Talk:Production of the James Bond films/Archive 1

Images
This article currently has free images of Sean Connery, Roger Moore, and the most recent Bond- Daniel Craig, but a non-free image of Pierce Brosnan (not to mention none at all of Lazenby and Dalton). Surely, we can find a free one of Brosnan somewhere.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Also is there a need for a picture of a wax works picture of Craig, which looks more like Boris Becker than it does of Daniel Craig? Khu  kri  08:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added Brosnan and Lazenby - both are used on their articles too, which isn't ideal, but will have to suffice. Sadly there are no free ones of Dalton - I suggest we drop a non-free one (the Brosnan one, probably) and stick another one on for Dalton. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 09:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And why none of Niven and Nelson? They also deserve to have their pics on there too.... -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 09:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There was a Nelson one long ago that got deleted in the wake of a general purge of the article of images, mostly non-free ones. The main object of the purge was about half of the montages that had been loaded up. We now still have the Moneypenny montage, credits montage, and chase montage, but three others were axed along with the Nelson image. (Nelson also played the hotel manager, Mr. Grady, in Kubrick's The Shining).--WickerGuy (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Bond 23 article
I think it's about time to start a page on Bond 23. We've got locations, we've got content about the production (specifically the MGM woes, which will have to be mentioned), and the film has moved into pre-production with shooting to begin very soon. What's more, a press release has emerged overnight confirming Javier Bardem has been cast in a role (though we're waiting for verification). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Half the stuff posted here on Bond 23 tends to violate WP:CRYSTAL. The section on this page on B23 tends to be highly chaotic and stuffed with a lot of rumors from unreliable sources. I'm not saying don't do it, but if you have it, monitor it really really carefully and strictly.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I re-wrote it a while ago and tried to remove most of the speculation that was in there. As for the stuff that I kept in, I made sure the article made it clear that it was speculation. But, given that I've just got a translation of that article I was talking about and it wasn't exactly reliable (it's a press release about the DVD for Biutiful), I think I'll wait beofre starting the page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Images - Free & non-free
I've asked the advice of Quadell about the images on the page and whether they are justifiable etc, especially the montages and non-free aspects. There thoughts are: ________________________________________________________
 * I would say that such montages are sometimes acceptable, though it's debatable. (Regardless, they should certainly have better copyright information: each film's name and studio at the very least; perhaps director as well.) I think we need to look at each non-free picture in turn.
 * File:BobSimmonsGunbarrel.png is very questionable, since it's already in a more specific article. I would remove it.
 * I think File:Bond, James Bond.ogg is acceptable, but I see there's disagreement on that point. :)
 * File:ParisandBond.jpg has to go.
 * In my opinion, File:James Bond at Madame Tussauds, London.jpg is not free and should not have been labeled as such. It's a wacky way to get around copyright concerns. A screenshot would just violate the studio's copyright, but this violates both the studio's copyright on the character and the sculptor's copyright.
 * File:BondChase.JPG, in my opinion, is acceptable. It's important to see the action and the variety to fully understand the topic.
 * File:MoneyPennyMontage.JPG is more dubious. The flirtatious banter doesn't come through, nor do the multiple images convey much (to me) more than a single screenshot. And I doubt a single screenshot would be appropriate here. I'd remove it.
 * File:BondTitleMontage.JPG is rather in-between. It does convey what the text describes in ways the text alone doesn't convey, it is an iconic aspect of the film franchise, and the variety is important. On the other hand, it feels less necessary to me than the BondChase image. I would lean toward removing it, but it's a borderline case.

________________________________________________________

On their advice I have taken three of the images out. That leaves us questions over:
 * File:Bond, James Bond.ogg - I think we should leave it in there and argue the toss later
 * File:MoneyPennyMontage.JPG - This should be removed, I think. the flirtation scenes between the two are not core to the story and the franchise has moved away from them in the last couple of films anyway
 * File:BondTitleMontage.JPG and File:BondChase.JPG should be retained for now, but need to have more complete and accurate information in the both the file attributes and the labelling.

Is everyone happy with those suggestions? - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 13:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Moderate agreement, though very slight disagreement on your reasoning re MoneyPenny. In general, the banter between Bond on the one hand, and M/Q/Moneypenny (taken as a collective) is, I think, an important element of the series, and the fact that the last 2 films (out of 22- that's 9.1%) have dropped MP doesn't mean anything- it's appropriate for a reboot. If we could get some good sourced material on the variety of personalities of MoneyPenny, that would be good, and would certainly justify the multiple images. To me the flirtatious banter does come through at least in the Connery and Brosnan shots, but I speak as one having already seen the films- perhaps not so to one who has not seen them.
 * Some time ago there were twice as many montages in this article and about half got deleted on grounds of overuse. There was a Bond Girls montage, a Q montage (easily the least justifiable of the bunch- should have at least shown a variety of gadgets rather than going for one per Bond actor), and a montage of Bond playing games (golf, backgammon, or cards) with the villain (the last I was especially sorry to see go). I retain copies of all of these.
 * Conflict of interest disclosure. I am the creator and uploader of the montages. I was really green re NFCC guidelines at the time, and would have been more careful about integrating them with the text of the article and more careful about which screenshots I chose had I been more experienced. I've been far far more meticulous on NFCC compliance since then re the Stanley Kubrick article, though ironically, there I've been far more heavily challenged by folks eager to see images deleted. I think that article just gets a lot more policed than this one.
 * Finally, I think a gallery is preferable to a montage in many ways. In a gallery, one can limit oneself to only three (or even two) images without worrying about layout, and it's generally much more aesthetic. The images will each have a separate home on WP, and it is easier to maintain individual source information. Ideally, the montages should be replaced with galleries.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Potter ref in lead
Hi Rangoon, I know the series info looks interesting, but would it not be better if it was covered more fully in the rest of the article, not in the lead? The lead (like the article, really) is a big ol' bloated thing that really needs some heavy work on it and I'm hoping to get it into better shape to get it somewhere near the GA standard that the rest of the series is heading towards. Does anyone else have any thoughts as to how to get this article into a better shape? - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the lead is a bit of a mess. I do nonetheless thing that the Potter detail is lead worthy, and it is a pretty standard formula to state '(after ...)' where the topic of an article is second behind another notable topic by a key measurement.
 * I don't think the problem with the lead is so much its length but the paragraph structure. In my view it would probably be best split into four paragraphs rather than three. It also seems odd to me that a number of very key names are not mentioned in the lead, such as Sean Connery, Roger Moore and John Barry.
 * I am happy to collaborate on a rework of the article. I don't have any big ideas for how the core article could be improved - which is generally very good - but am happy to help out.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Films table
What would people think about taking out the films table and removing the re-direct from List of James Bond films to put it there? this page is much more than a list - it's a full breakdown and history and the list can stand on its own. Is there any good reason to keep the table on this page, rather than on a page in its own right? - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Decided to accept this suggestion (the text there was filled with hard to reference text anyway)... igordebraga ≠ 01:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Curious about removed info.
I'm curious as to why in the recent (and generally excellent) recent edits the following information was removed (I'm guessing in almost all cases, it was unsourced).

