User:K1Bond007/Archive3

SilverFin
I haven't seen it around yet. Being in Canada we sometimes get the books on the British rather than the American schedule so I half expect to see it sooner or later. If I don't find it by the end of April I'll probably Amazon it as well. I'm taking a break from reading Bond at the moment (I'm actually not reading much of anything) but hope to get started on Death is Forever, the next book in the series. SilverFin I'll probably read as soon as it comes out because I'm curious about it, too (and, well, I DO have a complete set of Bond fiction so I have to keep up! ;) ). What did you mean when you said you couldn't find FRWL at the link? Are you talking about the image? It works OK for me. 23skidoo 05:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

007 logo
You might need to add a bit more information regarding copyright for the 007/gun logo you just added to the main article. Last I heard it was still very much copyrighted by Danjaq, Ian Fleming Publications and EON. I'm not sure what copyright tag applies to what is essentially a company logo. 23skidoo 05:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Followup. I'll give the article a readthrough on Sunday when I have a free moment. Re:GoldenEye. I can't get the link to work (site appears to be down at the moment), but if you're talking about an image off the DVD, there's a copyright tag for Screenshot (check the Upload page for the proper code) that covers this. I used it to add images to the Modesty Blaise and Eleanor Powell articles amongst others. 23skidoo 07:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Someone is really taking a VFD a bit too seriously. In case you didn't see it, the page consists of the lyrics of a rap song that libels some guy. PS. Looks like I'm on someone's hit list - my page has been vandalised a couple of times today. 23skidoo 07:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Revisions to main article
I went through most of the main article including the new official films intro. It works for me so far, though I made some tweaks. I removed the statement that Thunderball was the only film in which "Bond, James Bond" isn't said because I'm pretty certain it isn't said in From Russia with Love as well, but I don't have the movie handy to confirm. I think Roger Moore skips it in one of his films, too, but I don't know which one. I also cut from the introduction the reference to "James Bond-style security". I've always felt this sentence was a bit clunky and unnecessary. Best to just say Bond has entered popular culture, IMO. One question: do we have a link for the website that has the "drink and smoke" count? A link is somewhat conspicuous by its absence at that point. I've only edited up to the end of Official films and will give the rest of the article a quick boo later today if I have time. 23skidoo 16:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Followup. The screenshots look terrific! I think the paragraph right above the photos (the one about everyone's favorite Bond, correct?) is fine. BTW the reason why I went with MI-6 instead of MI6 is because the first reference in this article is to MI-6. I'll gave things a look-see to make sure they are all standardized as MI6. In the meantime I have a few minutes so will give the rest of the article a quick peek. 23skidoo 21:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bond trivia additions
I caught a couple of cut-and-pastes from IMDb among the latest batch of trivia additions (see Spy Who Loved Me and Diamonds Are Forever). I sent the user a warning about this - I've had articles tied up for weeks because someone reported copyvio - but I haven't had time to go through all the trivia items and cross-reference with IMDb. Most of them are either original or suitably reworded; there are just a couple I've notice that just come too close for comfort (especially when I recognized one that I wrote for IMDb in the first place). If I have time I should go through them all anyway (including older entries) just to make sure there aren't any that mirror IMDb. 23skidoo 17:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

re: Round 2
I still feel the official books - Fleming, Amis, Pearson, Gardner, Benson and Higson - need to be included under the James Bond main article even if only as a list because the article feels incomplete without them. Same with the films. For comparison, see Simon Templar, which has a similar format to the Bond article albeit simplified since only one author has ever been truly identified with The Saint. I think the Fleming and Gardner sections can be expanded, certainly ... but wouldn't it just be duplicating information already found under the articles for the two writers? That's why I never really seriously considered expanding the authors sections under the main article because it's been done elsewhere. I even added a James Bond section to Kingsley Amis' article and, for the heck of it, created a Robert Markham article to boot (which turned out quite well). If we created a "James Bond unofficial fiction" or "James Bond continuation novels" articles, it would create more hoops for people to jump through in order to find the information they need. I'm certainly not in favor of replacing the Gardner/Benson/Higson sections with an overview paragraph, which is what I think you're suggesting (beg pardon if I misunderstood). One possible way of expanding the Fleming introduction might be to take some of the trivia items seen in the list (i.e. the reference to Viviene Michel in SWLM) and make it part of the intro.

