Talk:Skyfall/Archive 4

Updating gross
Creating this since there is going to be big changes to bonds gross and it's locked atm for edits here we go

please sign which you shoukd do anyways to get the date of the gross from box office mojo who i believe the wiki uses for film grosses.

$708,370,000	 --86.137.14.0 (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)--86.137.14.0 (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Critical reception
I think the "Critical reception" sub-section of this article is far too long. I understand that the film has been met with overwhelmingly-positive reviews, but right now we have five paragraphs of positive buzz and two short paragraphs of criticisms (one of which is directed at a very specific scene). I feel that this has the potential to violate WP:NPOV, and it's also redundant. I lost interest reading it halfway through because the section was just repeating itself. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it violates NPOV; if it received more praise than criticism then it would be appropriate to have more positive reviews mentioned. However, I completely agree it is far too long.  Right now there are 9 paragraphs and over 1400 words in the Reviews section.  A lot of those specific mentions and quotes from critics should be gone.  The paragraph about the sex trafficking victim and maybe even the reference to Asange could be in its own "Criticism" section as they're not necessarily critical reviews of the film.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The section is ridiculous, it seems to have actually doubled since I last checked on it, as if people were just adding reviews so the pictures didn't bleed into the next section. Just because pictures exist they do not have to be used, especially the Craig one as he is in the poster. The reception section needs hobbling, it should be 3-4 smallish paragraphs, 2-3 reviews per paragraph covering positive -> mixed - > negative. The sexual abuse thing is too long (reexplaining plot) and nonsense, all kinds of groups complain about every single film ever because someone always has to be offended to be relevant. 5 paragraphs performing the textual fellatio of the film are not necessary. I'd remove ALL references to Craig's performances in the reviews you keep, including the Roger Moore one, and put them together referring to the reviewers who make the relevant comments by their surname that should have been established in their overall review of the film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * All good points except I would be more hesitant to remove the criticism over the human trafficking plot point. The organization quoted is not some fly-by-night, "I need to get my panties in a bunch over nothing just for attention" group.  They're very well-known and work with the CDC and other reputable groups, so their comments are worth reciting.  It should be edited since we don't need all the details of the plot, but I don't think it's "nonsense."Bobbyandbeans (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but it does need trimming and potentially merging into a criticism paragraph. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree. Anyone know when and if it will be removed from protection so it can be done?  The whole section is downright embarrassing right now.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's protected until the 25th, but if the source of conflict is resolved, it can be requested to be unblocked sooner. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess because it's not controversial it can wait until the protection is removed, but good god what a mess. I've never seen a movie page with that many quotes from critics.  Whoever did all that must have a lot of free time on their hands or they love this movie more than life itself.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I did some of the work on this, including adding some of the quotes. Bobbyandbeans, you can knock off the asides about other editors and their thoughts (criticise the edit not the editor), and I really don't care if you consider it a mess of not: your POV is really not germane to point here. - SchroCat (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The section is a mess, which is why this entire thread exists. If it weren't a mess no one would be bringing up the length and unnecessary details.  As far as criticizing other editors, I've had a lot worse said to me including blatant name-calling, and administrators have pointed out that unless you outright call someone an "ass hat," it's not a personal attack and that strongly worded opinions are allowed, so you can keep the hypocritical lectures to yourself. You "don't care" if I consider it a mess; well, that's your personal POV, so what you care about or don't is immaterial, and you don't need to tell other editors what to do or say.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Try reading what's been said before trying to stir up further arguments: I didn't say you'd been name calling, I said you should focus on the edit not the editor. So, my previous comment still stands: knock off the asides about other editors and their thoughts. I really don't see that saying that is a "hypocritical lecture", so try and focus on what the content of the article is. The section isn't a mess, it just has too many quotes according to some. That's not a mess: that's just a need for some minor and mild tweaking, not criticising the work of others with name calling or accusations of "hypocritical lectures". - SchroCat (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This discussion is starting to not become conducive to getting the article unlocked. It's a critical reception section, not something to argue over. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, DWB, the critical reception section isn't the cause of the page protection. The precise wording of the plot section is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand the value of having the section reflect the reviews. But as it stands, it looks like there is more content in the reception section than in any other part of the page. Some of the postiive reviews - particularly from lesser publications - could easily be remvoed without affecting the content of the section. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll trim down some of the quotes, although you should note that the balance of criticism is broadly right: most of the reviews have been praiseworthy, with only a niggles here and there, so the section doesn't fail NPOV, it is a balanced reflection of what the critics have been saying. - SchroCat (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, it doesn't fail NPOV, but it is mightliy long. From a quick look over it, I think you could probably knock it down to 4 or 5 paragraphs by removing and reshuffling the quotes/ opinions of individual reviewers. I don't think a separate criticism section is needed; that would really limit the critical reaction section to a bunch of positive reviews. drewmunn (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Criticism section isn't being suggested for critical reviews, but to separate the remark from the human rights group and the comment about the similarity to Assange from the reviews themselves. They don't seem to belong in a section about reviews but they're still worth mentioning.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

One bit that I'd trim straight away if the page wasn't protected is this bit about Roger Ebert's opinion: "adding that he did not know what what to expect from the film, but was pleasantly suprised that it was "invigorating"". Either trim it down to something like, "he described watching the film as an 'invigorating' experience", or remove it entirely as IMO the first Ebert quote is sufficient.

The section is currently structured as a simple list of "Reviewer A said... reviewer B said... reviewer C said...". I always find these Reception sections more interesting to read if there's some connection between consecutive comments so that they flow together a little bit. At the moment, there's a bit of that (e.g. a couple I added: "cinematographer Roger Deakins... delivers the most impressive visuals this series has had since the 1960s". Henry K. Miller of Sight & Sound also singled out Deakins' work..."), but not much: the comments are mostly pretty isolated from each other, and jump all over the place in terms of the subjects they cover. So would it be better if more of the comments were instead grouped together thematically? i.e. group together all the quotes about performances (Henry K. Miller on Javier Bardem; Kim Newman on Albert Finney; Philip French, Ryan Gilbey, Daniel Krupa etc on Daniel Craig) into their own paragraph, and so on.

Restructuring it like that would require a lot of editing work, but would that sort of structure be an improvement? -- Nick RTalk 19:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly think so. Otherwise, it does feel a lot like advertising. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

How should we describe the praise of bond
I was advised to come here on the issue and come here i have come. Anyways the terms generally positive reviews is currently " generally positive reviews" I think this is rather inappropriate due to the films status of having 92% and when me and my friend read it, we just thought generally positive reviews indicates minimum 60 to maximum 80% of reviews being positive, rather than indicating the real value of 90%+. here is a few definitions from the oxford dictionary of generally

in most cases; usually in general terms; without regard to particulars or exceptions: by or to most people; widely:

generally seems to be tab short of what skyfall was really rated, on the looper it mentions this "On Metacritic, the film holds an 84/100 average rating based on 44 critics, indicating "universal acclaim"" skyfall got 81/10 while looper got 84/10 and a similar small diffrence can be seen int he rotten tomatoes score of 92% vs 95% and generally was used in the avengers that got 69/10 "generally favorable reviews" which is off skyfalls 8.2/10 as mentioned. So I think taking a lesson out of meta critics book would not be a bad idea, a well Established critic site, that knows what it's talking about and thus for regards to films in future when metacritic and rotten tomatoes are not too different in reception we can use the metacritic description to describe how well it was recieved. In this situation I would like to put farward we change skyfalls wording from "generally positive" to universal acclaim as both critic sites have rated the film at sucha level under the metacritic description of hwo well it was rated there. Food for thought skyfall was also 8.2/10 on rotten tomatoes so out of /* both are extremely close. Typhlosion-fan (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This is already being discussed on "Acclaim VS Positive" above, where points have been given. But it is neutral point of view. We don't need to say how acclaimed it is, just that it received positive reviews, but the generally implies that it also received a few negatives, which is did. Charlr6 (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, I'm seeing that Metacritic calls anything an 80 "universal acclaim," which stretches the term "universal" so far beyond definition that it's meaningless. We need to bring this up at WP:FILM. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That is true. The amount of times I've seen that is unbelievable. By looking at the numbers on Rotten Tomaotes it could look like critical acclaim, then on Meta critic it could be 10-15% lower and still classed as 'critical acclaim' on the website. But if we were to bring it up, it would of course have to be with every film article. Charlr6 (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

generally implies that it got a lot more than 8% negative more like 20%, 30% reviews would be negative if using the term "generally". 86.137.14.0 (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not really. The consensus from the long discussion above was that "generally" allows for the negative criticism and avoids any accusations that we are over-guilding the lily. - SchroCat (talk) 12:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Torch
"Torch" means something completely different in U.S. English and could reasonably lead people to think that old country gamekeeper Kincade is carrying a flaming torch like an old villager. Does British English really not contain the word "flashlight"? This isn't like "lorry" where there's no homonym in U.S. English. It would be clearer overall to use a different word than "torch".


