Talk:List of James Bond films/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Duplication?

This article looks like it duplicates James Bond (film series), which would mean it qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:A10. Does anyone care to make an argument that it doesn't? Thanks. Lagrange613 (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Igordebraga says more work will be done on both articles to show why they both merit inclusion. Works for me. Lagrange613 (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This article now contains material that has been cut from James Bond (film series)--WickerGuy (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

File:James Bond 007, Gun Symbol logo.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

Resolved

 – FUR has been provided.

An image used in this article, File:James Bond 007, Gun Symbol logo.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 25 October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Dr No trailer.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Dr No trailer.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

More curiousity about deleted info

I am curious about why the recent revision now omits the fact that the 1954 TV Casino Royale was an episode (one hour in length) from an "anthology" TV series entitled "Climax!". Less well-known than "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" or "One Step Beyond" or "Playhouse 90", this weekly series hosted the first JB adaptation. The older version mentioned this- the new does not.

The recent revision also omits that there were other failed video JB projects between this a Doctor No -there was McClory's aborted Thunderball film adapation and prior to that in the late 50s Fleming was in negotiations to produce a Bond TV series which never materialized. (The short story anthology "For Your Eyes Only" is in part based on script treatments for said series.) The old version of the article didn't mention exact specifics, but did mention there were "some" projects that failed to materialize between 54's Royale and 62's Dr. No.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's because this is, as the title suggests, the list of James Bond films. It's not a list of TV adaptations or nearly-made films. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Historically, this section (when it was part of the parent article) included the TV CasRoy. I'm undecided, but let's go with current for now, I suppose.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I see it used to be, but really it's not a film, so why should it be included in a list of films?! I think people would lump it in with the films on the basis that "there's no-where else for it to go, so it may as well go here", but that's not a good enough rationale, really. I do plan to get round to putting something more substantial together at some point for "Bond in other broadcast media", which would incorporate both the TV adaptation and the radio broadcasts (4 that I know of), which is a much better place for it than with the films. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

In the latter, don't forget to include the cartoon series, James Bond, Jr.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep - that would be a good thing to include in there too. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I should point out that James Bond in film lumps the TV version into an article about the films. —99.99.216.248 (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It refers to it very briefly at the beginning of the article (in one sentence), no more. There is certainly nothing substantial on the page about the show, which is quite right. As you can see from the discussion above, it was previously agreed not to have the info in here. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

There is more in the "Non-Eon films" section of that article. —99.99.216.248 (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

That's still not this article, which is an FL and has therefore been through a peer review, followed by a thorough oversight process. The James Bond in film article is a big bloated mess, which is why no substantive revision of it has taken place to pull it up to GA level. There is a lot of rubbish in there which should be pulled out, but that doesn't mean it should be replicated in here. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Salary

What does the Salary column reference that was added in this edit? It does not appear to point to anything verifiable. Is it the director's salary? Actor portraying James Bond? This needs to be clarified. AldezD (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Now done. Thanks for pointing it out. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Film synopses

Are the synopses in the table necessary? They cause the Title, Bond Actor and Director columns to wrap, making the table much more difficult to read. If they were removed, the width of the Box Office, Budget and Salary columns could be made uniform, helping each of the first three columns to fit on one line without text wrapping. AldezD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

We're working on an altered version of the page at the moment, which will move the synopses out of the table altogether. This should be going live in under a week. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this page needed?

Is this page needed? Or shall we just merge it into the main "James Bond (film series)" article? Because some of the information on this page is kind of a mildly extended version of some on the main page, and I don't hugely see the point of this page. I suggest a possible merge. If it does happen, I don't mind when. So I'm just happy to wait to see what a consensus will bring. Charlr6 (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Charlr6. This is the wrong page to pick on! This is the good one (thus it's FL rated)—it's James Bond in film that needs the re-vamp, as it's a big, bloated mess of an article which does not fulfil its remit. There are plans in hand to give this the overhaul it needs and, once I have a few bits out of the way, I hope to be able to reveal a new structure on the talk page. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know. Only saw this page today and thought it had the same information which you can find on the main page. Maybe if the main page is a big mess than information on there that (that is also on this page) can be deleted, and the information from this page could move over maybe? Charlr6 (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The James Bond in film page should be a history of the production of the films, rather than anything else, and it's certainly not that at the moment. Everything that is in this article should be here, it's the stuff that's on the JB in film article that is in the wrong place, or in the wrong format, and the future re-vamp will be partly focussed on trimming down the duplicated information. cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. Well I'm for the re-vamp. If you need any help message me and I'll try my best. Charlr6 (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Great stuff - I'm hoping to get things moving fairly soon, but work has gone hectic recently and I'm snowed under from all directions! I'll give you a shout when I start things moving a little - it'll involve the return of the "James Bond (film character)" article to take some of the info out of "JB in film", and more of a focus on the production history, which is what we have a consenus to achieve: I hope the new structure will suit everyone else's tastes too! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Never Say never Again

What about the 1983 movie starring Sean Connery? It might not be 'official' but shouldn't it still be included in this list? It is, after all, Bond flic in every sense of the word. 75.159.31.148 (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It's listed under Non-EON films. DonQuixote (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

IMDB ratings?

Can we please add a category of IMDB ratings? The other ratings are nice but IMDB just kills them on sample size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.225.78 (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

No. IMDB is not considered a reliable source, I'm afraid. - SchroCat (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. The scores here are aggregates from critics. IMDb's are user ratings and subject to change.

Release dates of films (summer, winter)?

http://007underthemangotree.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/james-bond-release-dates-uk-usa-and-sweden/ 007 Under the Mango Tree, James Bond Release dates: UK, USA and Sweden. " . . Mind you that the American ones can be a bit dodgy as sometimes they don’t launch the films nationwide on the same date as the first screening."

I think it's interesting that the Bond films had Summer releases from the late 70s through 80s, and then starting in 1995 pre-Christmas, generally pre-Thanksgiving, releases.

And I am a fan of having more than one source. And does this source count as a blog or as new media, or maybe a bit of both. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a blog, of that there is little question or doubt; on that basis it fails WP:RELIABLE. As to dates, etc, this list shows the years, which is the point of importance. The specific dates of release are covered in the film articles, which is more a more appropriate location for them. - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Update?

