Talk:List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series

New title

What a f-ing awful new title! Was there any discussion about changing it? Or was the person who changed it one of its regular editors? I'm still surprised by the lack of the word "recurring" in the title, as it's the recurring cast only... - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Revamp?

This is a fairly horrible looking table as it stands, largely because of the number of films in the series which make the table too large for the screen. If no-one objects, I'm going to flip the table round 90 degrees to make it more portrait style. I'm also not entirely sure about the inclusion of a few of the very small roles: should this be for those who have appeared in more than two films? It would remove nearly half the table and make it much more manageable. Anyone got any thoughts? - SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Horrid looking it is. As an inclusionist, I strongly prefer to keep even smaller roles (Gogol, Jack Wade, Frederick Gray, etc.) in the table though we'll run into the same problem again. Blofeld definitely deserves a mention in the table. I favour two tables to include lesser characters. - Fanthrillers (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both. The table is an eyesore in its current form and would look far better in portraite form. I did this a few months back for my master subject the Carry On films and it took me flipping ages. I also agree with two separate tables as per Fanthrillers. I'd be happy to help with anything that is required. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to flipping the table (which will make it easier to add new entries for later films too). If the table size is a problem, there is always the option of adding a 'slider' like at Steve Davis#Performance and rankings timeline. Betty Logan (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I like the slider a lot! We can keep the 2-film characters within the table and still keep it looking good. Is the coding for it the <div style="overflow-x:auto; margin:0 auto; border:1px solid #BBB"> part? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you think this article should be merged with List of recurring actors and actresses in the James Bond film series? Seems like two sides of the same coin really. Betty Logan (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

What a horrible mess! Yes is the short answer, as long as it doesn't end up too wieldy (which is shouldn't if we do it properly). This would be a good table to summarise the info of the article. I like your suggestion. The other article needs a fair amount of work doing on it (and strange it doesn't include Bond, especially as there isn't a dedicated article about him yet!) - SchroCat (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• This new version looks pretty terrible and is next to useless. By removing the column spanning you cannot see a visual representation of the continuation of a role. And it is impractical to use the row span if you flip the table, due to the size of some of the fields. Whilst not ideal, and I realise it has its shortcomings, the earlier version does give a clearer and better overview of the series and changing roles throughout. I propose we revert to the this version until we can think of another alternative... --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Apart from failing WP:ACCESS, the old version is far too wide to fit a number of screens, leading to it running off the edges (or being squashed up too close together). If you can think of a better way of presenting the data, then it would be good to hear it, but the current version should remain until then, being both something that passes ACCESS, and has the current consensus support. - SchroCat (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Due to the vast number of films, it is difficult to know the best way of dealing with this, as there are few comparable series of similar length. However, all other similar lists of cast members I have come across are per the old version, so there is precedent in the previous format. Whichever way the table is positioned it will be more than one computer screen, so you either have to slide down, or slide across. It's not ideal, I know. Whilst there is clear consensus to improve the table, I can see no consensus in support for your new version, other than a discussion two weeks ago that though that it might look better in "portrait form". Since the changes there have been no comments, but it looks even worse than before, and serves no useful purpose. Maybe work on options in sandboxes until we stumble upon a real improvement. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• There is a consensus in this discussion to flip the chart, so please do not try and edit war by reverting. The current version both fits across the screen and fits WP:ACCESS. Why on earth are you reverting to a very poor table that fails these two fundamental points, let alone goes against the consensus that is agreed above?

• "Whichever way the table is positioned it will be more than one computer screen": wrong. The current version fits on one laptop screen.
• "I can see no consensus in support for your new version": wrong. There is a consensus to flip the table 90 degrees, which is what we've done.
• "it looks even worse than before": POV (and ignores WP:ACCESS
• "serves no useful purpose": POV - it serves exactly the same purpose as before as it is exactly the same information as before.

