Talk:Skyfall/Archive 11

Straw poll: billion vs millions
Summary of the debate: the discussion at and its continuation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film debated how Skyfall's total should ve presented. Specifically, in conjunction with the arguments that were put forward at these discussions, the three options are as follows: Given the extensive nature of the discussion and the fact that it has occurred at two places it is useful to take a straw poll. Please stipulate which option you back with a single sentence to explain your stance. Remember this is a straw poll, not a re-run of the debate so please refrain in engaging with other editors. Betty Logan (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * $1,109 million
 * 1) $1.109 billion
 * $1,109,000,000
 * As a side note to the proposed straw poll, we should keep WP:DEM, WP:POLL, and WP:STRAW in mind. Such polls should "stimulate discussion and consensus" and should typically be used in the early or middle stages of a consensus-forming discussion. Therefore, we shouldn't discourage engagement between editors, even during the poll. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Shortcut
I suddenly realised I could simply count up all the editors who have contributed opinions to all three discussions. If I missed anybody, or anybody changed their mind and I missed it, my apologies, but it goes like this:

But then, consensus is not just about numbers, its about the quality of the arguments and the extent to which they are supported by policy and by sources. Here, over and over the popularity of the billion has been endorsed and cited. Claims for confusion and therefore the million have been vocal and endless but short on policy or sources.

I have to say, I am surprised that such an overwhelming and strong consensus can have been masked by fire and smoke for so long. Had I realised it I would not have bothered to suggest a new straw poll - basically, we already have one.

Now. I know that straw polls are not necessarily binding, but if they are as clear-cut as this one then WP:SNOW cuts in.

So I think it's time to wrap this up. If anybody has anything new to say, by all means say it. No matter what is said from now on, rising to it is a bad idea, we have had enough smoke. Then we can get an uninvolved editor, preferably an admin, to close the deal.

&mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So it's basically 3 to 1 in favour of using "billion". Thanks. - the WOLF  child  23:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * — PhilosophicalZebra (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * — Stphnpn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Some of your categorizations are questionable. For instance, Erik simply asks what the counter-argument is to using a "billion" before a counter-argument was added to that discussion. You cannot assume somebody's stated position at the start of the discussion before they read the arguments is the same as at the end, after they have read the arguments. You should at least notify every editor you have listed here to give them the option of revising their stance. Betty Logan (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the counter-argument, I previously supported $1,109 million (in some much older discussion) per the reasons you reiterated recently at WT:FILM. I was not aware of WP:NUMERAL at the time and how it states that "billion" used on Wikipedia is "understood to represent" the short-scale value, and now I do not see why that cannot be applied. This is not a case of real-world reporting of Skyfall's total as $1,109 million that would override WP:NUMERAL. If the BBC itself reports the film's "billion" total as a short-scale value, it seems strange that Wikipedia cannot follow that. While I understand the concern of potential confusion, it seems too narrow to warrant not following WP:NUMERAL, especially when it does not talk about exceptions based on nationality. Why not a footnote that can explain to any possible reader that are puzzled to see and misinterpret "billion"? I do not think this readership outnumbers those who wonder why the number is not rounded up already. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * should not be tagged as an SPA. According to Single-purpose account, "A user should not be tagged as an SPA just because they only have a handful of edits. While all users with one edit are by definition an SPA, users with as few as 3 or 4 edits are not necessarily SPAs if those edits are in a diverse set of topics and do not appear to be promoting a "single purpose." Now I know the SPATG article lead is a little vague on this, but the detail stricture is crystal clear. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Consensus
I believe we have a clearly established consensus to change the box office to "1.000 billion". If or anyone else wants to continue accusing these so-called "single purpose accounts" and all these IPs as "socks", then I suggest they request a investigation. Meanwhile, we have dozens upon dozens, if not hundreds, of registered editors and IP users who have changed the b.o. to "billion", literally since "million" was first entered. These people may not have all posted to any of the discussions on this, but they have spoken with their edits. We simply cannot ignore or discount all these edits. They are clear, convincing and continuing evidence that "1,000 million" is confusing and problematic, and that "billion" is clearly preferred. Contrast this to the fact that there are no complaints about the use of "billion" on any other article around the entire project, and the argument that "billion" is "ambiguous" and "confusing" to elderly users from the UK is basically dismissed and we essentially have no reason what-so-ever to continue to use "1,000 million". I suggest we change the Skyfall b.o. to "billion", agree to use "billion" in all future articles, even if written in Br. Eng., close all related discussions and move on to more important things. - the WOLF  child  21:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure how an investigation would help, given the ease with which ip addresses can be masked these days. But I'm curious to know if we had hundreds, or dozens upon dozens, or merely dozens. Should be quite easy to count, I think. It wasn't millions, was it? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC) ...this is a question, not just "constant off topic jokes and quips", thanks.