In terms of your other ideas I agree we should expand the EON section, maybe borrowing material from Dr. No. Dividing the character section up into film vs. literature is doable, though the two have similarities as well (i.e. the martini) and perhaps these should be listed first, followed by either differences or areas that one format emphasizes over another (for example, just about every Bond novel by Fleming and Gardner has Bond taking a scalding hot/bracing cold shower, and many novels describe in detail his breakfast preferences (the precisely timed soft boiled egg, for example); except for a quick reference to figs in FRWL I don't think this was ever covered in the movies. The other films list consists of mostly parodies I think, or certainly unauthorized in some cases like the foreign Bond films. The only "serious" one, so to speak, is the Man from UNCLE appearance. But we'd have to expand on the discussions of each film to make it a viable article on its own and except for UNCLE and OK Connery I know very little about the other films,

As far as the comics go, I have been planning for some time to start an article dedicated to this topic, and just add a "main article: James Bond in comics" notation or something like that to what we have. There are a few sources around - the Titan Books reprints and a couple of websites - that give plenty of information on the different comic book adaptations and original stories that are out there. What I see is a bit of a history, followed by "pretty table" formatted lists of the comic strips and comic books that have been published, careful not to copy the format of any existing site. I don't know enough about the plots of the comics to write about them, and The Bond Files by Andy Lane provides detailed synopses of all of them anyway. If I do decide to write up such an article it won't be until I have a lull in my work schedule since it'll involve a bit of legwork. Cheers! 23skidoo 07:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Followup. I stopped reading the FAC because I was just getting annoyed after awhile, but my first impression was that the folks there wanted us to essentially fold-in all the book articles into the main, which would have made things completely unwieldy. I think doing a table for the books is a good idea, and in fact I've considered doing so far awhile. I don't agree with filing Gardner etc. under "continuation novels" because that makes them seem less official. Yes, Fleming created the character and his books are the best known, but Gardner and Benson together have written more Bond fiction than he did. Replacing the lists under each author's name with a table and then including any trivia, etc. into the introductions I think would work and would be easy ways to expand the intro paragraphs. If we do a table, I suggest listing the stories in chronological order and include the novelizations in the case of Gardner and Benson. For example, here's what the table for Benson might look like (I did this on the fly so it's not 100%):

