User talk:SchroCat/Archive 3

Orphaned non-free image File:James Bond 007, Gun Symbol logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:James Bond 007, Gun Symbol logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Jeffery Deaver in Bond book template
Hi Schro, I've responded to you about 003 1/2 on my talk page. This discussion about what is canon and how to classify individual titles has gotten me thinking. The Book template lists Pearson's book as a spin-off. Though I consider it a novel, I'm prepared to let it lie among the "spin-off works" as it also fits that category, especially as the novelizations have their own separate category. But how do we classify Deaver's book? It is a novel, but it's clearly not part of the same series at all as it obliterates the timeline. It's a standalone book and so I'd argue that it too is a spin-off work. Your thoughts/feelings? Fanthrillers (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I really didn't like the Deaver work—he just didn't get what Bond was all about. Everyone else has known what Fleming was on about and have all (to a greater or lesser degree) tried to emulate him. Deaver didn't and the result is an abomination. If I really say how we should classify the book then I'll get ticked off for using unparliamentary language or something! Let me have a think about it as it sort of fits where it is, but sort of doesn't. The first Gardner and Benson books were also out of the timeline, but they settled into their own timeframes (which is partly why they are a problem!) I think it could also be an issue later with further authors: Boyd is clear that his timeline will follow Fleming (or Amis / Faulks) but what about after him? What if the post-Boyd author plays around with the Deaver time and story lines: we'll be having this conversaion all over again in a year or two! Let me have a think and I'll get back to you. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You get your GA
Felix Leiter is now a GA. Add that to your user page as a medal. Please see my comments and try to continue improvement. TeacherA (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You really don't get it do you? People are not on here just to get medals: they are on here to try and improve articles. No proper review has taken place and so we're left hanging on the proper status of this article and whether it could be improved or whether there are any silly mistakes in there. What you are doing is sheer childish idiocy: stop, for all our sakes. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 04:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Lumiere data
While involved in the country discussion at the Film project I came across the Lumiere project that provides data for film admissions across European Union from 1997. I think for European based productions it could be pretty useful, especially in the case of the Bond films where the European market is traditionally bigger than the US market. Taking Casino Royale for instance, it provides the admissions across the EU (along with the distributor for each region) and also an analysis of market penetration. One of the things I like is that it uses a static measure that can't be devalued by inflation. Anyway, I though I'd drop you a link to it because it has some pretty interesting data. Betty Logan (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a great resource - pretty much everything in the EU since 1996. It's nice to have an EU balance to offset the US-heavy The Numbers or Box Office Mojo references. Also interesting—on a very different point—to see how many distributors are listed. Shame that point never finally came to a satisfactory conclusion - confusion still reigns there! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High, while for quality the scale goes from Low  to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

003 1/2 novel - proper title
The British title of 003½: The Adventures of James Bond Junior is actually The Adventures of James Bond Junior 003½ photo link --Fanthrillers (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right: I've moved the page and I hope that this causes considerably less waves than the last set of corrections! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've even managed to find an image of the cover of the UK first edition to put in there. It's funny: I have a copy of this book under the 003½: The Adventures of James Bond Junior name—I never realised that it was an American copy until now. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You added a comma. I don't have my copy here with me at the moment to see what appears on the title page. I faintly recall that the title page may indeed have a comma. As for the Pearson book, the actual British title on the jacket appears to be either "007 James Bond: The Authorized Biography", or just "James Bond: The Authorized Biography." Only the American edition has "... of 007". I'll have to check my copy to see what it says on the title page, but I have the vaguest recollection that it only says "James Bond". When determining the official title, which takes precedence: dustjacket, unjacketed-hardback spine, or title page? Fanthrillers (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I only have the US version, so the details I've taken as from the British Library catalogue, which lists it with a comma. The only photo I found of the cover doesn't make it clear, which is a shame. My British Library visit has been postponed for a week by my client, otherwise I'd have been able to check it. In terms of precendence, I would have through the information on the copyright notice would be best, buit I'm not 100% sure - I'll post on the Book Project to see if anyone can help. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been told it's the title page, rather than anywhere else. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 16:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Bond Chronology revert.
No idea what your problem is with a sortable table. Sortable lets you compare the chronologies. You don't actually have to click the buttons if you don't want to. I just put the years first so they sort correctly. Publication dates are entirely appropriate as mentioned in the text above. Please don't be so defensive. Reformat the table if you insist, I don't care if the titles are bold or not, don't remove the information. Barsoomian (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Try taking it to the Talk Page first before trying to start an edit war and stop accusing people of things like WP:OWN. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 13:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. See you there.Barsoomian (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

A View to a Kill henchmen page
I can't believe wikipedia has a page for List of James Bond henchmen in A View to a Kill. Special:Contributions/111.235.95.93 whom you've reverted several times would have us believe May Day gives Zorin "a obstinate" (sic) stare. Fanthrillers (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a "List of James Bond henchmen..." and "List of James Bond allies..." for all the films: personally I think they are quite pointless and avoid them like the plague! If the individual characters are of note (M, Felix Leiter, Goldfinger etc) then they need (and indeed have) their own page. If they are not, then they are covered in the relevant film article. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 04:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If you think there isn't much point to them it might be worth WP:PRODing them. It's a quick and easy way to get rid of pointless articles (especially unsourced ones) without having having to go through the laborious AFD process. I will PROD this particular article and see if it goes through. Betty Logan (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Good call Betty. it could still be a long process: there are 23 such articles and 23 "List of James Bond allies in xxx" articles too! Small steps first tho - let's see how this one pans out and if it gets taken off we'll review all 45 of the remaining ones... - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

