Talk:Skyfall/Archive 9

‎Serious consideration needed for critical reception
I have mentioned this several times now in amazement that Skyfall is written to have "Generally positively reviews". That is just clearly wrong and 92% is the same rating as films such as The Grand Budapest Hotel which have "Widespread Critical acclaim". The main stupid argument against this logical change is that we have no reference to say "Widespread Critical acclaim". But neither does The Grand Budapest Hotel or any other film with that rating. It is stupid and needs to change because at the moment it is a misleading comment that is inline with films of about 72% rating on Rotten Tomatoes which is far far lower than Skyfall. This must be changed --Warner REBORN (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * -The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring 91% "universal critical acclaim"
 * -Birdman (film) 93% "widespread critical acclaim"
 * -Skyfall 92% "Generally positively reviews".
 * --Warner REBORN (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I would argue that the other articles should be pulled into line with this one. Rotten Tomatoes provides two metrics: the percentage of positive reviews and a normalized critic rating; Metacritic also provides two metrics: a weighted normalized critics rating and the spread of positive/average/negative reviews. We cannot infer anything about "critical acclaim" from any of those metrics i.e. aggregators supply quantitative appraisals rather than qualitative ones. Even if they did, we should still not etrapolate generalizations that the aggregators themselves do not make per WP:AGG i.e. the aggregator scores specifically apply to the reviews that they survey and make no attempt at drawing a representaive sample. Betty Logan (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Warner REBORN, If you wish to be taken a little more seriously, please do not refer to a long-standing consensus made my numerous editors as "stupid". If you do, people will be happy to use equally intemperate language about your opinions and thoughts, which is hardly constructive. Bringing over bloated and WP:PEACOCKy language into articles is unencyclopaedic and hardly sits with the part of the review section that says the film is over-rated. As to the other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: just because other articles are not up to scratch does not mean that we should degrade this one to bring it down to the lowest common denominator. – SchroCat (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You can hardly call it overrated. You say other articles are not up to scratch. The general logic has to be seen that other articles are right and this one is wrong when they are all in agreement of a sytem of rating and this one is not. This article can not be the only one right. If you want to change all other articles then do so but you cannot expect this one to be an exception to the rest of Wikipedia. --Warner REBORN (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not the exception to the rest. There are some shit articles that over puff the reviews, reflecting the POV of editors who use peacock terms and the poor selection of vocabulary. There are other, more measured articles which use good, British English, and reflect the reality of the situation in a neutral manner. This falls into the latter group ad I really don't know why we would want to move it into the former. - SchroCat (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, someone reverted the inclusion of Ralph Bakshi's comments on the film -- it's not saying that Skyfall is a stupid movie or a piece of shit, it's saying that a notable film director made these comments. It holds the same weight as including Quentin Tarantino's praise or disapproval of a film under "reception" - and I've seen this on numerous articles. 173.86.184.32 (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I would say his opinion is irrelevant, as is Tarantino's, at least in regards to critical reception. Sometimes "peer" reviews can be interesting if there is a reason why we would care about that person's opinion i.e. Bakshi's opinion on the LOTR trilogy might be relevant given his involvement with that franchise, but I don't see why we should care about his views on Skyfall. Betty Logan (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

October
I'm changing the review section to reflect the critical acclaim Skyfall has received from numerous critics. Here are some articles that are not reviews but are rather articles that reference that critical acclaim Skyfall received from critics http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/23279/skyfall-a-spoiler-filled-exploration, http://whatculture.com/film/dr-no-to-skyfall-how-50-years-has-changed-james-bond.php, http://guardianlv.com/2012/11/skyfall-eclipses-all-23-bond-movies-and-makes-a-good-case-to-end-series-on-top-video/, http://www.theguardian.com/film/2012/oct/15/skyfall-james-bond-critics-daniel-craig, these are just 4 I found within 10 minutes, I'm sure you get my point. I'm actually not sure what the opposing argument is for stating "generally positive reviews" instead of "Critical acclaim" the film is rated 93% on rotten tomatoes, 4/4 on Robert Ebert, 81% on Metacritic, and is widely referenced to as one of the best bond movies ever made, that of course is subjective, whats not subjective, however, is that this movie was very well reviewed by critics and should be noted as receiving "critical acclaim" Stphnpn (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for changing it to your suggested version, so please do not do so unless the consensus changes. We do not overly exaggerate reviews by using terms such as "critical acclaim", but instead adopt a more encyclopaedic tone in our articles. – SchroCat (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you will have to provide a counter argument to my assertion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Tone asserts that "Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable" I'm not sure where encyclopaedic comes in, and even if it required an encyclopaedic tone, encyclopaedic simply means comprehensive and substantiated in terms of the facts. the facts in this case is substantiated and comprehensive. Skyfall received critical acclaim from critics, which not only is represented in the 93% RT rating, the Roger Ebert article, and the 81% Metacritic rating, and numerous other review articles, furthermore, there are numerous articles that reference the widespread critical acclaim the film has received. So again, please state your counter argument against the use of "critical acclaim".Stphnpn (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not have to state anything. This is an encyclopaedia, so an encyclopaedic tone is used. If you do not know how to write in an encyclopaedic manner, perhaps you should try the Bond wiki, rather than this encyclopaedia. Bringing over bloated and WP:PEACOCKy language into articles is unencyclopaedic and hardly sits with the part of the review section that says the film is over-rated. – SchroCat (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have asserted source and citations for my assertions twice in our discussions, and you have not done anything but provide me with your condescending personal view of wikipedia, I'm not sure how thats an argument, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia I understand that, and as I previously cited, "Wikipedia articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable" I do not see how changing "generally favorable reviews" to "critical acclaim" would be against what I have quoted above.  Perhaps you can direct me to an guideline or rule that states how that is against the policy of Wikipedia? Also, I'm not sure I agree with you that "critical acclaim" is an unencyclopaedic term, as I stated previously, encyclopaedic simply means comprehensive in terms of information.  