User talk:SchroCat/Archive 5

Disambiguation link notification for October 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of James Bond films, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reboot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Ian Fleming
There was a small article about Ian Fleming in The Sunday Times this week. It's only four pages so I have scanned it in case there is anything that might be useful (the pages are not sequenced in order in the gallery, but files are named after the page numbers i.e. 18-21): http://postimage.org/gallery/7ia02is4 Betty Logan (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for this - I'll have a read through them today and see what can be dropped into the article. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've uploaded the trailer cap to the main Wikipedia site at File:Dr No trailer.jpg. Fastily obviously couldn't afford us the courtesy of transferring them over (although it was pretty clear that was what was going to happen, either under a US PD licence or an FUR—I guess he just had to make things as awkward as possible). Carl Lindberg seems to have a pretty good grasp on the legalities, so I've assumed he is correct about it still being in the US public domain, but not in the UK. If this turns out to be incorrect down the line, we can probably cook up an FUR for most of the articles it is used in. I'm not sure there is much point in re-uploading the Honey Rider images since I recall you uploading one with an FUR, so that's pretty much taken care of. Betty Logan (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah - we'll have to live with what we have here. It's a shame, as FLs etc have a stronger need to free images than GAs, and it acted as a great free 'header' image in a number of cases. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 21:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Betty, do you have an author for the article? There's some good stuff I'd like to drop in to various places. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 21:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's written by Mark Edmonds. Replied to your email BTW. Betty Logan (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that - and replied back! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 05:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * just scheduled, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on that! I understand your aprehension (specially because my most edited article is on the TFA requests), but let's hope the visit spike ends up being good for the Bond articles. igordebraga ≠ 13:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
TBrandley 16:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
Your edit here. Of course it's a 1977 book. "1978" refers to the Whitaker annual that contained the publication data. My edit here added the month of publication. As no other novel in the article has a citation verifying the month of publication I saw no reason to add one now. However editors may have wondered where I got the month from, hence the embedded comment. In future I'll add this information to the edit summary.

On the subject of Bond revisionism and how unreliable even primary sources can be (increasingly my major annoyance), the Fleming site appears to claim that Amis's identity was a secret at the time of publication ("Colonel Sun was a great success on publication and the intriguing mystery of the author's identify was well kept.") and that the book was a great success - whatever that means - which as we know was not the case. - Fanthrillers (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa - I missed the addition to the month field and only saw the comment and thought you were questioning the publication year! I also have some issues with the IFP website and had to double check the publication dates of all the entries on the BL website, while all the other info I've taken from there I've also double checked elsewhere. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 21:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Count de Blojean
As you can tell by my new signature, my Swiss retreat beckons..☠ Count de Blofeld  07:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * He he - the scouting mission for a Norwegian lair is almost complete. You could run the world from here and no-one could find you! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 03:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A view to a kill
The current dynamite part is completely inaccurate and you know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.119.10 (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's no, and I know it. I also know (and understand) about WP:FILMPLOT, which is something you appear not to have read. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 02:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Rollback?
Do you want the rollback userright to help you with vandalism? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed, That would be great, thanks very much! As this is largely for Fleming, does this come with special Bond-features, such as cattle prod, flamethrower etc? Cheers! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 05:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not authorized to give you the ejector seat. ;-) You now have the rollback and auto-patrolled rights. Use them well! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank's Ed - it's much appreciated. M ost of the stuff I had to deal with yesterday was well-intentioned but erroneous, but there was still a big amount of proper vandalism there too. Now I'm "licenced to rollback" I can sort these out much more efficiently. Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Precious
Congrats on the front page!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  15:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You seen Skyfall? I'm going next week sometime, too busy tonight!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  19:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, like the sad git I really am I was at the 10.15 showing this morning! Bloody good film—truly one of the great Bond films of all time and Craig has cemented his place in Bond history with it. They've managed to get a solid and credible plot (with only one hole in it), a crackingly good cast and a superb ending. It's got everything you could want - including some nice humourous touches about some of the previous films. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That good? Wow. I'm so glad because Quantum was a major disappointment and I think with the right script Craig could produce one of the best films. Glad to see he has made it. Yeah just seeing the film poster and hearing the theme music I can tell it is gonna be something of a classic. I'm on the case with Le Mesurier this weekend, will try to make it more comprehensive but not overdo it. Now Dr. No, we really must get to FA. Another peer review and request input from Brian and Jim? ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  20:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah - I still need to clear a couple of bits off my desk first (both on Wiki and in RL) and then onto Dr. No for an FA push. It needs a good re-vamp before a PR, I think: there's no themes discussed and a few major bits that have to be done first, but it shouldn't be too much, once we get started. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 17:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a good source..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  15:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Cheers for this: I'll have a look over tomorrow and see what can be used. Off to see it again tonight, so I'll be able to clear up some annoying points (what's Silva's proper name etc) - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 17:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Liking those film posters you uploaded. Are those the actual cinema posters at time of release? As it should be I think.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  14:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * They are! Someone gave me a copy of this a few weeks ago, so I've been able to find copies of the originals for every film, including details of the artists and illustrators, which is even better! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Patrick Guerrand-Hermès. Polo club at Zorin's mansion... ♦  Dr. ☠ Blofeld  12:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Spy network
Do you think we could concoct an FUR to allow us to shove this into List of recurring actors and actresses in the James Bond film series? It is bloody marvelous! Betty Logan (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Blimey - that's fantastic! If we can work out how to drop it in then I'm up for trying, although I suspect it'll be ripped out fairly quickly. I'm not 100% sure Wiki has the technology to host this either... but it's certainly worth a try! -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ )
 * It can't host flash, so we couldn't make it interactive, but we could screencap its default state which shows all the actors in two or more films connected up. It would be a good image to stick at the top of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good - I've emailed you an image: would that stand, do you think? I'll come up with a FUR to back it up: it should be possible! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 18:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done - let me know what you think and feel free to tweak how you want. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Gareth Mallory Profile.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Gareth Mallory Profile.png. 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) 04:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The Pink Panther (1963 film)
I can appreciate how busy you are right now, however do you have a reference on hand to confirm that The Pink Panther (1963 film) is indeed a 1963 film and not a 1964 film? If the IMDB is to be believed the film was first released in West Germany on 19 December 1963; in Finland on 20 December 1963; in Sweden on 26 December 1963; in the UK on 7 January 1964; and in the US on 18 March 1964. All rather baffling. I'd like to rever the lede back to 1963. BTW, the infobox contains the US and UK release dates. I also question the lede and infobox which identify it as an American film. - Fanthrillers (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The BFI identify its year of release as being 1963; they don't give an exact date but they're usually pretty accurate on things like this. They also confirm it was an American production too so that is probably correct. Betty Logan (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't find any confirmation of the countries you've listed, but all the sources I've come across do show it as a 1963 film, so I suspect that it was released somewhere in 63 first. I#d change it to 63 and use the BFi as a reference. As to Brit v American, it's a hard to define term with no agreed definition, but again, if the BFI show it as both then it probably is. (Skyfall is currently shown as Brit and US too, based on a Variety source, but I guess that's only based on where the money is coming from)... - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 06:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Schrodinger's cat is alive/sandbox
Gone through this. Rather than discuss changes I've just gone ahead and made them, but it was mostly just copyedit work. I've tagged a few things so please don't be offended by that, it's just a convenient way of highlighting potential issues. I was slightly concerned by the second paragraph of the lede (which I wrote so I reserve the right to criticise it!) because I felt it shifted the focus towards the Fleming charcater too much, whereas it needed to be focused on the Fleming traits that had been absorbed into the film portrayals. Personally I think it's well on the way to being another GA standard article, but as ever feel free to retain/reject any alterations I've made. Betty Logan (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Betty, That's fantastic - many thanks indeed for this. Your edits are all spot on, as are your comments and I'll work through those shortly to iron out those particular issues. Glad you think it's getting on for GA - I just hope we're able to keep the articleas it stands and that the "in film" discussion goes smoothly enough! Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 05:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually I did have a thought: currently the actors' salaries are listed at List of James Bond films, and I'm wondering if this information would be more relevant if instead it were included in the little film boxes in each actor's section in the film character article. Betty Logan (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I like it! Fanthrillers is looking through it at the moment, but I'll drop it on once he's clear. I have one more source book to cover for Brosnan before Craig, when we have to revert to the news reports and reviews, rather than the books, but that shouldn't take too long, so I'm hoping that it should be completed in a couple of days. I'm not sure it needs to cover anything else in the article - just those magnificent seven. Do you agree, or can you think of anything else that needs covering? Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 18:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm done for the day though I still want to have another go at the first three paragraphs. Let me say for now you've done a bang-up job on this article and I do thank you for inviting me to contribute it. I also want to thank you for the tireless work you've done these last two weeks on the Bond articles in general, reverting too many inane edits. - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No, thank you—both of you—for going through this so thoroughly. I'll take a few days to clear this lot up and finish Brosnan and Craig and then onto the Production history. At the slow rate I'm going along at, I may be finished by Christmas! Thanks again to you both. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * On an unrelated note, I got Timothy Dalton protected for a month. - Fanthrillers (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Great news - I was building up to it within another revert or two. Hopefully that will discourage them enough to go away, otherwise we'll have to re-apply again later if it all starts up again... - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 16:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Mesurier
I will try to edit this tomorrow. Maybe then an FA nom by the end of the month?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  22:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * lol - I was just in the midst of an email to you about this. I dropped him into PR about 30 seconds ago, as it normally takes a week or so to get things up to speed there. I think that timeframe works well - 2-3 weeks on PR (depending on the levels of interest we get) and then on to FAC pretty much straight afterwards? - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 22:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, let's aim for FA by the end of the year. Sean Connery really I want to get up to FA in the new year..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  23:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Most of Le Mesurier's films unlike Sellers only have mention of him playing a role, very few in depth discussions of his roles so I think the article is pretty comprehensive as it is.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah I think it's pretty well covered now. As a (largely) bit-part player, he may get an ocassional mention, but not even that sometimes! - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 14:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Arb
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Skyfall
You removed the gun James Bond used in Skyfall because you felt it was unsourced. In the movie itself, the character Q refers to it as, "PPK/S nine-millimeter short". Does this not make it WP:FACT? --Juventas (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There has been a lot of work done in the last couple of years to remove all fancruft from the Bond pages and ensure that everything carries a repliable secondary source, rather than just using the film as primary. If you could find a source that refers to the weapon, then please use it. - SchroCat (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Re:Re:Bond films
1 for you, telly!

17:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Skyfall
Hi, I saw you referenced the talk page when deleting my addition about MI6 offices. I'm not quite sure where this is discussed. I see a complaint about older language that speculated on some connection with Dr. No, but I don't see why mentioning the move of MI6 underground is off-limits. I think as the plot is currently written, readers will be confused by "Back at MI6's underground heaadquarters" when there is no context for it. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  21:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thoughts? -- Jprg1966  (talk)  04:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It was removed in error - I've replaced it, although tweaked it (MI6 is a service, not an agency). - SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Overlink
Reads- Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead....William 00:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I know what the guidelines are: I'm wondering why you've gone against them or ignored them for that edit of yours. Take Roger Moore as an example. Search from the top of the article to find his name. Lead, Infobox and then Cast List. You deleted the cast list link, which is where it should be. Look at Scaramanga. In the lead then the cast: you deleted cast, which is where it should be. Instead of wuoting the policies to me, perhaps you should read them properly yourself and think about why your edit may have been wrong. - SchroCat (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should have just fixed them long ago and not be wholesale reverting what was a 95% correct edit....William 01:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it was a bloody awful edit that was at least 95% wrong. - SchroCat (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not even close. The entries for Death is Forever and The Man From Barbarosa at List of James Bond villains were 95% wrong despite your doing over 20 edits to the article in the last year. I saw the mistakes today when making my first ever visit to the page....William 18:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Totally different subject and your removal of links on MWTGG was misguided, which is why I reverted the majority of them. The List of James Bond villains article is virtually nothing to do with me - 20 edits in a year is absolutely nothing for an article that someone else wrote and I have only tinkered with and if you look carefully you'll see the majority of those edits were reversions of other people's incorrect or misguided edits. Just to give you a frame of reference, List of James Bond novels and stories, which I've worked on properly has about 150 of my edits on; Ian Fleming has 476: that should give you an indication of just how low down the list the villains article rates on my scale of giving a toss. - SchroCat (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Bond, James Bond
Thanks for the video upload, it definitely adds to the vibrancy of our article about Dr. No! Do you think you could fix the aspect ratio, though? It's vertically squashed (or horizontally stretched, if you prefer). I can't say if this is some side-effect of the new video player, but that's how it looks for me at the moment.

