Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject James Bond/Archive 1

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject James Bond
Latest comment: 16 years ago by The Giant Puffin in topic Template:Bond movies

Members Info

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since we already have favorite Bond, favorite Villain, and favorite film, shouldn't we also have favorite Bond Girl? El Greco 19:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I've added the project banner to all remaining book articles that hadn't already had one added. I also added it to James Bond Jr., the TV series. Incidentally that article uses a "nested" format for multiple project banners that a) is awful and b) doesn't make sense in the coding. Since a number of Bond articles have multiple wikiprojects attached to them, we should be prepared for the "nesting monster" to start showing up elsewhere, too. 23skidoo 22:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Apologies. I just noticed I was using an incomplete version of the banner tag. I see some folks are already fixing this, but when I have some time later today I'll go through and repair any tags that haven't been fixed. 23skidoo 14:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Portal

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What if any relationship does the project anticipate having with Portal:James Bond? John Carter 00:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think both could actually help each other out. El Greco (talk • contribs) 00:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Importance Tags

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

It is important that all articles over WP: James Bond are all importance tagged and they are all standard, eg. GoldenEye (film) is high so all other Bond films should be High. The problem is which ones should they go in.

Consensus for Importance Tags
Article Type Special Windler El Greco &
Cliff Smith		 John Carter 23skidoo Ganfon ColdFusion650
James Bond Top Top Top Top Top Top
Important James Bond articles
eg. JB (films), JB (books)		 Top Top Top Top Top Top
EON Films High Top Top Mid to Top depending on film Mid Top
Ian Fleming Books High High High Mid to Top depending on book High to Top Depending on the book High
Unofficial Films (parodies, etc.) Mid Top Mid Mid Low Mid
Bond Producers Mid ?? Mid Mid (but Top for Broccolli and Saltzman) Mid Mid
Authorised Books (other than Fleming) Mid High High Mid to High depending on book Mid High
Unoffical Books Low Mid Low Low to Mid depending on book Low Low
007 Actors (6) High High High High to Top depending on actor Top for all but Lazenby and Dalton, who should be mid High
Main Bond Girls Mid High High Mid to High depending on character High Mid
Secondary Bond Girls Low Mid Mid (with possible exceptions) Low to High depending on character Low Low
Main Bond Villains Mid High High Mid to Top depending on character High to Top depending on villain High
Main Recurring Characters
eg. M or Felix but not Tanner		 Mid High High Low to High depending on character High for Felix, Mid for most others High
Secondary Recurring Low High Mid Low to Mid depending on character Low
Lists of Henchmen
& Allies by film 		Low Low Low Low Low Low
Bond Songs Low
except James Bond theme		 ?? Low (maybe excepting "Goldfinger") Low to High depending on song Low Low
Bond Albums Low ?? Low Low to Mid Low Low
Other Bond cast
eg Judi Dench or Halle Berry 		Don't have Them at All ??
Don't belong here (Cliff smith)		 Low High for Dench and other recurring; Low to Mid others High for Dench, Bernard Lee, Low for others Mid for Dench, none for others
Bond Crew Members Low ??
Low (Cliff smith)		 Low Low to High depending on individual (Peter Lamont high) Low Low

I think this should be in the talk page to get some sort of consensus, so I moved it to the talk page. Here's my version:

El Greco (talk • contribs) 00:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted my part and put it into the table, I have also put El Greco's but I have no right to delete his thoughts SpecialWindler 09:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions:Does "Bond girls" include both the characters and the actresses, or just one or the other? And, personally, I would include all the articles, including the production crew and minor characters/actors, so that at least someone is monitoring the articles?

Also, a possible alternate format. Maybe, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels, we could create a page where we could, when we're done with the basics here, go item by item for which articles should be in either "Top" or "High" importance. The Mid and Low importance articles can probably be "categorize" much less controversially, based on the guidelines proposed above. John Carter 14:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't use a blanket importance rating based upon topic. For example, the articles on the novels Casino Royale and From Russia With Love, for example, need to be Top importance (as does Thunderball and at least one or two of the other books); however lesser Bond books such as Octopussy and The Living Daylights and The Spy Who Loved Me can be safely placed as Mid-importance. Incidentally, I am on record at the Novels WikiProject as being opposed to the rating of articles by Importance as I believe this is a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I have no objection to rating articles by quality, but I do not support the judgement call required to decide whether one article is more important than another. 23skidoo 14:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

    • As indicated here, it can be important to know which articles are most "important" simply to know which articles are most deserving of attention. With any luck, this will be the articles that are most often visited. I believe that the importance ranking should exist, and should be based on two criteria:
      • (1) - the frequency a given article is accessed (granted, that can be tough to call) and
      • (2) the proximity of the subject's relationship to the project.
      • On the basis of the two above, James Bond would be of top importance, as it is very likely often accessed and is a central topic to the project. Other articles that might be important for other reasons, Halle Berry among them, would be possibly less important to this project than they might be to other projects, or even wikipedia in general, as the amount of content relevant to this project isn't that high. I think, if done in that way, the selection could be made less subjective. Also, acknowledging the point 23skidoo raised above, once we have the "basics" in line it will be possible to assess the articles which might qualify as "High" or "Top" individually, and, yes, possibly find that some of them might not qualify as such. Also, certainly, it might be possible to propose some articles that wouldn't qualify per those guidelines for either High or Top importance individually. John Carter 14:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I guess my concern is that in some cases there may be controversy. For example, the chart above has someone positing that Lazenby and Dalton should only receive Mid importance. Others may dispute that, considering one or the other deserving of a higher (or lower) ranking. While I guess one can consider an article's popularity in terms of hits I don't really see this as an accurate measure, I've yet to be presented with a truly objective way of considering an article's importance that doesn't open the door for later argument. 23skidoo 21:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
          • There can always be controversy about anything regarding wikipedia content or anything else. I only favor using this method as it is, as it were, passing the buck to someone else. If the group ultimately do use the system that is supposed to be developed soon, then the complaints would probably go to the developer of the system, not to us. I think. John Carter 22:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
            • I totally agree with ElGreco's list, but Never Say Never Again isn't an EON and would go with the CR parodies. Cliff smith 00:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think this topic is going to have some problems with agreements, but all only 80/300 articles still need importance tags. So perhaps just ask the question "What did Article Name do to James Bond?. So what did Halle Berry do to James Bond, not much so low. eg eg. Thats my thoughts anyway.