- SchroCat (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• The consensus is for a change, not specifically for your new version. Without the spanning, it's useless! Maybe a better approach would be to split the table chronologically. I'm going to try on my sandbox... --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've had a go, and there's a clear split between Dalton and Brosnan as only Llewellyn bleeds over, but I think splitting it chronologically works a lot better. Maybe it could use a further split earlier on, but it doesn't fall quite so naturally. Any thoughts? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that the character/film spanning is important to help with the visualisation; however I agree with flipping the table simply because there are more films than characters. The reason it is done the other way on film articles is becaus ethe inverse usually holds true: there are more characters than films. With the table flipped you only need to scroll up and down on normal sized monitors. Betty Logan (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • A marked improvement Betty, although there is inconsistency within the article with the Non-EON films. I had concerns that if we spanned rows then you would lose the actor name when scrolling, but the largest span, Lois Maxwell, seems okay in this version. I think the films' titles should probably be bolded, and maybe the actor names centred also. Unless anyone prefers my chronological split, of course! --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to splitting the table, but I think if we were to go down that route it would perhaps be better to split by actor rather than film, since I like being able to scroll along a character and see what films they have been in. In that sense it doesn't really matter if Sylvia Trench is in a separate table to Moneypenny, but ideally the character wouldn't be split over two tables. I think it is usuable as it is now, pending SC's consent. Betty Logan (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree on the spanning, as it was still possible to see who appeared by looking where the names were in the table; being interactive through a sorting facility also made the table actually useful, rather than just fixing it the way we think people should have to look at it. Maybe having the empty cells as the darker grey on the previous version would have been the way to ensure more clarity and have an aspect of interactivity. As it stands now, and as the old version stood, there is no way that it will get through the FL criteria, which is where I would like it to be. However, if this is the only way of ensuring that the hideous and bloated old version doesn't return then I guess it will have to do, although I'm also not sure why the films have to be centred and in bold, which jars, IMO. Splitting the table is also a little pointless, especially if an actor appears in two different tables. The only other option would be to raise the appearance threshold to three films and loose the really part time characters (Trench, Robinson, White), although there has already been at least one opinion against that suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Basically there are three approaches you can take here, and all seem valid and have certain advantages and disadvantages. I don't see how we can separate the design decisions from telling the reader how to use the chart, since we are providing a structure and functionality to provide information in a certain way. The main purpose I think is for a reader to ascertain which films a character has appeared in, so the question is how is that best achieved?

1. The row spanned version we have here I think has the best visual impact, in that it gives an instant overview of the films the character has a appeared in. This tends to be the common approach, and row spans don't seem to preclude FL status.
2. A sortable table as we have here. In this you lose the visual distinction but gain a functionality. In a big table as we have here this has the added advantage in that on smaller monitors you can group the films together in a smaller space so they fit in your browser window. This means that the reader wouldn't have to scroll up and down or across.
3. Splitting the table. This is worth considering, especially along the lines of List of Harry Potter cast members which splits its characters into groups. We could do a similar thing: Secret service, villains, allies etc. The Harry Potter article is FL graded so if the Bond article was modelled on this then you are more or less guaranteed an FL rated article.

There is also the question of whether List of recurring actors and actresses in the James Bond film series should be merged into this article, since there is a huge overlap. It's worth bearing in mind that merging the two articles would stop this article being a completely WP:INUNIVERSE article, which is a far bigger problem than rowspans as far as FL status goes. Betty Logan (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've been advised before that rowspaning will ultimately lead to a fail at FL as all tables need to comply with WP:ACCESS and MOS:DTT, which this one doesn't. Pointing to existing FLs that breach this (as I did) leads to a response of "oh well, that was before changes in the approach..." etc. We can merge the two articles together (an excellent idea), but if we start off with an article that is flawed from the start then it's never going to pass muster on any of the quality scales.
  
• As it currently stands readers can only use the article one way: as it appears on the screen. We've forced that on them and they can't interact with it in any other way. If they want to group together the Felix Leiter actors to see the other cast members they appeared with, they can't in this version, without reading across the table at various points (and possibly losing their way going sideways as there are no row markers to help guide the eye).
  
