Talk:James Bond/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions about James Bond. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Strengths of Connery, Moore, etc
I think this could add a lot to the article, and we can just have an easy-going, well-referenced discussion. Connery had more of a sparse manner, Roger Moore, acted with more of a sense of style, and both are good and valid acting methods. And to name two movies, I thoroughly enjoyed both THUNDERBALL and THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN. FriendlyRiverOtter 21:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think that would be more suited for a bond forum. The article should really contain fact-based information rather than a discussion. Theblinddevil 01:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am a polite rebel, and I ask to be accepted as a polite rebel. I want real discussions, and it seems to me that most other people want tame, timid discussions (but perhaps not you! please understand that I am using the generic ‘you’). Connery vs. Moore, that is a fun discussion and I don’t see anything wrong with it. But if you want a meaty, intellectual discussion, how about: ‘To what extent did James Bond movies reflect the assumptions of the Cold War, and to what extent, as widely-watched movies, did they feed into the assumptions of the Cold War?’ Or, ‘As one of the longest-running series, what has made them work artistically?’
- Those would indeed be full-bodied discussions. If someone says that would not be “neutral,” I will say that you are letting some cardboard notion of “neutrality” truncate a meaningful project. What is the rule that an encyclopedia must only be dull, dry facts that lie flat on the surface?
- If our topic were the Great Depression, the prime questions would be, What were the causes, What were the cures? Right? And by their very nature, these questions cannot be answered completely, but they are still highly meaningful. Good history pursues such difficult, ambiguous subjects.
- So, instead of “neutrality,” I suggest a standard of intellectual honesty. For example, I think the biggest, best Bond films were the 1970s ones with Roger Moore, but if I run across a really good website arguing that the mid-Connery films were the best, I ought to at least include a link here on the discussion page. Kind of fair play, telling someone what you know, even when it works against your current cause, a feeling of respect, that you have the right to know the full spectrum of the facts.
- Let’s suppose that I wrote a piece arguing that for splashiness, theme, locales, sexiness, strategic action at the end, etc, etc, that THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN was the best Bond film of all. Now can I include a link on our main article page to my own writing elsewhere on the web? I tend to think not, because it would be self-referential in a not very good way. The better alternative would be for me to talk it up here on the discussion page, fully acknowledging that I wrote it. Then if I can get someone to include it on the article page, it’s more of a peer-reviewed type of thing. (By the way, I freely acknowledge that one reason I like this movie so much is because I was twelve years old when I saw it! I mean, it just at the beginning stirrings of my adolescence.)
- I am well aware that wikipedia has certain rules (believe me I am aware!). However, we can look at them as either static or as part of an evolving process. I ask you to consider the latter. And I ask all of you, please, by all means, do your best work, pursue your most promising intellectual projects, without letting artificial constraints hold you back. FriendlyRiverOtter 01:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Characters By Film
As there are already Bond allies and Bond henchmen by film, I was thinking that the Bond girls should go by film and the villains go into the henchmen ny film page. I know that Bond girls and villains are importanter than allies or henchmen but most of the pages are short, such as Pussy Galore, Jinx, Molly Warmflash, General Koskov. Although some villains are long such as Scaramanga and Auric Goldfinger so ... SpecialWindler 06:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Such as ...
SpecialWindler 22:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
SpecialWindler 10:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I say keep the template with each Bond Girl seperately. Who wants to go through a list of at the most two Bond Girls per film? Seems redundant. Just better to let them have their own page and be listed on the template individually instead of by "List of BG 'film'". Bond villains and Allies can be many per film, but Bond Girls are far fewer. Take Casino Royale, there are only 2 Bond Girls yet atleast 5 villains (Chiffre, White, Dimitrios, Gettler, that guy at Miami Airport) and atleast 3 or 4 allies (Mathis, Felix, that guy in Madagascar). Obviously those are much more than 2 Bond Girls. El Greco 00:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, but whats the point of having small articles such as Solange (James Bond), Moly Warmflash, (the countess from fyeo), and other ones. The longest Bond article is Vesper Lynd, yet basically it is not extra long with Solange and Vesper put together, others are the same. It basically because there are articles that are too short, although some are long (vesper, Tracy Bond and Pussy Galore (James Bond), most are short even very main bond girls like Honey Ryder, Jinx and Christmas Jones or Wai Lin. Most pages are very short. (Note most of these pages i linked go to their corresponding girl by film page) SpecialWindler 04:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- What if a character appears in a book but not the movie? These were made highly out of process, and they each should have their own page.. EnsRedShirt 07:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have added a novel part to the top of the "List of James Bond girls in (DN,FRWL,GF,TB,YOLT,OHMSS,DAF,LALD,TMWTGG,TSWLM,MR,FYEO,OCT,AVTAK,TLD and CR). This allows characters from the novels to be added to the pages. I will also add a novel part to the intros of all the pages in Allies and Henchmen. I did not change LTK,GE,TND,TWINE,DAD because they are original stories. I think due to the shortness of each Bond girl page they should be joined. The Vesper Lynd page is the longest Bond girl page out of the 40 odd girls. Now that averages 2 Bond girls per film page, but it gets rid of small (not important) Bond girl articles including Patricia Fearing, Plenty O'Toole, Corinne Dufour, Bibi Dahl, that countess from fyeo, Pola Ivanova, Dr. Molly Warmflash, to be joined. But this way more Bond girls can be added such as Liz from TLD, that peaceful fountains from DAD etc.. SpecialWindler 08:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- And exactly who are you to define who is and who is not a bond girl? EnsRedShirt 09:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I must state that it is easy to define a Bond girl, first there is a list at Bond girls and any girl in a Bond film that romantically gestures with Commander James Bond, is considered a Bond girl (though I don't know why they consider Valenka of Casino Royale a bond girl). SpecialWindler 10:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- And exactly who are you to define who is and who is not a bond girl? EnsRedShirt 09:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have added a novel part to the top of the "List of James Bond girls in (DN,FRWL,GF,TB,YOLT,OHMSS,DAF,LALD,TMWTGG,TSWLM,MR,FYEO,OCT,AVTAK,TLD and CR). This allows characters from the novels to be added to the pages. I will also add a novel part to the intros of all the pages in Allies and Henchmen. I did not change LTK,GE,TND,TWINE,DAD because they are original stories. I think due to the shortness of each Bond girl page they should be joined. The Vesper Lynd page is the longest Bond girl page out of the 40 odd girls. Now that averages 2 Bond girls per film page, but it gets rid of small (not important) Bond girl articles including Patricia Fearing, Plenty O'Toole, Corinne Dufour, Bibi Dahl, that countess from fyeo, Pola Ivanova, Dr. Molly Warmflash, to be joined. But this way more Bond girls can be added such as Liz from TLD, that peaceful fountains from DAD etc.. SpecialWindler 08:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- What if a character appears in a book but not the movie? These were made highly out of process, and they each should have their own page.. EnsRedShirt 07:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, but whats the point of having small articles such as Solange (James Bond), Moly Warmflash, (the countess from fyeo), and other ones. The longest Bond article is Vesper Lynd, yet basically it is not extra long with Solange and Vesper put together, others are the same. It basically because there are articles that are too short, although some are long (vesper, Tracy Bond and Pussy Galore (James Bond), most are short even very main bond girls like Honey Ryder, Jinx and Christmas Jones or Wai Lin. Most pages are very short. (Note most of these pages i linked go to their corresponding girl by film page) SpecialWindler 04:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I went back to each indivdual Bond Girls Listings. It's redundant listing them by Film. If there is only one Bond girl in the entire film, what's the point of the list to begin with? A list is useful with many people, not one or two. Look whether or not some of these pages are small is mostly irrelevant (There are other small pages on Wiki), they are not stubs. What we know about the character is in the article, and that's the point. El Greco 14:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, reception to this idea was negative. So, i removed the "List of James Bond girls in XXX" and redirected them all to Bond girl. Minor Bond girls should be moved to "List of James Bond allies in XXX]], such as Dr. Molly Warmflash, but thats my opinion. SpecialWindler 08:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The "James Bond" name
QUESTION: Is the "James Bond" name, the real name of ONE single James Bond character... or is the name an alias that comes with the 007 title that has been adopted by more than one double-0 agent (not at the same time) to protect their real identity ? I know this might be a nerdy question but it would settle a discussion that started in a pub after a few pints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.224.113.189 (talk)
- Not a clue, my friend... never thought of it... xC | ☎ 13:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have a copy of Casino Royale here to watch right now but I think Bond's second kill in the movie refers to him as "Bond" before he has his double-0 status. If so, James Bond would be his "real" name. I say "real" because James Bond may be a pseudonym that he took on when he entered MI-6 to protect his real identity, double-0 or not. Dismas|(talk) 06:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- In that case, Alec Trevalyn would also be a psuedonym.
- But what's the point in protecting James Bond's real identity? James is an orphan, so it's not like Spiderman, where he has a secret-identity to protect his loved ones.
