Talk:James Bond/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

MUSIC HEADING NEEDS ADDITION

Include Chris Cornell as a musician who performed the song "You know my name" from Casino Royale. It won an award for Best Song written for a film —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzahutnik (talk • contribs) 22:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

New Bond novel needs to be added

Per a May 2010 press release from Ian Fleming Publications as reported here, Jeffery Deaver has been commissioned to write a new Bond novel for publication in 2011. The title hasn't been announced yet, but this should be added after the reference to Faulks. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

JAMES BOND MOVIES

WHY WAS NEVER 'SAY NEVER AGAIN' WITH KIM BASSINGER LEFT OUT OF THE WIKIPEDIA LISTING FOR JAMES BOND MOVIES...THE COUNT SHOULD BE 23 NOT 22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.125.110 (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There are 22 EON movies, and it's mentioned as such. The other adaptations are also listed in the article. DonQuixote (talk) 03:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Errors in table of movies

I could be wrong but it seems there might be some serious errors in the Inflation Adjusted Total Box Office column of the table containing such values. How do the 2008 figures become so bloated by adjusting them for inflation… in 2008? Maybe I'm confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.45.231 (talk) 07:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I also notice that the total in the table of "Non-EON films" is not the sum of the two figures given above it — I haven't corrected it as I don't know which figure(s) are wrong. Mooncow (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

James Bond on Stage

In 1992 a stage version of On Her Majesty's Secret Service was produced in England by Renegade Theatre Company. Actor Rob Richards was cast in the title role of James Bond. The Production was short lived however as the Broccoli estate refused to grant permission for the play to continue beyond an agreed number of performances. The production played to sell-out audiences and Richards' portrayal of Bond received critical acclaim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Throbster (talk • contribs) 19:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, but I haven't found an online source that can verify this. If we can find sources, this should be added to section 3. Actually, I rather feel that section 3.2 "Non-EON films, radio and television programmes" could benefit from being split into "Non-EON films", "television adaptations" and "radio adaptations" anyway, as it is currently a bit of a rag-bag. A new section "stage productions" could also go into there quite naturally and usefully, if we can get the sources. In particular, the reason as to why the production was short-lived may need to be omitted unless it is verifiable from reputable sources. Mooncow (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Further update — I've gone ahead and split the messy section as just described, after realising just how muddled the sections and numbering of that part of the article were. I haven't added a "stage" section yet, until we have something definite to put into it. The "radio" and "television" sections contain some bare facts which could do to be expanded out: all I did was carefully preserve the information already in the article. Mooncow (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

A proposal

I think that the following templates should be combined somehow into a single template (navbox-within-a-navbox style):

• JamesBond
• Bond movies
• Bond movies crew
• Bond books
• James Bond characters
• James Bond games
• James Bond music

--King-9 (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello?--King-9 (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiPedia is NOT a chatroom, expecting a reply one minute after you post something is unreasonable. Wait atleast a month. (or in this case, you could post to WT:WikiProject James Bond and wait atleast one week) 65.93.13.210 (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Helllo?--King-9 (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As British subject matter, British English language conventions would prevail, so the appropriate pages would have to be "films" not "movies." Nick Cooper (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Those templates are gigantic, making a humongous template out of them seems like a very bad idea. 65.93.13.210 (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hatnote

I was slightly surprised to find that Double Oh Seven redirects here, while 007 redirects to James Bond (character). I have added a hatnote to this page to direct other confused readers to 007 (disambiguation). Cnilep (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That's good, but I'd go further. Why does Double Oh Seven (a somewhat unusual phrase anyway, surely?) not redirect to the same place as 007, which it is just a spelled-out variant of? Unless anyone suggests a good reason for keeping it the way it is, I'd propose to have Double Oh Seven redirect to 007 and thus follow whatever that redirects to (and for that to redirect to James Bond (character) certainly seems perfectly reasonable to me). Mooncow (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Look up an article on James Bond

Yes I know there are only 22 official James Bond films in the franchise however somewhere in that first paragraph you should mention the unofficial film "Never Say Never Again," or the fact that the James Bond character has starred in many other spin-off films. -James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.168.79 (talk) 04:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 75.140.113.178, 13 April 2011

1983 Sean Connery was in Never say Never Again.

75.140.113.178 (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Which is stated in the Non-EON films section already. Skier Dude (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Character

I think that this should be mixed with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bond_(character) - I think this is a double article - somebody should do something. Budugoo (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

As none of the Ian Fleming novels contains an illustration of the coat of arms provided here, and I don't recall one in the movies either (unless there's a fleeting glimpse in the Lazenby film) I'm concerned that the CoA illustration in this article violates WP: NOR. At the very least the caption for the image needs to provide a source, if it originates from a scholarly work. I would have tagged the image myself but the article is locked to IP editors. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a view of it in OHMSS (here) but the one in the article is a very basic version of it. - X201 (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

There is also the front cover of the first edition of OHMSS, published by Jonathan Cape; elements of this coincide with the description in the book about the 'three gold bezants' contained therin. See On Her Majesty's Secret Service (novel) for the image of the covert art (and apols for including the fair use image here earlier - I forgot about WP:NFCC)--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Seuj, 2 June 2011

In the second table, I suggest we add the directors of the non-EON productions to match the information provided in the official film table above.

• Casino Royale was directed by Val Guest, Ken Hughes, John Huston, Joseph McGrath, Robert Parrish and Richard Talmadge.
• Never Say Never Again was directed by Irvin Kershner.

Seuj (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Done Makes sense to me; I've gone ahead and added the directors to the table. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Dr. No

I am trying to build up Dr. No to get it back to an A Class article once again. I need a bit of help on a couple of points, largely around the Broadcast television versions and a new section on the legacy of the film. Is there anyone who could lend a hand for a final edit and polishing? There is a summary of the work left to do at Suggestions for improvement. Many thanks to anyone who can help!--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Bond's Full Name

Bond's full name has been put in the first section as Commander Sir James Bond, KCMG, RNVR. This is wrong - Bond was awarded with the CMG, which is not a knighthood. His full name should therefore read Commander James Bond, CMG, RNVR. Will someone be able to change this?--Jpkilleen (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done - X201 (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done (again!) - Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverted it back to the original. Bond is given KCMG at the end of The Man with the Golden Gun and considers turning it down, but the story ends before his final decision is made.--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Its wrong on the other WP articles then. Those are what I based this change on. - X201 (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Bond is offered the KCMG but turns it down as he does not wish to become a public figure. Therefore, he has the CMG but not the KCMG.--Jpkilleen (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, Bond: considers turning it down, but the story ends before his final decision is made.--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Well then how do we know that he does accept it? The only we know for sure that he has is the CMG, if we are not told whether he accepts the KCMG, then an informative article like this one cannot simply assume that Bond accepts it.--Jpkilleen (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Now I've finished with Dr. No I've finally managed to get round to reading the closing chapter of MWTGG properly and, although the ending is ambiguous, I'm now not convinced that the KCMG should stand - although I'm not convinced the CMG is correct either! As the other articles have him as CMG we may as well stick with that for consistency, although I'll get round to updating the article at some point to show the hanging conferment of the higher award.--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

James Bond and gambling

Please give your advice inside http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Poker#Poker_in_fiction 82.224.88.52 (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Revamp & re-write

I'm giving this article a bit of a going over as it's a little bit of a mess at the moment (too heavy in some places, lacking cites in others etc.) As part of the process I'm going to tweak the layout a bit too, bringing it in line with a couple of other similar and highly rated articles, Batman and Spider-Man. The new, suggested layout is as follows.