I think by including the film books, this would allow us to eliminate the novelization section (though we'd have to create a section for Christopher Wood to get rid of the other two books). Plus, I looked at Benson's section, and we can cut it down to a one-line intro just like the others if we want to since his other Bond involvement is covered in his biographical article, and the table eliminates the need for the lengthy short stories paragraph. Thoughts? 23skidoo 14:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Followup. Have you taken a look at the table used in Simon Templar which lists all the books - including non-Charteris continuations - together? Maybe that's the key, rather than splitting them up (talking the official books only). That way we could also eliminate the need for a Fleming section completely since the creation of Bond, and Fleming's influences, are already covered earlier in the article. A separate table for Young Bond would probably be needed because the books, though official, are of a very different type than the Fleming-Benson series. In terms of the unofficial books, we already have an article on Per Fine Ounce so we could probably cobble together articles for the others, but there would need to be some sort of introduction or write up explaining the existence of unofficial novels with links ... I think it would just end up being another list, but there are only a couple of books. Pearson's biography needs to be kept separate due to its special status, but if we simply list all the books, novelizations and stories as one table, with a subchapter on the biography, and another on the unofficial/lost novels, that might go a long way towards streamlining things. 23skidoo 23:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Temp
Sorry man, I got sidetracked with other stuff. I went though the page and made some revisions and additions. Nothing too major. I changed the "Adult Bond" header to "Post-Fleming Bond novels" which I think works a bit better. One thing I removed was the statement that the James Bond Jr. TV series was based upon the earlier book. As far as I've been able to figure out, the two productions have no connection. If you have information that suggests otherwise, please feel free to change my edit back. 23skidoo 04:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Followup. I was about to defend some of the additions made to some of the movie articles until I saw the gem that was left on Dr. No tonight. Egads! Where did the anon get Sylvia FRENCH from? And the bit about the secretary, though interesting, was rendered almost illegible because of spelling mistakes. (Incidentally I thought the name of Bond's secretary was incorrect, but in fact it is Loelia Ponsonby according to The Bond Files. I don't have my copy of Moonraker handy to double-check, however. 23skidoo 04:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I gave the main article a once-over with the revised section. Looks good. My only concern is Colonel Sun disappears because it isn't represented with a graphic or a chart. I'm going to add the image of the Colonel Sun novel to that part of the story. Let's see how that looks. 23skidoo 06:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vehicles
My thoughts on this is that the novels and the books should have separate lists. For one thing the movies always focused on the cars Bond drove, while they were very much secondary in the books. Man for Barbarossa, for example, doesn't have Bond driving anything. And some cars like the Bentley and the Saab Turbo appear multiple times in the books. There should be reference to cars that appear in both the books and the movies, but considering the Bentley is the only one, really, since Bond drove a different model Aston Martin in Goldfinger the book than he did in the movie, it can probably be covered by a paragraph. In terms of choosing what vehicles to list, I think priority should, of course, be given to cars driven by Bond himself, whether they be officially assigned like the DB5, or found along the way like Melina's mini-car in FYEO or the fire engine in AVTAK. Next should be notable cars driven by the villains or the Bond girls (i.e. the cars driven by Jinx and Zao in DAD). Third should be any other notable gimmick cars that might have turned up. I do not believe we need to list every vehicle that has appeared in the Bond film -- for example, the police cars in LALD which should never have been added to the list. Also, what constitutes a vehicle? I think we should stick to cars, and leave other types of "vehicles" (the iceberg, the flying wing from DAD, the jetpack) to the gadgets list. 23skidoo 03:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FYEO
I was just doing a little tweaking to your expansion to the For Your Eyes Only synopsis when I noticed something - the soundtrack cover image for the movie is missing. I thought I'd mention it. Maybe a bit of code got messed or or the image was somehow erased? 23skidoo 05:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Waiting for 2-007?
Could you give a quick look to my additions to the Casino movie article? You might have heard differing information, but I found a new commanderbond.net report quoting Judi Dench that the production isn't going to start till early 2006 which means the film might not come out until 2007. I personally think MGM will release it in January 2007 because of the obvious promotional gimmick. Have you heard any contradictory information re: production? 23skidoo 18:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Followup: I was the one who added the 2-007 stuff a long time ago. IIRC (and I think I note this) the idea of promoting 2-007 dates back to when Bond 21 was supposed to come out in 2005, followed by Bond 22 in 2007 as per the usual schedule. But I've seen other speculation since then that there's little difference between MGM releasing a film in December 2006 and waiting a few weeks. In any event, you'll note I did mention that past Bond films have been shot and released in the same year, so I agree that unless there are some major problems there's no reason why the film shouldn't come out in 2006. However the last report I saw was that the film was supposed to be shot in the fall of 2005 with a summer 2006 release, so something must have changed to push the filming back. Maybe it's EON's chronic inability to settle on a Bond actor? 