• I looked at the HP table before I started, but it has the advantage of only having eight films to deal with (and the very common 'more characters than films' argument for having the films across the page). We are also not dealing with a huge number of recurring characters here - only 16, which is just enough to make it annoyingly wide on the screen. This is especially notable for the villains, who have a tendency to get knocked off by Bond. then there is the problem of classification. Gen Gogol is KGB, so obviously an enemy, except when the two sides work together and he's seen drinking tea in M's study, so where does he go? Pepper tries to arrest Bond in LALD, so hardly an ally, but not an enemy either. (Similary, Trench is a part time girlfriend, rather than an ally, but there's no-where else for her to go) If we go down the route of splitting tables, we end up with the following (shortened) versions, which just do not seem right:

Secret Service

Film	Bond	M	Moneypenny	Q	Bill Tanner	Gray?	Robinson
Dr. No	Connery	Lee	Maxwell	Burton
From Russia with Love	Connery	Lee	Maxwell	Llewelyn
Goldfinger	Connery	Lee	Maxwell	Llewelyn

Villains

Film	Blofeld	Gogol	Jaws	Mr White
Dr. No
From Russia with Love	Anthony Dawson Eric Pohlmann
Goldfinger

Allies

Film	Leiter	Trench	Gray?	Wade	Zukovsky	Pepper?
Dr. No	Lord	Gayson
From Russia with Love		Gayson
Goldfinger	Linder

This is only rough, but there are only four villains in the series, which kind of limits the extent of the chart. Bond, MI6 and his allies make up the biggest component here.

I do think this should be merged with the recurring actors page, but it's only worth putting in the effort if it the final version is going to pass an access test, which this will not do as it stands. - SchroCat (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of merging the two articles - together they could form a good article, as all we have currently on this page is the table without explanation. Maybe the article title can be sharpened - List of James Bond cast members maybe? I think the way the table is at the moment is the best compromise, to my mind if you lose the spanning, you kind of lose the point (I'm confused - is spanning frowned upon now?). Oh and I didn't mean for the film titles to be centred, but the names of the actors! Titles should be bolded. Maybe the Non-EON films could be included in the main table also, in a separate section, a la the Harry Potter table. This would avoid the inconsistency between the two tables. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see the Harry Potter table has been changed also, with all the spanning removed (when mentioning it earlier I was referring to my memory of it!). Am I missing a point here that row and column spanning is no longer acceptable? If so, I hate this change, but so be it, if that's the new guideline. If you could point me to the guideline I would be grateful... --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• What's the plan with this page then? To scrap the row spanning but keep the empty dark grey cells? That seems to be where it was heading, but the discussion seems to have fizzled out. Betty Logan (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I was waiting for an answer to my question: "Am I missing a point here that row and column spanning is no longer acceptable?" --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

New table format

@2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:FD75:FFCD:BB4D:3446: The unwieldy nature of the table in this article was mentioned at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Row and column spans so I decided to take a stab at making it more manageable. I based this on many other similar articles, mainly the Marvel Cinematic Universe cast lists, comprised of List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors, List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors (The Infinity Saga), List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series actors (Marvel Television), List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series actors (Marvel Studios), and Marvel One-Shots#Cast and characters, most of which I've worked on. Other articles formatted in such a way are the List of DC Extended Universe cast members (which I've also worked on), the List of Harry Potter cast members, the List of X-Men films cast members, the List of Star Wars film actors. As the MCU seems to be the only franchise with a similar amount of entries as this one, it is the one most comparable to it, so it seems logical to adopt a similar style. The attempt to show all portrayals together, as you say as an advantage of the current table over the proposed table, is actually its main problem: the table is too big precisely because of the amount of films. Another issue with this table is that its axis are the opposite than practically every cast or characters table, even those that do not use the style I mentioned above: all put the characters in rows and the films in columns, except for this one which does it the other way around. This might've originally been because of the high amount of films, but it makes no difference if there's going to be just as many characters as films listed and the table is going to be as unbearably wide anyway. There's also logic to splitting the table the way it's being split, which is the way that for example the James Bond films navbox separates them: first by Eon and non-Eon films, and within Eon it separates it as Connery/Lazenby, then Moore, then Dalton, then Brosnan, then Craig, exactly as this proposed new format does. This format also includes the heading "Introduced in previous films" in each table starting from the second one, to indicate those characters which were already present in a preceding film and therefore a preceding table. This also adds the {{Cast indicator}}, a helpful template to indicate when actors made cameos, had voice-only roles or appeared as a phtograph, to name a few. It also uses footnotes apprioprately instead of just including some info in bullet points below the table, not clearly attributed to its proper place in the table. The change you kept is the expanded lead, but you deleted the list-defined references that came with it. —El Millo (talk) 06:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for opening the thread and for the note on my talk page (you’re right: I didn’t get the ping!) I’ll get back to you on all you’ve raised shortly. Thanks. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:FD75:FFCD:BB4D:3446 (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Facu-el Millo, Again, thanks for opening the thread – it's much appreciated.

