Talk:Production of the James Bond films/Archive 2

Removing the ToC limit
Similar to my request in List of James Bond films, the ToC as it currently is, makes finding a specific film entry incredbily difficult. It assumes the reader knows what producers produced the film or what year the film came out. As most readers come to search for a film, without them knowing this, limiting the ToC with TOC limit is completely unhelpful.

If there isn't any objection, I'd like to remove this template as it currently ruins a GA article readability. --Gonnym (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The TOC limit was re-added here in July 2015 without an edit summary note or comment here. I've removed the TOC limit againper your comments. The TOC can always be hidden if readers find it distracting, but there is no way, to my knowledge, to expand a limited TOC. - BilCat (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Stop edit warring over it: it's way too long without being trimmed down. – SchroCat (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Show me how to expand the TOC so I can find a particular film in the list without having to scroll through the whole long article, . And how is one revert before you posted your comment an edit war?? The root of the problem is too many sub-headings before getting to what the article is actually about: the films themselves. How about making some constructive suggestions to accomplish that? - BilCat (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * -- was there any need for this edit summary?  Cassianto Talk   07:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't edit war Bilcat (the TOC was at that length when it went through the GAN, and it can remain in place until a new consensus emerges. That consensus is going to be difficult to achieve is you're going to be so uncivil as to throw such ridiculous and unfounded accusations around as you did in that edit summary. – SchroCat (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * First SchroCat reverts (in November) a discussed edit (from July 2015) without commenting here, then reverts later here without addressing the issues raised. Now Cassianto reverts without any substantive explanation and without commenting here, and I'm accused of edit warring like I'm some troll to be ignored? Sorry, this is ownership, and not acceptable. Actually try to discuss the issues here first, and lets hammer out a consensus for a solution. - BilCat (talk) 07:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not the first part. The first part is that the TOC has been how it was for several years, and passed the community standard of the GAN: that is the base consensus from which you have to work to change things. Stop edit warring, stop being uncivil and stop trolling. – SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Now who's edit warring? And,yes, referencing an obscure GAN discussion is asserting ownership. - BilCat (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I've done nothing but make productive edits to the article before this issue errupted. Please not that both editors who've remove the TOC limit have engaged in the discussion process, and no one else has objected to it since it was first posted. Schrocat reverted in November without commenting at all. In addition, Schrocat doesn't even bother to suggest a solution to the issue, and even makes it worse by adding more sub-headings that make the TOC even longer. - BilCat (talk) 07:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And I've done nothing but make productive edits to the article before this issue errupted too, as has Cassianto. I'm not sure what your point is. I'll also add sine this article was created (and from memory the shortened ToC came in shortly after that) "no one else has objected to it" either. Should we all bend over because you say so? Two editors whine loud enough and one edit wars enough so we give in to them? – SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I did stop reverting. Will you? You well ought to know that there is no right version. - BilCat (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Accusing me of trolling is itself uncivil. Act like I have a right to disagree with you (which I do), and start making constructive suggestions to solve this problem. - BilCat (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary was trolling, nothing else. – SchroCat (talk) 07:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * And is accusing me of edit warring after one edit?? Ownership. - BilCat (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's after more than one edit, as is rather obvious. Please carry on with the insults: I'm pilling them up for ANI. One final point: do not post to my talk page again. This is a formal request and I reserve the right to file a report on your actions. – SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Now who needs to learn to count?? You're just outright lying, and the article history bears that out. I made one edit yesterday to remove the TOC, and posted here explaining why. Your first comment here was to tell ne stop edit warring. So beware the boomerang. - BilCat (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * More personal attacks. Excellent and thanks. Along with the harassment on my talk page this will go down well at ANI. – SchroCat (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If you can show me all the edits summaries where I removed the the TOC in the Month of May 2016, not merely in a 24-hour period, before you made this comment asking me to "stop edit warring over it", will sincerly apologize and drop the issue. Because you will have to do it at ANI for anyone to take you seriously there. I'll help you out: there isn't more than one edit before you asked me to stop edit warring. - BilCat (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

