Wikipedia talk:WikiProject James Bond/Archive 2

Photo whoops!
See Talk:Michael G. Wilson. I just got a call from Chloe Finch from EON Productions about this article. Image:Michael G Wilson on Venice yacht crop.jpg is apparently NOT Michael Wilson. She'll be emailing me and I'll be doing what I can to arrange a free-content photo of him for the article ... Anyone got a pic that's really definitely him? - David Gerard 09:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Film Suggestions

 * Due to the fact there are only 22 Bond films (+ unofficials), they all should follow the same pattern (eg. all have a vechiles and gadgets section, all have productions sections. Due to Casino Royale (2006 film) being a current feature article candidate and Thunderball used to be a featured article i think we should base them off these.  No trivia SpecialWindler 11:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
 * This is done for all of the Brosnan films. I've rearranged the sections and leads to match Casino Royale. There is some stuff on those articles that needs attention, but it's listed in open tasks. ColdFusion650 12:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have now gone through and done this for almost every film!!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you"    Contribs 13:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've gone through every film and done this. The things that still need to be done are on the open tasks list. ColdFusion650 19:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For Heavensake don't go nuts doing this. These are 22 separate works, and there is no concensus on the nazified idea that every one of them has to be shoehorned into exactly the same template. I, for instance, strongly OPPOSE it. They suffer if you do it (a fair amount of damage to the Goldfinger article was done in trying to get it to fit into the Thunderball model--- hello? Why not do it the other way around, since Goldfinger is artistically and popularly the better movie, and the later Casino Royale has major stylistic differences from the dozen films which came before it, which had become quite cartoonish before Royale#2 began to restore some realism. The Bond films evolved, each building on the precursors, and each of them has quirks. If you look at the Plays of William Shakespeare, you'll find generally the same Wiki article structure, but it's not precisely the same for all of them, nor should it be. It would be a travesty if every series of everything in Wikipedia is forced into the same mold, with the same categories and subheadings. And who gets to pick what these are going be, anyway? Quit it. Just because somebody started this, doesn't mean it's all a good idea. (And you, Blofeld, take your cat and look for some other world to dominate). S  B Harris 02:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, pretty strong words from a non-member. Word to the wise, joke or no joke, Blofeld and his cat have been helping the James Bond articles on Wikipedia more than any other user (as if his Username didn't prove it), and you, Sir, are on the losing side of that fight.  True, the format shouldn't hurt the articles and all the articles do not have to fit perfectly into the exact same format...however, they should be pretty close.  Frankly, I like the idea.  I don't think it should be hurting articles, but I do think all the films should follow the same format.  In fact, I'd consider adding more parts to that format.  Sbharris, you need to take a chill pill and a long deep breath, and not be ripping on one of the projects best members just because you disagree with making all the films in a  film series look like they are indeed a series.   Gan  fon  02:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL, as you see, you make my own point there at the end, only half in jest. And why can't I have strong opinions if I haven't joined Der Projekt? Is there a decoder ring that goes with it? This is just one more example of needless uniformitarianism. What does anything about me as editor matter, except that I've seen all the films and read all the books many times (plus some criticism), and know and care about the material? Perhaps I haven't joined, because I don't agree with all the project's goals. For example, NO TRIVIA. If you read WP:TRIV the point is to avoid random collections of unrelated facts. This does not mean that related tidbits cannot be collected in their own sections, and specifically mentioned as kosher are "creating a more targeted list of closely-related items, such as Cameos or Continuity errors" for films. These are not simply trivia by another name. A lot of such info has been removed from Goldfinger, I think to the article's detriment. If the Wikiproject Bond aims to have different and more stringent standards than Wikipedia for these films, there's another problem. And so on. S  B Harris 00:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It makes sense to make all of the articles similar, at least by section titles and/or basic layout for example. Besides, the guidelines for WP:FILMS also apply to each article we're talking about, and all film articles should be somewhat alike (in a similar manner as to how they should be alike under this wikiproject). Cliff smith 01:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All finished for official films. ColdFusion650 17:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a new signed on user and am not sure how to join a project, but I think that every novel or movie page should have a section telling how the book is different from the movie (this would only apply to books by Ian Fleming and their respective movies excluding novelisations). Emperor001 21:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

??
it seems that after the original hype of this project it has died down, i spose that happens with other projects ?? keep contributing 007 fans. SpecialWindler 09:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Consider: the only tasks listed are either routine tasks (reviewing articles, checking recent changes) or are obsolete (citing sources on James Bond). Until the next film comes out, what can we honestly do? Editus Reloaded 14:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there is some work to be done. If we were done, all the articles would be FA. The only thing is, most of it is copy editing and stylistic things, way above my writing abilities. ColdFusion650 15:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't noticed any copyediting issues in any WP:007 articles that I've seen, perhaps make a list of them and people can pick ones out to fix. Editus Reloaded 18:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:007.svg


Is up for deletion because it is orphaned.

I have added the image to James Bond (films) so it isn't deleted.

Why is this image not on James Bond. It is too importance image for it to be deleted.

SpecialWindler 06:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The code for the image is actually still in the James Bond article (edit the Ian Fleming's creation and inspiration section to see it). Can't remember who commented it out but their rationale was that the image was just there as decoration and not to explain a point in the article and hence had no fair use rationale. - X201 10:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal of Collaboration of the Fortnight
Seeing this WikiProject is dying down, it may soon become defunct (which is not what we want). Now in a active talk above, some say that there is nothing to do, until Bond 22 comes out but 262 starts or stubs that should get up to B class at the minumum, plus 68 unassessed articles. More shockingly is that there are no Feature Articles (FA) and only 8 Good articles or A-Class. For a topic which is so popular it should be better.

