![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hey, folks, the Melissa Morgan story was fun, but it would be nice for this article to contain factual information instead of half-baked theories. I was the author of the April Fools Day prank in question, and I think the joke has had its day. Melissa (who has chosen to withhold her true identity) has very much enjoyed the fun, but let's move on now.
Kaleb70 20:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
But really, with the lack of real news at this point, can it hurt to keep this (partially) alive for a bit longer?
Let's add a Info_Film Box for this Article. I tryed doing it and It Wouldn't create it.
Is there seriously no info on who's playing the new chars yet?
The first sentance claimed PC was the 'fourth published novel'. Whatever your views on the reading order, PC was published second. changed 26 March 2008 1330 UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.86.168.207 ( talk) 13:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
May I advise editors to not write anything that says NZ will not be used in the shoot, most of it is speculation. There will be some shooting there, but we officially do not know the full extent of it. Wiki-newbie 15:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of rapid fire quick edits by Wiki-newbie and Textbook on this articles history. Having seen both users talk pages, I've seen that this is causing some friction and hostility. Might I politly suggest that those two users disengage for a time to allow things to die down? As the wikiquette policy states:
Take a long term view. In due course you will probably be able to return and carry on editing it, when the previous problems no longer exist and the editor you were in dispute with might themselves move on. In the meantime the disputed article will evolve, other editors may become interested and they will have different perspectives if the issue comes up again.
Please keep this in mind, so as to avoid anything escalating into an edit war.
Kind regards SGGH 10:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I went overboard. I feel that I have a right to prevent loss of citations and the article becoming a wikitable though. Wiki-newbie 09:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone see the Concept Poster I added to the infobox? Wiki-newbie 11:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Why didn't they announce this on Monday then? Funny ol' Hollywood. Wiki-newbie 18:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)There used to be a note above the list of uncast roles saying that it was based on those characters who had large roles in the book but it disappeared as more roles were confirmed. I think that some version of it should be put back unless a cast list has been leaked somewhere. Unless there is a source for them existing in the script some of the roles might have been cut from the film. Eluchil404 13:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep it for now. Wiki-newbie 14:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
There's mention of a £50 million budget in this article, though I'm not sure if it's just an estimate on the part of the reporter. Any thoughts? -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 12:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, shouldnt it be mentioned somewhere in the article that it is the most expensive motion picture of all time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.221.180 ( talk) 20:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no substantial evidence that this is the most expensive movie ever made - there is only one source to that claim: a tiny local newpaper's online edition claims the budget is $280 million when that cannot be verified by any other source whereas the more lower figure of $100 million can be found at 3 different sources: [1], [2], [3], and the moderate figure of $200 million is supported by more well-known sources such as the Boston Herald [4] and ABC news [5] it seems fair to go with the middle ground on this one and I'll post the budget as $200 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellojoe3 ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Near the top of the page there is a reason of pushing the release date back so as not to compete with the water boy. Whilst lower down there is a reason being the more complex special effects causing the release date to be pushed back. So which is it, does anyone know?
Hmmm... I'll edit it: I think it was a piece of IGN speculation. Alientraveller 21:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Please do not re-add the official plot synopsis taken from narniaweb.com. It is copyrighted material and we cannot use it! Furthermore, we are not allowed to copy material from other websites, period, as it says directly below the edit box: "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted." It is up to us, the wikipedia community, to come up with an adequate plot synopsis of our own, which I think we have already done.
-- NetherlandishYankee 17:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Found this image of the crew showing off an animatronic from the film at Comic Con, I presume it Asterius, because it doesn't say. Anyway, its free use. Gran 2 22:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
First off, the article isn't that big, and doesn't require sectioning. Secondly, a release date isn't the same as production, nor is the previous film's article exactly the best comparison for structure: its production section is quite short as well. Alientraveller 18:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thumb|222px|The first promotional image for The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian There is dispute over whether this picture should be included in the article. What do other people think (besides alientraveller)? - E2MB the museblogger 02:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I've run across a disagreement with User:Alientraveller on the quoted section. Please give your opinion on this, and see if we can find a consensus between users. (See our discussion Here) Thanks!
Throughout the production of Prince Caspian, Disney has been publishing a blog, written by different members of the film team. The blog was kicked off on March 11, 2007 with a video post by director Andrew Adamson. Various other members of the crew have contributed written posts through the following months. On July 30th, 2007, the second video blog was hosted by cast member Ben Barnes (Caspian X). The video blog is located at http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/narnia/blog/
Microbyte 23:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
To respond to Microbyte, I'm not interested enough in this film series to invest time in it compared to the other film articles on my watchlist. I go through RSS feeds for film news, though, and when there's a potentially good citation for others to use, I provide it like I just did above. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 14:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) — Andrew Adamson's "five principle lessons" from the first film that guided him through directing Prince Caspian.