Lead
1 Publication history

1.1 Creation and inspiration

1.2 Novels and related works

1.2.1 Ian Fleming novels

1.2.2 Post-Fleming novels

1.2.3 Young Bond

1.2.4 The Moneypenny Diaries

2 Adaptations

2.1 Television

2.2 Radio

2.3 Comics medium

2.4 Film

2.4.1 Eon Productions films

2.4.2 Non-Eon films

2.4.3 Music

2.5 Video games

3 Supporting characters
4 Guns, vehicles and gadgets
5 Cultural impact
6 References
7 Bibliography
8 External links
9 See also

Are people broadly happy with this? - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer review

I think the article is well written, and it's neutral with broad coverage. A few things I noticed though:

1. Given the article at List of James Bond films, it seems a bit redundant having the tables in this chart too. If they are retained here I don't really see much point in having a separate list article.
2. There is a claim that Eon owns all the adaptation rights; I was under the impression that they only owned the right to the title of The Spy Who Loved Me since Fleming refused to sell the story; is this still the case?
3. The film section makes several references to the numerical unit of a 'billion'. I appreciate that a billion is becoming increasingly to denote 1000 million, but in British English—which this article is written in—it still often denotes a million million; in fact, the OED gives the "million million" definition as the primary defintion, and the 1000 million as teh secondary definition. To British readers, and readers familiar with British English this terminology might be misleading. I suggest sticking to a thousand million, or a numeric representation of the number i.e. $5,000,000,000
4. In the cultural impact section, there is no mention of the Harry Palmer series, which is probably the highest profile example of the resulting spy genre; I think this particular franchise is noteworthy because it was produced by Harry Saltzman who specifically positioned it as the antithesis of the Bond style spy film.

None of these are major issues though, and probably won't stand in the way of a GA application. I haven't checked verifiability yet, so I'll get onto this tomorrow. Betty Logan (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Yes - very true! Would the new version on there now pass muster though? A simplified table (film name, year, actor, director)? I've put one in there by way of example, but can remove if you think it would be a better move?
2. Fleming did (and banned any further publication, including a paperback version), but once he died the publishers issued a paperback straight away and the rights are all now with Eon. I think at least one of the references refers to it, if not both of them.
3. Very good point - I'm too tired to go over and change them now as my eyes are closing while I'm typing! I'll do that tomorrow morning, however Now done!
4. True - and embarrassing! He's now in there, along with the Saltzman reference (and the others who worked on both series)

Once again, thank you so much for going over this - you are a true star! - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• There are some minor sourcing issues that need to be addressed, these are all tagged so are easy to find. The unofficial links may run foul of WP:FANSITE, but I'm not overly familiar with EL guidelines; it may be worth leaving it to the discretion of the GA reviewer. With regards to the tables, personally I would have removed all the tables (films and books) since there are dedicated list articles that cover these. However, that isn't a GA criteria—you are perfectly entitled to include the tables here—that's entirely to do with how the James Bond Wikiproject wishes to structure and organize their articles, so I'm basically making an observation rather than a suggestion. It's a comprehensive article and once the sourcing issues are addressed I don't imagine any major concerns will arise in the GA review. Betty Logan (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again so much for this. I'm away until Monday and can't do too much on my phone, but I'll sort in a couple of days. Thanks again! - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:James Bond/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 22:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: two found, one fixed, one tagged.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up the review on this one. I've replaced the dead link and taken out the tag on that one. (Citation 142) Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is reasonably well written, article complies with key MoS elements.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Article is adequately referenced, sources are RS, spotchecks show statements supported by cites, no OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article provides a good overview of the subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   article is stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images have suitable licenses or non-free fair use rationales and captions

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good to see this article considerably improved since delisting over two years ago. Happy to list! Jezhotwells (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bond Portrayals

In the info box, the years are incorrect. It states Sean Connery was Bond from 62-71, and again in 83. He was Bond from 62-67 and again in 73. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.192.103.123 (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

See the section James Bond#Films for the dates. DonQuixote (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

He still never played Bond from 67-71 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.192.103.123 (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Connery's first Eon film was 62, his last was 71, with the non-Eon film in 1983: in that respect the infobox is correct. The dates of the other actors, Eon and non-Eon, are also persent there. The main text of the article covers the overlap, as does the separate article. The infobox is not the place to list 1001 different dates and breakdowns - that's for the main body. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Bond book without spying?

Was this a dream I had or what? I heard that Fleming wrote a book about Bond's life OUTSIDE of the spying bizzo, centred on domestic matters, and his early life. And that the book was so boring it never got published, or else he was advised it would work against public interest in his character. Anyone know anything about this? Coz if it is true, there would be a lot of interesting stuff in there on how Fleming saw Bond, even if the book is crap. Myles325a (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No—although I think you've got a couple of crossed wires on a couple of books. Fleming wrote The Spy Who Loved Me from the point of view of a young woman and it contains no spying (although a little violence etc). After the hardback came out in the UK, he requested that there should be no reprints or paperback version of the book, which stood until his death, after which paperback editions were produced. He also wrote a short story, "Quantum of Solace", which contains no spying at all, which was written in the style of, and as an homage to, W. Somerset Maugham. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox order—should non-Eon be listed separately as "Unofficial", as per Q and Moneypenny articles?

In the infobox, the actors who have portrayed James Bond are listed in chronological order, without separating the Eon and non-Eon (unofficial) film portrayals. Should these be separated in the infobox, as per the current infobox state at the Q (James Bond) and Miss Moneypenny articles? I think they should be separated for clarification. Whatever the consensus ends up being here should be applied to all James Bond characters' infoboxes. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 20:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Poor suggestion. Changing the format of two GA standard articles (James Bond and M) to reflect the format of two 'Start' quality articles seems to be bizarre behaviour to say the least!