I propose a Collaboration of the fortnight, which every fortnight will nominate an article in the whelm of WP:James Bond, and improve it to get to Good Article status. Note good, not featured. I feel it will take too long to get any certain article to featured status, which will not help the development of other articles. Meaning if we strive to get Dr. No to FA, it may take a long time for From Russia with Love to get to any better. Also we shouldn't pick James Bond or major pages as one as it may take a while to clean up etc.

Articles that should be nominated, should primarly be the 21 films and all the novels (especially Fleming's) and main characters that become FA's eg Le Chiffre but not Mr. White.

I will start this collaboration if there is no conseus or majority support by June 25 2007. I would also like to promote the collaboration to get more interest by alerting all the members on their talk pages. Any comments Special  Windler  06:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Second. I think that Dr No would be a good start; it's the first canonical film and it should be at least A-class I reckon. Editus Reloaded 11:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What's a fortnight? ColdFusion650 11:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fortnight: Anglicised term for two weeks. Cos "mission of the week" SO didn't work. Editus Reloaded 14:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So, wait. The mission of the week lasted for more than 2 weeks. It was over a month. Maybe it should be mission of the month. ColdFusion650 16:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but MOTW was to get a massive article up to Featured status; here we are aiming to get a single film or character article to Good Article status, a much easier proposition. Editus Reloaded 17:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some support, so I may start in a couple of hours. I agree that Dr. No should be our first start, but from then it'll work on a nomination basis. Special  Windler  21:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Done expanding production. Editus Reloaded 09:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sountrack and Response/DVD section finished. Editus Reloaded 09:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work with the pics of the DVD's and videos.

If this collaboration is a success and there is good participation, then in may be proposed to move it forward to Collaboration of the week, to get more articles up to GA status. The nominations should be random (meaning, lets not go Dr. No - FRWL - GF so on, one fortnight it may be a film, then a novel, then character or whatever.)

'''Please feel free to add a nomination on the collaboration page and promote it, I have already put one there for the next fortnight. Please keep contributing to Dr. No (film)''' Special  Windler  11:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Ainley
This actor's article is under the James Bond project tag, but the article itself doesn't mention any James Bond work at all. Could somebody here clarify this? Totnesmartin 07:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * According to his IMDb, he was "Hong Kong Policeman #2" in You Only Live Twice. I didn't know such a small part warranted his inclusion in this Wikiproject, though. - • The Giant Puffin •  08:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a bot went through and put a tag for every Bond actor/actress? But I'm not sure if every Bond article has been tagged? I suppose technically the article does come under our WikiProject but if you rated importance it would be less that Low.  SpecialWindler   talk  10:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He is the Hong Kong policeman who discovers Bond lying 'dead' in his bed in the opening sequence. I put that info on his article.Boylo 12:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a bot for putting on wikiproject tags? I just put 3 dozen on one by one! Aaaargh! And, thanks for adding the Bond info. Totnesmartin 12:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but I don't know why that article would be tagged.  SpecialWindler   talk  21:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well a bot wouldn't ask why. It probably tagged everyone from the IMDB cast lists. Totnesmartin 21:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Merging Proposal
I noticed that many Bond girl articles are short. So, I created List of Bond Girls in Moonraker and List of Bond Girls in The Man with the Golden Gun, as a beginning to merge them. Any Comments? Vikrant Phadkay 15:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This was once done, but reverted.  SpecialWindler   talk  21:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But why did this happen previously? The articles are too short, and this is not a movie-specific encyclopedia that we have articles for every character. Vikrant Phadkay 14:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Further, such small pages have hardly any scope of becoming GAs or FAs. Vikrant Phadkay 14:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Separate article for Oddjob
Please comment on whether you think Oddjob should have his own article at Talk:List of James Bond henchmen in Goldfinger. Opera hat 14:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

GoldenEye (fictional satellite weapon) Hahaha!
What exactly is this article meant for? Is the satellite important enough? Vikrant Phadkay 16:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's probably important enough to have it's own article. But seeing nobody works on the article it probably isn't very good. It only has 4 links to it in the mainspace too.  SpecialWindler   talk  06:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It contains mainly OR. Should it be deleted? Vikrant Phadkay 15:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it just needs work. There are far less useful articles on here, and where else would the information go? - • The Giant Puffin •  18:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry...
Though I profess to a large Bondography in my brain, I'm rubbish at using Wikipedia. If someone could do me the eternal favour of sorting about my membership of the project at the bottom of the page I would be very, very grateful. Racooon 12:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Who is this, I could look at the history, but you should sign your comments, so I won't, please do. And I don't quite understand what you mean?  SpecialWindler   talk  23:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed! I made the above post on a mac (doesn't have tildes) and the stamps weren't working. Infernal machines! Racooon 12:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

you could use the panel at the bottom of the edit screen and anyway I fixed it for you Highfields 12:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured Topic
I was thinking that we should make the James Bond films a Featured Topic. Gradually over time, all the articles should be GA, with some FA. The collaboration of the fortnight should get all the films up to GA, while GoldenEye, Casino Royale (06) can get up to FA status. Here is it currently

Of course there isn't Casino Royale (54)(67) or NSNA. So the category will have to be changed.  SpecialWindler   talk  07:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This should probably be one of our main goals - • The Giant Puffin •  10:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Dr. No (film) is a current GA candidate. Hopefully, this is going to pass, gradually we will get all top/high articles up to GA status. Hopefully, as well, others gain FA status, which is required in a Featured topic. Get to work people, thanks.  SpecialWindler   talk  11:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Next COTF
What will our next collaboration be? Vikrant Phadkay 15:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Check out the Collaboration page, and nominate an article your self, or vote for someone elses.  SpecialWindler   talk  21:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Bond girls
User:Vikrant Phadkay has been merging Bond girl pages into the by film. I don't know why he is doing this. If there was a consesus that I haven't seen please tell me, but unless you put the template merge on all the pages for at least a week, then you can't just go merging the pages.