I was the IP who posted the question on Betty Logan's talk page (I used to edit under the account SchroCat, have just under 50 FLs to my name and was a Featured List co-ord for a few years. As I mentioned on Betty's page, if I still can’t work row and colspan tables out, what hope does a passing good faith editor have in being able to work out the dense wikitext).

As you'll see from the #Revamp? thread above, I looked into possibilities of changing the structure as the table was already unmanageable – and that was in 2012, but couldn't come to a good landing on the best structure back then.

The problem with the Bond series, as opposed to most of the modern lists of films, is the volume of films and the number of characters that only appear in two films. Splitting by Bond – as you've done – leaves the oddity of Lazenby (why should he be mixed with Connery when the others get their own tables?) and splits several core actors spread over multiple tables (Des Llewellyn appears in four tables, for example). The meaning of the "Introduced in" banners is not clear or intuitive, and how can Le Chiffre and Lynd by "Introduced in Casino Royale (2006)" and "Introduced in Casino Royale (1967)"? They are the same characters, despite who the producers were for the two non-Eon films. But one of the main drawbacks in having multiple tables is that one can't see how long Desmond Llewelyn was in the role and see which Ms or Bonds he appeared next to without going to four different tables.

One answer to this could be removing all characters that only appear in two films, or by having tables for the type of character (Ally, Villain, etc), but both these come with their drawbacks too. Cheers - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Let me just clarify: I am not against a revamp of the tables at all, it's just that having several tables with some repeated information isn't the best way to go, I think. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem is the row spans. Personally I would transpose the table (films along top, characters down the side) and just have column spans. If we do that then each row will be self-contained and the table will be straightforward to edit. Betty Logan (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The thing is that the table must be split somehow. Putting the films as columns means the table will get wider with every new film that comes, which we know will continue to happen. Splitting by Bond is the most reasonable split we can have, and the pairing of Connery and Lazenby I did was based on the {{James Bond films}} navbox, which does the same, I assume based on the fact that—within the Eon films—Lazenby is the only one with only one film and the only one both preceded and succeeded by the same actor (Connery). Regarding the characters both introduced in the non-Eon Casino Royale (1967) and in Eon's Casino Royale (2006), I originally included the heading "Introduced in non-Eon films" in the Craig table, where these characters were included, but this edit by Lobo151 removed it, apparently because they thought Eon and non-Eon films should be treated completely separate, which I disagree with but at the moment didn't challenge it given how big my change had been.

What isn't intuitive or clear about the "Introduced in previous films" heading? It's clear that if you want to see who portrayed this character before you should go to previous tables, and I think it's better to have to scroll vertically than to have to scroll horizontally and have part of the table be out of the limits of the screen. Having to go to four small and easy-to-understand tables to see how long Desmond Llewelyn was in the role doesn't seem uncomfortable at all, taking into account the years were also added. Even if the table in its current state didn't seem unwieldy enough for some, it would become bigger with newer films, so splitting it now is the best path. —El Millo (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Here's what the table looks like with the rows and columns switched. It still is as big and uwieldy, and it has tons of wasted space. Most characters are absent from most films than they appear in, and in the split version we can just not include those that don't appear in the whole Brosnan era for example. Some characters only appear with one Bond, and having those characters occupy more than 20 blank spaces seems like a waste. —El Millo (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The navbox merging of Connery and Lazenby was only done in May this year, and it was a very, very bad call. So was merging the non-Eon films together. This was the very long-standing consensus that had lasted for several years (since a decade ago). It should be reverted back to that much better state than the mess it’s in now.

Some of the individuals can be removed from the table (both the current one on the article and any subsequent copies of it. There are some people who only appear in one film, but have a second siting on the table because they appear in a photograph in a different film, and that’s just ridiculous. Trying to say Mata Bond from Casino Royale 67 and Mathilde from NTTD are the same character is the same person is also ridiculous (WP:OR, if you want to go by the policies).