Best wishes, &mdash; Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   15:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC).


 * Hi there and thanks for the message. Unfortunately I'm not the best technical person to sort this out, as it took me several hours to work it out first time round! I'll add it to the list of things to sort out and try and dig out the original file (and instructions) once again. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Bond salaries
Brief article in The Sunday Times today: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Arts/article1165215.ece. You can't access it without a sub, so I've scanned in the article in the event it is of some use: http://postimage.org/gallery/2du8424y. Betty Logan (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers Betty - I'll have a look at these later today when I'm back in proper i'net connection, rather than a dodgy phone! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

List of James Bond villains- Death is Forever
I just removed some complete nonsense in this article about the John Gardner nover. While I don't have a copy of the novel on hand, I'm 99.95% certain the book's plot had not a thing to do with decoys and 100% certain Wolfgang Wiesen died from electrocution when the power was restored to the Channel Tunnel rails that he happened to be standing on. I fixed the cause of Wiesen's death, but it could use elaboration. The decoy bit I blanked because I didn't know what to replace it with....William 18:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Also- The Man From Barbarossa entry is total nonsense. The villian wasn't at an army base but died in the Caspian Sea, there was no planned KGB missile launch(The next to last page of the book had a mention of a 747 detonating a nuke over Wash DC but that was discovered after the General was killed), etc etc. The entries were totally wrong, and again I wasn't sure what to put there, so I blanked it.

Some of the Gardner entries may need scrutinizing. 'Bond and his army' in Icebreaker, Was Max Tarn really killed via a flare gun in Seafire. The first description is inaccurate, the second may or may not be wrong, I just remember the ending differently....William 18:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I must admit that it's been years since I read most of the Gardner books (although I recently read the first three again). It's part of a wider issue with a few of the non-core Bond books, in that they were written or edited without the use of good secondary sources, so there are a lot of inaccuracies, mis-remembered details, fancruft and nonsense dotted throughout. I'll have to take a spin through some of the books again, but it'll be a long process unfortauntely! - SchroCat (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, I called out for help here. The library near my home has TMFB but not DIF. I won't be able to pick up the book for a few days, then it will take a few more for me to review the book. TMFB is the only Gardner novel that I stopped reading. It took me two times to get through it. So getting the right information will take a bit and be torturous to boot. Honestly give me a week to 10 days from this date to fill in the blanks....William 00:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

List of James Bond film cast lists
I'm still in the process of looking over your draft, the source checking took me longer than I thought so I'll being a copyedit/neutrality check over the weekend. No major problems so far, just a few cases where the claims don't quite match what the source says. Jsut the odd tweak will solve most of the issues.

On another note I PROD'd List of James Bond film cast lists earlier this evening, because I don't quite see the point of it. It's not particularly encylopedic and mostly just replicates the cast lists from the film articles. The PROD was removed, so I was wondering what your take is on it? If you don't care either way I will AfD it, but obviously I don't want to torpedo something you'd like to retain. Betty Logan (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers Betty. Most of them are tweakable and I'll work through some of the other bits (Richard Burton etc) later today.


 * I saw you'd done that (on the cast lists) and I'm happy for it to go - so happy that I've started the AfD on it myself! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * And I see you know Betty, one of my favorite people in WikiProject Films. I always enjoy working with her. Even on the rare occasions when we disagree, we do it politely and try to work toward the middle. It's almost like being Canadian!  :- )   --Tenebrae (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * She's one of my very fave people on Wiki and one I always turn to whenever I need advice or suggestions and it was a very dark day when she went into semi-retirement. Her balance of knowledge and skill is rare, and it is further enhanced by an even rarer diplomatic and fair approach to all issues I've ever asked her about. She is one of the very few people I trust implicitly on here! - SchroCat (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Compliment
Just wanted to thank you for being able to take a leadership role in the tempest-in-a-teapot Skyfall debate. Being able to marshal credibility and engender respect in this odd circumstance of anonymity and solely written communication &mdash; without nuance of vocal tone, facial expressions, etc. &mdash; is a valuable talent or skill in situations like these, and I, for one, want to say it's appreciated. Thank you for your steady hand and work on this. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I see you're a big James Bond fan. May I recommend Life Books' (as in Time Life) newly published 50 Years of James Bond. A friend of mine wrote part of it, along with Time magazine's Richard Corliss. It probably won't say anything you don't know, but it is very up-to-date. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * My pleasure—and your words are very much appreciated. I have the Time book already; it's very slickly put together and is a very interesting read with a few little facts in there that I'd not come across before, so it was most enlightening. - SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello! :D
Hi there! My name's Sasha. :3 I'm sort of new here on Wikipedia, and it's really nice to meet you! I love James Bond films too - seen Dr. No and it was awesome! Can you please tell me what happened that led to Dr. Blofeld retiring? :( I am sad, and I hope he comes back. Red Hat On Head (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Eon were sued by Kevin McClory, who claimed rights in the character. There was an out-of-court settlement and Eon continued to refute McClory's claim, but decided to drop the character down a chimney to bring an end to him. I doubt he'll return, as MGM / Sony now hold most of the rights, although there may well be some legacy rights that McClory's estate could try and claim (although I suspect that they would lose if they did try). - SchroCat (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Sasha refers to this Dr. Blofeld. Perhaps not. - Fanthrillers (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did, thanks! Sorry for not making it clearer the first time around! :P Red Hat On Head (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, that Dr. B! lol. That is possibly a longer, more complex plot that the Eon/McClory one, starting with ghosts and moving on through various stages. It all started here, then moved on to here and then went on to here and then on to here, as well as various talk pages etc. Dr. B was fairly shabbily treated despite not being the infringing party, and ran into a number of people who couldn't see the wood for the trees. He'll be back, but he needs a bit of space first to get over the nastiness - SchroCat (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope so. I'm really sad about it, because he was a nice guy, and actually the first person who I met that's sort of like... me, and watches old Hindi films and helped me out! Red Hat On Head (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Bond goes missing, etc.
Dear Schro,

I feel that I need to explain this to you in particular. While I'm aware of the minor increase in word count, I've been editting film project long enough to be aware of 700 words limit. I've read the discussion you pointed me to, but it was more about Bond being shot or not. While everyone agreed on that part as a concensus, I feel that it wasn't focus on the part I saw as a problem. Nor did it mean that the rest must be fixed in place. My edit have only five or six words more, and I would like to convince you that it was quite reasonable. A logical connection is obviously missing. How would you connect being shot and go missing? In normal circumstance, if someone is shot and go missing, it means he must be alive to escape from the spot. But in that very same sentence, it is said he was presumed dead. It didn't make much sense without a little more logical connection.

