Talk:Bond girl/Archive 1

Archive 1

Definition still garbled

To reiterate the points made below, this page is ruined by the indiscriminate application of the term Bond Girl. At one end, the walk on parts don't merit the accolade. At the other end, Sophie Marceau in the World Is Not Enough is much more than a Bond Girl. Someone really does need to take a firm hand to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.148.59 (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Bond Girls

Should the list of Bond girls be here, rather than in James Bond? What do people think? --Daniel C. Boyer 13:15, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Rmhermen 13:29, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)

Shouldn't the names of the characters be listed with the actresses? --Ckape 01:19, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Bond villains

Is there a page on Bond villains ? Jay 17:26, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Paulus and User:K1Bond007 for creating one ! Jay 11:01, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jenny Flex and Naomi

This list basically features all the female character with whom Bond had some sort of romantic/sexual encounter. Should Jenny Flex from A View to a Kill and Naomi from Spy Who Loved Me be listed? I don't recall them being any more than eye candy (and minor villains), as opposed to romantic conquests. The same could be said for Peaceful Fountains of Desire in "Die Another Day" although Bond did, at least, have a couple of moments with her. Thoughts? 23skidoo 16:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

-If- they had screen time with Bond then I'd say they count. K1Bond007 17:31, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

OK, that covers Naomi sufficiently, but IIRC Jenny Flex only met Bond for about 2 seconds in AVTAK. But I haven't seen the movie for ages so I may be wrong. Wasn't there also an Oriental girl alongside Jenny? 23skidoo 00:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Truth be told, AVTAK is my least favorite Bond film. I've only seen it...maybe twice. :) K1Bond007 05:19, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Naomi is definitely a "Bond girl" as Caroline Munro actually starred in the movie. Jenny Flex is not a Bond girl per se, neither is Pan Ho, nor Della Chruchill from Licence to Kill.

Criteria suggestion

Further to K1Bond007's comment during a recent edit, there does seem to be a popular misconception as to what a Bond girl is. I have seen women with walk-on roles given the title Bond girl and promoted as such, for example. K1Bond007 suggests scaling back. My suggestion is since the term "eye candy Bond girl" has already been established, maybe the key is to break the listing down into major Bond girls, minor Bond girls, and then eye candy. For example, in OHMSS Tracy would be the only major Bond girl, while the two Piz Gloria patients Bond sleeps with would be listed as minor Bond girls, and the remaining girls (including the one played by Joanna Lumley) would be listed as Eye-candy Bond girls. Similarly we could list female characters who don't really interact with Bond as eye-candy such as Jenny Flex from AVTAK, and maybe Madonna from DAD as well since except for flirting with Bond she just stands in the background and watches him swordfight. Thoughts? 23skidoo 02:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather not do Major vs Minor. Perhaps just leave as is and create an "eye-candy" section. Otherwise you gotta define what makes one minor, while the term "eye-candy" is already loaded with a definition. My problem with the list was that I didn't see a reason to list "The Australian girl" and and so on in OHMSS when total they had about 3 minutes on screen. I wouldn't consider them Bond girls.K1Bond007 02:34, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I think they fit the eye candy criteria, however, so I agree that at least an Eye Candy section should be created. 23skidoo 05:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Suggestive Names

Should there be mention of the suggestive names that some Bond girls have? Pussy Galore, Holly Goodhead, Xenia Onatopp, etc. It's a well known enough feature that Myers spoofed it after all... Bob the Pirate 16:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the first paragraph. If you want to expand, please do so. K1Bond007 17:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Either here or in the Goldfinger article it might be worth noting that studio heads at one point wanted Pussy Galore to be renamed Kitty Galore or some such for the movie version. 23skidoo 21:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Doh, didn't notice that. Bob the Pirate 15:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Tables messed up on Opera

The table cells don't have any borders while viewed on Opera, so we don't know where 1 row ends and the next begins. I'm using Opera version 8. Jay 16:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Overdubbing of actresses

I know this is covered elsewhere also, but I think it would be a good idea to make reference to the fact a number of Bond film actresses (with the exception of Lois Maxwell, Honor Blackman, Diana Rigg, and one or two others) were overdubbed by the same voice actress. This is particularly the case in Dr. No; if you listen carefully you'll hear Sylvia talk with Honey's voice and vice versa. 23skidoo 04:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"Love interest or sex object"

That's a bit prejudicial isn't it? OK, Bond Girls aren't the most nuanced characters but Halle Berry at least rises above that categorisation, and she's definitely a Bond Girl. DJ Clayworth 21:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Dubious

It was initially planned that her death would actually occur in Diamonds Are Forever (1971), but this idea was dropped during filming of On Her Majesty's Secret Service when current-Bond George Lazenby announced he would step down from the role.