You don't understand edit warring. It can consist of just one reversion. The issue of the TOC was edit warred over. I put it back to the very long-standing stable version that went through the GAN. I stand by what I have said. – SchroCat (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Very few things on Wikipedia are subject to 1RR. GAN are not one of them. You simply didn't assume good faith to begin with. I did nothing to deserve that. - BilCat (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about this being subject to 1RR? I'm making the point that edit warring can be one revert: there has been some to-ing and fro-ing on this point, which is a slow-burn edit warring. If you want to count edits, how many had I made this year before this morning? You accuse me of ownership on the basis of one previous edit? And that's justifies the ridiculous harassment on my talk page? – SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You accused me of edit warring on the basis of one previous edit. How else do you think I'd react? I'm sorry, but this GAN nonsense was brought up to late to be sincere, as I see it. You simply didn't assume good faith. I'm sorry I lost my cool after the other editor reverted me, but you did wrong to begin with. And it does smack of an attitude of ownership. Two reverts to remove a TOC one year apart, with explanations on the talk page that neither you nor anyone else bothered to respond to, is not "slow-burn edit warring"! Now, can we figure out how to make it easier to find the movies in the article? That's the real issue here, and limiting the TOC doesn't solve that problem. Anything else can be discussed at ANI. - BilCat (talk) 08:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there is much of a problem. The TOC is ridiculously long, and only two people have mentioned this. Do we have to change just for those two? Not really. – SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Despite your assurances that you lost your cool, you continue the same lie as before, while indulging in canvassing too. Nice. Please see WP:PA and learn very quickly how not to make personal attacks on other editors (especially accusations of ownership toward those who have only made one previous edit to this article this year). Having a different opinion to your does not mean someone has any feelings of ownership. (And "GAN nonsense was brought up to late to be sincere"? It was raised in my second comment of the thread. –SchroCat (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, could I suggest that you both take a time out? Throwing serious insults around and edit warring over a minor issue isn't helpful. Seeking broader input per WP:DR would also be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I think having a contents entry for each and every film would offer only a negligible gain at the expense of a vastly bloated contents section (it dosn't even fit on my computer screen in the expanded form!). The contents would have around 30 entries if each film had its own entry (in addition to the other regular sections) and would only increase in forthcoming years. As Schrocat points out only two people have complained over a period of six months when the article attracts over 2000 readers per day so I am not really convinced there is an issue here. There is always a trade-off between navigation functionality and aesthetic, that is why we have guidelines such as WP:OVERLINK. Betty Logan (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Betty, that still doesn't help a reader to see a list of the films in the article at one glance (which is what the page is purportedly about), and to view the entire TOC when reviewing the article structure as an editor. Telling me you're not convinced it is an issue is not helpful in any way. It's dismissive of my genuine concerns, especially when you can always hide the TOC if it's too long, but I know of no method to expand it when it's artificially limited. (If you know of one, please tell me.) That said, I'm moving on from here. I'll try to find a technical solution that overrides artificial limits, or get one implemented. That's certainly better than this tone-deafness. - BilCat (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I was able to find a way to override the TOC, so this is no longer an issue for me. However, please take into consideration that readers coming to this page may like to see list of the movies in the TOC. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 12:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Addition to table
The big table of key crew for each Bond film would really be improved if it also added the actor who paid Bond. I came to this page knowing Daniel Craig was in the last four Bond films, but before that I have no idea - and the article doesn't set it out clearly in visual form anywhere. Could the font on the table be reduced to allow the main actor to be added? It seems a weird omission. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.100.71 (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Per the hatnote at the top of the article: You can find the information you want at either of those two articles. Betty Logan (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Please
Someone must clean this up: "From 1984 to 1989 Broccoli was joined by his stepson Michael G. Wilson as producer until 1995, when Albert Broccol stepped aside from Eon and was replaced by his daughter Barbara, who has co-produced with Wilson since." What on earth is this even supposed to mean? How could someone be employed from 84 to 89 only to be replaced *six years later*? I have no experience with this topic and yet I still must assert that this is garbage! Someone knowledgeable, please fix it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalamookoofoo (talk • contribs) 11:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