Furthermore, "critcal acclaim" is not the same as "universal acclaim" perhaps you have these two mixed up? Critical acclaim does not preclude the movie from having detractors, it does not mean "universal acclaim". "critical acclaim" is simply a more concise rephrasing of "receiving good or great reviews from critics" there are also no mentioning of "overrated" in this article, perhaps you are allowing your own personal views to affect the wording of this article? Stphnpn (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong on too many points, but all I will do is point out that there is a long-standing consensus to have the current wording, not the overly-bloated and PEACOCKy phrasing you want. It's the consensus that counts, and you have absolutely no idea what my personal view is. – SchroCat (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I feel like I'm in discussion with a teenager, you are not responding to any of my claims and are just saying the same things over and over again. I state again, PEACOCKy language is against policy when it is used "without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information" the case for using "critical acclaim" is backed up with facts and citations, furthermore, "critical acclaim" is no more of a PEACOCKy language than "generally favorable reviews", the only difference is that the latter is more wordy. Stphnpn (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not comment on me, or what you think about me. Comment on the substance of the argument, not other editors. – SchroCat (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but based on your responses, I will be reinstating my edit of changing "generally positive reviews" to "critical acclaim" I have brought up several arguments for this change and you does not seem to be interested in engaging in a thoughtful discussion. In summary, the change is because of the overwhelming evidence of acclaimed reviews (including but not limited to 93% on RT, 4/4 Roger Ebert, 81% Metacritic) and reference to acclaimed reviews that Skyfall has received. Furthermore, the PEACOCKy language argument you have brought forth carries no weight in the matter because as the [WP:PEACOCK]] states that it is against policy to use peacock terms "without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information." with the emphasis on "without attribution" this does not apply to my edit because as I have cited above, the claim of "critical acclaim" is with attribution and therefore not "puffery" or "peacocky" language. Also, the phrase "critical acclaim" is a more concise phrasing to "generally positive reviews" and is better suited for the representation of the critical reviews it has received. There has been no "long-standing consensus" on using "generally positive reviews" rather than "Critical reviews" other than the fact that the former has been here longer, that should not be taken into consideration as a "consensus" without a compelling argument on its side. Please do not revert my changes unless you have a new compelling argument. thanks Stphnpn (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding to your edit, WP:PEACOCK states that it is against policy to use peacock terms "without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information." this is clearly not the same for my edits, the emphasis is on "without attribution" as I cited above, Skyfall received 93% on RT, 4/4 on Roger Ebert, 81% on Metacritic, Skyfall also was referenced as having "critical acclaim" from numerous reputation sites in their articles. I feel this is having attribution to the language and wording I am using in my edit, futhermore, using "critical acclaim' is a more concise phrasing of "generally favorable reviews". critical acclaim is not puffery or peacock language, it is a phrase thats not only a more succinct phrase than "generally favorable reviews", but is also substantiated by facts and citations, and serves as a good summary for the rest of the review section. Stphnpn (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "We do not overly exaggerate reviews by using terms such as "critical acclaim"" (Schrocat) - what are you talking about? I had a quick look at List of Academy Award-winning films, and within minutes, found more than a dozen film articles with numerous uses of "critical acclaim", and variations like "widespread acclaim" and "universal acclaim", with and without "critical" (also "near-universal"). Some of these articles have GA status. I'm not sure why you say "we", or what it is you base your arguments on, but as this editor has requested, you should better support them. Your comment above is clearly incorrect. - the WOLF  child  18:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS is no basis to degrade good articles. I stand by all I have said, including re-stressing the fact that this is a long-standing consensus. – -SchroCat (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean consensus by way of a group discussion with input weighing heavily in favour of this, or implied consensus in that these articles have been this way for some time unchallenged? - the WOLF  child  00:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I find the terms "generally positive" and "widespread critical acclaim" to be banal. MOS:FILM says, "If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly. Detailed commentary from reliable sources of the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) for a film is encouraged." The prevalent term is unsatisfactory, and we need to start quoting sources directly here. For example, it appears that both The Guardian and Los Angeles Times consider one of the best James Bond films in years. That's context that the banal terms lack. The Guardian says critics commended Craig's performance and the casting of Bardem as the villain; neither summary is even presented in the introduction of the "Critical reception" section. Furthermore, Rotten Tomatoes has a "Critics' Consensus" column that details the consensus further, with passages like critics finding it "a nearly perfect balance of drama and action" and it "delivers what viewers have come to love and expect from a Bond film: terrific chases, tense fights, breathtaking scenery, and witty dialogue". This needs to be more upfront than just using bland terms that have been recycled many times over. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The words were along those lines, but I have added quote marks to make it more clear. Rancid Tomatoes is a dubious second-hand summary that doesn't need to be used, considering the individual reviews available elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Rotten Tomatoes is not a dubious second-hand summary. It can be referenced after The Guardian and Los Angeles Times are referenced in summarizing critics' reception of the film beyond the bland term. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it is: Rancid Tomatoes is one of the most hideous excrescences of the internet with their use of dumbed down and idiotic rating system: I'd happily ban mention of them from all film articles. Their "consensus" is nothing of the sort: it is their personal summary, a long way from any form of "consensus". – SchroCat (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * - First off, let's address them by their proper name; "Rotten Tomatoes". When you bastardize the name like that into an insult, you're smearing all the people here that use it as a source. And it is a source, already accepted by WP, so your POV on this is irrelevant.- the WOLF  child  21:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What a load of rubbish you spout. Rancid Tomatoes is a shitty site which is deeply flawed. If you are unable to think how or why that is, that is not my concern, so your opinion is utterly irrelevant to me. – SchroCat (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not "my opinion"... it's Wikipedia consensus. So you're saying consensus is "utterly irrelevant" to you? -  the WOLF  child  23:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I,have said nothing of the sort, so do not try and misrepresent what I have said. – SchroCat (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Now that is funny... - the WOLF  child  00:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC) ,, : Are you willing to discuss expanding the introduction of the "Critical reception" section to be more than just "generally positive" or "critical acclaim"? As I stated above, I think these terms lack context, and with both terms being disputed, we need to expand the commentary to be more detailed and to attribute to sources. I found The Guardian and Los Angeles Times pieces through Googling skyfall "critics", for example. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * - Yes, of course I willing to discuss this. But as I've noted with the discussion below, I don't feel this page is the place to do it. WE should be taking this discussion to the WP:Project Film and/or WP:MOS talk pages. - the WOLF  child  21:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced further bloating is needed. We go on (in the first paragraph) to describe the views of several critics with their impression of the film, so you want to repeat that before the RancidBollocks score, as well as having it afterwards? I'd prefer to remove the front line, open the section with the line that begins "A number of critics...", then add the RT after that. at least it would ensure we don't include the ridiculous "acclaim" claim. - SchroCat (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:FILM, "Detailed commentary from reliable sources of the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) for a film is encouraged." Such commentary is appropriate as a way to provide a summary-level view of what critics collectively thought of the film. Individual reviews are also appropriate, especially from the most authoritative critics, which has been done here. The commentary helps identify what aspects of the film stood out the most across multiple critics, per WP:WEIGHT. For example, the second paragraph, "A number of reviewers praised Daniel Craig in Skyfall," is an originally researched claim because individual reviews are synthesized to draw a conclusion that did not exist before. This can be easily fixed by using one of the above sources to indicate this collective conclusion. I think the Rotten Tomatoes assessment is appropriate to use along with The Guardian and Los Angeles Times, and I'd like to see what others have to say about expanding the wording and using these sources. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Erik, You are making a fetish of the MoS and over-complicating things that really are quite simple. There is no OR here, nor synthesis, but a realistic reflection of what the sources say. - SchroCat (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * SchroCat, please be civil; your edit summary is uncivil. You're welcome to disagree about Rotten Tomatoes, and others' opinions are welcome about the source. However, I am seeing more synthesis here. For example, the sentence, "The supporting cast also received praise," is unsourced and depends on grouping individual reviews together to come up with that summary sentence. We cannot assign due weight to that particular aspect based on just individual reviews. We can use the existing summary-level to indicate the most highlighted aspects, but we should not be coming up with them ourselves. This can be a separate discussion that can be started after we discuss the possibility of adding more detailed commentary to the "Critical reception" section's introduction. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You really are utterly tiresome Erik. I find your attitude to be patronising and annoying, and I find your attempts to own the film project tiresome - it's the reason I no longer take part in its activities - so don't be surprised if I point it out to you. As I have said above, there is no OR here, nor synthesis, but a realistic reflection of what the sources say. As I have pointed out to you before, this article wasn't just thrown together, and it represents the work of a large number of editors, so I don't think that accusing everyone who has worked on this (and who took part in the discussions here, here, here and here) of ignoring sources and synthesising is justified. This topic has been flogged to death to a large extent, and because of the previous discussions on this exact point, it has a pretty strong consensus to remain, without having to veer wildly into peacockery, nor does it need your particular and patronising brand of "steering". - SchroCat (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * - You are waaay out line here. Your comments and your edit summaries are quite insulting. If you can't calm yourself and discuss this issue in a mature and civil manner, then perhaps you should step away until you can. - the WOLF  child  21:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yaaaawn... Perhaps you should remove your head from wherever it is and look to your own block log first and don't act like a hypocrite.... – SchroCat (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow... your arrogance and ignorance is appalling, Maybe you should actually look up the word "hypocrite" before you use it, you obviously don't know what it means. Oh, and look up "irony" while you're at it... - the WOLF  child  23:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yawn.... Any other pearls of your wisdom to cure me of my insomnia? – SchroCat (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope. In fact, don't change a thing. Just keep posting comments in the same manner you have been. Please... - the WOLF  child  00:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * SchroCat, I wish you did not feel that way. I am only interested in writing an encyclopedia, and if you feel like my suggestions are excessive, you can respond to my arguments. I am not saying here that the synthesis here is severe or malicious. In general, it makes sense to summarize the individual reviews that follow in a particular paragraph, but it still implies a conclusion. I am not sure if one can have such a sentence with the reviews' reference tags duplicated to accompany it, with wording like "a few" or "several" instead of saying in general that the supporting cast received praise. If others really think that the current presentation is okay, then I'll concede the matter. In any case, I think the "Critical reception" section's introduction is untenable and warrants more detailed summary-level wording since I think this has worked elsewhere in the past. If editors prefer to go back and forth with the old terms, that's fine as well. I was hoping to suggest a way to get past it with a different kind of approach that would be palatable to all. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't accept that "critical acclaim" is an accurate descriptor in this case. With subjective opinion you can pretty much find a source for anything, so WP:WEIGHT is the relevant policy here. While there are sources describing the reception as "critically acclaimed" there are many others describing the reviews as "positive", and WEIGHT prevents us from arbitrarily defaulting to the more extreme opinion. Films like The Godfather and Citizen Kane are "critically acclaimed" in that they have been held up by critics as examples of the most accomplished films ever made, and have made the cut in numerous critical surveys such as the Sight and Sound poll. So while in theory I don't object to the phrase there must be a high burden of proof when we use it in an encyclopedic sense. If there is a way to make the introduction more specific and representative of the bulk of critical opinion then I don't have an issue with that, but we should take care to not overstate the reception. Betty Logan (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Here are the sources that have been part of the discussion so far:
 * GlobalPost: "The film has earned generally positive reviews from critics and fans."
 * Den of Geek: "With its blistering box office success and near unanimous critical acclaim, the success of Skyfall..."
 * Los Angeles Times: "'Skyfall' is garnering excellent reviews, with many critics hailing it as one of the best Bond films of the series."
 * The Guardian: "Critics have hailed the latest James Bond film, Skyfall, as one of the best in the series in years, a brave and stylish if occasionally sentimental entry which revives Daniel Craig's standing as one of the greatest 007s four years after the disappointing Quantum of Solace... Critics praised Craig's performance... and labelled the decision to cast Javier Bardem as the villain a masterstroke."
 * Rotten Tomatoes: "...critics say Skyfall is a nearly perfect balance of drama and action that winks at 007’s storied cinematic past while delving deeper into the psyche of the most iconic of movie characters... The pundits say the Certified Fresh Skyfall delivers what viewers have come to love and expect from a Bond film: terrific chases, tense fights, breathtaking scenery, and witty dialogue. But it’s also an intriguing character study, one that fleshes out the inner life of fiction’s greatest spy."
 * Sources I found with further research:
 * TheWrap: "...many of America's critics say that 50 years after James Bond first preened his way across screens, he's back with his license to thrill intact."
 * CBS News: "...critics are raving over director Sam Mendes' take on the iconic franchise... The film has been noted by many critics as a departure from Craig's last Bond film, 'Quantum of Solace,' which was not as well received."
 * Entertainment Weekly: "...taking into account its glowing reviews..."
 * Entertainment Weekly: "Skyfall earned rave reviews... featured the first actually-popular Bond song in forever, is generally credited with re-rescuing the Bond franchise from its most recent low point, and somehow managed to introduce all the old pre-Craig tropes (Moneypenny, Q, Monty Norman’s theme, M-as-a-Man) while still feeling fresh."
 * Box Office Mojo: "The enthusiastic reviews ('Best Bond Ever' was a popular one) and Adele's popular theme song helped in the final push as well."
 * BBC News: "The latest James Bond film Skyfall has been praised by critics, with some hailing it 'the best Bond ever'... Critics also praised Javier Bardem's performance as villain Silva."
 * The Washington Post: "...nearly every critic in the world overflowing with superlatives that qualify as slight variations on 'Best Bond ever'... Others were just as effusive as Hornaday, but more inclined to describe this spy-flick-meets-chilly-terrorism-thriller by noting where it ranks based on an array of Bond-related metrics."
