Talk:Spectre (2015 film)/Archive 3

Request for move to Spectre
It was moved very recently to "SPECTRE". While it should be lower case, not capitalised. I do not believe there is a single article that truly follows the rules of Wikipedia that does have it capitalised.

Request for it to be moved back to 'Spectre'. Charlr6 (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

After watching the film, the credits make it clear that the film is SPECTRE - by example, the credits for Skyfall showed that Skyfall is lowercase - hence the capitalisation JCRendle (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Star Wars looks capitalised on film... Charlr6 (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Star Wars doesn't reference a specific plot point in the movie JCRendle (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You said the credits of Spectre 'make it clear' that it is capitalised. How do the credits of a film, refer to a plot point? Where did you explicitly see in either opening or closing credits, it should be capitalised? As the previous films have had capitalised titles too. Charlr6 (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose The capitalization in the film could just be a stylization, and per MOS:TITLE we do not emulate stylizations. For the record, Danjaq filed the the copyright on the film under the title "Spectre aka Bond 24", and that is the closest thing we have to an official statement in regards to whether the title should be regarded as an acronym or not. You can see the registration at Copyright Catalog (search on the registration number PRE000007713). Betty Logan (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Glad to see it was put back to the correct uncapitalised version. The name Spectre is not an anagram or initials: it is a name, and therefore should not be capitalised. – SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Even if it still becomes an acronym in future films, this still has to be lower caps. Charlr6 (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Any body who knows anything about the James Bond canon from the books knows that SPECTRE is an acronym and should therefore be capitalised.Pitcroft —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This may be a staggering piece of news to you, but this isn't about a novel. Since the reboot of the series in Casino Royale, many of the original conventions and tropes have been slowly reintroduced, but in a very different format than either Fleming or the original Eon films suggested (Moneypenny as an former field agent, for example; Blofeld as the son of Hans Oberhauser for another). The name of the "new" Spectre in this film has not been described as acronym, abbreviation, anagram or any other wordplay, so we have to represent it as it stands in the film, not as it exists in some fan-based in-universe sense. – SchroCat (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If it isnt about the novels and trademarks from the Fleming estate, then what is it about? Eon productions are fully aware that they have to adhere closely to the format of the novels in style. The books are the canon and not a fan based universe. I suggest you read chapter 5 of Thunderball! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitcroft (talk • contribs) 20:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * To explain this once again, the series was re-booted with Casino Royale (2006 film) and many of the tropes were reinvented in a very different way from both Fleming and the previous Eon films. The examples of Moneypenny as a former field agent (a massive departure from novel and former Eon canon) and of Blofeld as Hans Oberhauser's son (a  monumental  break from Fleming and previous Eon films). In this film Spectre has been reintroduced and there was no mention of this being an acronym, abbreviation, anagram or any other piece of word play, so we don't reflect it as such. – SchroCat (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Why are some of the paragraphs in this article marked with SPECTRE in capitals and not others? Surely we need consistency after all the arguments over accuracy? After having been blocked for trying to correct the article and adding the canonical capitals seen in the proper Fleming books, surely we can have a universally harmonious webpage? Pitcroft —Preceding undated comment added 10:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Because of the context of the paragraphs in question. When discussing the acquisition of the SPECTRE rights, it refers to the organisation in the novels. When discussing the organisation in the film, "Spectre" is used, because that's how it's referred to in the film. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There is recognition of that. – SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, the movie's Facebook page consistently renders the name in all-caps, which suggests to me it ought to be in all-caps here. MrArticleOne (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Facebook fails WP:RS. Completely. Facebook is probably one of the reasons why RS exists in the first place. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think how the owner of a piece of protected intellectual property chooses to style that property in its official communications is very relevant and about as reliable as anything else in this particular context. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * And when it's styled in lowercase in other official communications&mdash;like the synopsis on the official site&mdash;the Facebook page is moot. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well, for what it's worth, given the conscious effort it takes to put something in all-caps, I would be inclined to err on the side of all-caps rather than not. Rendering it in ordinary type can indicate one of two things: (1) a conscious decision to render it in ordinary type, or (2) standard copy-editing that is not done with an eye toward this issue. By contrast, putting it in all-caps can only (it seems to me) be a conscious decision to render it in all caps. Consequently, I would be inclined to construe upper-and-lower examples in the 2nd fashion I mentioned in light of any examples of all-caps usage. MrArticleOne (talk) 07:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Your logic could apply in equal measure to the inverse: that the person who wrote that article made the connection to the organisation and put it in all caps when writing it. Given that the organisation is never referred to as "SPECTRE" in the film, we can't really call it "SPECTRE" in the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * MrArticleOne, 1. See here and the use of the name in lower case. 2. Eon did the same thing with Skyfall (links are posted further above). It's a marketing thing to make the name stand out, and the correct legal way of showing registered trade marks. – SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Both viewpoints perhaps have validity? I have seen pages that promote Spectre (or SPECTRE) as an acronym and as a name in itself. Shanklin1914 (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2015 (GMT)
 * Maybe redirecting to "SPECTRE (2015 film)" is the best. Vincent60030 (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Ralph Fiennes as M?
Ralph Fiennes is officialy credited as 'M' in this film, surely the credits should be altered to reflect this? (As it would be in keeping the official credits and the crediting of the roles of 'Q' and 'M' on other Bond wiki pages.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.137.226 (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm for it. Even though Dench's M appears in a posthumourous video message, he is the new M. Anyone with a brain shouldn't be confused by it. Charlr6 (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The character is give a name beyond "M", and uses it in the film. Simply referring to him as "the new M" is not enough. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Fiennes is credited in the film as "M", the listing here should reflect that. I am concerned about the name given to Judi Dench's character. The source seems dubious at best. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The name Gareth Mallory could still be used in the description of the character- (in much the same way the name Oberhauser is used in the description of the characer of Blofeld)- but really at this point it seems like we should be following the proper credits with Fiennes as 'M'.

