fails to be verifiable as the content is wholly based on the subjective determinations of editors regarding what differences are appropriate, which violates Misplaced Pages's no original research policy. Furthermore, this topic fails to be notable as there is no significant coverage by reliable sources about adaptations of the source material. Basically, the table is pieced together indiscriminately, with items like whether business cards were shown, the presence of contracts, the act of getting out of bed, etc. There will be creative and conventional differences in any, if not most, adaptations of the source material, and the threshold for inclusion is for there to be real-world context, based on the preceding arguments of notability and relevance. This article meets none of these factors, being the originally derived piecemeal of editors that do not use secondary sources. According to WP:WAF#Secondary information, "The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded. It necessitates the use of both primary and secondary information." No secondary information is used here. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter film/book differences (2nd nomination) for similar precedent. Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, because well put together table concerning incredibly notable films and book. Anyone watching the films or reading the book (which would be thousands, if not millions of people) can verify the information with ease. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• "Well put together" is not an argument to keep an article, and "Incredibly notable" does not apply to the differences between them. Star Wars and Star Trek are both incredibly notable, but we don't draw connections between them because there's no real-world precedent for it. The Chocolate Factory relation is closer, but the fact remains is that this article is originally derived by like you've admitted -- people who read the books and watch the films and come up with ideas of what should be included. The lack of verifiability and real-world context of such differences fails to establish a threshold for differences -- the scope is subjective and limitless as a result. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Most of the differences are trivial, there are no sources and therefore the article is OR, and I don't see why this should be included here. Major differences can be noted on the main article. NASCAR Fan24 18:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• This is agreeable -- I think that it's completely acceptable to find out from filmmakers why they deviated from the source material in the way they did, and to note that on the film article. However, an unsubstantiated observation (he wears shorts in this book, he wears pants in this film) obviously does not add any encyclopedic value. I believe that for the Harry Potter differences, the cited differences were placed on their film articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete There is some information which might be considered important, but it would be based on notability within the book and movies (I guess you would call that an in-universe viewpoint). It might be better to note the non-trivial differences in the individual articles, but there will surely be arguments about what is considered "non-trivial". Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• That's why we need to back such differences with real-world context. In the article, it mentions Willy Wonka's father flashbacks in Burton's adaptation, but does not explain why. In this interview, Burton says, "It just felt in the movie, you've got a guy that's acting that strange, you kind of want to get a flavor of why he's the way he is, otherwise he's just a weirdo." Perspectives like these should be added to the film articles -- they're not long at all. In addition, a table in this article forces the need to specify the element of the third subject even when an explanation is only given between the other two subjects. Items like what the candy shop owner looked like in each presentation have no backing and are very indiscriminate details. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete hopeless OR Will 20:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it's an original research based piece of analysis. As Erik says, particular changes which have real world significance (ie have been discussed in the context of commentary or reviews) could be mentioned in the film's main articles. Iain99 20:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete More fun to write than it is to read. Author (a) read the book (b) watched the Gene Wilder film (c) watched the Johnny Depp film, although not necessarily in that order. If you did all three, why read the article? If you don't care enough to read the Roald Dahl book, author of this article is no Roald Dahl. If you don't care to watch either movie, you probably won't want to find out what happened. There are some things that people ought to do for themselves without help. Mandsford 22:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR. Keb25 23:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR. Chris! _ct 00:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete exactly as we deleted all similar articles for Harry Poter, Narnia, etc. -- Magioladitis 01:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research based analysis. Looks like Differences between film and musical versions of The Producers might be the next one to be nominated. Or it could be Differences between book, film and TV versions of M*A*S*H, or Differences between the W.I.T.C.H. comic and animated series, Differences in versions of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Differences between Stargate and Stargate SG-1, Differences between book and film versions of Timeline, etc. Crazysuit 02:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep People are confusing OR with primary documents. This isn't original research, its using primary documents. Comparative literature is the stuff of college courses, and is encyclopedic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• OR is just one of the concerns for this article. Primary documents are used to shape the plot summaries of books and films, but they exist to support real-world context. This is just details from the primary documents side-by-side, mostly written in an assumptive tone, such as the "Boat ride" row, where it's written, "Wonka offers mugs of chocolate to Charlie and Grandpa Joe, apparently out of compassion." These subjective and interpretative examples are scattered throughout the table because there are no secondary sources to keep the information discriminate, neutral, objective, and verifiable. Besides, if this is considered comparative literature like from college, the original contributions of editors to derive this "paper" would be original research. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all this article is fiction. What's important is why those film versions felt need to change from the novel. Alientraveller 19:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Sadly, delete. Original research at its finest. There's a place for this, but it isn't Misplaced Pages. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete violates OR policies. AKRadecki 03:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, I'm sad to say, especially since so many of the similar nominated articles seem salvageable to me. Alternatively, merge to main book article, but only after significant cuts. The level of detail here is excessive for the subject, and many of the comparisons made here are based on illustrations that may or may not be present in all editions of the book as well as the author's description of the appearance of various actors, etc. It would be interesting to keep a list of some of the more notable differences if they can be properly sourced. --Roger McCoy 18:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOR.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 08:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR or WP:SYN unless multiple independent sources can be found which compare and discuss the differences between the book and the film, thus establishing the subject's notability. Sheffield Steel_stalk 18:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or integrate it to, say, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the article about the book itself. I believe one article here (I think it would be Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, the 1971 film) says that due to the 1971 film's differences from the original book, Roald Dahl did not permit a sequel to be made. The table could help people who stumble across that statement to identify these differences. Hallpriest9 (Talk | Archive) 23:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• That's still original research, though. We don't know why Roald Dahl really did not permit a sequel to get made. From what I've heard, the newer film intended to capture the dark tone of the book better, so if Dahl's dislike was over tone, then that certainly cannot be objectively and originally reflected by editors. We just don't know what changes influenced Dahl's decision, and we certainly should not present a table of possibilities -- we should try to find verifiable content from reliable sources to reflect the real-world context for the the lack of a sequel. Even if we found information, it would not need this "Differences" article -- it could be mentioned at the 1971 film's article or the sequel book's article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of current and past books related discussions on WP. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.