Is there an update planned for the box office table? Listing adjustments for 2012 or 2013, instead of 2005? (And adding Skyfall?) Thanks - thewolfchild 21:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Briefly yes, for the Skyfall information. As to the year, no. We have used an excellent source that uses 2005 as the base, and we've followed that, rather than the somewhat generic inflation tool, which is inaccurate, bluntly! - SchroCat (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe you're referring to The Econimist? Have you considered any other sources? Box Office Mojo is cited quite often here, including for the List of highest grossing films. Or, guinnessworldrecords.com seems fairly reputable. I Googled "adjusted box office numbers" and found all kinds of sites, surely some must be useful? I just think some people would like to see present day comparisons, instead of adjusted numbers for 8 years ago. Lemme know... - thewolfchild 22:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No, not The Economist: It's from Block, Alex Ben; Autrey Wilson, Lucy (2010). George Lucas's Blockbusting: A Decade-by-Decade Survey of Timeless Movies Including Untold Secrets of Their Financial and Cultural Success. London: HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-177889-6. Actually the point is not necessarily to see how much the present day amounts would be (which is trivial fluff, to be honest), but to have a single, solid benchmark against which the relative amounts from different years can be measured, so the year itself is not that important. - SchroCat (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Thanks for the reply. - thewolfchild 23:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Another question about the table

(This could be for the box office table, critical response table, or both)
Would it be possible to add a "#" column, before the title column, to list the movies 1, 2, 3, etc. ? I would like to see it because Bond movies are often referred to by number. (Bond 22, Bond 23, Bond 24). I'm asking here first because I don't want to boldly do the work just to have it reverted. Schro, you have an opinion? - thewolfchild 18:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure it's necessary. The list is in the right order and—with the exception of the as-yet-unnamed films—the more common way of referring to the films is by their names. The other problem with numbering is what do you think is Bond 5? You Only Live Twice, right? Except that it isn't by order of all Bond films: YOLT is Bond 6, with the original Casino Royale being Bond 5. In many ways having the films split between Eon and non-Eon is a somewhat false split, but we follow the convention on that point, although the numbering is a somewhat questionable way of referring to them. - SchroCat (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Adjusting

Should the adjusted for inflation be updated .

At 2011/12 prices it is over $13 billion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.38.140 (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Not really: it's not a clear cut formula to make the adjustment, as the figures are from multiple countries, and to ensure it's correct you'll have to work out the figures for each country and then the inflation. Even then it's something of a false figure, with turnover being dependent on cost if cinema tickets (have they risen in line with inflation, or at a different rate) and 101 other factors. At the end of the day all that happens is that we end up with a very rough approximation that shows us exactly what? Not much of any practical use really. - SchroCat (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

UK

as it is a UK franchie should we have UK grossing

Not really. It's the convention that film budgets and returns are reported in dollars, even for a British film series (not franchise) such as this. - SchroCat (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No you miss under stood I mean how much it made in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by77.98.167.114 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Those figures are only available for a very few of the most recent films, so it would be a bit pointless just to have perhaps 4 references to the figures in the whole series. - SchroCat (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The Harry potter film series dose. Surly their must be som where you can find the info — Preceding unsigned comment added by77.98.167.114 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 13:22, 22 febury 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.38.140 (talk)

Feel free to search for a reliable source that covers all the films. - SchroCat (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Pussy Galore

Can someone who has actually seen the movie help me out here, because I am trying to correct the section on Goldfinger and User talk:Deunanknute keeps deleting it and threatening to have me banned. I think that the phrase "but he subsequently seduces Pussy Galore" because top view this as 'seduction' is dangerous. She fights to get away from him tells him repeatedly that she is not interested. He pins her under him as she struggles to get away, desperately avoiding his kiss. He forces his kiss on her as her arms go around her. Since Seduction is 'the process of deliberately enticing a person', I cannot see how attacking her and forcing himself upon her is 'enticing'.

Firstly, stop edit warring. You do not try and force your version of the film onto the page if others disagree, you try to discuss this. Secondly, this page is for very brief summaries of films, not the in depth amount of detail you added. - SchroCat (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

My edits were neither vandalism nor an edit war. What happened to the age of Wikipedia when we operated on "Good Faith Edits"? It's been a while since I've edited, but is that age gone. It is actions like this that drive people away from editing Wikipedia. Perhaps Wikipedia no longer values community involvement, but that's where it's origins were. Anyway...this is the discussion I started and the person who banned me does not seem to want to take part. You want a source? Watch this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuAz6DXUopw) and let me know if you consider this a seduction. If no one objects, I am going to take the word "seduction" out of this article to move us away from rape culture. I hope that someone engages me in conversation before editing this article or banning me again. If not, I am not to blame...this is my attempt at starting the conversation, and I invite you to continue it before taking action against me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.101.160.50 (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, your edits here, and here show that you edit warred: you should have come straight to the talk page after you were reverted, as per WP:BRD. No-one accused you of vandalism, so please don't claim otherwise. Firstly, as above, this is a brief summary of the film, not something to be bloated out with excessive details. Secondly, the very vast majority of third party sources do not refer to this as a rape: they refer to is as a seduction. We do not put our own personal spin onto the events - that is original research, which is what you are engaed in at the moment - but instead we reflect what the neutral, third-party sources state. - SchroCat (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

My reason for reverting the edits was that I disagree with attempting to change history to fit current views. "Goldfinger" is a fictional movie. Like any other form of artistic expression, anything describing what it is, and what it was needs to take into account the intents of the creators. Obviously, intents are difficult to prove, so we also must also look at the effect it had on the intended audience. James Bond's actions towards Pussy Galore were considered seductive in 1964 (FULL STOP). Any other analysis is not a fair and unbalanced appraisal. How these actions may or may not be interpreted today is a separate topic, not appropriate for Wikipedia. Deunanknute (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, first of all you should open a dialogue. This last response would be more appropriate than warning be about vandalism and than banning me. I am trying to open up a dialogue and I got banned for it. Let's have this conversation to improve this article rather than reverting the edits without comment (it takes two to edit war) and then banning someone without first talking to them. Now that we are having the dialogue, your analysis that James Bond's actions towards Pussy Galore were considered seductive in 1964, is your opinion. Wikipedia isn't the place for personal opinions. Some people probably found it seductive, some people probably found it offensive. This is a subjective view. Since t's unreferenced, so it should be removed from featured content anyway. If (IF) you can find a reliable source to back up your claim that it was considered seductive in 1964, then cite that when reinserting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.101.160.50 (talk)

No, YOU were the one who should have opened the thread, rather than edit war your preferred version onto the page. If you have been reverted and then come to this page and opened a thread, no-one would have warned you of anything, let alone banned you. As I have already indicated, it is not anyone here's opinion that it was a seduction, it is how it is referred to in neutral third party sources. In future, could you also please sign your name by using four tildes (~~~~) - SchroCat (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I fixed it, and cited it. Hopefully a book written in 1976 using sources from nearer to 1964 is close enough. It doesn't use the word "seduced", but I think successful use of "charm" is essentially the same thing. I could also cite the original book by Ian Fleming where Pussy is explicitly stated to be a lesbian but, after being seduced by Bond states that she was only because "I never met a man before.". This passage is actually fairly important in establishing that James Bond is so masculine, that not only do women flock to him, as in previous books, but that he is also able seduce women who aren't even interested in his gender. Goldfinger, both the book and the movie, is actually seen as a turning point for the James Bond series. From the interactions with women, to the use of gadgets, to the the overall feel of the character, Goldfinger is the beginning of James Bond as we know him. Deunanknute (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I have three other sources that say the same thing. They ar not really needed (per WP:FILMPLOT), but if it stops the POV pushing, then we're all good. - SchroCat (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing the ToC limit

Since this is a FA, I wanted to discuss this change before doing it.

