Talk:Ratatouille (film)/Archive 2

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.



Modest Mouse reference?
In a scene, I remembered Luigini said ,"For a mouse, you're so modest," to Remy. Any chance of a reference? Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * No. SpikeJones (talk) 17:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Remy vs Rémy
I'm pretty sure the main rat's name is spelt "Remy." Furthermore, his brother's name is Emile, not "Émile." 211.27.219.194 (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * From the subtitles, I can conclusively say that Remy and Emile are the English spellings, and Rémy and Émile are the French spellings. Both are correct, but seeing as this is the English article we should probably stick to the English names. --Marshmello 17:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Marshmello (talk • contribs)

USD
I see that there's some confusion on what to write $ or US$. The best thing to do here is to use international convention like the currency code given by ISO 4217. For US dollar it's USD. Nsaa (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --132 21:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Plot
At this point the plot needs some editing, taking out unencyclopedic comments (speculation, flowerly in-world language, excessive description) and impertinent plot details. It's not necessary to list every single event in the film, even memorable moments, if they aren't important to the overall arc of the narrative or point of the film. I might trim it at some point by about 1/3. Wikidemo (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Opening title
The oppening Title has a different music than other pixar movies. It has a french music "to get people in the french vibe rightaway". The TV at the beginning serves as a remoteness to the viewer, to show that "Gusteau is the Bomb". "Commentary of the Blu-ray edition by Brad Bird"--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Alfredo Linguini
WILL YOU STOP REVERTING MY ALFREDO EDITS, ALFREDO IS HIS FIRST NAME! 70.81.141.176 (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * While true, he is always referred to in the movie as "Linguini" by the other characters - the only point where Alfredo comes up is in the text of the letter written by his mother. Additionally, we have a problem that only 3 of the characters have known first and last names (Linguini, Gusteau, and Ego); all the rest are called by their first or their last name depending on what's given (eg. Chef Skinner).  Because there's no way we can be consistent with using all first or all last names, we should go by what the movie clearly has deliniated as the most common way to refer to each character, as well as how it's been taken into reviews and the like. and that means it's Linguini, Gusteau, and Ego (incidentally, all last names, but again, that doesn't mean much). --M ASEM  14:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Calling him Alfredo would be obscure, and misrepresent the film.  For living humans we almost always use the last name because using the first name is informal, assumes a false intimacy, and tends to belittle the subject.  We would most likely follow that convention in a more realistic film.  In a more fantasylike film here, perhaps that gets relaxed a bit but nevertheless for characters like Gusteau and Ego the last name seems more appropriate.  Definitely for Linguini.  That is what everybody calls him.Wikidemo 17:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

NO, NO, NO! Didn't ANYBODY watch the movie? Alfredo is clearly his first name! So it would make more sense if we called him that. Is Stewie from Family Guy ever called "Griffin"? NO! 70.81.141.176 (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe Pippin is named Peregrin Took, but we don't normally refer to the character as such. Alientraveller 09:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We do exactly as the film does - introduce him by full name then use his last name from there on. Wikidemo 11:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

His first name's Alfredo, dumbass. so let's call him that. 70.81.138.145 (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