 * Torch also has two meanings in BrEng too, but having a "torch beam" mentioned indicates it's not the flaming variety. Flashlight is AmEng and would be like putting truck instead of lorry: understandable, but jarring. - SchroCat (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Clever solution. Pip pip, old boy! (Clearly, I've been watch too many DVDs of Yes Minister!) --Tenebrae (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * And as it says above, as a British film it should be where possible be written in British English unless a broad consensus is reached. MisterShiney    ✉    08:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

A few changes in the plot section. Your opinions needed.
I'd like to ask the opinions of editors who contribute to this article about the plot section.

First point, In the first paragraph:

''Eve accidentally shoots Bond, allowing Patrice to escape. Bond goes missing, presumed dead.''

A logical connection is missing. In normal circumstance, when someone is shot, he doesn't go automatically missing. If someone is shot and go missing, it means he must be alive to escape from the spot. But in that very same sentence, it says he was presumed dead. But Bond had no reason to run. And if the wound is fatal, he shouldn't be able to go that far and shouldn't go missing, and it would be clear to determine if he is dead or not. It doesn't make much sense without a little more logical connection, and can create a "Huh!?" moment. I would like to edit it to "Bond falls into a river and goes missing, presumed dead." instead. Current word count is 655, but only 4 words will be added here.

Second point,

Pursued by Bond, he uses the tunnel network under London—including part of the London Underground—as part of his plan to kill M.

I have a feeling that something is missing here. Even though it is mentioned 'as part of a plan', it doesn't tell us how. I have altered it to 'as a means to access and kill M,' Schrodinger cat is alive disagrees, saying that "he doesn't use the tunnels to access M - he walks through the door of a building at street level." I disagees with him again. If someone goes somewhere using a route, you use that route as a means of an access. I would like to ask your opinions if I want to change the paragraph into:

"Back at MI6's underground headquarters, Q attempts to decrypt Silva's laptop, but inadvertently enables it to access the MI6 systems, allowing Silva to escape via the tunnel system under London. Pursued by Bond, Silva uses part of the London Underground as the means to access and kill M."

This version will also avoid over-complicated/over-long sentence as well.

Third point,

''Bond drives M to the safest place he can think of: his childhood home in Scotland. He instructs Q to leave an electronic trail for Silva to follow, a decision Mallory supports.''

Bond and M are met by Kincade, the gamekeeper to Skyfall, Bond's family estate.

In the bold part, we're introducing and describing Skyfall twice. I feel that there is no need. Plus, this section could be worded more clearly, as it is unclear whether Skyfall, Bond's family estate, is the mentioned Bond's childhood home. At least, it is not as clear or as tight as it could be, considering that we write for people who are new to James Bond too. Plus, the sentence as it is now contains a modifier within a modifier clause. We tried to describe Kincade and ended up having to describe Skyfall too. So I wish to relocate the mention of the name Skyfall and change the paragraph into:

''Bond drives M to the safest place he can think of: Skyfall, Bond's family estate and his childhood home in Scotland. He instructs Q to leave an electronic trail for Silva to follow, a decision Mallory supports.''

Bond and M are met by Kincade, the gamekeeper to Skyfall.

Your opinions are appreciated. Anthonydraco (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As for the first point, I feel the extra would make sense a little more. It does, of course, make sense as it is to anyone who's seen the film or any of the trailers, so this is probably being glanced over by editors, as they don't see any problem with it. I say go ahead with that change. With second point, I feel that there could be some work done, but a logical distinction could be made. I propose, for instance, changing that section to Back at MI6's underground headquarters, Q attempts to decrypt Silva's laptop, but inadvertently enables it to access the MI6 systems, triggering Silva's plan to assassinate M. Pursued by Bond, Silva uses the tunnel network to escape and travel under London to Whitehall." I think that consolidates the sequence and makes more sense, as it leads into the next sentence describing the attack. As for your third point, this is a relic from an old edit. Feel free to change it. drewmunn (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the first point, thank you. I will wait a bit for more opinions. Regarding the second point, I don't think many people outside the UK would know that M's inquiry is at Whitehall. And I wouldn't think the labtop can trigger the plan, since this plan has started long before. I would prefer to say that it releases him. How about: "Back at MI6's underground headquarters, Q attempts to decrypt Silva's laptop, but inadvertently enables it to access the MI6 systems and release Silva. Pursued by Bond, Silva uses the tunnel network to escape and travel under London to M's public inquiry." Does this sound fine? Anthonydraco (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds much better, I agree that people might not know where Whitehall is (I forget I'm one of a minority). The only thing I'd say, is that changing the last bit of that to "under London to M's location", specifically because the next sentence introduces the enquiry. Otherwise, I think it's concise, to the point, and solves the issue in hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicdrewdriver (talk • contribs) 17:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first point: It could be clearer that Bond falls into a river and disappears.


 * Agree that specifying "Whitehall" is superfluous. But also, is it really necessary to say "Silva used the tunnel network to escape and travel under London..." Firstly, of course, he doesn't travel exclusively underground, but goes aboveground into a stolen police car with accomplices. Secondly, does it really matter how he gets around? The sentence could be more direct and succinct by saying, "Pursued by Bond, Silva escapes and with accomplices makes his way to M's public inquiry."


 * The broken-up mentions of "childhood home" and "family estate", and waiting till the second instance to name Skyfall, bothered me as well, but because of some of the contentiousness that's been going on (not by you), I figured, why fight it. But you merged construction is much more logical. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, guys. The person who disagrees with my editting the first point is Schrodinger; he said it was a part of the consensus to leave it there, so I will wait until tomorrow for his opinion, as I've already invited him into the discussion, then I'll proceed. Tenebrae, regarding the second point, your word is more concise, but I don't think we need to go for a bone-thin summary. We still have some room, so for now it can be a bit fleshy in that part. When the plot section is bursting apart at the seams, perhaps we can go for your suggestion. Anthonydraco (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the underground part should stay for now; we're already cutting down a major chase scene with a fairly unique setting to a single sentence. If the need arises to slim down, then it could be removed, but at the moment, it keeps some context, as well as providing the method for the escape. Without that, it's easier to visualise him simple walking out of his cell, through the middle of the workfloor, and onto the street. drewmunn (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The only problem with those edit suggestions is that they bloat the plot. Don't forget that Plots should only be 700 words and it is only natural they are going to miss some things. If people want to know what happens then they should go see the film. It isn't the job of Wikipedia to write a novel on the film. As for the safest place he can think of: his childhood home in Scotland that's speculation and original reaserch. I don't see a reason for it to be changed. A consensus has previously been met and I dont see how those edits are going to improve the article. MisterShiney    ✉ '   18:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, the suggested edits actually shorten the summary. Having checked the above changes, the plot would shorten from 649 words to 643. As far as consensus, I believe much of this discussion is new, and the points deliberated have not been previously discussed here (please point out the conversations if I'm wrong, I've only done a cmd+F from key words). Thanks. drewmunn (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Concensus can change. And even though it is not our job to capture everything, it is our job to write the prose as clear as possible, since language and clarity is a concern in promoting this to GA, and this article is not one yet. As for keeping the plot under 700 words, I do not forget that. If you've checked above again, you will notice that I did the word count and inform you of the space. The first point, the new edit will add 5 words; the second decreases 8 words, and the third incease only 2. In total, those edits decrease the word count. Not to mention that it is clearer, as agreed by two more editors above. As for the speculation and original research part, I'm afraid to say that I've just got here, and all those OR/speculation have been here and met the consensus you said you adhered to. All the more reason for the concensus to be changed. All I've done in there is to relocate the description of Skyfall in two places and collapse it into one. And I haven't even put it in yet. So, according to the reasons I've stated, your concerns are all addressed. Anthonydraco (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * And you know, "safest place he can think of," now that you mention it, is interpreting something not said in the film. What Bond says when M asks is that they're going "into the past." It might be equally interpretive to suggest that Bond &mdash; who could have taken M virtually anywhere for safekeeping &mdash; chose Skyfall in order to come to terms with himself after his recent traumas ... and that's the point: My view and "safest place he could think of" are both interpretations. The most neutral thing would be simply to say Bond takeS her to Skyfall, without layering our own meanings as to why. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Time to change the concensus, then. I'll make sure I remove that part too. Anthonydraco (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ...thereby lowering the word count even more! I see no reason for these changes not to be made, unless other editors disagree. I think that it'll improve readability and make it better adhere to the guidelines at the same time. drewmunn (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that you finally came to the talk page at the fourth time of asking, rather than reverting something that was agreed upon only a couple of days ago after the article was locked for just such a dispute. As to your proposed alterations:
 * 1) I agree with the first point about falling into the river, but I would like to hear from before any changes take place. He was one of the key editors involved in the recent changes and without his input it opens up a can of worms that I would rather not go into.
 * 2) The second point: I appreciate the current version isn't perfect, but it is better than your first proposed version, so what are you proposing as the text for this now, given the input of others?
 * 3) The moving of the Skyfall references into the previous paragraph I agree with (my apologies: I inadvertently deleted it first time round as I was looking at your edits on the first para only when I reverted). - SchroCat (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that I editted the problematic part only once after your reverted. I editted that time because I thought explaining to you would be enough. I hadn't faced this much resistance even when I overhauled the entire plot section of Prometheus article, because even the most difficult editors there could see that my edits made sense and I wasn't there to add fancruft just for the sake of it. So I proceeded. My edits also covered other points that you didn't explain when you reverted the first time. And since a rule says that a concensus isn't permanent, I added things that I thought wouldn't be a problem. I would appreciate it if you edit out only the offending part in the future, and I would appreciate it if you revert only when necessary as well, as it tends to drive editors away; it almost drove me.


