Talk:Production of the James Bond films

Crew Table Again
Didn't realise there was already conversations about the crew table. Thought I should propose a new idea. At present, I believe the current table is very cluttered and busy and is objectively too repetitive. I therefore propose the below table. The rowspan function exists for a reason, and that is to avoid repetitiveness and duplication in tables. Literally every other table like this on Wikipedia utilises the colspan and rowspan functions, so I don't know why the users watching this page seem so concerned about it being an issue for "screen readers". Also, since there is 25 films, I thought shrinking the text to 80% would be a good idea. This means readers don't have to do much scrolling and will see the basic information clearly - rather than trapsing through masses of peoples names and reading "Michael G. Wilson" 12 times. Rowspanning allows readers to clearly see the "tenure" of the producers and composers. It's an incredibly helpful feature and I see no genuine reason as to why it can't be used. All the Bond film pages need to keep up with the times as they're lagging behind the other film series articles on this site.

Hopefully people can have an actual discussion about this rather than just immediately shutting each other down. I believe this is a superior way of displaying the table than the current one. Since there's so much information, simplicity is needed. At the moment, it is just tonnes of repeated information thrown at the reader. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with the spanning of rows, but I have a very serious one with the size. --Gonnym (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * N̶o̶r̶ ̶d̶o̶ ̶I̶.̶ ̶A̶s̶ ̶l̶o̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶t̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶,̶ ̶I̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶n̶o̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶b̶l̶e̶m̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶s̶i̶z̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶t̶e̶x̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶.̶ ̶I̶ ̶o̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶o̶u̶g̶h̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶w̶a̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶g̶o̶o̶d̶ ̶i̶d̶e̶a̶ ̶b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶t̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶s̶o̶ ̶m̶a̶s̶s̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶b̶e̶g̶i̶n̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶.̶ Actually scratch that. I've just increased the size to 100% and don't think it looks as good. Everything looks way to squashed. With a table as big as this, the table needs to breathe. I think the 80% font size allows for this (and it makes no difference on mobile anyway). TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A serious discussion needs to account for accessibility; aesthetics are only a secondary consideration. I have generated screen-reader output at User:Betty_Logan/Sandbox/draft4 using the Fangs emulator. The row-spanning causes the reader to miss out chunks of information. Take the From Russia with Love row as an example: the screen-reader omits the director, producer, editor and cinematographer in the row-spanned version, but this information is included in the version without row-spans. A layout that causes vital information to be omitted is simply not compliant with MOS:ACCESSIBILITY. Row-spans can be useful if used judiciously but the table above is an example of how they should definitely not be used IMO. In addition, makes a very valid point in the above discussion that the rows and columns are easier to scan along on devices with smaller resolutions when the row and column headings are off-screen. I also agree with  that nothing is gained from making font smaller either; the table looks pretty much the same size to me. None of these alterations improve the readability and accessibility of the table. Aesthetics are entirely subjective: you see repetition and clutter while I see an orderly layout. The bottom line though is that the version without the row-spanning is demonstrably the most accessible form. There is no reason at all to exclude readers with poor eyesight when we can accommodate them at the expense of a few aesthetics. Betty Logan (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you please clarify what you mean by the whole screen-reader thing? I genuinely don't know what you mean and have never heard anybody else mention or bring this up before. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Readers with poor eyesight often use assistive technology technology such as screenreaders. MOS:ACCESS makes 19 references to ensuring that pages are compatible with screen-readers. Betty Logan (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The above table is about as bad as it gets in terms of accessibility. The text is way too small and the rowspans are a problem for screen readers. Both are not a problem if one's eyesight is fine, but for anyone who has poor vision, they will be unable to read it properly. - SchroCat (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a very poor argument. People with poor eyesight (like me) have this issue all the time, but we also have a thing called "zoom". It's incredibly patronising when people think we should be specially catered for and don't understand basic computer features. Also, could you please explain what "screen reader" actually means? Does anyone actually impact from that? If they do, why haven't I seen complaints all the way across wikipedia, and we is it only two users here who seem to know anything about it? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous: it's not patronising and not a poor argument, it's part of our policies and make up. See MOS:ACCESS for more information. Trying to change things just because you don't like it is bad. The table above is not an improvement in any way at all, and as we've been over this a few times already, with no consensus reached to change things, it risks becoming more of a disruption than anything constructive. - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd quite like to here the opinion of someone other than you or Betty Logan. You two seem to be the main dictators round here - and everything seems set and it's very difficult to change your mind about anything. It seems very wrong for a collaborative space like Wikipedia. Maybe we need to recruit more editors for the Bond pages to introduce some fresh opinions. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I see we are in WP:ICANTHEARTHAT territory, as well as breaching WP:NPA by name calling. Added your edit warring elsewhere, I'm not sure it won't be long before we get to ANI over this - SchroCat (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Name calling? What? Where have I resorted to name calling? I said it was very dictatorial round here because...well, it is. That's an observation, not a baseless insult. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "You two seem to be the main dictators round here". that is name calling, not an observation. - SchroCat (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We are not "catering" for people with poor eyesight. That would suggest we are putting the needs of those with poor eyesight ahead of the needs of those with good eyesight. That is not what we are doing. The reader with good eyesight is not detrimentally affected by the lack of row-spans, neither are they affected by having a standard font size. In fact, MOS:SMALLFONT stipulates the size of the font should not be less than 85%. What is being opposed here is the editorial urge to "beautify" the table at the expense of accessibility. Betty Logan (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not Betty or SchroCat and I'm pretty sure I've disagreed with at least one of them before, so hopefully I'm not biased. I actually also know about MOS:ACCESSIBILITY and have been making sure that tables I create follow it and fixing tables I see that don't follow it. As a personal note, I have very good eyesight and I find the small font on my average-ish monitor a bit too small and distracting. While I can zoom in like you say, that messes up every other thing on my screen which I prefer not to do. --Gonnym (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok thank you. And yeah you have a point about the zoom issue. I just feel like the whole "accessibility" thing isn't a big an issue as people are making out. Tables like this are featured all across wikipedia and nobody seems to complain about them. In terms of accessibility, I don't think the current table is particularly accessible itself anyway. Far too many distracting hyperlinks and repetitive information so I don't see how my proposed table is any less accessible. It's just inaccessible in...different ways. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