Way to Go

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Guys, I'd just like to say that I started this project only two days ago, and look at it. I love the effort everybody is pouring into this thing. I can't wait till I get some more time on my hands to really gid in to this, but this is looking like one terrific Wikiproject. Keep up the good work Ganfon 19:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Someone has changed the trivia sections of the bond films to Comentary. It not supposed to happen, trivia should be deleted or re-integrated into the article

eg. Useless Trivia (should be deleted)

From 'From Russia with Love' Trivia Section

Bond's Russia scenes with M and Q are played with none of the tenseness of their meetings in later 007 films, where the intelligence chief and equipment officer would show notable frustration with his flippancy. In fact, M is charmed by the idea of Bond using his fondness for women as a tool, specifically to get the LEKTOR decoder.

Important Trivia (should be kept)

From 'From Russia with Love' Trivia Section

Alfred Hitchcock was originally considered as director for the film version in 1958, with Bond to be played by Cary Grant and a possible return to the screen for Grace Kelly as Tatiana Romanova, but the deals fell through when Vertigo performed badly at the box office. The helicopter scene in From Russia with Love mimics the cropduster scene from the film Hitchcock did instead in North by Northwest.

That could be put in the production section (it needs citation though).

Half-Important Trivia (should be kept unless it has no-where to go, then delete it)

From 'From Russia with Love' Trivia Section

Reportedly, author and James Bond creator Ian Fleming makes a cameo in the Istanbul train scene (following Bond's stealing the LEKTOR decoder), standing outside on the right of the train, wearing grey trousers and a white sweater; some sources deny Fleming's appearance.

if that can be found a place in the article then put it there, but if it can't, delete.

PS:Thats my opinion and may vary from others SpecialWindler 03:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

There are alot of actor/actress articles in The Articles but i dont think all the articles should be in there (eg. Halle Berry, Judi Dench, Gert Frobe), what do they really have to do with James Bond. There should only be 6 actors in the Wiki Project James Bond (SC,GL,RM,TD,PB,DC). So the record is clear - Christmas Jones is in, but Denise Richards is not. You Know My Name (song) is but Chris Cornell isnt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SpecialWindler (talk • contribs) 02:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Personally, I disagree. Granted, they may not be overwhelming important to the project, but we may often be the people most likely to add images to certain articles, particularly of actors from the films. In at least that way, we would be able to improve those articles fairly easily as well. Also, frankly, the more articles we have, the more likely we are to get more members, as our "content list" will be more impressive. That isn't to say that we will necessarily as a project focusing a lot of attention on them, but that little attention may well be more than they would ever get from anyone else. John Carter 14:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, too. Lead actors, or actors with multiple Bond film appearances should most certainly be part of the Wikiproject. So, too, should the authors (and I've added the banner to all the author articles). 23skidoo 21:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

For instance I saw Woody Allen as under James Bond. No way!!!!. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 12:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

More additions

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I'm slowly adding the banner to more Bond-related articles. All the book authors now have them, plus I've added Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli to the list, along with Kevin McClory. I also added the Robert Markham article to the list. 23skidoo 21:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, it might be good to add them to a Bond-related category too, so that no-one argues the presence of the banner. Maybe Category:James Bond writers? John Carter 22:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe "James Bond novelists" otherwise we'd have to include any of the film and comic strip writers, too. 23skidoo 22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I actually created the Category:James Bond authors. We won't have to include any other writers, but the title is at this point broad enough to allow that if for whatever reason we want to later. We this way could also include the writers of the screenplays of some of the later movies, if we choose to do so. Qualifiers can always be added to the text of the category later, as well. John Carter 22:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I added Robert Markham to the category although this is technically a duplicate since Kingsley Amis is already there. It logically makes more sense in that category though (previously in the main JB cat). I also added R. D. Mascott (which is a redirect). These are the official authors by GP/IFP so that should be it though there are arguably others: Peel and Jenner, but at that point it gets really gray and you'd then have to consider adding Jenkins and Hatfield, which I oppose, and maybe screenwriters and so forth. I would think the criteria should be: "officially (IFP approved) published authors of a Bond-related fictional novel." That should cover it. ;) K1Bond007 01:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I might add "authors of screenplays which are clearly original works", maybe as a subcategory, though. Also, Christopher Wood is already included, and I don't know how many others that would apply to. John Carter 01:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Wood is included because he wrote two novelizations. "James Bond authors" should be restricted to people (or entities in the case of Markham) who have published official Bond fiction. Screenwriters are not the same as authors and should have their own category (which is a good idea anyway because we should have a category for the likes of Richard Maibaum, Robert Wade, Paul Haggis, etc.). In this instance, Wood would be listed under two categories because of his special status. I think John Peel should be included because he wrote a series of James Bond Jr. novelizations and these were officially sanctioned. 23skidoo 13:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Japan Mr. Bond

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The YOLT DVD contains this fascinating made-for-TV special produced by Broccoli and Saltzman. I think it should have its own article because it actually contains a storyline involving Moneypenny and Q (played by Maxwell and Llewellyn) and was even filmed on the 007 sets including Moneypenny's office and Q's lab, neither of which I think even appear in YOLT! I wouldn't want to guess where this fits into any sort of canon (and the reference to OHMSS is a nice metafictional touch) but I think the special deserves its own article. Thoughts? 23skidoo 13:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for possible image

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is a half-baked idea, I know. However, I would like to see maybe a male counterpart of Wikipe-tan created. Maybe an image in a pose similar to that of Roger Moore in the James Bond gun barrel sequence, or maybe a bust image of the iconic pose with a gun pointed up over one shoulder, like on the Live and Let Die (film) poster. Something like that. After all, Wikipe-tan probably gets kinda lonely out there in virtual space, and she'd probably like having around someone who can really show her a platonic good time. (I'm not really sure how old she is, of course, so it would be strictly platonic, you cad.) Anyway, if anyone knows anyone who could create such an image, I think it would probably be useful not only for us, but maybe for any other such projects that might emerge later, as maybe a sort of award for work on characters like Simon Templar, Matt Helm, Remo Williams, and any of the other adventure heroes of that type. Also, if whoever did it could make the loops in the "w" in "W7"'s name (just an idea) come close to closing, but not completely, I think we might be able to avoid legal complications. John Carter 13:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We've arrived

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

That didn't take long. Only a few days in play and already our project page has been vandalized. Who brought the vodka martinis? 23skidoo 01:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

After CFD discussion about "Actor by performance" categories it was decided that they should all be replaced with lists. This effects Category:James Bond cast members and Category:Actresses who played James Bond girls which are both now tagged with {{listify}}.

