Talk:Skyfall/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Edit request on 3 December 2012

Remove reference to Olympic Opening Ceremony & Danny Boyle -"Arnold's commitment to working with director Danny Boyle as composer for the Opening Ceremony of the 2012 Summer Olympics.[107]"

Arnold worked on the Olympic CLOSING Ceremony, which was not directed by Danny Boyle. 85.189.12.33 (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 December 2012

Please update the box office - USA/Canada: $245,585,083 + Foreign: $623,000,000 = Worldwide: $868,585,083 as given in the source http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=bond23.htm. Thank you.

Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 16:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Mediation

I've been asked by one of the parties involved in a citation disagreement, who believes an impasse has been reached, to serve as a third-party mediator as provided for at Wikipedia:Mediation, which says: "You may invite any uninvolved editor, including an administrator, to mediate your dispute. Mediation is simply a process where a neutral party guides disputants towards forming a compromise; no process is needed for that.

Mediation is a time-honored first step in Wikipedia dispute-resolution. Informal mediation is not a necessary part; either party can request an RfC or formal mediation. Sometimes, however, it's easier and less stressful to try it informally first.

In this case, I'm familiar with and respect both parties, and know each is of good will. I'm also familiar with the topic. I've made a couple of comments basically reiterating Wikipolicy on citations without advocating anything except archiving, and believe I can be objective. If Anthonydraco and SchroCat agree, I'd be happy to do my best. I'd suggest each read Wikipedia:Mediation for an overview if they're not already familiar with the process. With great regards to both, Tenebrae (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ten, I'm not sure exactly what's being mediated here, as I think it's partly to do with a mis-reading of the situation, so perhaps AD could outline what he sees to be the main points of the issues? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ten, In the absence of any response from AD, who is the party that has asked for mediation, I will try and double guess the exact issues here, although I'm not exactly sure what the major beef is, and still not entirely sure mediation is the right step. However, there are, I think, two points which have been raised:

1. The reliability of the reference Movie Locations. I opened an RfC at Film Project about this. Only one response, from the inestimable Betty Logan (talk · contribs), who gave guarded support to the site: of equal weight and importance, no-one raised any questions against reliability of the site. The author of the website has written a book on the topic of film locations (now in its second edition), and the reviews for the book are all from extremely well-known and reliable newspapers and magazines. So, we have a published author on a topic, he is discussing something in his area of specialism on his website. No-one else has raised doubts about the site or provided any firm basis for doubting the reliability of this one. Just as importantly most of the information contained on this page is confirmed by other reliable sources.
2. The Empire video reference. I have not said that the Empire reference should be taken out per se. I have, however, raised a question mark against its longevity, pointing out that video is piss poor when it comes to archiving, so at some point there is a very good chance that the video on that page will disappear. (Videos are also problematic in certain parts of the world and on certain systems). There is no usable text on the page and absolutely nothing else of value on that page which cannot be adequately sourced elsewhere from text sources which can be adequately archived. The video will be problematic in the future and I have suggested that it is worth replacing it now, rather than later. I am not sure why this particular page must be used when there are better sources of support available and all I have done is ask AD to open his mind to look at other sources—he can always use Google to see what other supporting info can be found to back up the information too.

As I've said, I'm not sure what the big deal is on this: it's fairly straightforward and yet another lurch into tempest in a teacup territory! - SchroCat (talk) 06:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't going anywhere. I told you that I had stopped editing last night. And today was weekday so I was obviously working. I've been here for some time now, but I am also waiting for Ten. I'm sure you will have a lot to say, so I hope Ten gets here soon. Here goes:

I find working with Schro difficult. I am aware that we have some disagreements, but many things made these disagreements stressful when they didn’t have to.

Let's get the smallest thing out of the way first. I need Tenebrae’s third opinion whether http://www.movie-locations.com/movies/s/Skyfall.html is truly reliable as a source. Schro said that publishing a book about a film location made this man an expert in his subject, and therefore, his self-published source should be considered reliable. I'll give you that his books got good reviews, and he could be considered somewhat an expert, but I'm not sure he's the level that we want to believe in. If he’s, say, Higgs on Higg’s Boson subject, or Spielberg on Film Directing, I would believe this in an instant. I’ve presented all the arguments on Schro’s talk page, and he has provided his. So I would like to ask Tenebrae to check his talk page to see more. We can probably settle on a compromise on using alternatives Schro has provided, but I at least want to know if we should trust the kind of source in question. The answer will help me decide which references I should use in the future.