A few times already I've came to this article searching for a specific film entry and found the ToC to be completely unhelpful. This is because the current article uses {{TOC limit}} which limits the ToC (by default) to only the first 2 levels, while the film headers are at the 3rd level. If there isn't any objection, I'd like to remove this template as it currently ruins a FA article readability. --Gonnym (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Lazenby?

You have photos of all the Eon Bonds except Lazenby. You even have one of David Niven! I'm not too impressed by this "Gold Star" article. 135.23.189.197 (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Redundant table

An editor is repeatedly adding a table to the article. I have twice removed it because the table being added is virtually identical in content to an existing table already present in the article. In fact, the only difference in content between the two tables is that the new one includes a full release date. The new table is completely superfluous to what is already in the article, and for obvious reasons we don't need a second table replicating all the data in the first table. I would have thought this is blindingly obvious, but clearly not. Betty Logan (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Your definition of "virtually identical" is flawed. My new table looks nothing like the existing table in the article. For example:

1. It has extended "rowspan"s which makes the information regarding the directors and the Bond actors easier to understand.

2. I've used exact full figures regarding the box offices, again, making it easier to understand (rather than the decimal figures below).

3. The release dates are useful, since they are pretty important pieces of information.

4. The "overview" table would have been the first thing people look at upon visiting the page.

5. When I search Google for "list of __", I am looking for a definitive list. I don't want to scroll through an entire article for it.

5. The existing table focuses predominantly on the box office figures, hence why it's listed in the "box office" section.

6. Is the salary of the Bond actor really that important?

7. My table shows you all of the information that you need to know, instead of wading through vast amounts of information.

- Information which is very interesting, mind, but not necessary for someone wanting to find a simple but definitive answer to a simple question.

Year	Eon Film	Bond Actor	Director	Release	Box Office
1962	Dr. No	Sean Connery	Terence Young	5 October 1962	$59,500,000
1963	From Russia with Love			11 October 1963	$78,900,000
1964	Goldfinger		Guy Hamilton	18 September 1964	$124,900,000
1965	Thunderball		Terence Young	29 December 1965	$141,200,000
1967	You Only Live Twice		Lewis Gilbert	13 June 1967	$101,000,000
1969	On Her Majesty's Secret Service	George Lazenby	Peter R. Hunt	18 December 1969	$64,600,000
1971	Diamonds Are Forever	Sean Connery	Guy Hamilton	30 December 1971	$116,000,000
1973	Live and Let Die	Roger Moore		6 July 1973	$126,400,000
1974	The Man with the Golden Gun			19 December 1974	$98,500,000
1977	The Spy Who Loved Me		Lewis Gilbert	7 July 1977	$185,400,000
1979	Moonraker			26 June 1979	$210,300,000
1981	For Your Eyes Only		John Glen	24 June 1981	$194,900,000
1983	Octopussy			6 June 1983	$183,700,000
1985	A View to a Kill			13 June 1985	$152,400,000
1987	The Living Daylights	Timothy Dalton		27 June 1987	$191,200,000
1989	License to Kill			13 June 1989	$156,200,000
1995	GoldenEye	Pierce Brosnan	Martin Campbell	24 November 1995	$352,194,034
1997	Tomorrow Never Dies		Roger Spottiswoode	12 December 1997	$333,011,068
1999	The World Is Not Enough		Michael Apted	26 November 1999	$361,832,400
2002	Die Another Day		Lee Tamahori	20 November 2002	$431,971,116
2006	Casino Royale	Daniel Craig	Martin Campbell	14 November 2006	$599,045,960
2008	Quantum of Solace		Marc Forster	31 October 2008	$586,090,727
2012	Skyfall		Sam Mendes	26 October 2012	$1,108,561,013
2015	Spectre			26 October 2015	TBA

This table is NOT "virtually identical" to the existing table. I would have thought this is blindingly obvious, but clearly not. 109.151.166.132 (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

They contain virtually the same information. Just because you have made it look slightly different does not justify its inclusion. As for the rest, well: i) the exact release dates don't really add anything in a comparative sense, unlike the box office or budgets; ii) your table does not actually provide "exact" figures since $59,500,000 is still essentially the same as $59.5 million; iii) if the respective salaries of each actor were not important then numerous published sources would presumably not publish them; iv) the row-spanning introduces discontinuities in the rows in this instance, which could cause problems for screenreaders (even if it doesn't the table is more difficult to read when the rows are broken up); v) I don't particularly care whether you have to scroll down a bit to get to the table, since articles are designed as a whole to be consumed as a whole. Betty Logan (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine whatever. I respect your opinion but I still stand by my points. Oh, and I personally think it's more logical to split up/merge the rows on occasions like this. When I was talking about the box office figures I was clearly referring to movies post-GoldenEye. Hopefully there's someone out there who will look at this table and see it how I see it. Making the article more user-friendly for people who want to see all of the necessary information in the same place at once (ie. most people). 109.151.166.132 (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Slightly late to this, but I have to say that Betty Logan's removal was the right course here. Your opinions on merging rows etc is neither here nor there: they are sub-standard for computer readers, and therefore there are WP:ACCESS problems. Good to know you know what "most people" want: have you asked them, or are they posting their opinions somewhere we can all look at so we can tweak accordingly? - SchroCat (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