(As the primary reason given previously about why he was being credited as Mallory first, is that it was a place-holder until we knew the actual credit. And we do know without a doubt that he is credited as 'M' in the film.)106.68.137.226 (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. I have no objection to Gareth Mallory being mentioned in the description. But Fiennes is credited as 'M' in the film. The article should reflect that. Maybe something like "Ralph Fiennes as M, code name for Gareth Mallory, the head of MI6." SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm curious about why the Ralph Fiennes credit has been reverted back to crediting him first as Gareth Mallory? (Especially as no argument has been brought forward as to why the official credit should not be followed with his character) 106.68.148.15 (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The cast list does not reflect the official cast list at all. Léa Seydoux is credited as "Dr. Swann", not "Madeleine Swann". The cast list is not the only official source for character names. We know that Fiennes is both Gareth Mallory and M, and given that two characters known as "M" appear in the film, we need something a little more official than "the current M" and "the previous M". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The relevant section of the MoS doesn't make any judgement on the selection of which name appears next to a character. We know he's called Mallory (he introduces himself to a policeman in this film as "Mallory, 00 section"), and we know he is M. Both sets of details are present in the film and in our description. The order in which they come isn't too much of a problem, but I admit I prefer the name Mallory followed by the title M, just as we have Bond followed by 007. - SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Except unlike with the characer of Bond the precedant with the series has been to follow the official titles of 'M' and 'Q' when they are credited as such, even when their civilian identites are known and (such as in 'The Spy Who Loved Me'.) So while I agree that the description of the character should also refer to him as Mallory, as all official information refers to him as 'M' (and it is only in a single scene of the film where the name Mallory is used in reference to the character), it would seem logical to continue with the precadent of the Bond series and refer to him first as 'M'.
 * (And surely official credits, and the precadent set by the series previous films, should matter more than personal preference. As you said yourself muh earlier in the debate: ″He is credited as M, but as Mallory too. This is something of a stopgap until the credits roll on the film and we can see how he has been credited: we will follow the cast list as soon as we know it. We don't have to follow the other lists at the moment - and certainly not for Brown, as no-one know whether his character was Hargreaves or not. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)"


 * We have the cast list, so surely it should be followed over presonal preferance?)106.68.45.171 (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. The film's official cast list should be the starting point and then additional details can be added from there. SonOfThornhill (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that there is a bit too much fixation on the cast list to the exclusion of all else. And to complicate things, it's only being selectively applied; the argument is "Fiennes should be listed as M because that's what the cast list says", but nobody is making the argument that Seydoux should be listed as Dr. Swann even though that's how she is credited in the cast list.


 * Our job as editors is not to faithfully and painstakingly recreate the sources that we use. Rather, our job is to present content in a way that is most representative of the subject matter, supported by reliable sources. Sometimes, yes, we will recreate sources, but other times we can&mdash;and must&mdash;use our discretion. A prime example of this is the team and driver table in the 2015 Formula One season article. It is based on official documents related to entries for races, and contains all of the same information as the sources provided by the sources given, but the table itself is organised in a way that the editors feel is the most effective and the most efficient for its intended purpose.


 * The same logic applies here. We have a character who uses two names throughout the film. Furthermore, one of those names is used by two characters, and one of those characters was only ever officially know by that name. Our job is to present that content in the way that best represents the film, provided that we can prove a reliable source to support the content. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying don't include the name Garth Mallory, just that the starting point be how he is credited in the cast list of the film. My original suggestion was "Ralph Fiennes as M, code name for Gareth Mallory, the head of MI6." That is most representative of the subject matter since he is referred to a M through most of the film and only once or twice as Mallory. SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I only brought up the cast list, with regards to Fiennes, because when previous releases from Eon were brought out crediting him as 'M' (The theatrical Poster, Press-releases, Tweets from the Offical James Bond twitter account) the argument was made that we were waiting for the cast-list to see how he would officially be credited. The argument then is not really 'Fiennes should be credited as 'M' because that was his credit in the official cast list', but 'Fiennes should be credited as 'M' because that's how he was credited in the initial announcement of the film, on press-releases, posters and in the official credits on the film', and the consistant crediting of him as 'M' by Eon is an important reason why I'm suggesting the credit for his character needs to be hanged. As you say Prisonermonkeys, the intent is to present the information in a way that is representative of the subject manner: in this case Fiennes has consistantly been credited as 'M' in the lead up to Spectre in official Eon releases, it is in keeping with the precadent set by the earlier films in the Bond series and consistant with the film Spectre where he is referred to as 'M' throughout the film (and only refers to himself once as 'Mallory' at the climax.)
 * As SonOfThornhill suggests, the name Mallory should still be used in the character description (in much the same way Oberhauser is used in the description for Waltz's character), but a credit of Fiennes as 'M' would be more representativve of the film than the current credit.106.68.45.171 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Adding slightly to this discussion- if Fiennes is credited as Mallory first, and M second, why is referred to throughout the rest of the article as M? (As he consistantly referred to as M in the article, in Eon's promotional material, in the official credits and on the poster credits, having the name Gareth Mallory first seems arbitrary and more likely to cause confusion. Having the order reversed maintians the precedent set by the prior Bond films- including Spy WHo Loved Me where both Q and M are referred to by their own names- is in keeping with the credits and Eon's promtional material, and in keeping with the rest of the article, where the character is referred to as M.106.68.73.237 (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Good points. Can't argue with the your logic. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Before you add to the conversation, how about you read it? It has been made quite clear that the article only needs to represent the source it doesn't need to duplicate it exactly. Your insistence on crediting Fiennes as M first has actually created a sentence with some very poor grammar and overlooks the fact that two Ms appear. Get a consensus before making any further changes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I read the conversation, and have seen issues raised with the current credit that you have chosen not to acknowledge. My edit did not overlook the fact that there are two M's in the film, Fiennes was cleary stated to be 'the recently appointed head of Mi6', which clearly helps distinguish him from Dench's M, who is referred to as Mallory's predecessor.
 * While we do not have to duplicate the source, having Fiennes credit as Mallory first is less representative of the source; as the name 'Mallory' is only used once in the film and he is otherwise consistantly referred to as 'M.'(And using Mallroy as the primary credit is more likely to create confusion given his character is consistantly referred to as 'M' elsewhere in the article.)