True. His first name certainly is Alfredo. And his last name is Linguini. That's how the audience knows him. Calling him Alfredo is about a useful to the reader as saying "Archie Leach" when referring to Cary Grant. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability of some of the reviews under Reception > Top ten lists
There is a 1st place listing by: 1st- Mike McStay, Socius.or.kr But this publication doesn't seem notable, nor does the reviewer. Should this entry be removed? 71.202.31.109 (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Plot section
The plot section is pretty badly written, but I'm not familiar enough with the movie to go through and make it sound better. Just FYI. Kzrssk (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality?
The critics quoted in the article are extremely positive. I'm a bit surprised. I've seen the film yesterday. OK, it's not the worst film I've seen in my life, but it's far from being the best film I've seen. In my opinion, it's a nice film, easy to watch, but it's far from being a good film. 81.64.104.59 (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The critical quotes are not intended to be NPOV. That's the point! If this isn't a "good" film, I'd hate to see what you consider a "good" film. The Fantastic Four, perhaps? Ah, well... Chacun a son gout. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm usually a bit bored by the average American films (Hollywood movies, typically). The first one you watch in your life is great, but the following ones all look a bit the same... (I must say I love the US; but American films are obviously not the best part of the US culture :-/ I would even say it's no culture at all; in the US, cinema is not an art, but an industry, and movies are not respected for their quality but for the money they bring in :-. In this respect, I haven't liked Ratatouille, and I haven't watched The Fantastic Four. But even as an American movie, Ratatouille isn't, in my view, a great success: the screenplay is a bit weak, the atmosphere of Paris, or the atmosphere of a restaurant kitchen isn't well rendered, the characters are silly, the film lacks of rhythm... Well, not the worst movie I've seen in my life, but in no case the masterpiece described by the critics quoted in the article. Of course, chacun son goût, et chacun ses couleurs, but I'm a bit surprised that all critics quoted are that positive, with such this kind of movie, and I can't refrain from thinking that these critics probably don't reflect the variety of opinions about the quality of this film. Probably only the positive critics have been quoted, and the probably numerous negatives one have been kept apart. Which is not really neutral. In the section Critics, we're not supposed to reach a consensus, but we should represent the diversity of the various opinions. Well, that's my feeling. Cheers :-) 81.64.104.59 (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Spelling
I am not reading through this whole article, but I found a spelling message in the first 2 lines of "Plot" I would advise someone quickly running the text through a spellchecker or something... (I changed cokk to cook, a mistake that I would assume was caused by the haste with which someone was writing. No biggy.) 203.109.144.10 (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sequel
Pixar plan to make a sequel for this film set on May 26, 2016 in theaters, It was Directed by Steven Dean Moore, But Not Brad Bird. 121.44.209.12 (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

