Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe/Archive 2

Untitled

Since I deleted an entire (newly inserted) section, I'm copying it here if the author or anyone wants to use it. Eluchil404 22:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Analysis of the Last Battle

{{Spoilers}} While it is somewhat questionable to anaylze a battle set in a movie whose target audience are children, it is nontheless an interesting exercise. It is noted that Peter is not an experienced commander in any sense, however, he has advisors who are.

The White Witch's forces greatly outnumber Peter's. Hers consists of solely infantry and a single chariot, driven by herself. They are armed with a variety of melee weapons and some archers. To oppose this, Peter has a mixed force of knights and calvary, backed up with archers, and various birds serving as airborne bombers and melee attackers, functioning as did the Nazul in the Lord of the Rings movie series.

The battle opens with the White Witch's forces arrayed on a plain. Peter's forces face hers, with a steep mountainside behind them, littered by rocks. His archers, Edmund, and his birds are on the top of the mountain, overlooking the battle. The White Witch opens with an open infantry charge. Peter should have never positioned his forces on the open field, where they could easily be cutoff and encircled. Instead, he should have positioned his forces among the rocks, where the boulders would limit the Witch's advantage of numbers by forcing them to pass through multiple choke-points. However, this would admittedley limit the effectiveness of Peter's calvary, and without an infantry screen they could have easily been decimated. However, any calvary force can still serve as a raidng and skirmish party, using arrows and spears.

Back to the battle, Peter opens with an aerial bombardment of the queen's advancing forces with the birds dropping stones. The witch's forces counter with archers, to a certain degree of effectivness. Peter then unwisely, for the reasons stated above, counters with his own infantry/calvary charge. A better course of action would have been to let his archers thin the opposing herd, since as the battle is portrayed, the archers end up doing very little for the entire battle. At one point after the initial engagement, a bird (presumably the phoenix) swoops down and lays down fire, seperating the two forces of a very short period of time before the White Witch breaks through. This barrier was ineffective, since it did nothing but create a rough line between the forces and give everyone a momentary breather. A better use of the fire would have been to lay it down on the first row of the Witch's forces, though the gruesomeness of this image would be highly inappropriate for a children's movie.

Another highly suspect action of Peter's is how long it takes him to put his visor down afer he begins his charge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eluchil404 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 11 June 2006

Did you really just do a historical military analysis for a Disney movie based on CS Lewiss childrens book? Yes you did. Well, good for you...--Dudeman5685 (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• This section was copied from the article in 2006—rightly so, as it's completely WP:OR. Some formatting errors prevented it from being properly archived. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Trivia

I rather ruthlessly shortened the trivia section just now. I am not sure that we need one at all, but it certainly shouldn't be allowed to become the dominant section of the article. Eluchil404 22:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Evanescence Narnia Song

I was rather mad and disappointed when The producers Rejected Amy Lee's Narnia song since Im a hugh Evanescence fan!

Article Length

The article is getting rather long again. I would sugges spinning of the Changes made for the adaption section, which is quite detailed, off into its own article, but it would certainly need a pretty thorough rewrite since it is just bullet points. Any one else have ideas? Eluchil404 05:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I created/re-did all the Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone through Order of the Phoenix articles, and would be happy to do one for this. Bring it up on the Narnia WP project page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbv65edel (talk • contribs) (Sorry, forgot signature before. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 14:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC))

tells the story of four ordinary children, Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy Pevensie. They discover that a professor's wardrobe leads to the magical land of Narnia, and help to save it from the evil White Witch. They are helped in their quest by several creatures, including Aslan the Lion, the guardian of Narnia. The tale culminates in an epic battle against the forces of the witch.

Screenshots and other copyrighted images

There are eight screenshots and four copyrighted pieces of promontional material on this page. Though I have not found information on this policy elsewhere, the file upload page says (in the "licensing" section) that only one screenshot is to be used per page. While this rule might be extreme, I think that images should be limited to a maximum of two or three screenshots and one movie poster. Right now, the article has gone beyond having screenshots for the sake of aesthetics to having so many images it looks like an illustrated children's book. -Phi*n!x 17:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Turned to stone

Is it explictly stated in the books that the witch's victims were stoned? They look frozen to me... - SkarmoryThePG 19:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. EllipsesBent 03:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, that could easily be misread. Stoned... --83.109.100.84 21:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I reverted the last edit by the bot as even though the user,24.70.95.203, has a history of vandalism, in this case is was a simple spelling correction. earilier to earlier Starquin 11:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes from book to movie