 * The SPI Admins have special tools to investigate such fun and games as sockpuppetry and IP masking. They won't tell us how they do it but I have seen some impressive results. For them to take your concerns seriously you will need to have some carefully gathered evidence to back up your claim request, such as diffs showing specific coincidences of timing and/or editing style. (Apart from anything else, discovering only weak evidence should help allay your concerns in the first place - there is no rule against single-purpose accounts). I'd also suggest you select the CheckUser option to try and identify any "master" user account. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't make a claim. I asked a simple question, which I don't think you need any special tools to answer. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was not answering your query but clarifying the value of a sock puppet investigation, and in using the word "claim" I was referring to any hypothetical request made to ANI. I am sorry if I did not make this clear first time round and I have altered my post accordingly. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I'll just try and count them myself! "Dozens upon dozens" would be at least 48, I think, unless we were using a baker's dozen or something. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've counted 23 changes to billions, by IP editors, since 1 October (although two of those were self-reverted). Please check if you think there were, in fact, possibly "hundreds". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that 1 October of this year? Because the box office was changed to "1,000 million" almost a year and a half ago. But the multiple edits and reverts are only 1 point. No one seems to want to address the whole list of other points in favour of "billion". - the WOLF  child  21:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. But please count from a year and half ago, if you wish, and tell us. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I only have to count all posts in support of "option 2". - the WOLF  child  05:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You said "changed numerous times by dozens and dozens, (if not hundreds) ..". I was just asking "how many exactly?" I thought you might know, as it was part of your argument. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Does it really matter? How many times it was changed in the past is irrelevant at this point. What matters is the current poll of editors. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Martin: If I knew the "exact" number I would have stated it. I, like you, noted it had been changed a couple dozen times in only the past month or so. I did find the exact date it was changed, and after doing random, cursory checks over that 17 month period, deduced that it was changed many more dozens of times, perhaps even into the hundreds. This is why I posted an approximation. But as both SonThornhill and I have stated... what does it matter now? All that matters is the current consensus, which is clearly and heavily leaning in one direction. - the WOLF  child  17:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @WOLFchild: I agree that it will not affect the outcome here. I was just very surprised that this had been reverted "hundreds of times". If you can tell me the date of the first one, I can count them myself. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness it's less than 1,000,000,000 or we'd need a metadiscussion about how to express that. EEng (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sing it, Sudirman!! ("Asia's No. 1 entertainer"): Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @Thewolfchild: Yes, the consensus is pretty clear (socks or no socks). But since I only drew it out a day or so ago, I think it needs a decent interval in case any new evidence to the contrary can be demonstrated. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * - I certainly agree with you on that. However, I'm thinking you might need to clarify just what the poll is about, ie: what these "options" are that people are (not) voting on. One person already made an error and for some reason some people are now focused on "decimal vs comma"...(?!). Thanks for your contributions. - the WOLF  child  11:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * People appear to be voting on the three options suggested by Betty Logan (and, in a lucky coincidence, in the order I tabulated them - I think I might emphasise that, bless me and I nearly forgot to vote, too!). It is interesting to note how the latest responses bear out my data-mining result quite nicely and include a good few fresh voices in the same vein. I don't think a few dubious votes can make any difference now. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, bless you. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Poll

 * Support Option 2 -
 * That is correct also from how I've seen it. I'm still for billion. u|Thewolfchild you seen this? This is pretty good work though going through it all and finding who was on which 'side'. Well done.