Anyway, the second and the biggest problem is that it feels to me that Schro is trying to exerting more control than I can comfortably work with. If you read his talk page, and our argument/discussion, you will find something such as: “If I see double references I will replace them if I think they are not needed, if other citations already exist.” Without the context, there seems to be nothing wrong with it, but if you read the argument, you will find that this sentence comes up in the middle of the discussion while we haven’t settled yet whether we should keep or remove them. It felt to me like an announcement saying “I’m going to do what I want, and you will not stop me from doing it.” Some references have been removed, and I find the reasons for removing acceptable for the most part, but that’s not the point. The point is that he should’ve settled this first instead of insisting on it, which made working with him less pleasant than it should have been. The same paragraph also contained “The site is reliable, as no-one has said that it isn't, so there are no issues there at all.” When this appeared in the middle of the discussion whether it was reliable, I find that this sounded more like imposing the view on me instead of convincing me.

And I've noticed Schro also changed the mention of National Portrait Gallery. I've checked the reference he provided, and found that it indeed says National Gallery, but the ref I provided also supported National Portrait Gallery. Schro's source said mine was wrong, but we've been discussing about whether we should really rely on that one or not. By editting that part in the article to use his source, this means he also implicitly forced me to accept this before things are properly settled. He might be correct, but I find his way of exerting control very uncomfortable to be around.

Another example was the discussion I’ve started since I first joined the editors here, when I unintentionally violated 1RR. I first edited around the time Skyfall was very busy, and I got a lot edit conflicts. I made one change, then I proceed to make another, but then I got another edit conflict. When an edit conflict provides you the very same text before you edit, I believed most editors will assume that the edit conflict came from people editing somewhere else. Especially when it was the forth edit conflict. I assumed the same thing and re-added the edit. It turned out that one of those EC was Schro reverting my edit, and he told me to see the talk page for reasons. I wasn’t aware of this because I only thought it was just an edit conflict, not a revert. I also tried to explain him my reason why I would want to make this edit and I assume it was OK to proceed, but his reply/disagreement reach me after I made another edit. As a result, I unintentionally violated 1RR. When I approached him to ask where the discussion was, to make sure that I read the one I should, he did not make it easier. Instead, he said something along the line “I am sure you can work out which one on your own.” He could’ve just saved us time and said which one. The guideline even encourages users to explain before reverting. Not only a revert feels bad on its own, approaching someone after it and getting such reply is worse. And find this far from nice.

I also found that reverting style was rather aggressive. He reverted some valid points got reverted along with the part he would agree to keep later anyway. When I reminded him to revert only when necessary, he got evidently angry and call me arrogant. Not assuming good faith was somewhat stomachable, as it was hard to do sometimes. But reverting only when necessary was not that hard, and calling me arrogant was something I found unacceptable.

I also found that the consensus on the talk page did indeed talk about the first paragraph, but I personally think that Schro clings to the current wording of the paragraph more than he should have. At times, it almost seems like he over-extends/imposes the consensus' control on any coming change. This version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skyfall&oldid=525813027 A user came in and changed the wording into something like “Eve was forced to take a risky shot, and accidentally shot Bond,” but that got reverted almost instantly. I personally think it improved the article, since the current version implies that Eve’s clumsiness was the cause, which isn’t true in this case. He had a hand in the first paragraph, so it’s understandable to prefer it, but this is getting a bit too far. If something doesn't hurt the article, why can't you just let it be? The reason he gave to the IP was “See talk page” which did not help new users the IP to find it. IPs are human too. And again, I was astounded by how easily he reverted. Revert tends to look aggressive, and all old-timers know that. I've just been on the wrong end of one. For similar reason, I really think that we could’ve averted the most recent article lock by his simply being nicer to users whose edits were reverted. Allow me to mention that Darkwarriorblake also withdrew from the article due to the most recent lock. Consensus on some things shouldn’t last forever, and eventually we must let this go. When a lot of people trying to change what we write, maybe it’s us, not them, that is the problem. Trying to change an article with old-timers clinging teeth and nails to old consensus feels like trying to scale a large mountain sometimes, and I’m pretty sure many users will feel the same. Asking for another lengthy discussion about the contents was tiresome to all editors here in general, so I didn't. I want to assume good faith, but the way he has been pushing things to his way makes this difficult for me.