No, of course I don't have anything to prove it. I'm trying to think logically. For anyone un-familiar with the Bond franchise, this table would have been perfect. It gathers all of the necessary information and puts it all in one place. It's nothing like any existing table. The "box office" table below (which Betty Logan is drawing comparisons to and claiming it's "virtually identical", which, by the way, it isn't) is far to convoluted. I don't really know what's going on with the merging rows, sorry. I can see it perfectly fine on my phone AND on my computer - not really sure what you mean. If anything, the multiple tables further down in the article are difficult to read/understand for mobile users; due to their excessive sizes which requires much scrolling up/down and across which is awkward. 109.151.166.132 (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... so it's your personal preference then - and based on what you consider to be logical, which may not be the best measure. (In comparison, the current tables in their current format have been there for knocking five years, have been through the community-consensus process of FLC and have lasted this time without complaint, criticism or attempts to add a suggested "perfect" table). No, the suggested table is not "perfect", and yes, it's very, very much like existing tables, and therefore redundant. In terms of the merging of rows, I've already explained that it's a question of failing WP:ACCESS. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks that that table looks far better than the existing one...? 86.136.195.79 (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Back again? It looks that way. – SchroCat (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Addition of the infobox

I have reverted the addition of the infobox for several reasons:

1. The infobox looks like an incomprehensible mess with all those names and numbers. It is not clear which person worked on which films.
2. This is even the wrong article for this information. This list just covers some statistical stuff. The production background for the series is at James Bond in film, and the management of the production crew data is far more effectively managed at James_Bond_in_film#Core_crew. When you are dealing with 26 films trying to stuff all that information into an infobox is diabolical.

This list is Featured rated and major structural alterations should be discussed beforehand. Betty Logan (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• I agree: an awful addition that is utterly confusing. IBs are not compulsory on articles, and are at their best when they help readers or add information. They are at their worst in cases like this - when more questions are raised than answered and when people are left bewildered and confused bu what was being considered. - SchroCat (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Betty Logan, I am sorry for my actions of editing the List of Bond Films article and on your talk page which is why I attempted to create my own article. Can you please review it and see if you'll accept it or decline it (LINK:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_Bond_007_(Film_Series). I talked to a person named Robert McClenon and he told me to consult to you about my article and if you agree with his idea to merge my info from my article to the James Bond Filmography article or if you disagree and my article info should not be put onto other articles. So please go to the link in parentheses to review it and choose your decision. Thanks (Mi600740 (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC))

About the page I edited and apology

I am sorry for adding an infobox and for interfering with your talk page , you told me it was diabolical and unnecessary where in my perspective was quite the opposite. All was I trying to do was to update the page so the facts are updated to this year and make a positive contribution to wikipedia. I am a 007 fan and an expert on 007 (James Bond) and the movies who got carried away and got provoked. Now, I feel spympathy for my actions. Where can I to put my updates for the Bond Franchise on Wikipedia especially for the grosses adjusted to 2015 inflation so the whole world will see without interfering with another article? Also, why can franchises on here such as Mission Impossible or The Fast and Furious have infoboxes, but Bond can't? (Mi600740 (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC))

If you, User:Mi600740, can develop a properly formatted infobox in draft space, I think that the other editors would be willing to include it. (They appear to be being reasonable. They just don't like to see ugly formatting.) It appears that they are saying that your infobox was not properly formatted. To repeat what I said on my talk page, submitting your own article with mostly the same content, which is a POV fork, is not acceptable, and neither I nor anyone else will assist you in developing a separate competing article. Either work collaboratively with the other editors, or at least use one of the dispute resolution mechanisms, such as moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard or a Request for Comments. As I said to you, Mi600740, if you are Mi600740 editing logged out, the reason why other editors have not been nice to you is that you have not been nice to them, and you had to be cautioned by an administrator for being combative. Now work with the editors collaboratively. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry Robert McCleon for not using the dispute mechanisms. That typing from (About the page I edited section) was from a couple of days before, not today. I thought you would be on your own talk page, not on this article. Those words up there with that IP address was from a couple days ago, which was from the past. That was before I had this long conversation with you and before I created a draft article. I'm now upset and sad :(. I tried to reason with them on the Addition of the infobox section which she could choose her decision, which basically means if she declines then she declines the draft and if she recommends me to merge the info and gives me permission then I can freely without her or other editors undoing my changes which doesn't mean to say she'll be supporting me. (Mi600740 (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC))

It depends if the IB is useful or not. They are often not very useful on list articles as they only repeat the contents of the rest of the page but don't add any layers of help or understanding. However if you want to provide,one in your sandbox I'll happily look at it with an open mind for consideration. – SchroCat (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I have nothing against infoboxes, but as SchroCat states above we only add them if they serve a purpose. Lists generally don't include infoboxes because they would tabulate information which is already tabulated into list format. The other point in regards to the infobox, is that it included a mass of information beyond the scope of this article. This list specifically supplies statistical information such as box office and critic ratings; it does cover the production background (such as the editing/music/writing etc) of the films. The James Bond articles are compartmentalized, and the production side is covered at James Bond in film. Furthermore, the production crew is documented in a table at James_Bond_in_film#Core_crew which is far better organized than an infobox can be. As for the inflation adjusted figures, the figures are adjusted to 2005 because that is the year index the credited source uses. This article is regularly maintained and if we honestly thought it was really in the best interests of the article to remove sourced figures and work out our own and add them in their place we would have done that by now. Inflation for the James Bond series is difficult because the films had multiple reissues during the 1960s and 1970s which complicates matters. It is far less complicated to take the sourced 2005 figures and adjust the recent films to 2005 levels, since that bypasses the reissue problem and minimizes the number of our own inflation adjustments i.e. 2 films as opposed to 22. Ultimately it doesn't matter which index year is used, because the goal is to provide a level playing field for the purposes of comparison. If we can find a more recent set of adjusted figures that would be fantastic, but in the absence of such a source the current approach sidesteps potential WP:OR issues. Betty Logan (talk) 10:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

That's why I had put my Bond info onto my user page. I also have all the 2015 caucluation of all the individual films' box office's and cauculated them by using a wedsite called calculator.net to do so and the answers were pretty accrate so I already adjusted all the figure for you. All you have to do was for ex:

If I wanted to calculate the current price of a 1965 film that grossed $20,000,000 , I would go to the calculator website and I would see something like this:
                         $ ______ in (the year film was made) = $ in 2015
                          Calculate Button with and arrow adjacent to it

I would input the 20 Million dollars into the blank and press the Calculate Button to get the resulting answer. I will be expecting to see this:

Result $20000000 in 1965 has the same purchasing power as $152,885,917.85 in 2015.

                       $20,000,000 in 1965 = $152,885,917

And I did the same for each individual Bond Films and on the bottom of the calculation bar where you see Historical Inflation Rate (CPI) for U.S. , tells you the inflation rates for each year so you know you're getting a accurate approximation.