This doesn't make sense, as first of all, she dies in the book, and second, Lazenby didn't seem to break with EON until the infamous premiere, not "during filming". It doesn't jibe with accounts e.g. here.--Dhartung | Talk 00:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It may not make sense but I believe it's mentioned in the John Cork book James Bond: The Legacy. I need to get ahold of a copy to doublecheck. I have seen several sources on TV and in print that stated that EON didn't want OHMSS to end on a downbeat note, so OHMSS was going to end with the wedding and DAF was going to open with the killing, thereby setting up Bond going after Blofeld. 23skidoo 00:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

First off, count how many times EON Productions has done something that was different in the book (just look at Diamonds Are Forever). Second, it is correct; Lazenby made it known before filming was complete that he wasn't returning. 2 endings were indeed devised, one, as 23skidoo alludes to, was Bond and Tracy riding off into the sunset in Bond's car with the idea that DAF would start with her death (in the PTS) followed by Bond getting revenge. There is enough proof of this outside of the original OHMSS script. They actually had a couple DAF drafts to cover it, one of which was Auric Goldfinger's twin brother (which he doesn't have or never spoke of in the novel nor the film) killing Tracy. There are tons of interesting drafts for DAF (one was more faithful to the novel and had the Spangled Mob). K1Bond007 02:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping someday these alternate drafts will be published somewhere. I'd love to see the Blofeld version of Spy Who Loved Me, or the version of Moonraker that was planned (and possibly written?) to follow one of the 1960s Bonds - I forget which one). 23skidoo 02:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh.. incidentally Goldfinger's twin from that DAF draft I was talking about was a Swedish shipping magnate who had a super tanker. Gee.. I wonder where that idea went. The SPECTRE draft was written by Cary Bates (writes comics and was apparently recommended by Roald Dahl) and was more of an adaptation of Moonraker that involved Hugo Drax as an (I think) Emilio Largo type for SPECTRE. Apparently he was HQ'd under Loch Ness. You can see the similarities with the finished product except for whatever reason, the Bond girl was Tatiana Romanova from FRWL. Interesting anyway. There were 10 drafts of TSWLM and I'd like to get my hands on at least one of them just for grins. I've seen excerpts and John Cork I think has mentioned them in one of his books, I believe. Unfortunately I don't think it's ever going to happen because those ideas they throw out tend to eventually be used in some manner down the road (e.g., the Acrostar Jet scene in Octopussy was written for Moonraker). K1Bond007 04:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Moneypenny Diaries

Just so we are complete, do any Bond girls appear in the first Moneypenny Diaries book? Also, it probably wouldn't hurt to include Bond girls within the John Pearson biography of 007 since it's considered a Bond novel by some authorities. If I have time I'll thumb through my copy and add the list. But I've yet to get my hands on Moneypenny Diaries. 23skidoo 01:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Xenia Onatopp superlative

I removed the statement saying that Xenia is the only major female character Bond does not bed as this is an incorrect statement. Although you can't really call them "Bond girls", nonetheless Rosa Klebb and Irma Bunt are major female characters. In addition, Bond does not bed Bibi Dahl (for good reason) in For Your Eyes Only, nor does he bed Plenty O'Toole in Diamonds (though he tries to). I can also think of other examples: Tilly Masterson in Goldfinger and Paula Caplan in Thunderball. 23skidoo 03:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there are like 20 more. Why are Irma Blunt and Rosa Kelbb considered Bond girls? Rosa is a lesbian, as are Tilly Masterton (or Masterson) and Pussy Galore (although she does snap out of it when she sleeps with Bond). And Irma is a villain-ess. So is Xenia, but the two have obvious chemistry.

M and Moneypenny - Bond girls?

The start of the article mentions "Other female characters such as Judi Dench's M and Miss Moneypenny are not thought of as Bond girls". However, the documentary also mentioned, "Bond Girls are Forever", presents both of them as Bond girls... just wondered if anyone else had any thoughts?? Mjsp rn 20:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Given the generally held view of what defines a bond girl, it's tough to include M for starters, as there is no romance or sexual tension with Judi Dench. Not to mention the fact that M wasn't always female. Personally I don't include Moneypenny either, as the "Bond Girl" stereotype always includes at least one of glamour, "sexual encounter" or "femme fatale", and none of these can be levelled against Moneypenny really (yes I know Samantha Bond got a bit dressed up) Andymarczak 11:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the featurette Bond Girls Are Forever (which is on the Casino Royale DVD), M and Money Penny are both considered Bond Girls. Judi's interview and thoughts on the subject are included in the featurette. I think they are Bond Girls because they play prominent roles (not just background eye candy), and they interact with Bond in a personal way, whether or not sexual nuances are present. As for M's "sex change," I believe the lines become blurred between the actress and the character. Could it be that Judi is a Bond Girl while M is not? Wjcolion 21:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

what about Joanna Lumley?

Real people as Bond girls

This article states that Lisa Dergan is the only real person to be portrayed as a Bond girl in a published James Bond story, yet lists Janet Davies (a real person) as a Bond girl as well for "Live at Five". A similar contradiction appears in James Bond uncollected short stories. Is there any dispute as to whether Davies is a Bond girl in "Live at Five" or was the article just not updated to include her? --Metropolitan90 05:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Bond Boy?