People seem to be under the impression that I've only made it for aesthetic purposes. If you'd read my initial statement, I've mentioned my reasoning. Having the people span the rows allows the table to breathe and allows the reader to see the tenure of that person and their contribution to the Bond films. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The parlous state of tables on other pages has nothing to do with this. This is a Featured List, which means it's been put together properly by people who know what they are doing. It was reviewed by the community and was made into a Featured page.
 * Tables don't "breathe". They are inanimate objects, consisting of format data. Nothing is lost by having the names repeated – readers can still see the tenure rather easily – and it fits with our WP:ACCESS policy. I don't care if you don't think ACCESS is a big thing or not – your opinion doesn't matter against the policies, and it is they that need to be acknowledged, not people's opinions. - SchroCat (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nitpick. WP:ACCESS is not a policy, it's a guideline. However I agree with it's implementation having worked with and helped design software and web pages for people with accessibility issues which is actually a huge number of people and should not be ignored. I think we should get rid of all the duplicate links however. Canterbury Tail talk 13:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I largely have no issue with this, provided it is not applied too stringently. For example, I would argue that Peter Hunt should be linked at least once each in both the editor and director columns, and the same for John Glen. Readers tend to scan across rows or down columns so our linking should anticipate that. Betty Logan (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is that in sortable tables, the order changes, so while in the original table something may be linked, once it has been sorted on a different criteria, the first showing may not be linked. - SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That raises the question of, is there any benefit to this being a sortable table? I'd argue not hugely. While there may be a little benefit to sorting to see how many involved X person, it seems that the table is best used purely chronologically. Willing to be convinced though. Canterbury Tail talk 21:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's hugely useful to have the formatted to the data can be quizzed. Trying to put together all the films with a score by John Williams, or seeing all the films together that Ken Adam or Syd Cain were involved with is an excellent resource. - SchroCat (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with SchroCat wholeheartedly on this. Column sorting is often lazily deployed across tables where it isn't remotely necessary, but this table is not one of those cases. The Bond series spans 24 films and will add plenty more, and some of the crew have collaborated on them for as long as a quarter of a century in some cases. A huge strength of this table is that the reader can sort the table by crew member. However, regardless of which view you take on this issue it's a functionality issue, not an accessibility issue, so I can't help but feel that we are going off on a tangent. Betty Logan (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Linus Sandgren not yet confirmed for Bond 25
I'm seeing references around the news sites to Linus Sandgren being hired for Bond 25, but so far it's all "may be" and "possibly". So it's not confirmed yet, basically a rumor. All of it seems to come from a single Tweet. I think we have to hold off until we have a reliable source saying it's a done deal. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CRYSTAL it should not be added until there is some kind of confirmation. Betty Logan (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 10 January 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus to move. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

James Bond in film → Production of the James Bond films – The article itself in the lead (specifically the hat note) indicates that the topic is the production of the films, not generically "James Bond in film". This article is among those raised as being conflated/confused with the articles also listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film and the proposed title saw some support there. Izno (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – I'm inclined to oppose for now, based on my question in the James Bond filmography article. If I'm right, and the latter article is redundant, then this one likely shouldn't be moved... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Per my response at the filmography article, the two articles have different coverage, and neither is redundant. - SchroCat (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, this is a rename discussion, not a merge discussion. If editors want to merge the articles they can start a discussion to discuss that specific aim. Renaming the article does not prevent a merge down the line if that is what editors want to do. Not moving forward on a rename in the event that we might do something else in the future isn't a progressive step for the articles. Betty Logan (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As I also said at the filmography article, the move request should focus on making the title more WP:PRECISE. Hashing out a better overall organization should occur in a central location (which is not this move request). --Izno (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per discussion at the project page. A more descriptive title. Betty Logan (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - for me, there are two issues here. A bad title, and a redundant content split. This at least fixes the easier of the two. --Gonnym (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Property of a Lady (film)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Property of a Lady (film). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 9 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. p b  p  19:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

"The Property of a Lady (film)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The Property of a Lady (film). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 9 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC  678  21:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)