1. Firstly, please note that as all the films were produced legally, under the relevant copyright and licensing laws, "Official" and "Unofficial" are misleading terms as ALL the films are "official": Eon and non-Eon films are the more precise and less lazy terms to use.
2. The characters are the same (regardless of who is producing the films) and the list gives readers a sense of the chronology of the actors that is missing in the main article body where the Eon films will run 1962 to 2012, followed by the non-Eon films of 1967 and 1983. James Bond, Felix Leiter, Ernst Stavro Blofeld and M list the actors in the infobox by chronological order of playing the character whilst the article itself makes it clear who is part of the Eon series and who is from the non-Eon series. This is readily understandable to readers of all ages and reading levels.
3. The Content box also mirrors the article, so there is even less confusion there about who is in the Eon and non-Eon films. The infobox does not have to slavishly follow the course of the article.
4. Just by way of background on the Bond articles on Wikipedia: M is one of the articles that has recently been passed as a GA—along with James Bond and a number of others (and the reviewers seemed to feel that the format of those infoboxes was suitable). Bond and M are the first character articles to be fully updated and to pass as GA standard as we have worked hard to get all the films and all the novels now up to GA standard, with the films classed as a Good Topic and the books going through the same process. There are two articles which are works in progress: Felix Leiter and List of James Bond films cast members‎. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Schro. There are four articles which have a good, uncomplicated list in the infobox and two which have bitty and split lists and they look a bit silly! The infobox has the raw data and the article has all the breakdown of the info, works well as far as I'm concerned. The Moneypenny and Q articles would be a big step backwards, IMHO. Aside from that, the same policy doesn't actually have to be spread over all the articles at all. - hydeblake (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Given the above discussion, I am now willing to concede and drop my defense of the fragmented style. The arguments against it here are well-thought and convincing. Unless someone else comes to its defense here (which is unlikely), the Q and Moneypenny infobox style can and should be reformed — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 00:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, 'official' and 'unofficial' are misnomers really. I know they are in general usage, but it can be misconstrued that the non-Eon films were not licensed adaptations if they are referred to as unofficial. It's probably ok for a news article, but an encylopedia should use the correct terminology. It would violate WP:NPOV anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Walther

The Walther pistol shown in the aticle is not a "PPK". It is a PPKS. which is a bit longer than the PPK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.234.112 (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

No: it's a PPK, but thanks for reading. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Article subject

There's a note on this article saying that it is about the series in general, not the fictional character. However, it opens saying it is about a fictional character. Any help?

--74.67.169.206 (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Read more carefully. The intro says that James Bond is a fictional character featured in...and then lists the publications and works. DonQuixote (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

CMG

Despite the fact that the novel From Russia With Love is a primary source, it is acceptable to be used as a source for Bond having a CMG. Primary sources are perfectly fine as sources as long as they are being taken straight without interpretation. See WP:PRIMARY for more details. Not all sources have to be reliable secondary sources. For instance all the details of the character taken from the movies as mentioned there are primary sources, and are quite acceptable as any editor can look at the primary source and get the same information. The passage in question in From Russia With Love is quite clear "The fact that this spy was decorated with the C.M.G. in 1953, an award usually given only on retirement from the Secret Service, is a measure of his worth." Quite an acceptable source and reference as it's Fleming's own words, heavily published and available for anyone to verify. Canterbury Tail talk 17:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it needs a reliable secondary source, as with everything else in this article. If you want the information in there so much, then find a good, reliable secondary source and include it. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 June 2012

Under "Guns, Vehicles & Gadgets" you state that Bond used "a Winchester .308 target rifle in "The Living Daylights"". Please change it to "a Walther WA2000 sniper rifle in "The Living Daylights"", it came in 3 calibers, .300 Winchester Magnum, 7.62 X 51mm NATO (aka .308), & 7.5 X 55mm Swiss. Thank you!!

Kekoa1969 (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No. The rifle described in the novel is a Winchester .308 target rifle. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

James Bond lists were just all/most tagged for deletion by someone

I thought you should be informed. --Niemti (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The lists aside, most of standalone character articles have serious Wikipedia:notability problems, in addition to the general lack of sources. These that are relatively good, like Aki (James Bond)‎ are few and in between. --Niemti (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

SchroCat, Betty Logan and myself discussed these "list" pages here. Betty Logan prodded three pages last month. No one responded, so administrator Explicit deleted them. The three pages are:

• List of James Bond henchmen in A View to a Kill
• List of James Bond allies in A View to a Kill
• List of James Bond allies in Dr. No

Fanthrillers (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I meant the currently tagged. --Niemti (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I prodded the remaining articles in the same fashion because those three other pages got deleted. I again refer you to the discussion here. Fanthrillers (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

But why won't you simply redirect these articles to the film articles? --Niemti (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean turn the "list" pages into an actual "redirect" page? I'm fairly certain we can't do that. That'd be a sneaky way to delete content without going through proper procedures. Further, these "unsuitable" articles do NOT have a title that may make a useful redirect. (Wikipedia deletion and redirection policy). - Fanthrillers (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes we can. I did this many times. And that's not deleting anything. --Niemti (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

And done. --Niemti (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

And I also moved the similarily unreferenced lists of video game characters to the game articles. --Niemti (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I also redirected the Bong girl articles with no references at all. (Many of the others have notability problems, but at least they have any references.) --Niemti (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

And the same with villains. --Niemti (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

In this way, all of the articles can be also easily restored for a rewrite, as I just did with Wai Lin. --Niemti (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Also just restored Jaws (James Bond). --Niemti (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Also Oddjob. --Niemti (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think redirecting is a perfectly acceptable solution in this case. The reason I PROD'd the A View to a Kill article was basically to test the notability and INUNIVERSE arguments through an official channel. It's a much more visible way of doing it than redirecting. However, given that there was no objection I think redirecting is fine for the other articles; it does save us the hassle of a big clean-up job. Betty Logan (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Referenced (more or less) but with the most burning notability problems

• General Grubozaboyschikov
• Le Chiffre
• Hugo Drax
• Charles Robinson (James Bond)
• Vesper Lynd
• Tiffany Case
• Tatiana Romanova
• Tracy Bond
• Agent Strawberry Fields
• Camille Montes
• Plenty O'Toole

Add notability if you can (and care).