I thinks it’s quite clear why the “introduced by” heading isn’t clear. It took me a few minutes to work out, then I had to scan over several tables to see if and/or when the character reappeared in other films. That’s not terribly useful to readers.

Splitting is one option, but it’s a question of where or how. I’m not convinced splitting by Bond is the best way to go, so are there any other possible ways to consider? Coming to a consensus to have a three-film minimum would also take out about 13 characters, making it much more manageable. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:C8B2:3C5B:970A:8122 (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that one appearance and a photograph shouldn't count as recurring. I also removed Mata and Mathilde Bond as the same character in my proposed version. The three-film minimum can also be discussed. But removing characters will not make this table narrower, as the columns should be the films and that will keep increasing regardless of how many characters we decide to remove. Splitting doesn't seem to be an option of many but the only option going forward.

Splitting by type of character (ally, villain, etc.) wouldn't work as that wouldn't make it narrower either and generally grouping characters like that isn't considered encyclopedic. Splitting by decade(s)? That wouldn't solve any of your concerns that splitting by Bond already has. If there's one way I can think of this franchise to be divided by is by main actor.

Regarding the Connery/Lazenby grouping, that edit was made without discussion but it had no opponents, no one reverted the change and it's been months, and the edit summary states: No need for single-film Bonds to have their own group as they didn't have eras. Lazenby's film is inbetween Connery's tenure so giving Lazenby his own group also messes up the timeline. It makes it look like Diamonds are Forever comes before OHMSS, which seems reasonable as Lazenby's situation is different to any other Eon films Bond, in that he only has one film and it is contained within two Connery films, and the breaking of the timeline is also a good point.

Would the "Introduced in previous films" be more clear to you if it was split by when it was introduced (by Bond)? Like Introduced in Moore films or something to that effect instead of the generic previous films. If not, then I'll just post a comment in WP:FILM requesting for participation, to see what other editors think about this whole thing and hear other opinions. —El Millo (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, no mixing of Bonds in the navbox should stand. It’s ridiculous, and just because a poorly-watched page has stood for a few months against a ten-year status quo doesn’t mean it can’t be turned around. The fact the page is locked so no IP can revert is is also a clue as to why it wasn’t reverted much sooner. The mixing here is also sub optimal (its as illogical as merging Dalton’s two films into Brosnan’s five).

The splitting by Bond only makes sense if the Bonds stood in their own clear-cut eras. They don’t. Only Craig’s is a standalone reboot from getting his 00 status until he dies (and even then Dench is a carry over from before). The rest is much less clear: the same characters played by the same actors remain the present across multiple Bonds, so splitting the table makes understanding that incredibly difficult in having to try and track who appeared with who over numerous tables. You say splitting is the only option, but it clearly isn't. Yes, I know it's your preferred one, but...

...having a three-appearance minimum and swapping the films to rows will narrow the table considerably and still allow people to compare which actors appeared together in which films. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:C8B2:3C5B:970A:8122 (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I've placed a notice at WT:FILM for third opinions.

There are mainly three options as of now:

• the current one, with the films as rows and the characters as columns
• a table with the characters as rows and the films as columns (seen here)
• a series of tables separated by Bond actor, based on how the {{James Bond films}} navbox is split, with indicators of characters introduced in previous films and in each film in the series (seen here)

I favor the third option, based on other film characters tables, which the IP considers hard to read and counter-intuitive mostly because the actors not being clearly split between Bonds. The IP favors a variation of the original version with a three-appearance minimum (seen here), which I consider a non-starter given that the characters being in columns instead of rows what the problem we began with, that makes the table really hard to read and edit, plus it has tons of wasted space for characters that don't appear for most of the series. My qualms with the second option are that it's going to become even bigger with further films coming out, which is why I favor a split by films.

Opinions on these three options and new proposals are welcome. —El Millo (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I can't agree with a split, because as SchroCat noted it makes it difficult or not impossible to easily see characters like Q and M being played by the same actors over decades. I could see splitting off the Craig films as they're a self-contained sub-series, though. I also don't like the three appearance minimum because that leaves significant characters(Madeline) off. And to be honest, I can see leaving off the non-EON films as they're not the same characters from a real world production standpoint, even if they are based on the same literary basis. So I'm not sure how to approach it, but wanted to give my thoughts.