Shouldn't it be noted that one of the Bond Girls was a man at one point in his/her life? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.68.248.214 (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

that wasn't a Bond Girl, that was an eye candy70.245.27.156 00:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Which girl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

A random extra in a group scene in For Your Eyes Only. The papers ran some coverage at the time but she was hardly a "Bond Girl" by any stretch of the definition. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Images

Fair use images of actresses cannot be included in this article, but only in articles about the actresses themselves. The exception would be if there were text in this article which discusses the image itself, not the person in it. Corvus cornix 18:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A clarification: If the image is a screenshot from a film, it can be used to illustrate the film, but not to illustrate an article about the actress. Corvus cornix 18:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Photos

This used to be one of the best articles on Wikipedia. But now it has been completely ruined. What's happened to all the photos ?

It's all very good to say there was a fair use violation - but what replaces them ?

No photo should be removed unless there is another photo available to replace it with.

Without photos, this article is completely ruined.--87.243.196.167 11:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, good idea ! Let's ignore law, steal photographs and put them on our article, that's certainly going to encourage people to replace them with free alternatives. Rama 14:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Who's ignoring law and stealing photographs here, pall?? There isn't any fair use violation here. There are certain "contributors" at Wikipedia that have just one goal: based in nonsense, ruin some articles. Free alternatives to Bond girl's characters? How? This is unreal and ridiculous.

Please read User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation and Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Corvus cornix 19:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Images reverted

I have once more removed the fair use images from the article. Please discuss here before reverting, especially when not using an edit summary. Corvus cornix 20:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

YOU must discuss that BEFORE remove the images, and you didn't.

No, I must not. Read Wikipedia's copyright rules. There is nothing to get consensus on here. It's black and white. Corvus cornix 19:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No more photos ?

Are there not going to be any more photos on this page ever ?

87.243.196.167 12:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Not if they're fair use images of the actresses who played the characters. Find some public domain or GFDL images, and you can use those. Corvus cornix 23:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Not if they're fair use images of the actresses who played the characters. It is not actresses who played the characters, but the characters itselves which are portrayed in the images, can you see that? Helooo! Excuse me, are you a system analyst? What about to stay in what you know most, pall? Parallel33

Copyright violations are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Corvus cornix 01:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There are not copyright violations here. I think the user above does not understand what fair use is. Parallel33

The user above understands fair use quite well, as well as Wikipedia 's WP:FU policy. Corvus cornix 20:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

POV

Just a quick note to people who edit this article: the criticisms section reads like POV copy. The tone sounds like "Well, feminists think this, but no, as you see here..." It shouldn't be that hard to make it more neutral. David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The Living Daylights

I have no idea why Rubavitch and Rosika Miklos are listed as Bond girls. Bond never had any romantic or sexual interaction with either of them. Especially the latter. The very thought of this is disturbing.--Name Theft Victim (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Original research through synthesis

The first section, which I've tagged with the {{synthesis}} tag is full of original research through synthesis. It presents plenty of conclusions and "trends" about Bond girls (i.e. the kinds of clothes they wear, the amount of makeup they wear, etc.), but it doesn't attribute those conclusions to reliable secondary sources. Instead, it cites the original books by Ian Fleming. As such, this is original research. --Hnsampat (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that all of these trends are mentioned specifically in the Snelling book, which is clearly cited as the main source for this section. The clothing and makeup "trends" you mention, for instance, are very specifically mentioned by Snelling, the latter even being explicitly referenced in the article (re Jill Masterton). (I could provide copious pinpoint citations to Snelling pages if necessary but it's easier simply to read the chapter or two in which he discusses these Bond Girl features.) The citations to the Fleming books are simply to allow the reader to go directly to the material that Snelling himself referenced in his Bond Girl chapters. For this reason, I propose to remove the synthesis tag. --Axefan (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have, however, removed the "unreferenced" tag as there's a whole section of references. Perhaps they were added after the tag was placed and it was left on by mistake. 23skidoo (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

broken links

several of Ian's books all lead to for your eyes only, could omeone fix that(in the bond girls list) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.81.178 (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Chu Mei

what about Chu Mei in the man with the golden gun??

(chew me...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.128.6 (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

GoldenEye

How is Irina a Bond Girl - he doesn't even speak to her ? -- Beardo (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Titlebox Mural

Looks great, but the caption is all wrong. I can't personally ID all of those girls, but maybe someone can? RideABicycle (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Done, for the array of 9. Tvoz/talk 01:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Missing film

Where is Never Say Never Again? -- Evertype·✆ 16:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

Since her appearance in "Happy and Glorious", does Her Majesty become a Bond girl as the newspapers seem to think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.39.198 (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Why not? What makes a Bond girl is rather poorly defined in this article. The opening sentence of the lede says that a Bond girl is "a love interest of James Bond", and yet the list of Bond girls includes characters who weren't love interests at all. So either the definition needs to be changed to something clearer, more definitive and (preferably) "official", or else the list needs to be considerably trimmed. Besides, I can find a lot of sources that call the Queen a "Bond girl", e.g. Reuters, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Sun, The Daily Express, etc. And if reliable, third-party sources are doing it, then shouldn't that really be the arbiter for inclusion on Wikipedia? 86.164.168.177 (talk) 10:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