Oh and Quantum (James Bond) and The Union (James Bond) too. --Niemti (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, propose where and how these articles should be merged. --Niemti (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, just tagged them all for merging. --Niemti (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the tag from Robinson and I suggest that it's also removed from Le Chiffre too: the character has appeared in 2 films and the TV prog as well as the book. The others are all fairly pointless. Could you also make sure that when you do the re-directs there are no circular references in the corresponding articles and that all pages that refer into that page have their links suitable altered. - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

And so what "the character has appeared in 2 films and the TV prog as well as the book", if there's no indepedent notability in his article? Also Raoul Silva. --Niemti (talk) 05:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

All the references are from a third party and a number of others are also there. I'm still thinking about increasing the net to ensure that the primary villains retain their own page going forward. On a seprate note, in conversation, could you also please indent your text using the colon: it makes it easier to follow and is good wiki etiquette. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No, all the references are from James Bond: The Official Guide and "a number of others [that] are also there" is zero. And as of Le Chiffre, him being based on Aleister Crowley doesn't make him noatble, it makes Aleister Crowley notable (Ian Fleming worked with Crowley to give fake horoscopes to the Nazis). --Niemti (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Official? Even better then. As to the others: you misunderstand (or I misphrased). There are other sources available about the character, bringing it up to more than zero. Le Chiffre's notability (and the other primary villains) isn't based on single things like the Crowley information, but because they are the primary villains in one of the longest running and most successful film franchises in history. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"The Official Guide" is absolutely not an "independent third party source", and it gived the subject (which is a very minor character) an exactly zero independent notability. But anyway if you think you rewrite the Le Chiffre article, I'm not stopping you at all, the tag was just a proposal. --Niemti (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I've removed two primary villains from the list. There are numerous notable sources about these two. There are also numerous independent third party sources about Vesper Lynd, Tatiana Romanova and Tracy Bond too, if you look for them. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, as I mentioned earlier, could you also make sure that when you do the re-directs there are no circular references in the corresponding articles and that all pages that refer into that page have their links suitable altered? Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

They might be notable but it's on Wikipedia. And if you want to fix it up do it yourself, now or on any later date, instead of asking me to "look for them" for you. --Niemti (talk) 07:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't asked you to look for them, I'm suggesting you look before you decide if they are noteable or not. As there are a number of sources that cover a number of these characters then I'm withdrawing the notability tags on them. The articles all have a number of issues, but that is nothing that a re-write could not fix. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to "look" into anything. I've looked into these articles and there was no notability, and we are talking about the Wikipedia articles and not anything else. If you want, improve them. Now, or on any later date. Even years from now, you can always de-merge after all. --Niemti (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised and concerned about your approach. If you do not look at what is around then how can you judge the notability of the articles? That really does seem to be horse-before-cart territory. And no, you obviously haven't "looked into these articles", because if you had then you would have seen a large number of third party references to the subjects. I suggest you spend five minutes trying to do some cursory research first before deciding what you think should or should not be there. You may take it from my approach that I have done the research and know what is there: you may also takeit that we are hardly moving towards a consensus on the articles from which I have removed the notability tags. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you're mistaking notability with verifiability / reliable sources. The notable henchmen / girls / villains are these widely discussed in mass media or even being referenced in the non-Bond fiction (as some indeed are), because they're notable. AKA cultural impact. And stating "I have done the research" is not enough, you have to expand the articles using this research. And do not except me or anyone to "look around", because only what is in the articles counts for the articles. You can't say "they're notable, because I say so, and I did my research, and if you don't believe look around". That doesn't work this way, because one could say something like that about any article, this being true or not. Oh, and I'm not even going to merge them, I just tagged them. Someone can else might do it, and you can too (then easily de-merge when you prepare a better article). --Niemti (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you tagged them from a position of ignorance: never a good place to start. Did you look at the Benson, Black, Lindner, Pfeiffer or Comentale's books? Did you look at some of the main academic articles such as "Shaken and Stirred: A Content Analysis of Women's Portrayals in James Bond Films", "Screening Geopolitics: James Bond and the Early Cold War films" or "James Bond's "Pussy" and Anglo-American Cold War Sexuality"? I doubt it, because if you had done so then you would have seen a number of these characters had been discussed by academics, or in academic journals. Yes, there is a lot of chaff around (Strawberry Fields and Plenty O'Toole being obvious examples) but to slap tags on those which are notable seems to be a rather strange approach. And no, I'm not mistaking notability with verifiability or reliable sources: I'm aware of the distinction. They have not been updated recently because there are only so many hours in the day and there are more important articles to polish up first, but their day will come in the near future. Furthermore, notability of an article is not solely based on "what is in the articles counts for the articles": it is based on a much, much wider net than that. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I tagged these articles for no notability and merge from the position of these articles having no proof of independent notability. I didn't tag them from deletion, merely for a simple and possibly temporary merge becuause of their very poor state as for now (July 2012), and I didn't redirect them rightaway only because they had sources (these were the only few such articles that had any sources). And no, neither "Shaken and Stirred: A Content Analysis of Women's Portrayals in James Bond Films", "Screening Geopolitics: James Bond and the Early Cold War films" nor "James Bond's "Pussy" and Anglo-American Cold War Sexuality" were used in any of these articles, I think. They may be merged in near future, and maybe de-merged in ANY future, so what's the problem? None. But don't accuse the other users of "ignorance". --Niemti (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Also my work here is done. --Niemti (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Read again. I didn't say you were ignorant, I said you came from a position of ignorance, because the lack of knowledge you showed in your tagging is a position of ignorance. As I said above. The articles have issues, but notability is not one of those issues. Sources and adequate citations are the issues and the articles have those tags in place already. Rather than throwing round pointless and misleading tags, perhaps some work building the articles to a decent standard would be more constructive? - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I showed no "ignorance" at all, and actually I might know about the series actually more than you do, but that doesn't even matter (I'm not waging my Bond knowledge e-penis in front of you, I don't see the contest). The articles should be judged for what they are right now and these tags are neither "pointless" nor "misleading", they are very useful and clear (as the tag says: Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted, followed by the euqally clear merge tag, and even my own repeated explainations for you only, ensuring you that you can easily fix either or all of these article now or at any later date - and that's to the person who jut wanted to DELETE a whole bunch of articles). --Niemti (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"my work here is done"? No, I think you may have to go round and tidy up the mess you've made with the re-directs first. Have a look at the redirects on The World Is Not Enough and work on from there. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"Bond knowledge e-penis"? That's the funniest and most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time. Don't forget to finish the clear-up job after you've finished with the TWINE mess. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't like your still rude tone and so I won't listen to any impolite requests, regardless of what "TWINE mess" might be. That was all. --Niemti (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a rude tone, and I'm sorry you've taken it that way. There are no impolite requests either: I just pointed out that your redirects have created a number of problems that you may wish to sort out, unless you want them open to reversion in order to get the articles put through the deletion process that would'nt create any such issues. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is, but I think there should be a Wikipedia bot for a job like that. --Niemti (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the film articles link to the associated villains page. By re-directing the page, the link now goes round in a big circle back to its own page, which isn't terribly helpful. And no, there does not appear to be a bot coming round clearing up after you. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

update needed

The "Last appearance" item in the sidebar is three years out of date. It refers to a 2008 film rather than the actual last Bond appearance, the 2011 novel. 66.68.23.185 (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. DonQuixote (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The real agent 007

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: The first agent 007 and the real name was Dr. John Dee. He lived from the 1527th the 1608th year. He was adviser to Queen Elizabeth and the first British secret agent. The brilliant mathematician, philosopher, and magician invented the mark 007th. In the code letters for the Queen "00" meant "for your eyes only", and seven by Dr. Dee was chosen as a powerful Kabbalistic number that is "guaranteed" safety.93.137.48.39 (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see James Bond (character) and Inspirations for James Bond, both of which deal with the use of Dee's glyph. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 October 2012