 * Regarding your question one the second point, through a bit of homework, you will notice that we have agreed on using this: "Back at MI6's underground headquarters, Q attempts to decrypt Silva's laptop, but inadvertently enables it to access the MI6 systems and release Silva. Pursued by Bond, Silva uses the tunnel network to escape and travel under London to M's location." drewmunn suggested the starter and we worked from there. I hope you find it to your liking. Anthonydraco (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You utterly ignored any thoughts of WP:BRD in your dealings, even when I had pointed to the discussion both in the edit summary and on in the discussion you started on my talk page. To try and stamp your own version on an article, despite the views of others is arrogant. If your bold edit is reverted, don't revert back: go to the talk page—that's what it's there for and what WP:BRD is all about. It's not about resistance, it's about a consensus-led approach to editing and trying to avoid having the page locked again. It's also about not having someone arrive at the page and stamp their own version on it when they have not taken time to appreciate the previous sticking points. I am, of course, aware that consensus is not permanent, but reverting other editors to impose your version isn't a terribly helpful or constructive way to get consensus. I would appreciate it if you tried talking before warring and revert only when necessary as well, as well as bearing in mind WP:BRD, rather than arrogantly reverting to your own preferred choice. - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not ignore the it. I repeat: I reverted the problematic part only once. Before you call me arrogant, have you considered that once might be accidental instead of arrogant?


 * Here’s how it went: I made first series of edits, and it touched the first paragraph. You reverted it, and told me to go to the talk page and read the discussion. I read it as soon as you told me to. The discussion was about the first paragraph, so I thought I was free to edit the rest. I explained to you on your talk page what I was trying to do, at 15:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC). Then I made other edits on other valid points, (which you agreed that you inadvertently reverted although they were valid.) I made that edit on those valid points at 15:36, 27 November 2012‎. But here was the mistake: since I’ve already explained to you about the first paragraph, I thought, “Hmm, why shouldn’t I add this part in the first paragraph too.” Well, the explanation wasn’t enough. But the point of that revert was not the revert itself, it was to include other points that I thought was OK. The revert was a mistake as much as your collateral reverting those valid edits. Your reply on your talk page came again at 15:37, 27 November 2012, but by that time, I already made the edit. I did NOT ignore you.
 * Well, you reverted it back, naturally. But I didn’t do anything about that part since. And I tried to make sure I read the right discussion. You remember, don’t you? Shouldn’t that tell you that I tried to understand you but failed, not being arrogant? Anyway, you haven't heard me callign anyone arrogant, so kindly stop calling me that. Anthonydraco (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * With all respect, I don't think we necessarily have consensus on the tunnel part. He's only in the tunnels for part of the time &mdash; he doesn't pop up through the floor at the inquiry &mdash; and it's tangential what path he takes. The important thing is that he gets from point A to point B. I'm not sure it matters if he took the tube, a cab, a stolen police car or walked. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, scratch that, then. Tenebrae suggested "Back at MI6's underground headquarters, Q attempts to decrypt Silva's laptop, but inadvertently enables it to access the MI6 systems and release Silva. Pursued by Bond, Silva escapes and with accomplices makes his way to M's location," as they keep things short. (Note to Tenebrae: I took the liberty of altering "M's public enquiry" to "M's location," as the sentence would be put right before "Silva attacks M during a public inquiry into her handling of the stolen hard drive." Otherwise, it would read funny. I made that mistake too.)


 * But I and drewmunn agreed on "Back at MI6's underground headquarters, Q attempts to decrypt Silva's laptop, but inadvertently enables it to access the MI6 systems and release Silva. Pursued by Bond, Silva uses the tunnel network to escape and travel under London to M's location." Both I and drewmunn agreed under the reason that we still have some space and do not have to go for bone-thin summary, since it can be anywhere between 400-700. Anthonydraco (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been asked to share my thoughts on this, so I thought I might.

Point 1 - "Bond goes missing, presumed dead" I see the logic of the argument in favour of changing this. However, I currently see no viable alternative to the current wording. In order to explain the circumstances surrounding Bond's disappearance, we may have to go into detail on how everyone got into a position whereby Eve can shoot Bond, Bond goes missing, and Patrice escapes. In doing so, we run the risk of concentrating on superfluous details and the plot subsection ballooning out beyond 700 words. I have no objections to the plot section going a little over 700, but that tolerance only goes so far.

Point 2 - the Underground tunnels Once again, I see the logic of the argument presented. This, I think, is easily fixed. Here is the current wording of the section in question:


 * Back at MI6's underground headquarters, Q attempts to decrypt Silva's laptop, but inadvertently enables it to access the MI6 systems, allowing Silva to escape from MI6 custody. Pursued by Bond, he uses the tunnel network under London—including part of the London Underground—as part of his plan to kill M. Silva attacks M during a public inquiry into her handling of the stolen hard drive. Bond arrives to join Mallory and Eve in repelling Silva's attack, and M is hurried from the building by her aide, Bill Tanner.

And here is what I think a viable alternative might be:


 * Back at MI6's underground headquarters, Q attempts to decrypt Silva's laptop, but inadvertently enables it to access the MI6 systems, allowing Silva to escape from MI6 custody. Realising Silva's capture was part of a wider plan to confront and kill M, Bond gives chase through the tunnel network under London, including part of the London Underground. After collapsing a tunnel and forcing a trail to derail as a distraction, Silva attacks M during a public inquiry into her handling of the stolen hard drive. Bond arrives in time to join Mallory and Eve in repelling Silva's attack, and M is hurried from the building by her aide, Bill Tanner.

Yes, it's longer than the existing version, but I quite like the semi-formal system we've been using for the past few days, where half of us are adding detail, and the other half are trimming it down, playing to our editing strengths. So I figure others who are better at trimming the word count down might be able to streamline the above a bit.

Point 3 - the first mention of Skyfall

I was the one who originally moved the first mention of Skyfall back one paragraph. The reason why I did this was because the term "Skyfall" existed in isolation; there wasn't really any explanation of what it was. I felt that the best explanation came with the first mention of Kincade and his role, so I moved the term "Skyfall" there instead. This wasn't my first solution; I had originally tried to work the mention of Skyfall into the line about Bond's childhood home, but it just slowed down the flow of the paragraph. I found that mentioning Skyfall alongside Kincade made for smoother reading. It's probably not a perfect solution, but as was the case with the first point being discussed here, I have no alternative to offer up for the time being. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the first point, we won't run the risk of adding more if you added what I've suggested: "Bond falls into a river and goes missing, presumed dead." Because you've already mentioned that Bond fought Patrice atop the train. Atop the train is a precious position one can fall off, especially when shot. And train goes over various terrain, so it doesn't take much of a logial leap that Bond might fall into a river. Nothing more is required. The rest of the editors also find that something should to be added, and they are reasonably happy with my current suggestion. Or at least, their concerns about word count have been addressed, as the end result would reduce the word count. Can you consider this current suggestion for the sake of unanimity?


 * Regarding the second point, since you've already admitted that it's overlong. Would you mind considering either Tenaebrae's suggestion, or mine and drewmunn's suggestion?


 * Regarding the third point, again, most editors are reasonably happy about merging the two parts for the sake of clarity and tightness. We've already reached an acceptable concensus here, but I would like to convince you too, for the sake of the desirable unanimity. Can you consider this current suggestion? Anthonydraco (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Just because I "admitted" the section is overlong, that doesn't mean you should discard it out of hand. Like I said, it can easily be trimmed down, and a trimmed-down version may be better than other suggestions. I don't know how long you have been editing Wikipedia, but dismissing a suggestion for an edit based on a purely arbitrary reason is no way to achieve a consensus. I suggested the paragraph be worded that way because I feel it is the best representation of the events of the film. While I appreciate Tenebrae's ability to edit prose down to somehting succint, I do feel that he goes too far sometimes, and that the version he proposes is perhaps too spartan. The version you proposed, using "location" in the place of "public inquiry" is even more lean. Details cannot be generalised as "superfluous" or "not superflouous", because treating them as such will ultimately result in a move towards a recount that is devoid of any kind of detail and instead decribe the events of the story in the kind of vague sentences that people will need to read two or three times to understand properly. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just for clarification, the purpose of my swapping out 'public enquiry' for 'location' is because that is mentioned, and explained, in detail in the next sentence. It's not to remove content, but because including it would make little sense, as the public enquiry is introduced a sentence later. It's a similar issue as was had with the earlier use of Skyfall, before the estate was introduced. The introduction could be moved to the first sentence, but it's already quite long, and I felt that separating them kept the flow of the paragraph better; it separates the chase from the enquiry, and thereby Bond from M. drewmunn (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Still, I feel that too much emphasis is being put on recounting the events of the plot with the fewest words rather than accurately representing the story. We're well under 700 words, so we might as well use some of the spare words that we do have to flesh it out a little. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been here since 2007, and I haven't violated the 3RR. Anyway, since you have no comments on point two point one and point three and have no other solution to offer, shall we assume that you find it reasonable? If not, can you kindly come up with a counterproposal? The majority is waiting.