Steve
T •
C 11:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)I thought studios were moving towards simultaneous worldwide releases to combat piracy - so why the huge gap between US and UK release dates? 86.132.141.14 ( talk) 00:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if the current poster needs to be replaced, but there's a new one. I think it would be good to replace it since it shows more of the cast, including Reepicheep. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 05:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I find it very hard to believe that Georgia Henley lost her teeth during the prouduction of this film. My daughter is five years old, and she has lost her four front teeth. I imagine she'll be lossing her incisors and first molars soon, but I imagine she'll have the whole business wrapped up in a year or two, that would be age 6 or 7. Georgia is 12! I see that the fact is references, but I can't verify the reference myself. It jsut seems quite unbelievable, and if it is true, that it merits further comment. -00:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I added this latest in box office. It dethroned Iron Man from the top of the US and Canadian box office, after two weeks. BBC NEWS, Prince Caspian dethrones Iron Man But "Iron Man" led the foreign box office for a third weekend, with foreign total to $206 million, narrowly beating "The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian." javno.com, 'Iron Man' Beats 'Prince' Overseas -- Florentino floro ( talk) 12:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hello! I am reviewing this article for GA status; if you have any comments, do not hesitate to let me know! spider1224 11:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
OK guys, done reviewing. Here's my take on the subject:
1:Well written?--I am glad to say it passes there. You have plenty of citations listed, and I saw NO grammar errors. Well done! 2:Factually accurate?--Many sources, and excellent plot summary, and the ability to distinguish between fiction and reality; pass! 3:Broad in coverage?--Heck yeah, what don't you cover in here? Seriously? Cause I'm stumped. Anyway, pass. 4:Neutural point of view?--most definetly pass! I saw little or no personal pronouns in this passage. 5:Article stability?--Huzzah for no edit wars! Pass! 6:Images?--Ahh...images. I'll pass you here, but I'd like to see a few more, possible larger ones to break up the lenghty character section, or others. It just seemed like a lot of text, but the images that you had were good. Also, maybe an image from the movie (during a scene, etc.)
Overall, a job well done, and it passes! Can't wait to see it on the list for Featured Article! Now everyone go and review another article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spider1224 ( talk • contribs) 11:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hey, folks, the Melissa Morgan story was fun, but it would be nice for this article to contain factual information instead of half-baked theories. I was the author of the April Fools Day prank in question, and I think the joke has had its day. Melissa (who has chosen to withhold her true identity) has very much enjoyed the fun, but let's move on now.
Kaleb70 20:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
But really, with the lack of real news at this point, can it hurt to keep this (partially) alive for a bit longer?
Let's add a Info_Film Box for this Article. I tryed doing it and It Wouldn't create it.
Is there seriously no info on who's playing the new chars yet?
The first sentance claimed PC was the 'fourth published novel'. Whatever your views on the reading order, PC was published second. changed 26 March 2008 1330 UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.86.168.207 ( talk) 13:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
May I advise editors to not write anything that says NZ will not be used in the shoot, most of it is speculation. There will be some shooting there, but we officially do not know the full extent of it. Wiki-newbie 15:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of rapid fire quick edits by Wiki-newbie and Textbook on this articles history. Having seen both users talk pages, I've seen that this is causing some friction and hostility. Might I politly suggest that those two users disengage for a time to allow things to die down? As the wikiquette policy states:
Take a long term view. In due course you will probably be able to return and carry on editing it, when the previous problems no longer exist and the editor you were in dispute with might themselves move on. In the meantime the disputed article will evolve, other editors may become interested and they will have different perspectives if the issue comes up again.
Please keep this in mind, so as to avoid anything escalating into an edit war.
Kind regards SGGH 10:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I went overboard. I feel that I have a right to prevent loss of citations and the article becoming a wikitable though. Wiki-newbie 09:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone see the Concept Poster I added to the infobox? Wiki-newbie 11:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Why didn't they announce this on Monday then? Funny ol' Hollywood. Wiki-newbie 18:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)There used to be a note above the list of uncast roles saying that it was based on those characters who had large roles in the book but it disappeared as more roles were confirmed. I think that some version of it should be put back unless a cast list has been leaked somewhere. Unless there is a source for them existing in the script some of the roles might have been cut from the film. Eluchil404 13:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep it for now. Wiki-newbie 14:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
There's mention of a £50 million budget in this article, though I'm not sure if it's just an estimate on the part of the reporter. Any thoughts? -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 12:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, shouldnt it be mentioned somewhere in the article that it is the most expensive motion picture of all time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.221.180 ( talk) 20:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no substantial evidence that this is the most expensive movie ever made - there is only one source to that claim: a tiny local newpaper's online edition claims the budget is $280 million when that cannot be verified by any other source whereas the more lower figure of $100 million can be found at 3 different sources: [1], [2], [3], and the moderate figure of $200 million is supported by more well-known sources such as the Boston Herald [4] and ABC news [5] it seems fair to go with the middle ground on this one and I'll post the budget as $200 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellojoe3 ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Near the top of the page there is a reason of pushing the release date back so as not to compete with the water boy. Whilst lower down there is a reason being the more complex special effects causing the release date to be pushed back. So which is it, does anyone know?