List of James Bond novels and stories
Hi there. Could you clarify this edit please? I think you mean that adding spoiler warnings would go against consensus, but your phrasing seems to state the opposite? Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that - now clarified! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 18:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thrilling Cities - general comments
I'm posting this here rather than the article's talk page because you've written most of the TC article. As you can see I've made several minor changes. Please review my edit summaries for more details. I suggest that you wikify the names of the cities at the article's outset. Nowhere in the article have you done this. Also, Sunday Times editor Leonard Russell is almost certainly this fellow. Cover artist Paul Davis may be this person. I'm looking into both. Fanthrillers (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I saw your changes: all spot on as far as I'm concerned. I'm not sure about the linking point and I've been mulling this over for a while: linking the cities would fall within WP:OVERLINK ("Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations"), although it is allowable under certain circumstances if they are ("particularly relevant to the topic of the article"). In the end I took the cowards way out and left them for the GA Reviewer to decide, but if you also think there is a good argument for it, then I'll drop them back in. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent article. My only complaint is that you didn't include this bit from Pearson's "Life of Ian Fleming": At first he had been reluctant to undertake this five-week trip round the world. As he recorded in the book, "Thrilling Cities", which reprints the articles, he told Leonard Russell, the "Sunday Times" Literary and Features Editor, that he was the world's worst sightseer and that he had "often advocated the provision of roller-skates at the door of museums and art galleries." But Russell had been firm. "We don't want that sort of thing from you," he told him. "In your James Bond books, even if people can't put up with James Bond and those fancy heroines of yours, they seem to like the exotic background." Fleming's statement is, well, pure Fleming. --Fanthrillers (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right - I'd forgotten to look at Pearson when I updated it. I've now added the quote as it really is quite a typical thing for him to have said! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 21:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You Only Live Twice (film)
Please have the courtesy to explain why you reverted me. As you are reminded when you click "undo", the default edit summary should be used for vandalism only. – Smyth\talk 14:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The lead is supposed to summarise an article, not contradict what is in there. Your edit was a questionable revision, more WP:POV then anything, that contradicted the "Writing" section beneath it. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The "Writing" section says that the screenwriter considered the book to have "no plot in it which would even make a movie", and as a result decided to "create a new plot". How is that inconsistent with what I wrote? – Smyth\talk 02:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Dahl went on to say that a number of ideas were used, and if you look at the film—Bond in Japan, meeting Dikko Henderson and Tiger Tanaka before visiting a ninja training camp and getting married to a Japanese fishing girl (while he is disguised as a Japanese), finally battling Blofeld in an impregnable fortress—then you will see that the spine of book and film are the same. The description of "loosely based on" is correct, and the film's credits stating that the film is based on the book bear that out. Additionally your edit was not couched in encyclopaedic form: "is essentially a different story" is poor English (the "essentially" is not needeed) and the previous version is not only closer to the reality, it is also written more appropriately. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Robert Markham
I suspect you don't have Robert Markham on your watchlist. I removed the prev/next box. The article is dire. Here's the most recent version before I dove in. So many unsourced conjectures. I don't believe the fanboy belief that Markham was to be a rotating pseudonym. The article needs drastic re-writing. So many passive voice sentences. Perhaps the article warrants deletion as there's nothing here that can't be merged with other articles. What are your thoughts? Fanthrillers (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right: I don't have it on the watchlist and I don't think I've even looked at it before! It is a horrible old mess and there are way too many mistakes and errors in there for comfort. I'm in two minds as to whether it should go. I think you're right that most can be merged with other things (I think most of this is already covered in the Kingsley Amis and Colonel Sun articles), but just because they can, does that mean that we should? If someone wants to check up on Markham and they enter his name on Wiki, where would we send them? Kingsley Amis is the obvious answer, but there is only one line about the Markham reference (and that repeats the 'multiple author' thought too!) I suggest we clean the page up so that it can stand as a passable but short article in its own right (well-cited and removing all the nonsense that is in the current one). What do you think? - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 11:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've given it a quick once over and removed most of the nonsense and added citations where I can. Let me know if you're happier with it now, or if you still think it should go. As I mentioned above, I'm still not convinced either way—even with the re-write! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You've convinced me. Let's keep the article. This way we can throw in more Bond-related trivia that Amis specialist editors despair of seeing in the Amis article. As for that "multiple author" claim in the Amis page, I say we delete the entire claim several days from now if no one cites a credible source. My only concern is that this is one of those fanboy rumours with no factual basis that have found their way into the mainstream media. Fanthrillers (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the additional info: the Amis-fans tend to hate the Bond connection as being too low-brow, so it can stay in the Markham article (especially as things like the "Future ideas" section don't belong in Colonel Sun either). I'd only heard the multiple author theory recently and was a bit surprised by it, but presumed it was right without thinking of it. I've subsequently done a Google Books search, as well as go through my Bond library here and can't find any reliable source backing it up—although I'll bet a lazy journalist has dropped it in somewhere without checking it first. Either way we'll keep it out of Markham wherever possible and remove from Amis in a few days. For me the reliable source would have to be someone very close to Ian Fleming Publications, or a news report from around '68! -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ps. I hope you don't mind, but I tweaked the references around a little to keep them all consistent throughout the article - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mind. But I truly hate inputting the references your way. Feel free to change my past and future citations. I'm sure you've noticed I had to change one of the citations. Hart-Davis, not Leader was the source. I'm glad you removed the "house pseudonym" rumour from the Amis page. Even if it were true, and it isn't, it has no relevance to the Amis page. Fanthrillers (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a problem: I always struggle getting the formatting right doing it the long way round (I reference in a different way to the method used here), so using the template ensures my inadequacies are overcome! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 09:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