I think the U.S. Release Date (9 November 2012) should be included in the page as it may mislead people from America as to the release date in their country. Devin15 (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Betty Logan (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Novel list section incomplete

The list of novels includes tables for Fleming, etc. but there should be a new table started for post-Benson novels to account for the Faulks and Deaver works, as well as the upcoming Boyd book. Although they are accounted for (well, not the Boyd book) in body text, for ease of navigation a table would allow at-a-glance reference. Alternately an "Other writers" section would also allow Colonel Sun and James Bond: The Authorised Biography of 007 and perhaps even the "Your Deal, Mr. Bond" short story book to be included. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The literary works are more comprehensively covered at List of James Bond novels and stories. The purpose of this article is really to just give a broad overview of the James Bond franchise. Betty Logan (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

James Bond Page

On the James Bond page it says Daniel Craig is the 6th actor to play James Bond in the opening info section. He is indeed the 7th. Since the page is semi-protected and I am new I cant change it. Just thought id point it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efero99 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

He's the seventh to play Bond overall, but the sentence to which you refer does have a caveat: it says he "is the sixth actor to play Bond in the Eon series" (my emphasis added). Cheers (btw, when you leave a post, of you could add your signature (~~~~) then it's helpful in an ongoing conversation. Thanks!) Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I apologize I was counting Sean Connery twice since his parts were broken up. Efero99 (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, what happened to the financial info for each of the movies in the table? The table of movies used to have Budget and earnings info... just curious why it was removed... thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.8.175 (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It's because this is the wrong page to have the info, so it was moved to List of James Bond films and expanded. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sidney Reilly!

Before there was decsription about Sidney Reilly and taking him as model for the James Bond by the Ian Fleming,so why now there is not any information about it?--Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Because it's the wrong place for it. If you look at the section titled "Creation and inspiration" you'll see the link to the article Inspirations for James Bond, which is where there is a full article about Reilly and others. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

No i dont think so because there is topics as Creation and inspiration,also there was mentioned the names of Conrad O'Brien-ffrench, Patrick Dalzel-Job,Hoagy Carmichael and so but there is nothi,ng about Sidney Reilly and his inspiraion on the James Bond character.--Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, there is a link to a different article: Inspirations for James Bond, an article which examines ALL the inspirations, including Reilly and others. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

007 Legends Edit

Just a request to update the video game section of this page. The last game mentioned is Quantum of Solace when, in fact, 007 Legends was released this year and has DLC related to Skyfall. Would add myself but the page is locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.196.185.69 (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that: it's now been updated. - SchroCat (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Another thing is that I do believe that Skyfall is acctually the back story of the game and is unlockable during campaign play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qbrainch (talk • contribs) 17:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Extened use of the Aston Martin DB5

I propose the addition of Skyfall to the list of movies the DB5 has appeared in, especialy since it's appearance in Skyfall is not only a result of the 50th Anniversary, but also is exactley the same as the one used in Goldfinger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qbrainch (talk • contribs) 17:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added Skyfall to the list, along with a supporting citation. - SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Monique Delacroix's birth place

After reading in this article that Monique Delacroix was born in Yverdon, I checked the cited book (Chancellor, 2005) and that mention appears to be wrong : page 58 makes no mention of Yverdon, and page 59 only quotes the James Bond obituary mentioning his mother's origin as "of Canton de Vaud". — Preceding unsigned comment added by GPask (talk • contribs) 12:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Quite right: now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

CMG (2)

I'm starting this topic again because in the 2012 film 'Skyfall' Bond is refered to as a CMG (he is also refered to one in the film trailor). Bond has in pretty much most of the books and films has been refer to as a 'Commander' in the Royal Navy. The Header of this article should read; Commander James Bond, CMG, RNVR, code name 007, is a fictional character.....' otherwise the correct and factual information is not being displayed on this 'encyclopedia'.

Ref 1: Ian Fleming's spy, James Bond, a commander in the Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve (R.N.V.R.) was fictionally decorated with the CMG in 1953. (This is mentioned in the novel From Russia, with Love.) He was later offered the KCMG (which would have elevated him from a Companion in the Order to a Knight Commander in the Order) in The Man with the Golden Gun, but he rejected that offer as he did not wish to become a public figure.

Ref 2:In 1953, according to the Soviet file on him in From Russia, With Love, Bond is made a Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George. Benson, Raymond (1988). The James Bond Bedside Companion. London: Boxtree Ltd. ISBN 978-1-85283-233-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 15:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

All very good, except he's not RNVR in the films, only the books. We've avoided the problem here because this isn't about the character, it's about the industry, so the focus is about the use of the character in various media forms, rather than specifically about the background of the character. James Bond (literary character) looks at the literary character and begins "Royal Navy Commander James Bond, CMG, RNVR, is a fictional character ..." We are hoping to have a film character article go live soon which will begin "Commander James Bond, CMG, RN, is a fictional secret agent ...". the opening to this article will remain as it is. We will then have three correct articles and nothing wrong or misleading in the opening lines. - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It forgets to mention ONE MAJOR movie.

Never Say Never Again (1983) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.240.82.156 (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

See the Non-Eon films section, where NSNA has happily been mentioned for some time now. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Adding the James Bond fragrance information

Tried to update the info about new fragrance in October 2012 - but hasn't been kept? Rosiehannah (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

- Oh no - it must have been going through a process of acceptance or something perhaps? It has now reappeared and has been accepted.

Thank you in advance.

- Now it has gone again? Rosiehannah (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the revision notes it was removed by User:Betty Logan on the grounds that it belongs in the cultural impact section, not the adaptions section of the article. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Slight correction: it was removed for being unsourced. It was in the wrong section too, but the edit summary says that if the informaiton is returned with a source, it should go into the correct section. - SchroCat (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay - Thanks for responding - I see now. How do I find what you found? ie - who removed it and for what reason..? Rosiehannah (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

adding Fragrance website URL and bottle image

Hello 2 suggestions: 1)could we add the 007 fragrance web site URL 2)could we add the fragrance picture ---You have the reference here:

References

I already suggested this in the past but not sure why it was not validated. Serena demaio (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Serena, James Bond Fragrance Brand Manager; 26 Feb 2013

I suggest you read WP:NOTADVERTISING. The website for the fragrance and a picture of it are not relevant to the subject. Betty Logan (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Fallacy in article.