23skidoo 21:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Re: "No need to rush". That's true. I don't think there has been so much scrutiny over the casting of a part since Scarlet O'Hara, and the last thing they need to do is choose poorly. Casino Royale is going to be another "make or break" film, much like GoldenEye was, and it seems that longtime franchises are starting to become a bit scarce (Star Trek, Star Wars, for example), so the last thing MGM wants to do is kill off Bond because they get the wrong guy to play the part. The delay shouldn't be too surprising, since for the first time since Lazenby came out of nowhere there has been no heir presumptive for the part. Dalton was pegged as a possible Bond in the late 60s, while Brosnan was being groomed even before Remington Steele (I read that he visited the set of FYEO when he was married to Cassandra Harris and Broccoli started thinking of him as a possible 007 way back then). But no serious contenders were ever mentioned during Brosnan's era, and I think that's a bit of a failing on EON's part. They knew Brosnan would only play the role for so long, so they should have started planting the seeds of who would be next as far back as World is Not Enough, IMO. 23skidoo 23:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * There were other factors why Lazenby failed as well; he sabotaged his own film by badmouthing James Bond and declaring he was finished with the role even before the movie came out. I doubt we'll see that happen again ... unless maybe Russell Crowe gets the role. My personal preference is that the role by played by either a British actor or a "colonial" actor (i.e. Australian, Irish, South African, etc.) rather than an American. I still shudder at the thought that we nearly had Burt Reynolds and Adam West as Bond at various times. I like both actors ... but not as Bond. The idea of Casino Royale being make-or-break isn't something I came up with. I've seen it referred to as such in media. There does seem to be some franchise-busting going on these days and the Bond films have been on a "death watch" for awhile, even though Brosnan's films did so well. Die Another Day was extremely successful, yet it was also heavily criticized. In fact I'd even go so far as to call it the Enterprise of the Bond series. There are people who hated virtually everything about the film, from the theme on down. I personally can't stand Halle Berry in the film, though I happen to like the Madonna theme, so what do I know? ;-) The thing is Bond films are so much more expensive than they were in the days of OHMSS (even adjusting for inflation) that if Casino Royale fails at the box office (forget critical response) MGM could decide to pull the plug, or take a page from Paramount's book and decree a moratorium on Bond films for a decade or so. I don't mind saying that I think the "reboot" idea is a crapshoot. If they get some young, pretty boy actor (a la Orlando Bloom), I don't think it'll be accepted by audiences used to having a mature 30-40-50-something actor in the role. Personally, I think the only way to go is to cast an unknown or virtual unknown. Someone like Bloom or Ewen McGregor or Clive Owen have too much image with the public; we need a clean slate like Connery was. 23skidoo 05:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Biography section
I think moving the biography section into another article would render the article James Bond moot, because IMO it's about the character, much as the Simon Templar article is primarily about that character. An alternative might be to move all the book information to an article called James Bond Books, except I don't know if that would work either; we'd probably end up with people requesting we include some sort of a book list in the main article (catch-22). Having spent a lot of time hanging around Votes for Deletion, I think the creation of "James Bond (character)" article might end up with someone just putting a VFD tag on it and requesting it be merged with the main James Bond article, leaving things back where they started. So I guess my answer is to keep the biography, etc. info under James Bond and if you really want to take the books and films and all that out of there, to create perhaps the James Bond (franchise) article with redirects from James Bond books and James Bond movies. In other news, what do you think about this "famous numbers" category that keeps getting put up on the main page? I think it's kinda useless (especially the version I reverted which gave the number as "7" not 007). Thoughts? 23skidoo 20:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Followup - I'm still against the idea of splitting the article up further, so in that sense I'm of the same mind I was earlier, however I support moving the books and movies to another article as preferable to moving the biography of James Bond, which I feel should be on the main page. Anyone looking for James Bond's biography shouldn't have to go hunting for it or have to do an extra click. Arguably the same could be said for the overview of the books and movies, but at least keeping the biography under James Bond makes logical sense. I know no one would seriously vote to delete anything related to Bond (at least something major as the biography) but I've seen a lot of people use the VFD mechanism to request merges and redirects of material they feel belongs elsewhere. I do agree with you that the biography should be expanded, but the question is what source should be used? Fleming gave fairly limited information - most of it contained in You Only Live Twice - while Pearson, while he expanded on Fleming for more than 300 pages, made contradictions as you've noted, while Gardner and Benson had their own biographical take on the character, and then of course there's Higson. And that doesn't even start with the movies. I suggest restricting any biographical information to that given by Fleming, with perhaps a note in the spirit of the above that later writers cames up with their own interpretations of the character, perhaps listing some of the notable differences. In other news, SilverFin should be in the stores here in Alberta sometime this week. Although it's "out of order" for my Bond reading (I'm about 1/4 of the way into Death is Forever) I'll give it a read ASAP and let you know my thoughts. 23skidoo 21:16, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Followup - you're right, it's not worth getting in an argument over. Actually, maybe what you could do is ask a few other people - maybe put the question on the Talk page? I got into a tug-of-war with someone over on a Star Trek article and I said that if it's just two people with opposing viewpoints, it's hard to get consensus. Maybe put the question to the fellow who nominated the article for Featured status? From my end, it's not a huge deal and I certainly wouldn't start reverting stuff or anything like that, so if you want to give the dividing a shot, feel free. I'm not going to have too much time to play around with Wikipedia over the next little while because of work, myself (I actually just went nearly 24 hours without checking it once -- I'm so proud!). 23skidoo 21:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Clive Owen, Enterprise and Bears, oh my!
Owen has a Connery vibe to him but I agree he's a bit one note. Same with Gerald Butler. Wonder what happened to that Rory McMann guy or whatever his name was? That guy was the spitting image of Connery (though I think it's a mistake to go that route). In terms of Enterprise, I will agree with you that the timing was terrible. People were tired of Trek by that point either because of Voyager or for other reasons. I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter who was in charge, no one would be satisfied. If Joss Whedon had been the producer people would be calling for him to be fired today, not B&B. Enterprise was a no-win situation and this had nothing to do with the quality. TNG was absolute garbage for nearly 3 full seasons (IMO) yet it survived, and Voyager never really found its voice until somewhere around season 5. My attitude on this issue might have been different if I didn't clearly remember all the bashing going on regarding Enteprise 6 months before the show even started; it could be argued that many Trekkies simply did not want another series at that point and there is value to that. But unfortunately there are a lot of us who like the show and are victims of public opinion. Here's an analogy I came up with regarding this:
 * Have you ever been on a long road trip? Let's say you have to drive 1000 miles. Pretend that the driver represents "general Star Trek fandom", and the car also has a group of passengers that for the sake of this argument represent "Enterprise fans". The car has a big "Star Trek fans" sticker on it (a la a political cartoon) so we are all "Trekkies". For the first 500 miles passengers and driver alike love the scenery, and everything is fresh and new and you even spend the night somewhere (the 1969-79 interregnum). After mile 200 (TNG) you decide for some reason to drive the remaining 800 miles non-stop. Not even taking a break for gas (we'll assume you have some sort of super high-mileage vehicle). From mile 200 to 499 (the end of DS9), things are still OK, though around mile 450 (Voyager begins) you're getting a bit tired). So some of the passengers nod off and go to sleep, leaving the driver having to stay awake and keep going. By mile 600 the driver is really getting bored and tired (roughly S5 of Voyager), but there's still things worth seeing. By mile 750 (Enterprise begins) the driver is sick of the drive, of seeing the same road signs, and all he wants to do is reach the end of the trip; and around this time he also starts to get really annoyed at that squeaky wheel - he'd like nothing better than to get rid of it (Berman/Braga). By the time the driver approaches the destination he's so sick of the drive he's cursing General Motors (Paramount). Meanwhile, some of your passenegers who took that nap around mile 450 (those of us who didn't watch Voyager), woke up at mile 750 (some slept in until mile 800 or 900 - ENT seasons 3 and 4) and everything was fresh and new and we didn't care about the squeaky wheel and we didn't really feel like ending the roadtrip. But the driver (diehard fandom) just wanted it to be over and refused to stop by any of the tourist attractions and continued to bitch and complain while the passengers tried to enjoy the trip. By the time they approach the destination, the passengers want to pay for the gas to keep going for another few hundred miles (Enterprise season 5), but the driver won't have anything to do with it and in fact calls his passengers idiots for even considering such a thing; he's so fed up he's planning to sell the car and buy a new one, a different brand that doesn't have a squeaky wheel. I have no idea if that makes sense, but I have noticed that a lot of people who love Enterprise did not follow Voyager on a regular basis and we in fact won back to the fracnhise. In some respects the franchise DID take a break for me - about 5 years in fact. 23skidoo 17:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that S1 of ENT wasn't the best, though it still has its strong moments and I plan to buy the DVDs when they come out. The thing that has never made any sense to me is that rating drop after that first week. You may disagree but Broken Bow was very highly regarded at the time. I certainly felt it was a much stronger, much better made pilot than those for DS9 and VOY, and made more a case for going against the "same old same old" than anything that came after it. I just read a posting on TrekBBS putting the blame on the theme song. Personally I like it because I hated the themes for DS9 and VOY. They always bored me to tears. But the thing is people were looking for an excuse, any excuse, to get away from Trek so that they wouldn't feel guilty about leaving the franchise behind. The reason I say that is there is simply too much pettiness in evidence from a lot of people. I don't mean people who didn't care for the show, but still watched at least some episodes - as I say, I hated Voyager and stopped watching after the first season of that - I mean people who refused to watch the show because of the theme song or the fact they didn't put Star Trek in the title. I actually wish more people said "I didn't think the stories worked" because at least it wouldn't indicate that people actually watched the thing rather than just going on assumption and hearsay. I haven't seen anything of that level since TNG was announced; I have friends who still refuse to watch any modern Trek because Kirk isn't in it. And there is definitely an anti-Enterprise agenda on a lot of sites. For example, you have probably heard the quote from Jolene Blalock that the finale is "appalling". But have you ever heard any reasons given anywhere quoting her as to WHY she thinks it's appalling. I bet you haven't. (If you have, please pass along a link!) I dunno. I think what upsets me the most is the attitude a lot of people are having. Not necessarily folks like yourself who have good reasons for not liking the show (or feeling it could be better), but the smarmy, Simpsons Comic Book Guy-like attitude of far too many people has really turned me off Star Trek in general. And it takes a lot to do that. I think the turning point for me was seeing people stating online that they want Rick Berman to die. That pretty much broke the camel's back as far as I'm concerned. 23skidoo 00:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OHMSS
Where did the Cinderella reference come from? All the books I've ever seen say that "Never happened to the other fella" was a direct reference to Connery and an intentional breaking of the fourth wall. I agree that the plot summary of the movie is way too detailed. If I have time I'll try and trim it down a bit myself. In other news, did you hear that some major websites are stating that Clive Owen may be announced as Bond as early as the release of Sin City this week (in which he appears)? I also saw some media reference to Orlando Bloom being tipped for a "Young James Bond" which makes no sense. I'm seeing people say that it'll be an adaptation of SilverFin but that's nonsense if they're going to hire a 20something like Bloom to play the role ... things are getting crazier by the minute. Personally, with Chris Eccleson single-handedly reviving the Doctor Who franchise this week (in spectacular fashion - 10M viewers which is about 1/6 of Britain's population watching) maybe they should look at him to play Bond, too! ;-) BTW SilverFin is expected to reach store shelves here in Alberta sometime this week or next. Cheers. 23skidoo 21:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Followup - I agree with ya 100%. C.R. will be a "reboot" the same way that every new Bond actor sparks a reboot. If it's true that Owen is the man (as always, I'll believe it when the cameras start rolling) that seems to go against the idea of this being an early Bond. And I can't imagine that EON would be silly enough to authorize a secondary Bond franchise with Young Bond. Maybe another cartoon show a la James Bond Jr., but that's about it. As I say, it's silly season out there. 23skidoo 23:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My Reason for adjusting the pic size on James Bond
"Users hate scrolling left to right. Vertical scrolling seems to be okay, maybe because it's much more common. Web pages that require horizontal scrolling in standard-sized windows, such as 800x600 pixels, are particularly annoying.