 * And if you insist we choose your work and edit it into the article, then I will let others decide this. I have my/drewmunn's alternative to offer; and Tenebrae has his. Since it is not a good idea to get one's way through insistance and sheer obstinacy, a third opinion is required here, it seems. Anthonydraco (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've given you my counter-proposal:


 * Back at MI6's underground headquarters, Q attempts to decrypt Silva's laptop, but inadvertently enables it to access the MI6 systems, allowing Silva to escape from MI6 custody. Realising Silva's capture was part of a wider plan to confront and kill M, Bond gives chase through the tunnel network under London, including part of the London Underground. After collapsing a tunnel and forcing a trail to derail as a distraction, Silva attacks M during a public inquiry into her handling of the stolen hard drive. Bond arrives in time to join Mallory and Eve in repelling Silva's attack, and M is hurried from the building by her aide, Bill Tanner.

Alternatively:


 * Back at MI6's underground headquarters, Q attempts to decrypt Silva's laptop, but inadvertently enables it to access the MI6 systems, allowing Silva to escape from MI6 custody. Realising Silva's capture was part of a wider plan to confront and kill M, Bond gives chase through the tunnel network under London. Silva attacks M during a public inquiry into her handling of the stolen hard drive. Bond arrives in time to join Mallory and Eve in repelling Silva's attack, and M is hurried from the building by her aide, Bill Tanner.

I think it's important to mention that Silva's capture is a part of his plan as it is what allows him to get close to M. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Just because we have the words, doesn't mean we need to use them. As long as we have the key plot points then it shouldn't matter. MisterShiney   ✉    09:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with that. As far as Prisonermonkeys' suggestions, I prefer the second option. It works well at separating the chase and the enquiry, and doesn't go overboard explaining the semantics of the chase. If we go with one of those suggestions, I nominate the second. In fact, I think I prefer it to the one I helped develop, specifically because it adds the realisation element on Bond's part, showing that Silva planned to be caught, and had previously orchestrated other events to get MI6 where he wanted them. drewmunn (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The second for me - it's better than the other versions I've seen. SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Prisonermonkey, yes, you've given me the counterproposal, but only for point 2. I need your opinion on point 1 and 3, which others have already agreed on. The majority is waiting.
 * P.S. My bad, when I told you I need your opinion on point 2 and 3 somewhere above, I mistyped. I meant point 1 and 3. Anthonydraco (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "The majority is waiting"? What's the rush here? This comes across as a little pushy and aggressive, so in the interests of a smooth collegiate approach to this discussion, could you strike it out? - SchroCat (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll wait. Anthonydraco (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I now realize we don't need to say "Back" in the sentence "Back at MI6's underground headquarters...." The sentence reads the same without it. Also, I don't believe we need to say, "Realising Silva's capture was part of a wider plan to confront and kill M...."  That suggests Bond wouldn't have chased the escaping Silva otherwise. It also makes the paragraph needlessly wordy and convoluted. I also don't think we need the full phrase "public inquiry about the stolen hard drive" &mdash; the inquiry is about M's leadership in general, firstly, and since we've already established that she is being pressured to retire, we can simply say "public inquiry" (or "enquiry." whichever is British English).


 * Also, the "safest place he can think of" line is OR speculation. It's not said in dialog, and I gave an at least equally valid OR counter-interpretation based on what Bond actually says.


 * Finally, I'm not sure in all this text where we left it, but I do think it's logical and makes the most sense to name Skyfall at the location's first mention. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't really have any issues with point 1 or point 3. I feel that the content of the article reflects the events of the film, and now it's a question of the precise wording. There are others with better judgement than I when it comes to wording, so I don't oppose any of the proposals; I'll support any alterations that are put forward.

But point 2 is a question of content, and that is where I'm weighing in. I do feel that it is very important to mention that Silva's plan involves getting captured so that he can get close to M, and that Bond realises it too late to prevent Silva from escaping. If not, the paragraph in question lacks cohesion and may leave the reader questioning the sequence because the wording is not clear enough. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as all is concerned, I say we go with Anthonydraco's first suggestions for 1 and 3. For point 2, I say we go with Prisonermonkeys' latter suggestion, with the small change in removing the 'back'. According to my calculations, this drops the word count from 652 to 651 (I made a small change to point 3's suggestion, removing the original research and shifting a pronoun to make it make sense. The text I tested for this was "Bond drives M to Skyfall, his family estate and childhood home in Scotland." The change to the Kincade sentence remained the same). As far as 'enquiry' vs 'inquiry', both are British English. They are relatively interchangeably, but the usual rules (according to my big book of Oxford language) state that 'inquiry' should be used when it is a formal investigation, such as the situation in Skyfall. If it were just someone in the office asking M what had happened, then it would be an 'enquiry'. Confusion abounds. drewmunn (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the inquiry point entirely. The OED specifically lists the term public inquiry as "A formal or judicial investigation into a matter of public concern", so that's the correct version to use. - SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, side note: I agree with Prisonermonkeys, the point 2 content should include what his suggestion does. It makes more sense, and shows the character of Silva; he wanted to be caught, it wasn't just a lapse in his judgement corrected by a chance escape. We need to show it was all a plan from the start, and the wording suggested is succinct and necessarily detailed. drewmunn (talk) 07:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Might it also be pertinent to consider mentioning the train derailment, as I did in the first suggestion? It is clearly a distraction by Silva, designed to tie up the city's emergency response and draw attention away from the public inquiry. It may not be the most important detail to mention, but if we fall short of the 700 word count, then perhaps we could consider using some of those extra words to mention the derailment.


 * If not, then the second proposal - which doesn't mention the derailement - is equally good. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer the second proposal; I think the first is a little over-detailed. The tying up of emergency services isn't enough of a major plot point in my view, but I see your point. I think putting it in may open the floodgates for other editors including parts about the fire extinguishers (paramount for M's escape), or the tractor stunt at the beginning (very similar spectacle). My reservations for including it are partly because I don't think it's entirely necessary, but mostly because I know what could happen to the plot should it be included. drewmunn (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I've made the alterations to one and three, with only point two still under some discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * And y'know, overall, despite a little contentiousness here and there, I think the system worked: Together as a team, we smoothed out the wrinkles to create an actually very nuanced and thoughtful plot synopsis. I, personally, am very happy to have been part of what seems like Wikipedia at its best: truly collaborative. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I felt that we had enough of a consensus going to edit the revised version of the paragraph in.

I also took the liberty of explaining why Bond went to Skyfall in the first place. There was a line about how it was the safest place he could think of, but that got cut. I felt it was necessary to explain why Bond went there, because otherwise it just looked like he went there for no reason at all. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I just figured it was to draw the villain's attention from bombing London to an isolated place where Bond might be able to handle him. Vaguely like what happened in Superman II. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's precisely what happens - but we can't assume that every reader will come to the same conclusion if we don't mention it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder if any reviewer has commented on this (probably not, because it would give away too much): (1) The villain's goal is to assassinate M, and he actually succeeds; but because he goes first, he doesn't know it; and (2) By setting up his old family home for destruction, he perhaps exorcises some demons of his own. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

MGM?
Why is MGM credited here as one of those that distributed the film? The website Box Office Mojo credits Sony and Columbia as the distributors. 120.29.80.220 (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * After looking at a few sources (MPAA and BFI), Sony and Columbia are marked as distributors. A quick check of the slightly less reliable, but always useful, IMDB lists MGM as a producer, rather than distributor. I shall see if I can find anything else to back this up, and make the change. It seems this slipped through the net if it's right. drewmunn (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Sony/Columbia are the same company. Sony owns Columbia, and many Columbia films are simply refered to as being distributed by Sony. I would imagine there would be some concern if the Columbia brand with all its history was dropped in favour of a Sony one.

The main production company (who actually physically make the films) is Eon, and it has been since 1962. MGM came on board when they bought United Artists in the early 1980s (UA distributed the early films), and thus gained the distributor/financier role. Sony became involved in 2006 - since then they partly finance and distribute the films in exchange for about 25% of the profits, but aren't involved in production. The other 75% is split between Eon and MGM (as the main distributor). In the films we see the MGM logo before the Columbia one. TheClown90 (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I knew that Sony owned Columbia. In the material I've managed to turn up, the two are listed as separate distributors, rather than one (as I've usually come across). drewmunn (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * See also the Variety review, which lists the following:"A Sony Pictures Entertainment release of an Albert R. Broccoli's Eon Prods., B23 presentation of an MGM, Columbia Pictures production". Make of that what you will! - SchroCat (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The growling lion and the Ars Gratia Artis ahead of the opening credits are kind of a clue. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We knew they're involved, just the semantics of it escaped us... drewmunn (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ascot
Hey,

Just wondering what happened to the Ascot Racecourse reference about it being used as a backdrop for the airport in Shanghai? MisterShiney   ✉    08:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * See this edit. Removed because there was a tag for unsupported info and no one had added a cite. - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks SchroCat. I really don't understand why people insist on removing stuff without either 1) Looking for something themselves or 2) opening up a talk page discussion on it. I found a Horse and Hound article on their website. There were others, but this seemed the most reliable. MisterShiney    ✉    08:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree - it took me 20 seconds longer than you, but I found a ref in the Aussie media which refers to it too (also added). - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah saw that. Good job! Working together. To get the job done! MisterShiney    ✉    09:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * yes, we can! - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Acclaim VS positive
I have been involved on other film talk pages on which should be used on a film that receives very high reviews, such as 'positive reviews' or 'critical acclaim'. Most people agreed that it would be bias if we used 'critical acclaim', and that the reviews will speak for themselves if a film does have more acclaim than a nother, which is true. For example a reader could look at the score on Rotten Tomatoes and see it is 95% and then the reader will be able to tell how 'acclaimed' it is, we don't need to tell them. And all we need to say is whether the film received positive or negative reviews. If a film does receive high or low reviews though, we can add in 'very' so it will say 'very positive reviews' or 'very negative reviews', respectively.