We already distinguish between what a Bond Girl is (a love interest etc) which differentiates from others - such as M. The laziness of journalists in applying a tag to something on which they are not knowledgeable is not the basis for building a good article. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If a Bond girl is defined as a "love interest of James Bond", as the article claims, then why does it list characters who aren't love interests? Like the user above says, Bond never even speaks to Irina in GoldenEye, therefore how can she be a love interest or a Bond girl? So if the article lists as Bond Girls the female characters who aren't love interests, then I don't understand why Judi Dench's M and Miss Moneypenny aren't listed as well – I was confused by this, so I have tagged it. 86.173.42.152 (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Honey Ryder links

I know it may be too complicated for you but please try to understand that no page called Honey Ryder exists. Honey Ryder links to a disambiguation page which disambiguates to Honey Ryder (band) and Honey Ryder (Bond girl). The latter, in turn, links here. So this is a redundant self-link. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't be so fecking patronising. I re-instated the Honey Ryder article this morning, as someone had re-directed it without cause and without discussion. So it's not a self-link, it links to the article. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Nationality

I've noticed a number of the actresses listed have dual nationality listed next to their names (French/Eurasian for Maryse Mitsouko; Fiona Fullerton listed as Nigerian/British). Apart from those that make no sense at all (Eurasian isn't a nationality, it's an ethnic type), others are just plain wrong - Fullerton isn't Nigerian, she just happened to be born there because her parents were living there. Would anyone object if these were corrected to show a single nationality, where applicable? - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add that Honor Blackman is listed as English rather than British. English isn't a nationality (but rather a language). UK citizens are usually listed as British by nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.34.160 (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Dates

Please note that there is a {{Use dmy dates|date=March 2012}} tag on the top of the article, which shows that as this is the British date format is in use here. this is consistent with the BrEnglish in use on the page, as it is a UK dominated topic. Please also note that if you have three people saying one thing (as on my talk page thread) and you are saying the opposite, do you not think that you may want to think through your position first, just in case the others may have a point? - SchroCat (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This has already been discussed on User:Shrodinger's talk page, where User:Shrodinger was informed of the relevant guidelines. As a consequence, User:Shrodinger is explicitly edit warring contrary to guidelines after warning. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not "contrary to the appropriate guidelines" and I'm not edit warring, so can you at least try to start off a conversation being WP:CIVIL? The guidelines contain a degree of flexibility, but having a US date format in a UK-centred article, when all other dates are in the long format, and the tag on the top of the page indicates the format to be used, does tend to suggest that the YYYY-MM-DD format is less desirable than the alternatives. - SchroCat (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You were infomed of the guidelines, and were explicitly told why your interpretation is wrong. That you continued to change them in violation of thiose guidelines is very serious. You should revert your guideline violating edit immediately. The guideline explicitly authorizes the use of yyyy-mm-dd format, even in articles with strong national ties. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out above, the guidelines have a degree of flexibility, so neither my nor your interpretation is "wrong": they may be different, but with the inherent flexibility they are both correct. Please try and see that to start with. As I have also pointed out, there have been three editors who have pointed out to you that the long date format is entirely acceptable and, more importantly, appropriate for this article. I am not sure why—on you first edits on this article—you seem so intent on hammering on this one point rather than doing something constructive to the article. - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. See DATERET. While the long format is also acceptable, it's not how this article developed. The majority of access dates used yyyy-mm-dd formats. You have no justification for changing the article to a different format. The page was consistent in a format explicitly allowed, with yyyy-mm-dd for access dates. The guideline explicitly rules out "strongnat" as a reason for removing yyyy-mm-dd formats. As for your allegation of "constructive", recall that you undid my edits that included other fixes. You need to undo the edit you made in violation of guideline. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:DATERET does you no favours here: the DMY tag has been in place since last March and isn't a newly added thing and I am still not sure why your first edits on this page are hammering something fairly minor, something where either format is correct, but one where it is more appropriate to have a UK date format for a UK-centred article. Odd behaviour. - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong again. The DMY tag simply means DMY formats are used. It does not mean no other format may be used. yyyy-mm-dd is not a US format, and the guideline directly and unequivocally authorizes its use for access dates, as it was used here, consistently. DATERET says to retain the existing format. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's try again in simple words so that even an admin can understand this:

1. There was no consistency previously (See the fns http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bond_girl&oldid=531076899 here (prior to the recent changes) and spot the differing formats)
2. WP:DATERET does you no favours, it's something of a red herring in all this, as neither I nor Fanthrillers (talk · contribs) have altered the date format in the main article text, which is what DATERET refers to. By the way, the main text in the article is, was and ever shall be DMY under WP:TIES, which accounts for the {{Use dmy dates|date=March 2012}} tage since March 2012.
3. The close relative of WP:TIES, WP:STRONGNAT points towards the article as a whole embracing DMY—as is the current case in the article—but allows some flexibility in the references format, where it says "YYYY-MM-DD format may be used in references". Please note that bit: "MAY". Not must, should, have to or need to, but may. In other words there is a degree of flexibility inherent in the guideline.
4. To ensure that there is WP:CONSISTENCY within this article (and indeed within the various other Bond articles, which all use DMY frmat dates and BrEng), it is entirely appropriate to use the long number format within the references.