A Matter of Life and Death
Please stop. I've looked at your contribs and you have relatively little experience with film articles. I have edited many hundreds of them, and these things are either standard or well represented. Please bear in mind that MOS is not a policy, it is a guideline. It is not required to follow MOS, and if another kind of formatting can work as well or better, it is fine to use it. This article has been stable and in good shape for quite a long time, and, while I do appreciate the other work that you did on it, there is no need for you to edit war over restoring your changes, which are not required, and which in some cases eliminate infotmation that is useful to the readers. Please, stop. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Go to the artuilces talk page and start a discussion there before you revert again. Your actions are incredibly close to WP:OWN. The article may have been stable for a while, but it's poor and if you try and bully other editors away from it, it will remain poor. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 06:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the article is not and was not "poor", and your own actions show that, since you made no major changes to the text. Certainly it can be tweaked -- almost any article can -- and you did some of that, as did I after you. But on the matter of formatting, please do not edit war over a guideline -- it is not one of the exceptions to the edit warring rule. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I told you: take it to the Talk Page, which is the right place to dicsuss you inept approach to editing. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Research request
You said you'd be visiting the British Library shortly. While there can you pull copies of the reviews of Mascott's 003½ book and Wood's "Spy" novelization? I wouldn't ask except both books were barely reviewed so I'd like to get all reviews. I've already got the Amis (New Statesman) and Laski (The Listener) reviews of Wood's novelization.


 * Mascott: Observer 3 December 1967, p.26 (Clare Tomalin)
 * Mascott: Punch 6 December 1967, p.875 v.253 (M.D. Lawrie)
 * Wood: Observer 7 August 1977, p.29 (Maurice Richardson ?)
 * Wood: TLS 21 October 1977, p.1249 (H.R.F. Keating?)

The TLS piece may be the infamous review where Keating castigated the Fleming estate for not coming up with an original title, instead retreading a Fleming title. Apparently he was unaware this was a novelization, even though the jacket flap clearly identified it as such. Fanthrillers (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've got temporary online access to a couple of these and pulled out the Tomalin and Richardson articles. The TLS article is by T. J. Binyon, not Keating, and doesn't refer to the incorrect title. Keating didn't write anything in the TLS that week. I'll see if I can find if it was published in another journal, rather than the TLS. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Over to the left of the screen under Toolbox, you'll see "E-mail this user". If you email me I'll send them across for you. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Many thanks! Will you be sending it as inline text or an attachment? I'd prefer it as text but understand if that's not possible. As for Keating, that may be my memory playing tricks. I've already checked the British book review digest and there are no other known cited reviews. Fanthrillers (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll have to send as an attachment, I'm afraid. They are scanned pdfs, so it's not possible to cut and paste the text, which is a shame! I'm hoping to get to the BL on Friday, but this week is a bit of a rush as I'm clearing up a stack of things at work before taking a week's leave from Saturday morning. Hopefully I'll have cleared everything sufficiently to be able to do it by then! If you send me an email using the link I'll get the first three off to you, followed by the Punch on Friday. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You should have the three pdfs now. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 20:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I do indeed. Many thanks. Fanthrillers (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Powell and Pressburger
"Sorry Steve: You can't have your own website as a reliable source"

I'm not doing it because it's my own site but because that's the only place where you can find the contemporary reviews online. It's those contemporary reviews that are being referenced.

Although I also wanted to bring attention to this nonsense about a "Self Published Website". Every web site is self published, by the people who created it. The WPS:SPS says that they mustn't be used for biographies of living people. Neither Powell nor Pressburger are still alive, so that doesn't apply. Apart from that, WP:SPS is just a warning to be wary of them. It doesn't forbid them totally -- SteveCrook (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC) I note that you didn't comment on my primary objection to this idea of SPS, that every web site is self-published :) The references from that one page in the article are to 4 pages on the site, one for each of the films from 1943-46. Are you really suggesting that I should replace those 4 references to the 70+ references that would be required to reference the articles directly? -- SteveCrook (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that a fansite is against WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Aside from that, the reviews can be cited from their original location, whether online or in print: not every citation has to point to an online source, especially if that source is SPS. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 10:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It depends how you define things. Is it a fan site, or is it a research source? It is certainly mainly used as the latter and there is no place on there for fans to place their own comments in an unregulated way as is the case on most fan sites. Even if you do say it's a fan site, there's an exclusion that WP:LINKSTOAVOID allows those written by a recognized authority.
 * The paragraph "British film critics gave the films of Powell and Pressburger a mixed reaction at the time, acknowledging their creativity but sometimes questioning their motivations and taste. For better or worse, The Archers were always out of step with mainstream British cinema.[15][16][17][18]" is a bit of a mare really! "out of step with mainstream British cinema" is a POV, based on a reading of a number of the reviews. A better reference would be one quote from a reliable secondary source—an academic or similar—who sums it up in that way and who can be reliably cited as such. Otherwise it's a cross between POV and OR. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you suggest a re-write? I'll look around for a few better sources -- SteveCrook (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look round too: there should be something that adequately covers what the point says, largely because I think it's true! Let me have a hunt round and scribble something up to thrash around. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

John Gardner
Several suggestions/comments.
 * In 1996, after discovering he had esophageal cancer, Gardner officially retired from writing Bond novels and Glidrose Publications quickly chose Raymond Benson to continue the literary stories of James Bond.