Also, may I ask that you keep an open mind? I am not a new users that created account just to add wp:fancruft to film articles. I have quite an extensive history of trimming on many articles, and I focus on a lot of missing logical connection and clarity. Before you revert me almost instantly, may I ask you to see where I'm going first? Anthonydraco (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I corrected to the agreed version. It was agreed upon after the article was locked specifically to ensure there was consensus on that paragraph. I suggest that if you want to edit that opening paragraph you raise it on the talk page first, otherwise others will also probably also revert. My other edits of your writing have been corrections to introduced errors. - SchroCat (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Shall I assume that, since you didn't provide a reason why moving Skyfall's name to its first mention was an error, I can put it back? And can you quote the specific part of the agreement for me? Or better yet, mention the part more specifically? I am not sure we're reading the same paragraph. I can't find it. I am sorry. I'm not trying to be obstinate, but I'm not sure I'm reading the right one. Anthonydraco (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Go to the talk page. I am sure you can work out which discussion string is about the opening paragraph - it's one where there is mention of edit warring, the article being locked for three days and several versions of the paragraph which a number of people worked on and agreed on. Start talking at the bottom of that discussion string and make sure you get agreement from other editors before you change the opening paragraph again. I'm not being obstinate, but I'm buggered if I'm going to see the article locked again a matter of days after a consensus was agreed. - SchroCat (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've started another discussion at the bottom of the page instead, as there seems to be so many points you've reverted. You are invited to join the discussion. Anthonydraco (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
My pleasure - and welcome back! You've been sorely missed. - SchroCat (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Never Say Never Again is looking in good shape. I think we could get it up to FA status.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, if they ever did a remake of You Only Live Twice (film), Lindsey Lohan could play Helga Brandt! Scroll down to the red hair pics, she's increasingly looking like one of those 60s ginger nutter Bond girls! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  14:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * lol - she does look very Helga Brandt, but I don't think Brandt's victims would have walked away with only a tiny bruise on them! I like the idea of NSNA, but I've still got Dr. No in my sights to bring up to speed for later this year. It's all taking a bit longer than usual because work has gone a bit crazy in RL and a couple of the other re-build articles took a bit longer to pull together than I thought they would (and there has been a fair amount to do on Skyfall, which is a hot spot of editing for everyone who saw the film in the last month or so! - SchroCat (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I hate editing articles where everybody is fighting over them and continuously red-editing them. The Jimmy Savile scandal article I started and I've stayed away from it mostly since for the same reasons. Once the hype has died down proper editing can commence. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  11:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a little like that on Skyfall, although it's more a policing job to keep out fancruft, and there are a few good and well-seasoned editors who also keep out the dross edits too. It'll be wirth it in the long run and I reckon a GAN early next year once its all calmed down a bit. - SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI Notice related to your edits
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "if anything requires admin intervention, in my opinion, it's the all-too hasty removal of comments about edits". 'Nuff said really. - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Some concerns about first-party sources and self-published sources.
I am addressing some new concerns about the sources we're using in Skyfall article. As I feel that you're one of the main contributors, I would like to invite you to participate. Anthonydraco (talk) 06:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

RE: Bond films
What about "Skyfall"? It's got a U.S. release date and no one's complaining about that.

A Matter of Life and Death
I disagree that the quotation "An interesting case!" doesn't add to the article. kencf0618 (talk)


 * See WP:FILMPLOT: "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue". - SchroCat (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * But that line aptly characterizes the film's denouement in full, savvy? An unusual case in two realms, and all that.  kencf0618 (talk)


 * So what? It means little in the grander scheme of the film's plot and changes nothing that has happened or is about to happen. It's minutiae ... detail ... fluff ... savvy? - SchroCat (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes "Top Critics"
re: our edits here. Rotten Tomatoes does indeed have regional differences. See here: Rotten_Tomatoes. Therefore I think we should remove "Top Critics" from all Bond-related articles. I'll do this now. I don't anticipate you objecting.

For the record, on Moonraker (film), North American RT has the following information

ALL CRITICS 62% Average Rating: 5.7/10 Reviews Counted: 39 Fresh: 24 | Rotten: 15

TOP CRITICS 100% Average Rating: 7.6/10 Critic Reviews: 6 Fresh: 6 | Rotten: 0

AUDIENCE 47% Average Rating: 3/5 User Ratings: 55,916

If it turns out that "All Critics" also has regional differences, then perhaps we should remove this from all Bond-related articles and the new template we (but mostly you) worked on. I'll look into this, report back with my findings and hear your opinion on this.

My own view is that we should remove RT from all Bond-related articles. I truly hate this site. Reducing reviews to a yeah or nay rating is seriously inaccurate and ultimately misleading. Furthermore many needless edits occur when editors change RT ratings for the older films it seems on a weekly basis. - Fanthrillers (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely no objections from me at all on this. I took it off the List of James Bond films article a few weeks ago, but never got round to the individual articles themselves (the other 2 articles I've been working on have been taking up too much time recently), so feel free to take out all the top critic nonsense you waant to. I wish we could lose the rest of the RT stuff—I agree with you 100% that it offers nothing at all, is horribly dubious and utterly misleading—but there will always be people who try and stuff the damned info back in again regardless of how awful it really is. - SchroCat (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Skyfall (song)
Hi, I apologize for misunderstanding of WP:ES. Firstly (in mark "fn 4") I looked at Footnote4 and I thought about it. :) Now I see, what did you mean. May I have a questions?
 * Where The Daily Mirror source contains information of september recording?
 * If article contains information of may and august song recording [fn 41], shouldn't be correct box entry:
 * Recorded = May, August and September 2012? Thank you. Best regard.--Misbeliever (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm baffled. The infobox says "September", but further down the article, according to the liner notes it says "May and August". link The DM article only says that she was spotted at the studio in September. - Fanthrillers (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Skyfall article is now open.
Topic. Now you can add Cadogan Square reference. Anthonydraco (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This might interest you.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  16:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It does - I'll drop it in shortly. Cheers Doc. - SchroCat (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you give me half an hour?
I'm in the middle of expanding the section. I'm aware that you see a lot of my mistakes and want to help me by correcting it, but I do need some time. I've been getting a lot of edit conflict, and as you can see, the section is very cluttered, and the state it's in right now doesn't quite inspire starting over. I'll try to finish it in that time so you can pick it up. Anthonydraco (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry, can you make that an hour? Nothing personal. I'm now dizzy just looking at the section. Anthonydraco (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No probs. You may want to use the template at the top of the page to warn other users too, which is useful. - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just had to squash one ridiculous edit - I hope it didn't affect you. - SchroCat (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reminding me about the template. I've seen it but never thought of it twice. I do now. Anthonydraco (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I did see it!
In case your edit Skyfall was a test edit to see if people were paying attention, I was. I saw it, and saw the justification in making it a movie character. I did wonder, but left it open to interpretation given that there were more experienced (such as yourself) who would correct if it needed. lol MisterShiney    ✉    19:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * LOL - not a test, more my own idiocy! - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You still missed Cadogan Square, I'm afraid.
Topic. You've added the location to some place else, but not that one. You want to cover it yourself or you want me to do it? Anthonydraco (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't get round to adding it at all - that was an IP editor. I'll sort it out. - SchroCat (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this statement is more about screening.
Scrho, I would like to convince you a bit that this part should be in the release section. If you read this part again, you will notice that even though the sentence mentions IMAX filming, it was more about screening. Not filming in IMAX is nothing special, the first Bond to be screened in IMAX (even though it's not filmed as one) is something notable. I really think the intention of whoever placed this statement in meant it that way.