 * And Erik good idea about the foot note. Charlr6 (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Option 2 – Per the comments shared at Billion vs 1,000 million (cont'd). The Oxford Dictionaries Online entry, the MOS:TIES guideline, and sources local to the region such as this one support the use of billion in the article to represent "one thousand million". --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Option 2 - - the WOLF  child  21:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Option 1 or 3 MOS:NUMERAL is being misinterpreted and only requires us to use the short scale (not specific words), in effect making all three of the above options legitimate choices as far as the guideline goes; the word "billion" causes confusion in British English (see House of Commons Statistical literacy guide) since it was not adopted by the UK until the 1970s and it is also potentially ambiguous for non-native speakers from countries which use the long scale. Betty Logan (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The last part of your reasoning, "potentially ambiguous for non-native speakers from countries which use the long scale", may be suited for a discussion at WT:DATE, but for articles like this one, MOS:TIES overrides that concern. Speaking of discussions at WT:DATE, it looks like the most recent on the subject was "Short scale billion", which you actually initiated! Although a clear consensus wasn't established, it is evident from those interpreting MOS:NUMERAL that it was suggesting the use of billion as a widespread replacement for thousand million, whether or not the editors in that discussion agreed with it or not. So the interpretation that billion is being recommended by the guideline seems pretty clear from both sides of the argument. One point made by Pfainuk that I'd like to reiterate is that the British English style guides listed here recommend the use of the short scale. Also interesting to note is that the PDF you linked to above actually acknowledges that the short scale billion is used internationally – further reason for us not to worry about its perceived meaning. I'm not challenging the fact that there are still some in the UK that may take pause at the sight of the word billion, but we would need some evidence that this is a significant concern that applies to a significant amount of the population. So far, that's only a theoretical notion. I can't imagine that someone reading Wikipedia doesn't read or listen to UK media, which overwhelmingly transitioned to the short scale by the early 1980s. Taking pause and being confused are two very different things, and in the context of a film, I doubt anyone would think for a second that the movie made a trillion; context matters. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a comment. Thought I had, that's it - When Caitlyn Jenner gender transitioned he became a she on wikipedia. Because that is what she became. We updated it.
 * I know it isn't the best example or whatever this is, but some people in the world are against that, or wouldn't understand it why she did and why. But we still changed it. We updated it because it needed to be updated, we didn't condescend and spoon fed, regardless of what a small majority of the world would feel about it. It is respectful to her, and the current conditions.
 * It has been forty years since the start of the 70s, so forty years since 'short' billion was adopted. So we should reflect that. It is irrelevant of what some people might find confusing. I understand why you support 1,000 million as it wouldn't cause any confusion and people thinking of billion "hey, how did it gross 1,000,000,000,000?". But as we are in modern times, with an ever-changing society, the world and people need to change to. We can't stop things for one group of people. Different countries in the world have their own currency and ways of cost, but as this is a British film, co-produced by American companies, we should reflect what those countries currently have. Which is 1,000,000,000 as a billion.