The best way to handle this information is with a list. If every film enthusiast were to categorize actors by their performance, all the articles about actors would suffer. Categorizing actors by performance is now contrary to categorization guidelines. A list can add more information and organize the information. Rather than adding to the category, I hope the project will make a replacement lists so that the categoris can be deleted. Please do not remove the template. -- Samuel Wantman 22:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

New Article Suggestions

List of actresses who portrayed Bond girls - List is started; precise definition of "Bond girl" escapes me, though, so several people listed/shown may not necessarily qualify
List of actors who portayed James Bond - a list exists, but it could probably use a lot of work
List of actors and actresses who portrayed Bond villains
List of actors and actresses who portrayed Bond henchmen
List of actors and actresses who portrayed Bond allies

SpecialWindler 07:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My only concern about this is the fact that while on the one hand people want to remove the categories, I keep seeing lists of this sort being nominated for AFD. It's as if the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. What I could suggest is any such list articles be introduced with a strong paragraph or two setting the rationale for the list and the criteria (for example, a "list of actors and actresses who portrayed Bond allies" -- and that should be JAMES Bond allies, btw -- should make it clear that only major/supporting characters are included, otherwise someone could decide to list all the actors who played, say, the submarine crew in Spy Who Loved Me, since they were allies). It might not hurt to include on the talk page of these articles a link to the CFD discussion as well ... it might help dissuade someone from nominating for AFD. 23skidoo 13:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing, but sometimes information is neither appropriate as a list OR a category. It seems rare that well cited, NPOV, encyclopedic material gets deleted by both AFD and CFD. -- Samuel Wantman 07:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, it seems that there are some articles like James Bond locations, that should be renamed to indicate that they are lists. I'd also start a category for all the lists, such as Category:James Bond lists. -- Samuel Wantman 07:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Cast sections

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I see that in GoldenEye and The World Is Not Enough, the cast section information is about how the actor got the part, not the character. Tomorrow Never Dies, Die Another Day, [[Licence to Kill], The Living Daylights, A View to a Kill, Octopussy and probably others have no extra information. I saw someone put something in open tasks specifically about The World Is Not Enough as if it were anomaly. Which way should this go? Should there be any bio information in the cast section other than names of actors and characters? If there is more information is about how the actor got the part, or about the character? ColdFusion650 17:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • With trivia sections being effectively banned, such additional info has to go somewhere. A lot of this material probably comes from sources such as the DVD releases and books like The Bond Files and James Bond: The Legacy. If it's sourced, I see no reason why it can't be included if it's germaine to the topic at hand. The GoldenEye article does contain some info that isn't needed, though, like that bit about Brosnan being banned from wearing a tux in other films (which I maintain is an urban myth); it belongs in Brosnan's bio article if it's true, not here. 23skidoo 17:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess my question is, what is the standard form for the cast section? ColdFusion650 19:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean like the format for a cast section or who belongs and who doesn't belong in a cast section? El Greco (talk • contribs) 19:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The format. Should it just be the names of the characters, information about the characters, information about the actors, a mixture? Because it is by no means uniform across the articles. ColdFusion650 19:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

See Casino Royale for a proper cast section. Cliff smith 01:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Article stats

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since you started using the bot instead of updating it manually, I suggest you to make a separate table listing number of articles in category, list, template, etc. OhanaUnited 15:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Mission of the Week

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm keeping the Mission of the Week to work on James Bond, for two reasons, it didn't get a full week, and it did not receive any real work done on it yet. I think we need to find a better way of nominating the next mission and such. Ganfon 20:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, for those who didn't know, it was the 82nd most frequently hit article in wikipedia according to Wikicharts here. That makes it, at least in one regard, one of the most important articles wikipedia has. John Carter 21:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Content disagreement

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the article From Russia with Love (film) Martine Beswick is credited as the dancing girl in the opening titles sequence. This is directly contradicted on her own page. Can anyone find a way to reconcile these two statements, or find out which is wrong? Also, we currently have several variant spellings of the name of her Paula Caplan/Kaplan/Kaplin whatever character. Anyone who can fix this would be most appreciated. John Carter 15:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Paula. The correct spelling is Caplan, according to most Bond-related publications.Editus 17:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Although this talk page is currently not that long, the rate we are going it won't be long before it is. I'm suggesting that we get a bot to to our archiving for easier reasons. This would put inactive talks in the archive. SpecialWindler 06:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page#Automated_archival says automated archiving is not allowed for article talk, but doesn't mention WikiProject talk. Is asked at WP:VPT. —AldeBaer 13:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I was bold and set up Miszabot with the following incremental configuration:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_James_Bond/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 1
|maxarchivesize = 100K
}}
This will archive threads with latest timestamp from 14 days ago to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject James Bond/Archive 1, until that archive page reaches 100K, then the bot will begin to archive to archive page 2, and so on. —AldeBaer 15:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Help!

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Listen, I'm sorry, but I messed up. I'm trying to join and I've messed the whole damn page up with my complete inability to handle anything more technological than a toaster. If someone could sort things out I'd be eternally thankfull... (Callum J. Stewart 09:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

If you get in a tight spot, just revert your edits. Then call for help. I've got you fixed up. I'm not sure what happened, so I just reverted your edits and then added you. ColdFusion650 16:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Fusion. I guess I should've just turned the bloody machine off...