The James Bond article lists him as being in the longest running film franchise in history. This is innacurate. As of Skyfall, the number of James Bond films is 23. Godzilla, by comparison, has 28 films to his name (29, assuming Toho has accepted the 1998 film into the canon, which they seem to have done in referencing the movie in Giant Monsters All Out Attack, and then bringing the creature itself into play in Godzilla: Final Wars. 30 if the upcoming film by Legendary will be considered part of the canon.) and is thus the longest running film franchise currently in existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.98.142 (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No fallacy. You forgot to quote the words "continually running", which Bond is and Godzilla isn't. - SchroCat (talk) 07:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Define "continually running". Because if the term is intended to mean that there are still movies coming out, then Godzilla does qualify as the new film by Legendary is due out in 2014. Since Toho seems to have taken the 1998 film into its overall canon, there's a good chance they will do so again with this. Now if the article said the second longest, it would be accurate, again due to the upcoming 2014 Godzilla film. Plus, at what point does a series stop being considered 'continually running'? Because there's usually a gap between films even in the bond series. 67.240.98.142 (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Since1961 there has a Bond film in production or pre-production, largely by one company (two films accepted). They have therefore been continual. This is not the case with Godzilla, which have had numerous gaps between productions and been by a number if different parties. - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hoagy Carmichael image

The earlier photograph of Hoagy Carmichael was made when he was too young to really conjure James Bond very closely since Carmichael was almost still a boy when it was taken. Note, however, the similarity between this later more rough-hewn image and the drawing of James Bond at the beginning of the article: absolutely identical. Chaneykarlofflugosi (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Best Years of Our Lives 01 bar.jpg Indeed. And we can even ask where Fleming got his idea of Hoagy Carmichael. I presume it was probably the Oscar winning 1946 film The Best Years of Our Lives. Hoagy's character helps a double amputee play the piano, and the theme of the film is rehabilitation after the trauma of WW II. Which was the reason Fleming ostensibly began writing Bond novels in 1953-- to do psychological rehab at the behest of his therapist. So he probably paid attention to this film. In fact, here I think I see the germ of the idea not only for Bond's appearance, but that of Dr. No as well! Of course, I can't prove it. Another NOR violation like my own realization that Fleming is the Bond books, not only as Bond but as the secretaries Moneypenny, Loelia Ponsonby and Mary Goodnight. No spy novels have secretaries doing as important things as Fleming's. Bond even acts as Goldfinger's secretary at some point. Typing out agendas for a mob confab, LOL. ;). SBHarris 00:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I've taken out the image: no non-free images in talk space please. - SchroCat (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

I'm really not sure why there is a reference to this under the "Name" section. The section deals with the name James Bond: where it comes from, what it means and why Fleming chose it. It is certainly not a section that outlines Bond's nicknames. Does anyone object if this is removed? - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It doesn't belong in the "Name" section SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I support its removal, it's nothing more than a media pet name i.e. trivia. Betty Logan (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I also support its removal from this article - but I would suggest, if nobody objects, that the citation should be added where the same statement is made at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderball_%28film%29 It is quite relevant there, of course. Jeremy Duns (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, SchroCat. Jeremy Duns (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 August 2013

'Never say never again' missing from films list 115.188.129.117 (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Never say never Again is listed under "Non-Eon films". Betty Logan (talk) 10:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Christopher Cazenove

Christopher Cazenove is listed in the infobox as playing Bond in 1973. This relates to an episode of the UK television documentary series Omnibus where Cazenove is listed as playing "Heroes: Tom Brown, Richard Hannay, Beau Geste, Bulldog Drummond and James Bond". I don't know the context of this 1973 appearance (the entry is unreferenced), however from my perspective this is hugely different from the film appearances of the other actors and an entry in this list for Cazenove is more confusing than it is helpful. I removed it, but my edit was reverted. I will remove a second time on the basis that it is unreferenced, but am seeking wider discussion with this post. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, see WP:BRD and don't revert a second time: go to the talk page after the first revert. Secondly, see the Television section of the article. It contains the information, and is even supported by a source. - SchroCat (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

How about the division between film and TV I've made here? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I favour it - it bulks out the infobox too much, which should be a summary of facts, not have 101 man-made sub-sections in there. The "portrayed by" list is entirely correct as it stood previously, while the article text made it very obvious who played the character in which form of media. - SchroCat (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't favor the division, and I don't really favor including the years either TBH. This article isn't just about the films, and some of the Bond actors have also contributed to the computer games too, so the years are a bit misleading in that respect. Personally I would just make it a simple list of names of all actors that have portrayed Bond in some manner. We already have James Bond filmography which specifically addresses the tenure of the various actors in the film roles. Betty Logan (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Good point: I'd be happy to remove the dates and simply go with one list of names in alphabetical order. - SchroCat (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's better without the emphasis on the films. However, the article doesn't clarify what George Baker did (the dubbing in OHMSS) so is it possible to address that? Otherwise people are going to be left in the dark over his involvement. Betty Logan (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 August 2013

James Bond - (1983) Never Say Never Again not included 74.100.100.142 (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: As it says in a couple of threads above this one, it's already listed in the Non-Eon films section of the page. - SchroCat (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

James Bond Education

New section needs to be added to give James Bonds early years.

Suggest the following:

The young James Bond spends much of his early life abroad, becoming multilingual in German and French because of his father's work as a Vickers armaments company representative. Bond is orphaned at the age of 11 when his parents are killed in a mountain climbing accident in the Aiguilles Rouges near Chamonix.

Eton College: Bond's alma mater for two halves.

After the death of his parents, Bond goes to live with his aunt, Miss Charmian Bond, in the village of Pett Bottom, where he completes his early education. Later, he briefly attends Eton College at "12 or thereabouts", but is removed after two halves because of girl trouble with a maid. After being sent down from Eton, Bond was sent to Fettes College in Scotland, his father's school.

As the thread above this one makes clear, this article is about the Bond "industry", not the character, so such detail would be in the wrong article. - SchroCat (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion - fandom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no merge IsaacAA (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

---

The article James Bond fandom lacks notability for the fandom itself and most of its references are used as examples instead of actual references to reliable sources. Nine of the references are direct links to fan-sites and forums (one of which is dead), two are for "James Bond Island"-related tourism companies, three are for news outlets who "have been assisted" by fan sites but not actually about the fandom, one is a link to an interview in a fan-zine, and only one is an honest-to-goodness coverage of a fan who made an amphibious car.

Since the article lacks notability, the bits of information which are properly referenced should be merged into a section of James Bond, and James Bond fandom should redirect there. IsaacAA (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. This article is about the Bond "industry"—books, films, radio, and TV adaptations, computer games etc. Having a sub-standard and unrelated section of the article foisted on it doesn't make sense. What would make sense would be for James Bond fandom to be deleted. - SchroCat (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

This is in fact an intermediate step before proposing article deletion. It failed speedy deletion even though its notability is still unclear to me. I'll put a deletion proposal as soon as the merger proposal is done. IsaacAA (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose It's basically a list of Bond trivia. We should take the notable bits, add them to the relevant articles (if it isn't already there) and then PROD it. Betty Logan (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose It doesn't belong in the main article. SonOfThornhill (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Music

It says under "Music" that : " Adele won the award at the 85th Academy Awards. For the non-Eon produced Casino Royale"

shouldn't it be Eon produced, since she won it for the 2006 and not the 1967 Version

AsaWoSuu (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It's two sentences about two awards for two films, thus the full stop in between. - SchroCat (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry didn´t see the full stop, but now the sentences make more sense. My bad. AsaWoSuu (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Distinguishing from the character article

Currently we have two articles: James Bond (this one), and James Bond (literary character). Ostensibly, the former is about the series, and the latter of course about the character. However, when it comes to actually reading this article, it seems in inner conflict as to which one it's about, introducing itself as an article about the character while pointing elsewhere. Both are good articles, and the novels and films aren't the character, so merging isn't really ideal.