While my grammar could be improved, your response hasn't acknowledged one of my central issue with the credit: why is Fiennes character primarily referred to throughout the article as 'M', then credited first as Mallory? (As it's prominence would suggest a credit of Fiennes as 'M' first would be more representative of the film. Or if it makes more sense to use the name Mallory first, why is his character not referred to as Mallory in the rest of the articel?) 106.68.73.237 (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I would make a change of Ralph Fiennes character, by mentioning him as the new M first I guess. Vincent60030 (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, show me the policy that says articles must perfectly and unequivocally duplicate their sources. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, you DON'T need to duplicate the same sources on EVERY sentence. Well, maybe it is optional but I would prefer to do so as it is easier for readers and reviewers to review the article. The best way is to duplicate it on more challengable sentences. Vincent60030 (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I support the wording "Ralph Fiennes as M, the code name of Gareth Mallory, the recently appointed head of MI6 and Bond's superior." It reflects how Fiennes is credited and referred to in most of the film as well as in the article's plot synopsis. But doesn't ignore the history of the character and that he does identify himself as Mallory once in the film. While it is true that we don't need to duplicate sources, I have yet to hear a logical argument that supports the current wording. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed, while has repeatedly stated that we don't need to duplicate sources, what they haven't addressed is the issues raised with the current wording. (And instead by choosing not to properly address the issues raised by other editors, they make it more likely that this will remain an  an ongoing issue.) 106.68.73.237 (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The only "issue" is that it does not list "M" before "Mallory". Which is not an issue at all, because it still contains all of the information from the source, and is a convention consistent with other entries where a character's name is given before their code name. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In what other entries is a character's name given before their code name if the code name was how the character was billed? SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll let you know as soon as you explain why different EON sources bill the characters differently. Fiennes appears as "M" in the documentation for the film like press releases, but the credits within the film call him "Mallory". You still haven't bothered to address that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but you are mistaken. The credits in film bill him as 'M' not as Mallory. So now it is your turn. In what other entries is a character's name given before their code name if the code name was how the character was billed? SonOfThornhill (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Except the credits within the film don't call him 'Mallory', he is credited in both the opening titles and end credits of Spectre as 'M', and it is inconsistant with other entries to have billed as 'Mallory' when he is credited as 'M', and only referred once as 'Mallory in the film. (A simillar occurance happens in 'Spy Who Loved Me' with both 'M' and 'Q' but they are still credited with their codenames, as thsose were the names used primarily for the characters in the film and how they were billed in the credits.)
 * There hasn't been a single document released by EON in relation to 'Spectre' that has credited the character as 'Mallory', he has been consistnatly credited as 'M' by Eon. 106.68.73.237 (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * BTW In terms of EON here is the Fiennes page on the official 007 website: http://www.007.com/spectre/m/ He is billed a 'M' not as Mallory. SonOfThornhill (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Additionally, while you are right that the core issue is the ordering of the names Mallory and M, what you haven't addressed are the issues people have with the current ordering (namely it's inconsistant with the rest of the article where Fiennes character is referred to primarily as 'M', it's inconsistant with prior Bond enteries where characters who are billed with their code-names in the credits are billed the same on wikipedia, it does not reflect the billing and promotional material where Fiennes is billed exclusivley as 'M', and it does not reflect the film itself where the character is referred to as Mallory only once in the climax and is otherwise referred to as 'M'.) If the name 'Mallory' had been used more than once in the film/ promotional material, an argument could be made for not following the films credits, but when the credit doesn't even reflect the rest of the article it just adds to the confusion. (As you've stated we don't need to perfectly dupliate the source, but we also need to accuratley reflect the source. And if a character is billed under an name, referred to by that name throughout the film and the rest of the article, crediting them under than name in the cast list would appear to be the most representative of the source.) 106.68.73.237 (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Still waiting for an answer to my question: In what other entries is a character's name given before their code name if the code name was how the character was billed? SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Poster
I'm not sure if it's required that film posters match their country of origin to the film's country of origin, but nevertheless, I believe this article should feature the British release poster for the film, such as the other James Bond film articles, and of other British films. Any thoughts? Cheers, K atástas i (κατάσταση) 21:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I would support this. File:Spectre 2015 poster.jpg shows a history of changing from vertical to horizontal and vice versa. We can set a consensus here to use the UK poster. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I support the previous version, the horizontal one used in the UK. K atástas i (κατάσταση) 00:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no requirement to use the poster from the film's country of origin. The current image is the film's international poster. SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Madeleine Swann
Proust reference? Schissel | Sound the Note! 03:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Certainly. Also, the helicopter chases/fights bookending the film contain several clear nods to the pre-titles sequence of For Your Eyes Only (1981), the point where Blofeld was last seen in a Bond flick (and had the tables turned on him in such a hilarious fashion). 83.251.170.27 (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Indian censor cuts long kissing scenes in this movie.
Please mention in this wiki article that Indian Censor Board says no long ‘kisses’ in Bond film ‘Spectre’, & also in Twitter #SanskariJamesBond trend was created regarding indian censor says no long ‘kisses’ in Bond film ‘Spectre’. source Ram nareshji (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's really not important. At all. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