(That's a reference to LTK , fact fans - but of course, you all knew that...) (Callum J. Stewart 17:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

Open tasks list

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

On the Other Tasks list I see there's a move to get a couple of articles to Featured status. I don't support that either in part because I witnessed the article for Thunderball go to Featured status and then be removed from featured status because someone didn't like it and was vocal enough about it; it was a frustrating enough experience that I swore off the idea (for the same reason I dislike importance ranking -- too much POV to be worthwhile. That said, I think getting Thunderball back to featured status should be a priority, for pride if nothing else. (PS. I just noticed this task was in fact removed from the list, in case anyone is wondering what I'm going on about). 23skidoo 22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That was actually Goldfinger, and my logic is undeniable. ColdFusion650 22:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Open Tasks, I hope the one I added made sense. The books came first but quite often I'll come across an article that is about a character from the books, yet all the information is from the films, or a list is created that is supposed to have characters from the books but only the film characters are listed. Obviously the films are always going to be better known, but enough of us are familiar with the novels that we can make sure that, say, an article on Auric Goldfinger makes Fleming's original concept of the character clear to start with, followed by details of the film adaptation. 23skidoo 22:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. The article on Pussy Galore seems to be repeatedly "fixed" so the photo of Honor Blackman (who doesn't look at all like the novel woman, although the novel cover does) heads it up. That's one problem with these blasted "Wikiproject James Bond" templates. All they do is encourage movie-ism. So let's watch it, shall we? SBHarris 04:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. The only novel I've read is Casino Royale, but there should definitely be information on the book versions of the characters if they differ from the movies. From what I've read this is already done mostly, but a check to make sure wouldn't hurt. ColdFusion650 22:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree a lot of the work has already been done. I just thought it was important to make the statement for the record as there will, naturally, be a lot of interested parties who aren't familiar with the novels. In fact I've encountered a few people who weren't even aware there were James Bond novels until last year's Casino Royale spotlighted the fact. 23skidoo 13:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Overabundance of images

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've noticed there are a huge amount of images on practically every James Bond film article now. Some of them are incredibly ridiculous. For instance: Thunderball. The summary mentions a shark and therefore apparently we need an image of a shark and what really gets me is it's not even the shark from the movie. Same goes for the image of the Bahamas, the rebreather, and well.. pretty much every other image on there save for maybe 2 or 3. Why do we have these images? Because Wikipedia's readers are dumb ;) ? Because they can't click the link "shark" and see an image and learn about sharks there? I honestly don't get it. I also question the quality of some of these "screenshots". The DVDs look great and yet this is the best image we can get of Quarrel.

First off I think some of these images fail Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines on image use, but I think we need to start policing this ourselves. Images should be of a meaningful scene, not just arbitrarily chosen. They should also be of the best quality we can get - preferably from the source (i.e., the actual DVD, not a fansite). The Quarrel one needs to go and someone needs to do a new screen capture from Dr. No. We also need to limit redundancy. Why do we really have a shot of Quarrel on the Dr. No article to begin with? Shouldn't that the be the job of the "List of" related articles? Maybe if that was it, it wouldn't be so bad, but we also have shots of the Three Blind Mice, Dr. No, Professor Dent (in black and white), Honey and Bond, and one of Bond not to mention another shot of the Caribbean (not from the movie), a generic picture of a Walther PPK, etc etc. All of these are practically redundant and needless. The one of Bond would be good if it was of better quality and in the right section explaining what was going on, but it's all wrong.

I can go on and on, but the point is to turn attention of the Wikiproject to this issue. These are our core article and practically all of them (because of this IMHO) look like a really bad 1990s geocities fansite ;) K1Bond007 21:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. You've inspired me to kill the gratuitous shot of Miami somebody added to Goldfinger-flim, just because some of the action takes place there. And to include space for crap like this, we've lost a lot of interesting information, some of it on the grounds that it was "trivia"! Well, there's nothing more trivial than generic clip-art. Yep. Be bold and nail it wherever you can. SBHarris 04:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Unassessed articles

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

As all the articles under WikiProject James Bond have been assessed, should the task be removed from the major task list, or left on for when new JB articles are created? Perhaps if it was removed, and the task of assessing individual new articles could be added to minor tasks as needed? Your thoughts please. Editus 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say remove it. As there are no longer any unassessed articles, we can simply assess any new articles created in the future. Because of this, there will not be a lot of unassessed articles at any one time, so it wont be a major task - • The Giant Puffin • 17:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, all done on that. The subsequent bullet points suggest that the issue of trivia sections has been resolved, so I'll remove that too.Editus 17:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

New member

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I'm a new member and I've only just created an account; I have seen all the Bond films and have about half on DVD, so I'm going to crack on with the required plot summaries listed on the project page. Since I'm not entirely confident with setting up articles from scratch or making major changes, I'm going to leave the major changes for now, but if there's a specific task that's demanded by the project's powers that be (whoever they might be) doing just let me know. Editus 17:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Update on the above: I have added summaries to Thunderball and You Only Live Twice; I have taken the liberty of removing them from the list of minor tasks on the project page. Editus 19:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC) EDIT: done Moonraker too. A more experienced user might want to check it though (see below!) Editus 17:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Just done plot summary to Octopussy too 1748 UTC

I just did The Living Daylights summary, so all the film articles now have summaries. Editus 15:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work. I removed a world from You Only Live Twice because it was too complicated. ColdFusion650 19:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely: "I removed a word"? If so which one was it as I am trying to moderate my writing styleEditus 19:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry dude, forgot you were new. You can view each page's edit history by clicking "History" at the top of the page. It will show all edits that have been made and archived versions for each edit. If you click "diff" next to an edit, it will show the changes made. So if you go to that article, click History, then click "diff" next to the top most edit, it will highlight in red what I changed. This comes in really handy when reviewing changes on articles. ColdFusion650 19:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks ColdFusion. Noted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.162.224 (talk • contribs) 14:43, April 23, 2007.