So go to my User:MI600740 page and go to calculator.net to see for yourself and to comape my box offies on the user page(only for the individual films)

(talk) 05:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC))

You are not reading what I wrote. If a film has a release in 1965, and is re-released in 1968, 1970, and 1972 (as Thunderball was) then you cannot adjust it just using a 1965 index. You have to adjust each component by the applicable index. Your methodology is flawed. We can directly source the adjusted grosses for all the films except the last two, so it makes much more sense to adjust the grosses for the last two (which did not have reissues) to 2005 levels. Doing it this way also minimises the number of calculations performed by users since we only perform calculations on two films rather than 23. If you can find a reputable source which provides a more up to date set of inflation adjustments then by all means add it to the article, but obviously we are not going to let you bung a load of WP:Original research into the article. Betty Logan (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The methodology is further flawed because running the calculation using different online inflation calculators produces different results.

Inflation calcuation: $20000000 in 1965 has the same purchasing power as $____ in 2015?

• http://www.calculator.net/inflation-calculator.html?cstartingamount1=20000000&cinyear1=1965&coutyear1=2015&calctype=1&x=73&y=13

Result: $152,885,917.85

• http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

Result: $150,689,523.81

• http://www.coinnews.net/tools/cpi-inflation-calculator/

Result: $150,689,523.81

• http://www.halfhill.com/inflation_js.html

Result: $153,507,216.21

• http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm

Result: $150,520,512.82

• http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm ← Note that this is the US Bureau of Labor Statistics website

Result: Error: Please use values less than 10,000,000

So what would we do in this case? Choose whatever number is consistent with our POVs? Average them all together? Blecch! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they may not be all that accurate but I can ensure you that those calculations are approximately close to each other except for one of them, so that means the calculations from 2005 are not exactly accurate as well and both of our methods are flawed. Nothing is perfect in this world, even if there's proof, I could also ensure you that. That's also why I got my own article on the James Bond Wiki with my own calculations so you guys don't have to nag at me for everything that I do on wikipedia. Also I went to that last link which told me it can put in values less that 10 million dollars which doesn't mean I am wrong, it just means that particular calculator can only allow a certain amount of digits to be transferred whilst the others can allow to enter in many digits that exceed 10,000,000 so it has nothing to do with film grosses. Also where did you guys get you 2005 calculations from anyway? I just don't even know why Betty Logan,SchroCat(I'm giving you another chance),Cyphoidbomb you're all just ignorant to other people's edits especially mines because 'oh I don't have any sources' or 'it's a copyright violation' you're all just like the Wikipedia Police Force ( trying to take down other peoples edits by a click of a button) when you even know Wikipedia isn't even a trustworthy site just like a blog or a website of articles. I prefer to have my article and my stuff on the James Bond Wikia instead because they appreciate my work more than you guys do and I also have 2 Wikias that I've created and own myself. (Mi600740 (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC))

And also SchroCat, if you want take a look at the draft, you can see it and decide if approve of it. Here's the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_Bond_007_(Film_Series) (Mi600740 (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC))

I've seen it already and, frankly, there is nothing in there that should be in this article. Bluntly, the draft copy is full of errors, poorly put together, doesn't have a focus, is inconsistent in what it includes and what it excludes, and is in pretty much every way inferior to the page we have here. Those who have commented here are not the "Wikipedia police", but yes, we do insist on the use of reliable sources because without them the articles are open to errors. If you prefer to have your own article, then Wikipedia is not the place for you: no-one has an article here – they are owned by the Wikimedia foundation and are subject to change or deletion by any other editor, based on the consensus of those who chose to comment on it. – SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You are very insulting and mean I'm not a college graduate or a doctorate or someone who's a businessman, I am a highschool student, learning like an intern. Why do you even try to enforce the Wikipedia Media Foundation rules if english teachers and educated people know for a fact that this site isn't trustworthy. You telling me I'm inferior now and unintelligent, how rude of you. I gave you a chance and you blew it! You are just like a careless ignorant soul along with Betty Logan and the rest of the critics. I am a fan of 007 and you insult me this way. Now I am very angry. I will ask you this question and you better answer it. Have you ever heard of wikia, home of the fandom? (James Bond Wiki, Wookieepedia etc.).

(Mi600740 (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC))

Several people have tried to explain things to you and you have not taken it on board. I have tried to avoid being rude, but yes, I have been blunt. Sometimes the best path to take is to tell someone that what they have written is not good enough. I have not said you are either inferior or unintelligent, but I have said that what you have written is not very good. That is my honest and dispassionate view of the draft article. If you want me to go through it line by line and highlight exactly what is wrong I can do that, but I suspect that you will not be happy with what I will say there either. – SchroCat (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Have any of you have heard of Wikia, Home of the fandom? Does wikipedia own wikia? Mi600740 (talk) 00:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not know, but I doubt it. You will have to look into the "about us" page (or silimar) on Wikia to find out who owns it and what their standards are. - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Never say never again

So, where is the title Never say never again? Such a list with such an error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.222.120.196 (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

List_of_James_Bond_films#Non-Eon_films. Betty Logan (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Request - Tables

The current tables for the box office and critical reception of these movies is unfathomable. Compare the existing table to this/these tables on the Marvel Cinematic Universe franchise page. Look at how much better formatted it as and how much easier it is to understand. The tables on this page are messy and contain information that shouldn't be a part of them. Like, who cares about the salary of the Bond actor? Why is that listed along side the box office numbers? Why, on the subject of them, are not as clear as they would be if they were listed as a full number with the £ sign. I also think the accolades should be separated from the critical reception for now - like every other major movie franchise on Wikipedia is displayed as. Sorry for ranting, but I'm only trying to make this page an easier page to reference and look at - without having to decipher the meanings of these tables yourself. 86.173.90.142 (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks perfectly fathomable to me. You have the box offfice, budget and salary both adjusted and unadjusted. What exactly are you having a problem understanding? And it is not necessary to have the monetary unit listed in every single entry. The reason the salary is included is because it is a piece of financial information that is widely reported in relation to the Bond movies. As for the reception, the only tangible difference here is that the table includes Cinemascore grades and awards too, and my question here is why doesn't the MCU version include this important information as well? Many readers will be interested in knowing which awards these films have won. Betty Logan (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying the awards shouldn't be included at all, I just think having them separated from the critical reception would make everything clearer and more simplistic. I presume it looks perfectly fathomable to you because you have been on this article for a long time and seen it enough times to understand it; whereas for me - and other people who use Wikipedia to search for things and learn things - would have a much easier time if everything was presented much more formally and tidily. The omission of certain things such as the Bond actor (which can easily be found elsewhere on the page) within the box office table would allow more room for other things, such as the official monetary unit. You say it's not necessary but why? That's how people use money. That's what money is. You want a full figure (as best that you can) to match with other articles displaying similar information - it's what people are used to. 86.173.90.142 (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Back again, I see. Several points raised here, so let me see if I can cover as much as I can. The monetary unit: that's not the way the MoS prescribes how we do things (and it's common—possibly the usual—way of approaching financial figures), so we wouldn't change the that. Bond salary: I think having the rise and reset of the Bond salary alongside the film's rise and reset of the box office is an interesting point to compare. Sure, others may disagree, but I've not seen any good reasons why we need to remove it. If you have a good reason, I'm not sure I picked it up. No, that won't be in the Marvel tables, because with multiple high value stars in bloated-budget pictures it loses meaning. The Bond films are a one-star (occasionally a second) vehicle, and as the main part they take the largest salary, which is,why we show it. Awards and accolades together in a table? I don't see the problem there: it shown critical responses both in a bald (and misleading) figure, and in comparison with other films (which is what the awards vs nomination actually show). – SchroCat (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Back again? I only responded to the person who replied. And fair enough, your points make sense. I just think something needs to happen to make the tables clearer (predominantly the box office table). Better formatting? I don't know. This is literally me making suggestions for ways to improve this page for the actual people who view Wikipedia (which is what it's designed for). It's very difficult to compare values with so much going on in that table (as well as the critical reception box). No matter how big your screen is, it's very difficult to quickly compare the ratings for each movie at a quick glace. 86.173.90.142 (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Character/actor table