But Sex Tape (2014) wiki article mention about Indian censorship statement, then why it is not important here? It is also trended in twitter. Ram nareshji (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The Sex Tape article shouldn't mention it. There is something of a habit forming where Indian perspectives get extensive coverage in English-language articles when the Indian perspective has no business being in the article at all. It over-emphasises the importance of the Indian market. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; please tell me how any of this is relevant. It's a few Twitter users angry at a government censor in a secondary market. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * A bit of this info can be pieced into the article, not TOO MUCH. Apparently, the info about it is not that much at all. So, why not have a mention of it plus it is in a subsection? In addition, you can place a note about the main article being Sex Tape (2014) in this case. Am I right, and ? Vincent60030 (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * India is hardly a secondary market. In population it is the second highest country in the world. But that is not the point. There are rules and guidelines here that every editor should follow, no one editor is above them and has the right to unilaterally delete a whole subsection of an article without first gaining a WP:CONSENSUS of other editors first. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree . No harm in including a mention of it in a subsection. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Just because something happens, that doesn't mean that it's notable enough for inclusion. Especially when no context is given and it violates WP:TWITTER. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That is your personal judgment. Other editors disagree. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring: "According to some sources"
IP. Stop edit warring please. I will not hesitate to file a report on you should you revert again. The addition of "According to some sources" is an utterly pointless addition: all our information is according to some source or other. The sentence has stood for some time, so we have an de facto extant consensus in the wording. Your challege to it needs to be discussed to change that consenus. – SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2016.


 * It's clear that you regard this subject as your own personal possession and that further pedantic discussion on the subject is pointless.. – Shanklin1914 (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent way to open your side of the discussion, with insults to those who don't share your point of view. If you'd like to try again but with a different attitude you are more than welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need a trumpet from your mouth to you ear when it comes to insults. From the start your tone has been aggressive and bullying to those who don't agree with your assertions on the film. See the above start of the discussion for evidence, though I do concede it's difficult to see faults in oneself.. I look forward to a more polite response from you and not threats to silence me unless I obey your diktats. User:Shanklin1914lShanklin1914 (User talk:Shanklin1914ltalk) 18:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.38.164 (talk)
 * No discussion about why we need to follow your wording? Do you have any good reason, other than your preference? Just to add, could you try and stay on the path of honesty in your responses: I have never made any "threats to silence" you, or given any diktats. – SchroCat (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the evidence itself speaks from your opening comments above as to your attitude when it comes to those who want to contribute another viewpoint. Its clear you dont tolerate the slightest dissent, and my honesty has nothing to do with it. Only one of your references could be viewed as valid, the other being merely a link to the movie website. The other is a third party article based on an assumption and is not part of Bond lore.User:Shanklin1914lShanklin1914 (User talk:Shanklin1914ltalk) 18:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So, no evidence that I have ever made any "threats to silence" you, or given any diktats? Thought not. – SchroCat (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * A threat to report me unhesitatingly unless I leave your article alone is a threat to silence. Your words above speak for you.User:Shanklin1914lShanklin1914 (User talk:Shanklin1914ltalk) 18:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, please be honest. I informed you of the edit warring policy and said not to revert again or you would be in breach of WP:3RR. I then suggested that you use the talk page. This is all as per policy, regardless of your claims. – SchroCat (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Fair enough SchroCat and thank you for being polite on this last comment. It is genuinely appreciated without any hint of sarcasm at all. Perhaps its a wikipedia template you were using and I understand, but it sounded appallingly rude as an opening gambit in discussion. I have my problems with that paragraph, but its obviously a circular 'your word against mine' argument that no one really can master. Perhaps we can work together and rework some of the paragraph that by its nature is always a work in progress? User:Shanklin1914lShanklin1914 (User talk:Shanklin1914ltalk) 18:56, 8 March 2016
 * Thanks for your comment. Given the opinions of other editors below, it appears there is little appetite for change – based on the policy and MoS guidelines they have quoted, and with which I agree. If you think there is a better reason for including the wording (or variants of it) then we'd all be prepared to consider those too. – SchroCat (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I have to agree with SC here. The current wording is fine. It doesn't need to be changed. SonOfThornhill (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Have you seen my amendment though? It just adds a 4 word caveat, thats all. I do accept guess thats its fair enough as long as the article isn't seen by the public at large as anything other than a forum for opinion and not a definitive description of the film.User:Shanklin1914lShanklin1914 (User talk:Shanklin1914ltalk) 18:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not a caveat. It's weasel words. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No not at all, but perhaps POV railroad. User:Shanklin1914lShanklin1914 (User talk:Shanklin1914ltalk) 23:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Not even a little bit. "According to some sources" is the very definition of WEASEL. It's vague and non-committal; it essentially builds a loophole into the prose so that if anyone challenges the assertion with an alternative source, an editor can say "well, I didn't mean that source". Adding "according to some sources" further implies that there is an alternative source out there that disproves the claim entirely. Do you have such a source that proves the organisation is called SPECTRE, as opposed to Spectre? And if so, would you care to share it? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, people disagreeing with you does not automatically make it a POV railroad. A POV railroad would look like this: Spectre was very polarising across the Atlantic. British critics loved it, but American critics hated it&mdash;so much so that if you discounted the American critics, the film's RT score would climb ftom 64% to about 85%. If we consciously discounted the American critics and only included the British response on the grounds that it is a British film and therefore only the British opinion mattered, we have a POV push. If you tried to introduce the American response and we bullied you into backing down, then&mdash;and only then&mdash;would we have a POV railroad.


 * Furthermore, POV railroads are extremely rare. They're not the sort of thing that I would expect a user with less than two dozen edits to be familiar with. It's usually a sign of a sock. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * POV Railroads are when a clique coalesce around an opinion they all hold dear with and expel and try to ban those that disagree with that groupthink. That has happened here throughout the history of the article. 3 or 4 'editors' have decided that the article belongs to them come what may, and of course in an open forum like wikipedia nothing can be done to prevent this. I found out about POV Railroad by simply looking at the wikipedia help pages, a process able to be accomplished by anyone regardless of how 'experienced'. It could be argued that adding to a paragraph or providing a caveat is not edit warring as the text hasn't been removed. However I do accept that is a subjective matter depending on viewpoint and the vehemence of the discussion.