- Also, James has retired several times, and still keeps 'James Bond' as his name. And, I'm pretty sure his wife took on Bond as her last name ; which wouldn't make much sense unless she was planning on being a double-o agent as well. Last, I think they refferred to him as 'Commadore Bond' at his funeral that one time. JimmmyThePiep 23:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course there is only one "James Bond, 007" otherwise why would Roger Moore's Bond visit the grave of George Lazenby's Bond's wife? "James Bond, 007" is one man's name and number NOT a codename given to many diffrent men. (Callum J. Stewart 15:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC))
Please do not use Wikipedia as a forum: the talk page is for discussion as to how to improve the article. Thank you. Alientraveller 15:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
My bad. Apologies. Though, this could potentially help the article. Perhaps a section on the fan controversy surrounding the name and number? (Callum J. Stewart 15:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC))
As long as you can avoid original research. Alientraveller 15:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Whoever asked the question "Is James Bond a codename?", the answer is no. Ever read the Yound Bond novels. He was still James Bond before the OO section was even created and Bond was just a teenager. Emperor001 20:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Bond references in popular culture, namely in music
I was just wondering why in the music section or anywhere in the article it does not mention music references to James Bond, James Bond references are quite common in hip-hop and rock, like in Eric B. and Rakim's song Let the Rythem Hit 'em, it references James Bond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sklar OTHP (talk • contribs) 11 April 2007
What Bond looked like
We have the chance to head the page with something like what Fleming thought his own character looked like (and he does look a bit like Hoagy Carmichael), vs. just a number. But somebody disagrees, so I hereby throw the issue out as a RfC (request for comment) among those who really care (and who have long standing Wikipedia accounts, so you're not sockpuppets). Put your opinions here, please. SBHarris 22:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Number I'd rather have the number because thats the basic logo of 007. Logos normally go up the top, so. the logo is used in all the films (on their covers) and most novels have 007 with a gun after it, though it varys from this logo. SpecialWindler 08:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Bond is not the films, which is where you get the logo. Bond is the books also, which never had it till the films came up with it. Second, logos don't go before pictures of PEOPLE. Even fictional people. Look at the Wikis for Batman and Superman. They both have entirely recognizable logos, but their pictures go first. The only exception I know of is Prince, but that's because the switch of logo for name is his thing. This is certainly not the case for Bond.SBHarris 23:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a collection of pictures of various interpretations of Bond, from the line drawing we have at the moment, Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, Craig, the McLuskey strip Bond &etc would be a good idea. That way all incarnations of Bond can be presented. I dunno, maybe it's just me but the picture we currently have just doesn't scream "James Bond!" the way I think it should. (Callum J. Stewart 13:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC))
- Didn't read the whole article, did you? There is a gallery of Bond actors, later on. Yes, the drawing is a bit of a shock, but it's of interest as to how the author saw Bond, and the public saw Bond, before Sean Connery changed everything. Perhaps here's the place to remind ourselves of this. It DOES look a bit like Hoagy Carmichael, and also a bit like the young Ian Fleming before he smoked himself into premature old-age. I'd love to have a usable early Fleming pic. SBHarris 19:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this discussion is still going, but i'm in favour of Fleming's commissioned image of Bond, as the article does focus on the novels (there is a seperate article for the Bond Films). Theblinddevil 00:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Harris, I DID read the article, and have seen the gallery of Bond actors, but a gallery of Bond actors was not what I suggested. I suggested, if you re-read my initial post, was a gallery of several different interpretations of Bond - the Carmichael-esque line drawing, the 6 "canon" actors, Barry Nelson, the John McLuskey comic strip Bond and any noteable others. (Callum J. Stewart 09:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC))
WikiProject proposal
I have proposed a WikiProject dedicated to James Bond. If you would like to assist with he project, please add your name on the proposal page under 'interested Wikipedians'. Ganfon 21:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
External Links
Mhking, whats your justification for removing around half of the external links?
From the External Links page:
This page in a nutshell: Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article.
I think a few of the links you removed were very appropriate to the article. You may argue that there were too many, but to be fair, i think the number was fine for such a large article and topic. I think they should be restored. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theblinddevil (talk • contribs) 01:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
- "appropriate to the article" in Wikipedia terms means links that add to or go into greater detail than the article. General fansites, blogs and message forums don't normally add to an article and therefore most Wikipedia articles avoid them. - X201 08:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, i get your point, but i was wondering why certain fan sites were included and others wern't, and why a magazine subscription site was considered to be so relevant. Perhaps a more general link to the open directory project would be better. Theblinddevil 12:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
My point was to remove the majority of the fan links; as was noted above, the number of external links should be kept to a minimum. If there are some that are "better" than others, or if there are any that are subscription-only links (I thought I pared away those), then that should be addressed. I had not intended to keep a subscription-only link. I had, however, intended to keep what is at least thought of as the most widely used/referenced fan links. But the number that was there previously was certainly more than should be there (despite the size of the article; the size of the article is not germane to the discussion at hand). If there are fan links that should/shouldn't be there, I'm certainly open to discuss them. However, the number of links should not grow to the prior level. --Mhking 13:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for clearing things up. I have a few suggestions. Although it is mainly a community site, perhaps www.ajb007.co.uk should be re-added to the list, because it is a widely visited site and probably the most popular 007 community. I'm not sure if it will really expand on this article though. I would also like to suggest jamesbondmm.co.uk and 007james.com. Both 007james.com and bondpedia.net have decent content but are still under construction. I think they should both be either added or removed, depending on your opinion of partially completed sites. As for sites to be removed, i think that 007magazine.co.uk should go because it basically just sells subscriptions. Also, i think that youngbonddossier.com should be removed because it is linked to on the Young Bond novel pages, and the topic is barely mentioned on the main 007 page. Here is my proposed fan links section:
- Fan sites
- Theblinddevil 17:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- On the surface, the only ones that I'd disagree with are the Research, Multimedia and Movies sites; this article has to do with the literary Bond. I'm hesitant on anything that is forum-based in any way, shape or form. That reduces the number of fan sites to six, which IMO is a manageable and reasonable number. I've made the appropriate change. I'll be taking a look at the other Bond articles over the next week or so as well (my time is not my own these days - I'm just finishing tax season; I prepare taxes in spare time now -- plus I'm a television producer with the local NBC affiliate, so I spent most of yesterday in one-armed-paper-hanger mode). --Mhking 15:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Whoops. Sorry. I didn't see there was a discussion here. I don't agree with some of the changes to the links. You've deleted 007Magazine (which is an excellent news source and has been around for over 30 years) and The Young Bond Dossier (full disclosure: it's my site, but shouldn't the literary Bond be represented here?) in favor of two sites that are primarily fan forums and who get their news via feeds from the two sites you deleted-? --Zencato 16:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm open to a suggested list. But I agree, that any site that has its source in forums should be removed. In fact, that is noted in WP:EL. The other caveat is that I'd like to keep the number of fan links below 5 if at all possible. Thanks for the heads up. --Mhking 16:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's my suggested links:
- Fan sites
- Absolutely James Bond - (yes, it's a forum, but a major one)
- BondMovies.com
- CommanderBond.net
- 007 Magazine Online
- MI6.co.uk
- Universal Exports - The Home of James Bond, 007
- The Young Bond Dossier
--Zencato 16:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Bondpedia is a 007 based wiki, it is the biggest 007 encyclopedia on the net, if thats not expanding on the article I dont know what is, It should be included. Highfields 17:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Bondpedia would have to get past the Links normally to be avoided guideline on WP:EL, section 12 states "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.". Now I think that Bondpedia passes the stability test but it's user list [1] shows that it only has 32 editors with logins which must mean that all other edits are done by anon IP, does that make it trustworthy enough to state as an external link?. - X201 17:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I have just removed a link someone added to double0section.net, based on the above discussion about not including forum sites (and the fact that it had 0 registered users). Theblinddevil 23:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone (212.32.88.106) has recently re-added 007magazine.co.uk to the fan sites. We haven't come to a consensus on this matter have we? I agree with Zencato that it seems to be a good source for news, but isn't it's main focus the magazine subscriptions?
Zencato, when you said You've deleted...in favor of two sites that are primarily fan forums and who get their news via feeds from the two sites you deleted, which sites were you refering to? (sorry, i lost track) Theblinddevil 17:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it should just be left as it is at this moment in time Highfields 15:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC) (ps. I think somebody may have put 007 Magazine on again shouldn't it have already deleted)
Someone added a link to jamesbondlifestyle.com. I think it should be moved to the James Bond film article, as it discusses items in the films only (as far as i can see anyway). Anyone agree with me? Also, should 007Magazine stay or go?Theblinddevil 00:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone has removed all the fan site links, i think the article has been ripped of a decent and valuable resource for users. I think they should be restored, anyone agree? Theblinddevil 03:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Template Gap
There seems to be a small gap above the james bond actors template. There is no spacing between the other five, so it makes it look out of place. The source seems fine though, i can't see where the gap is coming from, unless it's from the above template. Theblinddevil 17:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed. There was a blank line at the bottom of the themes template. - X201 07:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
stuff
this is some info i just removed from james bond, put it here in case its needed.