 * That's it. Just a final thought I had on what I'm finding a relaxing thoughtful evening. Charlr6 (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Lucky (s)he's worth only "US$100 million (2014 estimate)". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Option 1 - to me a comma looks better than a decimal point for large numbers. Sorry if MOS:NUMERAL says any different. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - just to be clear, you do realize this isn't about "commas" and "decimals", right? It's the word "millions" that is causing so many problems and confusion. Do you have an opinion on using "million" vs "billion"? - the WOLF  child  23:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - just to be clear, if you use "billion" here you need a decimal point, and if you use "million" here you need a comma. Agreed? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I guess it's not so clear. The issue here is the word "millions" is causing problems. It's certainly confusing to many people as they constantly change it. However, you're in favour of retaining it just because you think a comma looks prettier? You realize that there are 22 other film pages with billion+ box office totals, and they all have decimals? (and as more films hit that mark, there will be more decimals). I'm just wondering if, in light of the constant off topic jokes and quips you've posted to these discussions, is this a legitimate reason or are just trying to be funny? I appreciate the attempt to keep things light-hearted, but at some point a serious reply would be appreciated. Thanks. - the WOLF  child  00:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's my view. Perfectly serious. It's not just the comma, it's also the word. I'm addressing this article, not 22 others. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC) But I have to go and make the same choice at Project Film, before you update the above table, yes?
 * OK, I just wanted to make everyone is on the same page, so to speak. Everyone is entitled to their view, regardless if it seems to make sense or not. - the WOLF  child  11:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC) Don't worry, you're already on the "above table".


 * Support Option 1 2 I am a Brit and the word 'billion' is now consistently used to mean 1,000,000,000. I am not aware of a single case where the word has been used for the long scale value. As has been noted above, the short scale billion was adopted nearly 1/2 a century ago by the British government.  My 1994 edition of Collins English Dictionary refers to the long scale version as 'formerly in Britain'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * - FYI your comments indicate you support option #2. Is that a typo? - the WOLF  child  00:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have corrected it. Thanks. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Option 2 – MOSNUM (specifically WP:NUMERAL) is clear that this should be billion, and I have no idea how this became an article-specific discussion. (Confusion with the long-scale "billion" in British usage faded away 30 years ago.) Since I'm here I'll add that "1.109 billion" is absurd WP:OVERPRECISION and should be rendered as simply "1.1 billion". EEng (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "A Rolling Stone gathers no billions". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not if they spend it all on heroin, anyway. EEng (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Option 2 and 3 Use the short form 'Billion' in the info box and numbers in the body of the article. That should ensure that there is no confusion. SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Option 1 As £2,500 and £2.500 are not different enough to a casual viewer, I have a suggestion on the formatting—the decimal point should be indicated thus, £2&bull;500 — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 09:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: - I'm not sure why "decimals" and "commas" have become an issue. What is being debated is whether or not to continue to using "1,109 million" in this particular infobox, or to use "1.109 billion", just like in every other infobox. See table;


 * I think consistency is important and will help reduce the current confusion being created by the Skyfall page. - the WOLF  child  11:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It is a visibility issue not a punctuation matter. — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 11:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, I got that when you first posted this comment below. - the WOLF  child  13:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Option 2 – "1.1 billion" would be correct. This is how any newspaper would write it, including British newspapers. Examples:, , (British),  (British),  (British),  (British) -- The Anome (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since numerous other film articles use values to 3 decimal places, you are probably better off bring this to a new and separate section of the WP:WikiProject Film talk page for discussion. The number of decimal places isn't really at debate here. - the WOLF  child  11:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a visibility issue not a punctuation matter. — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 11:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps you noticed that when a majority of people switched "million" to "billion" here, they didn't also switch the comma to a decimal. I think that's a clear indication that the word is the issue here, not the punctuation. There are 22 other film articles with infoboxes containing "1.234 billion", that aren't causing constant confusion and edit wars. The point is, decimals and commas aren't the issue, the actual word being used is. Why don't we just tackle one thing at a time? - the WOLF  child  11:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I take your point. Yes, let's get the key point of "billion" established as consensus first. Then we can discuss number of decimal places later, which is really a much more minor issue. -- The Anome (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Option 1 or 3 – I can't quite believe that this bullshit is still going on. But seeing as it is, this is my preferred option.  Option 2 looks ridiculous.    Cassianto Talk   12:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you're ignoring reality. --Calton | Talk 13:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's why we call him Carlos Cassianto. But I'm sure he will respond to you himself in due course. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: "Ridiculous", huh? Well, it's difficult to counter such an articulate, hard-hitting and factual refutation. Anyway, is this why you've been working sooo hard to change the other 22 "ridiculous" infobox totals noted in the above table? Oh, wait... - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  13:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Option 1 (preferred) or 3 – SchroCat (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Option 2 It's the way the box office total would be stated in newspapers and other sources (although it would probably just go to two decimal place). Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 14:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Option 2 Best one.  Caden  cool  15:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Option 2, per consistency with other billion boxoffice film articles :) GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Option 2: "Short Millions" format is overwhelmingly endorsed by both policy and sources, as was hammered home during the long discussions. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Option 2: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Option 2: Most sensible. Parabolist (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Option 2. Need to go with what the majority of sources say, as usual. Although frankly I don't understand why this isn't an RfC rather than a straw poll. Any result of a "straw poll" is liable to erupt again later. Softlavender (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Option 2. By the way: I was at state primary school in Britain over 60 years ago and was taught that a biliion was 1000 million (and was also warned against the then obsolete form). Thincat (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Option 1. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 11:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Option 2. — Tom (T2ME) 11:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Option 2, but to only two decimal places. "billion: one thousand million" (Guardian/Observer Style Guide), "A billion is a thousand million" (Economist Style Guide), "(d). ‘Billion’ is used to designate a thousand million (and not a million million)" (European Union Interinstitutional Style Guide) --Calton | Talk 13:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Early assessment:It seems like there is solid base of support for Option 2 but with a good number of editors preferring Option 1. People should keep adding their opinion in this straw poll. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 13:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please provide a diff of someone putting you in charge, especially as you have chosen to "vote" and have also commented on the AN/I, the EW report and on blocked editor's talk pages so are therefore "involved". Thanks. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 14:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears Liz is only making an observation and encouraging others to continue sharing their opinion. Sounds like any other editor with an interest in seeing this issue resolved. Where's the harm in that? --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Because we have about 16 for Support 2 while about 6 for Support 1 or 3. Unless sudden jump and ten or 1 by ten or more editors not really much point continuing. As you could always say no harm in waiting for more then more Charlr6 (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good job it's not a vote, isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, I realize the count so far is highly in favor of Option 2. However, the strength of opinions shared matters more than simply the count. I also believe that's greatly in favor of Option 2, but we should probably wait for a few more to be shared and then ask for a formal closure by an uninvolved party, possibly an admin. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, think it's important to point out that until activity has died down, we shouldn't be in a rush to close it. A good number of posts have been added recently and continue to pour in. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As an uninvolved admin I agree with Liz's interpretation so far. I think more time should be given for the debate though, consensus can of course change. This discussion has gone on a long while with just a few people, now that a larger population has arrived it can be resolved in time. As GoneIn60 says we should wait until the discussion is less active with new opinions. <b style="color:Navy">HighInBC</b> 15:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are also hardly an "uninvolved" admin. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 15:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just what is your problem here? You've now made two rather rude accusations, and they seem to amount to nothing at all. I see nothing wrong with either Liz's assessment or HighInBC's comment. Sheesh. Dave Dial (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Rude accusations? You are the one making false accusations - I am simply pointing out both these admins are involved. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 15:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think I am involved in this content dispute you are welcome to come by my talk page to explain to me why. I suspect though that you are confusing administrative involvement with involvement in a content dispute. <b style="color:Navy">HighInBC</b> 15:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Option 2 – I have now read through this entire discussion and the corresponding discussions and I want to state a couple points. First, editors should make the choices more pronounced at the beginning of this straw poll. Perhaps with bolding or something. Secondly, I don't understand how anyone can make any other choice than #2. Why would we resort backwards in numbering box office revenues? Once a project surpasses the billion mark, we should use billions. In fact, it's not confusing to use .748 billion and understand that that numbers means 748 million or 748,000,000. It's more precise and easier to put into charts and lists. And lastly, why in the world would this be some kind of issue worth so much discussion? The option seems like common sense. I've read the arguments against using billions, and they just don't make any sense. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But you accept that the word "million" has a single meaning, while the word billion has two separate distinct meanings, by our own article definition? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, although I did not know that before I started reading the discussion. But like I stated, I read through this and the other discussions. I would point out that this is the English language Wikipedia, and almost all English speaking countries use the Short scale. It would be a disservice and confusing to use the Long scale. Dave Dial (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, we don't rely on other Wikipedia articles as sources. I think if you review the ones listed throughout this discussion, you'll see that they overwhelmingly favor the short scale. In fact, probably the best one that everyone should be looking at is this one from Oxford Dictionaries Online. The long scale billion is listed as dated and third in the pecking order. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't do we, although we seem to expect casual readers to do just that. That's why we have internal links. But if you feel the billion article is misleading, I'm sure you'll be the first to want to go and improve it. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it inaccurate, but I also wouldn't call it complete in regards to current usage of the term. It is taking a historical viewpoint, which is completely fine for now. At some point, it may be worth looking into. Some good points and sources from this discussion certainly deserve mention in that article. It's current condition, however, has no impact here. The fact that billion has had more than one meaning historically is not being questioned at the core of this dispute. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's great to feel that one is suddenly "part of history." Or maybe not. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Martinevans, the long scale billion has not been used in the UK this millennium. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. That makes me feel almost as old as Robbie Williams. I've had enough of this. I'm off to call Esther Rantzen. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't understand your banter old chap. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Never mind. What's a billion in old money? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You always have the most interesting links, Martinevans123. I don't always get the joke but I like the way your mind thinks. ;-) Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I don't get it, either. But If I find out how my mind thinks, I'll let you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Historical note: Fowler/Gowers (1965) urged standardizing on the short-scale billion, since the long-scale "is useless except to astronomers". EEng (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Skyfall at Night? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support option 1. JAG  UAR   10:55, 21 November 2015 (page
 * Strong support option 2 That how every other article is formatted. It will be ridiculous for this one page to be different. If you want to change every article, than this is not the place to have it. JDDJS (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Helen McCrory
Would anyone object to my adding Helen McCrory to the cast list as playing the minister (Clair Dowar MP)? Willowandglass (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hollywood film?
In the article it says ''"the second-largest opening weekend for a Hollywood film in India of 2012" I just wondered how this was a Hollywood film as it was produced in Britian. The source also refers to it as a Hollywood film. Should this be changed or does Hollywood film refer to the style of film? WSGB11 (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's an American production as well. Both America and England were involved.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:1494:D143:7DBF:F435 (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It could be because it was released by Columbia and MGM which are Hollywood studios. But they are owned by Sony which is a Japanese company. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Moneypenny/Naomie Harris
The casting section says that Naomie Harris had been rumoured, long in advance of the premiere, to be playing Miss Moneypenny but that she and the film's PR department had denied this. After that. the text goes on to discuss the ambiguities of Harris' character in this film, but misses the crucial fact: at the end of the movie, Eve is referred to by the MI6 people as *drumroll* "Eve Moneypenny". This could be a kind of cat-and-mouse game with the media and with 007 nerds around the planet, but there's no doubt at all that the film discloses, near the end, that Eve is in fact Moneypenny. 192.121.232.253 (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's already mentioned in the plot summary. Following M's funeral, Eve—formally introducing herself to Bond as Eve Moneypenny... DonQuixote (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Skyfall. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.arri.com/news.html?article=1095&cHash=2d1a22f2b0c8d8d913d5a02ad190234e
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=34921
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessinsider.com/skyfall-filming-locations-2012-10?op=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012005508/http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/310912.html to http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/310912.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=97911
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2012&p=.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3555
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3563&p=.htm
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6E5A7NZib?url=http://www.criticschoice.com/movie-awards/ to http://www.criticschoice.com/movie-awards/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://criticscircle.org.uk/film/?ID=308&PID=4
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/65olbBrXC?url=http://www.saturnawards.org/nominations.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/nominations.html

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) 20:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)