While Connery's "You Only Live Twice" was the first Bond film to completely jettison the plot by Fleming, this became more common in the Moore era.

Lazenby announced he was leaving Bond before the release of OHMSS and thus ticked off the producers.

Moore incorporated elements of his character from "The Saint" into his portrayal of Bond.

The film "Octopussy" is effectively a sequel to Fleming's short story of the same name. (I put that one in here, and I think it's important info. Would be glad to source it.)

Dalton's Bond is more realistic than Moore's.

--WickerGuy (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's part of an overall (very rough) copy edit I undertook on the first part of the article and these were the pieces that were most obvious to go, being either unsourced or not core to the article. Part of the problem is that looking over the piece as a whole, it really does need to be slimmed down rather radically, preferably being split into two or possibly three separate articles somehow.  Currently it is the 591st longest page on Wiki, at 166,172 bytes, well above the mark for an article that needs to be divided down, according to WP:SIZERULE.  At present the sites roughly breaks down into the following sections:


 * 1 An in-depth breakdown of the actors (and the background to their films)


 * 2 The details of the films, consisting:
 * a) Large summarising table
 * b) Details of some of the crews involved
 * 3 An extensive look at the motifs used within the series
 * 4 Details of Non-Eon films, spin-offs, spoofs etc
 * 5 Other info (including reception, DVDs, TV etc)


 * Do you have any thoughts as to how to break this down into manageable, readable articles? -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 13:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A small thing I know (in relation to the re-working of this article at least) but Bond 23 now justfies a separate article in my view.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

How about hiving each actor's Bond tenure off to individual articles? and leave a summary in this one? - X201 (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think a better idea is to spin off the motifs section, with a hatnote here pointing readers to it, and perhaps a short list of the motifs here. You want to be able to retain (sourced) comparative info about the differences between Bond films of different eras and the different approaches of the producers. (For example, the fact that it was all more or less the same creative team from start of Connery to end of Dalton- usually same set designer, composer, etc. but a spanking new team beginning with Brosnan is important to note.)--WickerGuy (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We now have two new pages to work on, alongside this one:
 * Motifs in the James Bond film series
 * List of James Bond films‎
 * We'll have to work on ground rules to differentiate on what happens on each of the pages, especially between this page and "List of James Bond films‎", or we run the risk of deletion or a further merger in the future. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 09:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Outline of new pages
I've had a chat with Betty Logan about the differentiation aspects and they have come up with a couple of good thoughts. On the back of those suggestions, I see a way to get these three articles integrated, but still remaining separate:


 * James Bond (film series): As above, we make it along the lines of the Superman in film and Batman in film pages, ie: history of development, with a focus on focus on the background production history. This will mean that much of the material here is removed, although as most of it is already covered on the film specific pages then this is not too much of an issue. It may be worth thinking about a change of name to James Bond in film as we progress further down this line.


 * List of James Bond films‎: A list of the films, with some background information and in line with WP:LIST requirements.


 * Motifs in the James Bond film series: An examination of the elements and themes that run throughout the Bond series of films.

I'd be glad to hear anyone else's opinions! I'm away for the rest of the week, so don't think I'm being rude if I don't get back to you! Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the Motifs article needs a lede of some kind, IMO. Good work.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I also propose renaming the "motifs" section to "tropes". While the latter is a less common word, "motif" is frequently used in conjunction with music as "trope" is not.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Article lead
My attempted addition of the following text to the first paragraph of the lead has been reverted: 'with Sean Connery having starred in six films between 1962 and 1971 and Roger Moore in seven between 1973 and 1985.'

At present the lead does not describe the article contents in the way that it should, and over half of the lead is an overly detailed and rather painful description of the history of the relationship between Eon, Danjaq, UA, MGM, Columbia, Sony, the Brocollis and Saltzman. Looking at the actual article text, these issues are in fact hardly mentioned.

I have nothing against the retention of that paragraph in the lead - although it could still be trimmed further - but in my view there must be more in the lead which addresses the actual content of the article. It is also in my view absurd for the article lead not to mention the names of Moore and Connery in connection with the Eon series, who are two of the most significant figures in the history of the franchise.

It is also very odd to me that the lead does not reference such things as the music of John Barry, the cultural impact of the series, recurring characters etc. I feel that a new paragraph in the lead is needed to address these issues. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As the article is in the process of being completely re-vamped (as per the discussions above) the lead is not the place to start making edits. Aside from that there are six actors, not just two! -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 17:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you reverted because 'the lead is not the place to start making edits', because that is not a good reason to revert and to be frank it is not for you to instruct other editors where they should or should not edit. Thousands of people look at this article every day and there is no good reason to not make improvements to the lead as and when editors (1) see scope for an improvement (which can happen at any time); and (2) have the time and inclination to make the edit.
 * On the actual point, do you not accept that Connery and Moore are far more significant to the history of the series than Dalton or Lazenby (and not just because they were in far more films, but because they were in 13 of the first 14 and therefore had a great influence on what followed them) and deserve mention in the lead? Rangoon11 (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would go for a briefer mention of SC and RM which also establishes their significance, as in "most films" and "setting the style"- exact numbers and dates may not be necessary in the lede. But I agree with all your criticisms of the lede.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I reverted because there are 6 actors, not 2. It is only your opinion that says they are more important than the others. TBH, the whole article is still a mess and if you want to put something in the lead that will be re-written when the rest of articlebus done, then carry on. But not with just 2 actors mentioned! I'd explain more fully, but on a dodgy mobile signal on a small screen at the moment. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Renaming
As per the posting above (Outline of new pages) and in line with the break up of the various Bond film pages, I think now would probably be a good time to start the process of re-naming the article as it moves away from the current layout and subject. Are there any objections to starting the re-naming process for this page to James Bond in film, as we move it towards the style of the Superman in film and Batman in film pages? - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 23:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No objections from me, as that in fact largely describes the current contents anyhow, which already cover non-Eon films. What I ask myself however is should there be both a James Bond in film article and an article specifically for the Eon series/franchise, as they are both notable topics with more than enough content to justify it. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There isn't an article specifically about the Eon series, is there? This page is about all Bond films, which is why it covers NSNA and CR (67). The benefits of the 'Bond in film' approach is that the licensing of the films can be looked at a little more closely, which means it has to include the non-Eon films. It will mean a fairly hefty re-write of this page, as most of the info on specific films is just a duplicate of that which is on the individual film pages - something we'll have to get rid of and avoid doing in the re-write. -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 00:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As the editor who encouraged the " in film" renaming, I support it being done here as well. It allows for us to encapsulate all things James Bond in relation to film, regardless of in-universe continuity or rights ownership. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 00:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The lede of the article needs to emphasize that the vast majority of "street legal" Bond films are Eon, especially as Eon now owns the distribution rights to at least some of the non-Eon films. (I know that's the case for NSNA- I'm not sure about the 2 earlier CR films). Also, of course, we have a short paragraph already (added by me a few months ago) on non-authorized Bond films from foreign countries as well as recent spoofs.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the lead will reflect the article and as there are 22 (+ an upcoming film) Eon Productions against the 2 non-Eon films (CR 67 & NSNA), then I don't think you need to worry about that. I think that there should also be something on the non-authorised and foreign markets too.  I'd avoid TV and radio programmes - Batman in film does not cover them and I don't think this one should either, apart from the discussion over the rights to the CR TV programme. -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 06:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What about video games? Some of them are based directly on one film or another (Pierce Brosnan's voice is in a few). Perhaps a brief allusion with a redirect to correct article with no detailed discussion. Same with the animated TV series, James Bond Jr. I would think. We can also probably ignore the long-running James Bond newspaper comic strip. Not sure about the relatively few comic books based on specific movies.--WickerGuy (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Starting to run to a long list already! How about a section of "Other media" into which all these can be placed, referred to and linked, but without too much extra info. -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Amen. But with notes that some media is based on the movies- comic books and video games- (though not the case with the newspaper comic strip -which was either original stories or based directly on novels.)--WickerGuy (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