Locations
- Both Thunderball (1965) and Casino Royale (2006) were filmed at the casino resort on Paradise Island in the Bahamas.
- The Man With The Golden Gun (1974) was filmed in Bangkok and Phang Nga Bay in Thailand. The island in Pha Nga which is featured in the movie is a popular tourist destination, and has been nicknamed "James Bond Island" due to this association.
Other
- Alice Cooper submitted a song called "Man With the Golden Gun" to the producers of the Bond movie of the same name. After they refused it, the song showed up on Alice's 1974 album, Muscle of Love.
- German disco group Dschinghis Khan performed a song called "James Bond" on their 1982 album Helden, Schurken und der Dudelmoser.[1]
- English rock group Placebo performed a song called "Miss Moneypenny" on their 1997 single "Nancy Boy"
- Swiss rock group Tunnelkid performed a song called "007" on their 2006 album Hang Me Now or Shoot Me Later.
- Swiss rock group Blotch performed a song called "Roger Moore" on their 2004 album Passion, Love and Hurt.
- Desmond Dekker & the Aces had a UK Top 10 hit with the single "007" in 1967.
- On their second album More Specials, released in 1980, The Specials closed side 1 with the track "Sock It To 'Em, J.B." Taking the song title at face value, the obvious musical JB inspiration is James Brown. However as the lyric name checks all the pre-1980 movies, inspiration for the track lies elsewhere.
- Kanye West and Jay-Z collaborate on Diamonds From Sierra Leone, a song about the atrocities in Sierra Leone, but samples the theme from Diamonds Are Forever.
- Two disco versions of the James Bond theme were released: one by the Biddu Orchestra called "James Bond Disco Theme" in 1978, and one by Marvin Hamlisch called "Bond '77" in 1977. The latter was composed for The Spy Who Loved Me.
- First Endeavour Paintball uses the 007 pistol logo on their standard barrels for The Quest Marker.
- Robbie William uses the theme tune to You Only Live Twice in his song "Millenium".
Spoofs
- In the series Austin Powers, Dr. Evil's Evil Organization is a spoof of SPECTRE.
- 00.07 spoofs M with Commander N, SPECTRE with EIEIO, and 007 with 00.07.
- The character "G" from Club Penguin is a less obvious spoof of Q.
- In 'Kentucky Fried Movie' former Bond George Lazenby plays a Bond-like character in a skit within the movie.
- In 'Looney Tunes, Back in Action' former Bond Timothy Dalton plays a Bond-like character.
Signature
Sources
Many of the claims in this article are unsourced. The whole of the "creation and inspiration" section has only 3 sources and many sections have 2 or less sources each. This is probably the biggest obstacle between this article and FA status - • The Giant Puffin • 16:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK, what specifically would you like sources for? Editus 18:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- The Jimmy Neutron' line is far from clear. Also, it would be useful to know the specific episode in which Steed got the note from Mrs. Gale. John Carter 20:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have been taking on the task of citing sources for the sections that have the no source tag at the top. When I have finished, I feel it will be time to give this puppy a FA nom. Ganfon 20:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have added sources to each of the sections that once had the 'no sources' banner. All banners have been removed following the additions. I plan to nominate after some generalized cleaning. Ganfon 21:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have been taking on the task of citing sources for the sections that have the no source tag at the top. When I have finished, I feel it will be time to give this puppy a FA nom. Ganfon 20:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- The Jimmy Neutron' line is far from clear. Also, it would be useful to know the specific episode in which Steed got the note from Mrs. Gale. John Carter 20:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Misleading?
Is it just me or is this a misleading sentence: "In addition there are two independent productions and one Fleming-licenced American television adaptation of the first novel." This seems to suggest that there are two independant productions of "Casino Royale" (ie "the first novel") in addition to the American TV adap. Callum J. Stewart 13:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I've fixed this and added piped links to the articles for both the TV adaptation and the spoof. Editus 16:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Editus, but you forgot that there are TWO independant Bond movies - the spoof and "Never Say Never Again." I've added a note about Never Say Never Again and added a link. Callum J. Stewart 09:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Lead Sentence
"Photos of film actors who have played Bond are posted later in the article; the beginning here is the actual beginning in the author's imagination." I think this sentence would be more appropriate here on the talk page; it's very clunky as the first thing you read in the article.--Trystan 15:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It's more than clunky. It's crap - and it's gone. (Callum J. Stewart 21:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC))
007 logo
I just noticed that this Image:007.svg 007 logo is up for deletion because it's orphaned. Enthousiastic JB editors might think about incorperating it somehow. Seems a waste to delete this. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
"Third highest amount of sequels"
Where did that statistic come from? What about series like Zatoichi? That's just off the top of my head - I'm sure some film students could come up with more. Jimmysholes 19:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC) I looked back through some archived "discussion" and this was indeed brought up before when the Bond series was apparently listed as having the second highest amount of sequels. There were also many more examples thrown out besides Zatoichi...I would recommend just taking that sentence out entirely, as it's clearly false. Jimmysholes 19:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Dusko Popov as inspiration for James Bond?
Other than Dusko Popov claiming that he was Flemming's Inspiration for James Bond, are there any sources or citations for it? I'm not disputing it, but it would be interesting to see some evidence of that other than from Popov and descendants GuyInCT 22:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is the National Enquirer being referenced as the source for the "real" James Bond (why is it being referenced at all)? I was under the assumption the inspiration was William Stephenson, as Ian Fleming has quoted: "James Bond is a highly romanticized version of a true spy. The real thing is ...William Stephenson" -- Ian Fleming, The Times of London, October 21, 1962. User:discotraxx 07:16, 29 September 2007 UTC
Well, take the BBC then... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1973962.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.7.171 (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
After that read CNN: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/05/08/britain.agent/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.7.171 (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Most successful franchise?
Hi, according to the Wikipedia page, James Bond is with its 4 billion box office the second most successful movie franchise in history, after Star Wars. According to fresh data on http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/franchises.php James Bond has regained its worldwide position as number 1 while Star Wars remain as number 1 on US level only. Maybe the Star Wars line should be removed in order not to cause confusion?
5th Pierce Brosnan 007 movie
Guys, should we add the fact that Pierce Brosnan was going to make his 5th James Bond movie? It was cancel and substituted by Daniel Craig(the new James Bond)and by the movie Casino Royale(the new 007 movie).
- Unless you can cite it, but I believe it was planned to be Casino Royale early on, and Brosnan was hired being in his 50s. Alientraveller 20:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Move request for Bond girl articles
There is a currently a discussion of a move request to move some of the James Bond girl articles. All members of the James Bond Wikiproject and all other interested parties are invited to comment on the Wikiproject page here. ●DanMS • Talk 02:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Charlie Higson
Right, Charlie Higson has undoubtedly written James Bond books, but aren't these Young James Bond books, a kind of spin off? They aren't "proper" Bond books like John Gardner wrote? Surely these Young James Bond books deserve mention, but not in the first paragraph of the article?
Any comments? Otherwise I may have to be bold...
--Stanleytheman 23:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
No comments, so I've been bold
--Stanleytheman 19:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I disagree with the deletion. The Young Bond books are not a "spin off" like James Bond Jr. or the Find Your Fate novels. The Young Bond books are proper "continuation novels" fully licensed by the Fleming family, they are set within the timeline of the original Fleming novels (technically making only "young" Bond the same Bond from Fleming -- later continuation novels transported him ageless 20 into the future), and they are international bestsellers, matched in sales only by the original Fleming books. Charlie Higson is also major name (a big star in the UK). Yes, they are targeted at readers 9-12, but they are clearly books that can and are enjoyed by adults (the page counts of the YB novels surpass all the other Bond novels). I see them every bit as "proper" as the other continuation novels and, yes, worth mentioning in a paragraph talking about James Bond novels. In fact, to not mention the YB novels is major omission, IMO. --Zencato 00:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with it because in a way the Gardener and Benson novels were spin offs of flemming's books Highfields 09:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm well aware who Charlie Higson is, being a fan of the fast show. If you disagree with the edit, change it back.--Stanleytheman 21:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I certainly disagree and I certainly reverted your edit. This is incredibly silly. Charlie Higson writes officially sanctioned Bond novels. Charlie Higson is therefore a Bond author. Period. There shouldn't even be a discussion on this. It's sad that there is. K1Bond007 19:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Does my face look bothered? --Stanleytheman 21:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Are the movies supposed to be continuous?
