Talk:The Sword in the Stone (novel)

Relationship between the book and animated film

"The Walt Disney Company made an animated movie version of The Sword in the Stone in 1961. The movie is entertaining, but ignores White's carefully-constructed moral lessons in favour of visual gags. "

Although I don't disagree, does anyone else think this sentence could be revised to be more NPOV? It sounds a bit slanted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.209.102 (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2004‎ (UTC)

How's this?

It now reads: "The Walt Disney Company made an animated movie version of The Sword in the Stone in 1961. Like most Disney films, it is based on the general plot of the original story, but much of the substance of the story is considerably changed." Perhaps not as neutral as it could be, but I think it's an improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatGallacher (talk • contribs) 15:57, 13 November 2005‎ (UTC)

Vandalism

Unless my eyesight is bad enough to misread, isn't there a statement in caps lock that says "You are a Jew if you believe this"? Is that vandalism, being and extrateraneous statement? Danny sepley 02:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 1 January 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved, with "(novel)" used as the dab. Jenks24 (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

---

• The Sword in the Stone → The Sword in the Stone (book)
• The Sword in the Stone (disambiguation) → The Sword in the Stone

– The book does not seem to be a proper WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "The Sword in the Stone". There are four especially notable topics listed on the dab page. The article about the film is viewed about three times as frequently as the one about the book (45561 times versus 16355 times in the last 90 days). Some people landing on the article about the book are probably looking for the article about the film or some other topic and are being misdirected. Although the film is based on the book, readers clearly seem much more interested in the film, and the film deviated substantially from the book. This can't be blamed entirely on "recentism", as the film is more than 50 years old (and the book is only 25 years older). In addition to those two, the Excalibur article is another major candidate (viewed 85409 times in the last 90 days) and there is also an actual sword in a stone at an Abbey (viewed 1617 times in the last 90 days) that was purportedly put there by a Saint (whose article was viewed 1415 times in the last 90 days). So the article about the book should be moved either to The Sword in the Stone (book) or The Sword in the Stone (novel) and the dab page should be placed at the base name. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support – no primarytopic here. Dicklyon (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support clearly not the primary topic. (which would be the sword of kingship for Britannia (which is not equivalent to the Sword of the Lady of the Lake, Excalibur)) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - but (novel) is the more normal dab. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, WP:BOOKDAB seems to suggest "(novel)" as preferable to "(book)", so let's use that. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. You could probably argue that the movie is the primary topic, but at the very least, this book isn't. kennethaw88 • talk 22:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per reasons above, but a good deal of cleanup will be needed after the move. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.