Also, regarding the navbox, I absolutely agree it needs to be reverted. Because as it is with the undiscussed change one cannot tell at a quick glance as to which films star which actor, which is the whole point of organizing by actor in the first place. Otherwise there's no reason to split them at all and we should just list them straight through. It's either split them entirely or don't split them at all. oknazevad (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the rationale for splitting, because it's not like we are designing a print out. To view all of the information you are going to have to scroll down or across. Is there some technical reason why scrolling down is preferred? If not then one table, the films along the top and the characters down the side and use column spans but no row spans. All of the info is then instantly accessible and it is straightforward to edit. Personally I think the table at User:Facu-el_Millo/sandbox/5 is much more readable and it will be easier to edit. Once you get past Blofeld obviously you get a lot of empty space but is it such a bad thing? Another approach would be to have a primary table of characters that span different Bond eras, and then Bond era-tables for characters confined to a single Bond era? Betty Logan (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Scrolling down is the norm, horizontal scrolling is used exceptionally. WP:RESOL says that Large tables and images can also create problems; sometimes horizontal scrolling is unavoidable, but consider restructuring wide tables to extend vertically rather than horizontally. If we can avoid it, we should. As having the characters as columns isn't acceptable, as you've expressed, because it is harder to read and edit, the table with films as columns will continue to get wider, which is why I suggest a split. —El Millo (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

But there are suggestions for extending vertically, rather than horizontally. Either way, the guideline is only providing advice and not something set in stone and, as it says, “sometimes horizontal scrolling is unavoidable”. It is certainly more advisable than having to flick up and down the page to four tables to look for connections for one actor or for one character. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:7562:DCE3:CA11:1CAE (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I have one last idea, but it only shows those characters that appear with more than one Bond. It is one table only with year ranges separated by Bond. Connery appears twice, being intersected by Lazenby, then come all the others. It doesn't include the non-Eon films but it could. Here it is. Thoughts? —El Millo (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

We could add those that appear in several films but only with one Bond. Here it is —El Millo (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I think either of those are fit for purpose. The loss of the film names is probably the major factor, but the second problem is that there are multiple actors stacked up in one cell, so it's not clear who they were acting with from the other films. It's also not clear which characters didn't appear in which films (i.e. they don't show Blofeld isn't in Dr. No, Goldfinger, Live and Let Die, etc: the lists of names make it look like all those characters were in all those films.) I'm not trying to be difficult or obstructive, and I do appreciate the effort and thought you've put in trying to overcome the issues with the current table, but I do see problems with these versions. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

We can't have every piece of information and still have it all in one reasonably-sized table. We either remove information that is considered less important or make more tables to fit everything. I still think the best version we can go with is my original proposal, where no information is lost. You have to keep in mind a monumental table is also hard to read. I say for now we can just agree on using the table with the films as columns and the characters as rows and just implement that. —El Millo (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, let’s go with films as columns for starters and, as Betty Logan suggested above, have it with column spans to make it easier to edit - the current version is a horrible mish-mash that makes editing too difficult for most people. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:15B0:7BC9:5AC:5475 (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done —El Millo (talk) 05:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That’s much better already. I’ve removed those characters that don’t properly appear twice (photographs etc shouldn’t really be counted), and this makes it more manageable too. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:15B0:7BC9:5AC:5475 (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This may be a controversial view, but I would also suggest removing the non-Eon characters. They are not "recurring" in the common sense, it is just that multiple adaptations exist for two of the books. I think removing the non-Eon films would make it easier to "track" the recurring characters, which only really makes sense within the context of the Eon series anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Let me have a think about that one. My gut reaction is to keep them together, but this is called the "characters in the James Bond film series", and they are not really within the "series", as that tends to be considered the Eon films only. It's a difficult call, so let me think a little on that... Cheers SC 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

It's no big deal either way. I just felt that it would tighten the table up a bit and capture the continuity of the Eon films slightly better. Betty Logan (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, go on - let's take them out, unless anyone else thinks otherwise? 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. —El Millo (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Cast table

Sean Connery Bond

List indicator(s)

This section includes characters who will appear or have appeared in more than two films in the series.