 * I like The Washington Post because it indicates putting the reviews in context, basically saying that Skyfall is great as a James Bond film. I think that should be our focal point if we come up with different wording. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * FFS – The usual American hyperbole is the least ideal piece of writing to frame anything in an encyclopaedic way. It's a fucking ridiculous idea to even try to suggest that it should be the focal point of anything. Use something that is much more measured and takes into account the reality. Of the balance of reviews. I've already had to point out to a newbie that the film received negative reviews,I'm didn't think I'd have to tell a supposed experienced editor how to balance their sources, not spout crap just because they've found something they like. Get real Erik and get a sense of perspective on this: it's a very good Bomd film, not Citizen Kane. As Betty has pointed out, "With subjective opinion you can pretty much find a source for anything", and I suggest you take that on board quickly or move on. – SchroCat (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * - Again, you need to calm down and be more WP:CIVIL. Your comments are "culturally insensitive" to the people of the United States. - the WOLF  child  21:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't try and tell me what to do. I am not being culturally insensitive to anyone, which is quite a stupid claim to make. The article is full of hyperbole, which is a trait if many Americans, so perhaps you should try looking at sources critically, rather than just accepting them in a knee-jerk and unthinking manner. – SchroCat (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * PMSL!! So you respond by trying to tell me what to do? I only asked you to stop insulting an entire country and their culture, and what do you do? You reply with even more insults. You are out of control. You lash out at everyone who doesn't agree with you with invective and ad hominem attacks. Calm down already... and act like an adult. - the WOLF  child  23:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Out of control"? I'll bypass the irony of ad hominem comments on others and the rather crass lies only long enough to laugh at you... insulti an entire country and their culture? Possibly the most idiotic thing I've read for a long time on Wiki – which is up against some bloody stiff competition! – SchroCat (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Truth hurts, huh? - the WOLF  child  00:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What a tiresome little troll you really are, and one who spouts such utter nonsense to boot. Given you have no redeeming advantage of a tally improving anything here, I see no benefit in having further interaction with you. – SchroCat (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , what is your impression of these sources? Word choices aside, the summaries indicate that critics consider Skyfall one of the best James Bond films in recent memory. What about a second sentence stating this and mentioning that they commended Craig's performance and the casting of Bardem as the villain? The first sentence could stay as the start-off for the section. Stphnpn and Thewolfchild can weigh in as well. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How about, you patronising dictator, you try opening your eyes once in a while and engaging your brain. Why would we start a review section of a British film with a pile of American hyperbole that doesn't actually reflect reality? As this is a British film on a British subject it should open with a muc more measured review from a British reviewer. I also suggest you search for more negative reviews and see that the Washington Post article is badly overstating the case. – SchroCat (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * - How about you rein yourself in before an admin does? - the WOLF  child  21:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You really are a tiresome waste of space... There is no need to ping me however many times it. Was, especially considering your own rather civil-heavy block log. – SchroCat (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to think that crawling through someone else's history somehow justifies your crass and rude behaviour. Well, it doesn't. It doesn't matter what's in my block log, what matters is what you contribute to this discussion. So far, it's been the childish rantings of someone who must have their way, and if anyone disagrees, then they must suffer the torrent of abuse you heap on them. All I'm asking is that you behave like an adult and treat others civilly. - the WOLF  child  23:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't crawled through anything: I looked at your block log, which shows just what sort of editor you are. I will again pass over your hypocrisy in telling others to be civil while insulting them - your hypocrisy really is quite amusing. – SchroCat (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

What's in my block log has nothing to do with this discussion. You seem to think that trying to smear someone will distract from the issue at hand. It doesn't. And I don't have to look at your rather lengthy block log to see "just what sort of editor you are", I know all I need to about you from your appalling behaviour here. But, please... don't change a thing. - the WOLF  child  00:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop being nasty toward me. I want other editors' input, as you've made yours clear. The sources above are those that summarized the reviews, and I listed them to possibly leverage them here. I think it is worth adding at least a second sentence to highlight the context in which critics like Skyfall (in this case, compared to other James Bond films) and what stood out for them. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Diddums: Iif you stop suggesting ridiculous sources I'll stop pointing out how ridiculous they are. Rather than whining, perhaps if you could address what I have said: it is an inappropriate source to use in this context. You have also also made your opinion clear, so how about you stop trying to muzzle me and either answer my point or shut up yourself? – SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to focus on British sources, The Guardian and BBC News can be used for the second sentence I am proposing. I listed everything I found summarizing the reviews; it is not an endorsement of each and every source. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked over the articles sourced above and I think it's pretty unambiguous that nearly every critic hailed the film as one of the best in its generation. Not every film has to be citizen kane for it to be stated as "critically acclaimed". I looked over the WP:WEIGHT page and I don't believe it is best applied here. the page talks about how wikipedia should not give undue weight to minority held opinions such as the flat earth theory. using "critically acclaimed" as a descriptor instead of "generally positive reviews" is not giving undue weight to an minority viewpoint, "critically acclaimed" does not denote unanimous appraisal, nor is it making the film out to be among the greatest film ever made. furthermore, can someone give a opposing argument for the phrase "critically acclaimed" being a more concise rephrasing of "generally positive reviews" per the oxford english dictionary, acclaimed denotes "Enthusiastic and public praise", so the phrase critically acclaim simply means enthusiastic and public praise by critics, which I believe is an apt description and no different than "generally positive reviews" other than more concise in meaning and length, if someone can make an opposing argument to this I'd love to hear it. Stphnpn (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Stphnpn, I would not support use of "critical acclaim" here. The general consensus, from what I've seen, is that it is too drastic of a statement to be used for any film on Wikipedia. I do not find Den of Geek to be a reliable source, either. I've listed others above, and I think we should use whatever we can agree on and either paraphrase or directly quote that source. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "I think it's pretty unambiguous that nearly every critic hailed the film as one of the best in its generation" – PMSL! If you honestly believe this, then your judgement is poor, or that you are happy to misread things in order to get your own way. This is too far off any reality for anyone to take seriously. – SchroCat (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would have plumped for the Independent, but it's the wrong film... – SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right. I went too quickly and have now removed it. What about The Guardian or BBC News? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither. We already open with a source that provides a review of all critics and there is no reason why we shoud change just because you want it to. As I've pointed out to you before (and you have ignored this point time and time again), there is a consensus on the current wording, and no need to change it. – SchroCat (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I see, I'm not really familiar with the "general consensus" with how wording for the film review section should be, you keep saying that, but can you provide ANY sources? Here are some articles I found pertaining to the summary of reviews of Skyfall. please look these over and make judgement on whether "critical acclaim" is still unwarranted and "generally positive reviews" is more appropriate. Thanks
 * The Guardian "Director Sam Mendes's critically acclaimed 007 adventure is on course to become the highest grossing Bond movie of all time..."
 * The Guardian "The new film... is one of the best-reviewed Bond films since the Sean Connery era"
 * The Guardian "Sam Mendes's film, which has drawn rapturous reviews from critics"
 * The Guardian "Skyfall, the new James Bond film, which has received a rapturous response from critics
 * The Guardian "Critics have hailed the latest James Bond film, Skyfall, as one of the best in the series in years,"
 * The Guardian "Mendes was interviewed long before Skyfall became the most critically acclaimed 007 movie since Sean Connery's early films"
 * BBC News "The latest James Bond film Skyfall has been praised by critics, with some hailing it "the best Bond ever" .
 * BBC News "Skyfall has been praised by critics, with some indeed hailing it as the ultimate Bond adventure."
 * Telegraph UK "One of the most highly praised and eagerly anticipated films of the year, 007's Skyfall
 * Telegraph UK "It has been met with universal praise following its preview and is expected to storm to the top of the box office"
 * Telegraph UK "garnered strong reviews from critics."
 * Telegraph UK "Daniel Craig's Skyfall, which has been a hit with critics"
 * Please keep in mind none of the above are Op-Ed's or reviews, they are summaries of the critical reception Skyfall has received. I can find more if you like, but after just browsing these three sites for skyfall related content on these websites, I couldn't find an article which said Skyfall "generally positive reviews". can someone give me some opposing articles that leans more on the "generally positive reviews" side? Stphnpn (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Stphnpn, thanks for listing additional sources. Clearly I should have searched for more than just skyfall "critics". Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, opening the review section of the film with a quote from the GlobalPost? I'm sure there are numerous publications that are more accredited and than the GlobalPost (a US news site established in 2009), especially for a British film for which the wiki is written under British English.
 * Additionally, there are currently two different article on GlobalPost which say
 * GlobalPost "The film, which has received rave reviews from critics"
 * GlobalPost "Skyfall, the first official Bond movie to make more than $1 billion at the box office, also won rave reviews from professionals and the public"

I can't help but see this as anything but cherry picking one specific article and ignoring all other majority opinion on the matter. Please let me know what you guys think.Stphnpn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How about this? Skyfall has received widespread praise, with critics hailing the film as "one of the best in the series in years" *The Guardian I think this language is not as drastic as "critical acclaim" and it includes a quote sourced from a reputable british news publication. What do you guys think?Stphnpn (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is actually very difficult not to cherry-pick, because different sources describe the reception in different ways. The trick is to choose something that we all agree is representative. We should also bear WP:PEACOCK in mind: just because a source uses hyperbole doesn't mean we should reproduce it. I find some of the different sources you have presented here to be balanced and measured in their language:
 * The Guardian: "...one of the best-reviewed Bond films since the Sean Connery era."