Gardner retired no later than 1995, although as we both know Gardner's final Bond novel appeared in 1996. Glidrose hired Benson in 1995. BTW, the Ripley obit contains numerous errors, e.g. he claims Licence Renewed appeared in 1976.
 * I've slightly fudged it as we don't have a clear definate date, but it's close enough to pass muster now. the Ripley obit is a shocker and I've only used it where I'm relatively happy with the facts from other sources. (I knew something was horribly wrong when I read "A Complete State of Death (not one of the Oakes series), which he wrote in 1969 under the pen name Derek Torry.") - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 21:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In 1979 Gardner was approached by Harry Keating, on behalf of Glidrose Publications (now Ian Fleming Publications) and asked him to revive Ian Fleming's James Bond series of novels.

The passive voice construction sticks in my craw. The sentence on the whole is something of a train wreck. I'm not sure it's necessary to mention Keating. I'd rather mention Keating and that secret short-list of six in the Bond books article.
 * Now done - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 21:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Whilst Gardner's Bond novels received a mixed reaction from the critics, they were popular and a number appeared in the The New York Times Best Seller list, bringing the author commercial success.

Only the earlier books up to Scorpius appeared on the NYT Best Seller list. I also believe that the books garnered mostly negative reviews.
 * Do you have a source we can use that expressly says that? It would be good to be able to get the balance in there, but I've got nothing that would suffice. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 21:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In the mid-1970s Gardner also wrote three novels using the character of Professor Moriarty from the Sherlock Holmes series.
 * Done that now - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 21:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Gardner only wrote the first two during the 1970s. The third he wrote near the end of his life. Fanthrillers (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Ian Fleming copyedit complete
Good luck with any future nominations. I find the article to be thorough and interesting. Dementia13 (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there, Sorry to be slow in getting back to you—I was away for the week and could only do minor things on my phone. Thanks very much indeed for all your help on the IF article. I've followed your advice on splitting the writing section and taken the step of listing for consideration for an FA. Thanks again - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Pearson/Mascott book titles
Continuing on from here, I have personally verified what appears on the title page of both books. The Pearson book is fine. The Mascott book is not. There is no comma. The page after the flyleaf has
 * The Adventures of
 * James Bond Junior
 * 003½
 * A Story for Boys and Girls‎
 * A Story for Boys and Girls‎

The title page (page 3) only has "003½‎" in big type. The frontispiece (page 2) says
 * The Adventures of
 * James Bond Junior

The author's and illustrator's names appear on the frontispiece. The inside jacket flap before the publisher's blurb says:
 * The Adventures of
 * James Bond Junior: 003½‎

I feel strongly that we should remove the comma from the title. After all, we don't write "James Bond, 007", do we? Fanthrillers (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. I saw your edit and changed the article title accordingly: I agree entirely that if the title is without comma, then so should the article reflect that. Sorry I couldn't comment on here at the time—I've been away and only editing on my mobile for a week. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Stanley Holloway
Hi Shrocat, thanks for the message and for the kind compliment! I just took a look, thanks for letting me know. I anticipated future problems with these FreeBMD refs at FAC, so I will reformat them all again and update. I have fixed one and I will work on the others later. Incidentaly, I had some brief involvement with Peter Sellers over the last few weeks. Sellers was "guided" by Dan Leno (my other FA nom) and I added this on Sellers page with the appropriate ref's. I am really enjoying Sellers progress. Do you have any great plans for it? If I can be of any assistance, don't hesitate to give my a prod on my TP. All the best! -- CassiantoTalk 15:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no worries. Leno has apparently "haunted" a few people, including the comedian Stanley Lupino.  Lupino, states he used to converse with Leno in the dressing room of Drury Lane before each performance.  Strangely enough, Lupino was a fairly rounded sort of fellow! In terms of my FAC's, It seems I am unintentionally following a pattern on WP; Holloway's hero was Leno and Leno's hero was Joseph Grimaldi (my next venture).  I think Sellers would be a worthy candidate for FA at the rate it's going.  I saw Fleming's nomination a few days ago and plan on posting a few comments shortly if your up for it.  A word of warning though.  FAC is a very tough process; Leno was ok because I co-nom'd it along with the excellent  who never fails to amaze me with his tolerance and helpfulness.  My advice for FAC would be to take things slowly and calmly. Don't be offended or take things personally by the comments people post.  Sometimes they come accross as very blunt—almost rude—but it helps the article immensely and improves one as an editor (not though you need it!).  See you on Fleming :-) -- CassiantoTalk 19:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High, while for quality the scale goes from Low  to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Fleming FAC
Hi there, I have a bucket load of documents relating to Fleming including birth and death certificates, census records, shipping and immigration entries and a copy of Fleming's will and probate. I included the birth entry but I won't add the others unless you want me too. A lot of what is written is extremely accurate according to the documents I have. If you would like copies let me know. I'd be only too happy to email them accross. -- CassiantoTalk 19:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The Man With The Golden Gun
Just made a small, simple edit to standardize the film caption for this movie - You (Undid revision 501639270 by Jobrjobr (talk))? Not a big deal, but from what I can see "Theatrical release poster by" seems to be the standard? Jobrjobr (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily "standard": it is one of a few possibilities and the one that was there before was perfectly adequate... - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 23:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Far from the Madding Crowd
Well, you seem determined on the wording/format of the captions for movie posters.......