 * My sources for SPECTRE instead of 'Spectre' are the Bond books. It may be that some third party references in the links provided have assumed that the acronym has been replaced by the word, but no official confirmation of this has been forthcoming. If it does then I will of course stand corrected. There are two links in this paragraph, one of which merely links to the movie website and the other to a third party magazine article that asserts the replacement of an acronym with the word. Until EON themselves or even the Fleming estate say otherwise, then surely its sensible to acknowledge the uncertainty of the assertion and difference of opinion, even if with 'weasel' words? However, as I have said before above this is an argument that is endlessly circular in nature, and as long as people see this merely as a forum rather than a definitive description of the film, then that will have to suffice. Shanklin1914 (talk) 09.50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "My sources for SPECTRE instead of 'Spectre' are the Bond books."
 * Which would be fine, except that the film is not a direct adaptation of any novel. These arguments were made months ago, if you care to check the archives.


 * "There are two links in this paragraph, one of which merely links to the movie website and the other to a third party magazine article that asserts the replacement of an acronym with the word."
 * Which is a common way of styling the title in lieu of italics. When Skyfall was released, it was sometimes styled as "SKYFALL", even on the official website.


 * Once again, a group of editors establishing a consensus that you disagree with is not a POV railroad. All of the arguments that have been made have been based on external sources and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. All of your arguments are based on "but I want to be right!".


 * You're welcome to change "Spectre" to "SPECTRE", provided that you can establish a consensus to do so first. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "These arguments were made months ago": sock report filed. - – SchroCat (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I see that a 'sock' report has been filed, even though this is a discussion and I haven't wasted anymore time trying to correct the article. Its clear that even discussion on the talk page is prohibited. Its good to see your so called 'consensus' at work. A POV Railroad report may be necessary, even though discussion here is clearly a waste of time. Not ALL of the contributions here have been based on reliable external references at all. Shanklin1914 (talk) 11.24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The Bond novels are THE basis of the whole Bond genre, filmed or otherwise, and to pretend that they are unlinked is simply a wilful 'wanting to be right' because of being challenged. Spectre wouldn't exist if not for the original SPECTRE. Yes it seems that these arguments were made months ago, but because of online bullying and an absolute refusal to compromise, they were kicked into the long grass and a 'consensus' formed. The reality is that no one can make contributions here unless they conform to the 'hive mind' of 3 or 4 very obstinate and unreasonable 'editors'. Shanklin1914 (talk) 11.24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)  >

A consensus against you does not mean that there is a "POV railroad", it means that there is a consensus against you. Railing against that by insulting people will not change anyone's minds. The argument you outline here is the same you have used several times under several names: a large number of editors refuted it then, and some of them have refuted it again now. – SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The aggressive "defence" claiming a mix of WP:OWN and a conspiracy among established editors to deliberately misrepresent the content of the article when edits don't go your way is a) a sure sign of a particular sock, and b) a surprisingly common strategy among socks. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Interestingly its the same two 'editors' who seem to be 'railroading' on this article. Two self appointed editors doesn't constitute 'consensus'. Who's railing who? Remember it was your opening aggressive threats to 'report' me that was the first insult, as well as well your comments on my 'useless' additions.Shanklin1914 (talk)


 * No, there are three editors who have told you what the consensus was last time and what is still is (that's just three from the many who came to the consensus last November). We are also the same three editors who do not approve of people socking their way through the arguments. If you had not taken the piss out of the fairly weak and flexible guidelines we have here then we may have taken you a little more seriously, but pushing the same argument under four sock accounts just isn't going to win you any friends at all. Finally, you were not insulted with a threat: you were told to stop edit warring or you would reported – all as another of our guidelines suggests. If you can't somehow agree to keep within these very reasonable guidelines of behaviour, then you're not going to have anything but grief on this site. – SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Indian censorship revisited
Please explain the importance of including the censorship in India to me. As near as I can tell, the censors removed a few seconds from the film, which upset a handful of users on Twitter. Nothing more has come of it since. I fail to see the significance of this on the article; it appears to be a case of "it happened, so it has to be included in the article". Slightly angry Twitter users aren't really notable.

Also "this was settled months ago" is no argument for keeping content. The issue can always be revisited at a later date - nothing is so important that its inclusion is guaranteed for eternity. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Because India is one of the biggest film markets in the world and it was reported by at least two credible major sources. Several editors such as and  weighed in 3 months about it, before your second ban for edit warring, and found that it was worthy of being included in the article. You are the only editor that has ever voiced an objection to including it. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "Because India is one of the biggest film markets in the world and it was reported by at least two credible major sources"
 * That doesn't automatically qualify it for inclusion. If the edits changed the meaning of the film, then you might have a case, but they don't change the meaning.
 * "Several editors such as Ram nareshji and Vincent60030 weighed in 3 months about it."
 * This could be considered vite canvassing. Furthermore, those editors violate NPOV by over-emphasising the Indian market.
 * "before your second ban for edit warring"
 * Which has nothing to do with this issue, and is a clear attempt at undermining my argument. It's an ad hominem attack.
 * "found that it was worthy of being included in the article"
 * I have read that argument, and they never showed cause for its inclusion. That's the point I just raised, and the one you attempted to hose down without addressing. Why is it important enough to be included? What does it add to the article? It's one censor cutting a few seconds with no discernible impact on the film and a few people getting upset about it on Twitter. If you read the Manual of Style, it advocates avoiding sections on censorship or controversy unless they are of vital import to the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree. As other editors have and wanted it to stay in the article. So far you are still the only editor that wants it removed and unilaterally removing it is a violation of WP:Consensus. SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the way consensus works nearly as well as you think you do. Consensus is not infinite - it can be revisited at any point, by any one. The existence of a consensus does not prevent the potential for a new one to be formed. Your refusal to allow such a discussion to take place is a violation of CONSENSUS.