An editor has twice added a character/actor table to the article: [1]. This is completely redundnant and is essentially an unnecessary watered down version of the table at List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series. There is absolutely no reason to add a new actor/character table here while the other article exists. Betty Logan (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the merger of non-Eon films in the main tables

I have boldly merged the previously separate two non-Eon Production film entries in the appropriate tables. I know these films are considered sort of illegitimate childs and extraneous to the "canon" Bond series, but consider this:

• This page is a "List of James Bond films", not a "List of James Bond films by producer", and these are James Bond films after all!
• Sortable tables are there for comparisons, and I can't see why these two films should be excluded. On the contrary, they make for a definitely interesting comparison.

I've tried to do things properly: I've kept separate grand totals in the budget and box office table, and added footnotes to highlight the "non-Eon" films. I've also corrected the inflation adjustment template for these two entries. —Cloverleaf II (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of James Bond films. 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/20130523074027/http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1977 to http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1977

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) 10:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Split by decade

The splitting by decade seems rather arbitrary, don't you think? If a split is necessary, surely this would be better served with a split by production era, the Brosnan and Craig films being the most immediately obvious... --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the split is necessary. This was how it looked before Christmas: [2]. The page was "revamped" over Christmas because an editor contended that because the plots were not in a table it wasn't technically a "list". You can read the full discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of James Bond films/archive1. The reason the plots were left out of the table is because on smaller resolutions you could only see two entries at a time. I don't think putting the plots into tables has improved it one bit and I think the list looks too fragmented now. Betty Logan (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Remerged the tables back into one - I agree with you both that the split by decade is arbitrary and nonsensical. I've also returned the plots to the way it was for some time. From skimming over the discussion, one editor didn't like them, everyone else seemed to have a more flexible approach, so there was no real consensus to remove them in the first place. I suspect they will be back to complain at some point. - SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Split Eon and non-Eon plot sections

I see that this edit merged the plot sections of the Eon films with the non-Eon films with the reason being "If the tables merge the films together, these may as well also follow suit". However, while the merge in the tables makes sense in that now someone can compare the fields of different films, the plot sections serves a different porpuse, as it tells the story of James Bond. Having the non-Eon films mixed up gives the impression that the plots of those are connected to the overall story. If there is no objection, I'll return it to the way it was. --Gonnym (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

As there is no "story of James Bond" that arcs over all the films, that is something of a false argument. While some of the films are connected to one or two others - rather loosely in places - and other stand on their own, there is no confusion in having the plots of Eon and non-Eon films side-by-side. - SchroCat (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree that there is no confusing but don't care enough to argue over this. --Gonnym (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Splitting the awards columns into four

I have reverted this good faith edit as it really is unnecessary to split this down. There are several problems with the split, not least of which is when trying to view the table on a mobile device. The rowspans also cause WP:ACCESS confusion for screen readers. - SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you the reason you gave are not a reason to revert the edit.

• Regarding the rowspans, this clearly states that "this criterion is not part of any accessibility referential and has limited impact" and "As of September 2010, the most widely used assistive technologies do support these attributes. For example, JAWS has supported them since JAWS 6.0 (March 2005).". In addition, if it really bothers you that much, you could just remove the rowspans and add the duplicate data.
• Regarding viewing on mobile devices, I've just checked both versions on my Galaxy S4 and both tables will cause the reader to scroll right to view. However, only this table will cause the reader to scroll up and down on the same row in order to view the awards.

In addition to these, the edit I've made allows the sorting of awards, ceremonies and results, which the current tables does not. Please undo your revert as there is no reason for it to have been made. --Gonnym (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

ummm... no. There was no reason for your edit to be made either, and the net result has not been worth the kerfuffle. - SchroCat (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no "kerfuffle" except the one you made up. --Gonnym (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

What an odd comment. Per WP:BRD, please don't revert again. Other people have this page watchlisted and they are welcome to comment on the matter to come to a consensus, without you trying to force your particular view on the page. - SchroCat (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You gave two reasons for your revert, both of which I showed you are false. You do not want to discuss, but your action smells of WP:OWN --Gonnym (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering when the petulance would come up with an OWN accusation. I suggest you wait for others to comment on this (as I will) before you drive the conversation even further into the gutter. - SchroCat (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• I've reverted to the status quo while discussion takes place. Please don't revert again until a consensus is reached. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the reasons given for the revert here, were not a factor in these FL articles which use the same layout and the use of rowspans (this is just a small example of FL that use this) - List of accolades received by The Avengers (2012 film), List of awards and nominations received by Priyanka Chopra, List of awards and nominations received by Amy Adams --Gonnym (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• As a former FLC delegate until October last year, I am aware of the state of play of FLs. As I have said before, I see little/no benefit to this proposed change, which makes the table even wider than it was before. I am happy to hear comments from other editors. - SchroCat (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Does it really make it wider though? It has the same data, and while you can argue that splitting it into 4 columns instead of 1 should make it wider, in doing so, I've also been able to remove the "at the" words and was able to reduce the "<Award> Award for" ("Golden Globe Award for") since the context was much more understandable, reducing the size of the table. So I'm not really sure it really was wider.--Gonnym (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's wider. And... confusing too. Look at the current version for Skyfall: one row of seven cells in which all the information sits. Look at the proposed version: nine rows consisting 32 cells in which the eye has to move up, down, left and right across several columns to get the same information. It's just a confusing mess. - SchroCat (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Just to weigh in here. Both editors clearly broke the 3 reverts rule here. Shame on you both. That said, the revised format is in line with other articles and easier for users to quickly find the info. However, the concern that adding columns makes the chart too wide is legitimate. There is no need to have a whole separate column for references. The reference can be included in another column. As editors our job is to find a consensus that satisfies everyone and sometimes that includes being willing to compromise. Let's all work together to find a compromise. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Neither of us "broke the 3 reverts rule".