As for the "Far from the Madding Crowd" illustrator - I have been helping the Academy Library and Tom Jung with a legacy project. Tom and Howard worked on a number of projects together - Tom was an art director working with MGM at the time of this film - Tom would come up with concepts and draw up a finished design. He would then give the design over to MGM and or their ad agency directly and then Howard would illustrate(sometimes Tom would also illustrate). This was how "Far from the Madding Crowd", the US theatrical release, was created. Tom Jung design, Howard Terpning illustration.

On many films there are foreign/non-US posters that use all or parts of the design and or illustrations from the US ad campaigns - This often creates confusion.

For artist credits I try to be very conservative with my edits - If you are agreeable, I can make the final edit. Jobrjobr (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Apologies for changing the name if was wrong: I have now replaced Terpning. Are you saying that what is there is the foreign US one? If so I'll find a UK one to replace it (which would probably mean the return of Chantrell). Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Given that it is a US studio film initially released in the US, it would seem the current poster is appropriate - IMHO?
 * Most of the foreign versions I have seen are just Tom and Howard's art re-worked.Jobrjobr (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Given it's a British film, initially released in the UK (the London premiere was on 16 October 67), filmed in the UK, UK cast and based on a UK-authored novel, it would seem a UK poster would be more appropriate? - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 16:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * SchroCat for some reason this interaction is combative - As mentioned, Tom was the designer and Howard was the illustrator of the poster/art/brainwashing that MGM used to promote the movie. Confirmed by Tom and confirmed by Howard's family.  Foriegn distributors will at times develop their own advertising - Often it is a re-work of the original art.  Peace. Jobrjobr (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not combative at all: I'm pointing out that as this is a British film there will be UK artwork that appeared, regardless of who the designer or illustrator. The foreign markets—including the US—possibly have different artwork, possibly not, but the domestic poster really should be the one in the article if at all possible. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 17:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * SchroCat I do not have a dog in the fight - Just trying to help out a bit given that I have some specific knowledge - "Far from the Madding Crowd" is a MGM film - MGM produced and distributed the film - Just as I mentioned with the caption wording "Theatrical release poster by" it would seem it is common practice/maybe best practices to use the poster that was created by the studio here on Wikipedia? The new poster you uploaded is Tom and Howard's work copyrighted by MGM and licensed to the UK distributor - It still should be properly credited to Howard?  Not sure why you would have uploaded a foreign distributors poster using the US studios copyrighted image?  Perhaps this would be best handled by an administrator?Jobrjobr (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to put Terpning's name back on there (I've dropped him back in there): I left him off as I was unsure if he was the designer of this one too. As per the above, this is a UK film, so the domestic UK poster is more appropriate than one designed for the foreign US market. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The subject matter is UK, it was filmed in the UK and the actors are UK - Yes, a UK film by your definition. But the Studio that made the investment in producing and distributing is MGM. MGM used Tom Jung as the designer and Howard Terpning as the illustrator for the advertising campaign poster.  The way you have left it is the current poster is one step removed from the source/the original.


 * My apologies if my comments came off US centric - I just think the poster that was being used was the source/original and also the best representation of the film.Jobrjobr (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sellers
...and todays best edit award on Wikipedia  goes to SchroCat... :-) -- CassiantoTalk 08:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * lol - I thought you'd like that one! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Marc Lawrence in Diamonds are Forever
In an edit of yours to The Man with the Golden Gun (film), you wrote that Lawrence's appearance in DAF was uncredited. It was credited. Check the credits at Youtube.

Less than a week ago I edited Sig Haig's article. There somebody had his role in DAF as uncredited also and working at the funeral home....William 15:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You're quite right - the BFI list him as "older Slumber Inc. attendant". Thanks for updating the article. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm also doing similar edits to the cast of Diamonds are Forever namely taking out the wikilinks to the henchmen and allies pages that no long exist. Also note DAF I am about to add Sid Haig and Marc Lawrence to the cast. Some of the people, Ed Bishop, David de Keyser, were uncredited in DAF. The article doesn't note this for them but does so for the Bambi and Thumper actresses. I think if we're going to note cast as uncredited we have to do it for all uncredited or none. Not a mix. My edits are in good faith, if you have a problem, let me know.


 * Funny but until I watched DAF again earlier this month, I didn't connect Sid Haig's character to his many other roles I've seen him in.(Like his multiple Mission Impossible appearances). Maybe it was due to his hat....William 15:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem: you fill 'em in as you can! The BFI database (which I linked to above) has very good cast lists, including a number of uncredited and very minor characters. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Peter Sellers
I've seen you've done a great deal of work on his article. A few things.

He suffered a heart attack while making 'Kiss me Stupid' but according to this and one other news article, it didn't happen on the set but at home.

Sellers having 13 heart attacks. I can't find anything to back up that number. A news article here from 1977 says he had a massive heart attack in 1964.