I deleted large portions of this section because it felt clunky and rather long. It should probably not be used to detail every single change in the book, i.e. lines being assigned to different characters, conversations being shortenend or small details left out of the movie. It should be used to show significant plot or character changes, such as the children's father going off to war or the frozen river sequence. --kralahome 22:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually working to split that into its own article, similar to Differences between book and film version of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (or any other HP film article, all of which I created/entirely redid). --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination has failed

As much as I like this article, there is no way it can be a GA in its current state. Several sections are formatted as lists, there is a massive trivia section, there are way to many images with dodgy fair use rationales (i.e. nothing beyond a screenshot tag and used laregely for decoration), the plot summary is more detailed than necessary, and the referencing is inadequate for awards (at least and possibly other sections). I don't mean to be overly negative-I've worked on this article myself-but it simply does not, yet, have the characteristics that GA reviewers are looking for. See WP:WIAGA, and note that most reviewers consider lists to be automatically less than compelling prose, and require at least one in-line citation per section. Eluchil404 22:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I entirely agree. As a frequent editor of this page I would certainly fail it myself, mostly because of the trivia section, fair use images, and also the alterations from the book section, which I am trying to (but delayed by real life) put into its own article just like the Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone article, and all the HP book/film differences which I created/greatly amended. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Lose the trivia section

Please see WP:Trivia and Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles L0b0t 02:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If any of these "tidbits" of trivia are important, work them into the article. If they are not important enough to work into the article, leave them out of the encyclopedia. Start a fansite with all the info you like. L0b0t 15:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to be called a "fancrufter" or whatever the noun form may be. I have absolutely no interest to start a fansite, and I'd advise you to watch your tone; the wording of that I took slightly offensively. There is a strong difference between a fan who comes on and adds every little bits of info, like the one time when so-and-so kept forgetting his line in a scene and they had to do 50 takes, and an actual contributor who sees the "interest," to quote from WP:TRIVIA and WP:AVTRIV, in a line of information pertatining to the article, in this case, the movie. I'm fine now with leaving in the {{toomuchtrivia}} tag, but on a whole I am opposed to the current trivia guidelines and believe that, as long as the section is kept to a suggested minimum it should stand. Of course, we can't follow my version until the policy is changed, which isn't happening in the future, so I hope both you and I will work to incorporate all of the content currently in the section. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It is worth noting both that many different people have contributed to the trivia section, so that saying "start a fansite" is pointless (to whom is it directed) as well as rude. The problem with the trivia section has been mentioned twice, before on this page by me so that you can be sure that all regular readers of the talk page are aware that it needs to be cut and or removed. The problem is that there is lack of will to do it and no consensus on how it is to be done, as casual readers often add more trivia without checking the discussion first. Eluchil404 01:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If the problem is a lack of will and consensus, then just remove the section and call it done. As for taking offence to my suggestion, grow up. L0b0t 02:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no lack of will, but deciding where to place the information is where the question is. We have to work to incorporate the content into the article, because it should be there. I'll think this weekend about where each of the sentences can go. Also, this is a civil project, and telling me to "grow up" is not the kind of attitude accepted nor appreciated around here. Please be more careful in approaching others. Thanks! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I meant no offence. I was merely satirizing the idea that a person would take offence to being told by a complete stranger that some bit of cinema trivia they have picked up is too trivial for the encyclopedia. With all the trouble in the world it just seems a pretty inconsequential thing to get worked up about. Sorry. L0b0t 18:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That's all right, it is, however, the kind of thing which some far stricter editors will hold against you. Just a heads-up. :-) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Maugrim Lives?

I just noticed that the claim that Maugrim survived the battle with Peter was still included in the article after I thought it had been removed. I took it out and will continue to do so until a cite to a source is provided. It is very clear that the wolf (unnamed) in the book is killed and Aslan gives Peter the title Wolf's Bane (i.e. killer of a wolf) which should mean that we are meant to accept his death in the movie. Eluchil404 21:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Maugrim dies in both the book and the film. This has just been an anon who's tried to insert this information to this article and Maugrim and a few others, backing it up with a "reliable source," a fan made web site which claims we've been reading Lewis' work wrong all this time. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

4-DVD Release

There was a disclaimer on the back of the 4-disc DVD which said something to the effect of "This edition contains material inappropriate for those under 17" (I don't have it in front of me, so this isn't exact), which sounds like what would be on a R-rated DVD.

Last I checked, Narnia was rated PG.