This happened once before, but all of the Bond girls by film pages were reverted back to the their original states. Why do it again.  SpecialWindler   talk  00:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have already stated above that most (maybe all) Bond girl articles lack sufficient content. They fail WP:N considerably. Their number is more than 50, so what should be tagged? And is there any flaw in the merger? Only Sir Blofeld sent a suggestion that Bond girls who are also henchwomen are not very convenient to merge. Vikrant Phadkay 15:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Take Dr. No for example. While Honey Rider has enough to make GA/FA, Miss Taro dosen't. Why should Honey Rider's article suffer because of Miss Taro. Thats an example, Miss Taro is actually a henchwoman, but the principle is there.  SpecialWindler   talk  21:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If this merging is to happen, we need some sort of central discussion to reach a concensus. Using the same method for all of the articles does not work, as shown when someone thought it was a good idea to reorganise every Bond film to match Casino Royale. - • The Giant Puffin •  07:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

James Bond title artist
In my opinion, placing these sequence templates onto artiste pages is a form of spam: cluttering a page and giving undue prominence to a certain topic. In almost all cases, writing a James Bond song was a small part of an illustrious career. The correct place to put it would be on the article about the song, if there is such an article; if there isn't you could always start one! --kingboyk 16:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image rationale
I really wish that Bond image rationale problems would be reported here instead of my talk page as many of you could act quicker on the problems before I could. Anyway, I just wanted to drop a note that Image:007Jaws.jpg and Image:007GoldfingerComic.jpg either have no rationale or have disputed rationale. I've actually been getting a lot of these lately due to image policy/guideline updates, but I think it would be in the best interest of the Wikiproject if all James Bond related images were double checked to make sure they meet the required criteria for Wikipedia use especially those that are on GA articles. Also to be sure we have the best quality images possible. I mean look at this. (Looks to me like it was captured from a broken VHS cassette) We could do so much better. But anyway, definitely the former needs attention if you ask me. I don't really have a lot of time anymore. K1Bond007 19:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You get the messege because you created the image.  SpecialWindler   talk  21:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I know why I get the message. I just said I wish for the ones dealing with rationale that they would be posted here so that others could act on it faster. It's not something that is going to be done, I'm sure, I'm just saying. It's not a question of my uploading it, sources and other concerns, it's a question of its use, which I can't police as well as a Wikiproject can/should. K1Bond007 22:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale (2006 film)
This is out for FA. Vikrant Phadkay 15:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We know, its on the front page. Hope it goes well.  SpecialWindler   talk  21:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Only a week or two after the last nomination. Good luck with that -you'll need it again ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you?" Contribs 18:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

List of James Bond henchmen in The Spy Who Loved Me
Shouldn't the information in this article be merged to the article's about the movie/novel and about the characters? There is a lengthy description of the characters that overlap with that of the characters main article. --Abu badali (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No, we should cleanup Jaws that's all we need. Vikrant Phadkay 14:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem with merging Bond Girls?
Why has this been reverted? Is there any flaw? Vikrant Phadkay 13:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You had no consusus to make this move. No flaw.  SpecialWindler   talk  22:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

A modest proposal
WikiProject James Bond/Character Article Layout

On the talk page of this one, we can discuss the merger. That's because, individually the articles to be merged are too many. Vikrant Phadkay 14:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Bond 23
Just letting people know, that this article has been created and was not deleted despite a deletion tag.  SpecialWindler   talk  23:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it should be, seeing as we now have two major sources (at least) giving concrete information about it. It makes sense -- Bond 22 was announced before cameras even rolled on Casino Royale, so I was expecting news about Bond 23 to start showing up. Gah -- I'll be 41 when it comes out! 23skidoo 04:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Bond 23 at AFD
No surprise, I suppose, that someone has nominated Bond 23 for deletion here. I think the old WP:CRYSTAL argument is being misused here. 23skidoo 19:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Bond girl articles: Requests to move
I have noted the move requests by SpecialWindler on the requested moves page. I have noted the history of these articles and the recent moves. Before these articles are moved again, I would suggest that the James Bond project members discuss this matter and reach a consensus on what should be done with these articles. I strongly suggest that SpecialWindler withdraw these move requests temporarily until the project members reach a consensus. Perhaps you might start a new discussion page for this request, such as WikiProject James Bond/Bond girls. &#9679;DanMS • Talk 17:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahh, but User:Vikrant Phadkay had no consensus to make the move in the first place. There is also disscussion of this at Talk:James Bond, which happened in March this year. They were all moved (co-incedently by me), and then reverted. Also above are some various discussions above on this page (which never eventuate)
 * I read the discussion as you pointed out. It is not entirely clear, but it appears that (1) you made the original proposal to combine the Bond girls by film, (2) the proposal was not accepted by the Wikiproject, and (3) Vikrant Phadkay moved some of the articles anyway. Is my interpretation correct? Just to clarify: I am not opposed to the move per se. The point is that once a move has been made, admins need to assume good faith on the part of the contributor who made the move. Before reverting the move, we need to make sure that it is justified. We do not want to get into endless cycles of moving articles back and forth. &#9679;DanMS • Talk 01:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is is (seeing I did it)