IMHO I think the part about Sellers heart attacks needs some cleaning up....William 17:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah - thanks for pointing that out: I'll have a dig round for something more concrete. It's still a work in progress and I'm only into the 60s at the moment and only just up to Dr. Strangelove, so it (the Kiss me Stupid event) should be sorted in the next day or so. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 17:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This took some digging, but I found the edit where the bit was put in about 13 heart attacks. It was done by an IP with no other edits to their credit and its unsourced, so I removed it. I also tweaked the sentence about Sellers 1964 heart attack, and put a citation in for it....William 17:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've upped the number to 8 (with citations) as newspapers are often not the best sources for this sort of thing - they are too close to the events and not all the information would have been out by the time they went to press. The bios are pretty good on details like this. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 18:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Peter Sellers. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The reverted edit can be found [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=502857226 here]. Fbifriday (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My bad, I undid this. Didn't mean to do it. --Fbifriday (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your message on my talk page was rude, especially since I had already undone both. Please remember WP:CIVIL --Fbifriday (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies: I left the message in between your initial deletion and before the second message came through. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 21:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's fine. Just keep in mind that assuming good faith is usually a good idea. Good work on the article though, I just read it before and after and it, looks much better now. --Fbifriday (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Solitaire, Pussy Galore, Tracy Bond etc.
The articles on Bond girls have made into redirects but should the redirect be to the movie they were in or to the Bond girls article? Thanks for the help....William 12:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I would send them to the Bond girls page. If they go to the page for each film, then it misses out the novel references. (The novel references are not great on the Bond girl page, but at least there is something about them there). Thanks for doing all this - the editor who put in place all the redirects didn't bother to do the cleaning up afterwards and refused to do it when I pointed it out to him - all very tedious! -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ps. I'd leave the Tracy Bond article where it is: she merits notability, while the others don't. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 13:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * All right, I'll send them to the Bond girls page with the exception of the Countessa. We don't want to anger the Union Corse. I'll start with the Dr. No article and work forward, fixing up the cast sections. Making sure that the redirects are sent to the right page. Doing all the Bond films will take me a few days to a week depending on how much time I can pour in daily. Tomorrow I'm going to be busy with non WP stuff.


 * FYI I've been to Bond locations on 3 continents. I've stayed at the Peninsula Hotel in Hong Kong, visited Hemingway House in Key West(Which is a 5-6 hour drive from where I live), and have been to the Prater and rode the Ferris Wheel in Vienna. Plus I've watched all the movies a dozen times, except maybe Die Another Day which I believe all copies of which deserve to be burned....William 13:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you certain the henchmen articles can't be sourced with out of universe info? List of fictional characters are quite acceptable on wikipedia, especially for a series as big as James Bond. I think the most constructive thing would be to create List of characters in Dr. No etc and have sourced summaries of them. I agree that the unsourced lists were pure cruft but i actually think it would be possible to produce decent lists of character by film with sourced character info and out of universe info if possible. I've seen it done on lesser series. My feeling is that a series as huge as James Bond needs a summary of all of its characters. What you are missing is that near 2000 people a month look for information on characters in films like From Russia with Love.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * But it already has them, they are in the following lists, along with certain character-specific ones (M (James Bond), Miss Moneypenny, Felix Leiter etc)


 * List of James Bond allies
 * List of James Bond villains
 * List of James Bond henchmen
 * List of James Bond film cast lists
 * List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series
 * Bond girl


 * The other articles were so full of in-universe (and only in-universe) information, let alone huge amounts of WP:OR and WP:POV that they were a truly awful embarrassment. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * LOL Dr. Blofeld, you beat me here. I always knew SPECTRE was fast. As I said at my talk page, The henchmen articles were all re-directs to start with. What I've been doing is redirecting them to the same page instead of one henchmen article redirecting to the movie, another to the list of villians page, and another to the list of henchmen page. Now they all redirect to the henchmen page.


 * IMHO the henchmen, with the exception of Oddjob and Jaws, should be redirects to the list page and not every movie have its own page. I don't see a need for list articles most of the time and there are plenty of JB ones now. Some, the henchmen one, could be fleshed out more....William 15:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. no they weren't redirects to begin with. They were articles for years until somebody botched up the redirect on July 5th. Look at the left column here for instance. No Schrodinger's cat is alive, with the exception of List of James Bond allies, those are not summarised lists of characters. Proper lists of fictional characters contain summarized information about the characters themselves rather than simply just names and their fate. The trick is finding sources and indeed out of source info for them which using the Bond film inserts, documentaries, websites and google books should be achieveable.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As I noted above, flesh out the list articles. In the case of at least one Bond henchmen, Mr. Kil, you created the article but then made it a redirect yourself. You noted the FRWL henchmen page. Much of the Red Grant material there had nothing to do with the movie. It was either material from the novel or the video game....William 15:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed, and I suggested to the user in question——in this conversation that he may want to clean up the mess he made. He declined. Going forward I suggest the following approach:


 * if there are any notable characters then they have their own pages, (which is the status quo);
 * the lists above should be 'beefed up', with appropriate citations, to cover the general topics in question. People like the henchment are not in themselves notable, even when grouped together by film; as a cohesive unit, taking all the films together, there is certainly an argument for them. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the lists were a "truly awful embarrassment" but so are many thousands of wikipedia articles. They could quite easily be improved and sourced with out of universe info. Also as WP:NOT PAPER there is no limits to what we can cover and if reliable sources covering the characters exist then I think they're acceptable. I think the lists will become extremely bloated if you try to adequately summarize the characters of the entire series in one article. Let's not forget we have entire articles on minor fictional characters on US TV series and anime when none of us have probably even heard of the TV series themselves. James Bond characters are pretty notable and have a lot more potential sources than most series for out of universe coverage I'd imagine. I have always disliked having "list of henchmen by film", list of allies by film", I agree with you. But I think we should have articles like List of characters in Dr. No.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem with List of characters in Dr. No (Novel or film, by the way?) is that we already have it, to a limited degree, and much that falls outside the article is just pointless fluff. The only one who you could argue should have a page is Dr. No, and before the recent re-direct, he'd had a Refimprove tag on him since February 2008! The only 4 references in the article were woeful (two IMDB, wikia and a fansite). - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, one could argue that any coverage of fictional characters is pointless fluff. I just hate seeing double standards on wikipedia. The truth is that no, a formal encyclopedia should not have coverage of fictional characters at the level of a fan site and trivia about them, if only you spread your outlook across the entire site. Being James Bond though, I still think its possible to produce decent lists of characters by film with reliably sourced out of universe info. I guess if you could flesh and source List of James Bond henchmen to provide an effective basic summary beyond "Shot by Bond." this would be ideal. There a sources for a lot of them on the casting decisions behind them and character analysis which are quite suitable to such a list.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well feel free to make a start on it and see if could help in clear up the colossal mess he made. I'm not in a position to help out for a while: I've got Ian Fleming at FAC and I'm trying to get Peter Sellers up to a GA level at the moment. -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Have both of you agreed to rework the henchmen articles? Should I still go ahead with fixing redirects and at the same time leave the henchmen articles as redirects? Frankly there's problems with the henchmen list. There are characters who probably shouldn't be on it. The Dolph Lungren character in AVTAK was working for the good guys. Howe as portrayed is tool being used by Zorin. Is the Swiss banker in TWINE really a henchman? How about the sales girl in LALD? Did the Cab Driver get blown up in the boat chase? I don't recall that happening. There's more that look dubious....William 16:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd say stick to the List of James Bond henchmen as a start, aim to flesh it out and source and add out of universe info. We'll then see how the kb size is and whether or not it would be appropriate to split by film. but as Schodringer says, we are all busy..17:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellent work, I can help you with the Peter Sellers article. I'll look in on it in the next few days. Offhand I'd say it needs better coverage of his films and their critical response and certainly more coverage in the lead of his films. Other than that looks good. I'll try to develop it. The Sean Connery article sometime I want to bring up to GA status.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm slowly working my way through at the moment. I tend to leave the lead until last as it's supposed to reflect the whole article, so it's best done when the article can be considered in its entirity. As for the rest, I'm trying to keep the balance between Sellers' life, without going into too much details about the films, as the films own articles are supposed to cover that aspect. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 16:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Doc, I'm still making my way through Sellers, but I've now got to the end of the Sellers in the 60s. In terms of film coverage (and reviews) it would probably be good to have some additional comments on his more notable films, (ie those which were award winning (or nominated), or those films that effected Sellers career or life). Why don't you draw up a draft in your sandbox so we can see what you have in mind? Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 16:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

buff (colour)
Why should the article Buff (colour) be written in UK English instead of US English? Would you object to the entire article being written in US English, given the WP:TIES of the balance of the article? Shall we move it to Buff (color) and spell it that way throughout? Chrisrus (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see your talk page, where the matter is already under discussion. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 20:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Questions about Wikipedia & SuggestBot
Hi, we’ve been running a research experiment with SuggestBot and would like to ask you some questions about Wikipedia and SuggestBot. You can find more information and the questions on this page. It should take less than ten minutes to respond. We would greatly appreciate if you had the time to participate! Regards, Nettrom (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Request
If you have time, maybe you would do me a small favour? My article Reginald Heber is at PR awaiting comments (the ever-faithful Wehwalt has responded, but I need more!}. Heber isn't as interesting or exciting as Peter Sellers, but the article isn't nearly as long. I would welcome your thoughts. Brianboulton (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course BB, not a problem at all. I'm not brilliant at proofing, but I'll see what I can do for you. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 21:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Sellers as Morgenhall.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Sellers as Morgenhall.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Re:Ian Fleming
I've added some thoughts on the Fleming talk page: The non-free content use is certainly not terrible, but it could do with a little tightening. With Peter Sellers on stage, screen and record, I've removed the one single cover, as that certainly wasn't justified, but left the rest, as they look to be fine. J Milburn (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting about the signature, I've not actually seen that policy before. Two potential courses of action- someone could easily remove the signature without changing the underlying image (see WP:GL- they've always been very good, in my experience), or you could argue that the signature is de minimis, meaning that there is no infringement. I wouldn't want to say that the signature would definitely constitute de minimis (IANAL, yadda yadda) but it's something to consider. Hope this helps. J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Dalton-Bond revisionism
I've drafted an article for the Timothy Dalton talk page. In it I attack two claims that appear in too many Bond-related wiki articles:


 * The producers asked Timothy Dalton to play Bond in On Her Majesty's Secret Service
 * Dalton was the producers' first choice to replace Roger Moore in 1986 and that the producers only considered Pierce Brosnan because Dalton was unavailable