I am still not sure why you seek to go against the opinions of others in something that does not need to be a fight. I do not know why you feel the need (on my talk page) to throw around your admin status, or to edit war over something so small as dates in references, when there is enough inherent flexibility within the guidelines which means that either format is acceptable. - SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

NPA warning. To address your points:

1. Before the recent edits, there were at least two access dates in yyyy-mm-dd format, but only one access date in dmy, and one access date in a mm.dd.yyyy (not an allowed format). I fixed the not-allowed-format and reconciled them to the majority format, which was yyyy-mm-dd.
2. Of course any allowed format is acceptable, but per DATERET, the format used predominantly for the access dates should have been retained for the access dates.
3. Yes, yyyy-mm-dd *may* be used, which explicitly means that strongnat may not be used to remove yyyy-mm-dd formats. Likewise, dmy format may be used, not must, should, have to or need to.
4. Consistency is consistency within articles. The format of the access dates in the article was consistent. Furthermore, Bond-related articles do not all use exclusively dmy format.

I have no idea why you refuse to accept the guidelines, and chose to edit war even after being reminded of the guidelines, and to remove my other fixes to the article. Gimmetoo (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As I have already said a few times, you can knock off the WP:UNCIVIL accusations of edit warring. You have shown intent to go against the consensus and revert the good faith and entirely correct edits of others based on your misinterpretation of guidelines. You have then thrown around the "I am an admin" tag (being very careful to leave the implied threat hanging while saying otherwise) while repeating your unfounded accusations of warring at others (even though you are have edit warred extensively, reverting to your preferred version three times without even bothering to stop by the talk page to start a discussion). I'll remind you that this is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and your actions are not helping to build the encyclopaedia: they are helping to drive away editors who are prepared to develop the article further and act as stewards. Furthermore, your misreading of the guidelines, interpreting them in a far-too narrow fashion, is not conducive to article development. I have no idea why you have decided to focus on the miniscule changes in this article when admin action is needed elsewhere: perhaps you need to get a little perspective of what the bigger picture is here? I have outlined the various policies above, including where you are misinterpreting them and I do not see any benefit in doing so again: you are obviously not reading or understanding them properly and are defining them far too narrowly for the good of the project overall. Just by way of an official reminder, you have reverted three times. I am sure you are aware of WP:3RR and I strongly advise that you do not try to revert again because I will have no hesitation in reporting your actions in the appropriate forum. - SchroCat (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC).

• • • The guideline expresses consensus, and it is you who have edited against consensus by not following the guideline. As I have explained multiple times, you have misunderstood the guidelines. If all you have to go on is "flexibility", then you must agree the the format may be changed to any acceptable format, at any time, by anyone, and hence you have no principle to maintain article stability. DATERET expresses that the date format should not be changed without strong reasons. The reasons you have given are out of order, as the guideline explicitly rules them out, so they are not strong reasons. Thus you have no reason to change the format. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment James Bond is a British literary creation, with a strong British flavor, and as such British English and the British date format are used on the James Bond articles. WP:STRONGNAT does permit the use of the YYYY-MM-DD format, even with strong national ties, but clearly expresses a preference for the British format in this case: Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. The YYYY-MM-DD format would be appropriate on something like Wallis Simpson, who was an American citizen (and thus essentially an American topic), but where her notability comes entirely from British events. Betty Logan (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • • YYYY-MM-DD format is not a US format. The guideline makes it clear it is not a consideration for strongnat. It is an international format and is therefore appropriate in all articles. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur with SchroCat and Betty Logan. SchroCat is not edit warring. SchroCat has made no personal attacks. There is a consensus decision to use d-m-y dates, not only among the three of us, but among all the senior Bond editors and there are many of us. YYYY-MM-DD format is open to potential misinterpretation, i.e. 2012-03-08 March 8 or August 3? I strongly believe we must achieve consistency. Further with so much work done on these articles it makes much sense to avoid ambiguity. - Fanthrillers (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The access date format was mostly in yyyy-mm-dd when I noticed your edit. I made the access dates consistent. None of you cared about the fomat here before that point, despite your prior edits to the article. You all have misunderstood the guidelines and refuse to correct your actions once informed - by an editor who wrote parts of that guideline. An agreement of misinformed editors is not a consensus. And 2012-03-08 has always been what you call "8 March" or "March 8"; there is no ambiguity. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The dates are now fine as they are, despite your attempts to edit war on them and throw around your much-boasted admin status. The guidelines are flexible and maybe you are too close to them to appreciate that fact. There are bigger and better things for all of us to be doing on this, so you blithly repeating the same assertions of your dubious interpretation is not going to convince anyone. - SchroCat (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack struck. I wrote parts of this guideline. Is it possible, just perhaps, I might have a better idea what it means than you do? Gimmetoo (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Dont restore personal attacks. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

For the second time: please do not edit the talk page entries of others. You edit warred over this by reverting three times: I even had to give a WP:3RR warning to you about it, so it's not a personal attack, it's an entirely factually correct statement. If you edit the comments of others—which are not a personal attack—I will not hesitate to go to ANI. - SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