As per the discussion and the agreement, I've undertaken the name change. Now on with the update to the page... - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 21:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, why is the title of the page italicised? "James Bond in film" is not the title of an existing work, like Casino Royale. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No idea ... it shouldn't be and I don't think I directed it to be italicised when I moved it... I'll sort it out. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The film infobox has code that italicizes the article title unless specified otherwise. I added the appropriate parameter to the infobox to turn off the italics. However, I would recommend not using the film infobox for a series article. It's not exactly designed to present a series. I've wanted to put together a film series infobox that would do the job better. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Erik - I tried earlier to sort it and couldn't understand why it was there! What do you suggest about the infobox? Leave it there until a suitable alternative is designed, or get rid of it? Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem! You can see guidelines at MOS:FILM. As for the infobox, I selectively used it at Harry Potter (film series), and it seems to work okay. Not sure if it can be used the same way here since the elements are more disparate. Check out and see if you think it could be done here? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for page protection
I've put in a request for temporary protection. With the speculation over "Skyfall" and shooting due to begin in a month or so, I'm predicting that this page is going to get a lot of unsourced and unsolicited edits in the near future. We've already seen the first moves, and I can see it getting worse. So hopefully we'll get semi-protection soon. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just got this response:


 * Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined For now. There really haven't been many offending edits at all. Also, there may very well be an argument to add sourced speculation on the movie's title to the page, so I'm not comfortable with locking it down. Yet. Please don't hesitate to come back here if problems proliferate. Mkativerata (talk) 04:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Which begs the question - is there room for adding sourced speculation on "Skyfall"? If we make it clear that it is speculation and provide the appropriate sources, we are not necessarily in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Especially if this turns out to be an elaborate ruse by Sony to give us a dummy title so that we'll naturally be sceptical of any future titles that are unearthed from recently-registered domain names. Thoughts? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As there is some gossip which is sourceable (from online newspapers etc) then I think it may be acceptable to put in one sentence saying that "there is a rumour that..." But I would be loathe to see any more than that - and certainly not the title put into the tables etc until it is confirmed by an official source. Apart from that I'd re-apply in a day or so for protection as I don't think it's a wise move letting it remain open for every piece of gossip - title, bands etc - that we have seen in the last 24 hours. Sound OK? - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Now done. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Bond 23 etc
Is now the time to move the rumours and rubbish in the Bond 23 section to a new Bond 23 page? I'd suggest that it probably is and this page left with a short para about the outline that only contains germane, sourced information? - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 16:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A Bond 22 article existed for more than a year before the title was announced, so there's definitely a precedent. On the other hand, there's not likely to be much more information until the Eon press conference next month, whereupon the official title will probably be revealed. We might as well wait until that time to create a separate article. We've already waited this long. L ANTZY T ALK 04:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 29 October 2011
In the bond titles, change "Bond 23" to "SkyFall (Rumored)"