And Schro, I'm sure you will have a lot to say, and you might even be angry with me. This is why I asked for Tenebrae's help. I hope things will progress under Ten's mediation. I will reply after Ten acknowledges both sides to avoid unnecessary tension. Anthonydraco (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That movie locations website, for this film anyway, certainly seems to have been well-researched, including photographic evidence in support of claims. If professional or peer reviewers of a website have given it good marks, then it seems like a reliable source. Also, if someone gets really desperate, they could sit through the film again and make note of the various locations given in the closing credits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I just read its page on The Blues Brothers, a film I know a lot about, and it looks to be very accurate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

AD, please see WP:Mediation. Mediation is about disputed elements of content, not editor interaction. As such, I'm going to ignore the stream of bad faith above and suggest that you try and see that not every edit by other editors is somehow an attack against you, or some angled comment to try and over-rule you on every minute point. Please try and bring a little WP:goodfaith to the table and don't drag up old points that have been settled a long time ago on the talk page. If you want to try and criticise another editor's style, I'll be more than happy to join in and list yours. In terms of the substantive point at issue, which is the point of the mediation:

• A reliable source does not mean it has to be written by the highest expert in the field, just that the source has to be reliable. The editor of the website in question has published two editions of a book through a reputable publisher. These books have been reviewed in the UK national press. The books themselves are entirely acceptable and reliable sources, and it follows—without too much of a leap of faith—that the website written by the same person also falls into the same category.
  
• You've not addressed the issues relating to the Empire video, which is what I thought half this mediation was about. - SchroCat (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I didn't realize the movie-locations source had become an issue, so I will elaborate further on my rationale. There is a book "Worldwide Guide to Movie Locations" by Tony Reeves, and a website that he runs in association with the book, that seemingly offers information on the same subject. The book is unquestionably a reliable source in my opinion; it was published by a respectable publisher, and is cited by numerous books and academic articles. However—and here is the caveat—the website and the book are two different entities, and the website seems to be personally run by the author of the book so does not have independent editorial oversight. Secondly, since the last edition of the book was in 2006 then obviously the Skyfall content isn't simply being reproduced from the book. The website is to all intents and purposes an WP:SPS. However, we are permitted to use such sources for non-contentious claims when the author is an acknowledged expert on the topic and a published writer in the area. I believe the author does satisfy this criteria since his widely cited book demonstrates the esteem he is held in, and in addition he has been invited to film festivals and universities to give talks. That said, if there really is a genuine doubt over this source then get it checked out at WP:RS/N.

Secondly, if there is more than one source available, one more 'durable' and one more 'reliable' then it is reasonable to ask which we should should use. In instances where I have faced this dilemma I generally just use them both: I believe it is essential to use the most durable RS source available since if a source dies the claim ceases to be compliant with WP:V; on the other hand, it is also desirable to use the best source available for obvious reasons. If you think it makes the prose look messy you can always use a WP:CITEBUNDLE. Betty Logan (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It's good to see our good colleagues Baseball Bugs and Betty Logan here. I think they've addressed the issue of the Reeves site well. I agree that it appears to fit Wikipedia criteria for WP:RS. Although a tiny font in negative typeface certainly makes it fail the standard of readability....!

Since SchroCat hasn't agreed to informal mediation but also hasn't ruled it out, I hesitate to offer more opinion. I would note, however, that mediation needn't be solely about content — it can be about resolving difficulties with editors working together.

What I'm seeing as unresolved are two things: 1) the issue of the Empire video, and 2) some SchroCat comments that may or may not be interpreted as WP:OWNy. If I'm reading this correctly and that's what it boils down to, I don't think it would hurt to have a neutral third party ask directed questions and see if we can overcome these issues, which may be simple misunderstandings, and see if the parties, who have worked well together till now, can regain mutual respect.