From Top Ten Web-Design Mistakes by Jakob Nielsen (usability consultant)

With the pictures at a 125px width, you are causing people with 800x600 screens to horizontal scroll. Zzyzx11 00:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * So far, I found the following quote on Image_use_policy:
 * "Images should generally be displayed at a maximum of 550 pixels wide, so that they can comfortably be displayed on 800x600 monitors."


 * I'm still looking. Zzyzx11 01:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * RE: In fact most of the articles I've seen and worked with were designed with 1024x768 as seen from most of the tables that take up half the page (in 800) and galleries that make you scroll.


 * I think putting 5 images next to each other in a row like that is a special case because I am not forced to horizontal scroll on most of the other articles you describe. Tables are treated differently -- content in tables are displayed in 800 via word wraps. Zzyzx11 01:28, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Picture tutorial Zzyzx11 01:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I Found The Answer!!!


 * I guess we found the answer at the same time... I fixed the page just before you replied back to me. BTW -- Wikipedia does not have an absolute rule about 1024 vs. 800. But I think they encourage Wikipedians to use markups that adapt to screen width by wrapping just like this one. Zzyzx11 02:01, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I use 1024x768 resolution (as, I believe, do the majority of computer users), but I rarely use pictures greater than 300px wide, and generally line up images vertically rather than horizontally to avoid horizontal scrolling. I hope this helps. &mdash; Dan | Talk 00:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

XBox 360
As for the 500mhz GPU and tri core, it's now been confirmed by those at GDC, and NDA's on that configuration has been lifted. Since I have three friends who were at GDC, and openly confirm this spec, i'd say its as good as gold. Other info, such as amount of pipelines in the GPU is still under wraps (which is all that really matters, the 500mhz is fairly useless by itself). Terrapin 06:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Enterprise
I was offline for a couple days so missed out on the Kill Enterprise link controversy. I didn't want to make things worse by making a unilateral change, but don't you think it looks odd for that Kill Enterprise link to be listed under fan sites? Perhaps it should be listed under a new category Other instead. 23skidoo 18:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Followup. Yeah, I agree, although to be fair Save Enterprise does have episode reviews and news updates and the like, and while it was created to "save Enterprise" last year when the show had a cancellation scare, it is a bit more than just a save-our-show site. As opposed to Kill Enterprise which was a "kill your show" site. Those guys really tick me off, y'know. OK, not everyone likes the show, but I have rarely seen anyone live up to Shatner's "get a life" stereotype than these guys. Oh well. I'm of half a mind to hope Paramount's next Trek series or film is so terrible people start saying "Enterprise wasn't so bad after all" ... ;-) End of rant! I added a quick comment to your Temp page; I'll try and proofread it later today but I have to get back to work for now. 23skidoo 18:38, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * PS. Some just added a bunch of Kill Enterprise links to the page. I'll do the Other thing. What the heck. 23skidoo 18:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I see you put a warning on that anonymous user's page. I have also reported him on Vandalism in Progress. It might be a bit of a stretch (there are only 4 contributions under the IP, all Enterprise link-related), but odds are this person is probably working under another Username or IP anyway. 23skidoo 20:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Song lyrics
What was the link to the Wikipedia policy regarding song lyrics? I forgot in which article you cited it. It looks like anon is gearing up to create articles for every song from Mary Poppins, complete with lyrics, and I have a feeling I'll be doing some deleting. Thanks. 23skidoo 19:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