78.70.223.76 (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No. When a title is confirmed, the name will be used here and in a stand-alone article. Not before. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 06:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Rephrasing bit about Woody Allen to avoid WP:Synthesis
In the past day, someone tagged as "citation needed" the assertion in the article that Woody Allen wrote most of his own dialogue in the 1967 spoof Casino Royale. One can find many sources that say he made uncredited contributions to the script, and one can find at least one source that his character in CR resembles his character in the earlier (and overtly Allen-scripted film) What's New Pussycat? (both CR and WNP? were produced by Charles Feldman), it is a highly likely and reasonable assumption, but still not strictly proven, that Allen's script contributions to CR were to write his own character's scenes. I have thus both supplied the required citations, but also rewritten the passage which now reads "Woody Allen in addition to playing an inept nephew of James Bond, called Jimmy Bond,[143] also did uncredited script work on the film,[144] in which his persona resembles that of his character in his earlier film What's New Pussycat."--WickerGuy (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for EON series to have its own article
I was more than a little bit taken aback by the renaming and reconstruction of the article, and while I still ponder as to why it was called James Bond (film series) when it refered to non-EON films as well, I seriously think that the official series of films made by EON should have it's own article, with all the material on it here currently, and that was removed in the reconstruction, added to that. While I suspect I will have editors quick to object to the idea, the films made by EON have been counted as the official series of films. What I'm proposing is that we keep James Bond in film as an article, but move all material here on the EON series to James Bond (film series) and have a main article link to that in this article. -- Cartoon Boy (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As the EON series accounts for over 90% of the JB films ever made, this makes very little sense to me. This makes sense for Sherlock Holmes in film or for the Star Trek film series, but makes no sense at all here. The non-EON films take up only a fraction of the article.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * However they are both highly notable topics, and both capable of lengthy treatment. I would support the creation of an article specifically for the EON series. It does strike me as odd that we don't have a specific article on the EON series (I supported the renaming of this article to reflect its contents but with a view to an EON article being created at some point). Rangoon11 (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Poor idea to have one article for the Eon Bonds and one for the non-Eon Bonds: it would look a little silly and there would just be too much overlap with a number of other articles. The move was made to rename as James Bond in film so as to tie in the development of all the Bond films into one article, Eon and non-Eon: their histories are, after all, interlinked. We're about to start doing some work on the James Bond (character) article, which will entail migrating a lot of information into this article. As that process takes place I propose to undertake the full re-structuring and re-writing, as per the various agreed discussions above. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 16:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I tend to disagree with Rangoon that the non-Eon are capable of lengthy treatment (as a body of work), and I agree with SchroCat that the history of the Eon and non-Eon are interlinked. Thus I oppose this proposal.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I also oppose. It's not as if there was a competing series - we're only talking 2 films and a TV adaptation. And all three have direct analogs in the "main" series. If there was an officially designated competing series of films (which happened with Tarzan at one point where two studios had competing series) then OK, but splitting the non-EON films off is pointless and destructive to the article. 68.146.72.113 (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"No. of films" column
Can anyone sort out the formatting on the new column to get it to span two rows? I've had a play round, but I can't get the rowspan to work properly. And WickerGuy: I agree that films is better - but some of us in Britainland spell "instalments" with one letter l! ;) - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 23:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow. A year living in England, and I picked up "colour", "gaol", "realise", etc. but that's one bit of Brit spelling I simply didn't know about.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There are loads of American ones I don't know about! I still keep having to check a few times when I'm editing US articles to make sure! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Items to be added
I'm hesitant to jump in as an IP and make additions to the article, but there are two things I feel should be included. One is a list of Fleming titles that have yet to be utilized for the film titles. This is relevant given that the previous Bond film, Quantum of Solace, was the subject of wide media speculation that it would be titled Risico; plus at least one book, The Bond File, indicates that a film titled Property of a Lady was planned at one point.

The second item is under the discussion of TV showings; although it is mentioned in the OHMSS film article I see no harm in mentioning ABC's reediting of that film into a two-parter with added narration, as it's a notable example of how telecasts of the Bond films were handled in America; ABC also created a unique disclaimer directed at parents that ran before broadcasts due to the Bond films attracting young viewers. The disclaimer can be viewed on YouTube here. 68.146.72.113 (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

PLEASE DELETE THAT.
Some stupid person put "james bond movies are boring" under the box showing the actors' debuts. I am unable to delete it. CAN SOMEBODY DELETE THAT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.143.137 (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think someone already has. Thanks for your concern. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny though, it's still showing up on my browser, despite the fact that it is suppose to have been removed already. Is it my CPU or is there a lag in the matrix?-- JOJ Hutton  01:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think purging the cache might be the solution to the problem. Make sense? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This article
There is a suggestion to convert this article into James Bond (film character) instead of a film series article, see Talk:James Bond (character) -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no such proposal: you have misunderstood what the proposal is regarding the James Bond (character) article. I have clarified the point further for you on that talk page. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you did say


 * Which I interpreted as a proposal to redesign this page as a film character page, and meaning that we would no longer have a film franchise article.


 * So, I see that now. I seem to have misinterpreted your intent. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

"Longest continually-running film series in history"
The phrase "longest continually-running film series in history" is used here. Are we saying that there is no other film series in the world with more entries in it that James Bond? --Blackbox77 (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My interpretation is the 50 year time span between 1962's Dr. No and 2012's Skyfall, not so much the number of films. 72Dino (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What of Godzilla? Starting in 1954 with 29 movies with another currently in preproduction? Maybe phrase it as "one of the longest continually-running film series in history" would work. --Blackbox77 (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Godzilla. Like to see a source either way though. JOJ  Hutton  01:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a talk page. Don't really need to reference the things we say unless its for something huge and just proving a point. But you can easily find the information out about Godzilla through Wikipedia itself. Charlr6 (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Aren't we discussing the content of what goes in the article? Anything challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source. This is obviously being challenged, so somebody cough up the source.-- JOJ Hutton  01:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is it so hard for you to check Wikipedia itself? Took me ten seconds to find this: Godzilla Filmograhpy. There is your source. Right on your doorstep. And you can find further sources through there leading to articles outside of Wikipedia. Charlr6 (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How about a reliable source? Usually, and I mean never, do we use Wikipedia articles as sources to confirm information. Per WP:CIRCULAR.-- JOJ Hutton  02:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How awkward can someone obviously be? I said that on those articles, you will find what you are looking for. Wikipedia has sources everywhere. And all of those films on the Godzilla filmography aren't all made up. You want a source outside of Wikipedia? Here you go: |9 of the Longest Running Film Franchises. Don't like to get your hands dirty do you?
 * Another one |Top 10 Long Runnign Movie Franchises. | here and | here Charlr6 (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, you need to check the attitude. Second, I agree that Godzilla is proably the longest running film series, so I don't understand why all the hostility. Third, all I'm asking for is a source for confirmation. Not asking for blood, but a source, and its the duty of the editor making the argument to provide the evidence, not the other way around. Fourth, your source says "page not found".-- JOJ Hutton  02:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yeah, I don't know why those other two links didn't work. Oh well, at least there are two sources.
 * But, first of all, no offence, but you could have easily found out that Godzilla was the longest running franchise by checking Google, Wikipedia itself and just simply asking 'What is the longest running film franchise' into any search engine. Secondly, it was really not hard for me at all to find those sources for you. And before you come back saying that its not an editors job to find someone else's source, well actually this is a talk page and the answers you need were staring you in the face. Keyboard and the search bar. And once again, no offence but do check the laziness. I don't understand why it was so hard. No offence once again, but you know yourself it wasn't a big deal to find what you wanted. Less than thirty seconds, tops.
 * But I apologise for the hostility.
 * Back to the main discussion though, it should say on the page 'one of the longest running film franchises'. Charlr6 (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Only say what the sources say. If you have a source that says Godzilla is the "longest running" then add it to the Godzilla article and remove it here. And whether or not you feel that I could have easily found the sources myself, you should read WP:BURDEN. You don't know what may or may not be happening on the other side of the computer screen. Whether or not another person has time to find sources to confirm your evidence. It's not laziness, it's wikipedia policy, same as WP:NPA and WP:TEND.-- JOJ  Hutton  02:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Only say what the sources say even though Wikipedia will already have sources for those sort of things, so you just have to search in Wikipedia for them and then for the sources easily at the end of each page. And also don't give me that 'burden' stuff. It's a rule created for the lazy people. I was neither an editor who added or restored material and what did I do? Oh, yes, I was kind of enough to find sources for you. Went out of my way and did it. And yes, I don't know what is going on behind your screen. But you had enough time to come back and reply quickly enough. And this is a talk page. Charlr6 (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually neither Bond nor Godzilla come close, as there are a number of series that have considerably more entries in their series—and over a longer time-frame too. These include:
 * the Hopalong Cassidy films: 66 films, (1935-48);
 * the Durango Kid series 64 films, (1940-52);
 * and finally, the staggering output on the the Wong Fei-hung films, with 89 films between 1949 and 2008.