 * The Guadian: "Critics have hailed the latest James Bond film, Skyfall, as one of the best in the series in years..."
 * The Telegraph: "...garnered strong reviews from critics."
 * I think those three are consistent with the thrust of critical opinion and the wording has an encyclopedic tone, and we could possibly fashion those into a less generic summary. Betty Logan (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that its different not to cherry-pick, but I do not feel like "generally positive reviews" is apt summary for the critical reception its garnered, its overtly neutral when the consensus, at least in my research, has been overwhelming favorable. Especially when "generally positive reviews" is quoted from a publication that was newly established in 2009 and based in the US, and when the publication has two other articles on its website stating that Skyfall received "rave reviews".
 * I believe "Skyfall has received widespread praise, with critics hailing the film as "one of the best in the series in years" *The Guardian" is a good starting point, the language is not as drastic as "critically acclaimed" and it has a quote cited from a reputable British publication. I'd love to get some discussion on the wording. thanks.Stphnpn (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think words like "praise" and "acclaim" are loaded terms, unless the film is an especially momentous critical achievement. We are discussing the reviews so let's focus on what types of reviews the film has received: I think something along the lines of "Skyfall received strong reviews from critics, making it one of the best-reviewed Bond films since the Sean Connery era" would accurately reflect the types of reviews presented in the section, without the gushing tone of a fanzine. Betty Logan (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think "praise and acclaim" has the gushing tone of a fanzine. In the review section, every cited review has praised the film in one way or another, even those that did not like the film, shouldn't that garner the word "praise" in the opening sentence? Also "strong reviews" does not make note of the widespread and almost universal praise the film has gotten, per my sources from the British publications, furthermore, "strong" is a too much of an adjective to be objective, how do we truly measure if a review is "strong"?. For "widespread praise" there are only yes and no questions to be answered, has the film gotten praise from critics? Yes, per the sources cited above. Has the praise been widespread? Another Yes. So I would argue that "Widespread praise" is more appropriate than "strong reviews" Stphnpn (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) But, Betty, even an atrocious film like "Dark Knight" has numerous sources claiming it has received "widespread critical acclaim". And while I agree that films like The Godfather and Citizen Kane are classics, not everyone likes every film or agrees upon which films are great and which aren't. If an unusually high number of critics rate a film positively (for example, 250+, including dozens of 'top critics' on RT) then that is by definition "widespread acclaim". If out of any significant number of critics, only a very few (or none even) don't rate a film highly, then surely there is nothing inappropriate about calling that "universal" acclaim. I think we need to at least agree that if these terms are used in a source, then we should be able to directly quote that, just like wiki-policy states. But we should further recognize that many people, not just editors, but people in general, use these terms and phrases, therefore we should figure out the best way to include them, but in a meaningful and relevant sense, instead of just arbitrarily removing them from every article. Like I said above, many film articles use these terms already, and I haven't seen anyone complain about it ('til now). - the WOLF  child  00:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is everything wrong in claiming "universal acclaim", including the fact it is incorrect, let alon unencyclopaedic. You may not have seen it being discussed before, but that means little – the archive pages of several big films (and the film project talk page) have many, many threads over such crass and bloated terminology. – SchroCat (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There may be articles where that terminology exists but I certainly don't condone it. I also don't agree that a high percentage of positive reviews equates to critical acclaim: if every critic were to give a particular film three stars then it would have unanimous positive reception despite the majority of critics thinking it is merely an "above average" film. states above that he finds phrases such as "widespread critical acclaim" to be "banal" and I agree with this sentiment: just because we can source something does not guarantee inclusion, and an encyclopedia should endeavor to use formal language and tone when presenting factual information. Betty Logan (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally we don't document a critical reaction that isn't widespread, so I question whether it really needs to be said. Also, I think there is an important distinction between "strong reviews" and "praise": critics review a film, they don't just praise it. Many of those 4-star reviews also included gripes and criticisms too, even if the overall tone of the review was highly positive. This section is summarizing reviews, not praise that the film received, so I don't think the terminology is neutral. Anyway, I have said my piece and we shouldn't monopolize the discussion so maybe we should wait and see what other editors have to say. Betty Logan (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "widespread" is modifying the word "praise" so in essence it would mean that positive reviews or positive praise for the film have been common and sweeping. A film thats more controversially reviewed would not have "widespread" praise. Moreover, if all of the reviews, despite having gripes and criticisms, have a "overall tone that was highly positive" shouldn't this signify "praise" for the film? and not necessarily "strong reviews" since a review can be in praise of the film but not "strong" in its praise?Stphnpn (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I only mentioned "universal" with one narrow example. If others don't care for the term, that's fine by me. 'Widespread' on the other hand can be useful. Some films are small, and by that I mean limited release or straight to video. They only have a handful of reviews. Other films are blockbusters, released all over the world and are reviewed by many, many critics all around the planet. Whether it's acclaim or condemnation, it certainly can be called 'widespread', especially if all (or most) of those critics basically agree. "Acclaim" is used regularly and widely in a multitude of widely recognized journalistic sources. I don't see a problem with it. Lastly, I will say (again) that we should probably move this discussion to a more appropriate venue. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  01:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I for one concur with everything SchroCat and Betty have to say here. I suggest that those disrupting things here, move on.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   00:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd love to get your argument and opinion with facts and citations, what you have just said is just too empty for me to take seriously, I can make another account and say I agree with myself. but it serves nothing to the discussion and is pretty disruptive Stphnpn (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would really appreciate a link or a cite to those discussions. I feel like we're just going in circles, I bring up sources and it doesn't get recognized and we're back to square one. I feel like your argument is simply "I got here first so my say so is final", which shouldn't be the way things are. Perhaps "universal" acclaim/priase is difficult to substantiate, but "widespread" acclaim/praise should be obvious and is evident in the sources that were cited. I still think "widespread praise" is appropriate for this, since its not overtly strong like "universal" and "acclaimed" and is objective in nature so not to violate peacock guidelines. Stphnpn (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to repeat everything that has been written above. I agree with SchroCat and Betty, and that's all you need to know.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   00:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What part above do you agree with? Why do you agree with that position? What are your reasoning for agreeing with that position? Do you have any statements you would like to add? What are your sources and citations? What are your response to my arguments?  What are your response to my citations and sources?Stphnpn (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What part of "I concur with everything SchroCat and Betty have to say here" do you not understand?  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   07:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thats great but what does that add to the discussion? This is not a popularity contest. Please stop disrupting the discussion, thanks Stphnpn (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Another editor voicing their opinion is not in any way "disruptive", so please do not try and drive people away just because they happen to disagree with you. His opinion has as much weight as mine, yours, Betty's, the WC's and Erik's. – SchroCat (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No it does not, I can create another account or get a friend to say I agree with myself, but what does that add to the discussion? your opinion is weighted ONLY in the validity of your argument, the facts and citations you bring. Now back on topic, can anyone give me a reason why "Widespread praise" is opposed upon? I will again list the sources I found in the three foremost reputable British News publishers
 * The Guardian "Director Sam Mendes's critically acclaimed 007 adventure is on course to become the highest grossing Bond movie of all time..."