But, for this page I'm happy to discuss it and come up with a consensus for this page. As I have already said, if we have in 'critical acclaim' it is bias, and we can just let the reviews speak for themselves on how greatly acclaimed a movie is. Adding 'critically panned/acclaimed', even if it was panned or acclaimed is bias because it is like we are ourselves trying to convince the reader with words how good a film is, when like said, the reviews can speak for themselves on how acclaimed or panned a movie is. Neutral language is representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Neutral point of view Charlr6 (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked slightly to "Skyfall has received generally positive reviews", which is correct and neutral. The film has recieved very good press so far, but it has not been without criticism and I think it is only right and proper to reflect this. We are using a lot of reviews in the article and, if they are used peoperly, we do not need to peacock the wording, just let the reviews speak for themselves. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thats fine. Forgot to mention 'generally' can be used as well. Like you said it is correct and neutral. Charlr6 (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * SchroCat First off your summary saying that I should have opened the topic first is incorrect, that responsibility falls to Charlr6 as per the link to the essay (Not policy) that you provided as I was undoing his "bold" change. You can't put a neutral tone on positive reviews. In what way is Critical Acclaim bias? Especially when its saying the same thing as what was changed!! Its pointing out that critics have reviewed the film not just any dogs body on Rotten Tomatoes. MisterShiney  ( Come say hi ) 22:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Some IP just called it "Universal acclaim". I think it is released on Pluto at Christmas, so just waiting for the critics at The Intergalactic Times to give their verdict first. I reverted. --   Cassianto Talk   22:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is bias because us writing in 'critical acclaim' is almost like we are giving our own thoughts on the film, yes it is true the film is acclaimed, but we don't need to say so. The reviews speak for themselves. The readers aren't stupid and will know how more acclaimed this film is than the previous one. And it will point out critics who have reviewed the film no matter what. We could say 'received positive reviews from movie critics' and it is still the same, shows that movie critics have reviewed the film. There is no Wikipedia rule that says we should include 'critical acclaim' if a film is highly praised, there is though for neutral point of view.
 * And I actually came on here and added a new section two minutes before you reverted my edit and told me to discuss this on the talk page. Charlr6 (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Universal acclaim is not true, almost, but not quite. Revert.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  22:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I love some of the stuff IP users come out with sometimes. MisterShiney ( Come say hi ) 23:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it should say "highly positive reviews" instead of "generally positive reviews". The film has mostly received critical praise, and I don't think "generally positive reviews" reflects that fact very well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.139.144 (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "highly positive" is misleading, not entirely correct and poor English, I'm afraid. "Generally positive" is both correct and neutral as it allows for the fact that there have been some less-than-positive reviews of the films. On top of that, rather than just the splitting of hairs over one word, readers are able to read fair and balanced samples of the reviewers own words and come to their own conclusion without us needing to spoon-feed them like children. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 23:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

"Generally positive" implies there are more positive reviews than negative ones. I'm happy to be contradicted on this but I must say I haven't actually seen a negative review yet. I think "critical acclaim" isn't actually biased - just a reflection of the how the film has been received. Am I wrong? 81.96.134.214 (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If you read the section fully, you'll see where there have been criticisms of the film, so "generally positive" is the more appropriate course at the moment. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I have read it fully - thanks for the advice though. My point is that although criticisms have been mentioned, the reviews are overwhelmingly positive, so to describe it as "generally positive" seems inaccurate. If you look at The Dark Knight page, the film is described as having received "highly positive" reviews and it also mentions the criticisms that were made in those reviews. Same thing with The Godfather and Apocalypse Now. I'd be prepared to put down money that no film in history was reviewed without criticism somewhere - the point here is that there do not seem to be any reviews out there of a negative tenor. Although in fairness it isn't out in the US yet. Nsign (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Just looked on Rotten Tomatoes - 93% based on 86 reviews. "Generally positive"? Nsign (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As it has previously said. Generally positive reflects that the film has gotten positive reviews, but also negative ones. 93% is as much positive as one that has 83%. I am for though, like you have mentioned Dark Knight having "highly positive reviews", for the Skyfall page to say that as well. Because 'highly' implies a lot, but not all. Charlr6 (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've changed it to "positively received by film critics" which seems fair to me. Nsign (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? What was wrong with the previous and correct version? The current version smacks of peacockery and does not seem a fair reflection of the fact some reviews have been critical. The discussion here seems to veer slightly towards the previous version, so I'm wondering why it's been changed away from the consensus. That just seems to be done on a personal whim, rather than being the outcome of a fair discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.211.32.34 (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what "peacockery" is.

It's based on the fact that reviews are overwhelmingly positive. This is not opinion, or whim - its fact. Consequently, as per precedents set on other articles (The Dark Knight, for example), to describe it a "positively received" film is correct. I would ask this - when can a film ever be regarded as more than "generally positive" in terms of critical reception, when there will always be critical elements within reviews? The Godfather and Apocalypse Now are both described as critically acclaimed masterpieces and yet they also have critical elements to their reviews which are mentioned in their articles. So why are they not described as "generally positive"? We are trying to reflect the wider critical perception of the film as a consensus view. Going by, for example, Rotten Tomatoes, the film is "positively received". "Generally positive" is, I would suggest, a term suited to a film that was more tepidly received. Amazing Spider Man, maybe. Nsign (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * See WP:PEACOCK for the definition of "peacockery". I've reverted to the general consensus expressed on here and certainly without failing WP:PEACOCK. The reviews contain criticisms and we are a long way away from having all reviews in - sometime after the Aus/NZ reviews come out after 22 Nov. At that point, a more balanced and considered wording can be decided upon, but until then something that covers the positive, while still allowing for the negative, is the best way forward. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 18:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with calling it "generally positive" but I agree to waiting to change it until all reviews are in. However I ask again - how can any film be described as anything other than "generally positive" according to your standards, when some reviews will always contain some elements of criticism, as per the examples of Godfather, TDK etc I've already given? You're setting the bar impossibly high - must a film be reviewed across the board without any criticism at all to be described as "positively received"? And if so, what are they? 194.73.118.78 (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, having read the definition of "peacockery" you are wrong to assert that describing the film as "positively received" meets that definition. Its a factual description of the aggregated critical consensus, not an opinion. Had it read "Skyfall is a brilliant film" you would have a point. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The Godfather has 100% positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. So on that page, it should just say 'positive reviews', because it was all positive. The Dark Knight received negative reviews as well, even though it was only a few.
 * But putting in 'critical acclaim' is bias, because we are putting those words in ourselves, us as editors, so its like we are giving our own opinion. It doesn't matter that it has gotten high reviews, we should just say what the film received - good or bad reviews. Positive or negative. The reviews speak for themselves, and we don't need to tell the readers what they will be able to see themselves. Charlr6 (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not bias or opinion to state that a film has received critical acclaim if that is what it has had. It is a statement of fact. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it is a statement of fact, but we don't need to say that and can just let the reviews speak for themselves. It could say 'highly positive' reviews, which isn't misleading as it did get a high number of reviews. Charlr6 (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a POV. It may only be a small one, but others will interpret the reviews (and the accumlator scores) differently. We have used summaries of a number of the available reviews—including direct quotes—to provide readers with enough information that they can make up their own minds, without us having to fluff their impressions first. Once we get into December, the reviews will mostly be out and the figures will stabilise. I'm happier to allow for some leeway in the language of the opening sentence, rather than needlessly peacock it up, especially as the reviews will speak for themselves. You should also note that although the RT number appears high (93%), it has fallen from the very first shows of 100%, as has the "Top Critic" showing, which is now 89% (down from 100% a few days ago). Metacritic is at 82%, which is another slip on where it was. This is also what tends to happen—we saw it clearly in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy recently: high figures from the UK reviews, which dropped once it opened in the US. - SchroCat (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not a POV. It is, as I have already stated, a factual description of the aggregated critical consensus. No one is "fluffing", "telling others what to think" or "peacocking" and to suggest that describing the film as "positively received" is doing any of those things is incorrect. However as the review situation is fluid at present I'm happy to wait until they're all out of the stalls. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As I've said above, others will interpret the term critical acclaim (and the accumlator scores) differently, which means that any summary runs the risk of being a POV. Either way, the consensus here is to retain the status quo and not use "critical acclaim" on the grounds that it is, or can be constued, as "fluffing", "telling others what to think" or "peacocking". - SchroCat (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to establish a conciseness on how we word how well a film was reviewed and keep it constant for all films. We also need to note a huge flaw in rotten tomatoes scoring, films like jaws and the god father are at 100%, but is this accurate? The only have about 60 votes while most blockbuster films these days get at least 200+. Toy story 3 is a prime example of what happens if the votes are very high and very positive, both toy story 1/2 got 100% but at the very least it's widely accepted that toy story 3 is better than 2 and i am not sure about 1 and if 2 was to get the same votes as 3 it's as a safe assumption that it won't be at 100% score and this gose for jaws and the godfather, there will be one critic that doesn't like the film. So to say for example, jaws is critically acclaimed compared to say the deathly hallows part 2 is very positive would be a very poor comparison as jaws has only a sample of 60 is critically claimed and potter is not. I believe we need to set a definition on wikipedia what defines how well is received and I think the simplest way is set in 10% intervals eg. 60% is postive to mixed reviews, 70% is posstive reviews, 80% is very positive reviews and 90% or greater is critical acclaim, because it looks a bit messed up when two films of similar scores get two different reactions. For skyfall atm callign it mainly positive reviews is undermining it as it sounds like it's good a reasonable chunk of negative reviews like 20%, when infact there is very little negativity against the film 7% of over a bulky 218 votes.86.138.82.224 (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed that there needs to be some consensus on the designation of reviews. However, this can sometimes be troublesome, as the descriptions are so very qualitative. A film may get many 5 star reviews, and a minority of 2 or 3 star reviews, giving it an overall score of 4 stars (80%). Alternatively, a film may get all 4 star reviews, and therefore also get 80%. The phrase "mostly positive" would cover the first film, but not the second as well. Also, it's not Wikipedia's place to question to reliability of Rotten Tomatoes, it's simply used as a review aggregator. Older films are accepted to have possibly skewed results, the same way as they have significantly lower box office profits. With profits, there is a way of adjusting for inflation, but this still doesn't provide perfectly accurate results. There is no such way with reviews. Rotten Tomatoes is one of the best aggregators available, providing a highly reliable overall view of a film. However, it's known that it may not be perfect, the same as any other such source. drewmunn (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If its "it's widely accepted that toy story 3 is better than 2" then Toy Story 3 wouldn't have 99% on Rotten Tomatoes, and a slightly lower score from critics. And you proved no source for that, but everyone I know in real life prefer 2 over 3. And the number of reviews is irrelevant because older films will have less reviews than modern day films. Nothing can help that. Charlr6 (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