See List of film series with more than twenty entries for full details of all the series. This was found with "Keyboard and the search bar", and in "Less than thirty seconds, tops". So, "no offence but do check the laziness" is a poor argument for attempting to put incorrect information into an article without good sources. I think that just shows why each easily-challenged fact needs to carry verification on the article, and is not reliant on the poor sourcing from other articles. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats why we need a real source and not just rely interpretation of the Wikipedia articles.-- JOJ Hutton  13:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "longest" clearly refers to the number of years, number of films is not relevant. The only franchise mentioned above that seems to be longer running is Godzilla, but that is comprised of four series (at least) and fails in terms of "continually". A quick search reveals extensive high quality sourcing for the statement that the Eon series is the "longest continually running film series" Rangoon11 (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think in this case SchroCat we were actually talking about films running for a long amount of time and with load loads of films. Hopalond Cassiday, only 13 years. Just 11 years in Durango Kid. 48 years of Wong Fei-hung films. James Bond has 50 years now, and Godzilla 59 I think. And what you did SchroCat, I congratulate you as you were neither an editor who added or restored material, but you went and found other sources as well. Even though they were Wikipedia sources, where you can go and find sources through yourself. And as JOJ doesn't seem to like Wikipedia as sources, even though we are on Wikipedia ourselves, well its also sort of contradictory as when we find a source like I have already found above two for 'longest running film franchises' then when we add that source in in JOJ's eyes it still isn't 100% confirmation. Because in the actual article, its going to be information from Wikipedia itself to outside sources, just like the links you (SchroCat) did to other Wiki pages and I did to the Godzilla page and JOJ still wasn't happy. Charlr6 (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that there is a difference between film franchise and film series in this context. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Knocking a few facts around on the talk page is one thing. Putting them into an article is entirely another, and needs facts from reliable secondary sources for confirmation. The links I have provided were not on the article page, and if they were, they would have been supported by reliable citations. As for Hong-Fei, I've corrected my erroneous dates: it now stands at 1949 - 2008, so 59 years. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Film franchise and film series? More or less the same thing aren't they except 'franchise' would be the page that would have information on possible spin-offs.
 * Well if those Wikipedia articles didn't have any source that they were long-running, then how did you find the information out yourself?
 * We can add on the Hong-Fei page then that it is one of the longest running film franchises as well. Unless we decide to possible say that Godzilla and James Bond are 'one of the longest running popular film franchises'. Or instead of 'popular' we use the word 'mainstream'.
 * But yes we need other sources outside of Wikipedia but no offence but also kind of contradictory when you don't find any outside source about those films you mentioned being long running. Charlr6 (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already said—as did above—this is the talk page, not the article space, so the sources are neither here nor there for this part, they are only needed, indeed crucial, once in the article space. I'd also avoide "mainstream" and "popular", as you have no idea how mainstream or popular those films are. It's either (one of) the longest running, or it isn't. -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * JOJ wanted an outside source from Wikipedia, and asked for one. I already said to him that this is a talk page and we don't really need one but he still wanted one. And as he asked for a source, which I gave him one, I would like to see an outside source about those films you mentioned.
 * And no, we have no idea how mainstream or popular the films are, but we can easily find a source somewhere. But we all know that Godzilla and James Bond are quite well known. But if we can't really mention that, then we should just say even on Godzillas page that it is 'one of the longest running film franchises', and not say 'THE longest running...'. Charlr6 (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Series/franchise, in the context it is used in this statement, has a quite specific meaning distinct from simply a series of films featuring the same character. In this sense it means a series in the sense of the films' production i.e. same production company etc. There are all manner of other continuities throughout the Eon series, such as composers, producers, set designers, actors, scriptwriters, Pinewood Studios, stunt people, product placements, gun barrel opening, pre credits sequence, logo which overlap the changes in main actor. The Eon series is therefore more than simply a set of films featuring the James Bond character and numerous books have been written which address the Eon series of films only. Never Say Never Again and the Niven Casino Royale are clearly not part of the Eon series, and when people speak of the "James Bond series/franchise" they are generally speaking only of the Eon series and not all films which feature James Bond. It is in this sense that the James Bond film series is "the longest running film series".
 * A large number of quality third party sources can be found which support the claim e.g., , , , , , , .Rangoon11 (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I should add that I think there is a good case for having a footnote reference which explains this and mentions Godzilla.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Even by your definition of series (and we'd all need to discuss which meaning of the word we are using in the article), the Godzilla series would stand at 29 films produced by Toho Co., Ltd. Charlr6 provided a few links for sources. (BTW Charlr6, your links were fine except for a few extra characters you added at the end of the url. Delete those from the address and links work.) It could be argued that Godzilla only has 28 because one movie was done by TriStar Pictures, but even Toho oversaw that production and directly approved every detail made by TriStar. --Blackbox77 (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure but longest has a different meaning to the most films. I do think that Godzilla is significant enough to be explicitly mentioned in a note.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you suggesting the note say? --Blackbox77 (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Very rough text to give an idea: "The series of films based on the character of James Bond produced by EON Productions from 1962 to the present is the longest continually-running film series of all time based upon the same fictional character which is produced by a single company and utilises running motifs. 28 Godzilla films were produced by Toho Studios in Japan from 1954 to 2004, with a nine-year break between 1975 and 1984. A number of other non-English language series of films based upon a single fictional character comprise more films than those based upon James Bond (including the non-EON Productions Casino Royale (1967) and Never Say Never Again). Examples include ... and ....  A number of series of films based upon the same character have been made over a longer period non-continually and by multiple production companies, including Robin Hood and Sherlock Holmes."Rangoon11 (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What of information I discussed above: Toho producing 29 Godzilla movies from 1954-2004 with another on the way? --Blackbox77 (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I missed out "continually" which have now added. Do we have a cite that Godzilla is a continuing series after 2004 (Toho seems to have sold the rights in 2010)? Do we also have quality sources that Godzilla was continually-running from 1954 to 2004? Rangoon11 (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note - have tweaked the note draft text above a bit.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just deleted the words 'here' where the link would be and it works now, even though now it just looks like [1].
 * And we are talking about James Bond being one of the longest running film series. So I can see what you mean now from franchise to series. Fair dues. Charlr6 (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you go to Legendary Pictures' (the studio producing the next film with Toho and Warner Bros) site with their press releases, just about every bulletin mentions Godzilla as being currently in development. There's also tons of stories concerning teaser trailers and art from Comic-con, appointing a director, etc. around the web. In regards to your second question, couldn't one look at IMDB to confirm such a thing? We don't really need to source Bond was continually running from Dr. No until now. The very existence of the individual movies confirms such a thing. --Blackbox77 (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A), Did I ever deny that there is going to be a new Godzilla movie? No I did not, I even know there is going to be one. And B) IMDB isn't good enough to reference on Wikipedia so why bother going to there for information. And C) Say "very existence of the individual movies confirms such a thing", as they wanted a source earlier about confirmation that Godzilla is one of the longest running film franchises. Charlr6 (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Charlr6. That last paragraph was meant for Rangoon's last comment but I filled it under yours. My mistake. Didn't you provide links confirming a 29 movie run that qualify as source material? --Blackbox77 (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. Well I find four sources about Godzilla being one of the longest running film franchises. Which you can find above somewhere. Near the top. Charlr6 (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How can it be a continually-running series when there is a 6 year gap between Licence to Kill and Golden Eye? To my mind, that long of a hiatus invalidates the "continually-running" description. Three, maybe four, years I could overlook, but not six. --Khajidha (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have something that limits such a definition in terms of gaps? It seems arbitary that you can accept four, but not six. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 17:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The production cycle of a movie is roughly three years. A continually-running series would thus have a new movie every three years. While there might be slight problems stretching that gap to four years, six years would usually be enough time to produce two movies. This "missing movie" breaks the streak. But the main thing for me is that I don't really remember there being much buzz immediately after Licence to Kill. At the time, it seemed like the end and the eventual release of Golden Eye seemed like a new beginning. Same franchise, sure, but different series. --Khajidha (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've already said, do you have a good reliable secondary source which puts a time limit on it? If not, then we're just reliant on your own WP:POV—"To my mind", "I don't really remember" etc all point to that, whereas the statement about it being the longest, or one of the longest, continually-running film series in history" does have a number of secondary sources to back it up. As a slight ps, it's not a franchise—Eon don't have a franchise—it's a film series.- SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 17:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't really arguing that my idea be put in, just asking what the definition being used is because the terms "continually" and "hiatus" are contradictory. Let me ask a question in return: How big a gap can be overlooked? If a sequel to The Birth of a Nation came out tomorrow, would that be the "longest running series" in film history given that the two movies came out 97 years apart? --Khajidha (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Response to your ps: I was referring to the "James Bond franchise" in toto - books, films, comic books, etc. - not to the Eon movies as a franchise. --Khajidha (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * IF a remake is made then I would do what I do here: go to the sources and see what they say. If they say continually running, then so be it. In the case of the Bond series, they say that the series is one of the longest, continually-running film series in history, so we reflect that, regardless of what our own POV may be. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 21:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Doctor Who can't be classed as long running then because of the, 16 years was it(?), between the 1989 show and 2005. Charlr6 (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So far as I am aware the only reason for the six year gap rather than the usual two or three was due to legal issues. The series was never actually halted and Dalton wasn't replaced. Work continued in one way or another and the intention was to make another film as soon as possible. Very different to, say, the situation that Star Wars is now in, or Harry Potter, where there has been a deliberate stop. I imagine this is why reliable sources describe the series as being continually running. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Dalton was still under contract between the end of production on Licence to Kill and the start of production on Goldeneye, so since 1961 either an actor has been under contract as Bond (apart from the peculiar case of Lazenby who seemingly managed to make his film without one) or a film has been in the production phase so it probably qualifies. Betty Logan (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that actually answers the question I had. Note that I never said that I thought the article should change, I was just confused as to how it could be "continual" with such a large (apparent) gap. Simply stating that sources said it was didn't really answer that question, as the criteria those sources used was not mentioned. --Khajidha (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