Of course, the subjects are hard to differ -- the Bond series is a character-focused piece, you're rarely going to see anything set in the same setting that doesn't star Bond, and you're going to see things starring Bond that take place in totally different settings. The character is always going to have to be described here in some way, but here's what I suggest:

• Change the first sentence. It introduces the article, establishes the subject, and says "is a character". Maybe "The James Bond series is...", if not just a "is a series...".
• Change the infobox. It's directly summing up the character: "First appearance", "Portrayed by"...
• I'd probably remove the sectioning from "Creation and inspiration" part. You're going to have to sum up Bond's creation to sum up the series' creation, but seeing "Name", "Looks", "Tastes" inflates the character-ness of it. Besides, most of the sections are merely short single paragraphs, so I don't think it'll really hurt the prose.

Any thoughts or objections? – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep the inspiration section as it is, simply because it is clearer as it is, and I don't think it would really be a problem if we addressed some of your other concerns. I actually think the infobox adds very little in this case, although if it is removed I would prefer to see the list of portrayals relocated, perhaps to the "Adaptation" section, since this is essentially what this information relates to. We do have the disambiguation note at the top, but I do agree we could probably come up with a more accurate opening sentence for describing the content of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Betty Logan about keeping the inspiration section, but I appreciate that this is a little bitty, and I've tweaked and merged the sub-sections together. I'll have a tweak at the lead too, to try and point more towards the series.

Infobox: This doesn't sum up the character per se. The first instalment of the series was Casino Royale and the most recent was Solo. That is all well and good. The portrayal list is, I think, fine. As you've already said, "the Bond series is a character-focused piece", and I think we're justified in showing the actors in all media who have played the dominant lead character. - SchroCat (talk) 10:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply here. The infobox is definitely currently about the character. It contains details that can be extrapolated to teach about the novel series, but it's headed with "James Bond character", and first appearance isn't "First novel". You wouldn't describe Philosopher's Stone as the "first appearance" of the Harry Potter series, at least not generally. The infobox itself is, of course, {{Infobox character}}. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 23:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not about the character, definitely or not. The boxlike the article itself, is about the series of books, films, games, comics, merchandising etc. Given the restrictions of the perameters in any of the available idiotboxes, the fields reflect the main points of the entire Bond industry as far as they can. I'm not sure why you wouldn't think Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone isn't the first appearance of the HP series, or why Casino Royale isn't the first appearance of Bond: they both are the starting points of their series. In this instance the first start of the Bond "industry" was in the novel Casino Royale, as we outline. The most recent "edition" of the series is Solo; a few months ago it was Skyfall. - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It opens with "James Bond -- James Bond, 007 character". It directly states that it's about the character from the James Bond, 007 series. If it's just about getting parameters that fit, all it takes is dropping the |series= bit. It's set to remove the line if nothing is entered. Casino Royale is the first appearance of the character, it is the first work/entry/etc. of the series. You'd say "James Bond first appeared in...", but you wouldn't say James Bond did so, "Casino Royale was the first appearance of the James Bond series" is a very odd thing to say. It'd be more organic to say 1953 was the first appearance, not the work (the infobox does state the year, but as a description of the novel). – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 15:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You want to remove the reference to Casino Royale from the IB and leave just the date? Why on earth would you do that? Why create a partial piece of information that leaves more questions than it answers? There's just no logic there I'm afraid. I've removed the series information, not just because of your comment, but because we repeat the name "James Bond" in the IB too many times. - SchroCat (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't what I was saying at all. I'm saying that "appearance" is hardly the best fit in this context. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 15:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

And I've already disagreed with you about that: it is entirely appropriate as it stands. - SchroCat (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

And I still disagree. Which would you rather say, "Casino Royale is the first appearance of the James Bond series, or "is the first entry in the James Bond series"? It's far more natural, and if it's still about using the infoboxes given it's easy to add in two customised fields. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 16:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't say either of those, so it's pointless to try and put it in a sentance. It says:

• First appearance: Casino Royale, 1953 novel
• Last appearance: Solo, 2013 novel
  

This is fine and I don't see the point in spending stupid amounts of time arguing over it. - SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I fell for it

I feel like it encroaches the tenets of collaboration to enforce the arbitrary standards of the above discussion, to justify reverting my attempt to contribute on this article. First, it doesn't follow reason to say in summary: "This isn't appropriate for an article about the franchise", as if something is inherently wp:undue with the content.

The section header profess that it will tell the reader about the "creation and [the creative] inspiration" for the James Bond franchise. It begins its delivery with a synopsis of the "central figure", as created by Ian Fleming.

Fleming himself, was deliberate in his construct. He was driven by a meticulous purpose—to ensure Bond was characterized by a specific sub-set of attributes. And Fleming's Bond was the sum of those attributes; necessarily. An amalgamation of less comprise could never suffice at being what Fleming intended that Bond needed to be!

That's why Fleming set about these characterizations in the earliest parts of his own writing. And why you one day see them again; when M writes Bond's obituary—fifty years and twenty episodes later! How can it not be appropriate to introduce the "central figure" as robustly as Fleming himself introduced Bond to the world? And what standard determines which attributes remain worthy of mention, and which become inappropriate?

It can only be some form or another of original synthesis. And it's misguided to re-cast Bond this way; superseding Fleming's emphasis by the brevity mandated here. And why should the entire gist of Fleming's Bond be worthy of mention except the appointment to the Order of St Michael and St George? The one attribute not mentioned, added by me, and reverted as inappropriate. And how does it's mention negatively impact the overall franchise? Clearly it doesn't, while its omission arguably does.