Gun sequence video

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

A slightly mad idea, but then all the best Bond villains were mad...What if in the James Bond gun barrel sequence article, we put in a video of the sequence playing on a continuous loop, as this would illustrate it much better than a written description. This just occurred to me as I was browsing articles, but I am concerned about feasibility and copyright issues. Editus 16:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I say with all seriousness: are you insane? A video on a loop? Do you realize how annoying that is? ColdFusion650 17:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If it could be done, that would be very interesting. But it would only be cool if it included each different James Bond gun barrel sequence. El Greco (talk • contribs) 19:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna have to side with the opposition here. Video loops do get quite annoying. Ganfon 19:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No ColdFusion, I have a clean psychiatric record, thank you. If you disagree, keep it impersonal. Take your point about it being annoying. Perhaps a more practical solution would be to have a video that displayed as a still until it is clicked. I'm not sure whether this is even nearly feasible, however. Editus 20:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That might be quite cool, but surley an external link (maybe to YouTube) would be better. There's a vid on there of all 21 gun barrels. Callum J. Stewart 08:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

To Do Status Reports

Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

I've changed around GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies, The World Is Not Enough, and Die Another Day to match Casino Royale. I've also removed the trivia section from The World Is Not Enough to a short Production section. The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day need a short synopsis in the lead. I haven't seen either, so I don't feel I can adequately sum up the plot. The World Is Not Enough needs a Production, Release, and Soundtrack section. I think GoldenEye is pretty much finished. That's kind of been my project for a while, so I've really done some work on the content. After the formatting to match Casino Royal, per the Open Task list, I think it's done. There's nothing else I can do, at least. ColdFusion650 21:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to El Greco for the lead summary in Die Another Day. Thanks to Ernest Stavro Blofeld for the release section in The World Is Not Enough. There was already a soundtrack article. It just wasn't linked to from the main article. So I added that. Still working on the Production section. After that, I'm pretty sure all of the Brosnan articles will be good to go. ColdFusion650 17:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

All films have been gone through and formatted correctly. Anything I saw that needed to be changed I put on the open tasks list. ColdFusion650 14:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I threw in a plot summary in the leads to License to Kill, A View to a Kill, The Spy Who Loved Me (film) and Diamonds Are Forever (film). Feel free to mercilessly edit them. (Callum J. Stewart 10:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

Excellent. ColdFusion650 13:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Goldfinger (film) and On Her Majesty's Secret Service (film) now have plot summaries in the leads. I'll do the rest tonight, because I'm at work now and if the boss catches me on Wikipedia my life will be worth less than an orange jumpsuited technician in TSWLM... (Callum J. Stewart 13:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

Couldn't resist - just slapped a plot summary in the lead for The Man with the Golden Gun (film)... (Callum J. Stewart 14:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

Ok, that's Dr. No (film), Live and Let Die (film) and For Your Eyes Only (film) all got plot summaries in the leads. The Living Daylights is presenting a problem though - as much as I love that film, I cannot for the life of me condense the plot into a just a few sentances. (Callum J. Stewart 22:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

I did the plot summary for The Living Daylights earlier today; all the films now have plot summaries. Editus 16:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work, Editus. Callum J. Stewart 09:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Bondpedia

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey there I was just wondering, if you think you can contribute to a specifically designed for James Bond you should check out Bondpedia.net especially if you like Nightfire Highfields 15:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Help James Bond

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Folks, it's not only the mission of the week, it's nominated for Featured Status. And so far the main complaint is it's sources. If everyone would focus their efforts on James Bond and working to get great sources for the information presented, it shouldn't have any trouble getting to featured status.Ganfon 19:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been wiser to get the sources to reference the article first? Then once the article is actually referenced, nominate it for FA? It just seems now that you're trying to play catchup and it might or might not work. Was there a peer review for the article before hand to point out the issues in the article? El Greco (talk • contribs) 00:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Probably, however the 'catch-up' wouldn't nearly as hard if all the members of the project would work hard to meet the criticism and help the project's most important article reach featured status. There's no reason it would fail it's candidacy as long as all who supports the idea shows their support and spends some time working on the article. Right now everyone is stretching the project a million different ways. Maybe before we do that, we should focus our efforts on our main project. Ganfon 01:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I would say that since this is a volunteer project, although you can make suggestions on what articles to work on, everyone can work on whatever articles they want. It's the nature of Wikipedia. If nobody else wants to work on that article, they don't have to. ColdFusion650 11:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm with ColdFusion. If you want people to help specifically on the article, give us a small-scale, quantitative list (i.e. small tasks and we can check them off when we're done) either here or on the article talk page. Example: "reference quote XYZ in Section ABC" Editus 16:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The main James Bond article is going to take a lot of work to be as comprehensive as it can yet still fit on a page. The subject isn't exactly the easiest to organize when you're gunning for both the novels and films, not to mention video games, comic books, comic strips and much more. It needs to be far more sourced, with credible sources - there are so many websites out there that have bad information or are using age-old apocryphal stories that need to be weeded out. A lot of low-end books do the same; just regurgitating the same crap and some of it has found it's way to Wikipedia. I can see why, but for that article to be any good in my eyes it needs to use more core sources (John Pearson's The Life of Ian Fleming, Andrew Lycett's biography, pretty much anything by John Cork or Kingsley Amis). I seriously wouldn't put much focus on making this article an FA. Just try and improve the article as best as we can. FA status isn't really worth it if you ask me. If you want an FA for this Wikiproject, it'd be best to focus on easier ones than this. James Bond (films) would be a good start or pick a movie or book and try and do it. Casino Royale is close. Going for "James Bond" though? That's like trying to learn how to swim by jumping in the deep end. K1Bond007 08:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
As right as you are, K1Bond, you're also wrong. Yes, getting James Bond to FA status will be difficult for the reasons you have mentioned, but equally it is the central article to this WikiProject and so if any article should be top-notch, it should be this one. Editus Reloaded 09:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's centric, but I don't think we should set it as a goal to make it an FA. Make it a great article and maintain that - if it can gain FA status and someone wants to put all the time and effort into that then sure, but in the end FAs don't really mean anything and in a few months time, a few editors will see to it to strip it of its FA status. No attempt to improve the problems of the article that were apparently glaring when the article gained that status, just a quick vote and it's over. It's almost a waste of time. It really is. I'm only saying that the focus of our time, effort and energy should be improving all articles related to James Bond, not just this specific one. There are so many articles on James Bond related topics here that are pretty poor that could use that energy instead. "James Bond", additionally, as I stated is not an easy article to get to FA status. It'll be three times as hard as any other due to the broadness of the subject matter. If you want to do it then go for it, but it shouldn't be the Wikiproject's focus. That's not really the point to a Wikiproject anyway. It's about collaborating together to organize and maintain the entire subject matter through a variety of means such as consensus and guidelines. It's about having a central point of discussion in which to do all of that. Making FA articles is just a byproduct. K1Bond007 03:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

James Bond the film series

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

On the James Bond page it says

The twenty-one Bond films have grossed over $4 billion worldwide, making it the second most successful film series ever (behind Star Wars at nearly $20 billion).