I think that the Connery Bonds are supposed to be continuous with themselves, and the same for the Moores, Brosnans, etc, but I don't see how the Connerys can be continuous with the Brosnans, if for no other reason, the fact that the era of the Brosnans is present day, while the Connerys are in the 1960s.--Irish Rogue 20:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
He remembers the jet pack from Thunderball in Die Another Day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.132.154 (talk) 22:00, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
- Bond is a very spry 80 year old, that's all. He works out a lot. As his CV shows that he has saved the world on at least 15 occasions, I think it is a bit harsh of M (incarnated as Judy Dench) telling him that he is a "dinosaur". Prior to Casino Royale (2006), the films were generally standalone, with occasional elements of a sequel proper, as when Jaws makes a return appearance, and when Bond takes vengeance on Blofeld after he killed Bond’s wife in a prior film. The audience is not meant to look closely at the fact that Bond has been on active duty for 50 years. But with Casino Royale, the whole apparatus becomes logically as well as practically impossible, for there the film has him attaining his OO licence in what is obviously 2006. To make it worse, M, who authorises him for this, with considerable misgivings, is played by the same woman (Judy Dench) who in earlier films was quite aware of Bond’s status as a OO agent, and had worked with him for many years. It used to be amusing when I watched the other characters of the series – M, Moneypenny, and Q – grow older, as Bond remained the same youthful and irrepressible man. Oh BEEHAVE!! Myles325a (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Cool site link
I think this sould be added to the Unofficial sites: links
Has lots to do with James bond and who doesn't want to be like him. He's so cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banananose3 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Bond 22/23
is there any confirmed data that another movie will follow after Bond 22? I've been trying to erase the data for a "Bond 23" in the table, but the test version turns out differently. Some guy's crystal balling the data. If anyone knows how to remove it properly, please do so. Thanks. Eaglestorm (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- There is a date in so much as a planned "Bond 23 will follow in 2010" but that's all that has been said, it's pencilled in just like Casino Royale would have bee pencilled in three tears before release. But nothing absolutley rock solid as in 23 November 2010 etc. - X201 (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This might be Original Research.
...but I find it intriguing that the fictional Bond heraldic motto "The World is Not Enough" is the same in meaning as the frontside of a commemorial medal of Queen Christina of Sweden. (the backside shows the stars with the legend: "This is Enough" in latin) -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Height
In Casino Royale, Bond's height is given as 180 cm, which is 6 feet, not 6'1". America's Wang (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's actually just shy of 5' 11". Worth correcting in the article, I think. SBHarris 06:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I must have dreamed it. I can't find it in Casino Royale. According to Wikipedia's article James Bond (character), his height is given in From Russia With Love as 183 cm, which is 6', which must have been what I was thinking of. I don't know if people were shorter in the 50s, but 6' feet does not seem tall by today's standards. But that's not relevant to this discussion I guess. America's Wang (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Criticism
If Harry Potter, who seems an harmless caracther, as been subjet of so much criticism, even from the pope himself, it would make sense to add a section of criticism, from feminist, religious groups, and others, about James Bond, whose novels and films are openly more then sexists and seem to promote free justice and revenge.19:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)~
Fleming Bond vs film Bond
I would be interested in learning more about the differences between the film Bond, as played by Sean Connery, and the “real” Bond, as envisaged by Ian Fleming. Some people see the films and assume that Bond is independently wealthy, judged by the way he dresses, drinks, and gambles. But in the books, Bond is anything but rich. He lives (if I remember rightly) in a humble flat, and has only the notoriously stingy wage from the Service to pay his way. He does afford a live-in cook, who plays the role of a gently-chiding mother, so he has a Moneypenny at home as well as office. In the books, the casinos and jet setting are provided in the course of his work, and for his work only. The Fleming books give him a past, and a pretty ordinary one at that. This is more than the films do, where he, like most super heroes has no family or close friends to speak of, no hobbies or interests outside of those relating directly to his work. (Bond’s marriage in “OHMSS” surprised audiences by having him fall in love, rather than rutting his way through another opus.) I read that Fleming wrote a non-spy oriented novel of Bond’s early life, and that it was a dud. Was this ever published? This article is supposed to be concentrate on Bond as a character, so it would be fitting to have greater emphasis and exposition on the man himself, rather than his gadgets, and detail how the relatively plausible Fleming’s Bond was, as contrasted to the one-man army / joke he became in the films. Myles325a (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- As we learn in Majesty's Secret Service, he's also a meat-and-potatoes kind of guy when at home in England, and only a bon-vivant Anthony Bourdain-style gormet when traveling on-assigment. Yes, there are articles on all the book-and-specific movie differences, but not enough of this kind of stuff on the central character himself. Be BOLD and start a section in this article. SBHarris 17:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Clicking the sort options "breaks" formatting
Good work on the table of movie titles, Bond actors, and all. However, I've worked on a few pages that have used similiar sorting style tables, and when you've got an entry that spans more than one row the format breaks when you sort on any of the others. For example, sort by title and you'll see the format fall apart. I would suggest removing the ability to sort from the table, or reformatting the entires to remove multi-row cells. TRTX (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Removed the rowspans to allow for sorting. El Greco(talk) 17:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Bondpedia
Hi, I am writing this in reply to who ever is removing the Bondpedia link. He seems to think it has only been around since Feb. 8th, however, I am not sure where he is getting this. We have been around for well over a year now. Can you please leave it? I think it will be a valuable resource. Nokom (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Let me also add it have been removed many times in the past by people saying it is 'just a wiki', but yet the other wikia wiki remains. I think this is a simple case of someone wanting to get rid of their rival. Nokom (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed both of them as per WP:EL - "Links normally to be avoided" item 13. Both sites fail to meet the "open wiki" criteria for that rule. - X201 (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
We have a staff of five editors (I am one of them), a large history, always deal with vandals swiftly, and you MUST be registered to edit. Are you even looking at our site? If you can show me better I am at fault, I will give you my apologies. Nokom (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm an admin on this site and I think it offers more information for the reader than this article does so it is valuable for readers to know about. Anyway this has been discussed several times if you check the archives and has been allowed to stay as a result of every one. I'm fuming about this so could you please leave it or I'll have to consult admins and the relevant wikiproject Highfields (talk) (contribs) 16:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've just checked and it has already been discussed here plus as for the WP:EL "Links normally to be avoided" item 13 Bondpedia has has no vandalism for over 2 months plus a history of swift dealings with vandals as well as having 109 users of which only a minority are vandals. Highfields (talk) (contribs) 16:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect
In the music section, the line "Burt Bacharach's score for 1969's Casino Royale included "The Look Of Love"" appears to be incorrect. The year the original Casino Royale was released was 1967. IMDB link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.51.128 (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Obvious Mistake in the Article or Vandalism
The article states that "Fleming emphasized Bond's Scottish heritage in admiration of Sean Connery's cinematic portrayal". This is a blatant and obvious falsity. On Her Majesty's Secret Service, the novel where Bond's parentage is revealed, was published in 1959. The first James Bond featuring Sean Connery was not released until 1962. Anyone who has ever read a biography of Fleming would know that he was not very fond of the 007 films. Was this mistake an act of vandalism? This kind of simple error makes me question anything posted in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.24.38.208 (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- As well it should! Wikipedia relies on the expertise of passers-by such as yourself to root out such stuff. If you haven't fixed it, I will. SBHarris 05:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Film count
I was reading an interview to a game designer, who said When it comes to the most popular stories of all time, James Bond, with his 14 original novels by Ian Fleming and 24 films (a 25th is now filming), featured archetype heroes and villains, exotic locations and amazing evil lairs. Now, something is odd: the article shows 22 finished movies (including one to be released this year), an unofficial movie, and a projected movie. Could anyone clarify whether the interviewer was wrong, or if we are missing a movie or two here? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- They're all listed here. Mr. Will Wright must be counting them by some different method, that I've never heard of. El Greco(talk) 01:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is well known that programmers can't count. Here are my 0 reasons for it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-by-one_error. ;) --Soyweiser (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Mistake on "Thunderball" budget
If somebody can correct "Thunderball" budget on main "James Bond" page, it would be great (modifications are locked for me) : Budget is 5,6 millions Dollars and not 11 millions (that would be three Goldfingers movies !). Source : "Thunderball" page of Wikipedia EN + "Le Monde" booklet of "Thunderball DVD.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by TranceGui (talk • contribs) 16:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
DanielCraigIsNotBond
Does anyone think that a link to http://www.danielcraigisnotbond.com/ would be appropriate in the unofficial sites section of the external links?--Urban Rose 09:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you don't like Craig, then just watch the Jason Bourne films instead. The British are a bunch of pussies anyway. --RisingSunWiki 02:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to do with whether I like Craig or not. I just want to know whether or not the link is appropriate. Also, though I'm not British, I don't particularity appreciate your comment.--Urban Rose 14:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- at 5' 5" and 130 lbs , Craig is simply silly as the James Bond character as he could not whip
a child in a fight ... willy bond the reel bond 76.202.167.248 (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I thought Craig was quite good in the role. He's a good actor. I thought Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton were the worst actors in the part. No, the link isn't appropriate, and the Jason Bourne film series is pretty good, too. But there are 3. And Bond has 22. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Cultural impact
I also suggest 'The Wild Wild West' was derivative of the James Bond spy genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.203.58.1 (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Following a discussion about the above website here earlier today, I am wondering whether we should add a link to it here. It seems to be a valuable resource. What do others think? Thanks. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Um it's not an official website so I don't think there should be an external link, but can be referenced/cited? Many thanks, δ²(Talk) 01:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Ageless?