 SpecialWindler   talk  01:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I proposed the idea at the Talk:James Bond page
 * 2) After two weeks of no consensus, I decided to go with it.
 * 3) Once I made the move, there was outrage (as seen on the page, notice the date I posted the comment, then two weeks later) ... and was all reverted.
 * 4) The End
 * 5) Then out of the Blue, Vikrant Phadkay moves them all back.
 * 6) I reverted all the pages back, spliting some, the only problem is the name of the articles (which is outlined on the Requested Moves page) which needs changing back.

Unfortenely, Wikipedian's have the right to do things, without notice. But such a big move can't just happen without consensus (I'm sort of a hypocrite but.). But any Wikipedian can do it, and you can assume good faith on part of Vikrant Phadkay, but he claims that the articles are too small, so he merged. But considering Vesper Lynd, Pussy Galore (James Bond), Honey Ryder. If you tell me they are small, I'll scream. I can understand that Solange (James Bond) is small. So he joined Vesper Lynd and Solange (James Bond), but why make the Vesper Lynd page suffer because Solange is small.  SpecialWindler   talk  02:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your replies. I have invited Vikrant Phadkay to comment on this request. Let's wait a short time and see if he or any other project members have a comment on the request. &#9679;DanMS • Talk 02:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

To all James Bond Wikiproject members: I would like to see some more discussion on these proposed moves. Please voice your opinion and see if you can reach a consensus. &#9679;DanMS • Talk 02:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * An outsider's opinion, the articles that only cover a single character (like List of Bond girls in Thunderball) should be reverted immediately and boldly because they are simply not "lists". Another idea that can apply to all of these articles, consider merging them into a "characters" section in the individual film/book article per WP:FICT; it is common practice to merge characters who have only appeared in a single film/book into the main article. Axem Titanium 03:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, everything has been reverted, the only problem is that the names of the articles can't be moved back. That's why they are on the Requested Moves page. Originally (if you look at "List of Bond girls in Thunderball") they were lists, but I reverted them back, but I can't move the page. It would also depreciate a film page if the character went there.  SpecialWindler   talk  06:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Move Back - We must make it clear that any movement of pages can only happen after consensus has been reached, as the pages were moved unilaterally without consensus, they must be moved back.

Tovojolo 08:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Leave the Bond Girls as individual pages. SpecialWindler tried that (unite all the pages into a list) before and failed. There are not enough Bond Girls in an individual Bond film to justify a list. Are you going to make a list for two or even one Bond Girl(s)?? And anyway doesn't Wikipedia tell you to stay away from making lists? El Greco (talk · contribs) 14:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok folks please see the section above this one. It goes to a page where all plans can be made. Anyway all bondf girls need not be merged. Vikrant Phadkay 15:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Leave the Bond Girls as individual pages -enough said. For God's sake they aren't even lists anyway. They are written articles ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you?" Contribs 16:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Anybody familiar with the series will know that often Bond women are "Bond henchman. The characters of Pussy Galore and Honey etc etc justify their own pages even on par with some of the main villains ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you?"    Contribs 16:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

individual. Only for minor characters would I say we should ever have to group them. K1Bond007 19:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * On this page WikiProject James Bond/Character Article Layout, User:Vikrant ... seems to think the follwoing characters are not notable Aki, Kissy Suzuki, Tiffany Case, Plenty O Toole, Mary Goodnight, Andrea Anders, Holly Goodhead, Corinne Dufour, Gala Brand, Stacey Sutton, Pola Ivanova, Pam Bouvier, Lupe Lamora, Octopussy (character) and Magda, Paris Carver and Wai Lin
 * I only agree with Plenty O'Toole, Andrea Anders, Corinne Dufour, Pola Ivanova and Magda (and maybe Paris Carver) but the rest, you mustn't know James Bond well. Kissy Suzuki has a son with James Bond. Gala Brand is a whole written article.  SpecialWindler    talk  06:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Leave them as individual Only very minor characters need combining - • The Giant Puffin •  19:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hah, if several chaps say they are notable, where are the sources? Vikrant Phadkay 15:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on some characters, for example, Solange (James Bond), not very notable, probably not notable enough to get it's own article. Your left with the choice of joinig it with Vesper Lynd. Vesper Lynd, notable, one Bond's first girls, first Bond girl in novels, notable girl in films. Very notable, must have article. To join Solange with Vesper, hurts the Vesper article more than joining them together is successful (meaning that its better to leave them seperated than joined). So what to do with Solange, only logical answer is to leave it, as it is. OK!  SpecialWindler   talk  00:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thunderball (novel)
Failed for good article status. Considering this article was a former featured article, it needs a little help.

I know people tell me that had the article had not been split up between novel and film, it may still be FA. But if the novel section was anything like this when it was all together, then I think this article would have lost its FA pretty quickly.