$ v £
Why are all the monetary figures in dollars? Chaosdruid (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * good question; I don't know.   Cassianto Talk   19:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think consistency is key here. If it's too much agro changing to sterling, I'd leave it, but I agree that as a BrEng article, it should really be the latter.   Cassianto Talk   19:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It's a matter of sourcing: global box office figures are usually given in US dollars by sources, regardless of the country of origin. These days the US dollar is the world's largest reserve currency and it has been that way since the Second World War. The grosses could be converted to pound sterling but it would require tracing down historic currency rates etc. Betty Logan (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can imagine that being an utter ball-ache, so I'd leave it.  Cassianto Talk   20:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a lot of work for questionable gain. As we saw in the aftermath of Brexit the pound is no longer a stable currency in a global context. Betty Logan (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on James Bond in film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110913050519/http://www.gethampshire.co.uk/news/s/2038353_barracks_and_airport_provide_location_for_bond_film to http://www.gethampshire.co.uk/news/s/2038353_barracks_and_airport_provide_location_for_bond_film
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061017192928/http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/features/barry.asp to http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/features/barry.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120331161856/http://www.cardozoaelj.net/issues/00/Poliakoff.pdf to http://www.cardozoaelj.net/issues/00/Poliakoff.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Bond in film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523074027/http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1977 to http://cdn.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1977

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC about adding the Bond actor to the "Core crew" table

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

Should a column for the Bond actor (Connery, Lazenby, Moore etc) be added to the table at James_Bond_in_film? Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support as mover. I think it would make the table easier for the reader to navigate as the identify of the Bond actor is the key characteristic of a Bond film and is also the easiest way to group Bond films (Connery era, Moore era, Craig era etc). If necessary, the name of the table can be adjusted so it's not only "crew" but I don't think that's really needed. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Cast information exists at List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series and there is a dedicated article covering the portrayal of the title character at James Bond filmography. The table is already large so adding an extra—redundant—column will just scrunch up the table even more. There may be a valid argument for merging the table at List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series into this article and having a table for the crew and a table for the cast, but I don't see the merit of shoehorning cast information into an already large table about the production crew. Betty Logan (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The thing is the article is James Bond in film, not James Bond crew, so having some sort of table in the article that includes Bond actor, director, writers, would be useful. Not so useful if one has to go to another article. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please re-read my comment. I haven't opposed incorporating the cast information into the article. The Marvel Cinematic Universe article for example has separate tables for core crew and recurring cast which seems to be a more sensible solution if casting information is to be consolidated into this article. On the other hand, Star Wars is structured like this article with the casting information spun-off. Both are valid ways of structurng the information. In the case of the James Bond franchise that has a large core crew and a substantial number of recurring characters it makes sense to have separate tables covering these different aspects. The real question is whether the article is best served by having the table in a separate article at List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series, or whether it would be better if that table were to merged into this one. I would seriously consider a merge but I don't support adding cast information to the crew table because i) it is redundant by virtue of the fact a cast table already exists and ii) the table is already large and will be bloated even more with an extra column. That might be ok if you have a high resoultion display but it looks horrendous on an ipad. Betty Logan (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the reasons outlined by Betty Logan.  Cassianto Talk   23:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose the production crew is being listed, the actors have their own section, even if it is the main actor for Bond, isn't necessary to mention with the crew for each movie. WikiVirusC (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


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

Nomination of Bond 25 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bond 25 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Bond 25 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BilCat (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Table layout
has twice converted the layout of the "Crew" table in the article. You can compare the two versions below: Personally I think the new version looks like a dog's dinner. It is boxy and makes the rows discontinuous, making it ugly and harder to read. The original version is aesthetically superior IMO; it is much cleaner and the continuous nature of the rows makes it much easier to scan across the rows to pertinent information. The new table is quite possibly the worst table design I have ever seen on Wikipedia.
 * Original version
 * New version