Although Skyfall was the first Bond film to be screened in IMAX venues, although it was not filmed with IMAX cameras.

Would you mind if I move it somewhere into release? Anthonydraco (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it's the righht place, and we already mention the Imax release there already - to double up the info is over-guilding the lily somewhat. The intention of the original editor means nothing - collegiate article development will mean that intentions are pointless as things change over time and as the wording is poor for either section then I think it best if it's split and re-worded to fit in both sections, where it may work more properly. - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked (and moved) the wording to reflect the above. - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you going to add Cadogan Square anytime soon? I notice that you have not, so I hesitate to edit for the sake of not interrupt your work. I need to add something back, because some references you've removed is required to cover other locations. And I also need to ask you not to remove other sources about the locations, as some cover more than the one you're using to replace them, and they will have to be added back anyway. Anthonydraco (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The Cadogan Square info is in there already and has been for a few hours - it's currently at fn 91. I have only removed one ref, which isn't repeated anywhere else, so I'm not sure which other information it is supposed to support: if it is meant to cover other locations then it needs to point to them in the text, not appear in a different place in the article. You should also note that the underground locations are covered in the citation I added ("movie-locations"). If I see double references I will replace them if I think they are not needed, if other citations already exist. - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Allow me to say this, then. I really decide to keep that reference in favor of its reliability and its longevity. A big magazine like Empire will no doubt have more reliability than the one you've just added. And the site for The Empire will undoubtedly last longer than one made for a book, which is maintained by only a few people and might not be recognized as reliable by other editors some time later. But most will recognize Empire. The person who confirmed it for you will not be there to confirm this five years from now. Empire magazine is there for a very long time, and I believe it will continue to be. Even though you get your confirmation saying that the site was reliable, the exact statement of the person who confirm it was 'It seems to be the online version of the book,' which means the person didn't know for sure either. I didn't mention this up because I have a feeling that things are not going very well between us, and you might question my motive in saying it, but I have to say it now. Besides, it doesn't hurt anybody to keep it. Anthonydraco (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Video is piss poor when it comes to archiving and so is an inherently bad basis on which to base info. If the site we are using has its pages archived, then the information will remain there, regardless. The site is reliable, as no-one has said that it isn't, so there are no issues there at all. I'll strip out a few other double and triple refs shortly too, where appropriate. In future, when you are editing, especially on talk pages, could you also please use the "Show preview" button instead of saving and re-editing several times? I have an edit conflict almost every time I try and reply to you. - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The one I've cited is the one you gave me. Don't you remember? You said the source was in the article, not the vid, and I agreed to use it. We've already talked on the talk page of the article, and I told you guys that I chose not to archive the vid, but instead use the actual text.


 * Also, how do you know that it was reliable based on a single person?


 * Can you please tolerate any difference between opinions or compromise? Anthonydraco (talk) 11:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) As above, please use the "Show preview" button to stop edit conflicts.
 * 2) I didn't give you the Empire reference at all. Empire is the page with little text and the video. I gave you the Telegraph, which has a lot of text and a supporting video.
 * 3) I'm not sure why you are asking me to "tolerate any difference". I have not reverted any of your edits, or told you not to revert, or suggested that what you have done is incorrect—quite the opposite, in fact and I have worked around much of your work, tweaking only where necessary. I suggest you try and see a little WP:GOODFAITH in your approach before being critical in the approach of others. - SchroCat (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no need to provide that good faith link, as it find it quite condescending. Fine, you did not provide me that link, but other point stands. It contains the text, and it's from a well-known, well-respected magazine, and it tends to remain. You haven't addressed my concern on how you think that one is reliable based on a single person. All we have is an answer from one user, and that's it. I'm not even sure she could confirm that it was the actual online version of the book, or even if it was, how it was subjected to editorial and such. I also did not know how you know for certain that the site will or have archived its page. And to be honest, that site has a strong feeling of self-publishing, and I suspect other people might think the same. Can you address those concerns? Anthonydraco (talk) 11:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not condescending to put a link on things: it's used to be helpful to other editors if they want to look at the precise wording, so again, try and see good faith, rather than automatically thinking the worst.
 * As I have already said, videos transfer to archives badly. Using a video link where other sources of information exist is a little pointless becuase at some point a reader is going to flag up the fact that the video isn't there and the information will then be unsupported. Can you see that? So we look for a second source, and we come to the movie-locations page. An RfC was put onto the Film Project page and no-one doubted the reliability of the site. That speaks volumes: if people object about a source, they say so and no-one has in this instance. If you want to post a second RfC, then please feel free. However, even if you remove this supporting source, then don't use the Empire reference to support other facts, as the video will end up not working at some point in the future and then others will have to start looking again for other sources to support the information. - SchroCat (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, I see the confirmation bias. No one has said so does not mean the reliability of the site is indisputable. No answer could mean that nobody knows about it, and I will not be surprised, judging how little-known it is. I don't mind you insisting on keeping that one, as we're short on references, and you can extend your ref to cover that part too, but I can't see why I should exclude Empire article from the reference. It does not conflict any policy or guidelines, and even if when the video doesn't work, the text confirms it, and we only need the text to cover the Smithfield. Why does it have to be one or the other? Anthonydraco (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure exactly what you're after here:
 * An RfC was posted. A well-respected and experienced film article editor says it looks OK to them (as it is written by someone noted in their field) and no-one has raised any questions against it. That puts it firmly into "reliable" territory.
 * I've not said it has to be one or the other and I'm not sure where you've got that from.
 * "even if when the video doesn't work, the text confirms it". Could you quote me the exact words from the text of the Empire article upon which we can rely when the video stops working?
 * Just a minor point: the Empire video doesn't have to cover Smithfield: movie-locations covers it and the underground stations. - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "What film has the power to close down Whitehall, London Underground stations and Smithfield Market? Skyfall."