We need a source to back it up. If you can provide one then that would be great. Your friendly Wikipedia prefect :) - (I can haz Cheezburger?)  12:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Edited TV version
Last night I watched the last half-hour on CBC. One is accustomed to films being edited or altered for TV, particularly with respect to aspect ratio, running time, language/nudity, etc. But it seemed odd that dialog was deleted from a G-rated film (apparently for no other reason to shorten it a bit). Specifically, Anton Ego's remark that critics should be more respectful of the skilled people whose work they critique -- one of the very best lines in the film -- was gone. I'm surprised that Pixar would allow its work to be altered in this way. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ratatouille is not also tied with Up (5 academy awards nominations) but also with Toy Story 3. Please make this change on the article. 190.26.152.253 (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Pixar probably just went along with it for the advertising of the film this would make. Your friendly Wikipedia prefect :) - (I can haz Cheezburger?)  12:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Cast list
It's the first time I've paid any attention to the cast list of a film, but the presentation struck me as being back-to-front when I looked at it. This is the way I approached it: I'm watching the film, I see the characters and want to find out who played Gusteau, Colette... I have to comb through the list until I see the name "Gusteau" buried amongst the text bullets. Or I have to do a word search with the browser. But this is counter-intuitive. WP:CASTLIST gives no guidance to the presentation of such lists, but I think this role-centric presentation is more logical for films of this type, where you don't see the actor. Bt the film industry takes the same approach to all films (not just animated ones): the credit sequence at the end of any film always shows the role on the left and the actor's name on the right. By changing the order as I did, and putting the name of the character in bold, it focuses attention on the role and helps to navigate. The brief detail given for each role just after the name of the role is also logical flow. I don't think it detracts from the names of the actors, as these are already prominent by virtue of the bright blue link to the actors' articles. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 16:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Spot checking FA film articles, the cast list is nearly universe in presenting the actor name first and then the role. It is the case that the order is based on the importance of the character (eg all the starring actors are listed first, and if more is given, it is presented as "Actor plays role, (description of role)). I think this, in our case, de-emphasizes that we're here about the actual fiction of the film and more about the importance of the film to begin with, putting the actors before the characters. But as you say, there's no specific advice otherwise. --M ASEM (t) 16:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge this does seem to be the more common practice here on WP, and I don't know why that is the case. I'm not questioning the main:supporting split. I did a double take when I tried to use the cast list in this article. There is no universal convention for film credits either – some list according to order of appearance, some will list them in order of importance, and a few may do it alphabetically. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 16:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC).
 * You should discuss here and not blindly revert. I checked the film guideline pages today, and there is NO requirement for actor names before characters. I would agree that is preferable but there's no requirement so edit warring over it is not helping. --M ASEM (t) 04:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Start a vote on it so we can see a wide view of opinions and see whose right. Koala15 (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Polling is not a substitute for discussion. It's not a question of weight of numbers, or who is "right". As I already remarked, even film studios have different ways of presenting the cast list. Your "We just don't" comment is singularly unhelpful.--  Ohc  ¡digame! 06:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Then we shall discuss it. Koala15 (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Vas-y... sorry, in Aussie, that means "your shout..." [redacted] --  Ohc  ¡digame! 15:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, while the character preceded by actor format seems to be a common theme throughout Wikipedia, I likewise understand the perspective that a list entitled “main characters” provokes an expectation that an emphasis be placed on the character name rather than the actor. May I suggest either removing the term “characters” from the “Voice Cast” subheadings to alleviate that change in focus, or creating a table in which both actor and character names can be easily scanned as a kind of compromise? (Megatron Omega (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC))
 * Thanks for your input. I'm all for removing text including headings that can mislead, but here I'm actually talking about making the article and text list reader-friendly. I do not think that the headings in the article "Voice cast", "Main characters", and "Supporting characters" are misleading on a macroscopic level. The problem lies in the way the information is presented. As a writer and content creator, I appreciate that there are considerations that lead us to present certain information in a certain way. However, I am interested in making the content more relevant to the reader by delivering it in a form that corresponds more closely to what xhe may be looking for. And that would include an order of words that allows him/her to more easily parse it and derive the information wanted in a more efficient manner. For Wikipedia to become reader-centric may be a tall order for us as contributors, but "reader-friendly" is what I'm after, and ought to be part of our mission. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 01:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is very "reader friendly" as it is. If a section is titled "voice cast" shouldn't the cast be listed first? Koala15 (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Nobody in the film industry does it, and I don't understand why we do it. As I said above, all film credits have the role first (left hand side) and player/actor second (right hand side). What we have here seems illogical to me for the reasons already explained in my longer posts above. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 04:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Revert of my edit
Masem, I made my edit while looking through the movie. Once the ratatouille was placed on Skinner and Ego's tables, Skinner says, "They must be joking!" and Ego immediately writes down in his notepad making Skinner smile and Linguini grimace in anxiety. That can't be anything other than a negative early reaction. When Remy enters the restaurant while the staff was still there, Colette immediately yells, "Rat! Kill the rat!" and the rest of the staff grab knives and run towards Remy. My edit was a true account of the movie. Please restore it immediately. KinkyLipids (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not so much that they are wrong but they focus on the wrong parts of the scene (for example, we already know Anton has it out so he will start with a negative opinion; it's not the staff's desire to kill Remy but the fact that Linguini admits Remy's skill that causes to walk out), and further, extend the plot length too much. This plot has been through a lot of revision in the past so many of these issues have been worked out. --M ASEM (t) 04:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The goalposts are being moved, but they're still in a vulnerable spot. It's important to focus on the negative early reactions because even Colette called ratatouille a "peasant dish". Linguini also had a surprised expression. Remy's choice of dish is central to the theme of the whole movie and should also be important to the summary. The title should make it obvious. The quote I added sums it up. Something average, such as ratatouille, or something considered junk, such as Remy, can be more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.
 * My edit did not, as you argued, say that the staff walked out because they wanted to kill Remy. The argument is misplaced. But it is still important to note that the staff tried to kill Remy, because Linguini's protection of Remy is the first thing Remy's father cited as a reason for helping with cooking. He thought humans always kill rats, but Linguini changed his mind. The second reason Remy's father helped is because Remy had the "guts" to face death for something meaningful. The staff's attempt to kill Remy was pivotal to what happened after the staff walked out.
 * My edit did extend the plot summary length but it also reduced some unnecessary and incorrect words and the net increase ended up being only two lines. Accuracy and faithfulness to character growth, plot turns, and themes should not be sacrificed for a somewhat shorter summary. Past consensus does not forbid new changes, especially when they improve areas still in need of work despite a lot of revision. Again, please restore my edit. KinkyLipids (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Ratatouille (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070526042435/http://www.comingsoon.net:80/news/movienews.php?id=20608 to http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=20608
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://metromix.chicagotribune.com/movies/mmx-070629-movies-review-ratatouille,0,3953295.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Ratatouille (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://ae.miami.com/entertainment/ui/miami/movie.html?id=898393&reviewId=22542
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/movies/447829,CST-FTR-rat29.article
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080123055130/http://ifmagazine.com:80/review.asp?article=2247 to http://www.ifmagazine.com/review.asp?article=2247

