Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of James Bond films/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:18, 4 December 2011.

List of James Bond films

 * Nominator(s): SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC), igordebraga ≠ 17:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets the FL criteria; it acts not just as a stand alone source of information in its own right, but also as the 'header article' for the canon of James Bond films. SchroCat ( ^ •  @ ) 08:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed all (though the actual/adjusted columns is unsortable because the sorting is kinda broken... and I could've kept the rowspan in the actors and it would still be sortable, but decided not to), even if I somehow object on the RT removal - in film series articles the rating for all installments is always there on a reception section. igordebraga ≠ 02:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment The sorting was not working correctly so I fixed it. Jimknut (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * So I guess the downside of having to have sortable columns is that we have to over-wikilink everything? SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 21:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * I don't agree with the removal of the Rotten Tomato scores. The reason that "readers can look them up on the individual articles" doesn't wash with me; on that basis we could scrap the box office figures too and then what's the point of having a list?  You may as well just have a navbox.  I certainly don't accept that the Rotten Tomato ratings are an obstacle to FL status, which is basically what this review is supposed to be assessing, and I think financial and critical comparative analysis are kind of mandatory. Being able to see how the films compare to each other improves the article IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Betty Logan makes a valid point. The Rotten Tomatoes scores should remain. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I returned them. igordebraga ≠ 22:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that using the 007 logo is inconsistent with Wikipedia's policy on Non-free content. The rules quite clearly state it is: WP:NFCI #1 permits Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item. On many articles about a commercial product such as a film, a non free image of the poster/cover/advert is often included under this rationale.  Wikipedia's policy explicitly caters for it, so a FUR rationale would only have to indicate that the image serves to visually identify the subject on an article about the subject. Betty Logan (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Given what many video game FLs use for an image, I thought about an image similar to this, if possible. igordebraga ≠ 22:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As per my above comment I have tentatively returned the image. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment
 * @User:Schrodinger's cat is alive, the artwork at List of 24 episodes and List of Stargate SG-1 episodes is deemed acceptable because they aren't fair use. Both images are in the public domain. I can't answer why List of M*A*S*H episodes needs a photo of a box of DVDs, and if I'd reviewed it I would have insisted on its removal. Family Guy (season 1), Family Guy (season 5) and Family Guy (season 8) are slightly different in that if you read NFCI #1, they comply with the rule that they are being used "for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)". At the bottom of the pages and in the ledes, the DVD releases are discussed. Each boxset artwork is also being used as a representation of the season, they don't limit the ability of the Fox to market or sell the DVDs, they are of low enough resolution so as to avoid piracy, etc. It should also be noted that other FL TV show lists such as 30 Rock (season 4) and Glee (season 1) do fine without fair use artwork.
 * File:James Bond 007, Gun Symbol logo.png is completely different in that it's a fair use logo. It doesn't meet WP:NFCC because it can be replaced by something that is free: the numbers "007" without the stylised gun. The file is 400px on its largest side, which is generally considered too large for non-free content (WP:NFCC#3b). Finally, how would the file's omission would be detrimental to a reader's understanding of the topic (WP:NFCC#8)? It has to "significantly increse [their] understanding" to be allowed. Will a reader understand the topic (a list of Bond films) without the logo? Yes. Will a reader have a hard time getting the gist of the article if it were excluded? No.

Matthewedwards : Chat  14:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the source for the Adjusted 2011 dollars?
 * Why are the budgets and grosses in dollar amounts (also which dollars?) when it is a British film series? Why isn't it using GBP?