Hmmm... I'll edit it: I think it was a piece of IGN speculation. Alientraveller 21:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Please do not re-add the official plot synopsis taken from narniaweb.com. It is copyrighted material and we cannot use it! Furthermore, we are not allowed to copy material from other websites, period, as it says directly below the edit box: "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted." It is up to us, the wikipedia community, to come up with an adequate plot synopsis of our own, which I think we have already done.
-- NetherlandishYankee 17:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Found this image of the crew showing off an animatronic from the film at Comic Con, I presume it Asterius, because it doesn't say. Anyway, its free use. Gran 2 22:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
First off, the article isn't that big, and doesn't require sectioning. Secondly, a release date isn't the same as production, nor is the previous film's article exactly the best comparison for structure: its production section is quite short as well. Alientraveller 18:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thumb|222px|The first promotional image for The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian There is dispute over whether this picture should be included in the article. What do other people think (besides alientraveller)? - E2MB the museblogger 02:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I've run across a disagreement with User:Alientraveller on the quoted section. Please give your opinion on this, and see if we can find a consensus between users. (See our discussion Here) Thanks!
Throughout the production of Prince Caspian, Disney has been publishing a blog, written by different members of the film team. The blog was kicked off on March 11, 2007 with a video post by director Andrew Adamson. Various other members of the crew have contributed written posts through the following months. On July 30th, 2007, the second video blog was hosted by cast member Ben Barnes (Caspian X). The video blog is located at http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/narnia/blog/
Microbyte 23:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
To respond to Microbyte, I'm not interested enough in this film series to invest time in it compared to the other film articles on my watchlist. I go through RSS feeds for film news, though, and when there's a potentially good citation for others to use, I provide it like I just did above. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 14:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) — Andrew Adamson's "five principle lessons" from the first film that guided him through directing Prince Caspian.
Steve
T •
C 11:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)I thought studios were moving towards simultaneous worldwide releases to combat piracy - so why the huge gap between US and UK release dates? 86.132.141.14 ( talk) 00:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if the current poster needs to be replaced, but there's a new one. I think it would be good to replace it since it shows more of the cast, including Reepicheep. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 05:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I find it very hard to believe that Georgia Henley lost her teeth during the prouduction of this film. My daughter is five years old, and she has lost her four front teeth. I imagine she'll be lossing her incisors and first molars soon, but I imagine she'll have the whole business wrapped up in a year or two, that would be age 6 or 7. Georgia is 12! I see that the fact is references, but I can't verify the reference myself. It jsut seems quite unbelievable, and if it is true, that it merits further comment. -00:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I added this latest in box office. It dethroned Iron Man from the top of the US and Canadian box office, after two weeks. BBC NEWS, Prince Caspian dethrones Iron Man But "Iron Man" led the foreign box office for a third weekend, with foreign total to $206 million, narrowly beating "The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian." javno.com, 'Iron Man' Beats 'Prince' Overseas -- Florentino floro ( talk) 12:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hello! I am reviewing this article for GA status; if you have any comments, do not hesitate to let me know! spider1224 11:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
OK guys, done reviewing. Here's my take on the subject:
1:Well written?--I am glad to say it passes there. You have plenty of citations listed, and I saw NO grammar errors. Well done! 2:Factually accurate?--Many sources, and excellent plot summary, and the ability to distinguish between fiction and reality; pass! 3:Broad in coverage?--Heck yeah, what don't you cover in here? Seriously? Cause I'm stumped. Anyway, pass. 4:Neutural point of view?--most definetly pass! I saw little or no personal pronouns in this passage. 5:Article stability?--Huzzah for no edit wars! Pass! 6:Images?--Ahh...images. I'll pass you here, but I'd like to see a few more, possible larger ones to break up the lenghty character section, or others. It just seemed like a lot of text, but the images that you had were good. Also, maybe an image from the movie (during a scene, etc.)
Overall, a job well done, and it passes! Can't wait to see it on the list for Featured Article! Now everyone go and review another article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spider1224 ( talk • contribs) 11:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)