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ratatouille (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131019032706/http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070511/20070511005589.html to http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070511/20070511005589.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Walt Disney Pictures added
This article may be not added Walt Disney Pictures. So I added well. Saleh handicrafts (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ratatouille (film). 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/20080102035303/http://www.lesoir.be/culture/cinema/louis-de-funes-louis-jouvet-2007-08-01-542527.shtml to http://www.lesoir.be/culture/cinema/louis-de-funes-louis-jouvet-2007-08-01-542527.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091109104953/http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/783/783392p1.html to http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/783/783392p1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222151217/http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?SID=10111 to http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?SID=10111
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140319205540/http://blog.bcdb.com/incredibles-animated-sequel-6987/ to http://blog.bcdb.com/incredibles-animated-sequel-6987/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible sequel
In the special features of the Blu-ray release of this film, the director mentions that one of the characters (a barking dog in the early part of the film) is, "a guest appearance from the movie after this movie... go tell your friends!" I am not sure if this hints at a sequel, or another film, and I didn't want to add this to the article because I have no sources other than me. I thought everyone should know for later so this can be added to the article after the new movie is properly revealed. 216.158.164.2 (talk) 16:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * With regards to Pixar, never assume anything is more than what it is until an announcement if officially made. IF an announcement is made that is citable, then we'll add the info to the article.  It could be a reference to Wall-E, or Bolt, or it could be a reference to Up. in other words - it could be a reference to practically anything... especially as Pixar has been known to include models and textures from past productions in their films.  As to there being a sequel, Lasseter and Jobs have both been very strong opponents of sequels in general *unless* there is enough of a story to warrant having one. I wouldn't make anything of a throwaway comment like that at this stage. SpikeJones (talk) 17:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's a reference to Up. 74.33.174.133 (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to research to see if a sequel had been released. I found this article, https://io9.gizmodo.com/incredibles-2-director-brad-bird-says-he-wont-make-sequ-1826653739 it's pretty recent so I doubt a sequel will be made. VanessssaR (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Trivia section
I'll probably get in trouble for putting it here, but if you just have to talk about trivia, or if you see some that doesn't belong, maybe you can put it here instead of the main page. I'll start off:
 * The music from Pirates of the Carribean plays briefly as Remi is floating down the sewer Wikidemo 02:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As in most Pixar Movies, Ratatouille contains a reference to a previous film. In this case, Bomb Voyage from The Incredibles appears as an ordinary street mime; at one point, too, one can glimpse the colorful "I" symbol from The Incredibles patterned on Linguini's boxer shorts.
 * The scene in which Rémy's father shows him dead rats refers to a famous store in Paris that specializes in mousetraps, where stuffed rats are shown as they are in the film. The store is located at 8 rue des Halles in the first arrondissement of Paris.--Nicolas.cuissard 07:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wine: Anton Ego orders Château Cheval Blanc 1947, but Château Lafite Rothschild is served in the film. This is fixed in the DVD. Another bottle is the same Lafite in the film, but Château Latour in the DVD. 203.248.234.29 (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If Trivia sections are discouraged, just change it to 'noteworthy facts' or 'facts of note' and put it back in. For god's sake, this is half the reason I read Wikipedia. 64.122.208.51 (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Updating Plot
I've updated the plot so that it fits under WP:FILMPLOT in terms of words, but not the descriptions and general badness. If anybody wants to fix that up, feel free. Ku gi hot ❯❯❯ Vanguard 15:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks to collaborative editors, the plot has been pretty solid for quite a long time. Specifically, at 574 words, well within the 700 guideline limit and, (important, this) coherent. There was no need whatsoever for Gbabuch's at-best-lazy drive-by tagging . Gbabuch hasn't contributed to the article in any way, not even in the implied minimum - that one explain their concern with a modicum of detail here on the talk page.


 * In response (I assume), 's, under the edit summary "Major plot rewrite, less words to fit fit WR:FILMPLOT" [sic], switched Remy's "highly developed senses" to "abnormally developed". Is there a rationale for that? And misspelled "Colette". And "separate". Misspelled "Linguini" three different ways. Mangled grammar and tenses: "...tampering with the soup, of which is accidentally served..." There's more, all to shave 34 words from an admirably concise plot summary. Come on.