wp:ose is not a good basis for selecting a sub-par confusion of an excessive number of cells that causes confusion. - SchroCat (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Between the two tables I regard the long-standing version as the superior format for this particular table. I have no problem with awards tables—I support the one at Skyfall#Accolades and would oppose any effort to bundle all the data into one column—but this is not an awards table, it is a reception table and the overhauled version looks like two tables clumped together. In the proposed version each aggregator has a dedicated column and then four columns are dedicated to the awards which IMO unbalances the table. It even has its own reference column which is inconsistent with how references are handled in the rest of the table. It looks betwixt and between, and if the consensus really is to have four columns to handle the awards then perhaps it would be better to just commit to the decision and split the section into two tables, one for the aggregators and one for the awards. However, that raises a different question: are readers benefitted by turning a single column into a whole new table? With just one table a reader scan across and see how a particular film was received at the times i.e. what the critics though, what it won etc, without having to scroll up and down. Betty Logan (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of James Bond films. 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://archive.is/20130414233741/http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1963 to http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1963
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120722081234/http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1964 to http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1964
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130414210923/http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1969 to http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1969

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) 10:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of James Bond films. 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://archive.is/20130415020047/http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1997 to http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1997
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130414235034/http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/2002 to http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/2002
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130415034920/http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1985 to http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1985
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130414215748/http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1981 to http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1981
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130415015521/http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/2013 to http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/2013

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) 09:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Box office and budget chart

Two questions about this chart. First, why are the inflation-adjusted values locked at 2005? That's now 13 years ago, and seems particularly outdated. And, considering that films have been released since that date, it's particularly inappropriate to use since inflation doesn't really work in reverse like that. This really needs to be updated to the current year, or else it's useless false information.

Second, is the salary of the person playing Bond appropriate? There's far too few sources included anyway, but it also just seems like a strangely trivial thing to include. Sure, Connery's salary demands for Diamonds Are Forever are notable, and that's mentioned in that article where it's important, but random, unsourced numbers are pointless.

I would be bold and make these changes, but I wanted to see if there were particular reasons first. oknazevad (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Inflation can work in either direction. You can either inflate to a more recent date or deflate to an earlier date. What matters here is that the comparative scale is the same. You could use 2005, 2015 or 1965, it really doesn't matter i.e. Skyfall has earned roughly twice as much as Die Another Day regardless of the base year. The reason that 2005 is used specifically is because that is the year the source uses. The problem with using Wikipedia's built-in inflator is that the earlier films of the 60s and 70s had multiple releases. Dr No for instance made the majority of its gross from reissues, so to adjust the grosses for the earlier films you would have to adjust the gross for each year it was released. For example, if you adjust Gone with the Wind's gross from 1939 money values it would vastly overestimate the gross because the dollars from the 1967 release should only be adjusted from 1967 and not 1939. For us it is much easier to deflate back to 2005 dollars, which is the base year the book uses. It also has the added advantage that it keeps WP:Original research to a bare minimum. As for the salaries of the various actors, I don't know where you get the idea they are "random" and "unsourced". They are not random if that is what the actors were paid, and every figure is sourced to the best of my knowledge. I don't agree they are trivial either: the salaries of the actors have received a lot of secondary coverage over the years, so it would appear to be information that is noteworthy. Betty Logan (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

While I see your point about re-issues, it's actually incorrect that one can deflate like that, as it doesn't reflect actual adjustments to costs of living and real-wage value changes. Inflation is funny like that, because it is truly time dependent; it doesn't exist if no time passes, so a 2018 dollar is not the same as a 1962 dollar in more than just relative value terms. Or, in other words, while time's arrow can be reversed to backtrack an inflation-adjusted money value to its original unadjusted value (that is, take a adjusted-for-2005 value and figure out the unadjusted value Colton 1983), it cannot actually be used to reverse a money value to a date earlier than when it was generated in the first place; to do that is a simplistic reduction that is actually inaccurate. We'd be better off getting the grosses from each release of the multiply released films and adjusting them individually then adding them, which is a lot of work. Or we could keep it simple by just taking those already-adjusted-and-summed 2005 figures and adjusting them further to 2018 values, which would not be original research because that is a routine calculation. In other words, the source already did the hard work of the individual adjustments and summation, and we're just moving up to now. That would be a valid use of the inflation template, as all the grosses of the films are from before today.

As for the Bond salaries, I must be missing something, because I don't see sources for the vast majority of those figures. So either they're unsourced, or the citation style is so opaque as to be useless. Doesn't change my view that it's not really needed here, anyway. I don't see how it helps understand the financial success of the films (the purpose of such charts) to have that info here.oknazevad (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a qualified economist but I see no issue in deflating monetary amounts. Basically the CPI is just an index of relative value so from a layman's perspective I see no inherent reason why you can't deflate. Both the MeasuringWorth calculator and the calculator at Bureau of Labor Statistics allow deflation. But like I said, I don't understand enough about the base issues to argue this from a position of authority. That said, your alternative suggestion of inflating the 2005 figures from the book seems like a credible compromise to me, and I would be ok with that. It would take a lot of effort tracking down indvidual release grosses because Box Office Mojo is very patchy when it comes to pre-1980 data. The sources for all the data in the table are in the citations next to the "Actual column". Extra sources are provided in the table in the cases where the three books don't provide it. If you think that is not clear enough then by all means add clarity, but all the data in the table is sourced. The reason there are three sources is that there are discrepancies in the grosses between different sources (see the comparison at User:Betty_Logan/Sandbox#Bond_grosses). The salaries themselves are from the Block & Autrey book (citation 19—which incidentally provides the adjusted 2005 figures). The sourcing for them isn't an issue; I have the book in my possession and can provide a scan if you want further corroboration. Betty Logan (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think inflating from the 2005 figure is the best way to go. It avoids confusion (such as that found at Talk:List of Star Wars films and television series that lead me to ask this question) while still being based on solid sourcing and routine caluslation.