I have made an extensive argument to date, one based on multiple policies and guidelines including NPOV, the notability of the content in question and its relevance to the article, and the Manual of Style. Taken individually, all are valid grounds to reopen the discussion. Your counter-arguments have so far been "there is an existing consensus", which as explained is no barrier to a new discussion being held; "there are reliable sources", which is not grounds to include the content because they only prove the content to be true, but thry don't prove the content to be relevant; and "you had a block for edit-warring", which is irrelevant to the current discussion.

So far, you have failed to address any of the points that I have raised, and have held an existing consensus up as both proof that it should be included and proof that no further discussion should take place. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Never said no further discussion should take place or that Consensus is infinite. My objection was that you on your first day back after 3 month ban for edit warring unilaterally deleted the passage with out any attempt to try to gain a consensus. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The original consensus was formed with the understanding that the issue would be revisited and developed if more information came to light. Three months later, and with no development and decreasing relevance, I felt I was justified in removing it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * First, that was not the original consensus. Second, you removed it unilaterally your first day back after a 3 month ban for edit warring instead of coming here to the talk page to discuss the issue. India is one of the largest markets in the world and this was reported by every major news organization. Google has several pages of articles on this (https://www.google.com/#q=bond+india+censor&start=10). Wikipedia should encourage more information about a subject. There is no harm done to article by including it. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's the third time you've been POINTy enough to refer to the utterly immaterial block (not ban) that Prisonermokey had. It has no bearing here, and it comes across as goading him. Knock it off. – – SchroCat (talk) 06:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; let him waste his breath. If he thinks that he can bait me into doing or saying something reckless or stupid, he is sorely mistaken. And so long as he is focusing on my block, he is not addressing my points about the content, NPOV, WEIGHT, notability and the Manual of Style. And so long as he is not addressing my points, he is only (partially) proving my point. I am yet to see a compelling argument for keeping the content. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem is that your points don't really apply. Both WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV have to do with maintaining neutrality in articles when there are differing views on a subject. There are no differing views on this subject because it is a matter of fact it happened.SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "There is no harm done to article by including it."
 * And, as has been pointed out, it adds nothing to the article. Content should not be included simply because it hsppened. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting that you're trying to censor a passage about censorship. SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It is pointless dross that need not be included – film classification boards cut things out: that's what they do, so to give it a whole section in itself (and with such a loaded title) fails WP:WEIGHT. I've moved it to the same position complaints about Skyfall were dealt with, but even that is too ridiculous, to be honest. The film classification board make changes and cuts in all markets, Nd this one is so unnewsworthy it shouldn't be included at all. – – SchroCat (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * For comparison's sake, look at Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, which has a section on controversy that is justified&mdash;it is centred on the secualised portrayal of its leading (and only) female character, a criticism that was widespread at the time of the game's release, has received sustained criticism in the time since, and is a continuation of criticisms first levelled in Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes. Here, we have a few people upset on Twitter that a film review board shaved a few seconds from the film. How is that in any way notable? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Per SchroCat. Films in every market can be submitted several times and cuts subsequently made to obtain the desired rating. Unless the behavior or the result is highly irregular then it is not worth mentioning. Censorship bodies all have their own rules and quirks, and what the Indian censors cut or don't cut is generally of little interest to international readers. If something isn't going to be of potential interest to the majority of the readers of this article (as is the case with parochial censorship decisions) then you really have to question the logic of covering it in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the consensus has changed here. One person is trying to say that Google searches are sufficient for the inclusion of trivia, others are pointing to the guidelines of the MoS about WEIGHT, etc. Are there any policy or guidelines for supporting the inclusion of this information? – – SchroCat (talk) 06:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Gavin, it is not the Google search itself that is sufficient. It is the results that are. The censorship in India got worldwide attention and was covered by most major news organizations. Here is a sample: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34865129, http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/19/media/james-bond-censored-india-spectre/, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-20/indian-censors-to-cut-james-bond-kissing-scenes-in-half/6956874, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/19/sanskari_james_bond/, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3325264/Kissed-Furious-Indian-James-Bond-fans-Twitter-mock-censors-decision-cut-scenes-Spectre-007-smooching.html, http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/spectre-kissing-scenes-banned-in-india-spark-sanskarijamesbond-memes-a6740286.html, http://variety.com/2015/film/news/spectre-india-james-bond-kiss-daniel-craig-1201644303/, http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/indias-film-censor-cuts-spectre-842109, http://www.aol.com/article/2015/11/19/film-censors-to-mr-bond-no-kissing-please-were-indian/21269032/. This was not a minor incident that took place in a small market, it was in one of the largest countries in the world and the story was covered globally. SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So? That does not mean we have to cover it. Indian censors removed some of the kissing scenes: so what? It's a minor point (one that doesn't change the path of the story) from one country (one that isn't a production country, or was involved as a location) that some Twitter used became irked about? Even if a news organisation feels the need to pad out space by picking up on such trivia, it doesn't make it encyclopaedic. We really don't need to cover every minor detail from every non-core market. – – SchroCat (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * But why should we ignore it? Why provide less information? India is not just one country, it is the 3rd largest film market in the world and the largest producer of films. And the story was picked up by not just one news organization but by dozens around the world, including Variety and the Hollywood Reporter. They don't just pad out space for the hell of it. I'm not saying that needs to be a major part of the article but it should be mentioned. Erik's suggestion that it go into the "Footnotes" section is fine with me. SonOfThornhill (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Because to my mind it fails WP:INFO. India is just one country, despite the size of the market, and a tiny change to the film in that one market doesn't have a bearing on the rest of the world. It made no impact on the film and no impact on the global reception. – SchroCat (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Well the link that you provided is about Infobox Templates. I agree, it doesn't belong in the Infobox. And it did have a global impact since global news organizations decided to cover the controversy. So there is no harm in mentioning it in the article in the "Footnotes" section as Erik suggested. SonOfThornhill (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:IINFO. Mention in other news organisations is not "global impact". How did the removal of a few seconds of film in India affect the reception China, or Australia or Outer Mongolia? – SchroCat (talk)