KalistiOS
I noticed your involvement with WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games. Would you be at all interested in collaborating on the KalistiOS article with me? &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 21:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image source
Discussion moved to Image talk:Bernard lee.jpg.

Casino Royale
Yes, I was intending to fix them myself, but the site was playing up at the time. Xezbeth 21:36, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

To fix
Your changes are fine, and you can make more, I don't mind. I kind of like having it as my subpage, but if you think it'd be better to move it, go ahead. Andre ( talk ) 21:53, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Template CVG
The changes look good. In fact you did a couple of things that I was thinking about, such as removing the specified font face and the change in how font sizes are done (as User:Darrien suggested).

One thing I've just discovered is that Firefox counts parentheses as part of a word, but IE does not. As a result the box looks fine in Firefox, but with IE on my system the "(s)" falls on the next line for "Publisher(s)", "Developer(s)", and "Platform(s)". --Mrwojo 00:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The only thing left to do is to add the other optional parameters and to decide if "Infobox Videogame" is the best name for the template. Before creating a bunch of "Infobox Videogame/input"-type templates, I think we should nail down a name. I was thinking "Infobox CVG" (or similar) would be good, because it follows the example set by "cvg-stub" without being too wordy.

Technically the template would be ready to use once those two things are done. Then it would probably be best to set a date when the template is officially official (the classic "if there are no objections, I'll do this in two days"). And also pull in some of the project members who have been active in the past in these matters. --Mrwojo 17:02, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * "What will be different for computer games?" Most of the optional stuff is primarily for computer games (requirements, media, input). --Mrwojo 23:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've found that if a template has more than one empty optional field, all empty optional fields will add whitespace (even if non-adjacent). I'm thinking that it would be better to have three templates: CVG, CVG_end, and CVG_extended.
 * CVG will have the bits common to PC games and console games.
 * CVG_extended will contain media, input, and system requirements to accomodate PC games.
 * CVG_footer CVG_end just ends the table.

So for a typical console game, it'll look like:

And for a typical PC game:

See sauropoda's taxobox for an industrial-strength example. --Mrwojo 14:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, two separate templates would be more straightforward. --Mrwojo 18:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The |- does the trick! I accidentally did it a little differently (I put |- before all the optional fields), but I tested it and found no problems. --Mrwojo 02:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it's done. --Mrwojo 03:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yep, Template:Infobox CVG extended and Template:Infobox CVG end can be deleted. I was going to wait until the vote was done, but the response has been clear. The vote was a good idea; it revealed a lot of silent agreement. :o) --Mrwojo 01:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I already closed the vote and was trying to decide whether to copy the usage section from the infobox's talk or summarize and link to it. I'll copy the usage guide to the project page. --Mrwojo 19:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stub notices, etc.
Is there a Wikipage that lists all the available templates and tags? I didn't even know there was a "sect-stub" tag until you added it to Never Send Flowers. Thanks! 23skidoo 04:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New infobox
I see you implimented the new infobox in the Crazy Taxi article. So is that what we use from now on? And do we leave the articles with old infoboxes alone? Thunderbrand 18:19, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

RE: Wikiproject CVG
Hey K1Bond007, thanks for the heads up about the new infoboxes. I went over them and commented on them on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games. --pie4all88 01:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lost: episode 19
tvtome now says "Deus". Also search the net for it:, , etc. all use "Deus". FYI. Cburnett 06:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Craig rumor
That's old news. He signed 15 minutes ago. User:Bond007 6 Apr, 2005