 * The Guardian "The new film... is one of the best-reviewed Bond films since the Sean Connery era"
 * The Guardian "Sam Mendes's film, which has drawn rapturous reviews from critics"
 * The Guardian "Skyfall, the new James Bond film, which has received a rapturous response from critics
 * The Guardian "Critics have hailed the latest James Bond film, Skyfall, as one of the best in the series in years,"
 * The Guardian "Mendes was interviewed long before Skyfall became the most critically acclaimed 007 movie since Sean Connery's early films"
 * BBC News "The latest James Bond film Skyfall has been praised by critics, with some hailing it "the best Bond ever" .
 * BBC News "Skyfall has been praised by critics, with some indeed hailing it as the ultimate Bond adventure."
 * Telegraph UK "One of the most highly praised and eagerly anticipated films of the year, 007's Skyfall
 * Telegraph UK "It has been met with universal praise following its preview and is expected to storm to the top of the box office"
 * Telegraph UK "garnered strong reviews from critics."
 * Telegraph UK "Daniel Craig's Skyfall, which has been a hit with critics"

furthermore, if you look at criticism the film has received in the latter part of the review section, and I quote '' "Xan Brooks of The Guardian, in an otherwise positive review, criticised the "touchy-feely indulgence" of "the bold decision to open Bond up – to probe at the character's back-story and raise a toast to his relationship with M"" Similarly Philip French in The Observer tempered his praise for the film by highlighting "some lazy repetition" and argued, "the badinage is often perfunctory and Bond is as usual captured too easily and too easily escapes"Edward Porter, writing in The Sunday Times, considered that while aspects of the film were "achieved with wit and panache",[135] he found that the climax to the film was slightly disappointing, although the "weaknesses in the final stages are not serious, however, and the film's brief epilogue is wonderful". '' These passages makes it clear that while there are criticism for the film, it is always coupled with praise. Based on my aforementioned reasons, I believe "widespread praise" is appropriate in serving as a summary for the review page.

"I can create another account or get a friend to say I agree with myself". That is the second time you have said that: are you suggesting that someone here has logged in under that account to voice their opinion? If so, do you have any evidence? – SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * When did I say that? I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of giving someone's opinion weight when all they say is "I agree with xx", and by stating anyone could achieve the same thing by creating a new account. Please return to the discussion. Stphnpn (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

~sigh~ As can clearly be seen, I didn't say you did say it, I asked if you were suggesting it. It was a question, thus the use of the question mark. I see now that you were just making a rather spurious straw man argument without merit. That's all to the good, but try not to waste everyone's time too much, will you? – SchroCat (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * you said "are you suggesting that someone.."  and I replied "when did I say that" you were suggesting something I did not explicitly say and I disputed your suggestion, please do not accuse me of things I have not done. furthermore, I was not making a straw man argument as I addressed the proposition in question  "I agree with xx"  and did not misinterpret the proposition, and my reply was  because discussions are weighted in the validity of the arguments and citations brought forth, opinions which say "I agree with xx" should not carry any weight because it is not a popularity contest and that agreement could be achieved by creating another account or bringing a friend over to the page.  Please stop disrupting the discussion and address my aforementioned argument for "widespread praise" thank you Stphnpn (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not disrupting the argument, to that one won't fly. As below, we are waiting for other editors to give their opinion, which will be given the same weight as Cassianto's, mine, yours or anyone else who has taken part in this, despite your attempts to decide what should or should not be taken into account. – SchroCat (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How could you say you're not disrupting the argument when you have accused me of something I haven't done, and accused me of raising a straw man argument, both of which are refuted and are not true?  Stphnpn (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good grief you're making this hard work. I asked you a question by way of clarifying something you have said twice. I accepted your explanation and pointed out that it is a straw man (which it is). Time to drop the stick and let others have their say on the salient points. – SchroCat (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good grief you're making this hard work. You did not accept my explanation, you suggested I was insinuating something which I did not explicitly say or mean, which I refuted. You then accused me of raising a straw man argument, of which I also refuted because I addressed the proposition I was replying to and did not misinterpret the proposition. So I'm not really sure what you are doing here besides attacking my character.. Which can be taken somewhere else and I will be happy to engage, but this is a discussion for the wikipedia page of the film Skyfall, so please stay on the relevant issue. thanks. Stphnpn (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't be obnoxious by repeating others words in that way. I asked you if you were accusing anyone of WP:SOCKING, for which editors can blocked. It's a serious accusation, so I am entirely justified in asking if that is what you meant. I accepted that you were not, but if you weren't, then your argument of belittling someone's opinion by saying 'anyone can create a second account' is, by its very being, a straw man argument. I've had enough of your tiresome trolling on this point. You may have nothing better to do, but I have, and will let others post their germane opinions on the matter, rather than listen to you. – SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good grief! There you go again, accusing me of another thing of "trolling" I think anyone who's read this page can see that I alone have provided more sources and citations to support my arguments. Just as you say you are entirely justified in accusing me of one thing, how am I not "entirely justified" in accusing you of disrupting the discussion by making personal accusation to my character? Can you provide more clarification on this matter? Stphnpn (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I will not. I have said what I need to say, and will not engage on this point again, except to say that it is unwise to write something on Wikipedia that could insinuate that someone has registered a new account to back themselves up in an argument. Anything else on this point you wish to say is pointless and immaterial, as I have told you several times that I accepted that you did not mean to make such an implication in the first place. – SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I will also stop engaging in this quite childish back and forth, please refrain from further personal attacks. Now lets get back to the discussion at hand.


 * I am proposing a change of the first sentence of the review section to be "Skyfall has received widespread praise, with critics hailing the film as "one of the best in the series in years" *The Guardian I believe this to be appropriate because
 * Numerous publications have stated that Skyfall received critical acclaim, though the wording of each article is different, they can all be understood to say that skyfall has received "widespread praise" here are the sources from three foremost accredited British publications.
 * The Guardian "Director Sam Mendes's critically acclaimed 007 adventure is on course to become the highest grossing Bond movie of all time..."
 * The Guardian "The new film... is one of the best-reviewed Bond films since the Sean Connery era"
 * The Guardian "Sam Mendes's film, which has drawn rapturous reviews from critics"
 * The Guardian "Skyfall, the new James Bond film, which has received a rapturous response from critics
 * The Guardian "Critics have hailed the latest James Bond film, Skyfall, as one of the best in the series in years,"
 * The Guardian "Mendes was interviewed long before Skyfall became the most critically acclaimed 007 movie since Sean Connery's early films"
 * BBC News "The latest James Bond film Skyfall has been praised by critics, with some hailing it "the best Bond ever" .
 * BBC News "Skyfall has been praised by critics, with some indeed hailing it as the ultimate Bond adventure."
 * Telegraph UK "One of the most highly praised and eagerly anticipated films of the year, 007's Skyfall
 * Telegraph UK "It has been met with universal praise following its preview and is expected to storm to the top of the box office"
 * Telegraph UK "garnered strong reviews from critics."
