Talk:Valiant (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Oops.. Forgot to login before creating this :| --EAi 11:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I made some slight changes here because it wasn't a Disney film, but was produced by a consortium of British companies and picked up for distribution in the US by Buena Vista. JW 8 July 2005 22:35 (UTC)

Poster[edit]

I think that the movie poster shown on this page is out-of-place with the movie, it features a giant pigeon, for heavens sake (and one I haven't seen on the offical site, also, or anywhere for that matter).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wack'd (talk • contribs) 22:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The poster also has a "PG" rating, while the film itself was rated G.Mikejacoby13 15:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need the DVD cover insted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Elil (talk • contribs) 01:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and uploaded the official promo poster. Jumping cheese 16:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle[edit]

Don't you think the Germans should have been eagles? That was the German bird. Jamhaw 19:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)jamhaw[reply]

natzis[edit]

why weren't there any nazi symbols in a ww2 movie? just thought i'd ask 24.23.162.54 01:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Valiant1.jpg[edit]

Image:Valiant1.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) 12:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

It's not allowed, i removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckCoke (talk • contribs) 01:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

Can you please write a bigger plot on this article for this movie? Thanks. Nate Speed (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First UK GGI Movie[edit]

What about The Magic Roundabout? That was CGI too and it was British and released about a month before Valiant. Boatshops (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Also: Why is this article called Valiant (2005 film) if Valiant (film) is just a redirect here? Any other films of this title? I saw two other but they were The Valiant (1929 film and 1962 film). Boatshops (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, hello? Anyone here? Boatshops (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IF anyone IS there, I've improved the article some and expanded cortisy of the French and Spanish wikis. I used google to translate them, and add useful imformation that I found. Boatshops (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection?[edit]

Does this article really merit semi-protection? The article itself only reaches about 150 views a day - and furthermore, the grey padlock symbolising its protection doesn't even appear on the article page. Patyo1994 (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still ~150 but with a couple of big peaks around Boxing Day, presumably related to Christmas shopping.
Varlaam (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling[edit]

Please can someone correct the spelling of pigeon in the first line under 'Plot' and the first few lines of 'Cast'? Uniquestar (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i think thats it correct now. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Mklop, 7 August 2011[edit]

I would like to make this page more informational. Mklop (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to either edit elsewhere for a few days to become [[WP:AUTOCONFIRMED|autoconfirmed or request to be Confirmed at WP:PERM so you can do it yourself--Jac16888 Talk 17:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bail out[edit]

Bail out is spelled like this, not 'bale out'. 67.1.91.90 (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary wikt:bale out notes that this spelling was endorsed by the OED in 1989.
However the principal usage there is "bail out".
 Done Varlaam (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign language dubs[edit]

I am pleased to say that I have family in Mexico.
However, the voice casts for España and México appear right here in Spanish WP where they belong: es:Valiant (película).
Similarly, the French cast appears here: fr:Vaillant, pigeon de combat !.
Deleted section. Varlaam (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2018[edit]

203.94.40.102 (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No identifiable request. Please make your request in the form "please change X to Y", otherwise we can not process it. Iffy★Chat -- 21:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 February 2023[edit]

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. While there is considerable support, opposition is firmly grounded in policy and conventions. There is no ambiguity to disambiguate since the titles in question are already naturally disambiguated, albeit by a small detail. But that’s perfectly acceptable unless there is evidence of considerable confusion. But opposition cited page views showing that’s not the case. В²C ☎ 20:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valiant (film) → Valiant (2005 film) – The main title header of this film entry has been previously moved between Valiant (film) and Valiant (2005 film). Since The Valiant (film) redirects to the Valiant#Film disambiguation page due to the existence of The Valiant (1929 film) and The Valiant (1962 film), Valiant (film) should likewise redirect to Valiant#Film, while the header for this entry should be Valiant (2005 film). — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "The" is sufficient disambiguation here. See, for example, Substitute#Film. 162 etc. (talk) 06:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SMALLDETAILS does not say that we ought to distinguish topics based on small details just because we can. Traditionally, it has been understood to apply only if the distinction is near-universally accepted in the real world and the readers are (presumably) aware of it, and only then we apply hatnotes and whatnot. In this case of a set of rather obscure films, I would argue that it is not applicable, since one would hardly remember which films have "the" and which not, and we'd better serve the readers by applying full disambiguation throughout. A year in the title helps navigation, and is not unwieldy. No such user (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Valiant_(film)&oldid=1209574345"