 * "However, even if you remove this supporting source, then don't use the Empire reference to support other facts, as the video will end up not working at some point in the future and then others will have to start looking again for other sources to support the information." I had the impression that you meant I shouldn't use this one except to cover London Underground Stations, but the article covers London Underground Stations, Smithfield and Whitehall. I think the new source can be added, but it shouldn't replace this Empire refs entirely. You removed this one too, but I really would prefer to keep this because they can complement the other when one fails.


 * And I'm not sure that the reliability of that site is as high as you want to believe. You said it was firmly in "reliable" territory, but can you address these questions? How could she or you confirm that it was the actual online version of the book? A book don't just become a website, it comes through human input of the text. How can you really tell whether anything was changed, and whether the new changes are subjected to editorial? A website tends to be constantly updated as well, and Skyfall has just been released barely a month ago. Was the new information subjected to editorial? I highly doubt it came directly from the book. And how do you know for certain that the site will or have archived its page? Not to mention that you haven't provided its archive. You said he was a respectable name in film location travel, but have you ever heard of any other name in this field besides him? Besides what you have been told? Anthonydraco (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It says that these locations were closed down, not that filming took place there. There is a subtle but fundamentally important difference between the two facts. Without the video, the minute amount of text on the Empire article means very, very little. There are other sources that support the underground facts (including this and this - two more for you to consider using).
 * I have nothing against Empire, but I do have something against the reference you are trying to use as I do not think it satisfactory. The video will be problematic in the future and it is worth replacing it now, rather than later. Some of the links above may be of assistance.
 * I've not said it comes from a book. I've said that the individual is of note as he has written a book on the topic of film locations. Have a look at the reviews for the book: all from extremely reliable newspapers and magazines, including Empire. So, we have a published author on a topic. He is discussing something in his area of specialism on his website. A very experienced and fair editor considered it reliable in the RfC. And you still consider it to be unreliable, and I'm not entirely sure why. If you are worried about the lack of archiving on the page, then feel free to use webcitation to ensure the details are captured. - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am bit more convinced about the reliability of the source, but still, I'm not sure yet that he's that notable. I'll give you that his books got good reviews, and he could be considered an expert, but I'm not sure he's the level that we want to believe in. I've already requested a third opinion before your previous comment, and I'm waiting for him at the moment. Rest assured that the person won't be biased, and you will know him well. If he says he believe you, I probably will. I also disagreed on removing Empire source on the grounds of not having a more reliable alternative besides this movie-location author and this Empire, but now that you've provided good ones, I can rest a little easier. But I want to disengage a bit, because I feel really tired from this discussion, and I want to wait for the mediator. I will come back later. If the mediator says he believes you before I come back, feel free to use the alternatives. That section can damage your brain simply by staring at it too long. Anthonydraco (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Bond screenwriter speaks out against faulty research, fan sites and wikipedia
I came across this and it's too good not to share. - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Ultraviolet --


 * I'm impressed by your knowledge of Bond, and the thought you've brought to pages concerning 007.


 * However, as the writer of several of these films, there are inaccuracies on the pages that concern me that I would like to see corrected. The problem is that the attribution for these "facts" leads to fan-based websites that are filled with rumors and hearsay; and I've now encountered at least one major publication who repeated the wrong information, attributing it to Wikipedia, without questioning the validity of the underlying source.


 * If possible, I'd like to discuss this with you, off-line, via email.


 * Would it be possible for you to contact me? Editor (at) bruce.feirstein.com.


 * Thanks, Bruce. 75.5.7.196 (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * lol - that's quite an amusing one - and I hope that if Bruce drops round again he'll see a better reflection of the reality than he did back then! I did have Raymond Benson drop by earlier this yearwith a minor complaint. I emailed him through his website to verify and he got back to me directly - he's a nice guy and very helpful where he can be. If only Connery or Wilson / Broccoli could get in touch and offer some freebies...! - SchroCat (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Chimes at Midnight GA nominee
If you or Betty Logan have time can you both please look at the Harry Saltzman-produced, Orson Welles-directed film Chimes at Midnight page? It's currently a good article nominee. Thanks. - Fanthrillers (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's something of a mess and I'm surprised it's not been knocked out straight away - having a big tag sitting in the middle of the article tends to mean an easy decision for reviewers. A very quick and dirty summary for me (on a less-than-5-minute-skim) would highlight:


 * I'm not sure why it needs three release dates in the infobox - there should only be the Spanish and Swiss dates in there (unless there are any festivals too).
 * The plot is bloated and needs a severe trim (it can easily lose such notable inclusions as "The film opens with" and "After a main credit sequence").
 * The cast list shouldn't have any bold in there.
 * The whole article feels a bit "full" to me, particularly around the Welles and Falstaff section. If I were working on the article, I'd have dropped the first chunk of that higher up the page to discuss the development of the character during pre-production and production, rather than as an afterthought. The second part of that section I would have put into a sub-section of reviews - "Contemporary view of Welles and Falstaff", or something similar.
 * There are a number of gaps on the referencing side - my eye fell on the opening lines of "Critical response" as I flicked across: "Chimes at Midnight premiered to a positive audience reception at the 1966 Cannes Film Festival. However, the film's American distributor Harry Saltzman was unimpressed." Neither line is supported and the second did make me wonder "so what?" as there is nothing about any ramifications Saltzman's feelings led to (reduced his exposure, reduced the number of cinemas, etc?)