What gives with that disclaimer? WAVY 10 17:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The disclaimer reads: "Warning: This feature contains material that may be inappropriate for children under 17. Parental discretion is strongly advised." I didn't see any content meriting that warning, but perhaps they are being true to Lewis' desire never to talk down to children, as interpreted by a lawyer. KSlauson 07:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"Extended Edition" footage is never rated. That's why you see "Unrated" editions of movies like Girl Next Door, American Pie, and White Chicks. Any movie that has added footage has not had that added footage rated. Therefore, it may or may not be consistent with the rating of the original movie. I believe the behind-the-scenes may also be technically "unrated" too, but I can't recall. JeffHCross (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Phillip Pullman's Criticism

Why was the two-line quote from Phillip Pullman removed from the site? His criticism referred to the film directly, making it relevant. Selectively deleting that is clearly POV agenda-editing. McDanger 14:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Narniacd.jpg

Image:Narniacd.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Awards

I just changed the awards section from list format to prose as suggested. What do you all think? I've got the old list-formatted code saved, so I can change it back if you guys don't like it.

Pcboy 17:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• My personal preference would be a bulletted list like that in the review section below, but I think that writing it as a paragraph is normal Wikipedia "house style". Eluchil404 18:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Extended Edition Moratorium

On another note about the 4-disc Extended Edition. The Wiki article mentions that the 4-DVD Extended Edition was put on moratorium. As far as I can tell, looking at the original source, this was only the Gift Set version of the 4-DVD. However, upon examination of the sourced Press Release, both the Gift Set and standard 4-DVD Extended Edition are still available from Amazon.com. That suggests to me that they have not been put on moratorium, unless Amazon just has them available until stock runs out (you'd think in a year ...). JeffHCross (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter's army had Spaghetti?

Found this reference to the army's spaghetti in a part about the battle with the witch. "Meanwhile, Edmund persuades Peter to join battle with the Witch's host. At first quite sucessful, Peter's army soon begins to lose the spaghetti, and Edmund is badly injured, though he has managed to destroy the White Witch's staff, her most effective weapon." 69.241.93.245 (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

First, what revision were you reading, and secondly, if you ever spot vandalism, correct it. Alientraveller (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It was on the live version, but it appears to have been corrected already.69.241.93.245 (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Old Movie?

I can't find the article for the original movie, and Wikipedia doesen't even mention it!!!! Were is the article? Altenhofen (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please use Wikipedia:Reference desk. For the record, what old movie? The animated one or the TV series? Alientraveller (talk) 10:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I rented it at a movie store and watched at school once. It is a whole movie with real people as actors. I will find a source for it. Altenhofen (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This might seem a bit obvious and you may have already ruled it out, but maybe it was the BBC TV serial version? Apparently it was later edited down into a feature film... The DVD box art might help you to identify it: [1], [2]. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That was it. Altenhofen (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Country of origin

Surely it is British as well? Considering that practically all characters are either acted or voiced by British actors, the fact that the music is composed by a British composer and of course the fact that the novel on which the whole movie is based (and thus the whole story, apart from the occasional change) is written by a British author, surely it would be technically more correct to list this film as from Britain as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suicidal Lemming (talk • contribs) 18:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Country of origin for an English film is a touchy subject, but this film only had its casting and score done in Britain, unlike its sequel. If it pleases you, the article is written in British English because Narnia is a British subject. Alientraveller (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Alientraveller is correct. American producers made the film in New Zealand using a (mosty) British cast. By the normal understanding of film origins that makes this a film of U.S. origin, though it is probably more a part of British culture. Eluchil404 (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism by Phillip Pullman

Why is there no mention of the christian parallels, the mass campaign by the christian church to promote the film, and its connection with Walden media, a known conservative outlet, and and the criticism aired by Phillip Pullman about the use of religion n children? The article is clearly biased and not NPOV. 203.87.64.214 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC).

Because Pullman's criticism has been mostly directed at the books rather than at the movies specifically and because most reliable sources discussing the film don't mention it. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The Christian Message

What about the central Christian Message of CS Lewis? Does the film accurately and effictively translate this aspect of the book? How did Disney approach this? How do Christian reviewers think this aspect of the film turned out?

CS Lewis: "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe tells the Crucifixion and Resurrection."