I've not read the whole page yet, but what about his age? It it like the Simpsons, where no one ages and it simply goes with whatever the time is? I am confused at this. Ron James 007 (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- yeh pretty much, he is always the same age in the EON films except Casino Royale where it insinuates he is younger than in the others, technically if he did age he's be over 70! (see Talk:James Bond/Archive5#James Bond is over 70 years old), Its a very good question that I hope I have answered for you - Highfields (talk) (contribs) 15:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Also, see James Bond (character)#Code name. This covers the issue nicely, and for me, has always been quite simply obvious. It's also pretty much spelled out in the original Casino Royale film and alluded to in OHMSS amongst others in the main canon of films. – Kieran T (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the code name idea explains the actors, but not really the books (though the time span of those isn't extended as the films are). But yeah, you guys answered, thanks. Ron James 007 (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Its my personal opinion he is ageless, there is more evidence against the code name thoery than for it and the producers of the films also deny it, I mean how does the code name theory explain the various mentions of Tracy Bond... Highfields (talk) (contribs) 14:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
anes te pita znas li ti cod za james bond 007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.146.143.51 (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
He's defiantly ageless, or all of his adventures are happening at the exact same time (unlikely, almost impossible). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've always considered the Bond films to be on a "sliding time scale," sort of like the way Marvel Comics does things. That is, the important events are always "a few years ago." That way, Bond can still not be over Theresa's murder in License to Kill, even though OHMSS was filmed almost 30 years previously. Schoop (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
james bond (character) page
hey guys, maybe we should delete the james bond (character) article. i don't think there's a difference between that and this article. Carmegenon (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Carmegenon
Longest Running Film Franchise
So, the comment in the beginning on longest running film franchise, where is this coming from? I know there is a ref to MI6 fansite, but there are longer running franchise series. The Carry On series had more films and has run since 1958 to the current day. Bulldog Dummond ran for 46 years, the same length of time as the James Bonds. The official Godzilla line has been running since the 1950s for over 50 years. I think people have lost count how many Tarzan movies there have been since the 1920s to near present day. This isn't even going into Sherlock Holmes and I'm sure there are others. Most successful, quite possibly. Longest running, most definitely not. Canterbury Tail talk 22:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- No comments for or against either way? Canterbury Tail talk 21:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I agree that it is longest running, it is the only series over 40 years old that has has continuous releases and anyway your edit has been reverted. Anyway in my mind if it can be referenced then it should stay. Plus, your examples are less; the Carry On's were only 20 years although had 29 films, The Tarzan films weren't one continuous series but a number of separate films, Sherlock Holmes only had sporadic TV films not continuous feature length movies, Bulldog Drummond is the same length but over a wider period of time and Godzilla is not 1 series but 4, you may have a point though, I think 'franchise' should be changed to 'series'. Highfields (talk) (contribs) 08:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ah but the Carry On films are still being released. I know there is a French series that has been running for over 50 years, but I can't for the life of me remember what it is called. I know, it's of no use unless I can reference and source it. Canterbury Tail talk 11:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- To consider the Godzilla franchise four separate series but not divide the Bond franchise in the same way is somewhat hypocritical. The Bond movies often took changes, sometimes major, whenever the actor switched. Regardless, James Bond is only the longest running American film franchise, not the world's. The article should mention that. -Poke'G 75.24.6.1 (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes but the Godzilla films were unique and seperate franchise's, wheras Bond is 1 continous franchise Highfields (talk) (contribs) 08:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Anyway Bond isn't American so it can't be the longest American franchise, It's British!, It's British made and British produced by EON, a British company - Highfields (talk) (contribs) 08:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- The Carry On's are affectively 1959-1974 and then isolated revivals in 1992 and 2008. This can't sensibly be compared to Eon's 1962-current continuous production of Bond films. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- And the Wong Fei Hung series has over 100 films in it and been running since the 1940s. A few small breaks, and some of the films listed were made outside the main series. Canterbury Tail talk 12:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
James Bond a racist?
Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of the Bond novels and I think they need to be read in context. But it appears to me that the context has either been accidentally or deliberately missed in this article. Some people have brought up Bond's sexist/homophobic attitudes which seem pretty obvious to anybody who has read Fleming (or Amis/"Markham" for that matter). But Bond, apart from semi-controversial things like lamenting the decline of the British Empire, also makes sporadic racist comments. For instance, in "Goldfinger", Chapter 16 "The Best and the Biggest":
"Goldfinger had decided against killing them. He wanted them alive. Soon Bond would know why he wanted them alive but, so long as he did, Bond intended to stay alive on his own terms. Those terms included putting Oddjob and any other Korean firmly in his place, which, in Bond's estimation, was rather lower than apes in the mammalian hierachy." pp154
He then goes on to refer to Oddjob and other Koreans as "Apes" for the rest of the book. I'm not a regular Wiki contributor: is this attitude worth a mention in his character? No real mention is made of his politics generally; perhaps the article could do with a section on this.
62.56.99.149 (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)davidkleinfeld
- There's two ways this can be interpreted. One, Fleming delibrately made him a racist character for one reason or another. Two, Fleming was racist and he just projected himself onto Bond. The first requires some literacy analysis (ie. citeable sources) and the second should be mentioned on Flemings page (if anything). Either way, it really shouldn't matter that much since Fleming has passed on forty-some years ago and the current version of Bond in cinema and literature doesn't seem to be racist as much, if at all. DonQuixote (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
If Fleming is a racist, I just have to say it's obvious. In the original version, Fleming and the characters made frequent use of the word "nigger" (later edited to read "negro") and portrays all black characters as villains, and similarly with the movie version (Rosie Carver, the first black Bond Girl, is revealed to be a traitor). His racism is not limited to Koreans. But since, at the time, blacks had not yet become as accepted as they are now, this may have been accidentally projected onto the character. I guess we'll never know, however.
Criticism of James Bond
This needs more space, since his novels and films can be considered as sexist and promoting vengeance and free justice.85.243.70.85 (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
How can they be considered sexist? All everyone ever remembers is the hot girls. And sure, Bond is a major womanizer, but he loves the girls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The films can be seen as sexist because they depict the female caracthers as a bunch of "female cattle", always coming and going. James Bond simply uses them and then throws them away. I´m sure if we searched correctly we will find many criticism about his caracther from many feminists.81.193.220.23 (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Pro-Death Penalty Films ?
The films can be interpreted as openly justifying the death penalty. They were never under the criticism of Amnesty Internationl ? I´m serious.85.244.48.233 (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Unrelated
The other stuff in the non Eon section apart from films is unrelated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.42.137 (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Why is it? Highfields (talk) (contribs) 15:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- They're all legitimate usage of the Bond character in other media. As Highfields asks, why are they "unrelated" as you put it? Nick Cooper (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Inclusion of actors known for playing character in James Bond category
This section has been established as part of an effort to reach resolution on a dispute between me (User:Alansohn) and User:Otto4711 regarding the inclusion of actors known for playing James Bond in the Category:James Bond. Pre Wikipedia's third opinion process, editors who have not participated in this discussion and do not have involvement with either of the two editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response, are invited to offer their input on this matter, as described below:
Categories are meant to group articles that have a common connection. WP:CAT describes that "Categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles. Make decisions about the structure of categories and subcategories that make it easy for users to browse through similar articles." The role of James Bond is probably one of the most iconic in English-language cinematic history. Past, present and prosepctive future actors playing the role are frequent subjects of articles in reliable and verifiable articles in independent sources documenting the defining association between the actor and the role. Any casual Wikipedia reader looking at Category:James Bond as a grouping of articles related to the character should expect to find links to articles for Sean Connery, George Lazenby and Roger Moore, etc., in this category, and would probably be completely baffled by their absence. User:Otto4711 has removed these categories from these articles on multiple occasions, citing WP:OCAT, which, among other things, would argue against the existence of a category that would include actors who played the role of James Bond. While an interpretation of WP:OCAT might be a valid argument regarding Category:Actors who have appeared in James Bond films or even Category:Actors who have played James Bond, it does not address this widely-accepted category about the character itself. To tell readers that they cannot see articles in Category:James Bond for individuals for whom playing James Bond is a strong defining characteristic of their careers as actors, only makes Wikipedia appear more difficult as a means for readers to find information. Alansohn (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:OC#Performers_by_action_or_appearance clearly states, in reflecting a principle that has been upheld innumerable times at innumerable CFDs, that we should not categorize actors by the roles that they have played. WP:OC goes on to state: "Note also that performers should not be categorized into a general category which groups topics about a particular performance venue or production (e.g. Category:Star Trek), when the specific performance category would be deleted (e.g. Category:Star Trek script writers)." I do not see how this could be any clearer. Category:Actors who have portrayed James Bond would not survive CFD, and placing the actors in the main category is an end-run around this firmly established consensus. Alansohn has repeatedly expressed his dissatisfaction with various aspects of WP:OC in a variety of CFD discussions, usually winding up on the opposite side of consensus. His dissatisfaction with OC is best addressed at the OC talk page and his dissatisfaction with this particular situation should be taken up at 3O where it belongs. Otto4711 (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have been silently watching your potential edeit war with some interest all day, since this page is on my watch list. I commend anyone who wishes to discuss a problem rather than continue a full-on edit war. Although my only interest in this and any issue is wikipedia policies, I do not wish to take sides in this issue, but I do have a few questions and suggestions that may help.