Ok. But as far as I can see it, James Bond is the highest grossing film series. In the table on James Bond it adds up to $4,355,700,000. Now Star Wars (according to their individual pages) equates to: I: $924m, II: $649m, III: $849m, IV: $775m, V: $538m, VI: $475m which equates to 4.2 million which makes James Bond the better franchise. Now the $20 billion claim is at the entire Star Wars franchise. backed up by

this site

SpecialWindler 09:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Box-office success does not make any film or series "good". If you're eager to get those numbers into the article, and you have reliable sources, you may want to omit the "better" wording. —AldeBaer 14:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Successful" or "popular," however, are objectively correct terms, if based fairly on box office attendence. I put in the "fairly" since I don't know how to correct for the effects of time: population and technology like ripping of digital copies, and other stuff. So it's a problem. SBHarris 04:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"official" / "unofficial" vs. EON/non-EON

Latest comment: 17 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

Never Say Never Again contains the following sentence: "The film is considered an "unofficial" James Bond film because it is not part of the Bond film franchise from EON Productions and United Artists." I added the quotation marks to "official" because I disagree with that expression for several reasons I posted to Talk:James Bond (films). I'd like all available project members to form consensus on what to do about this.

"Official" / "unofficial" is the colloquial term used for the distinction between EON and non-EON productions. The above quoted sentence from Never Say Never Again basically explains the usage, but without any sources for that definition as to what is and what isn't an "official" bond film, this remains original research.

Please let's do either of the following: (i) Find reliable sources for that definition and truthfully cite them (e.g. "according to author XY, James Bond films produced by EON are recognised as "official" 007 movies") or (ii) let's drop the terms "official"/"unofficial" in favour of the simple and very straightforward actual distinction EON / non-EON.

In a supplementary move, a new explanatory section in James Bond (films) could be linked to wherever the distinction is made in any article. Just my 2 cents.

—AldeBaer 14:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a revival of an old argument that dates back about 2 years. Check books such as James Bond: The Legacy, The Bond Files by Simpson and Lane, and contemporary media coverage of the "Battle of the Bonds" from 1983 and you'll find plenty of references to Never Say Never being considered an unofficial Bond film. How could it be considered otherwise? It wasn't produced by EON. Same goes for Casino Royale (1967 version). This old chestnut keeps popping up again and again - I think what I'm going to do is make it an open task and let's get this settled once and for all. 23skidoo 15:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I found a note on TV Guide about the officialness of Never Say Never Again. ColdFusion650 16:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Another here and here. ColdFusion650 16:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
If you feel that those sources adequately back up the definition as quoted above from Never Say Never Again, go ahead and include it.
My point is not so much that Never Say Never Again or the 1967 spoof of Casino Royal are "official" by any means. I just don't like the expression "official" / "unofficial" in this context, when all it denotes is simply the distinction between EON-produced / not EON-produced. Wouldn't it be easier to use this simple and excellently sourced indicator for "officialness" instead of including such a lengthy explanation in each article?
If I may suggest a compromise, we could denote official/EON like: "This film is an "official", EON-produced James Bond film." How about that? The EON Productions link makes it pretty much self-explanatory, and no additional sources must be introduced. —AldeBaer 16:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't recommend that, because it calls attention to itself a bit too much and then we might get people arguing the use of the quotation marks and so forth. Better to only make this reference for the two non-EON films; whether to include the quotation marks or not I'll leave for consensus to decide. Although I termed this issue an "old chestnut" above, I think it's a good one for the WikiProject to tackle so I was happy to add it to the open tasks list. 23skidoo 19:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
NSNA and CR (54+67) are authorised but not official. They had the rights to make the film etc. etc. but in terms that they are not part of EON film series which Ian Fleming gave all his rights to. The only rights wasn't given were Casino Royale (which Barabara Broccoli says were tied up (Becoming Bond, 2006)), NSNA was made due to Kevin McClory who had the rights to Thunderball because he co-wrote it with Fleming. blah blah blah. Thats my opininon anyway SpecialWindler 06:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Things are made wikt:official by an wikt:office. The way the word is used here is wikt:colloquial. Hence my proposal to include the commonly used colloquial adjective "official" (mind the quotation marks!), but at the same time making clear that we are well aware that it's only the colloquial term for "official"=EON-produced / "unofficial"=not EON-produced. The unindicated colloquial usage of the term is what bugs me. —AldeBaer 13:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It bugs you, but it is proper terminology in the world of James Bond. It's not at all original research like you're implying. It's widely accepted by the media, the fanbase, and even used by EON Productions themselves in books - which they possibly for their own reasons perpetuate. Still we do a fair job of explaining why it's (NSNA) called an unofficial film in the second paragraph of that article. Explain it once and move on. This doesn't have to be a big deal. K1Bond007 21:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, no big deal. What I said about OR was that the definition in NSNA has no sources; it still hasn't any, by the way. The use of the "official" —in this case— is improper terminology in the world of encyclopedias. You see, "it bugs me" is really just a shorter way of saying "I perceive it as inappropriate for Wikipedia". —AldeBaer 00:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Not everything in life fits the definition for the terms in which we use. Eton College (and this is James Bond related) calls their terms "halves", but there are more than 2. So long as we explain it as we have done, then it is proper and appropriate for Wikipedia. I disagree with going against the mainstream usage of the term and slanting 'history' simply because you don't like it. That seems far more inappropriate for Wikipedia IMHO. As Wikipedia is not the only one to use the term, ideally Wikipedia would be a good site on the Internet to explain and have the information for why people refer to it as unofficial. As far as sourcing it.. well pick the source you want to use. Doing a quick Google search, the BBC not long ago [1] used the term. MI6.co.uk explains it here restating what I've already said and I'm sure there are a dozen or so books and hundreds of other Internet articles and whatnot to use. K1Bond007 03:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, MI6.co.uk uses quotation marks on several instances (though not consequently). They're talking about ‘official’ and ‘unofficial’ as terms of fan discourse:
  • Never Say Never Again has always been billed as an ‘unofficial’ Bond film, for the simple reason that it was not originally produced/released under the Eon/MGM/UA mantle [...].
  • Sean Connery returns to the mantel of 007 one last time in this 'unofficial' 1983 James Bond adventure.
  • [...] the 'official' series [...]'
—AldeBaer 05:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes AldeBaer, the mi6.com source does use quotation marks, but in this case the only definition for 'unofficial' or 'official' is the consensus of Bond fans. I think MI6.com proves this argument - certainly for NSNA - as definitively as it is possible to do so, so I have put it into the NSNA article as a source, so I think that this issue can be put to bed for the foreseeable future. If you find something more conclusive e.g. a global census on all things 007 ;) then feel free to edit NSNA mercilessly and post an "I told ya so" on this page. Editus Reloaded 17:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Plot sections