 * It's a fair way off a GA, in my opinion, but other reviewers may disagree and be happy with it, as there is a lot of leeway in how the rules are interpreted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This and that
I guess I was around for the relatively collegial part of building the article; I was unaware of the specifics of afterward, and I'm sorry to see two well-meaning people hit a problematic patch. I can see how some of the actions described could make one lose one's patience. I certainly can't preach about calm: Though I recognize it's the best way, I know firsthand how difficult it is in practice.

I hope things work out; I'm sure both of you know that editors like myself, Bugs and Betty can lend a hand and a voice to any discussion if needed. Nobody's alone &mdash; we're a community and sometimes some of us can be difficult, no question there. And while I haven't always been able to practice calmly talking things out, I do it more than I don't: Talking out things before making changes isn't a bad first step &mdash; I'm doing it now at Talk:Doctor Strange even when I'm sure I'm correct and I believe the other editor is way off base. I can let it go for a day to give him a chance to find the guideline he claims he saw. It's always possible I missed something.

Anyway, this isn't about me. I hope things work out at the article, and your colleagues are always here to help. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ten. Your thoughts are always worth listening to!. - SchroCat (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
How very thoughtful! Thank you so much. I do hope things work out &mdash; and keep up the great work yourself! With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Living Daylights
I've restarted Brad Whitaker and Necros (James Bond), thinking that if we could merge full sourced info into something like a List of characters in The Living Daylights we could actually produce something credible. Unfortunately the redirects destroyed a lot of information on the characters which if out of universe info and reliable book sources used are perfectly valid I think. Not sure what you view is, I don't want articles on every minor character of course, but I think most of the main characters in all of the films could have a decent article in their own right or at least sourced coverage in a single list using loads of books and factual information on behind the scenes and reception etc. The way I see it is that coverage of the characters is one of the weakest areas of the Bond project currently, they should all be sourced with out of universe info of course. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  17:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Dr. Blofeld. I meant to post a note on your talk page about this before I reverted your reverts. We (myself, SchroCat and Betty Logan) decided last summer to re-direct these useless character page articles. Betty Logan successfully listed one article for AfD. I then prodded other useless character pages. User Niemti disagreed with me and reverted my AfD prods. He agreed to re-direct the articles, creating no shortage of dead links that a bot had to clean up after him, raising (quite rightly) SchroCat's ire. I strongly believe these character pages have no place on Wikipedia and belong on fan sites. - Fanthrillers (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Mmm. Are the main villains and Bond girls in Bond films really not notable subjects?? I'm afraid I disagree on weight of the extent of sources which cover them, certainly in a list format by film. Some of the main Bond villains and girls are pretty well covered and easily meet content guidelines. I'd agree with you if they were unsourceable and only in universe cruft like at the time of redirect, and as this was the case so I'm not surprised you all supported the move. At least a List of characters in The Living Daylights which is fully sourced would be appropriate in my opinion, I'd probably favour that. It would be possible to compile tens of book sources and info useful info on it aside from in universe info, so they wouldn't be anything like the typical fully in universe cruft crap we used to have. And the James Bond films are so huge, I think they'd be useful articles for film studies and not come across as pure cruft like the old lists did. Tomorrow I'll create a full well sourced list and you can decide if you still think its bunk or not. The old lists were pieces of shite, agreed, but it is possible to write something encyclopedic on them I think. If I'm opening an old can of worms here I'll stop, but I believe that it is achievable to write credible content on the characters by film, including characterisation (e.g Robert Davi actually went to Colombia to help him), and critical reception. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Schrod if you want me to delete them I'm happy to do that. It would involve a lot of work to do decent lists for all films and I think the time might be better put into getting some of the films up to FA level. Please be honest with me, I'm not bothered either way, but I think it is possible to write something encyclopedic on the characters.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that the articles you've done for Necros and Brad Whitaker are entirely passable as they now stand. The previous version of the Whitaker page was a fancruft nightmare without a single source to its name. These two articles now have a number of sources, including from academics. We have articles from other characters, such as Leiter, M, Q and Bond himself and these are also covered in the same way: using secondary sources wherever possible and avoiding the fancruft nonsense wherever possible. As to the FAs, I'm slowly clearing out the backlog of stuff I need to get rid of and I'm hoping to make a start on something in the near(ish) future! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think a list of characters by film would attract trivia on some of the more minor characters and would probably appear more crufty than separate although I'd probably support it. I think the best way really, so long as the Bond project supports, is to have decent well sourced articles on the main characters. I think the best place to start would probably be to start expanding some of the existing character articles in Category:James Bond characters with out of universe info. Most of them are tagged and in a state so I think I'll begin on that. Vesper Lynd for example... ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I've sourced Emilio Largo. I've also added Henchmen parameter to the character box, looks tidier.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  14:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You might have noticed my additions to Bernard Lee. I was thinking, do you think we should create a category Category:James Bond spoofs for films such as Bons baisers de Hong Kong or aren't they worth it?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  12:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding
Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You Only Live Twice
Okay, I thought that since I was only talking about how a plot event from the novel also happened in the film I though I was okay to use the primary sources of the novels and films (these are just basic plot points), but if they are not then are either of these secondary sources acceptable? http://badassdigest.com/2012/11/11/how-skyfall-clears-up-bonds-biggest-continuity-question/ or http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/literary_skyfall_and_fleming.php3?id=03385 Emperor001 (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry - I got caught up on a couple of other bits and didn't get back to you. Aspects of the plots of both novels and films are in there own right from primary sources, but joining the two together to say that "this scene is taken from this novel" requires too much of a OR leap to justify it in its own right. Keeping the need for reliable sources also keeps out the worst excesses of fancruft that is always a danger in these articles. About your two sources: MI6 is a fansite a very, very good one, but still a fansite and so can't be used. The other site looks like a blog connected to a bar site, so my gut reaction is probably not. However, I'll start an RfC at the film project for the input of others and we can take the consensus from there are the way forward, if that feels right to you? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Sorry it took so long myself.  I had finals and traveling to do.  I don't edit on wikipedia as much as I did in high school when all these policies weren't enforced much so I'm sorta out of the loop as to what other editors expect.  Also, you might be interested to know that I emailed Raymond Benson his opinion on the Robert Brown's M controversy (is he Messervy or Hargreaves) and he agrees with me Brown was playing a continuation of Lee's M, citing how several actors have played Bond, Blofeld, Leiter, etc. but I know his email to me does not qualify as a source and until he says something that gets published I cannot say anything, though can his novelization to TMD be used, at least in the novels section, to state that in the novels universe Messervy was M until Barbara Mawdsley took over?  Emperor001 (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it says that already in the last lines of the section: "Continuation Bond author Raymond Benson's 1998 novel The Facts of Death continued Messervy's retirement, where he still resides in Quarterdeck.[19] The book also introduces a new M, Barbara Mawdsley.[20]" The problem is that with Bond we have two in-universes: the book and the film and even when the two meet (through novelizations) there are significant differences. We've overcome this the best we can in the point where the issues come up (including in the M article), but with no clarity and no definitive answer on some points it starts moving into fancruft territory a little! - SchroCat (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * More than 2 universes even, since we have the Daniel Craig-reboot of the film franchise and Deaver reboot of the novels, plus some consider Benson's novels to be in a separate timeline from Gardner's. I asked him why Bond was once again a commander rather than a captain (a rank he was promoted to in Gardner's novels), and he said he was told he could use or disregard things from other continuation novels, meaning that his novels could be a separate universe. Emperor001 (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The situation
I got your email, although the problem seems to have been neutralised for the time being. Is there anything you still need, a revert, discussion input, a psychiatric referral? Betty Logan (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * lol - a vet would probably be better! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's some catnip: I just reverted several of that user's non-sourced non-Bond page edits. - Fanthrillers (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Le Mesurier
I have started reading through the article, and have found and fixed a number of prose issues in the lead (see edit history for details). This makes me feel that I should copyedit the article before it ges forward to FAC (there may also be issues of overlinking). I can complete this before I take a few days off over Christmas; please let me know if you want me to proceed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Brian, that would be great - any help and advice you can give will only make it stronger. I suspect that the lead is the worst offender, but there are probably a fair few howlers dotted throughout! Many thanks for your input once again. All the best - SchroCat (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Len Deighton's new Bond e-book
Len Deighton has published an e-book entitled James Bond: My Long and Eventful Search for His Father about Ian Fleming AND Kevin McClory. It's available through amazon dot co dot uk. BTW, Charles Helfenstein who wrote the "Making of OHMSS" book which you've ordered now has a new book out about The Living Daylights. Remember the macaw parrots used in The Pink Panther Strikes Again, For Your Eyes Only and The Living Daylights? Same parrot, once property of Diana Rigg. Helfenstein is a meticulous researcher and so his word will be the final one on this whole "who was considered first, Dalton or Brosnan?" tempest. - Fanthrillers (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - I've downloaded a copy, so will let you know if there's much in there we can use elsewhere (although I'll have to look into how I can cite an ebook, as the page numbering may be an issue!) I'm looking forward to Helfenstein and just I wish his books were not quite so expensive! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Help?
Can you take a look at this GTC, as you helped one of the articles get GA status? (also, nice work with the Bond character and Bond series articles, wonder what you're waiting before a GA nom) igordebraga ≠ 13:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy to! Thanks for the comments on the otehr two: there's a few reasons why why they've not gone to GA just yet, partly because I've been horribly busy in RL, but I'm hoping to fire them off very soon! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