James Bond (film character)
FYI, there was a notice about this on the litchar page, Articles for deletion/James Bond (film character) -- it seems to have been redirected there as well... Does that mean a DRV is necessary to recreate that? -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * SchroCat boldly redirected James Bond (film character) to James Bond (literary character). That seemed to defeat the enitre point of the support move James Bond (character) to James Bond (literary character).  The obvious redirect target is James Bond in film.  The article James Bond in film is currently missing a treatment on the film character in general as distinct from the literary character, beyond an appropriate initial mention in the lede.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Reception tables
Both review and box office tables should be sortable. --Mika1h (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Screenwriter for Bond 24
Neal Purvis and Robert Wade is being pulled out from Bond 24, and John Logan is left to work on his own. http://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=10549&t=mi6&s=news — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.212.224.149 (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"Video game adaptations" and "Home media" sections
I've removed the above sections on the ground they are unconnected to the production history of the film series. Video game adaptations is covered in its own article, as well as in the James Bond article, which is the overview of Bond and the various spin-off bits to the Bond industry (from books to radio, tv, films and video). - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Production history revamp
As per two talk page discussions (here and here) the consensus was that this article is about the production history and development of the Bond films, largely focussing on the Eon Productions series, but also further examining the two non-Eon films and why they exist etc. As such the previous version of article did not really fulfil that ambition and was instead focussed more on the hiring process behind the Bond actors. The following changes have taken place which have streamlined the article and made the information more manageable.


 * 1) This article has been restructured to address its main focus: the production history.
 * 2) A new article has been created: James Bond (film character), which carries the history of the Bond screen role and examine the differences between the characterisations of the various actors.

There has been some information removed, much of this—(box office figures etc)—is present elsewhere, such as at the List of James Bond films. Rather than a straightforward reversion to the previous version, could there please be a discussion on this page of the changes towards what has already been discussed and agreed upon? – SchroCat (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm putting the information on "Happy and Glorious" back in the non-Eon section. It makes sense to list it here - technically, it is still a film, albeit a short, and by removing it here it removed almost all information about it from Wikipedia (Happy and Glorious redirects to this page, and there's only a short mention of it on the 2012 Olympics opening ceremony page). If there's a better page for it, feel free to movie it there (and repoint the redirect), but until another page can be found this page seems the best place for it. Grutness...wha?  00:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Why were the tables removed?
Where did the various tables at the end of the article go? The budgets + box office totals was surely worth keeping. I am tempted to readd this stuff. Dontreadalone (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Please see the section above about the re-vamp, where this point is discussed. The tables are second-rate duplicates of those that appear in the FL-rated List of James Bond films. - SchroCat (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Although the statistical data is better in its own dedicated article, this article will probably still get a lot of readers looking for it, and they shouldn't really have to familiarise themselves with the organization of the Bond articles. Perhaps the hatnote at the top can be a bit more explicit in this regard? Betty Logan (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Which form of hatnote is best - I can never get the damned things to work properly! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is the term "Milliard" used in a very specific place in the article?
As noted in the edit summary and also internal comments, the term "milliard" is not used in contemporary English and has not been for many years; officially obsolete in British politics since 1970s. The wikipedia entry for milliard says that the billion "...has been used unambiguously to mean one thousand million (1,000,000,000) for some time." The word is obsolete in contemporary UK, US, Australian and Canadian cultures, as well as in the vast majority of their territories. In addition, the rest of the article references billions.