For the second time, do not restore attacks. You have failed to address the substance, and you have failed to address concerns of your behavior. Your behavior is getting to be familiar, in fact. I find it very unusual to find an editor who will point-blank tell the author of parts of a guideline that the author doesn't understand the guidelines. It makes me suspicious: are you a sock puppet of a banned user? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Please try and keep a WP:CIVIL tongue in your head and do not accuse other editors of things when you do not have any shred of evidence for the nonsense you are spouting. I will invite you—without hope of being accepted—to withdraw your ridiculous comment. - SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Please try and keep a civil tongue yourself. I wrote parts of the MOSNUM guideline. Is it possible, just perhaps, I might have a better idea what the guideline means than you do? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not accused you of being a sock of a banned user. You have sunk to the level of throwing baseless accusations without any evidence at all. You have lost any moral authority to try and tell others how to behave. Your behaviour would not be acceptable by any editor: by an admin it is beyond the pale. - SchroCat (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

And I am struggling to figure out how you can so directly tell me, the author of a parts of guideline, that I don't understand the guideline. What could bring you to do that? It seems so out-of-the-ordinary. Indeed, I can only recall such behaviour from a handful of editors who had certain traits in common. Now can you answer the question: Is it possible, just perhaps, I might have a better idea what the guideline means than you do? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Nacionality of Emily Bolton

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing off: the column has been removed and there is nothing more to say than next time, use a source, and learn how to spell nationality properly. - SchroCat (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

---

Actress Emily Bolton is not Brazilian as it nacionality says. There's no source to that.(because she's not) In fact, her article says she's Aruban.[1] I think we have a problem in here. User SchroCat insists in keeping her nacionality without a source to that. Even he reverted my argument in his Discussion Page (a long one)[2] three minutes after posted, probably he read nothing. He ignored and reverted me again in the article without a word. Obviously it looks like someone wants a flame war but it is no me. As we know it, no information can stay here without a source if it is confronted. His argument is "Tedious nonsense: FIND A BLOODY SOURCE AND USE IT, STOP WHINING ABOUT IT OTHWISE) ".[3] This is nonsense. He has to find a source that Emily Bolton is Brazilian (as said in the Nacionality Table) if he want the information over there, not me. So, we need a third person here. MachoCarioca (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The column has been removed, genius. Perhaps,you should have checked that before you came crying here. For the record, next time you add or change anything use a bloody source. It's not difficult to search for a reliable source, and the rest of us all manage to do it with every edit we make: you are not special, so stick to the policies and ensure you use reliable sources in future. - SchroCat (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nacionality of Emily Bolton 2

For the record: If someone wants claim again that Aruban actress Emily Bolton is Brazilian use a bloody source or will be reverted. The rest of us all manage to do it with every edit we make. (Everyone agrees with the column removal?) MachoCarioca (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

1. What encyclopaedic purpose goes the column serve?

2. Still not learnt how to spell nationality, I see, despite it being written out for y above.

- SchroCat (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I was going to suggest removing it since I don't see how the nationality of the actress is relevant. The nationality of the character might be relevant in a certain context (e.g. Triple X), but we certainly don't need a list of them. It is just trivia. Betty Logan (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I also dont think it is relevant but to the characters, maybe. But worse than that is to stay with a false information. By the way I know exactly how to spell Nationality but I want to spell Nacionality. So? MachoCarioca (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Nationality of the actress is irrelevant. However, nationality of the character as Betty says might be more legit, but it's only an extra.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC: The criterion for what constitutes a Bond girl

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Clear consensus that "love interest" is not a requirement. --GRuban (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

---

I believe that the criteria for what constitutes a Bond girl seems to be skirting awfully close to violating both the WP:OR and WP:V rules. It is cited nowhere within the article that a Bond girl must be James Bond's love interest. The criteria that a Bond girl is only James Bond's love interest seems to be rather limiting because it would imply that the lead female character of Quantum of Solace, Camille Montes played by Olga Kurylenko, is not a Bond girl simply because her relationship with James Bond is platonic. I believe that there should be more citations from outside sources before we dictate that a Bond girl is ONLY a love interest of James Bond.TheLastAmigo (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It is clearly WP:CHERRYPICKING to just back up a particular POV favored by editors. It would not be neutral to limit the sources to ones that state that a Bond girl is only a love interest of James Bond, especially when we already have sources in the article that contradict this view. I agree that being a love interest is the main criteria but reliable source coverage indicates that it is not exclusive criteria. Betty Logan (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I also agree with your assessment. It is notable that the documentary Bond Girls Are Forever never puts forth the notion that a Bond girl is only the love interest of James Bond. There are other criteria, but mainly the criteria is that she be a prominent female character in the James Bond series. The documentary also seems to include Judi Dench and Samantha Bond as Bond girls, and in the most recent version includes Naomie Harris as a Bond girl.TheLastAmigo (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment All media outlets that I've read refer to the women as 'Bond Girls' regardless of meeting the 'love interest' title. With the societal shifts from the first Bond film to Specter with regard to women in cinema the idea that the lead female roll can only be a love interest seems archaic and amazingly limited in vision of the rolls' values to their respective plots and stories. I would support the expansion of the definition. Pistongrinder (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment-I do consider Olga to be a Bond girl since she was the main one. But some girls people have put are crazy. And IMO the girl bond sleeps with in Skyfall is kind of overdoing it since she was on screen for about 2 minutes. Wgolf (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Exactly, that seems to be further reason to consider the main female character, regardless of sexual/love interest status, a Bond Girl. Pistongrinder (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bond girls

I have a question here. As the text says: "A Bond girl is a character (or the actress portraying a character) who is a love interest of James Bond in a novel, film, or video game. " Ok, that's it.