- I took a look at the policy page concerning OC. It does say that this information should not be added, but I do not understand why. How does the inclusion of such info detract from or hurt the article itself? Perhaps I am missing something, but shouldn't the article include as much helpful information as possible? Again I am not taking sides, and when it comes down to it, the bottom line is that Wikipedia policy prohibits the inclusion of the information and unless the policy changes, the info should be left out.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- The consensus has been in place for the last couple of years that categorizing performers by performance is overcategorization because it will lead to category clutter. Actors play a variety of roles over the course of a career and establishing categories for each of them will result in long lists of hard-to-read categories. To take an example, Harrison Ford. If we categorized his performances, Star Wars and Indiana Jones alone would add at least four categories to his list (Star Wars actors, Actors who have played Han Solo, Indiana Jones actors, Actors who have played Indiana Jones) and that doesn't even take into account the likely creation of something like "American Grafitti actors" and "Blade Runner actors". There are multiple ways that these articles can be linked together and the community has decided that a category is not the way to go. There is no sign that this consenus has changed or is even in the process of changing, given the deletion just two weeks ago of a Heroes actors category. Adding the actors directly to the main category thwarts that consensus, which believe me was a long and hard fight on both sides to hammer it out, and also, in categories that would gain a lot of additional entries, makes the category itself harder to read through for navigational purposes. Otto4711 (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Category:James Bond does NOT categorize actors by their role. It lists articles that are associated with the character. Some of them are films, some are producers and directors, some are for songs, some are for actors. They all share one thing, a clear, well-defined connection to the character James Bond, supported by reliable and verifiable sources, the textbook definition of the purpose categories are intended to service. I can think of no other character in filmdom in which so many actors have been so iconicly associated with a role. If you ask the average filmgoer to play free association and say the first thing that comes to their mind when they hear Sean Connery, Roger Moore, George Lazenby, etc., and ask them the first thing that comes to their mind, virtually every individual will mention "James Bond", the "defining characteristic" that is the gold standard for categories. If, in reverse, you were to free associate with "James Bond" they will be near certain to mention the names of these actors. For all of the hypotheticals Otto4711 has offered -- Star Wars, Blade Runner, Indiana Jones -- you are unlikely to get the same two-way association of actor and role. Mark Hamill may well get Star Wars, but not the reverse. Blade Runner would get Harrison Ford, but not vice versa. That Indiana Jones and Harrison Ford might meet the criteria only further demonstrates just how rare -- and defining -- this characteristic is. The WP:CfD world has come to many conclusions with the participation of an extremely small number of editors that offer little validity in the Wikipedia world as a whole, in which such standards as "how will this affect the reader's experience" can be more adequately considered. The insistence that the result of a previous CfD is relevant here regardless of circumstances and usefulness would only seem to carry weight if Wikipedia's goal was to enforce compliance with arbitrary bureaucracy. As Wikipedia, in reality, has the goal of providing information to readers in a thorough and organized fashion, it seems difficult to understand how we are providing a service to our readers by eliminating the most defining characteristic for these actors and excluding them form the Category:James Bond, let alone how the inclusion of undeniably relevant articles would make "the category itself harder to read through for navigational purposes". If only using common sense was a standard that was followed intuitively, and wasn't merely the title of an essay. Alansohn (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- (sigh) Do you even bother to read the guidelines that you rail against? Is there some part of "Note also that performers should not be categorized into a general category which groups topics about a particular performance venue or production...when the specific performance category would be deleted" that you're not understanding? If you disagree with this guideline or with some portion of it, I strongly encourage you to take it up at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization and if it gains any traction the guideline will be changed. Your continued false characterization of the consensus that has developed and remained firm for the last two years as the work of "an extremely small number of editors" is insulting and grows ever more tiresome the more strident you become about it. And if you believe that if we started categorizing actors by performances again that someone wouldn't create a category for Blade Runner actors, Star Wars actors, Indiana Jones actors and the like, along with the corresponding "Actors who played..." categories, then you haven't been paying very close attention to CFD discussions. We had a category for actresses who played Lana Lang, ffs, you don't think someone would make one for Indiana Jones or Han Solo? Otto4711 (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please stop the personal attacks and blatant incivility. I understand your argument, and as I've said earlier I disagree with it completely and totally. My argument is that whatever value of the consensus on categories for actors playing a role has, it is irrelevant in this case where actors are associated distinctively with a role AND where the role is associated with the actors. I think that even you don't believe that the role of Lana Lang is as iconic as James Bond, and the dreaded slippery slope is not worthy of consideration. You might find a few other cases, which I would certainly agree to include in categories. As I've stated earlier, Wikipedia is about making information available to readers and allowing them to find it easily and effectively, not about the narrow enforcement of arbitrary bureaucracy. Even with your incivility contaminating this discussion, I think it's well past time that we allowed others to provide their opinions, rather than hearing our's repeated. Alansohn (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, Lana Lang is not as iconic as James Bond. Superman and Batman are though, if not more so, and categories for actors who played them were also deleted and those actors do not reside in either parent category. And sweetie? When I'm being uncivil there won't be any question about it. Otto4711 (talk) 08:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Tsk, tsk, Alansohn. Falsely accusing someone of incivility and personal attacks is itself a personal attack. And in your case that's a blockable offense. RedSpruce (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- You did say falsely? Alansohn (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Calling me "sweetie" is a strong sign of your continued incivility, and I sincerely hope there isn't more -- and worse -- on its way. I have agreed several times that there have been categories deleted for actors playing a role. Whether these narrow decisions have any broad validity is another question, but Category:James Bond is not being deleted. The question for the public at large is if this category should include articles undeniably relevant to the category. I'm willing to rebut your arguments ad infinitum, but why don't we allow the public at large to participate in the third opinion process and her what they have to say? Alansohn (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Tsk, tsk, Alansohn. Falsely accusing someone of incivility and personal attacks is itself a personal attack. And in your case that's a blockable offense. RedSpruce (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, Lana Lang is not as iconic as James Bond. Superman and Batman are though, if not more so, and categories for actors who played them were also deleted and those actors do not reside in either parent category. And sweetie? When I'm being uncivil there won't be any question about it. Otto4711 (talk) 08:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please stop the personal attacks and blatant incivility. I understand your argument, and as I've said earlier I disagree with it completely and totally. My argument is that whatever value of the consensus on categories for actors playing a role has, it is irrelevant in this case where actors are associated distinctively with a role AND where the role is associated with the actors. I think that even you don't believe that the role of Lana Lang is as iconic as James Bond, and the dreaded slippery slope is not worthy of consideration. You might find a few other cases, which I would certainly agree to include in categories. As I've stated earlier, Wikipedia is about making information available to readers and allowing them to find it easily and effectively, not about the narrow enforcement of arbitrary bureaucracy. Even with your incivility contaminating this discussion, I think it's well past time that we allowed others to provide their opinions, rather than hearing our's repeated. Alansohn (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- (sigh) Do you even bother to read the guidelines that you rail against? Is there some part of "Note also that performers should not be categorized into a general category which groups topics about a particular performance venue or production...when the specific performance category would be deleted" that you're not understanding? If you disagree with this guideline or with some portion of it, I strongly encourage you to take it up at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization and if it gains any traction the guideline will be changed. Your continued false characterization of the consensus that has developed and remained firm for the last two years as the work of "an extremely small number of editors" is insulting and grows ever more tiresome the more strident you become about it. And if you believe that if we started categorizing actors by performances again that someone wouldn't create a category for Blade Runner actors, Star Wars actors, Indiana Jones actors and the like, along with the corresponding "Actors who played..." categories, then you haven't been paying very close attention to CFD discussions. We had a category for actresses who played Lana Lang, ffs, you don't think someone would make one for Indiana Jones or Han Solo? Otto4711 (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Category:James Bond does NOT categorize actors by their role. It lists articles that are associated with the character. Some of them are films, some are producers and directors, some are for songs, some are for actors. They all share one thing, a clear, well-defined connection to the character James Bond, supported by reliable and verifiable sources, the textbook definition of the purpose categories are intended to service. I can think of no other character in filmdom in which so many actors have been so iconicly associated with a role. If you ask the average filmgoer to play free association and say the first thing that comes to their mind when they hear Sean Connery, Roger Moore, George Lazenby, etc., and ask them the first thing that comes to their mind, virtually every individual will mention "James Bond", the "defining characteristic" that is the gold standard for categories. If, in reverse, you were to free associate with "James Bond" they will be near certain to mention the names of these actors. For all of the hypotheticals Otto4711 has offered -- Star Wars, Blade Runner, Indiana Jones -- you are unlikely to get the same two-way association of actor and role. Mark Hamill may well get Star Wars, but not the reverse. Blade Runner would get Harrison Ford, but not vice versa. That Indiana Jones and Harrison Ford might meet the criteria only further demonstrates just how rare -- and defining -- this characteristic is. The WP:CfD world has come to many conclusions with the participation