 * Mention in news organizations around the world is "global impact". And after reading WP:IINFO, it doesn't seem to apply at all. SonOfThornhill (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope: How did the removal of a few seconds of film in India affect the reception China, or Australia or Outer Mongolia? That's global impact. Per IINFO: "As explained in Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." The section "Encyclopedic content" states "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.[1] Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight." This information really does fall foul of any trivia test: it's just pointless dross . (And I've spent more time typing this sentence than was removed from the film) – SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It is notable because it got global coverage. That is the "global impact". I find it interesting that you're trying to censor an item about censorship. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a rather trite accusation. I'm not trying to "censor" anything. I'm trying to keep it encyclopaedic and free of fanboy cruft. Did the removal of 4 or 5 seconds of kissing deserve to be given so much weight by prominent inclusion in the aticle? I'm struggling to see the point of adding such trivia... – SchroCat (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It's the worldwide news coverage that it got that make it notable. I don't know what coverage it got in the UK but in the US it was covered by every morning news show and all the cable news channels. That is in addition to all the links provided above along with dozens more from major news organizations. As I've said I'm OK with it being reduced to a footnote, just not completely removed. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * On that note, let's consider what would be notable censorship. To my mind, cutting out the torture scene and parts of Blofeld's exposition about his shared past with Bond would be notable because it fundamentally alters the audience's understanding of the film. But here, we have a few seconds of extended kissing being cut&mdash;and how does that alter the audience's understanding of the film? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, a lot of those articles appear to have been published AFTER the content was first included here. Some of them are clearly using the article as a source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: It appears that this matter was covered by reliable sources, so as a starting point, the content can qualify for inclusion. The question is if it is discriminate enough to belong anywhere. It is an isolated matter, contextually speaking, so I'm hard pressed to put it anywhere in the article body (much less its own section). Since we have a "Footnotes" section in this article, what about the possibility of mentioning it as a footnote attached to the sentence about the release in India? It would be treated more as an aside since it doesn't fit anywhere in the article body well. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good compromise to me. SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "The question is if it is discriminate enough to belong anywhere"

It doesn't belong anywhere. It bears no importance to the article and appears to have been included on the grounds of "this happened, so clearly it must go somewhere".


 * "Since we have a "Footnotes" section in this article, what about the possibility of mentioning it as a footnote attached to the sentence about the release in India?"

It doesn't really fit there. Footnotes are intended for supplementary points that build on existing content, but aren't considered important enough for inclusion in the body of the article. A note about censorship is tangential at best and doesn't supplement any existing content.

Judging by the comments so far, a new consensus is emerging&mdash;that the content should not be included, at least until such time as its wider relevance is established. I would also argue that it is part of a wider POV push by Indian editors that emphasise the Indian perspective over all orhers; we had similar problems when pre-production of Skyfall was location scouting in India. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No new consensus has emerged and once again you revert to your pattern of edit warring for which you have been blocked twice. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

You've been asked to knock it off with the 'block' jibes: it's not constructive or helpful. A new consensus is emerging, and it is to change what there is - to reduce or remove to trim down and drop into a footnote. – SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry but it persistent pattern with Prisonermonkeys. And as I posted above, I'm OK with it being reduced to a footnote. That is a fair compromise. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I will do that now, but I still don't think ts worth that: it's fluff, trivia, and shouldn't be incuded in an encyclopaedic article. - – SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * OK Cool! SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, the Spectre matter was retrospectively referred to in an article by The Hollywood Reporter about Deadpool and India censors here, so I think that looking-back indicates that it can be seen as more than of a news-of-the-day bit. So I'm fine with the footnote. In fact, I think it would be good for Central Board of Film Certification to have a section about the kind of censoring it is doing. When I looked up sources for Spectre, I found a lot of kissing-related censorship coverage besides that movie. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Then make a separate article on it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. If this is a common action for the Indian board to take, it becomes even less noteworthy on individual film articles. – SchroCat (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There can be a separate article, and the footnote can link to it, if anyone is so inclined. For Indian films themselves, such incidents can be directly mentioned in the article body (being the home country), and the separate article linked to. For non-Indian films, if the coverage was substantial, I think a footnote accompanied by a link suffices. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That's the problem&mdash;there is no censorship of the film outside India. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As a follow-up, I looked into this. Granted, my only source is IMDB, so it's not terribly reliable, but the only other examples that I can find are edits before final classification in the UK and unexplained changes to a character's dialogue (from German to Hungarian) for the German release. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Spectre film ending
Recent edits from were undone. In order to resolve the underlying issue I would like to know this: Why was this plot addition removed as an "[U]nnecessary detail that is not an important part of the plot."? --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. See WP:STATUSQUO: discussions on a piece of disputed text leave the original in place, not the version you want to edit war in.
 * 2. You are close to breaching WP:3RR. Do not revert again.
 * 3. In terms of the substantive point, the addition was a poor one for the reason given by SoT. This isn't a plot point, just a nod to Bond fans about the Aston. The storyline of the film ends with Bond walking away from Blofeld. It may be that the bit with Swann is important in the next film, but we can re-add if that's the case. – SchroCat (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation in point 3. which is acceptable for me. The issue is thus resolved for me. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This has now been reverted repeatedly by two different editors. It is not a plot point. Please stop adding it back in. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Changes
Change on here unexplained https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spectre_%282015_film%29&type=revision&diff=711704991&oldid=711704717 Previous changes were to improve article, with reasons given. Also to shorten unnecessary extended parts, for example the reception as 'highly positive' and 'highly negative' say mixed itself, so we don't need that when part already starts with 'mixed' reviews. Also change to character info unnecessary as part already written in plot not far above, and other part isn't highly important and just adds to count only. Saying "puppeteer responsible for events in Bond's recent life" is simply an unnecessary extension of "puppeteer of Bond's recent life". Charlr6 (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The changes may have been meant to improve, but they didn't. Per BRD, dont edit war just because one of your edits has been undone. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Isn't that just subjective? For example how does actually saying highly positive and highly negative improve the article when saying 'mixed' literally means some positive some negative? And how is the extended sentence (and actual new words) necessarily an improvement too? If you can't state why changes are better then edit is subjective and your own preferred version. Charlr6 (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Nope. Mixed suggests a mix of results; the phrase we had in place accentuates the fact that the prevalence of the reviews were highly positive and highly negative, an important difference. "puppeteer of Bond's recent life" is not the same as "puppeteer responsible for events in Bond's recent life", as should be fairly obvious to most sentient adults. I'm not sure what your last sentence says: it's too grammatically flawed for me to make sense of. – SchroCat (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"Mixed"
The pages for 1971's "Diamonds Are Forever" and 2008's "Quantum of Solace" both say those respective films received 'mixed reviews'. Their Rotten Tomatoes score for example is also higher than "Spectre"s. A film cannot really have "Mixed to positive" as that is like saying "I kind of liked it but I really don't know", so therefore the better more fluent way of stating is that it received 'mixed' reviews.