 * Telegraph UK "Daniel Craig's Skyfall, which has been a hit with critics"


 * Detractors of the film make it clear in their review that they praise or give acclaim to certain parts of the film if you look at criticism the film has received in the latter part of the review section of the wiki page, and I quote  "Xan Brooks of The Guardian, in an otherwise positive review, criticised the "touchy-feely indulgence" of "the bold decision to open Bond up – to probe at the character's back-story and raise a toast to his relationship with M"" Similarly Philip French in The Observer tempered his praise for the film by highlighting "some lazy repetition" and argued, "the badinage is often perfunctory and Bond is as usual captured too easily and too easily escapes"Edward Porter, writing in The Sunday Times, considered that "while aspects of the film were "achieved with wit and panache" he found that the climax to the film was slightly disappointing, although the "weaknesses in the final stages are not serious, however, and the film's brief epilogue is wonderful". There are some films that are controversial in nature in that some critics denounce the film entirely while others give it acclaim, these films should not garner the summary "widespread praise" However, in reading the above passages its quite clear that while the film is not without its detractors, these detractors make it clear in their review that they praise or acclaim to certain parts of the film. so even though wholly praiseful reviews may not be universal, "widespread praise" is appropriate.
 * GlobalPost has conflict within its articles and is not accredited/reputable enough to be used as the lead quote source The current passage of Skyfall received "generally positive reviews from critics and fans", according to the GlobalPost. should be removed as not only is GlobalPost not a reputable and accredited publication (it is a US news publication established in 2009) there are also 2 other articles on GlobalPost which say Skyfall has received "Rave reviews"
 * GlobalPost "The film, which has received rave reviews from critics"
 * GlobalPost "Skyfall, the first official Bond movie to make more than $1 billion at the box office, also won rave reviews from professionals and the public" This is cherry-picking a specific article to fill a narrative that is not substantiated by the majority of reputable news publisher articles.

I think that by the sheer multitude of reliable journalistic sources using the words "acclaim", "critical" and even "widespread", along with "praise", in their critical film reviews (among other places) demonstrates that it's perfectly acceptable for these words to be used here, as long as they are used appropriately. I understand that a couple of editors don't care for these words and that these editors may feel their opinion has some weight due to the fact the contribute a great deal. While we of course appreciate their contributions, their opinion is equal to anyone else, and their position simply lacks merit. Do we really need to drag this on any further? - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  17:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The wording "widespread praise" is appropriate because it avoids debated adjectives like "strong", how can be truly tell how "strong" a review is? We can't, its pretty subjective. However, the phrase "widespread praise" is substantially less subjective because the phrase can be answered with yes and no questions. Has the film received praise? Yes. Is the praise widespread among critics? Yes. Of course these answers are answered in conjunction with the sources I've provided above. These are my points, feel free to add to the discussion to let me know what you think. Please refrain from commenting if it adds little to the discussion. i.e. personal attacks. Stphnpn (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we do need to drag this out any further. You and are in favor of using such terminology while myself,,  and  are not. There clearly isn't a consensus for initiating alterations, so the existing version should be retained per WP:NOCONSENSUS. Betty Logan (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But Betty, my understanding was you guys were looking to have these words banned. I'm not arguing to add them... they're already here. As I have already pointed out, numerous articles contain these words. Articles that have achieved GA/FA status. Articles where I don't see anyone complaining about it. So, if anything, you and your little group do not have consensus to remove them. Cheers. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  18:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "you and your little group"? Nice. There is no consensus to change to that wording at the moment, despite your personal wishes. The fact you have not seen people complaining about it means little – there have been many, many threads on this topic. – SchroCat (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not as if there are a great many of you, is there? But whatever, I said what I have to say, and by now, it's hardly surprising that you choose to not WP:HEAR it. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  19:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And there are less people who prefer your wording.... Who is it that is showing signs of WP:ICANTHEARYOU? – SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you're persistent. I'll give you that... - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  19:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the context, that is a bizzare, pointless and meaningless comment. Could your try and makes sense in future? – SchroCat (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Tell me just what it is you are having such difficulty understanding, and I'll see if I can help you. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  21:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not. I doubt you'd understand, and if you did it would only give you the opportunity to both add further ad hominem comments, and possibly put yet more incoherent nonsense down. – SchroCat (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What a strange reply. But at least you admit you're having difficulty. (they say that's the first step). I find it laughable that you think I would insult you. Your "ad hominems" far outnumber mine. (do I even have any?). Oh well, lemme know if you change your mind. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  00:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You do not think you have made any ad hominem comments...? I do hope that's a joke! – SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Didn't state... asked. And now apparently I have to repeat myself, for like the bah-zillionth time; "Your "ad hominems" far outnumber mine." - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  16:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I fail to see how there can be any changes to any article on wikipedia if someone supports the original wording, there never be an agreement to the issue no matter how or what the reasoning for change is. Stphnpn (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked over this section again, and another editor brought up a good point that I missed. per MOS:FILM, If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly I think its pretty clear we're in dispute of "Generally positive reviews", so if that phrase is a paraphrase, it should be removed or replaced with a quote from a source directly. and if we're using "generally positive reviews" as a quote sourced from GlobalPost, then this passage from MOS:FILM is relevant, Detailed commentary from reliable sources of the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) for a film is encouraged and The overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources 


 * GlobalPost has conflict within its articles and is not accredited/reputable enough to be used as the lead quote source. GlobalPost not a reputable and accredited publication because it is a newly established US news publication (created in 2009), additionally, GlobalPost has conflict within its articles as there are also 2 other articles on GlobalPost which say Skyfall has received "Rave reviews"
 * GlobalPost "The film, which has received rave reviews from critics"
 * GlobalPost "Skyfall, the first official Bond movie to make more than $1 billion at the box office, also won rave reviews from professionals and the public"
 * So to sum up, per MOS:FILM "generally positive reviews" cannot be sourced from GlobalPost because it's not a reputable news publisher, and it has conflict within its own articles. If "generally positive reviews" is not sourced from GlobalPost, then the dispute we're in mandates that we remove the paraphrase "generally positive reviews" and source directly from a quote from a reputable news publisher Stphnpn (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct. There is a dispute. There is no consensus either way. The policy does say to quote the source directly in such cases. I would still give Betty (and... Schrocat) another opportunity to reply before making any changes, but I don't see how this can be argued further. Perhaps you all can finally find some middle ground. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  05:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * GlobalPost is a reliable news source. If you wish to challenge it on that basis, this is not the venue, and you will need to go to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard to have a decision on whether it is reliable or not. Please file there and report back on what they say. You also ask for a direct quote: what we have there is a direct quote: it's the words in between the two quote marks. – SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I state again, GlobalPost is not appropriate for a opening statement citation
 * because of its conflict within its articles, 'how do you explain the fact that it has 2 other articles on its site that state Skyfall has "rave reviews" ? 
 * GlobalPost "The film, which has received rave reviews from critics"
 * GlobalPost "Skyfall, the first official Bond movie to make more than $1 billion at the box office, also won rave reviews from professionals and the public"
 * GlobalPost is also a newly established US news publisher, existing only since 2009. We should be using a prominent UK or British news publisher because of the Br Eng this article is written in and because Skyfall is an British film.