While the sourcing for the salaries does seem pretty solid (not having the book in question I'm trusting in your experience as an editor, but I know you know what you're doing), but it still seems like a misplaced item on that chart.oknazevad (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I can assure you I take sourcing very seriously (please see Special:Permalink/820251196#Need an admin to oversee an AfD case & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 1971 box office number-one films in the United States for recent evidence of this). I still think the salary data is interesting (as a Bond fan and a statistician!) but if you think it is a poor fit here then perhaps the adjusted salary figures could be added as an extra column at James Bond filmography where the nominal figures are also housed? Betty Logan (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd think that's a better choice. Or at James Bond in film, which is largely about the real-world production aspects. Though I am beginning to wonder about the need for all three articles. Seems like the readers might be better served by not having an atritcld that consists of almost nothing but redundant plot summaries, when they can read the ones at the individual film articles. But I tend not to like repeating things across multiple articles too much. oknazevad (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Box Office Table

The table is hideous and is not clear at all. I only edited it because I was with someone in real life who was looking at this page and took one look at the box office table and said "well that's a f*cking mess". So I decided to come and switch it up. If my version was bad, can someone revamp the table and create a new one? The formatting of the numbers goes against every other box-office figure on Wikipedia. It's much easier for people to read "$1,108,600,000" than "1108.6" if you just want a glace at the table. Either way, the current one must go. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• "must go"? Not really. It's the same format of figures as has been present since 2011, and you are the first person to have an issue with it to the best of my recollection. Having "$1,108,600,000" is just a poor way of expressing the amounts, and goes against the MoS guidelines. - SchroCat (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

  I agree with SchroCat here. I can't say this is an improvement. The current version is less cluttered; we really don't need the word "million" repeatedly written throughout the table and it is quite common to just have the unit at the top of the column. Also, having a consistent scale throughout the whole of the table makes a lot of sense to me. Incidentally, the approach taken by this list is the exact same approach the British Film Institue takes in presenting its numerical box-office data. I also don't think comparisons to other articles serve much purpose either; the Bond films are a long-running series and the precision that is available for many recent films is simply not available for films of the 60s and 70s and the article must allow for this. Betty Logan (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

How many people do you actually think visit this page and don't even bother looking at the table? No one comments on it like me because why should they? Real people look at this page on a regular basis. Just because you editors think it's fine, doesn't mean it is. And you just said it's been here since 2011. Have you ever looked back at certain articles in 2011? They look shockingly awful compared to now - 7 years later. Wikipedia has moved into 2018 but this page has stayed in 2011. The table NEEDS revamping. To be brutally honest, the whole James Bond films pages are cluttered messes anyway and you all know it. I only started editing pages because I was a frequent user of the site anyway and noticed many problems on pages which needed fixing for the average user. I'm not saying my table is the best, but look at any box office section on any other franchise table. You must be blind if you can't see how drastically inferior the Bond box is. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

You're right: your table isn't the best, and it breaches the MoS formatting requirements. As this is a Featured List it has to stay in line with the requirements, regardless of whether there has only been one person over seven years who doesn't like it. As you're a new user I'll give you some very good advice about interactions with others: please try not to personalise discussions by telling people "You must be blind if you can't see...". This only ever gets people's backs up and many editors will bite back at such attempts to somehow beat your opinion over their heads. De gustibus and all that; I'm sure you understand. - SchroCat (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I apologise. It's frustrating when people are so conservative and stick to the "it's always been like that" mentality. I've accepted that my suggestions aren't gonna make any change. I feel like I represent the casual viewer. This page is complete shite. That's my opinion. I will leave now and not come back - you'll be pleased to know. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Again... please do not try and personalise the argument. "Comment on the edit, not the editor" is a rule of thumb people need to learn fast. As I've said more than once, your proposed version fails the MoS formatting requirements. - SchroCat (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I was planning to leave. "If my version was bad, can someone revamp the table and create a new one?" I'm not saying my version is good. I'm just asking for the existing table to be changed. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

You haven't actually said what is wrong with it. All you did was fill the columns with the word "million" which is redundant and make the precision inconsistent. These are not improvements. Betty Logan (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

That's very clearly not what I did. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It is exactly what you did: [3]. Betty Logan (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? You just said "All you did was fill the columns with the word "million" which is redundant and make the precision inconsistent.". That is an incorrect statement. It's not all I did. I removed the n/a cells and made them blank, added tags, condensed the text, sorted out the footnotes etc. There's also errors with brackets still in the table. It's all very haphazard if you look closely. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I apoologise, I overlooked some of the more subtle alterations, but to be fair my criticism of the more drastic ones still stand. I certainly don't have a problem with greying out unused cells, and moving some of the text to notes seems reasonable. Maybe what is needed here is a more incremental approach rather than a complete overhaul in a single edit. If the alterations were broken down into more edits it would be easier to follow and accept/reject various edits. Betty Logan (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries - that's the main reason I got annoyed. The entire edit got reverted because just a part of it wasn't liked - meaning everything else was overlooked. Looking back I have been a bit of an arse so I'm sorry about that...Hopefully something positive can come out of it. Probably best if I disappear now. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I would leave the text in place in the table cells, because it directly affects the figure (if we're talking about the Bond actor salary). "0.8 + 25% net merchandise royalty" is more readily understandable and accepted than having "+ 25% net merchandise royalty" shoved away in a footnote. People often miss footnotes (there are many who think it's just connected to the sourcing of a topic and don't bother reading them), so if something fundamentally connected to the figure is missed out, we give an entirely misleading impression of the package on received. - SchroCat (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I do agree with you about the relevance of the information, but there are other alternatives to notes. When I overhauled the table at Motion_picture_content_rating_system#Comparison_table I also felt it was important to have further exposition in the table and ended up using hoverboxes which I felt were an elegant compromise between having the information in the table and keeping it neat and tidy. The Australian and Austrian entries have some good examples. What do you think about deploying hoverboxes here? Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I thought I remembered reading that hoverboxes failed the WP:ACCESS requirements (although I could well be mistaken on that), as the small indication of 'extra info' isn't clearly visible. I'll have a check to see what it's like on a mobile shortly too. If I'm wrong on the access point, then it could be a possibility, although I think again it removes core information from the cell: the "+ 25% net merchandise royalty" is as important to the overall total as the 0.8. - SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

To be perfectly blunt here, it really isn't that much of an issue with me. The article has been on my watchlist for years and personally I have never had a problem with it. That said, I have always been willing to consider other options when other editors do raise concerns, which is all I am doing here. Betty Logan (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)