Talk:Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang

message: To the IP who keeps changing this: don't. In the book the character is not known as Scrumptious, but Skrumshus. Stop changing it to the wrong version please. - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skrumshus/Scrumptious 

message: As is so well known, this tale is better known through the film than the book. Authorship is also divided between Fleming and Dahl. It's that rare thing too, a film that's better than its original book. A subjective viewpoint, but it's clear that Dahl deserves substantial credit for it, not Fleming alone.
Recent edits have removed the two authors from inside the navbox. When reverted, this was repeated with the explanation "Fleming is linked in the lead, so this is a duplicate link. Dahl only wrote the screenplay".  I see this as inappropriate for several reasons:
* Dahl deserves credit and a link in the navbox. I would personally contend that he shares equal status with Fleming.
* Dahl deserves a link. Removing Fleming for reasons of duplication is no reason at all to remove Dahl as well. 
* Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang, like Fleming, is linked in both titlebar and navbox content, ie duplicated. Yet no-one is suggesting removing the lead article from the navbox.
* Fleming is linked in the title bar, but who reads titlebars? As a usability aspect, readers tend to only follow links from inside the body of a navbox, thus there's a good reason to favour duplication from their headers.
I'm raising this here as higher traffic than at the template. I think both authors should be restored to the navbox. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  In this case it's more than an adaptation though, around half of the screenplay is additional to the novel - including several of the characters who make it to inclusion in the navbox (the family mostly don't, Dahl's Vulgarians do). After the film the screenplay novelisation was sold as a separate novel. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The recent edits are an improvement. This navbox is now correctly titled in a way to indicate it is for the original novel. With the original author's name in the navbox title, there is no need for this name elsewhere in the nav box. There is certainly no need for an adaptation author's name in the nav box (the adaptation author has a separate nav box). The popularity of an adaptation is immaterial. Prhartcom (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authors in the navbox? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang. 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/20111008202613/http://www.ianfleming.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=112 to http://www.ianfleming.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=112
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014225759/http://www.panmacmillan.com/book/frankcottrellboyce/chittychittybangbang3overthemoon to http://www.panmacmillan.com/book/frankcottrellboyce/chittychittybangbang3overthemoon
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) 12:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Surely, the Ian Fleming story is not a novel. It was written as three small books each ~ 46 pages, with pictures, written for children, which I read as a child. While the book based on the film, might pass for a novel, the Ian Fleming books, do not. This is not a put-down of the books, which I seriously loved as a child, and would still recommend. Also, I am not saying that it is not possible for children's books to be novels; they very clearly can. I am just putting forward that the original trilogy is not one of them. I will leave it at this, and only change things, if there is no convincing opposition. I have read the discussion above, on whether it should be book or novel; but I think that the discussion is too narrow, the categorizations, wrong Ian Fleming's Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is a series of three books. The distinction being made does seem to be akin to calling The Very Hungry Caterpillar a novel, which it plainly is not. --Samesawed (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a novel but a children's story? 

message: As i read it currently, the two paragraphs which address the composition of the book are in contradiction with each other (and, incidentally, with the sequence as given in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang).  In the first paragraph we read  which implies that the book was started probably in 1960, certainly by 1961.  In the second we have  which implies the beginning of the writing was in 1963.  Even if the project attacked was merely finishing up the book(s), the sequence is not clear to the reader.  Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 14:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timing of composition