Talk:Chitty Chitty Bang Bang

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Mills Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mills, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mills on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MillsWikipedia:WikiProject MillsTemplate:WikiProject MillsMills articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Novels: Roald Dahl Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Roald Dahl task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Untitled[edit]

In Britain, a lot of people actually prefer this to Mary Poppins. Dick Van Dyke is much more bearable in this, and it was actually made over here. Dolmance (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

I have a question. What happened with the picture that was in the plot section and had a caption that read 'Chitty on a night flight...' ??? Ny1 kno??--Amy 00:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Amy[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Chitty3.jpg[edit]

Image:Chitty3.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

marilyn manson[edit]

I have been bold and removed the reference to the similarity between the title of this film and a song by marilyn manson. i don't think it is relevent. hope that's ok. Bawdekin (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automobiles[edit]

(Thanks for removing the spurious song.) The two automobiles, rusty & restored, have stuck in my mind as much as 007's DB5. Perhaps someone could add something about them? In the story's plot, the restored one is supposed to be custom; but the English have built wooden sport cars in even modern times. Thanks! Geologist (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found a web page that describes the automobiles:

http://local.aaca.org/junior/starcars/ccbb.htm

Geologist (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 17:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (film) → Chitty Chitty Bang Bang — I suggest that the 1968 film is now the primary meaning of this term. Fleming's novel is now rather obscure, and to some extent it was superseded by the novelisation of the film. The stage musical is fairly well known but still secondary to the film. PatGallacher (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Though I see your point, IMO it would be a little too close to recentism, particularly when the novel is in stock on Amazon UK, published by Puffin in 2007. The car itself will be the result of searches, as will the song and musical. I think the disambiguation page works the best, which is already a move away from the novel being the primary article. Someone another 22:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to support per Station1. 'Recentism' is the wrong term (which I was clumsily trying to say, without being able to think of a more appropriate term). Sheer weight of pageviews supports the film being the primary article, my misgivings about the earlier work taking a back seat are a distant second to WP's usability. Someone another 19:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Although the book came first, which counts for something, the film gets about twice as many pageviews (even though the book was at the main title until a few days ago, making those wanting the film click through its hatnote), with everything else many fewer. Recentism doesn't seem an issue regarding a film from 1968. If this proposal fails, however, the book should definitely go back to the main title, as the vast majority of readers are searching for one or the other. Station1 (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support because it looks like most people came through Chitty Chitty Bang Bang to get to Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (film), and the other topics titled "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" have very few page views. Erik (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The book came first. It should be the main article. The movie of the wizard of oz is more famous than the book. And the book still has the main article. See my point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.103.9 (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Trivia?[edit]

Is it worth mentioning that Phil Collins was also in this movie?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002015/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.76.27 (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes, given his subsequent fame. Eligius (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Hit Status[edit]

How do you define this film as a hit? It cost $10 million to make, yet returned just $7.8 million. Was it a case of "popular, but not popular enough to make a profit?" Was it Number One at the box office? Is it defined as a hit because it became popular on television, like The Wizard of Oz (film), Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, and Goonies? Eligius (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a flop. (92.7.29.179 (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I believe Baron Bomburst and Baroness Bomburst should merged both are characters without third person sources to support them. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're no worse than Caractacus Pott. I'm against such merges that are more about current state of an article than they are about notability, per WP:IMPERFECT. They're also already much larger than stubs and their sourcing might be implicit to the film and primary, but that's no reason to throw it away.

If they must be merged though, it should be to a separate characters article, not this film article. That's mostly because of space considerations, but also because most characters were in both book and film. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in any sourced info, Delete the unsourced statements. Many of the statements in the article have been recently challenged and sources requested. Both appear to be full of substantial orginal research. If no sources are found, both articles will be very small, and legitimate stubs, in another week or three. N2e (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...And cutting reasonably-sized articles down to stubs is an improvement? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit[edit]

I noticed that the user 2601:7:1940:4B:54E7:384B:4FFE:AEB4 made an edit to remove a link, see reversion. Was that worth it? Jonathan C. Armstrong (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the IP editor is correct, IMDB is not a reliable source and not allowed to be used as a reference in articles nor is any wiki page allowed to be used as reference. you need to read over WP:RS and familiarize yourself with it before you go reversing editsKyyp Durron (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kyyp is correct. Here WP:RS/IMDB is the relevant policy. MarnetteD | Talk 22:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that I'm new here. I had been going through edit filter log and reverting vandalism, but I decided to leave some either because it's not vandalism or I wasn't sure it was vandalism. Jonathan C. Armstrong (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. There are several places where you can ask for help in learning how things work around here including this one Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. MarnetteD | Talk 18:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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/20120306185234/http://www.ianflemingcentenary.com/ian-fleming.asp to http://www.ianflemingcentenary.com/ian-fleming.asp

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) 11:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improper Use of the word "Mould"[edit]

I corrected a misuse of the word "mould" and the change was reverted. I defy anyone to prove to me that the correct spelling in this instance is "mould." This should be self-evident, but I welcome any possible erudite defenses of the use of the word "mould" rather than "mold" in this instance: "the part was too close to the Poppins mold."

It is my understanding that British spellings are not preferred on this site even if the subject is a (somewhat) British film (and that is highly debatable but let's not go off on tangents). WorldWarII (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to the dictionary:

mold1 /mōld/ noun noun: mould 1. a hollow container used to give shape to molten or hot liquid material (such as wax or metal) when it cools and hardens. synonyms: cast, die, form, matrix, shape, container; More something made in a mold, especially a gelatin dessert or a mousse. "lobster mold with a sauce of carrots and port" 2. a distinctive and typical style, form, or character. "he planned to conquer the world as a roving reporter in the mold of his hero" synonyms: character, nature, temperament, temper, disposition, cast/turn of mind, mettle; More ARCHAIC form or shape, especially the features or physique of a person or the build of an animal. synonyms: pattern, form, shape, format, structure, configuration, construction, frame, build, model, design, arrangement, organization, formation, figure, cast, kind, brand, make, line, type, cut, style; More 3. a frame or template for producing moldings. verb verb: mould 1. form (an object with a particular shape) out of easily manipulated material. "a Connecticut inventor molded a catamaran out of polystyrene foam" give a shape to (a malleable substance). "take the marzipan and mold it into a cone shape" synonyms: shape, form, fashion, model, work, construct, frame, make, create, configure, manufacture, design, sculpt, sculpture, throw; More influence the formation or development of. "the professionals who were helping to mold US policy" synonyms: determine, direct, control, guide, lead, influence, shape, form, fashion, affect, make "the professionals who were helping to mold US policy" shape (a column, ceiling, or other part of a building) to a particular design, especially a decorative molding. adjective: moulded; adjective: molded "a corridor with a molded cornice"