of an extremely small number of editors that offer little validity in the Wikipedia world as a whole, in which such standards as "how will this affect the reader's experience" can be more adequately considered. The insistence that the result of a previous CfD is relevant here regardless of circumstances and usefulness would only seem to carry weight if Wikipedia's goal was to enforce compliance with arbitrary bureaucracy. As Wikipedia, in reality, has the goal of providing information to readers in a thorough and organized fashion, it seems difficult to understand how we are providing a service to our readers by eliminating the most defining characteristic for these actors and excluding them form the Category:James Bond, let alone how the inclusion of undeniably relevant articles would make "the category itself harder to read through for navigational purposes". If only using common sense was a standard that was followed intuitively, and wasn't merely the title of an essay. Alansohn (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- The consensus has been in place for the last couple of years that categorizing performers by performance is overcategorization because it will lead to category clutter. Actors play a variety of roles over the course of a career and establishing categories for each of them will result in long lists of hard-to-read categories. To take an example, Harrison Ford. If we categorized his performances, Star Wars and Indiana Jones alone would add at least four categories to his list (Star Wars actors, Actors who have played Han Solo, Indiana Jones actors, Actors who have played Indiana Jones) and that doesn't even take into account the likely creation of something like "American Grafitti actors" and "Blade Runner actors". There are multiple ways that these articles can be linked together and the community has decided that a category is not the way to go. There is no sign that this consenus has changed or is even in the process of changing, given the deletion just two weeks ago of a Heroes actors category. Adding the actors directly to the main category thwarts that consensus, which believe me was a long and hard fight on both sides to hammer it out, and also, in categories that would gain a lot of additional entries, makes the category itself harder to read through for navigational purposes. Otto4711 (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Third opinion
At first, I was willing to agree with Alansohn; 20 years ago, you couldn't mention James Bond without an argument about Sean Connery and Roger Moore coming up, and George Lazenby isn't known for much else. (For those who like their discussion with short links, Wikipedia:OC#Performers_by_action_or_appearance seemed like a prime candidate to be overridden by WP:IAR :-).) But the more recent flurry of actors have weakened that considerably. Pierce Brosnan is not known solely, and possibly not even mostly, for playing James Bond. Timothy Dalton? Daniel Craig? Wait, what about David Niven? It's too much, I'm afraid. It's not an iconic role any more, it's just another recurring role with lots of actors playing it; and while it has stamped their career, it's not unique in that, not more so than Batman for Adam West or Tarzan for Johnny Weissmuller or Spock for Leonard Nimoy, or many, many others. We can overrule a guideline with a great reason, but it's not a great reason any more. Alansohn asks an excellent question: "If, in reverse, you were to free associate with "James Bond" they will be near certain to mention the names of these actors." When it was just Connery, Moore, yes. But would someone with merely a passing knowledge of the character be able to list off Dalton, and Brosnan, and Lazenby, and Craig, and Niven? I doubt it. In fact, I suspect some younger fans might not be able to name Moore. Sorry. Just one Wikipedian's opinion. --GRuban (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Fourth opinion
Beyond the merits of James Bond specifically, past practice proved that a slippery slope results when any actors are categorized by roles they played (and whether that categorization happens through Category:James Bond or Category:James Bond actors makes no difference). Prior to the CFD determinations that actors should not be categorized by roles, at one time or another categories were created for the casts of every TV show, which failed to distinguish between regular cast, recurring guests, and one-off guest stars and cameos, and for every film series, and for every character role that was ever played by more than one character. Media franchise categories lumped in live-action actors with voice actors from cartoons and video games. The consequence was that many actors had dozens of role-specific categories on their articles, and the series categories grouped actors together who may never have even shared screen time. Ultimately, there was no principled way to determine what series or character role was deserving of such categorization, or what roles within an actor's filmography were defining of that actor's career, because everyone thinks their favorite film series or TV show is defining for everyone who ever appeared in it. Postdlf (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Fifth opinion
I understand both arguments and both have merit. It is important for us users to be able to easily get the information we want. It also is important that unnecessary clutter be reduced and the decision to not have categories based on roles makes sense to me. In the end I opt for Otto's side. (Although I do see some incivility from Otto towards Alansohn that disturbs me.) It's not necessary to have a category because the associations are in the articles themselves. If I wanted to know the actors who played a character, and I couldn't recall the character's name but I did recall an actor who played that character, then I would go to the article on the actor, follow the link to the character whose name I'd recognize, and then in that article find the names of all the actors who played the role. I don't need a category. So why add clutter? With the more iconic roles, like Bond, it's even less necessary. Users would just go to the James Bond article to start with. In fact that's exactly what I did when I couldn't recall that it was Barry Newman who played the role in the 1950's American television show. Miranda Meagan Keefe (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Bond Now highest Grossing Film Franchise
Quantum of Solace would bring the James Bond film series back ahead of Harry Potter, it's made over 40 million in Europe alone already. It was previously only 30 million behind HP. 81.107.42.98 (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)London Prophet
EON or Eon
Is EON an acronym? I can't find any mention of it being one on WP. The only mention I can find is Cubby Brocolli saying that it didn't stand for anything in particular. If its not an aconym why hasn't MOS:TM been applied to EON to make it Eon. - X201 (talk) 11:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
James Bond Danger Man
Someone did not like my edit re Ian Flemings involvement with Ralph Smart re bringing James Bond to Television but it is on page 2 of Andrew Pixley's booklet given away with the cd Danger Man original soundtrack from NetworkREVUpminster (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- What? Your edit is still there. In fact I reverted back to it after an IP vandalized. Unless you are thinking of a different edit than I am. --Terrillja talk 00:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you I saw it had been deleted and you restored it. I did leave a note on the ip who did it, but no response so far.REVUpminster (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I think there should be some reference to "Austin Powers" since that series is essentially a parody (including, even more exactly, Dr. Evil) of James Bond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtimpson (talk • contribs) 23:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Things he likes to say
James Bond loves to say to people: My nme is Bond, James Bond —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.74.36 (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Never say never
Where is Never Say Never Again (1983) it is not on the list of Bond Films. It stared Sean Connery.71.191.137.51 (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Rich
- It is on the list, it's under the Non-EON films. It wasn't made By EON so isn't an Official Bond movie, but is an official Bond movie. If that makes sense. Canterbury Tail talk 12:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Cars
Should Bond have always driven British cars? I do realised there are few UK manufacturers remaining, but this is fiction, afterall. Bond strikes me more as a 'Rover 75' man than BMW Z8. Jacobsdad (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Jacobsdad
Inspiration
When this article was originally up, it listed the St. James Bond Church in Toronto, Canada, which Ian Flemming lived down the street from during WWII, as a possible inspiration. The ornithologist story, without any sources, replaced it, and I am sure I can find references for the other. I suggest we rethink the inspirations.
From the April 13th, 2007 version:
It has also been suggested[citation needed] that the name 'James Bond' originated in Toronto, Ontario, when British Naval Intelligence Commander Ian Fleming was invited by Sir William Stephenson (codename 'Intrepid'), to participate in the SOE subversive warfare training Syllabus at STS-103. Fleming had a private residence in Avenue Road, Toronto, Canada, because the training camp barracks was full. On Avenue Road, there was the St. James-Bond Church (Toronto), its address was 1066 Avenue Road, and the military building address was 1107 Avenue Road (Double ones 0 and 7, thus number 007). The building does not exist, but in its place is Marshall McLuhan Catholic Secondary School — erected by Bondfield Construction in 2001. Up until 10 years ago, there was a millitary training facility on Avenue Road. The Canadian Millitary sold the property to the Toronto Catholic District School Board and to a condo developer. St. James-Bond United Church stood at 1066 Avenue Road unitl a about a year ago when it was torn down. There are plans to build a seniors resdidence there.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.136.78 (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
James Bond v. Jason Bourne
Should there be a section comparing James Bond to Jason Bourne? Considering that the Bourne films are much better, that seems like a good idea. The Bourne films make 007 look like a pussy. --RisingSunWiki 03:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Only if there are published sources that do so. If not, please do not create an article like that as it would be Wikipedia:Original research
Dude James Bond is much better than Jason Bourne unlike the Bourne films James Bond films aren't just about massive explosions and very unrealistic firefights they actually have a plot as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.134.134 (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Bourne has a deeper plot, never gets caught because of a woman or stupidity, and it is very realistic compared to the stuff you see in bond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.77.179 (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Inspector Gaget is the best though, with his estendable arms and his neice and dog ... grow up, both are cool action heros. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.56.86.35 (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Jean Frampton
Turns out Ian Fleming got some help from Jean Frampton: http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/04/11/bond.author.ap/index.html Where would this go? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
More on Ian Flemming... As a member of British intelligence MI3 in the 1940s, he worked closely for several years with an American agent by the name of James Bond Dameron. Dameron was a colonel in the U.S. army and a pilot for the air force. He worked on many spy missions in Europe, for he knew many languages. The family of the deceased Dameron has tried to retrieve some information on these missions, but the U.S. military reported that they were mysteriously burnt and lost forever. This should be added in the section discussing the basis of the character... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zndr580 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Combine with main article?