• An empty, dark grey cell indicates the character was not in the film, or that the character's official presence has not yet been confirmed.
•  ^C indicates a cameo role.
•  ^U indicates an uncredited appearance.
•  ^V indicates a voice-only role.

Recurring characters in the James Bond film series

Character	1962	1963	1964	1965	1967	1971
	Dr. No	From Russia with Love	Goldfinger	Thunderball	You Only Live Twice	Diamonds Are Forever
James Bond 007	Sean Connery
Felix Leiter	Jack Lord		Cec Linder	Rik Van Nutter
M	Bernard Lee
Miss Moneypenny	Lois Maxwell
Q	Peter Burton	Desmond Llewelyn
Sylvia Trench	Eunice Gayson
Ernst Stavro Blofeld		Anthony Dawson Eric PohlmannV	Anthony Dawson Eric PohlmannV		Donald Pleasence	Telly Savalas

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.253.249 (talk • contribs)

discussion

The cast table looks a mess could we break it down by Bond actor for example. 92.236.253.249 (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Check the thread above to see the opposition two other editors had to this idea. —El Millo (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Proposed Addition

Mr White (Jesper Christensen) - Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, Spectre - surely a lead in character for Dr Madeleine Swan (Lea Seydou). SquashEngineer (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me. Betty Logan (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

 Added. —El Millo (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

A new proposal

I have a new proposal, which would be a combination of two earlier ones. It is currently at my sandbox, and it would consists of two main sections: one overarching the whole franchise, with a column for every Bond and including only those characters that appear with more than one Bond actor; and the other subdivided by Bond actor, with a column for each film and including those characters that are recurring within each different Bond actor's films. @Betty Logan and SchroCat, what do you think? —El Millo (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I quite like the "era" tables, although I would merge Lazenby's Bond with Connery's, otherwise you lose the continuity up to Connery's final Eon film. Not a fan of the main table because it's not really clear which actors appeared in which films, where you have multiple actors playing the same part (such as Felix Leiter). That said I'm not sure you need the main table if you have one for each Bond—maybe it could be replaced by a character checkbox along the lines of John_Carpenter#Recurring_collaborators. That way you could still see at a glance which films Felix Leiter appears in, and save the specific actors for the Bond boxes (the actors tend to be Bond-era specific anyway). Betty Logan (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: something like this? —El Millo (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that works for me. So we'll have the main table which tells us which characters appear in which films and then the specific Bond-era tables that you can then read the actors off. That should make the information more manageable. Technically we probably don't need the years at the top, we might be able to squeeze the columns further together if those go.Betty Logan (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I made a slight tweak to remove the years and increase the width of the character column. I have restored the original version because it is considered bad wiki manners to mess around in somebody else's sandbox, but you can see the effect here. Setting the widths using the "em" format is better here because it matches the size of the table to the number of films rather than to the width of somebody's screen. Betty Logan (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, let's go with your version, given the years would already be included in the more detailed tables. @SchroCat: would you be ok with me implementing the change? —El Millo (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

My only criticism is that for some of the characters it’s a bit difficult to see which films they’ve been in (check Mr White, for example - it’s not clear how many films and which ones). Is there a way to show the columns to make that part clearer?

Don’t let that stop you making the change though, but if you can overcome that problem at some point, I think it would be even better. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Ditto. I don’t think there is a perfect solution for this page, so we’re having to go for the one with least imperfections. At the moment it’s the one that is on the page, but the sandbox version is getting close. As Betty says, the problem is the multiple actors in a role isn’t clear enough (for me) to support the change. SchroCat (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I've implemented the change. —El Millo (talk) 06:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

It looks good. I have removed the years as per the discussion so that the first column isn't so squashed. It will also mean that users with small resolutions will be able to fit more of the table on their displays. I don't think the years are necessary in the first table since they appear in the subsequent tables, but if anyone else feels differently I would suggest adding them inline with the titles so that it doesn't have a widening effect on the table. Betty Logan (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

p.s. the vertical bars separating the Bonds makes it a lot easier to line up the ticks with the films. Betty Logan (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I hadn't realised I'd copied the table from my original version instead of your update. —El Millo (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The version that’s in there now (with the ‘era’ columns) looks much better. It makes it much clearer to see which films people like Mr White have been in. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)