So, why characters as Bambi, Thumper, Valenka, Bibi Dahl, Della Leiter and Dolly – three henchmen with ZERO love or sexual interaction with Bond, a teen Bond thinks she could be his daughter and politely denies any contact, the wife of Felix Leiter and the weird girlfriend of Jaws – are listed as "bond girls"? MachoCarioca (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, so inevitably pretty much every name will be added at some point. The article hasn't been peer reviewed in any way so it is not surprising there are some parts that are inconsistent and inaccurate. Any you disagree with then simply remove; any controversial ones should only then be added back if a source is provided. Betty Logan (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Camille Montes in Quantum of Solace was not romantically involved with Bond. If the criteria for being a Bond girl is being a love interest of James Bond, then she should not count. That said, I think that she was clearly a Bond girl. I also think that Eve Moneypenny in Skyfall is clearly a Bond girl as well. It is the only time in the entire series that Moneypenny acts as a Bond girl.TheLastAmigo (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Any woman he nails is a "Bond girl". That is the standard criteria. There are those in the grey area such as Eve and Camilla and ideally they should be sourced if they are to be included because Wikipedia editors should not have their views represented in the encyclopedia. Betty Logan (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to have my views represented in the article. I haven't edited the article to put forth my views. I just don't agree that a Bond girl is necessarily someone that Bond "nails". I agree that if she is "nailed," then she is a Bond girl. That said, I believe that a Bond girl can also be a female character that is both A) eye candy, and B) someone that helps Bond (or even the Bond villain) in the field. In this case, Eve Moneypenny and Camille Montes would both fit. Obviously, if this is the case, it should be sourced. However, if this is not the case, it should also be sourced. It is not sourced one way or the other.TheLastAmigo (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed all the "Bond girls" from the films that were not romantically linked to James Bond from the article. This also includes Camille Montes as her relationship with Bond was strictly platonic.TheLastAmigo (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It could also be argued that any attractive female with a prominent role in the film, whether she is the romantic interest of James Bond or not, is a Bond girl. I think this especially extends to the lead female character. This would include Camille Montes and Eve Moneypenny (although Judi Dench was the female lead in Skyfall, Moneypenny had a more prominent role than Severine, who died halfway through the film and had less than 10 minutes of screen time). I have not seen any sources that say that a Bond girl *must* have sex with Bond in order for her to be a Bond girl. I believe that there may be some instances where the Bond girl can be something other than a love interest. This criteria seems to be skirting awfully close to violating the WP:OR rule. It is cited nowhere within the article that a Bond girl must be James Bond's love interest. I think that this could benefit from more editors weighing in on the subject.TheLastAmigo (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Nobody has said otherwise. You were the editor who removed every female character Bond did not have a romantic involvement with. The lead of the article—which is more than adequately sourced—patently points out that being a "love interest" is not exclusive criteria. Betty Logan (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I did this because you said earlier that controversial characters that are not adequately sourced should be removed and then added back in with reliable sourcing. I believe that the article should be consistent throughout. If we cannot count Eve Moneypenny as a Bond girl (even though I feel that she is not only a Bond girl, but the main Bond girl in Skyfall), then we should not count other female characters who do not share a romantic relationship with James Bond. Also, the opening sentence, "A Bond girl is a character (or the actress portraying a character) who is a love interest of James Bond in a novel, film, or video game," is not sourced. This is the basic premise of the article. Also, the sentence, "There is no set rule on what kind of person a Bond girl will be or what role she will play. She may be an ally or an enemy of Bond, pivotal to the mission or simply eye candy," says nothing about her relationship status with Bond. It simply means (at least in the context of the rest of the paragraph) that she does not have to be good or evil or have a prominent role in the film. Since it further states that female characters who do not have a romantic relationship with James Bond are not strictly Bond girls, the paragraph seems to say that characters who are not in a romantic relationship with Bond, regardless of their sex appeal, do not count. I do not necessarily agree with my edits, but I felt that they were necessary to advance the thesis laid down by the article and to explain why Eve Moneypenny from Skyfall is not included as a Bond girl. Furthermore, if we cannot count Moneypenny, then we cannot count Camille Montes since she has as much of a romantic connection to Bond as Moneypenny. TheLastAmigo (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that you have re-added Camille and Moneypenny. The RFC only established that being a love interest is not the only criteria, not that any girl who appears in a Bond film is a "Bond girl". As the most generally accepted criteria, love interests can probably continue to be added automatically since they meet the most basic deifnition of a "Bond girl", but any "Bond girl" that is not a love interest should ideally be accompanied by a source to validate their inclusion. Betty Logan (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Gala Brand

I'm not sure I understand the following passage:

The youngest Bond girl (though she and Bond do not sleep together) may be Gala Brand; she is named for the cruiser in which her father is serving at the time of her birth. Bond's youngest sexual partner in the books is Mariko Ichiban, an 18-year-old masseuse in You Only Live Twice.