A Peacock for You!
lol - They must all die!!! - SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

See if you can spot Franz Sanchez here. Might have to wait until 1:47..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  19:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * lol - a striking resemblance! If Bond had seen him like that it would have made for a much shorter but funnier film! - SchroCat (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

That singer just needs a haircut to be Sanchez! I tell you who would have made a great Bond villain, Julio Iglesias. I cannot think of a more glamorous debonair type. He'd be very believable as a Latin billionaire and lord of a prostitution or drug empire in Latin America or something who gets even more women than Bond! You could imagine him saying "Kiss my ass amigo" LOL♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  12:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, we knew it was going to happen sooner or later
Articles for deletion/James Bond (film character) (2nd nomination). Merry Christmas, I guess! Betty Logan (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * How tiresome. He still doesn't appear to have gone to the extent of reading either article, or to be motivated by a desire to improve the encycopaedia - both of which are relatively fundamental to an AfD discussion. Hey ho! I've dropped the GAN and I'll re-start once the AfD is treated with the contempt it deserves. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
Hope you're having a great Christmas Schrod. I'm ploughing through OHMSS novel. Loved the description of Draco's face when Bond mentions Blofeld, like Blofeld is the epitome of all evil who robbed The Union of its henchmen!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld

Amazing lazenby was only 28 when they shot the film. Looks more like 38!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't realise he was that youg - her looks a lot older! It's a great book and comes over to the screen very well without a huge amount of changes needed. I always thought that they should have kept closer to the plots for a number of the books, and I hope (probably vainly) that they re-visit one or two of the books in the re-booted series: Moonraker could be done fairly well, for example. - SchroCat (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Harry Potter
Thanks again for reviewing Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2. Could you review Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 for me too? Thanks. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit tied up with a few things here and in RL at the moment, but I'll keep an eye on it and if no-one picks it up by the time I'm clear, then I'll do it for you. I'll do a bit of housekeeping on it shortly to get rid of a few obvious issues. I should flag up a couple of obvious points for you to look over before the review starts: there are four dead links that have been tagged that you'll need to sort out, as well as few questionable sources (Mugglenet makes an appearance, and it shouldn't) so it may be as well to have a skim over the reference section to replace the fansite refs with something more reliable. There's also a citation needed tag in the awards table which you'll need to address (and there are a number of awards which are not supported by citations either). As with Part 2, the box office section leads with the US and is a shade US-centric, which feels wrong for what is primarily a UK film. I'll see what else I can do when I have some free time. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

OHMSS gross
Hi. The figure used is incorrect. I did tons of research for writing a book on Bond, and I listed the correct gross. Now, there are hundreds of websites listing both grosses, the one that is wrong and the one that is right. I think there should be a discussion, and not just a universal approach of simply accepting a wrong figure because it is on some sites. That is all. I am just trying to put the correct gross there. I have done so before, and it almost immediately gets reverted. If you list a source, it gets reverted. Always the current source is touted as being the only reliable one. So there is really no point in bothering with that. There should be a discussion. I am not sure where we should have it though, because the talk page of that article isn't visited by many. Suggestions?173.216.233.111 (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The article talk page is the best place to discuss it - I've replied to you there and given a couple of different sources. I've also tweaked the figure in the infobox to bring it in line with the initial worldwide gross, rather than also including re-releases, which could be misleading. Which book did you write, byt the way? - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK thanks for your help. We will discuss it there. Unfortunately, I never completed the book. I started it about 14 years ago and never got it finished. But recently, I want to finish it. So maybe it will get done eventually.173.216.233.111 (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)