You can see the reviewers comments on the talk page Talk:Thunderball (novel)

 SpecialWindler   talk  21:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I no longer support the entire notion of GA or FA. It's one thing to do the best you can, but I've seen far far far too many blatant cases of hypocrisy and WP:NPOV violation for me to take it seriously anymore. Not when an article can be FA/GA one day and simply because of someone's taste it no longer qualifies the next. IMO this happened with this article but I've seen it happen with too many others. 23skidoo 23:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Gun barrel sequence article up for AFD
Another Bond-related article has been nominated for AFD -- the James Bond gun barrel sequence article (see here). At the moment it looks pretty safe, with only a couple of lonely "This isn't notable" voices in the wilderness, but it might be worth the project's attention if they want to try and AFD-proof it for the future. 23skidoo 23:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Project page redesign
Just wanted to say it looks great! Cheers, Cliff smith 00:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, did it myself.  SpecialWindler   talk  00:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks nice, but do we need 2 Stats boxes (the boxes that split the articles into categories) so close together? El Greco (talk · contribs) 00:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it looks good, more organised than before. Nice work! - • The Giant Puffin •  21:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. But I noticed there isn't a section for recent article edits/creations any more - should there be? Opera hat 18:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your Deal, Mr. Bond
In case anyone's interested (or curious), I've just added "Your Deal Mr. Bond" to the James Bond uncollected short stories page. Technically it IS collected, as it's in a book of the same title, but I couldn't think of anywhere else to put it and it didn't really justify its own article. It's an unofficial Bond story -- yet featuring an undisguised Bond, M and Moneypenny, who goes undercover as a real-life bridge expert (shades of Evelyn Tremble!) to defeat a nuclear terrorist at a game of bridge. It's similar in form to the early chapters of Moonraker where Bond takes on Drax in the same fashion. It's clearly unofficial, but the fact it was published by a major publisher in a book that was (and perhaps still is?) widely available (I'd heard of this book for awhile before finally locating a copy in Vancouver, BC about 7 years ago) I think justifies it being included somewhere. I've also added it to the template under the Unofficial column. 23skidoo 23:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Kingsley Amis and Colonel Sun
I just noticed that there's been a bit of movement towards downplaying Kingsley Amis' involvement with Bond, even going so far as to moving the section into the Trivia part of the article -- at a time when Wikipedia is mandating that trivia sections be deleted. There is some discussion about this at Talk:Kingsley Amis -- apparently the section was getting a bit too detailed and unreferenced -- but as I commented there, just because the books he did aren't considered classics like Lord Jim, the fact he wrote three major works regarding Bond -- and people still claim he was involved in Man with the Golden Gun, too -- make his involvement in the world of Bond worthy of discussion. Since the Amis article is (or now...) listed as part of the Bond WikiProject, I thought I'd draw it to people's attention that there may be a bit of "defending Bond's honor" to be done. 23skidoo 00:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

List of James Bond locations
I am suggesting splitting of this article into novel, film and game locations since it has grown too huge now. Comments? Vikrant Phadkay 16:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's good to see you looking for conscusus. I agree, except for the games, the's not a word on the games, so. But make sure you redirect the talk page of List of JB locations, to here.  SpecialWindler   talk   (currently )  21:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale FA
Just thought I would spread the good news. One of those much sought after little gold stars has appeared at the top of the Casino Royale (2006 film) article today. - X201 18:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hurray!!!!!!! El Greco (talk · contribs) 21:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yippee!! It's my first FA. Thanks to everyone who expanded it before the second FAC. Vikrant Phadkay 15:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I recieved a film barnstar for my work on this film  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 11:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration
Come on people, please help out the collaboration (currently ) otherwise we may have to abandon the process. The last two articles have not passed GA status, and as it is you people who vote for these collaborations, so come people, please help out.  SpecialWindler   talk   (currently )  21:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

 * 15 September 2007 - expires 20 September
 * CommanderBond.net ( PROD by User:Alksub; "...the largest James Bond fansite on the Internet….launched the Internet’s first dedicated, James Bond podcast." ) --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 21:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What is this? El Greco (talk · contribs) 01:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

GAC Backlog
A View to a Kill and Die Another Day are in the backlog since long. Someone please review them. Vikrant Phadkay 16:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We can't, we are all too familuar with the articles, even though you have changed them. Just wait, have patience. They will be reviewed in time. GA candidates can take up to a month. If after a month add it to the top part where it has: Longest GA candidates...  SpecialWindler   talk   (currently )  00:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Character pages
I normally focus on Warcraft-related articles, where there's a perennial problem with articles that belong on the Warcraft wiki instead. But while browsing the other day, I noticed that literally every Bond girl has its own page and wanted to spare people the trouble of a deletion nomination like this. It's probably because they receive less attention and are part of major film productions, but I'm sure there's a wiki where they can be transwiki'd. Just a thought. Luatha 01:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed before, if you would like a link to numerous discussion about this, then ask.  SpecialWindler    talk   (currently )  06:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Bond era Template
Please check this template and see if it is necessary. I think it seems redundant in the fact that we already have one that lists the films, but this one lists the actors and the films. Bond eras El Greco(talk) 19:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is redundant, nominate it for deletion.  SpecialWindler    talk   (currently )  21:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Nominated. El Greco(talk) 00:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking forward to another FA
The World Is Not Enough (song) has been nominated. I may be on a break for about 6 days. So folks, please work on the article. Vikrant Phadkay 15:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of the Bond film template
I don't know how long they've been on there, but someone added the non-Bond spoofs OK Connery and From Hong Kong with Love (which I don't think had any Bond connection beyond the title similarity) to the Non-EON list alongside the two earlier Casino Royales and Never Say Never. Obviously they had to be taken off the template, so I have done so. The only film that might be justified adding is The Return of the Man from UNCLE in which Lazenby has his cameo as "JB" and possibly ... just maybe ... the first Cannonball Run film because of the Moore-playing-Bond gag. But I'm not going to jump to add either. 23skidoo 21:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: List of James Bond henchmen

 * --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 12:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Status
Should the Status field be kept in the James Bond Character? It can easily be made to conform to both the novels and the films. El Greco(talk) 17:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to see it return but it creates problems, like the following needed bits.