 * Seeing as it's been brought it up here, there was no need to "update the plot so that it fits under WP:FILMPLOT in terms of words". It already did. The only reason an "update" was needed was because "the descriptions and general badness" had just been put in! "If anybody wants to fix that up, feel free" -a simple revert would have done it but thank you  for moving to repair the damage afresh.


 * I don't suggest that the article is perfect but I'm going to remove the tags because they're not warranted. Enough conscientious editors are involved here to keep improving the article. Captainllama (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I realized after the fact a revert would have solved most of the issues, but for some reason it didn't occur to me to check. If anyone wants to revert to a recent good version, that's fine with me. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for bad edits, I didn't mean any harm. I tried and I apologize, I am fairly new to wikipedia. :( Ku gi hot  ❯❯❯ Vanguard 13:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Basically, the plot as it standards is pretty damn good in being concise but covering all major details. It should not be changed outside of small bits of wordsmithing to improve readability or grammar. --M asem (t) 15:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your candour and apology. Please be careful when editing to improve articles and not to damage what's already there. I thought you were fairly new to Wikipedia and looking at your edit history seemed to bear this out, but not so much your userpage where you claim to be in the top 10 Wikipedians by article count, having edited thousands - 14% - of all articles. At first I wondered if you were an old hand trying a new name, but actually it looks uncomfortably like you are passing yourself off as another editor. I assume this was an inadvertent test exercise? In any case you really must revert your userpage straight away. Best wishes Captainllama (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Disneyland Paris (Ratatouille inspired area)
Hello. I am new to the Wikipedia editing talk page. For one of my assignments I must do for a class, I was required to add a post on a page of interest. I took a look at the Ratatouille page and read through it. While reading the attractions that were based off of Ratatouille, I thought of something that could be added. In Walt Disney Studios Park in Paris, I believe there is an area that is dedicated specifically to the movie. La Place de Rémy is the name of the area. There is also a restaurant located in this area called Bistrot Chez Rémy. This restaurant is also inspired by the movie. I think that these places mentioned are notable enough to be added to the Ratatouille (film) Wikipedia article. It was just a thought! Thanks :) Lepetitprince.hat (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, they also are missing at Ratatouille: L'Aventure Totalement Toquée de Rémy.. Personally, I'd move "Ratatouille: L'Aventure Totalement Toquée de Rémy" to La Place de Rémy (that is the name of the zone) and there I'd explain the ride and the restaurant separately. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 19:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Based on a story?
I was watching [Project A II] and about half-way into it there was a man holding a rat by its tail and he asks "What about Ratatouille?" The mouse squeaks and he asks again "But where am I gonna find a recipe?" Since this film was produced in 1980s, I imagine the story of Ratatouille is one that has been passed on from generation to generation. I wanted to find more information about it and I searched Wikipedia. It doesn't seem that there is any information about the idea or existence of this being such a thing. By reading this article for the film, it seems to give the impression that this is a story created by Disney. Where can I find more information and learn about the origins of the story of Ratatouille? Jasonkhanlar (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am surprised at the lack of discussion of the certainly plausible, if not likely, influence of Eve Titus and Paul Galdone's Anatole (MacGraw-Hill, 1956) on the genesis of the story. This has been discussed elsewhere: https://www.google.com/search?q=anatole+ratatouille Michael (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2023
An addition to the 'Legacy section' - Recently, a group of ardent Ratatouille fans have created a society at the University of Exeter (not officially affiliated yet) and have gathered much support, hosting bi-weekly social events for fans of the film named 'Django Society', after Remi's father. I will provide a link to the society page as evidence of the worthy inclusion to the wikipedia :)

The addition could go as follows:

"Django Society

An unofficial society at the University of Exeter, named after Remi's father, Django, was created in January of 2023. The society has amassed a small, but loyal following known as 'Djanglets' that partake in bi-weekly social events. They attend the popular student night at Unit 1 nightclub in Exeter, 'Cheesy Tuesdays' where they have received recognition from the nightclub in the form of being included in the society announcements throughout the night."

DjangoSociety (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ Would need coverage in secondary independent sources to establish notability. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

"Adam Nicolle" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Nicolle&redirect=no Adam Nicolle] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Jalen Folf  (talk)  05:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)