As you wish I'll use rotten tomatoes as my source, although it's irrelevant to skyfall, toy story 2 has a score of 8.6/10 with 161 votes while toy story 3 has 8.8/10 with 255 votes, so despite getting 3 negative votes 3 is higher /10 than 2 by .2%, also the score of rotten tomatoes audiance is 91% 3 and 2 72 %, despite them not being critics due to how close the two are and how huge of gap the audience opinions, it's no unreasonable to use the 890,000 audience votes as a decider of which is the preferred film critically. 86.138.82.224 (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be "890,000 audience votes as a decider of which is the preferred film publically", not critically because that still would be Toy Story 2 for the main score. 100%.
 * But like I said, older films will have less reviews than modern day films. Charlr6 (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Why bother using the RT scores at all? They means sweet FA: they are just a number. The true reflection of a film's reviews are in the words of the reviewers, not some abritary and questionable assigning or a percentage score to a critics words. The critics don't assign a numerical rating, so to turn their fine prose into a raw number has always seemed rather suspect to me. - SchroCat (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * They get their percentage by how good reviews are, and most critics seem to give some score. But whether Wikipedia uses RT or not isn't down to us to decide, you can bring it up with the main board, because even if we didn't include it other editors in the future would come along and add it back in, even if we did revert it, we would eventually forget and it would find its place back here.
 * But if you don't want to include it, bring it up with the main board on Wiki, where you can suggest changes. Forgotten what its called. Charlr6 (talk) 11:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "They get their percentage by how good reviews are". So they read a review and guess: they translate finely balanced prose into a hard, dumbed down simplistic number. It's simply not possible to accurately guage a reviewers percentage score based on their prose. That's the issue I have with them. Sadly you are right that if they are taken out, someone who doesn't understand or care what the issues are, will drop them back in again. This problem is at the core of the language we open the section and the arguments here are "acclaim v positive v mostly v general etc", all based on a rather questionable technique. - SchroCat (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Charlr6, like you said older films get lower numbers of reviews and 1% and 0.2 difference are too close to call in saying which is received better critically as the gap in reviews is over 100 which could make a big difference in the score. So it's not a valid to say 2 is received better than 3 on the basis of such a small difference in % and with a huge difference in reviews and like i said before 3 is higher /10 than 2 by .2 despite having 3 negative reviews, which indicates those who gave it positive reviews rated it higher 2. However the audience give us a solid comparison in which is better and as i said over 890,000 voted for 2 and it was 20% lower, it's madness to claim 3 was revived lower critically than 2 as a valid comparison due to a very bulky difference in reviews, this is the same with any film, they need to have similar numbers or something as close as 1% says very little, so we look at the next best thing which is top critics which is 100% and then we go to the lowest order of priority the audience which demonstrates the biggest difference. 86.138.82.224 (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * 286, 431 users gave a rating on Rotten Tomatoes to Toy Story 3 of 91%. While 890,698 for Toy Story 2 of 72%. I'd like to see what the 604,267 people think about it and how the user percentage will then be different.
 * And the older films getting lower reviews is critical reviews before you come back and say mention the different in users. There are more movie critics nowadays than there were 50 years ago. But 'critical reception' is about how the critics received the film. There have been instances about what the public think as well. Charlr6 (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Veterans of the last Harry Potter film will know we've had this discussion before. We say "generally positive" reviews, since even glowing reviews may have some criticisms and since Rotten Tomatoes has no capability of handling middling reviews &mdash; it's either "positive" or "negative," which is a false dichotomy: Many of the things RT classifies as "positive" are actually mixed-leaning-toward-positive. That's one reason we don't use WP:PEACOCK terms like "acclaim." The other it that "generally positive" and "generally negative" and "mixed" are about the most neutral terms there are . --Tenebrae (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I find this very interesting. We are effectively saying that unless a film receives blanket reviews containing no critical elements at all, calling its reception "generally positive" is as far as we can go, and mentioning "critical acclaim" is peacockery? Hmm, I can't say I agree, especially considering precedents already set here on Wikipedia (Dark Knight, Star Trek 2009). However if that is policy I won't argue about it. Just seems to set the bar unrealistically high. Is it right that The Godfather is apparently the only movie worthy of being described as "critically acclaimed"...? Nsign (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that wikipedia shouldn't be the first source to say that something is critically acclaimed. Someone else has to say it first and then we cite them. DonQuixote (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Such as who? There are God knows how many glowing reviews out there now. Its one of the most critically successful Bond films ever and yet Wikipedia is apparently the only place where it can't be described as such? Nsign (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you seen any reliable third party sources referring to the film as "critically acclaimed"? (I'll admit that I have not yet looked, largely becuase the reviews are not all out, and I don't see the point in jumping too early on the phrase before all the reviews have come in). - SchroCat (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Where does it say on Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB 'critically acclaimed'? Meta critic is the only website I know that uses critical acclaim. And it would be better if a big movie review score website said it, than using some silly article written by a journalist that uses 'critically acclaimed'. Charlr6 (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well a quick google search of "skyfall critically acclaimed" gives you recent several newspaper and web articles using that phrase. What reliable third party sources do we need? 194.73.118.78 (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "newspaper and web articles" that are written by journalists who just put any information in, we all know how unreliable journalists can be. Write down literally anything they hear. And if these are movie reviews they would say 'critically acclaimed' just to make their review sort of stick out more and make people believe what they are saying more. Charlr6 (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, the ones that come out after the reviews have come out, which isn't until after 22 November, when the film is released in Aus and NZ. There is absolutely no need to rush into plastering epithets onto the article which are not generally representative of the consensus of the reviewers. "Critical acclaim" also tends to be used for those films which have won awards, which again means there needs to be a delay while reaction to the film mellows, matures and the consensus of the critical community (reviewers, film academies and popularly-voted for awards etc) can be reflected more appropriately. - SchroCat (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Terms like "acclaim" are inherently advertising hype. And I don't think there has ever been a film with "universal" acclaim. Terms like "generally" positive/negative or "mostly" positive/negative are a reasonable summary of factual data that can be reported. And I would also agree that a film which garners a lot of awards could possibly allow the word "acclaim" to show up - after such awards are given. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The term acclaim is not "inherently advertising hype" if that is what a film has received. It is a factual representation of a critical consensus. If it said, "Skyfall got great reviews because its the best Bond film" - that would be hype.