 * Ian Fleming Novels
 * Films
 * Continuation Novels
 * Films - Reboot

For someone like Felix Leiter, has many variations among those.  SpecialWindler    talk   (currently )  20:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. Any idea how to fix it? Should the template just be for movie characters, that way it will be easily decernable between the two films (old and reboot)? Another possibility is to equip the template with the four fields from above. I would like to see it come back, otherwise the within the articles themselves we would have to make it known if it's not already known. El Greco(talk) 16:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Second FA
I'd like to give congrats to Vikrant Phadkay for getting the second FA for this project. Well Done.  SpecialWindler    talk   (currently )  20:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Vikrant Phadkay (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Navboxes
I recently was reading through the various Bond articles and couldn't help but notice an array of heavily populated Navbox's/Templates. I really question 1.) if all of these are really necessary, 2.)due to the number of navboxes, do some of the boxes need to be as extensivly populated as they are? I just wanted to start a discussion, to see if there was any of similar opinion. I don't feel the character needs to have a total of 9 templates, (I have trouble really getting past 1). Hope this starts some good chatter. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * From what you said, I'm a little confused. Did you mean either.

 SpecialWindler    talk   (currently )  04:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are too many templates OR
 * Articles have too many templates that they need.
 * Definatly #1. and as result of #1 some of #2 as well. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, here are the templates:

Bond movies crew

I feel (If I number the above templates in order from 1 - 9) That 1,2,4,5 are vital and should not be removed. 6,7 could probably be merged. 3, 8 can be merged if not removed. 9 can probably stay.  SpecialWindler    talk   (currently )  20:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 6 and 7 should definately be merged with each other. 8 should be merged with either 1,2, or 5. 3, to be totally honest, I didn't even know it existed. El Greco(talk) 00:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Even with the simple inclusion for discussion at appears overwhelming. 1.) I like this navbox and feel it could stand as the exclusive template to James Bond (if it were my decision). It is not cluttered and touches on all of the other aspects the other boxes.  2.) As currently the film are the most accessable aspect of the Bond franchise, I am open to the notion that this box should stay as well, but would need to be strictly relegated to the films and not every character, gadget or nuance of each movie. 3.) Should just be deleted. It is a narrowed version of the film series, that has become too focused.  I love the movies, as much as the next secret agent, but a navbox for production crew borders on the trivial.  Aspects of this box could be incorporated into the film box; however, in my opinion, most wikipedians who would seek out this level of detail, could and would as easily nav thru all the movie pages vs. merely using a navbox. 4.)  This box could stay for the same reasons as the film page, as it is a distinctive medium for Bond (as long as it was exclusive to the books). My problem with this navbox is that it is TOO BIG.  The inclusion of every novel and writer has created something so massive, that itis not longer convenient, which is a key feature to the navbox. 5,6&7). Both could easily be left to links to the article on the film box, as they both reflect aspects of the films, but I argue not to the degree were they both need to be templates.


 * In short, as a template minimalist, I feel all could be left to the JAMES BOND template. The more sub navbox's that are added, the less convienent they become due to to clutter and whatnot.  What degree are we going to keep creating boxes for various parts of the movies. Keep is simple, with links to the lists or articles that can have every(books, director, album, songs or films). -66.109.248.114 (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Having one James Bond template probably isn't a good thing. Too much stuff would be cramed into it and would be massive. These individual templates on the otherhand split those essentials into their own templates and relevant content. El Greco(talk) 01:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * With so many templates, I can see that one may not be enough; however, if the templates are being used for their "relevant content," then they don't need to be double,triple or nonuple tagged. Music combined, crew deleted, character trimmed town to medium, listified and directed to those lists.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.248.114 (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

How's does this look? I just joined the 6 and 7 template together and edited them a little bit. El Greco(talk) 22:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice. I'll start putting it. Vikrant Phadkay (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well since, you were the only one to respond, I went ahead and replaced them all. El Greco(talk) 18:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And since James Bond music has replaced all James Bond themes and James Bond soundtrack in the related articles, I nominated them (thems and soundtrack) for deletion. See below. El Greco(talk) 23:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have substed Template:James Bond themes and Template:James Bond soundtrack as both have been deleted by TfD. Splash - tk 22:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:James Bond soundtrack
Template:James Bond soundtrack has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — El Greco(talk) 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:James Bond themes
Template:James Bond themes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — El Greco(talk) 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

One more template merged
No. 8 is now into No. 3. Fine? Vikrant Phadkay 19:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe retitle cast and crew?-66.109.248.114 20:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC).