If there is actually a "consensus to retain this," as stated in the request to take it to the talk page, why isn't that consensus also revealed, as opposed to simply being able to see many English people making the obvious change and finding it changed back?

The argument to keep "milliard" is illogical in that not only is it not oft used elsewhere in Wikipedia, but it isn't even used again in this article itself.

Making changes and logically explaining why they are made is a good faith edit. Changing them back with nothing more than a "nope" and claiming a consensus wants the word to be used once and only once in an article, and that someone trying to fix it is "imposing your own preference" is bad editing and elitism. I request that it be changed from making sense in whatever "different territories" use the term to making sense to the rest of the English speaking world that may come across the article and not know what the term even means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.234.136.194 (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I am almost certain it was me that added the term because to most British readers a billion carries a different meaning to the American short-scale usage, so it is counter-intuitive to use American terminology on an article written in British English. In retrospect it probably wasn't one of my better ideas. That said I don't think mixing terminology is a good idea, and a milliard is largely unknown outside of the UK, so I recommend simply replacing milliard/billion with $1,000 million through the article. A "million" is known throughout the world and is unambiguous, and when discussing such large numbers clarity is the main priority. Betty Logan (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Respectfully, this is one place where it is not a matter of British English vs. American English. We're not talking about lift vs. elevator, rather this is a situation where the term is obsolete and has been for decades. Due to financial entanglements between the two major English speaking governments (or 4 if you want to include Canada and Australia), I would put forth that when we're talking about currency in English (British or American), using the accepted number is not likely to cause confusion Oxford Dictionary Article. $1,000 million is a way to compromise and remain accurate, I suppose, but from an anecdotal standpoint it is not common on either side of the Atlantic. Thanks for doing the good work over the many edits, and also for discussing instead of simply changing back.
 * Respectfully, according to the Oxford English Dictionary the primary definition of a billion is "orig. and still commonly in Great Britain: A million millions." Official usage may favor the short scale these days, but even in city finance most traders avoid the term to avoid confusion. In British English it is ambiguous and there are sensible alternatives for making it unambiguous. Betty Logan (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Originally and "commonly" may be accurate for milliard; however, that same "commonly," along with "increasingly," and *officially* would be accurate for short-scale billion in the UK, and it's not an issue throughout most of the English speaking world. One can clutch tightly to a solitary sticking point affecting this article using "it's British English" as a shield, but ultimately the current solution of keeping it as is makes a very well done, informative page harder to read. It remains odd, at best, to have the term used just once in conflict with the other monetary references on the page; alternatively the read will be stilted with the change to "thousand million" for every monetary reference on the page. Considering the milliards of people who do *NOT* use the term in the English speaking world (city finance traders of course excepted), it still seems to be logical to lean toward making the article a better read as opposed to an opportunity to enforce Queen's English orthodoxy. Perhaps putting (short-scale) by the first monetary reference of a billion would establish the scale and allow for consistency with that which follows? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.234.136.194 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, the Economist article referenced in the sentence uses billion, not milliard, and it is a British publication. Unless my research into this is incomplete (I'm new), over the last couple of years there seems to be 4 unique attempts to change it from milliard and only two unique to keep switching it back. The last change mentions "a consensus to retain this." Can someone please point me to this consensus so I can end my quixotic attempt to do the right thing in the face of the vast numbers of people who are defending this majority compromise which must be real and triggering the undos of my poor work, as opposed to this fictional insistence on defending a position based on stubbornness, which I clearly am wrongly imagining? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.234.136.194 (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The Economist may be a British publication, but theirs is a global market, which is why they moved to a the current form. That said, we don't slavishly follow the style guidelines of one particular journal just to suit our own personal tastes. Some of us still raise a question about "which billion" when we see it written out in most publications. - SchroCat (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Adding "short scale" after "billion" is clumsy IMO. While the British government and modern publications may opt for the short scale the reality is it remains ambiguous to readers since the word in common usage has two meanings. There is no guarantee that a reader—especially one from the older generation—will not confuse it with the long-scale equivalent: we are not writing for members of parliament here, we are writing for people from different backgrounds, different generations and even different countries (some of which use the long scale). I agree with homogenising the terminology but we should just go with 1,000 million etc and avoid the issue altogether. Betty Logan (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, and think that the addition of "(short scale)" is likely to confuse more than enlighten. 1,000 million is the same in whichever variant. - SchroCat (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * With that logic, This page may be in British English, but Wikipedia is a global construct, which is why milliard should be moved to the current form of billion. That said, it seems as if the insistence on moving back to milliard after many attempts to change it is slavishly following one's own personal tastes.
 * The fact that some still raise a question about "which billion" does not excuse constantly changing it to a phrase to which millions will raise question of "what's a milliard." "Common usage" should take into account ACTUAL commonality across the globe, not anecdotal experience in an editor's small region. If you feel as if "1,000 million" is the way to go, and somehow that term is going to read less clumsy than referencing "(short scale)" once with a link, go for it, I suppose. But from what I'm seeing here, despite the stated goal the result has *NOT* been to think of the greater good, nor has it been to make the article easier to read. When editors entrench themselves and change the text back with little more than "nope, see the note," continue to fight against possibility of one misunderstanding by defending a potentially bigger misunderstanding, then claim a consensus even though more people have tried to solve the problem by changing it than have actually changed it back without adding a solution, it's unfortunate. I have no personal stake in this, other than trying to make a better read for a majority of visitors, and a reasonable expectation of fairness; I apologize for my strong reaction as that has not been possible. While I appreciate your hard work and caring, I hope in the future your edits take into account a global, neutral point of view, as opposed to a provincial one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.234.136.194 (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Saints preserve us from a wall of text rantings from a drive-by IP with a bee in their bonnet. We try on this site not to show the cultural arrogance of a single language or culture, but instead adopt a multi-national (as opposed from international) approach. Because of this, there are things you may not fully appreciate or graps, but that's the nature of the cultural and linguistic differences between countries, and to dismiss the approach of one country (in an article which has adopted that language variant) as being "provincial" is, quite frankly, ignorant. As opposed to the rest of your eye-glazingly tedious lecture, the "greater good" has been taken into account, balanced with cultural and lingustic differences; rather than bulldozing your own POV about your cultural norm, you should appreciate that other cultures use different measures, different language and take different approaches. As you have agreed to 1,000 million, we will go with that as being the most sensible and sulturally appropriate path to take. - SchroCat (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is disingenuous at best to call what happened here the result of a multi-national approach. My arguments from the very beginning considered how to best use a phrase consistent with the entire English speaking world (as this is an English article, British English or otherwise), not a personal POV. There is nothing that indicates that my change was predicated on *MY* cultural norm, rather it comes from my ongoing understanding of the word and its history, followed by additional confirmation research into what is being used globally, what has been taught in schools, and the number of people using that term. Other cultures *DO* use different measures, approaches, etc...and that was precisely the point: in this case they are by far using a different measure than the one which was being used. One's disagreement with your view of what is multi-national is not equal to ignorance, and your claim of my ignorance is ironic, even more so after claiming multi-nationality, then complaining that I am dismissing the approach of ONE country. While I apologize for appearing contentious when my change was summarily dismissed, things are not helped by what appears quite smellingly to be an elitist behavior which is counterproductive to this site's well being. Harshly judging a good-faith contributor, who has chosen for reasons unknown to you to not be logged in, as a "Drive-by IP with a bee in their bonnet," is how editors who do good work and treat all legitimate contributions fairly end up saddled with a reputation of appearing superior and uncivil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.234.136.194 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yaaawwwnnnn..... Thanks for the attempt to justify your own cultural arrogance and ignore the cultural mores and needs of people who you will probably never understand because you just don't want to. Move on, before you send us all to sleep with your contorted attempts to justify yourself. There is a whole big world out there, including a large number of English speaking countries who don't use the short scale, and who don't necessarily do things just because that's the way things are done in California. - SchroCat (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Batman in film which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

