Talk:The Spiderwick Chronicles

Fair use rationale for Image:Field Guide.jpg

Image:Field Guide.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 Wikipedia articles 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 07:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleting "copied from Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings" line

I'm going to remove it for obvious reasons.--Romulus 07:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this plot more accurately a copy of the 1970 movie "Equinox"? A devil king, secret book, ignorant youth, all knowing scientist, mentally insane people, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.244.86.57 (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting reference to Equinox

The entry was not a claim that the movie was plagiarizing material, but a comparison of similar plot elements so that persons in the study of film/literature could draw conclusions related to the genre's plot devices. This is merely a statement of similar plot elements.

Even if it doesn't claim plagiarism, and it's not negative, it's still original research, and inappropriate for Wikipedia. (Also, please sign your posts using four tildes: ~~~~.) Mr. Absurd (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

How are any of the entries related to pop culture and literature not original research? That is one area where one the 3 requirements is not working for wikipedia. There are many unsubstantiated (in published research) summaries on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.244.86.57 (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Plot summaries don't need citations, as the citation would be the work itself (see the relevant guidelines). However, placing the plot summary of an unrelated film here and drawing the comparisons that you did is in fact original research in the form of what's commonly called synthesis — which "occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources". Mr. Absurd (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for educating me. I sincerely did not understand what was happening here. I was not familiar with "synthesis". I read the section related to synthesis in the wikipedia policies page. I see that these types of analysis would best be listed under a separate article, not under the actual Spiderwick Chronicles article itself. 64.244.86.57 (talk) 21:08 3 September 2008

Beyond the Spiderwick Chronicles Cleanup

There are some misspelled words, improper capitalization, and improper punctuation. Any help cleaning up the section would make it a lot easier to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.172.60 (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, mate.--Midasminus (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark Hamill's audiobook version

Unless someone thinks it's a bad idea, I'm going to add a brief mention of Mark Hamill's reading of the books. Mcnattyp (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Trivia/ Goofs section

I'll ask again, why does this keep getting deleted?--Midasminus (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

False

Maybe it should be said that although the author insists that the story is real – providing a note from the “Graces” and even saying its true on the DVD commentary – the illustrator describes it as a story and not real, for example on his website stating how the idea came about when he was a child, etc. Lordloss210 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.248.240 (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Criticism / Reception

There is no Criticism or Reception section describing how the books were received by the public and by critics, nor how commercially successful they are. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I will be handling this issue soon. HullIntegrity (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with this series care to add it to this list?

Types of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction is a page of, well, fantasy series (movie, TV, written, whatever) and the assorted mythological and/or fantastic critters they contain. This series would qualify. Anyone care to add it? Tamtrible (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Spiderwick Chronicles. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://movies.about.com/od/thespiderwickchronicles/a/spiderhb072807.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030724073111/http://spiderwick.com/ to http://www.spiderwick.com/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)