 * Is the crew template necessary? Besides Barbara, Michael, Saltzman, Broccoli who produce it (an maybe a few of the unofficial ones), are the directors (both Eon and non Eon), and production needed? El Greco(talk) 01:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ulitmately, I would agree w/ El Greco. As I stated before, I feel that the crew template is too focused of an aspected to be accessible. However, in the effort of community, if it were to be decided to merge vs. deletion overall, rename it to cast and crew. -66.109.248.114 23:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles tagged for Notability
Giacinta "Jinx" Johnson and Paris Carver have been tagged for notability. This could mean redirect or merge in the future. Check it out and leave your input. (Note: I did not tag them, I'm just giving WP:007 the heads up.) El Greco(talk) 22:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What kind of perverse logic is this? The two leading ladies in two well-known, fairly recent (last ten years) films in the defining spy movie series must surely be notable. Oh look! The notability tag is left without any kind of justification or reasoning on the talk page, based on a policy that is tagged as disputed and in my opinion is unclear in its objectives and criteria. I will drop a note to the editor who tagged it on their talk page; unless we know why the article is tagged, we cannot improve it. Editus Reloaded (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So have you looked into this? Because the tags are still present. Vikrant 13:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

List of James Bond film locations needs expansion
More than anything else, it needs information about non-EON film locations. Does anyone know this? And what are the sources? Vikrant 15:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is everybody? Vikrant 13:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible flood of AFDs coming
A small group of editors has taken it upon themselves to purge Wikipedia of what they deem to be unnecessary pop culture-related articles. Hiding behind the often-misused Wikipedia guideline (which is not the same as policy) on articles related to topcis in fiction, they are currently going after many articles related to Star Trek, and I expect it's only a matter of time before other franchises are similarly attacked. (And I'm using that word because the articles being nominated are not of the trivial variety) Their claim is that the subject or topic of the article must have multiple (not just single) sources asserting real-world notability beyond the fictional universe. Under that criteria, if there aren't sources indicating how M cured cancer or inspired someone to go into politics, or what have you, virtually any article related to James Bond characters, organizations, or items could well be targeted, save for the main Bond article itself. Just fair warning. It's nonsense like this that led me to stop contributing to Wikipedia for nearly a year and I think I'm due to step away once again. 23skidoo (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They are all welcome as they are partly true. Vikrant Phadkay 15:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikrant Phadkay (talk • contribs)
 * Please don't leave Wikipedia, but I completely agree with you. There is a lot of nonsense in Wikipedia. But it seems to me that articles like James Bond gunbarrel sequence (which has absolutely no sources at all) will be up for deletion. And there will be alot of JB articles (such as Universal Exports, Vesper (cocktail), Shaken, not stirred, and more) will be up for deletion. If any user finds an article up for deletion, please note it here, though the nominator should anyway. But these people obviously want the articles deleted so probably won't. Because ALOT of JB articles don't have sources.  SpecialWindler    talk   (currently )  20:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This has User:TTN written all over it. El Greco(talk) 23:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be mostly character articles they're going after, or things like organizations. My issue is that they aren't going after articles based upon sources, but clearly based upon elitism. They feel that if a subject is not suitable for the Encyclopedia Brittanica it's not suitable for Wikipedia. I swear by the time they're done all that Wikipedia will have are articles on physics and American history... 23skidoo (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That will never happen. Vikrant Phadkay 17:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikrant Phadkay (talk • contribs)

I put Vesper (cocktail) on PROD. Vikrant Phadkay 17:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3 more on PROD: Christmas Jones, Pam Bouvier and Lupe Lamora. They are only appearing in 1 film. Articles would never be more than plot summaries. Vikrant Phadkay 18:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikrant Phadkay (talk • contribs)


 * Why is Vesper (cocktail) up for PROD, it's actually sourced? El Greco(talk) 20:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That source is just a copy of the novel and can't sustain an article. Vikrant Phadkay 15:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is Vikrant Phadkay putting these articles up for PROD. I thought it was this "group of editors" that were targeting. Now we have a member of our own project going around putting PROD on articles.  SpecialWindler    talk   (currently )  21:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Simply imagine yourself as someone outside the project. Vikrant Phadkay 15:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikrant Phadkay (talk • contribs)
 * The characters listed above are not Flemiing's creations but are film-only + perfectly resembling novelisations and cameos in some unheard of games. Vikrant Phadkay 15:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikrant Phadkay (talk • contribs)