From this I understand that Gala Brand is younger than 18. However, Gala Brand redirects to Moonraker (novel), which states that she is a Special Branch agent. Is this meant to mean that she was working for Special Branch at age 17 or younger? And if so, it would be better to indicate in this sentence what her actual age is than where her name came from -- the unusual names of some Bond girls are discussed two paragraphs later, but here the article is supposed to be talking about their ages. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bond girl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070226092616/http://au.babes.entertainment.ign.com:80/articles/746/746292p1.html to http://au.babes.entertainment.ign.com/articles/746/746292p1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

M

There have been a string of edits removing the sourced contention that M is regarded as a "Bond girl" in Skyfall by some commentators: [4]. This is being done on the grounds that "we should stick to facts, and not fan conjecture". First of all, it is necessary to point out that Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. That is, we go by what verifiable reliable sources say, not an editor's perception of a "fact". I removed one fan blog but the other three sources that the claim is attributed to look like they meet the WP:Reliable source criteria to me: Peter Bradshaw for The Guardian is a prominent film critic and cannot easily be dismissed as "fan conjecture"; Slate (magazine) was once owned by The Washington Post company, and is now a part of a respected media conglomerate; Spiked (magazine) is less prestigious by comparison but I see nothing that automatically discredits it as a reliable source. Together they present an alternative viewpoint that we are obliged to cover per WP:WEIGHT.

A "Bond girl" is not factually defined: it is an archetype that serves a certain function within the plot, and as a result there are differening views on who is and isn't a "Bond girl". An RFC on this very issue conducted last year at Talk:Bond_girl/Archive_1#RfC:_The_criterion_for_what_constitutes_a_Bond_girl resulted in a consensus that the article should not take a narrow view of what constitutes a "Bond girl" but should take into account the wide range of views on the subject. We don't remove legitimately sourced viewpoints simply because we disagree with them or perceive them to be "wrong" or inaccurate, but only if they fail to meet the criteria as laid out by policy, and as yet no-one has put forward a reason why the three sources in the article are not credible sources for this viewpoint. Betty Logan (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Judi Dench is featured and interviewed in the documentary 'Bond Girls Are Forever' is included on the 'Casino Royale' DVD. So if Dench considers herself a Bond Girl, who are we to disagree. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bond girl/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

What about Norkys Batista?Can she be a new Bongirl ? Because she is the most beautiful woman in this world and she is actress http://img.osobnosti.cz/foto/norkys-batista/O156731-b3462.jpg http://img.osobnosti.cz/foto/norkys-batista/O94772-43271.jpg

Last edited at 19:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 10:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Bond girls "lack independence"?!

The article claims that Bond girls in film "lacked independence until at least 1980", but this claim simply doesn't hold water. Let's consider a few examples:

• Tilly Masterson -- takes her own initiative in trying to hunt down Goldfinger, nearly kills him, braves danger when spying on his factory;
• Pussy Galore -- fights Bond hand-to-hand, leads a squadron of aircraft, plays a key role in Goldfinger's evil plan (and in the defeat thereof);
• Fiona Volpe -- murders Maj. Derval, tries several times to kill Bond;
• Domino Derval -- helps Bond fight Spectre henchmen, kills Largo;
• Aki -- saves Bond's life at least twice;
• Helga Brandt -- tortures Bond, then tries to kill him in a plane crash;
• Kissy Suzuki -- fights side-by-side with Bond in the crater;
• Rosie Carver -- tries to lure Bond into a trap;
• Andrea Anders -- tips MI6 off about Scaramanga purely on her own initiative, then helps Bond find him;
• Anya Amasova -- gets the blueprints of the tracking system for Bond, takes part in the battle on the Liparus;
• Holly Goodhead -- infiltrates Drax's private space program before Bond even gets on the case, flies him to the space station and back again, disables the space station's radar jamming system, chases the gas bombs in the shuttle so Bond can destroy them with the laser.

The moral of the story: While some Bond girls from the pre-1980 period were in fact shown mostly as passive victims (Jill Masterson, Plenty O'Toole, Solitaire, Corinne Dufour), this is by no means a general rule (in fact, it's less often the case than not), and the claim that pre-1980 Bond girls lacked independence is false on the face of it. (For that matter, some of the Bond girls after 1980 were also shown as passive victims -- Countess Lisl, Paris Carver, and (arguably) Stacey Sutton and Lupe Lamora -- but the article would have you believe that this wasn't the case.) 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The statement is unsourced, which means you are entitled to remove it per WP:V. Betty Logan (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Just changed it to reflect the facts of the matter. BTW, on second thought, I take back what I said about Stacey Sutton: she is portrayed as weak and lacking courage, but by no means passive -- in fact, it would be more accurate to say that she is constantly struggling to overcome her weakness and her fear in order to save her hometown (as well as putting her scientific knowledge to good use for the same purpose). 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:99F8:B355:9D57:7021 (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Bond girl without any love

Why Maryse Mitsouko is listed as bond Girl in thunderball ? James Bond never love her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.177.254.89 (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Added Eve Moneypenny in

Added Eve Moneypenny in for Skyfall. Was going to add sources but wasn't sure if any of these are acceptable or good enough. But what do you think? Here are the sources... [5] [6] [7] [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlr6 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)