The reversion also removed a high quality source in the process; another aspect that befuddles logic. Therefore, I effected a partial reinstatement; trimming the extraneous prose and achieving the inclusion endeavored. In total, five words are added in prose. I hope it withstands consensus. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 05:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Betty Logan on this. This article is about more than just the character created by Fleming: it's about all aspects of Bond, be it book, film, TV, comics etc. apart from being overly specific for this article, it's also misleading, as the Bond character differs across the various media. Secondly I'll point you towards WP:BRD: aim for consensus at discussion, rather than just reverting to your preferred version please. - SchroCat (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware of BRD, and other advice too. I didn't revert anyone. I merely edited the article anew. But none of my edits withstand the heavy hand of rollback favored here. Even a null edit occurs somehow as vandalism and gets rolled back. That's an unfettered crock.—John Cline (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no crock here at all, John. Firstly, your edits were not rolled back: they were reverted and, as per the edit summary, were considered good faith. Secondly yes, you reverted by placing back into the article content that had been challenged. It does not matter if you had pressed the "undo" button, or undertook it through the normal editing process, it was still trying to force back in challenged content. Thirdly, passing messages solely by way of an edit summary isn't helpful, but when such "null edits" are used, passing the reply back by reverting something that should not have happened is common practice. (In any event, there was no need for the message: I had already replied to your message on the talk page, which you should have checked first. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong on several points, but hey: you seem to believe yourself firmly. Discussing the counterintuitive nature of your premise would probably just be a waste of time. I presume you'd rather not, as would I. BTW, I didn't really mean to force American spelling over British, I truly thought it was a misspelling. Sorry for that.—John Cline (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

If you think I'm wrong on several points then please feel free to outline them. It may be constructive to point out just where you think adding the superfluous information about Bond in the wrong article is a good thing, and we can work from there. - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

My contention is not that you are wrong in labeling my inclusion, superfluous; that argument has merit and I accept that consensus is against my initial belief. My contention derives from your assertion that reverting another's edits is nothing more than perfunctory expedience. You pointed me towards WP:BRD for example. Yet you reject its included counsel; for it's more than simply good advice regarding a consensus building editing cycle—it's also an admonition against reverting edits unnecessarily. That portion seems to be of no value to you while your eager disregard of it is the greatest cause of my umbrage. And there's nothing about a dummy edit (mislabeled a null edit by me) that begs for a revert; practically requiring one, according to your explanation. If you find anything useful in this comment, that's a good thing, if you don't, it's not automatically bad; but it is the crux of my disagreement with you.—John Cline (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:ROWN is a guideline, nothing more: practice, and indeed other guidelines, differ. You ignored BRD by not going to the talk page to build a consensus; instead you went back to the article and tried, for a second time, to insert something that had been challenged for good reason. That is the basis for my umbrage with your approach, and is the point you have not addressed or taken on board. As to the Dummy edit, please see the first purpose "dummy edits should not be used to hold extensive content discussions; that should be done through talk pages", which is what BRD also suggests, and which you failed to do. As to there being nothing in the guideline "that begs for a revert", I never claimed there was: I said it was common practice. However hard you wriggle on this, or from whichever angle you try to argue the point, it still boils down to the fact that after you were reverted you should not have tried to force information back into the article, but come to discuss on the talk page. – SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

One thing I don't do is edit war over content. On very rare occasions I will IAR unto a second revert. I don't intend on changing that approach, no matter what you think BRD says or doesn't say; or how you would have chosen to proceed. Peace.—John Cline (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment I thought my edit summary was adequate but here is a fuller explanation: this article is a real-world chronicling of the James Bond franchise i.e. the novels, the films, the games etc. The details you added were out of place in a section about the character's origins and conception. If Bond's C.M.G. was a homage to a real person then we would include it, otherwise it doesn't belong here. The character's fictional background is covered at James Bond (literary character)—which incidentally also covers the CMG; I did provide a link to that article in my edit summary and I just presumed that it would be self-evident why I reverted the edit. Betty Logan (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I am providing this follow-up, logged out, because I truly want my recent retirement to be the culmination of my former endeavors. It is a final courtesy on my part, to offer you some perspective from the one you have unwittingly, or for uncaring, discouraged from participating further on this site. Quite simply, when you use rollback, irrespective of which link you use to perform the mass reversion, you activate the notification link, and send a message to the editor, saying; in effect: your recent efforts have been deemed worthless and subsequently trashed by such and such editor, who clearly has such formidable standing that you'd be ill advised to seek recourse. The amount of time elapsed from when the reverted editor publishes the change, until the edit is reverted, directly reflects how much consideration was given to the edit being reverted. When the edit is clearly: "not vandalism", you should check yourself to determine what compels you to act with so much swiftness, so as to preclude any semblance of consideration for the personal endeavor, and gift of time, the non-trolling editor just attempted to donate to your preciously "good article". And when you instead choose to revert, with lightning speed, you are the initiator of the bad faith consequences that so often ensue. 2601:0:4680:363:D196:B573:B8CC:29BC (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

John, I've removed the final incivility from your post, which isn't needed, will only lead to trouble ahead and, I hope, you will consider to be acceptable when you are in a better frame of mind. As to,the main gist of your comment, there are four methods of removing a previous edit: rollback as vandalism, revert as "good faith edit", use of the undo link and by text edit. The final three of these are all acceptable methods of returning to a previous edit, and two of them will leave a courtesy notification for the other editor. There is nothing in the use of any of them about which to get unnecessarily hot under the collar. Use of the vandalism rollback is something you could get (rightly) annoyed about when used on a valid edit. Neither I nor Betty Logan used such a rollback, so this is all something of a 'non-issue' here. - SchroCat (talk) 06:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"Radio" section update - Toby Stephens did another radio play

Hey,

Can anyone update the "Radio" section. Toby Stephens did a new James Bond radio play this year "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" If someone likes to help?

greetings,

 Done - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit, please.

Hi there, Newbie, so be kind. It's listed that George Baker portrayed Bond, but I think this is incorrect. He played roles in 2 (possibly 3) bond films, but never the title.

Thanks, Brian Aylward — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.191.247.66 (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Brian, Thanks for your comment. Although Baker didn't portray Bond on screen, his voice did: he was the voice of Bond when Lazenby was pretending to be Sir Hilary Bray. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2014

Guns section ...and a Winchester .308 target rifle in "The Living Daylights" ...and a Walther WA 2000 target rifle in "The Living Daylights" Miklim (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Too much unnecessary and unencyclopaedic detail. - SchroCat (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit Please

Resolved

Hi - one of those small things that was undoubtedly correct when writing but time has overtaken - in the film section, it is referred to as the "second-highest-grossing film series (behind Harry Potter)". It is now behind both Harry Potter and the Marvel Cinematic Universe (the link already in the article can remain the same as it has been updated with this info). Just to be precise, the link calls the franchise "The Avengers" - it is more accurately referred to as the Marvel Cinematic Universe - but I'll leave that to your consciences and editing! 92.27.59.217 (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2015

The word installment in the first paragraph is spelled incorrectly.

Here's an excerpt of the sentence it's found in for easy searching. "with a further instalment due in September 2015 by Anthony Horowitz" modwizcode (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done It's spelt correctly. DonQuixote (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Missing novel links

Some of the novels in the Ian Fleming novels table are not links, while there already are separate Wikipedia articles for these novels. I would fix that myself, but the page is protected. I believe Wikipedia crosslinks are one of the important features of Wikipedia, so please fix that. Krzysztof Kluczek (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

They're already linked in the paragraph(s) just before the tables. DonQuixote (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)