 * Furthermore, I know that its a direct quote. I stated that per MOS:FILM "generally positive reviews" cannot be sourced from GlobalPost because it's not a reputable news publisher, and it has conflict within its own articles. then I stated if GlobalPost is removed as a source, then the phrase "generally positive reviews" becomes a paraphrase or other articles and should be changed to a direct quote to a more prominent and reputable British news publisher because we are in conflict to the wording. Hope that makes it clear. Stphnpn (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You thinking that it isn't reliable does not make it so. Go to Reliable sources/Noticeboard to have a decision on whether it is reliable or not. As to the differing opinions in the same source, so what? Have you never read a newspaper that offers two opinions on the same topic? If not, then I suggest you try The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent or The Guardian and see how many opinion pieces or columns differ from either the editorial or another column—often on the same page. Either way, there is no point you trying to claim the GlobalPost is unreliable unless you go through to the right Noticeboard to get a decision from them. – SchroCat (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am exercising common sense, do you really wish to tell me you equate GlobalPost as being equal to Telegraph, BBC,The Guardian.. ? Similarly, your statement of "you thinking that it isn't reliable does not make it so" should also make it clear that what "you think" should be reliable does not make it so, which applies to the case here for GlobalPost. what you have sad about differing opinions apply to editorials and columns, when I stated countless times above that none of the articles I sourced are articles of Op-ed or column or reviews, they are reporting on the box office of Skyfall or its actors. Stphnpn (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For further clarification, I am simply for changing the source for the opening statement to a more prominent and reputable British news publisher, such as the guardian, bbc, telegraph etc. Stphnpn (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ~sigh~ Once again, please do not misrepresent what I have said. I did not equate GlobalPost with those newspapers, except in the sense that a) they are both classed as reliable sources, and b) all those listed can and do publish diametrically opposed views on the same subject. As to your claim that "they are reporting on the box office of Skyfall or its actors" just isn't true. Any publication that describes their view of all the reviews is not reporting on the box office, which is a monetary value, but is passing an opinion on the other reviews. As I will repeat for the third time: go to Reliable sources/Noticeboard to have a decision on whether GlobalPost is reliable or not. – SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2015
CRITICAL RECEPTION: The Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano commemorated the 50-year run of the James Bond franchise in the occasion of the Italian release of “Skyfall.” The  newspaper has overlooked such niceties and given delirious coverage to the latest Bond film, claiming it shows a new, introspective side of the British agent while thankfully cramming in the usual dose of exotic locations and "extremely beautiful Bond girls".As interpreted by Daniel Craig and envisioned by the director Sam Mendes, this Bond is “less of a cliché, less attracted by the pleasures of life, much darker and more introspective,” the Osservatore film critic Gaetano Vallini wrote in one of five articles dedicated to the Ian Fleming spy. “And because of this he is more human, even able to be moved and to cry.” "Skyfall does not disappoint. The 23rd Bond film is one of the best in the longest cinematic story of all time," it states, adding the film "does not lack any of the classic ingredients which have made James Bond a legend – the title credits song, adrenalin pumping action, amazing hyper-realistic chases, exotic locations, extremely beautiful Bond girls, the usual super villain and the essential vodka martini."

212.77.3.222 (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC) Source: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/31/bond-may-be-no-saint-but-hes-worthy-of-vatican-attention/ http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/02/apparently-the-vatican-loves-james-bond/ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/31/vatican-paper-james-bond-review?INTCMP=SRCH http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/holy-moly-skyfall-gets-vatican-seal-of-approval-8273713.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2225721/Skyfall-gets-Vaticans-holy-seal-approval.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/30/entertainment-us-jamesbond-vatican-idUSBRE89T1H520121030 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/jamesbond/9645296/Vatican-lauds-human-James-Bond-licence-to-cry.html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/31/skyfall-james-bond-vatican_n_2049829.html http://entertainment.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/01/14852576-skyfall-given-thumbs-up-major-spread-by-vaticans-newspaper?lite

<The original review http://gaetanovallini.blogspot.it/2012/10/skyfall-007-licenza-di-pangere.html
 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. -- ferret (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion has reached a consensus. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Consensus being to keep $1,109 million on gross. Charlr6 (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Box Office Gross Formatting
. Is there a reason you don't want to follow the guidelines for MOS:LARGENUM and MOS:NUMERAL? AbramTerger (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, as per BRD, please discuss instead of reverting, not as well as. Secondly, we do adhere to both those guidelines. As per the note there, a million and a billion refer to differing amounts in differing territories, and this format gives clarity to those are who still consider a billion to be a million million, not a thousand million. Finally, don't add a source to it: it is sourced within the article and needs no additional (indeed, duplicated) reference. - SchroCat (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is compliant with both guidelines as far as I can tell. Betty Logan (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If it is consistent, then it seems that the Template:Format price is NOT set up correctly. I used the template to format the value, I did not manually format the value. As I see it, the guidelines with MOS:NUMERAL are for using the $1.11 billion not $1,108.6 million. MOS:NUMERAL states: "billion and trillion are understood to represent their short-scale values of 10^9 (1,000,000,000) and 10^12 (1,000,000,000,000), respectively." so the concern about misunderstanding is misplaced per WP standards. Also the film is a UK/US film and in both countries the short scale is used (the UK fully adopted it 40 years ago). Using a billion also keeps consistency with the rest of the article. From the lead:"Skyfall was positively received by critics and at the box office, becoming the 14th film, as well as the first Bond film, to cross the $1 billion mark worldwide". From the "Box Office" section: "Skyfall has earned $1.1 billion worldwide" and "Skyfall's takings at the box office saw it become only the fourteenth film and first Bond film to gross over $1 billion, making it the seventh highest-grossing film ever made at the time and taking it past the inflation-adjusted amount of $1.047 billion earned by Thunderball." If the consensus is that "$1,108.6 million" should be the format for the total gross in the infobox then we as editors should be consistent and use the "$1,000 million" instead of "$1 Billion" throughout the article. That can cause confusion when paraphrasing/quoting an article that uses $Billion (eg "Box Office Milestone: Daniel Craig's 'Skyfall' Crosses $1 Billion Worldwide". Also the category in wiki is "Billion-dollar grossing films", not One-thousand-million-dollar grossing films". As editors we need to be consistent within the article and also between articles. AbramTerger (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Just because Format price applies an arbitrary level of precision doesn't mean we are beholden to it, nor does it mean it is incorrect. It's simply a tool to facilitate formatting. There is nothing in the MOS that dictates precision, that is dependent on the context. Considering that film industry economics primarily operate in units of a "million" I would say the level of precision in the article is appropriate. I do agree that we should either consistently use a "billion" or consistently avoid the term though, and since a consensus stands to not use the term then occurrences of it should be brought into line with the rest of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The precision in Format price can be adjusted as desired, it is the fact that it uses billion vs 1,000 million that I question if we want consistency. I can live with the 1,000 million. Thanks for making the changes.AbramTerger (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be simpler to just use the full dollar amount of $1,108,561,013? There is enough room on the side bar for the full number to fit, and it would eliminate any confusion. Wyldstaar (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. This is the first article on Wikipedia I've seen where the British million is used. In some other movies grossing over a billion (or million), the full amount is recorded. (Eg. Avatar, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Transformers: Age of Extinction, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, etc.) Otherwise, the more widely-accepted American "billion" is used. There are no others that use the British "million". PhilosophicalZebra (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Per MOS:LARGENUM the figure is rounded down. Per consensus on this British film article, the short form is used. - SchroCat (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The 'British billion' has not been used for some time. Britain uses the same billion as anywhere else; meaning a thousand million. The British Treasury uses it, all education establishments use it; if it's good enough for them it should be good enough for this article. (82.27.188.98 (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC))

No further edits should be made to this section.