"The producers of the 2005 film hoped to tap into the large religious audience revealed by the success of Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ, and at the same time hoped to produce an adventure film that would appeal to secular audiences; but they (and the reviewers as well) worried about aspects of the story that could variously alienate both groups.[66] ^ On the dual concerns of the film makers, see See Edward, Guthmann (11 December 2005). "'Narnia' tries to appeal to the religious and secular". SFGate (San Francisco Chronicle). Retrieved 22 September 2008. On talk of Christian appeal see Cusey, Rebecca (19 May 2008). "'Prince Caspian' walks tightrope for Christian fans". USAToday.com (USA Today). Retrieved 25 May 2010. and 'Narnia' won't write off Christian values USA Today, 19 July 2001; The 'secular' appeal of the films is discussed in the San Francisco Chronicle's review Edward, Guthmann (11 December 2005). "Children open a door and step into an enchanted world of good and evil — the name of the place is 'Narnia'". SFGate (San Francisco Chronicle). Retrieved 22 September 2008." -96.237.10.108 (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Fox Film

A few editors have been adding 20th Century Fox as a distributor to the infobox and categories at the bottom. I do not feel that this is correct, since the film was originally produced and distributed by Disney. We don't usually make notes of every rights change in infoboxes or categories, though they are, of course, fully covered in the text of the article. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

extended cut Blu-ray editio

It appears from the article that there is no extended cut Blu-ray edition, and that the added material on the 4-disc extended cut DVD has never been released in any form in high-definition; is this correct?-96.237.7.252 (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That's my understanding. Doniago (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There's no agreement that this exact title is too ambiguous to distinguish this article from related ones. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

---

---

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe → ? – There are other versions, and the whole title itself may also refer to the novel, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Should it be shortened to The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005 film) or just disambiguated into The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005 film)? Relying on sources won't matter, as long as WP:article titles apply to help users search comfortably. If the 2005 film is to be disambiguated, then the current title shall redirect to the novel. George Ho (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This name could be used to refer to the novel, but it's not actually the novel's name. Compare to Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief (film) and The Lightning Thief (novel). WP:NATURAL disambiguation works just fine here. As with The Lightning Thief, the hatnotes work just as they should. --BDD (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Unlike The Lightning Thief, the novel has a lot of several known adaptations, and even the novel is called Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe in later years after first publication. By the way, after this discussion is done, I can request a renaming on film adaptation of the unrelated novel. --George Ho (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

    Just for evidence, here are book covers that say so. --George Ho (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support move to The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005 film) as per WP:NCF. Most sources (such as IMDB, American Film Institute, British Film Institute) use the current longer title, so that seems to be the common name for this film; in that sense it is really no different to something like Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace or Lord of the Rings, or most other franchise films. As for the disambiguation term, I have no objection to appending "(2005 film)" and redirecting the current title to the book, if indeed the title was being used to refer to the book prior to the release of the film, which George's link seems to indicate it was. At the end of the day these books are classic works of literature which have been analyzed extensively, and are far more notable than the recent films. Betty Logan (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose move. Per WikiP naming conventions we go with the name of the film as seen onscreen. On the slim chance that a reader is looking for the book we have a hatnote right at the top of the article to take them to that article. IMO there is no reason to add "(2005 film)" at this time as the other versions that have been produced were made for TV. MarnetteD | Talk 18:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Slim chance? Powers ^T 19:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
    • If you type "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" into the search function you go directly to the page for the book so I am not sure how a reader would get to this article while looking for the book. I am also not sure how many readers would take the time to add "The Chronicles of Narnia" to their search but I have a hard time believing that there would be more than a handful. MarnetteD | Talk 00:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
      • PS if the consensus is to move this article you probably should consider moving the next two films as well just to be consistant. MarnetteD | Talk 00:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support. The current title The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe has two main problems. First and most important, the primary meaning of The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is not the film at all but The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, the book on which the film is based. This book is of course the first of The Chronicles of Narnia. Secondly, it is overly precise. The Chronicles of Narnia is unnecessary in the film title. I suggest a move to The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (film) or alternatively The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005 film) to distinguish from the Emmy-winning The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (1979 film). Or even The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (film) would be an improvement and solve the only really important problem. And yes, we should move the other films too. But as this has been proposed as a single move let's start with it. Andrewa (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes the primary topic is the book but it does not have TCoN in its title. Next, please see the naming conventions for films. TCoN IS used in the title (onscreen credits, posters, etc.) of all three films, just as The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars are used in those film series, and it should remain. Next the 1979 "film" is an animated television film - and actually it should be moved to reflect that fact. We seem to have an - if it ain't broke why are we trying to fix it situation. MarnetteD | Talk 16:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I guess I can request renaming The Lord of the Rings films after this discussion. --George Ho (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Disagree that ir ain't broke. Few things could be more broken than to have an article at a title which quite clearly means something else. My argument is not that the book is the primary meaning of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (although I agree that it is) but rather that it's the primary meaning of The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (my exact words above).
    • Diagree that removing the TCoN would violate the practice displayed by for example Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, which is never known as The Phantom Menace, while this film is commonly known as The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe in any context which makes it clear that the film not the book is meant.
    • I assume you mean the convention Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). Note that it reads in part it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply, and that it doesn't seem to justify using an undisambiguated name when that name has a conflicting primary meaning, as is the case here.
    • You may be right that there's a case for renaming the 1979 film. We currently list it as a film, so this is relevant in deciding exactly what the new name should be, but not in deciding whether a move is necessary. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
      • To point one - no empiric evidence has been presented that any readers have had problems finding this film or the books. Point two actually this is commonly known as TCoN:TLTWSaTW as Betty Logan's documentation shows above. Its in the credits, its on the posters and DVD covers. It was by the full title that it was reviewed by the various media and nominated for and won the various awards it received. In fact there is little documentation that doesn't use the full title. At least I couldn't find any. MarnetteD | Talk 20:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
        • There's no doubt that the film is referred to by its full title in many places. The question is, is the book also referred to by this title, commonly enough that the film should be disambiguated in some way? If it is, then the page should be moved. The other issues are relatively minor, and relate only to where to move it, not whether. Andrewa (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
      • It may not sound like it but I respect your position so apologies if my posts have caused offense. MarnetteD | Talk 20:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
        • No offence taken, thank you, and I hope none given. And I have tidied up the stringing a little, I hope that's OK (and if not send me an email or note on my talk page and I'll put it back). Andrewa (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose move based on what the titles actually are. Keep them that way. Elizium23 (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mermaids in film