If anyone has any good reasons (other than possibly wanting 'positive' to be included only due to their personal liking of their film which blinds their judgement - this DOES happen on wikipedia) then please state below. If not, then I suggest to leave it or until a possible consensus concludes after being brought forward by MANY different editors (and not just 'friend' editors helping & backing each other up - which also happens on wikipedia). 82.37.3.182 (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The hidden text "!--1971's DAF and 2008's QOS received 67% and 65% and both pages say 'mixed'. This should say same. SEE TALK --" and this talk page is here for a reason! 82.37.3.182 (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@ It seems it would help to tag you here. Please refraim from any more 'silent' edits. 82.37.3.182 (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The film was received positively in the UK and much less enthusiastically in the US. I have never known a film to receive such polarising reviews across two major markets like that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Could we use that word as a substitue to 'mixed to positive'? Use "polarized" (as also said on edit summary)? But it is still 'mixed' no matter where it was recieved 'positively' more. It also already states where it was recieved positively or negatively. Wouldn't say Batman V Superman was "Negative to Positive" purely because pre-release reviews loved it? Over-all picture is it was negative. 82.37.3.182 (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I think you're trying to prove that the article has been undermined by fan opinion, and in doing so, you have neglected a legitimate point about the film's reception.

Edit of opening paragraph
Since Daniel Craig has turned down Eon's offer to do more Bond movies, should we edit the second sentence of the article to say "It features Daniel Craig in his fourth and final performance as James Bond..."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCodeman4 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a reliable source? DonQuixote (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say we shouldn't mention it until a successor is confirmed, at which point there'll no doubt be sources galore. This is Paul (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

¶ As of this date it is only rumored that Craig will not appear in the next movie, this may simply be a negotiating tactic. I suggest holding off on "final" until it is clear who will be starring in the next Bond flick. Further, I express my opinion that this movie was a return to the "comic book Bond" that I had thought ended with Die Another Day, and indicates that the comic book villains will be back for the future movies (I don't think the audience will mind as long as there are explosions, exotic scenery and gorgeous women). Sussmanbern (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Further, I express my opinion that this movie was a return to the "comic book Bond" that I had thought ended with Die Another Day, and indicates that the comic book villains will be back for the future movies (I don't think the audience will mind as long as there are explosions, exotic scenery and gorgeous women)."
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a forum. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a forum. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

GA nomination
Hello. I'm thinking about getting this article up to GA in honor of SchroCat, who has sadly retired from Wikipedia. In the last GAN, there were "inconsistencies in date format, some poorly formatted references, a couple of Americanisms for something that is supposed to be written in BrEng and needs a damned good copyedit". The date formats are now consistent, British English spelling has been used and the references are properly formatted now, if I'm believed to be correct. Thoughts or ideas on how to proceed? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Language
Although English is the primary language of the film, it also contains several other languages, and all of them should be mentioned in the infobox. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No they shouldn't. The template instructions state: "Insert the language primarily used in the film. ... Only in rare cases of clearly bilingual or multilingual films, enter separate entries" - X201 (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is an English language film. Other languages are used in a few scenes more for purposes of realism and atmosphere. They should be noted in the article but not in the info box.SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Bond 25
Now that Bond 25 has a release date and Craig has confirmed that he is returning, I have redirected Bond 25 to link to the parent James Bond in film article. It seems a more appropriate place to put it than here; in fact, I would argue that this article no longer needs a "Future" section (in fact, it never needed one; that's what the James Bond in film article is for).

In the meantime, I think we need to come to an agreement on when the creation of a standalone Bond 25 article should go ahead. As active as I was in editing the Skyfall and Spectre articles, they're the only film articles I really work on, and I cannot recall the agreement from last time. Between Craig's announcement, the confirmation of key crew members returning and leaving, some of the preliminary pre-production material and the tentative release date, I think we have enough to substantiate an early version of an article, but that doesn't mean it's justified.

@ (if you're still active) and @, what are your thoughts on this? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with the removal of "future", and it should be piped to James Bond in film to drop in at the right spot. We can go with a standalone article once the name has been released, which is what we've done a few times before. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with SC. SonOfThornhill (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I thought that would be the case. I just couldn't remember. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Oberhauser's Information Center in the desert ...
... is remarkably similar to the NSA data center that opened in Utah in 2013.

Maybe that's worth mentioning?

--2003:D4:7F37:2600:A5F5:2821:B4B9:5DCF (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)