James Bond in film 'plagiarism' mention in Thunderball (1965) section
I inserted an internal link to the 'plagiarism' word in the Thunderball(1965), which editor SchroCat understandably reverted. However, I do have a couple of problems with this article concerning the topic. I think that the word 'plagiarism' is a both bit too strong and confusing here. Because it is essentially accusing Ian Fleming of plagiarism when he in fact was the one that created the character, and his ideas were also part of the screenplay as per the (apparent) negotiated settlement of the court case. As such I have changed it to 'breach of copyright' which reflects an earlier statement and then link to the other internal Wikipedia article on Thunderball(novel). That way, a reader can at least search on one of those terms and find it in the article. But if he searches on 'plagiarism' he finds no mention let alone link about 'plagiarism' in the article. It is also confusing, as the reader is left asking "what plagiarism case" and "who is involved." Not that Fleming was involved with a court case with one his screenwriters. Nodekeeper (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Except that 1. It was plagiarism, and 2. Fleming was involved in a court case. - SchroCat (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I find it rather shocking that good faith contributions to this page are consistently reverted with very little comment, and discussion is so often dismissed with not much more. I would hope that if one is going to insist that something is plagiarism he or she would take a few lines to explain why. Simply putting "it was" as your explanation does little to illuminate anything for anybody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TuringsTest (talk • contribs) 09:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for not AGF. If you had bothered to look at the article you would have seen that Nodekeeper's comment is present on the page, unsullied, untouched and unreverted. I have replied to his comment here, pointing out inaccuracies, but his edit still stands. You wish to add anything else? - SchroCat (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It his hard to assume good faith when one's comments are consistently impolite. The article was read, the comments were seen. My constructive criticism is to add more to illuminate your point of view. You say it was plagiarism, you must have some sort of reference or insight. Present it and inform, as others can benefit. It isn't you against the world here...consider reading your changes and your responses and determine whether others might consider the lot antagonistic. If not, before you consider dismissing my comments again, try to determine what "You wish to add anything else" does to help the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TuringsTest2 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I find little constructive in your comments, and even less good faith, being as snarky and pointy as they are. You accused me of reverting when I had done nothing of the sort, so don't throw round unfounded and idiotically wrong accusations; if you do, you will normally get a rather pithy response, and that will be down to your comment, not the person relying. I also lose my good faith when I see two single purpose accounts (obviously linked) coming along with the sole purpose of attacking me; the same drive-by newbie twice, or an already-registered editor trying to hide their "real" identity, I wonder.


 * As to the substantive point in hand, the plagiarism connection is in the already cited sources. If you could try and think about it properly (or, perhaps, try looking into it before leaving another pointy message) plagiarism is using the work of another and passing it off as your own to enhance your own reputation, which is what Fleming did. In addition to that, he also simultaneously breached the UK's copyright legislation, as there is a certain amount of overlap between the two. Now, you wish to add anything else? (And try and keep it les snarky and pointy this time ...) - SchroCat (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Universal Exports
Universal Exports redirects here. Many times in the novels (ahnd films) Bond's globe trotting cover story or "legend" is that he is traveling as a representative of Universal Exports. Yet there is no mention of Universal Exports in the article. I believe this is a serious oversight. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're looking at, but Universal Exports redirects to Motifs in the James Bond film series#Receiving assignment from M. There certainly shouldn't be any mentioon of it in this article, as it concerns the history of the production of the films. - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Linking
I've tried to provide a link to the film Never Say Never Again in the section of Never Say Never Again, as it seems obviously helpful. When you have an entire section on a subject, it's nice to be able to click straight to that subject without scrolling back to the lead (especially in an article as long as this) or, worse, having to look through the entire article for the one other time that link appears. This is why we have hyperlinks. Yes, I get we don't want to overlink, but I don't think this is in danger of being a problem in this case. Basically every other section about one of the films has a link to that film within that section (and any that don't really should). It's common sense. Can we please let this helpful link stand without it being reverted? -R. fiend (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Intro a bit long
The introduction/lead seems a bit long. I had to read it a couple times looking for the answer to "how many James Bond films?" Early on it notes "in that time Eon Productions has produced 24 films, most of them at Pinewood Studios." That hints at a controversy and that 24 is not the total number. Could there be something more concise like, "there are a total of 27 Bond films (24 from Eon Productions and 3 others)."--Lucas559 (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have any objections to your proposed alteration, or something along those lines but I don't really agree that the lead is too long. It's a large article and the lead needs to be large enough to adequately summarize it. Betty Logan (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)