Stolengood overhauled the table design of the article without even raising the issue first on the talk page, and after I restored the original version he immediately reverted and couldn't even be bothered to leave an edit summary or to start a discussion. Before the table is changed again I think we should get a few more opinions; I would also be interested in hearing what has to say, since he was the editor who guided the article through its GA review. Betty Logan (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I opened this on a mobile phone and had to scan up and down and across to try and work out who was involved in what. A table this size is never great on mobiles, but we have to try to make it as easy to use as possible, and the status quo version makes it easier to read than the proposed version. - SchroCat (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting
This page appears as though the crew/production chart has been discussed before. Part of the problem is there are so many films that it becomes bloated and extraneous. I started updating my suggested format (with a chart detailing title, release, director, screenwriter(s), and producers) towards the top of the page - and a chart breaking down other details (composer, cinematographer, editor, title design, title song, etc....) further down the page. This would help the chart to feel less like an overload of information and is similar to what's been done on other film series' articles. My work was however reverted prior to finishing, so in order to see what I'm talking about you'll have to compare the edits. Otherwise I can post the chart here for visual purposes.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * added a new table, which I subsequently reverted. He responded to my revert by splitting out relevant content. My objections to these edits are as follows:
 * 1) The new table is redundant, containing most of the information included in the original table.
 * 2) The new table is non-neutral in its presentation of the information, by describing the Eon films as "official" films. Both Casino Royale (1967 film) and Never Say Never Again are officially licensed adaptations as well, albeit not made by Eon which is why the article makes a distinction between Eon films and non-Eon films.
 * 3) The new table looks to me that it is not MOS:ACCESS compliant with all those row spans. Would DisneyMetalhead please tell us which screenreader or screenreader simulator he used to test acessibility?
 * On the other hand I think he actually has a point that having a list of the films near the top of the article would be a benefit to readers so I took the liberty of moving the timeline to the top of the Eon section. I think this should be sufficient for anybody who wants a quick overview. The existing table, which has been in the article since guided it through its GA review is sufficient. Betty Logan (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that having a list of films nearer the top is a good idea, and the timeline is a great way of showing that. I think the full table showing all crew who worked on a series gives readers an understanding of the continuity of roles (and, by implication, styles) within the series over a very long timespan in a very visual way. Splitting out some of those roles (director, screenwriter(s), and producers) from the others seems counter-intuitive to me: all worked together to pull together one film in which all aspects of their work balanced. - SchroCat (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

& - My argument goes right along with what has been stated. Yes it's important to show who was involved in making the film. However, it's current format is bloated. With repeated contributions (i.e.: a director who filmed multiple movies), listed on every single individual line is poor form and looks goppy. To illustrate their overall involvement and overarching roles, 'rowspan'-ing to consolidate their many chart cells into one cell gets the point across, and doesn't overwhelm the reader with information overload. Aesthetically it looks better. Further more, a chart showing the film series in such a format has been used on other articles' pages. No screenreader simulator is necessary, when the same formatting has been used on additional pages. The argument that it is biased - just remove the heading that said "Official films" then.... that's an easy adjustment. Those other two films are not canon and are not considered official James Bond film series movies.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Aesthetics? De gustibus, and all that (and the same for poor form and looks guppy): trying to read the table on a mobile is a painful act, meaning too much moving the page up and down to read the film title and crew position. As for "not canon and are not considered official James Bond film series movies", there's a lot wrong in what you say. 1. "Canon": given the different Bonds, different eras, the reboot and the heavily confused timescales in all the films, there is no "canon". 2. "Official": No, ALL the films are "official", in that they were licenced by Fleming (or the Fleming Estate). There is Eon, and non-Eon. - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment Aesthetics are always a matter of opinion, but the bottom line is that you still have 25 entries because you've still got 25 films. Accessibility is not a matter of opinion though, and we have a moral duty to ensure that we make our articles as accessible as we can within the confines of the software. So let's consider a basic screenreader that reads out the first five rows in each table. We will take the original table first with its approximate screenreader output:

Film;	Title;	Year;	Director;	Producer(s);	Writer(s);	Composer;	Production or art designer;	Editor or supervising editor;	Cinemato- grapher(s);	Title designer 1;	Dr. No;	1962;	Terence Young;	Harry Saltzman & Albert R. Broccoli;	Richard Maibaum, Johanna Harwood & Berkely Mather;	Monty Norman;	Ken Adam;	Peter R. Hunt;	Ted Moore;	Maurice Binder; 2;	From Russia with Love;	1963;	Terence Young;	Harry Saltzman & Albert R. Broccoli;	Richard Maibaum & Johanna Harwood;	John Barry;	Syd Cain;	Peter R. Hunt;	Ted Moore;	Robert Brownjohn 3;	Goldfinger;	1964;	Guy Hamilton;	Harry Saltzman & Albert R. Broccoli;	Richard Maibaum & Paul Dehn;	John Barry;	Ken Adam;	Peter R. Hunt;	Ted Moore;	Robert Brownjohn; 4;	Thunderball;	1965;	Terence Young;	Kevin McClory;	Richard Maibaum & John Hopkins;	John Barry;	Ken Adam;	Peter R. Hunt;	Ted Moore;	Maurice Binder 5;	You Only Live Twice;	1967;	Lewis Gilbert;	Harry Saltzman & Albert R. Broccoli;	Roald Dahl;	John Barry;	Ken Adam;	Peter R. Hunt;	Freddie Young;	Maurice Binder

Since the reader takes the table one row at a time, column by column it is easy for somebody using a screenreader to digest. Now let's take the same table but this time with rowspans:

Film;	U.S. release date;	Director;	Screenwriter(s)	Story by;	Producer(s)

Dr. No;	October 5, 1962;	Terence Young ( 2 rows);	Richard Maibaum, Johanna Harwood & Berkely Mather (2 columns);	Harry Saltzman & Albert R. Broccoli (3 rows)

From Russia with Love;	October 11, 1963;	Richard Maibaum & Berkely Mather;	Johanna Harwood

Goldfinger;	November 18, 1964;	Guy Hamilton;	Richard Maibaum, Paul Dehn & Berkely Mather;	Johanna Harwood & Berkely Mather

Thunderball;	December 29, 1965;	Terence Young;	Richard Maibaum & John Hopkins;	Kevin McClory & Jack Whittingham and Ian Fleming;	Kevin McClory

You Only Live Twice;	June 13, 1967;	Lewis Gilbert;	Roald Dahl;	Roald Dahl and Harold Jack Bloom;

Now, the Dr No row isn't actually a problem, because it contains all the information. The column spans are never a problem because the screenreader traverses the table one row at a time so it can process column spans correctly. We first hit a problem when we come across From Russia with Love. The screenreader completely skips Terence Young (the director) and the producers, because they are only defined in the first row. The screenreader also omits the producers from the Goldfinger entry for the same reason. The Thunderball entry would read fine. The problem though is that using rowspans causes a reader to omit information on later rows. By omitting rowspans screenreaders gain a lot and we lose very little (IMO we lose nothing at all because a full table looks better IMO). Betty Logan (talk) 11:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Never once has an editor brought up a screen reading issue. I can see why it would be harder to understand if it is read to a listener. However, this is an online electronic encyclopedia which is primarily used for internet access and viewing. IMO the current chart is bloated. It's a mess and cluttered.
 * You are the only editor who is claiming it is "cluttered". The table has been in the article for years and there hasn't been any complaints about it. Rather than simply proclaiming it a "mess" perhaps you would explain how exactly it violates Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial? On top of that Wikipedia has a serious commitment to making its articles accessible to people with assistive software. If we have one table that is fully compliant with Wikipedia's accessibility commitments and one that is not the decision as to which table to use is a no-brainer. Betty Logan (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)