I am perfectly happy to wait until the film is out in all markets before the final wording is agreed. I just find it very peculiar that everywhere you turn (RT, Metacritic, google searches) Skyfall is described a "critically acclaimed" or something along those lines, yet to reflect that on Wikipedia is to "hype" it (as if it needs it) or indulge in "peacockery"? Curious. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not that curious really: journalists tend to exaggerate in order to to somehow "improve" their stories. We don't. RT and Metacritic are rather questionable raw numbers based on the prose of others. We don't. We try and keep neutral language wherever possible and remove all POV and peacockery from something that should be written in encyclopaedic language, not journalistic hyperbole - it's not that curious really. - SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've seen some of the reviews that indeedargue this is the best Bond film ever. Those are folks with short memories. "Mostly positive reviews [so far]" is quite sufficient. If it gets some awards, it might start to edge into "acclaim" territory. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Concur with SchroCat, and in addition: We've had this discussion before at WikiProject Film. If you want to start calling this or any particular movie "critically acclaimed," take the discussion there &mdash; and you will find, as editors have found multiple times before, that WikiProject Film consensus is not to use terms like "critical acclaim". It's for a variety of reasons including non-encyclopedic WP:TONE and because of the apples-and-oranges factor: Skyfall is "acclaimed" for what it is &mdash; as a popcorn action movie that has no relation to real-life, unless you think supervillains like Silva are real. To consider positive reviews for that kind of movie "critical acclaim" is misleading when you talk about works of art that have stood of test of time and in retrospect and with perspective are recognized as pinnacles of the form. Skyfall is great, don't get me wrong. Is it Citizen Kane? Is it ]]Paths of Glory]]? Is it City Lights? No.


 * Take this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. It doesn't belong here. But do everyone a favor use the archive-search function there to see past discussions on the topic before repeating arguments everyone has heard and which have been rejected by consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well thanks for the direction at least - sorry to bore you with arguments "everyone has heard" but I'm not that familiar with how the site works. But who said something had to be Citizen Kane for it to receive "critical acclaim"? And who said Skyfall wasn't a popcorn film? Not me. The Evil Dead is critically acclaimed. So was Toy Story. Are they "works of art"? 194.73.118.78 (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Also - I actually don't say that we should call it "critically acclaimed". I only say that "mostly positive" or "positively received" is a more accurate reflection of the critical consensus than "generally positive". 194.73.118.78 (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Citizen Kane, Evil Dead and Toy Story should all say "highly/very positive reviews", or if there hasn't been a single negative review, we just say "positive reviews". Until there are a few negatives then we should say "generally positive reviews" Charlr6 (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In my view 91% (Rotten Tomatoes) and 81% (Metacritic) positive reviews are "mostly" positive not "generally". In the 2500 edits I have made so far (95%+ in film articles), this is what I have seen in most of the articles when 80+ or 90+ scores are there. When scores are between 70-80 I have seen "generally".Surge_Elec (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As per the above, we're sticking with "generally positive" at the moment until after the majority of the reviews are in, which will be after the film has been released in all territories. Once the mindless and unthinking RT figures are stable a more considered and balanced view can be shown. - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't know this discussion was going on, but the crux of the problem is that aggregators are not arbiters of critical consensus as per WP:AGG. When Rotten Tomatoes says a movie has received 90% positive reviews, this is not a statistical fact. Its sample is not exhaustive (not least because it is limited to English language reviews only), and its criteria for assigning scores is set according to its own discretion i.e. they carry out a survey and provide their own interpretation of the data. Even drawing the conclusion that the movie has "received generally positive reviews" is putting spin on it, because what we really mean is that "Rotten Tomatoes regards 90% of the reviews they sampled to be positive". We as editors should not be extrapolating their results to the film's entire critical reception unless they explicitly do this themselves, which they don't. Betty Logan (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Concur completely with Betty Logan, who is reiterating WP:FILM consensus.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Also entirely agree with Betty Logan. - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think "universal acclaim" should ever be used. I basically agree with Cassianto's Pluto remark above: even if the film got 100% on RottenTomatoes, that is still based exclusively on the opinions of human critics living on Planet Earth ... but seriously, RottenTomatoes does not generally take into account the opinions of critics outside the US/Anglosphere/European fields. In cases like this, it probably doesn't matter, but with certain other films (including old Bond films) they are of course going to be less broadly appreciated in other countries based on their content. But even if there was an accurate way to take cultural/linguistic bias into account, putting the label "universal acclaim" on a film that didn't have those problems creates the impression that the film is objectively better than others, which violates WP:NPOV. Therefore, even in the cases of films like Toy Story 3, the word "universal" should be avoided. elvenscout742 (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Some concerns about first-party sources and self-published sources.
Editors,

First concern,

I'm sure you are well aware of the longevity of the first-party source. But please allow me to remind you again that even though the first-party, official sources about the film are very reliable when they talk about the film, those sources are prone to link rot and will more than likely disappear in a few years from now, even in months. A table such as http://www.skyfall-movie.com/releasedates/ will more than likely be gone shortly after the movie is out of the theatre, as it no longer serve the distributors a purpose, same goes for other similar sources from the official websites, like the announcement of the film premiere. They will be there for only as long as it suits the distributors' sales or publicity. It maybe 5 years from now. But by that time, people will stop caring, and no one will (care to) find those sources again. These sites also go down without notice. So better now while editors are still active on the topic, and while the materials are accessible, than when the article and the sources are dead. We're facing the same problem at The Matrix (film) article, because WB has decided not to host the websites about The Matrix anymore, and now we (two editors -_-' ) are busy finding replacements for those pieces of info, like The Animatrix's DVD release date or 3 million sales press release.

'''So... please consider archiving those pages or similar sources through permalink providers, like http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php and place in the info in its proper format like'''

(If you use Provelt, it doesn't provide boxes for your archive URL and archive date, so see this ^ in editor window for the template and format.)

I've gone ahead an archived the premiere announcement and the release schedule already. But webcitation.org keeps rejecting me at the moment. And this articles has 100+ citations, so it will definitely require your help too.

Notable news report channel sources, like Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times), BBC, The Hollywood Reporters, Gamespot, IGN and such, tend to keep their news in their archives, so those are probably safe. But ITV news on their website are known to disappear. (One did in The Matrix article.) First-party sources that have something to do with its sales or publicity won't last very long. And I am not sure how long Tweets from the official channel will be there. (It's so easy to click delete.) If you're editting a section and is near one such in vincinity, please do the article a favour and archive it.

Second concern,

This article uses a lot of '''Twitter and Tumblr/Flickr photos as references, but after doing some homework, I find that, according to WP:SELFSOURCE, these self-published or questionable sources may only be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Which means that only Tweets from James Bond official channels (verified account) can be used in James Bond article, and actor/singer's Tweets work only when they say the persons do something in/for the film.'''

I've found some unreliable Tweets by some random guys (or even famous guys) about its filming locations in the filming section. I'm sure those photos were real, and I don't want to remove the info in the article yet, as I find it interesting. But the Tweets and pics were not about the person who Tweeted/upload them. I'm trying to find a replacement source at the moment, and you can help too, but in case that we can't, these must go. Anthonydraco (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I suspect that most of the unreliable sources were used because there were no other sources available at the time of writing, but the preponderance of evidence from equally "unreliable" sources suggested they writer was correct. If you can find a reliable replacement, please feel free to use it and replace anything unreliable. - SchroCat (talk) 06:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of the availability. I do this ^ too, sometimes, but I think new editors need to know that it shouldn't be done. My main concern is more about passing the scrutiny when we push this article to GA. That and the longevity of the sources. Anthonydraco (talk) 07:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Most of the unreliable sources are fairly old, if you check the access dates. Anything from about August/September onwards is reliable (mostly), as the new infringing stuff tends to get squashed fairly quickly. There was a lack of reliable sources in the early days of the film as Eon are fairly 'closed doors' when it comes to giving out information. Either way, the whole article will need a re-write before it goes to GA as it suffers from uneven coverage which reflect it being largely written during production. (The background to the title, for example, should be a sentence at most, rather than something that was written piecemeal over the course of a couple of months as news was breaking). - SchroCat (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, I'm keeping the notice to remind users, just in case. And there's still that first concern. Anthonydraco (talk) 07:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's certainly worth reminding people (largely the new editors) about reliable sources. Your first point is very valid and most articles suffr from ignoring this. - SchroCat (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I believe that most old timers are using Provelt, but as it is Provelt's template for citing a web lacks boxes for you to add archive date and archive URL, which might lead to improper format. If you find it troublesome, you can also took the template from the above example. ^ I've altered the template a bit to include the archive date and archive URL. Should reduce some problems. Anthonydraco (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll have a proper look at it later. - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

A side note: Since the current web citation templates do not even suggest that we archive the links, I'm thinking we can do something about including archive date and archive URL into the template. I've started a discussion at. If you think my concern is legitimate, your support and opinions are appreciated there. Anthonydraco (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would think that with something as big as Skyfall, any source you want to replace will have a decent replacement by now so that should make things easier. WebCite is a chore and sadly there isn't an automated way to do it so if people don't do it as they add a source it becomes a big task for whoever is left it. I'd support changes to ProveIt or whatever else that encourages users to archive. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Blake. I'd love to have your support on the Village pump (policy) page. Get it noticed. Seems like someone is working on the citation template, but I wasn't sure if I heard it right. I'm trying to reach the Provelt's team leader at the moment. Anthonydraco (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I was one of the first big supporters of using WebCite on Wikipedia three or four years ago, and I cannot tell you how glad I am to have archived the vast majority of the links I've inserted since then. So many sources have disappeared that if we have any sort of hope for this encyclopedia having lasting credibility through stable, enduring sourcing and footnoting, then it's critically important to use WebCitation.org and Archive.org (the latter of which unfortunately doesn't archive immediately but queues them for future possible archiving, and which I only use when a site's robots prevent WebCite archiving).