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

A few of the James Bond films have very long plot sections including

202.83.118.27 02:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to log in SpecialWindler 04:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I have brought some of these down to the length present in Casino Royale (800-1000 words) and have struck them off the list here and on the project page. Editus Reloaded 17:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: Using Casino Royale as a yardstick (see project page), how can the plot section in Diamonds are Forever (534 words) be considered long compared to CR's 800ish words? Editus Reloaded 18:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Ditto The Spy Who Loved Me (807 words). I have removed some superfluous, uncaptioned images to reduce the on-screen length of the section. Editus Reloaded 18:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I used my eyes to check the lengths of these, some of the pictures are very misleading. As you say the plot section shoould be roughly 800-1000 words. SpecialWindler 08:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
How updated is this list? It's not synchronized with the project page tasks list. It only has The Living Daylights left on the list. The World Is Not Enough is less than 800 words, so I'm striking it. Striking Diamonds Are Forever per above comment ColdFusion650 19:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've taken the proverbial axe to The Living Daylights, so all the plot sections are now "correct" per the Casino Royale yardstick. Editus Reloaded 17:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Importance Tags

Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

It is important that all articles over WP: James Bond are all importance tagged and they are all standard, eg. GoldenEye (film) is high so all other Bond films should be High. The problem is which ones should they go in.

Consensus for Importance Tags
Article Type Special Windler El Greco &
Cliff Smith		 John Carter 23skidoo Ganfon ColdFusion650 Consensus
James Bond Top Top Top Top Top Top Top
Important James Bond articles
eg. JB (films), JB (books)		 Top Top Top Top Top Top Top
EON Films High Top Top Mid to Top depending on film Mid Top Top
Ian Fleming Books High High High Mid to Top depending on book High to Top Depending on the book High High
Unofficial Films (parodies, etc.) Mid Top Mid Mid Low Mid Mid
Bond Producers Mid ?? Mid Mid (but Top for Broccolli and Saltzman) Mid Mid Mid
Authorised Books (other than Fleming) Mid High High Mid to High depending on book Mid High High
Unoffical Books Low Mid Low Low to Mid depending on book Low Low Low
007 Actors (6) High High High High to Top depending on actor Top for all but Lazenby and Dalton, who should be mid High High
Main Bond Girls Mid High High Mid to High depending on character High Mid High
Secondary Bond Girls Low Mid Mid (with possible exceptions) Low to High depending on character Low Low Low
Main Bond Villains Mid High High Mid to Top depending on character High to Top depending on villain High High
Main Recurring Characters
eg. M or Felix but not Tanner		 Mid High High Low to High depending on character High for Felix, Mid for most others High High
Secondary Recurring Low High Mid Low to Mid depending on character Low Mid
Lists of Henchmen
& Allies by film 		Low Low Low Low Low Low Low
Bond Songs Low
except James Bond theme		 ?? Low (maybe excepting "Goldfinger") Low to High depending on song Low Low Low
Bond Albums Low ?? Low Low to Mid Low Low Low
Other Bond cast
eg Judi Dench or Halle Berry 		Don't have Them at All ??
Don't belong here (Cliff smith)		 Low High for Dench and other recurring; Low to Mid others High for Dench, Bernard Lee, Low for others Mid for Dench, none for others ?
Bond Crew Members Low ??
Low (Cliff smith)		 Low Low to High depending on individual (Peter Lamont high) Low Low Low

I think this should be in the talk page to get some sort of consensus, so I moved it to the talk page. Here's my version:

El Greco (talk • contribs) 00:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted my part and put it into the table, I have also put El Greco's but I have no right to delete his thoughts SpecialWindler 09:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions:Does "Bond girls" include both the characters and the actresses, or just one or the other? And, personally, I would include all the articles, including the production crew and minor characters/actors, so that at least someone is monitoring the articles?

Also, a possible alternate format. Maybe, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels, we could create a page where we could, when we're done with the basics here, go item by item for which articles should be in either "Top" or "High" importance. The Mid and Low importance articles can probably be "categorize" much less controversially, based on the guidelines proposed above. John Carter 14:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't use a blanket importance rating based upon topic. For example, the articles on the novels Casino Royale and From Russia With Love, for example, need to be Top importance (as does Thunderball and at least one or two of the other books); however lesser Bond books such as Octopussy and The Living Daylights and The Spy Who Loved Me can be safely placed as Mid-importance. Incidentally, I am on record at the Novels WikiProject as being opposed to the rating of articles by Importance as I believe this is a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I have no objection to rating articles by quality, but I do not support the judgement call required to decide whether one article is more important than another. 23skidoo 14:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