 * Yeah, I don't get that either. Is Phadkay trying to get those weak articles out of the way before the storm comes, so the James Bond articles aren't hit as hard, or is their some other meaning behind his actions? El Greco(talk) 00:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you both saying? My reasons about the PRODS listed above are valid. They are not weak articles. They are unencyclopedic. Sources don't even exist! Vikrant Phadkay 15:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For the same reason Stacey Sutton and Pola Ivanova are on PROD. Film only characters and pages are just plot summaries. Vikrant 14:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm split over the issue. You can't tell me that Christmas Jones is not notable, but the article's condition is disgraceful. I still don't understand why Vikrant Phadkay is putting these on PROD. Where is the proof that these articles are unencyclopedic. It would be the same as the page for James Bond (character), its still a character but it's encyclopedic. Anyway, this will raise the old question of James Bond girls by film thingo. There is no way that characters can't have a info on it on Wikipedia. Damm you Vikrant Phadkay. (Sorry, but you've gone over the top by putting these articles on PROD, but you are doing some great work with other James Bond articles.  SpecialWindler    talk   (currently )  20:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then show me the article better. James Bond (character) is obviously notable. You think i will ever question that? Vikrant 14:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You know I was thinking. If these PROD continue on the James Bond articles, how many are actually going to be left? Will those that are left sustain a Wikiproject? El Greco(talk) 21:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI Christmas Jones has been moved from PROD to AFD here. I don't know about the other ones. 23skidoo (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this article will be kept, otherwise we should expect a giant wave of articles to follow suit. - • The Giant Puffin •  10:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like it survived, though I wouldn't put much stock in the longevity of the image currently in use for it. 23skidoo (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd chip in that a character like Christmas Jones, hated beyond all measure, does not deserve an article simply because she is a love interest. In contrast, many iconic henchmen like Jaws, Oddjob and so on have been wrongly merged despite clearly being decent articles in their own right. In fact, why do many of the film-only characters have list/articles? They'd be better off merged. Alientraveller (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a POV judgement call to declare Christmas "hated beyond all measure" unless you have some major source to back it up like a major poll or something, but then she wouldn't be hated beyond all measure (sorry, I'm in an anal-retentive mood today - but you get my drift). As for the point about film-only characters having articles, I do believe that major ones should because the James Bond films are such a major part of popular culture, and so much has been written about the various characters that I do feel having separate articles for them is justified. However the current deletionist philosophy sweeping Wikipedia (which ignores the Wikipedia is not paper philosophy that used to prevail) is making it hard for pop culture-based articles to be created unless someone can find a professionally published work specifically about them. In the case of Bond film characters such works actually exist: see Maryam D'Abo's Bond Girls Are Forever and accompanying documentary for example. 23skidoo (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Bond film template
Just as a heads up, an anonymous IP tried to split the Bond Film template into "original series" and "reboot series" sections, obviously being unaware that Living Daylights and GoldenEye were both reboot Bond films as well. There should be consensus before making such a judgement call on the template. I have reverted it back to status quo, but am noting it here in case the anon user takes umbrage. 23skidoo (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if The Living Daylights or GoldenEye were reboots. They were different in a way, but mainly because of actor. Anyway, your right, while it is a reboot, its not a different "series" of movies. They are all Bond movies, and none are chronologically ordered. Some are implied to be in order, and the obvious advancement in technology implies that it is set in the year it is made. So to say that the first 20 films are a series is not correct.   SpecialWindler    talk  00:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They were reboots in the sense that neither Dalton nor Brosnan could have possibly experienced the events of, say, From Russia with Love in the year of original production, unlike Moore who was actually older than Connery. So they were reboots in the sense that the events of previous films would, by necessity, have to be "retconned" into having taken place in later years. 23skidoo (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * User Notscott went ahead and included a list of the JB actors. The user has just included on the official actors though. Should we keep it like that or revert back to the old one? Should we just make the template include both the films and the JB actors to combine the two templates into one like this: User:El Greco/JamesBond El Greco(talk) 23:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not a big fan of the change as it makes the non-EON section look awkward. What do others think? 23skidoo (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well now it looks like User:Dell9300 has gone on and replaced all the templates with that purple color and made them all have groups on the left side. El Greco(talk) 14:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it works well with the Books template, so I have no objections with that one. 23skidoo (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not touching that one, just changing the color to be with the other bond templates. El Greco(talk) 16:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm not a big fan of the color either but I wasn't sure if there wasn't some style standard related to it so I left it be, myself. 23skidoo (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Another issue related to the template is that an anonymous IP is insisting on changing the Bond 22 link to (surprise surprise) Property of a Lady. It's getting caught and reverted, but it's certainly annoying. Personally I am expecting Property of a Lady to end up being the title, but part of me would love to see it given a name like Revenge of SPECTRE or something like that, just to mess with people's heads ... 23skidoo (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * who confirms it's property of a lady? Vikrant 09:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No one has. That's the point. The anon is taking rumor as fact. We won't know till EON or some major media like CNN announces it. 23skidoo (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally think the template's gone out of hand. What was once a simple easy to navigate template has turned into a somewhat complicated template with all the actors we know anyway. Except the unofficial actors is just gone stupid. I'd wish to revert it back to when Notscott (then later El Greco) changeed it without consusesus. But when someone did El greco reverted, as if he were god.  SpecialWindler    talk  10:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is to return it to this version, the oiginal and the best.  SpecialWindler    talk  10:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I joined them because the James Bond Actors is somewhat useless, and was better joining it with Bond movies. El Greco(talk) 16:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But really, it would be better to remove the template in the first place. I at least pose this question: If the template is on films, why are their radio and stage actors on Bond?   SpecialWindler    talk  20:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, maybe a bad choice to keep the name the same and integrate one into another. Would you rather the template be called James Bond Franchise? El Greco(talk) 20:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Then that would totally outlaw the non-eon productions. Or include Everything ever made, novels. They are part of the franchise.  SpecialWindler    talk  01:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I can't come up with a different name. Any suggestions? El Greco(talk) 01:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To revert it back to this version.  SpecialWindler    talk  02:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You want to have two templates when a combines one can just name the films (EON & NonEon) and the actors? It could be limited to just the film actors with the removal of all the voice/radio etc. This template joining was discussed in both the JBThemes and JBSoundtracks TFD pages as well as on this talk page. So I think joining it, changing it to conform to its new needs would suffice more than having two seperate templates. Obviously it would be renamed like for example 007 Movies and Actors or something along those lines. I think one template would be much more beneficial instead of two. It's not like there is so much information it would be squished together and unmanagable. El Greco(talk) 17:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

But are the actors notable at all in comparison to the films? Do we need the same template to tell us the actors? We should not rename the template, we should remove actors and JUST have the films no matter what. James Bond novels template may be large but it does what is supposed to. "Link together all the relevent books", In terms of the James Bond series, the actors may be important but they are not relevent to the films template. Also, any other opinions than El Grecos.  SpecialWindler    talk  20:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Retitled it. Vikrant 10:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)