First of all, the article does not support this category. It needs to at least mention mermaids in order to sustain a category. Secondly, there is no reliable secondary source that says there are mermaids in this film. Thirdly, there are hardly any mermaids in this film. They might be in the river when Aslan does his magic, I don't know. They are definitely in the sea off Cair Paravel when the Pevensies are being crowned. However, this appearance is so brief. It is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of this film. No category, please. Elizium23 (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081216151738/http://www.scifi.com:80/scifiwire/index.php?category=3 to http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=3&id=62501&type=0

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

British film?

While this is undoubtedly an American film due to Disney's involvement, I must also ask: is it a British co-production? If not, the UK poster may be replaced with a US one. Iftekharahmed96, you are invited to discuss this. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The film was directed by a British company with a primarily British cast, so yes, it is categorised as a British film. The only aspect American about it is some of the actors involved and Disney as the distributor. By the way, the old poster has been deleted because it met the requirements for deletion. The current poster is good enough as it is. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it is the production company that decides the film's nationality. I did some digging, and realised that co-producer Walden Media is based in US, so it can't be a British production, simply based on the cast and shooting locations. BFI also calls this film a US production only, so the US poster may be used. I don't know who called this a UK production, or why. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Really? that's interesting. Truth be told, I know little to nothing about the behind the scenes of this movie so I'll take your research to word. The more you know. I suppose it's considered a British film because of its source material and largely British cast. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see the BFI link here on the talk page, but AFI says it's American and British co-production. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. 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/20061215190645/http://movies.go.com/narnia/feature?featureid=745671 to http://movies.go.com/narnia/feature?featureid=745671
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017031539/http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/316/316765p1.html to http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/316/316765p1.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120911011135/http://www.starbeacon.com/heat/local_story_363121523 to http://www.starbeacon.com/heat/local_story_363121523

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 07:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.darkhorizons.com/news05/narnia2.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203025227/http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/chronicles_of_narnia_prince_caspian/news/1783975/rt_interview_richard_taylor_on_the_weta_workshop_and_prince_caspian to http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/chronicles_of_narnia_prince_caspian/news/1783975/rt_interview_richard_taylor_on_the_weta_workshop_and_prince_caspian
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017031545/http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/588/588270p1.html to http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/588/588270p1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606221824/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=29664 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=29664
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070417012401/http://www.movieweb.com/dvd/news/09/12709.php to http://www.movieweb.com/dvd/news/09/12709.php

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 12:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

What the heck?

Just a little bit ago I made an edit to this page on a different about the films home media release and it was removed by a bot almost immediately for "vandalism". But I just made the same edit on the account I am uaing right now... what kind of logic is that? JaredGoff1 (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason you have two accounts, Celtics4Life86/JaredGoff1?

Incidentally, your additions seems to be unsourced trivia. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I started the second account because I couldn't remember my password for this account at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaredGoff1 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)