I think this should be combined with the main James Bond article. This information, while interesting, should just be a chapter in that article. Only those with exceptional Wikipedia skills, or an esoteric interest, would even be able to find this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.172.84 (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of June 21, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.
- This discussion is transcluded from Talk:James Bond/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
I am reassessing this articles GA status as part of the WP:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Quick fail criteria assessment
- The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
- The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
- There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
- The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
- The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
I find no problems checking against the quick fail criteria. Proceeding to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Checking against GA criteria
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
- Creation and inspiration
- Two paragraphs are completely un-referenced. Other paragraphs are only sparsely referenced.
- Novels and related works
- no citation for the Faulks book
- Adaptations
- In the late 1950s, EON Productions guaranteed the film adaptation rights for every 007 novel... guaranteed? Surely they purchased them? Please clarify.
- Non-EON films, radio and television programmes
- First three and the last paragraph are unreferenced.
- Cultural impact
- This section is nearly all about parodies, can no other examples of cultural impact be found?
- Music
- Apart from the beginning, this section is lacking references.
- Video games
- Likewise, mostly missing references.
- Bond video games, however, did not reach their popular stride until Popular stride, consider re-wording.
- Subsequently, virtually every Bond video game has attempted to copy the accomplishments and features of GoldenEye 007 to varying degrees of success; even going so far as to have a game entitled GoldenEye: Rogue Agent that had little to do with either the video game GoldenEye 007 or the film of the same name. Clumsy, rewrite for style.
- Section is rather too detailed, consider summarizing.
- Comic strips and comic books
- Completely unreferenced
- Vehicles and gadgets
- Very few references
- Lead
- The lead omits coverage of the later sections (after films). The lead should be an executive summary of the entire article.
- Overall
- I have made some minor copy-edits, but I would recommend more thorough attention to the prose style. The article is fairly well written, but could be improved.
- b (MoS):
- Broadly complies
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
- As mentioned above some sections lack references. All online references are live links apart from {http://www.007james.com/} which appears to be dead. Several others are redirected. You can check this with {http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=James_Bond}
- References #16 -#29 should have ISBNs
- #2 and #5 appear to be to the same source; #11 and #12 nead full citations rather than just html links; likewise #30, #31, #34, #36, #40, #41, #44, #45, #50. Please aim for consistent formatting of references throughout.
- b (citations to reliable sources):
- Reference #1 does not link to a WP:RS; {http://www.hmss.com/} does not appear to be a RS, neither do refs 40, 41, 44, 45
- c (OR):
- Apparently no OR, but as mentioned some sections lack full referencing.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its scope.
- a (major aspects):
- The article is reasonably broad in scope
- b (focused):
- Perhaps too much detail in video games and music. The article is about James Bond, not the music used in films or the (mostly) marketing spin-offs of films.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It appears to adhere to NPOV
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit warring
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Np problems here
- b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Captions OK
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- OK, I am going to put the article on hold for seven days for the above concerns to be addressed. Please place any comments / queries here, either after my comments or below this. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- As none of these points have been addressed I am delisting the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
Knighthood
james bond filled his pants with dioreha and then sed ahhhh my wener isfslling offfff!!!!!!I thought I knew the Bond novels pretty well (at least, those written by Fleming). When was he knighted? If this was done other than by Fleming, I question the validity. PDAWSON3 (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, on that basis you'd have to question any action Bond did, any word he uttered, or anything at all about him that did not appear in the books written by the character's creator, Ian Fleming. If later writers had official sanction to write new novels about Bond, then surely anything that happens in those novels is taken to be something we can validly add to our knowledge of James Bond. And if that's the case, maybe we should move the article to "Sir James Bond". -- JackofOz (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am persuaded by your point about official sanction, JackofOz. I'd still be interested to find out where, when and why the knighthood was awarded. PDAWSON3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC).
- Yes, I was also intrigued by this. But remember, he's not a real person, so it's not a biography we're talking about. Novelists can quite freely refer to their characters having honours and postnominals, without ever revealing when and by whom those honours were conferred. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- The only reference I can find to James Bond and knighthood is from "The Man With The Golden Gun". Bond, already a CMG, is offered knighthood for defeating Scaramanga (IE: becoming a KCMG). Bond -refuses- this award, saying it would make him a public figure, and he does not want that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.116.39 (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
James Bond's Quotes = Laconic Phrases?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconic_phrase
Do James Bond's Quotes count as being Laconic Phrases? If so, does this mean that 'laconic humor' is an essential part of the character? --Arima (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Sean Connery Link
There should be a link to Sean Connery's page on the page that shows all the films and the actors that play bond the second time his name appears. It is linked the first time but is not linked the second time his name appears for the film Diamonds Are Forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conorml (talk • contribs) 01:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
James Bond 13 Never Say Never Again 1983
Hi There, I suppose there is a messing movie from the table in the main article, James Bond 13 Never Say Never Again 1983 By sean connery ....Why this movie didn't exist in the article ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed.hamdy90 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- It does exist in the article, but it is not an EON Films movie. It is under the Non-EON films section. Canterbury Tail talk 19:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
David Niven mentioned as Ian Fleming's first choice for the movies?
Now, this is where Wikipedia is contradicting itself... List of actors considered for the James Bond character[[2]] clearly states that Richard Todd was Ian Fleming's first choice to play the role. The source of the claim seems quite a lot more reliable than the one provided here... Ufomies (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Bond's age
The article refers to John Pearson's fictional biography of Bond giving him a birth date in 1920. This is not sustainable based on the books. Eg in Casino Royale, we are told that Bond bought the car he drives nearly-new in 1933 (plausible because, as far as can be told, it was sold until 1930). We're also told he was involved in a casino operation in Monte Carlo before the war. In the former case, even if we assume he didn't have to work for several years to accumulate the money to buy a second-hand Bentley, he must have been of driving age at least by 1933. Likewise, to be an experienced gambler by 1939 he must have been somewhat older. My own guess is that a DoB somewhere around 1910 would be more likely. This makes Bond in his forties at the start of the series rather than his 30s, and this indeed is closer to the age at which actors retire from the role, but it's supported by the books. In Moonraker, in fact, I think more is said about his age although I'd need to recheck it.
Should we not alter this section to reflect the fact that his age is at least uncertain? Tirailleur (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. He seems to be roughly the age of Fleming himself (b. 1908) SBHarris 19:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Do you know how to change a semi-locked article? I don't. I checked Moonraker and that is inconsistent too. What about saying something like: "Although John Pearson's fictional biography of Bond gives him a birth date in 1920, the books themselves are inconsistent on the point. In Casino Royale, he is said to have bought a car in 1933 and to have been an experienced gambler before the war. Two books later, in Moonraker, he is said to be eight years away from the 00 section's mandatory active service retirement age of 45. The books were written over a twelve-year period during which Bond's age, when mentioned, varies but is usually around forty." Tirailleur (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I can't see any reason you (as a name user with more than 10 edits) shouldn't be able to change a semi-protected article. Try it! If you can see an "edit" button, you can edit it. SBHarris 01:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Do you know how to change a semi-locked article? I don't. I checked Moonraker and that is inconsistent too. What about saying something like: "Although John Pearson's fictional biography of Bond gives him a birth date in 1920, the books themselves are inconsistent on the point. In Casino Royale, he is said to have bought a car in 1933 and to have been an experienced gambler before the war. Two books later, in Moonraker, he is said to be eight years away from the 00 section's mandatory active service retirement age of 45. The books were written over a twelve-year period during which Bond's age, when mentioned, varies but is usually around forty." Tirailleur (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Bond's car
Another inconsistency here. In Casino Royale, Bond's car is said to be a supercharged Bentley with a supercharger bought almost new in 1933. The last supercharged Bentley, according to the wiki article, was made in 1930, so the buy is plausible, but unfortunately the model in question had well over 100 horsepower versus a meagre twenty-five claimed for Bond's car. It is possible, just about, to read this as being an incremental 25hp conferred by the supercharger, but I've never heard of the HP bonus from a supercharger being stated separately in such a way. It's a nerdy point, perhaps, but Bond's cars, women, drinking habits and gadgets are probably the main things he's noted for and thus are probably the kind of thing people would come to wiki for information about (as I did). It appears to me that Fleming either guessed the power output of a prewar Bentley or perhaps just didn't know that much about cars? Worth a mention? Tirailleur (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Ref. origin and influence. For your consideration: In the 2010 tv-series 'Orange Scaundral' and other Dutch media it is often suggested Fleming partly based certain Bond trademarks on Dutch Royal and War Hero Prince Bernhard. The 2 appear to be acquainted through their years at the war office in London during WWII. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.167.126.88 (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Directors links
Second and third iterations of directors in the chart are not linked to their wikis, though the first iterations are. EX: Terrance Young as director of Thunderball has no link, even though he does as director of Dr. No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nquinn91 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- That's the point. You're supposed to only link something once in an article. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 07:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)