Reference number 43 (it's a note under the "Non-Eon versions" section)... also, the producers are Brits but the films are co-productions with US studios (UA, MGM, Columbia) that provide the financing, so there's no reason not to use dollars. igordebraga ≠ 14:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) I'll come back to you on the image as I'm a little pressed now, but as we've had comments from Quadell who does huge anmounts of good work at Media copyright questions saying that a valid non-free use rationale could be easily provided, then I'm happy to have the image on the page on that basis.
 * 2) I've added cites for the adjusted figures in the column headings.
 * 3) The full figures for global budgets & box office returns are only available in $, rather than anything else, so those are the figures used. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 15:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Replaced the logo with a collection of Bond DVDs - as I said above, it's more than enough to illustrate. igordebraga ≠ 15:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the same issue, unfortunately: a repetition of the logos is actually worse than a single one. Either way, the stylised 007 that was there before is a perfectly acceptable image to use on this page and it should be returned. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, showing the movies themselves certainly fits the criteria 8 (although showing all the films could help understanding better than 20 of them being reduced to box sets, but that's a detail). In any case, I asked some help on the matter. igordebraga ≠ 23:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How does it meet criterion 8? The boxsets don't show what movies there are. You need the article to see what the movies are, which means it doesn't "significantly increse the readers' understanding of the topic". Showing all the dvd cases also doesn't significantly increase the readers' understanding, because by reading the list, the reader gets to see what all the movies are. Criterion 8 is very hard to meet for a reason. Matthewedwards : Chat  03:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, the second sentence of the first paragraph is extremely long and could do with being split, it also says there are 24 productions, but including Skyfall, there are 25. Matthewedwards : Chat  03:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Split the sentence (I didn't want to have "the next one is in production" twice, but here we go). igordebraga ≠ 04:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose It seems the editors just don't get it. Now there are two different photos of DVDs. IMO the photo of the boxsets requires seven Fair Use Rationales because each DVD case is an individual work of art. It doesn't matter that they're in the same photo (others may disagree and say that one very strong FUR would suffice, but the one here isn't strong). The new photo uploaded by Dr. Blofeld, for the first 19 DVD spines, individually they aren't copyrightable because they're made up of typeface and geometric shapes. However, put together, and they form the 007 Gun logo, which is. The three spines to the far right have their own copyrights attatched because they display copyrighted images of Craig and Connery, and the Gun logo is visible on Casino Royale. At worst it needs deleting from Commons, uploading locally and tagging non-free with a FUR, at best it needs deleting altogether. There simply is no non-free image that could convey easier than the list already does, that there are 24 movies or what they are called. Matthewedwards : Chat  06:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The two abominations of photographs removed. They add nothing to the article, are legally dubious and look hideously unprofessional. I've replaced it with the 007 logo, which covers all aspects of the Bond films and as we've had comments from Quadell who is something of an expert on these things (see their work at Media copyright questions) that says a valid non-free use rationale could be easily provided, then I'm happy to have the image on the page on that basis. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've stricken my comments because the pictures were removed, but my oppose still stands for now. Note that Quadell said a valid FUR could easily be provided.. I take that to mean that the FUR right now is not valid. Perhaps he could write a good FUR for it? Also, I'd also like to hear from him why he thinks it could be used in the article without violating any of the NFCC, because I still don't believe it meets #1 or #8. Matthewedwards : Chat  01:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Image replaced with public domain screencap. Betty Logan (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support The image is clearly related to one James Bond film, and it's cultural iconography to the James Bond films can't be denied; however, this is one still from one movie, and presumably each movie or at least each new Bond actor, has their own barrel sequence (I always assumed it was s gun sight -- who looks down the inside of a barrel? But I digress). So it's not really relevant to the other 23 movies, and therefore has little relevance when used to illustrate an overall List of Bond films, so it's still not a perfect choice. Some articles just don't lend themselves to any media and I think this is one. Still, it's free -- apparently (although it seems a bit iffy to me) -- and the criteria for FLs (and FAs) have no stipulation for relevant, on-target, meaningful media, so I can only support. Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * All the actors did indeed shoot their own gun barrel sequences, but this particular image is actually the "silhouetted man" version, used for the very first gun barrel sequence. Sean Connery had already finished filming, so they filmed a stuntman in silhouette form. Since this is the only barrel sequence in which the actor isn't identifiable I think it works quite well. Betty Logan (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support NapHit (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

So far?

I think we've addressed all the points raised so far: if there are still any outstanding, then they are lost in the type above! Could people please let me know if there is anything from the above section that still needs addressing? Many thanks - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 20:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The two tables should probably be merged and use a small legend to show the two non-Eon entires. That way a complete comparison can be done between the movies. 18.111.42.197 (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Support I had my say at the peer review. Article looks good.  Ruby  2010/  2013  01:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Support very nice -- ♫GoP♫ T C N 11:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.