    • As indicated here, it can be important to know which articles are most "important" simply to know which articles are most deserving of attention. With any luck, this will be the articles that are most often visited. I believe that the importance ranking should exist, and should be based on two criteria:
      • (1) - the frequency a given article is accessed (granted, that can be tough to call) and
      • (2) the proximity of the subject's relationship to the project.
      • On the basis of the two above, James Bond would be of top importance, as it is very likely often accessed and is a central topic to the project. Other articles that might be important for other reasons, Halle Berry among them, would be possibly less important to this project than they might be to other projects, or even wikipedia in general, as the amount of content relevant to this project isn't that high. I think, if done in that way, the selection could be made less subjective. Also, acknowledging the point 23skidoo raised above, once we have the "basics" in line it will be possible to assess the articles which might qualify as "High" or "Top" individually, and, yes, possibly find that some of them might not qualify as such. Also, certainly, it might be possible to propose some articles that wouldn't qualify per those guidelines for either High or Top importance individually. John Carter 14:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I guess my concern is that in some cases there may be controversy. For example, the chart above has someone positing that Lazenby and Dalton should only receive Mid importance. Others may dispute that, considering one or the other deserving of a higher (or lower) ranking. While I guess one can consider an article's popularity in terms of hits I don't really see this as an accurate measure, I've yet to be presented with a truly objective way of considering an article's importance that doesn't open the door for later argument. 23skidoo 21:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
          • There can always be controversy about anything regarding wikipedia content or anything else. I only favor using this method as it is, as it were, passing the buck to someone else. If the group ultimately do use the system that is supposed to be developed soon, then the complaints would probably go to the developer of the system, not to us. I think. John Carter 22:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
            • I totally agree with ElGreco's list, but Never Say Never Again isn't an EON and would go with the CR parodies. Cliff smith 00:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think this topic is going to have some problems with agreements, but all only 80/300 articles still need importance tags. So perhaps just ask the question "What did Article Name do to James Bond?. So what did Halle Berry do to James Bond, not much so low. eg eg. Thats my thoughts anyway.
  • I added the consensus to the Importance tag, so we can assign them accordingly. The Importance Tag was here yesterday and gone today, so I revived it. I've encompassed the votes as much as I can, but the Other Bond cast eg Judi Dench or Halle Berry, I have no clue what to do with. So I guess it's up to you. El Greco (talk • contribs) 00:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Good work. 4/2 is from what I remember just barely sufficient for consensus, although it isn't always used as such, so that's no real help. Maybe we could break it down into "other cast with significant roles" and "actors playing minor characters"? I would say definite "yes" on the first, but am unsure of the latter. And, for these purposes, I think we can at least limit "significant roles" from the outset as including only named characters with speaking roles. Further clarification, perhaps by character or role, is also certainly possible. John Carter 01:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there anyway we can place the last column on the main page or place it in a WPJB/Assesment for articles page? El Greco (talk • contribs) 19:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

GoldenEye nominated for FA status

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have nominated GoldenEye for FA status. Recent improvements, with the help of this project, has made it a high quality article. Any addition of references to the article would help secure FA status - • The Giant Puffin • 14:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

We need some opinions on the GoldenEye talk page. Someone keeps making the GoldenEye plot overly long (the reverse of what we're trying to do to the other articles) by adding unimportant information. ColdFusion650 18:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need this fixed order for all the articles?

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Goldeneye is currently an FAC, and one of the main problems people seem to have is the order of the sections. Does the "vehicle and gadgets" section really need to be above the plot? Surely the plot is more important than the vehicles and gadgets used in the film. It seems like its all mixed up. I understand production needs to be before plot, but why does vehicle and gadgets need to be in between? Now, someone is going to read this and say "Oh well on Casino Royale...". So what? Casino Royale may well be the best article in the series, but why should that mean that the rest of the series must follow such a strict suit? It makes no sence, on any article, to have the plot after the vehicles and gadgets involved in that plot. Casino Royale is also an FAC, but its not exactly being praised for its sections' order. Surely we can change this? The order of sections in an article does not pass an FAC, but it can hold an article back and lead to its failing - • The Giant Puffin • 10:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think all Bond film articles should have a fairly fixed order for the sections. They should all match. Whether this particular order should be used or not, I don't really care. But whatever decision we come to, it should be applied to all Bond film articles. ColdFusion650 12:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be fine if that fixed structure actually made sense. Other than making it match Casino Royale, is there actually a reason for having this particular order of things? - • The Giant Puffin • 12:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You'd have to ask the guys over at Casino Royale. I wasn't involved in that discussion. ColdFusion650
Well thats why I put it here. Maybe if nobody responds I'll ask at Casino Royale - • The Giant Puffin • 13:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Plot abridging

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I took the pruning shears to the plot of Goldfinger (film), but I would appreciate if someone could check it over, as I cut about 300 words and four images, not sure if this was too bold a move. Editus Reloaded 15:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC) EDIT: fixed You Only Live Twice too, but I think that one's OK. Editus Reloaded 15:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just taken 300 words-ish out from From Russia With Love's plot, and cannot find anything to cut further without omitting important information - it's a very complex plot! This will probably require someone else to look at the plot section with a very critical and deletionist eye. Editus Reloaded 17:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm the man for the job. I got in trouble in GoldenEye for getting rid of too many inconsequential details. After I'm done, I'd say you'll be adding stuff back. ColdFusion650 17:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through it, and it's way done. I haven't removed any images, so someone else'll have to do that. ColdFusion650 18:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

When you really need a hatchet man, I'll do it. But I don't want to go running amuck, so I won't start on the other articles without a go ahead. ColdFusion650 18:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ColdFusion. I shunted the images around a bit and removed the picture of the Hagia Sophia, as it did not add much to the value of the article. Editus Reloaded 19:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Bond movies

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Recently this template has had directors put on it, see Template:Bond movies. But why do we need these directors, it makes the template to complex and opens up to "can we put producers" and more. The template just needs to have the films.

It is my suggestion is that we delete the directors, put it on a new template entitled {{Bond movies crew}} which allows us to add producers, writers etc.

PS. It is my understanding that this WikiProject hasn't been active for some time, so If I don't get a reply, I will do this anyway in about a week.

SpecialWindler 21:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say be bold. The worst thing that could happen is that someone who doesn't like it reverts it and curses you for the rest of your days. ColdFusion650 21:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but maybe someone added it from a conscensus on Talk:James Bond or Template talk:Bond movies, so I'd like to get some conscensus first, but I'll do it now. SpecialWindler 06:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea, you dont want the James Bond movies template being too cluttered - • The Giant Puffin • 10:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_James_Bond/Archive_1&oldid=1144724183"