I know that you're busy with the Peter Sellers article, but if you have time could you glance at my draft? Right now I'm trying - and failing - to discover precisely when Brosnan shot his 1986 Bond screen test, and when the 1985-1986 season of Remington Steele finished production. - Fanthrillers (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sellers
Hi. Great job on the article so far. Yes if you could continue adding a few reviews and also a short summary of some of his roles/co-stars I think this would make it a better overall article. Biographically the article is impeccable I'd say and you appear to have used the best books to compile it. I hope you don't mind but I've removed the infobox. I did so with William Burges too, Cassianto and Tim riley also have a distaste to them, I think it looks cleaner without it. Anyway, I'll try to fill in a few gaps. Its not necessary or course to mention every film in detail, but in reading a film biography I like to have a little background to the roles and co stars their critical reviews. I'd like to see a few more of his films covered. BTW if you are interested still in promoting Ian Fleming to FA let me know as I think between us and Cassianto we could promote it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your additions - they are adding to the article hugely and I'll keep dropping in the addtions as suggested. I'm delighted about the infobox being removed (Cass and I both abhor them for some types of article ) but I suspect there will be a certain amount of pushback on it - see Talk:Peter Sellers for the long discussion that accompanied the last time I removed it. As to Fleming, he's going through the Mil-Hist A review (See WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ian Fleming) for another look through / copy edit and also to let a few tempers calm down after it all got a bit heated around the infobox again. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 11:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, well Cass and Tim should be on our sides in regards to that. I only believe infoboxes are suitable for biographies with a ton of data like sportspeople. Thanks for the positive words, I'll continue working on this shortly.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Things coming on nicely! Can you find anything about The Dock Brief? Hey there's a good article here. Do you have access to Highbeam?♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've dropped a rather good quote in there about his development as an actor. I don't have access to Highbeam, but some access to Lexis Nexis instead 9although only from about 1980 onwards. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

For film related article highbeam is possibly the best search engine you could possibly have! You should definitely put you name down for it asap. I hope its not too late to do so, but I'll beg them if there are no places left LOL! See HighBeam, apply asap, you'll find it invaluable trust me on that! Eeks, infobox is back, ah well... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that: I've dropped my name in there - we'll see what comes of it. Thanks for pointing it out to me. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you gave a Guardian or Times review for What's New Pussycat? I'm sure others didn't quite say what Life magazine said! Having problems with my throat at the moment, triggered by hayfever. Its feeling a bit swollen so I'll need to take a a break right now. Hopefully I'll feel a bit better this evening. All I want to do now I think is to just fill in a few gaps on the uncovered 60s films and expand the lead a bit, I think it could be stronger. After that i want to do a google book and highbeam search for an hour or two tapping in different things to see if I find anything notable you missed. As I say though you appear to have been well researched in terms of books. Once I've done that I'll be convinced myself it is ready for FA and will add a support vote once I feel it is fully comprehensive and sound. All the best.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Cheers for that: it is much stronger now. I'll have a look and see what I can find. I've added another quote in there (you were wrong, it seems they all thought pretty much along the same lines as Life! There is a possible issue with the image you put in: it was raised at PR and the uploader said they would look into the issues surrounding it but I'm not sure that has been completed as yet. Hope you're feeling better - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 17:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologies gents, I have been a bit busy today, so haven't been involved that much. I too have Highbeam. I used it a lot during Leno and found it to be very useful. If there is anything I can do please let me know (although I'm worried I may now of missed the boat). -- CassiantoTalk 19:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Still plenty of time. Hey olive oil helps, my throat and ear feels a little better now. Hopefully it will be better tomorrow, its been bugging me a few days now.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm nearing the end of what I wanted to do. Yeah, you can see why I was keen to edit now and what I was envisaging as missing. This evening I will do a final google book and highbeam search just to see if there's anything I've overlooked. If anything though I think the Michael Starr (1991) book could be very useful indeed. I might ask Tim riley if he could get the book and see if anything important has been missed, I found that and the Lewis book the most useful I think in google book hits. Everything OK with the article now? I didn't want it to get too long but it has to be of this sort of length to truly write a great article in my opinion. I think some of the early 60s films could still be improved a little, I;ll look into it later tonight but its approaching a length I think is reasonable and wouldn't want it it get too much longer..♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Seperate is fine but I think its better organized now. I would say we could elaborate more on his acting techniques and legacy. Tomorrow I'll look into further research and complete my edits. I've give it a copy edit tonight and I think its a very good article. Please respond, your silence today is worrying me!♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I've asked Br'Rabbit not to edit whilst you have the inuse tag. But it might help your case more if you were more willing to communicate with him and myself either here or on the article talk page...♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hugely pushed for time this weekend - off to the olympics in about 10 minutes, so only editing where I can in between other things. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, enjoy it. I'm just about finished on Sellers. I've browsed Highbeam and extracted what I thought was interesting and useful. I'd say the only remaining part which might be improved is the technique section. I might look in google books later and see if I can find anything more such an analysis of his techniques but as I say I think I am just about done now. Its getting long now, but very comprehensive and I would hope still fairly concise though which is the most important thing. Thankyou for your hard work in getting it to level you did initially though.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to introduce a negative voice into this discussion, but I would rather express it here than on the FAC page. In its short spell at FAC, the article has grown by 4500 words, over 50% of its former length, in response to the criticism that the article lacked sufficient detail and critical comment on Sellers' films. While the criticism itself was reasonable, the response has been ridiculous overkill, leaving the article bloated and overdetailed—13000 words, near enough. Had it appeared in this form when I peer reviewed it a couple of weeks ago, I would have recommended considerable pruning. The films have their own articles and that, surely, is where the detailed comments belong; in this article a few examples of critical opinions on Sellers' performances would have been perfectly adequate. When I completed my peer review I thought the article was close to FA standard and with a little more work could be got there; I looked forward to giving it my support. Now, it looks like a different article, and I will need to review it all over again; are the nominators really convinced that this drastic treatment has improved it? Brianboulton (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Patience Brian, the idea is to condense it but a lot of important information was overlooked which you haven;t given me credit for. Schrodinger, can you let me at this article first to condense it? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)