 * I don't find it takes long at all to use WebCite: Copy-paste the URL, type in a valid e-mail address, and copy-paste the article title at the very least and hit submit. Takes literally 20 seconds. If you add the writer's name, the publication and the date, which I'd suggest, it takes 20 seconds more.


 * RE: Self-published sources: I didn't realize there's any debate about using such SPS as blogs and tweets: We can only use them for articles about the writer of the blog/tweet himself or herself unless that person is a recognized, published authority in the given field. I think we can use information from verified Twitter accounts only of such people as the cinematographer, say, or the stunt director. There is no way we can use unverified tweets since anybody could be faking those, such as a prankster using Photoshopped images &mdash; indeed, that's the exact reason Twitter started implementing verification ... fake Twitter pages and fake photos were rampant.


 * Facebook is even more problematic. I don't think any of us has to dig very hard to find news stories and other accounts of fake celebrity Facebook pages, or of well-meaning fan pages that can be mistaken for official pages. There is no way to be concretely sure in these cases: The whole point of a good fake is to look absolutely convincing.


 * And aside from all these practical concerns, there's a larger issue: We're not a news site. We don't have to risk our credibility to report every on-set claim, rumor or supposed image (which even if real could be out-of-context and misleading, even if inadvertently). An encyclopedia should only include as concrete, sure and unimpeachable content as is humanly possible, which isn't that difficult: Encyclopedias did this for hundreds of years before the Internet, so we can, too. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fellow editors, you might be happy to know that someone has seen the need to improve the citation templates, and has agreed to work on the WP:Citation templates, to make it include/suggest adding archive URLs and archive date for web citations. No word from the Provelt team at the moment, but we can hope. If you support the change in Provelt, you can go to User talk:ProveIt GT and throw some support on the page. (<--- OMG, the name's written with an I, not an l??? I never knew!)


 * Tenebrae, regarding the unreliable self-published sources, how about tucking it away in hidden comment until we can find the supporting material? Anthonydraco (talk) 03:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I often do that on biographies of living people -- hide content that seems to have a good chance of being properly footnoted rather than erasing it immediately. It seems a good middle ground sometimes. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I found refs that covers every location except Canary Square now. Will add them as soon as it's unlocked. *sigh* Anyway, can someone confirm here that the Portuguese sites really confirm the location? Anthonydraco (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Does anyone around here know whether, when you embed a vid from YouTube, it stores your vid on the page or not? Am I correct to assume that it is hosted on YouTube only, and the vid file is loaded on demand from the Tube? And even if we archive the page on the Tube, we don't get the file, right? If so, I'll forgo archiving its official page that shows it vid, because we can't archive the vid. Anthonydraco (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two wayd of working with videos. The forst is to have a clip that we host on our servers. However, you have to be certain about the video and be absolutely sure that a) it is either free use; or b) that it is fit to pass the WP:NFCC criteria. People are a damned site hotter about videos than they are about images. The other way is to link to the page with a video, such as You Tube. However, you have to be sure that the video on that page is free use or we will be in breach of WP:LINKVIO for linking to an infringing page. - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I see. So we have to host it outside the Tube if we want to archive it. The vid is this one: http://www.007.com/latest-skyfall-videoblog-is-live/ It confirms many filming locations that we're lacking references of. It is, of course, not free. I wanted to archive this one, but after doing some homework, it doesn't have contextual significance, because readers can understand the message without it. So much for hosting it. Seems OK to link to this one, though I have a feeling that this source isn't gonna last three years after this.


 * I've also found another news report about this very vid, and it directly mentions two locations from the vid. It embeds the vid, but even if the vid's gone, there's still the text itself. Though it mentions only two out of many. For now, I'm using this one as well, for the sake of longevity. Anthonydraco (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Archive.org specializes in audio and video archiving, so that might be a good place to go to try to archive that video. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Which particular locations are you tring to find? - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the Protuguese fan site(?) being a reliable reference. If it's an offical site, do tell. I'm not familiar with the series. Anyway, that site contains only a gallery of pics, and even if the pics are indeed the locations, I'm not sure whether the statements count as original research. So now I'm looking for Southwark, National Gallery, Cadogan Square, St Bartholomew's Hospital. I ran into a number of refs for Southwark, but I'm not sure if they're fan sites, or reliable. That's it. I got the rest covered.


 * Oh, and is MI6HQ.com reliable? In case the site is not, I got Vauxhall covered. But the statement 'unlike The World Is Not Enough' and Skyfall's digital effect of bombing, which is from that site, has to go. Anthonydraco (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Try these:
 * National Gallery
 * Cadogan Gdns
 * Various, inc Smithfield, St Barts and Southwark It's in the text, not the vid
 * I have mixed feelings about MI6HQ as technically it's a fansite, but it is a very good one which has standards as high as we do. They are also have a lot of very good contacts and get some great interviews. But it's still a fansite. I use them only when I can't avoid it and it does pass most reviews. The bottom line is that if you can find a more reliable source, then use that instead, but if you can't, put it in and argue the toss later (and hope a new info source pops up that cover it). Hope that helps! - SchroCat (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I couldn't get to a site called MI6HQ.com &mdash; Google Chrome, at least, says it doesn't exist &mdash; but I did find MI6-HQ.com. I've looked through the site and if anyone can find a masthead or any names of editors, that would help. I'm seeing some bylined writers, but whoever is the editorial staff, if anyone, is anonymous, and I don't believe an anonymous fan site can be considered a WP:RS. As well, it has "Log in and "Join" options under "Community," so the bylined articles may simply be user-supplied content, which generally can't be used as reference citations.


 * I also see it has interviews, but without knowing who is conducting the interview, we have no idea if these are journalistic or the work of movie or Bond-estate publicists doing "interviews," quote unquote, that are really just one-sided, whitewashed promotional content. The fact that it's all anonymous makes the journalist in me ask, "Why? If it's on the up-and-up, why keep it secret?" --Tenebrae (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What? So National Portrait Gallery = National Gallery!? I didn't know! The very link you gave me was the one that I said I had. LOL


 * And what's Gdns? I didn't know that Cadogan Square is known by other names. XP But, hmm, Schro, that link you gave me was the one I found too, but I wasn't sure that the site was subjected to editorial. Thanks for the effort, though. I'll make sure to use the first and the last link.


 * And Tenebrae, yes, that's the site I was talking about. I didn't remember the exact URL, sorry. And since you're here, can you (or anyone, for that matter) check the reliability of http://www.movie-locations.com/movies/s/Skyfall.html ? It's Tony Reeves's work. I dunno if that's a big name author in your country. It's the one that Schro suggested, and it covers Cadogan Square.


 * Anyway, since we've concluded that MI6-HQ.com is not a reliable site, I'm not particulary fond of keeping its statement either. But it seems like a waste of effort for whoever found it, so I'm gonna tuck the statement away in the hidden comment until anyone can find a better source. Anthonydraco (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ignore the Portrait page - it was at the National Gallery, not the Portrait Gallery. The Telegraph page has National Gallery so go with that one. Is that the jamesbondbrasil.com reference? Fansite, so it can be nicely covered by one of the refs we've got here. If it's James Bond and Brazil I suspect Igor dropped it in at sometime when there was nothing else available. The Cadogan Gdns (there are a few Cadogan locations in London) is from the image caption on the page, which differs form the text. It's a good point they make about it being John Barry's house - that should certainly be worked in there. - SchroCat (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ps. There are ten MI6-HQ refs in total... - SchroCat (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's gonna take some time before I can handle all the MI6-HQ refs, then. -_-;


 * And Gdns = Gardens? I didn't know. And if it's not Cadogan Sq, what about the ref on Candogan Sq itself? BTW, I have no idea about what John Barry you're talking about. Guess I'll have leave him to you. Anthonydraco (talk) 06:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Go with square, rather than gardens as there is only one ref to gdns and a few more to square. See John Barry (composer) (and James Bond in film): he wrote the music for 12 of the Bond films and the "007 Theme", amongst other things. - SchroCat (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I must've missed something. I'm afraid I don't see any other references on Cadogan Square besides the second link. http://www.movie-locations.com/movies/s/Skyfall.html And I'm not very sure about the reliability of this one. It's not subjected to editorial, and I'm waiting for a confirmation that he's either a big name in the business or not. Or maybe whether it's reliable and how. But be assured that I'm trying to work the rest in, ATM. And thanks for the info on John Barry, but please be careful if you're using the second link to say that a location is John Barry's house. As I said, its reliability is still in question. Anthonydraco (talk) 06:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's reliable: see . - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, you wanna do the honor? Your discovery. It's up to you. I got the rest covered, and I don't mind either way. Anthonydraco (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mind either way, as long as it gets in. If I forget, could you drop it in for me when we re-open? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm done adding replacement references for tonight. I've also added info on filming and locations in the Filming section. All info was sourced. Some part might overlap with Location section and might require some organizing. Feel free to organize them if you see fit.

There are still some refs that rely on MI6-HQ.com. I've replaced about a half of them, but I have no more time tonight. To be honest, I don't want to do the reference for a while. Thank you for giving me time to do it. Anthonydraco (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)