I would say the ball is in SchroCat's court. Or perhaps in his cricket pitch — what do I know?   : )   I'd suggest it would be polite and a show of good faith to either accept or decline informal mediation. If the latter, I'd still be happy to comment purely as one more editor, like Bugs and Betty. I don't think this is anything insurmountable at all. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for coming, Ten. (And thank you anybody who has commented above.) I said I would wait for Ten before I reply, and so I did. The thing you've said exactly addressed what I had in mind. I want to work with him more comfortably, not making a war out of his conduct, and I want editors to join us, not chased away. And Schro, if you really think you can list my flaws and that will make me work better here, I am happy to listen, but I hope it won't be a form of retaliation. I want new editors to be bold comfortably, and I would like to ask you to wait for decisions before taking action. I assume that you want to say something about multiple minor edits and suggest me to use Preview button? I have, but the fact is, mistakes happen anyway. I am not a native speaker. And the filming section is almost impossible to read in editor window. It causes brain damage just looking at it. This article is also very, very busy. I am in a hurry to record it before I get edit conflicts, and I didn't want to use 'wait' template (yet) to disrupt others.

As for the Empire article issue, this link: http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=34921 , while it came from a perfectly reliable source, it has its own flaw as Schro mentioned. The support it provides the content it tags is rather thin. I thought it would be quite obvious that Skyfall closed those locations for filming, but Schro disagrees. So if someone could take a look at it and see if the mention of Skyfall and its filming location, are too thin, we can just dismiss this immediately. Schro has provided two good alternatives. But I just want to know.

As for movie-location guide reference, since I've asked Ten to be here, I think it wouldn't hurt to listen to him as well. What do you think of http://www.movie-locations.com/movies/s/Skyfall.html ? Editors agree that it's reliable, so I'm more than inclined to agree, but asking you was my plan. Anthonydraco (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Mediation: "4. Mediation must relate exclusively to disputes over the content of a Wikipedia page: grievances relating to the conduct of another editor are not suitable for mediation". I utterly reject and refute any squalid and self-serving accusations of WP:OWN and consider them so laughable that I refuse to discuss them further. All I will say is that I act and have acted in good faith for the betterment of the article. I am, however, happy to discuss the content of the article relating to these two sources.

1. It appears that the movie-locations site is now being accepted as reliable? It certainly seems that is the current consensus.
2. The Empire article is still being discussed. The text of the page really means nothing. I am not happy basing filming locations on the basis of:

"What film has the power to close down Whitehall, London Underground stations and Smithfield Market? Skyfall."

To somehow claim that this phrase suggests that these were used as filming locations is too great a leap of faith in the words and requires too much personal interpretation. There are other equally reliable sources which make much better bases for a citation to cover those locations. - SchroCat (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the claim should be explicitly backed by the source, since it's not unusual for filming to cause disruption to areas not actually used as locations. Betty Logan (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:MEDIATION refers to formal Mediation. Informal mediation, lowercase plain-English word, falls under Wikipedia:Third opinion, and whether on Wikipedia or in real-life can cover any dispute at all, over content or otherwise, since it's informal, i.e., non-binding and facilitative. Personally, I can't see why any disputing parties would't want an objective third party to help — it's much better than being at loggerheads. But, everyone's different.

I like and respect SchroCat, clearly an editor who has helped to build and improve upon this article quite a bit. Some of his comments seem out of character for someone so generally calm and analytical. Generally speaking, I'm not sure any editor can reasonably say, "I reject accusations of X-Y-Z and consider them laughable," since no editor believes he or she is doing anything someone else may find objectionable or, at the very least, off-putting — none of us are in a position to be objective about our own behavior. Having learned this the hard way over my many years here, I now try to make it my first instinct to ask, "Well, what do you think I'm saying or doing that constitutes X-Y-Z?" and then engage in good-faith dialog. I found that the times when I may have been dismissive or defensive in the past that I was not acting in good faith.

All of my comments are irrespective of the content. Except for my one comment concurring with Bugs and Betty, I am removed from any content dispute. I will only say it grieves me to see two fine and decent editors at such an impasse. SchroCat and AnthonyD are both good guys who have each done good work here. I hesitate from further involvement, and I truly believe that with calmness and with reflection they can see each other as the teammates that they have been through most of this article's buildup. With regards to both, Tenebrae (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Too bad. Since Ten said it wasn't a formal one, I thought it would help if we have a third party to clear our difference outside the content dispute. I would think RfC/U or anything else official on conduct seem a bit excessive. As for the content dispute, I think we can move on to using http://www.railstaff.co.uk/2012/11/15/bond-street-back-drop-for-skyfall/ and http://metro.co.uk/2012/08/17/daniel-craig-explores-unseen-parts-of-london-in-new-skyfall-video-blog-540283/ as replacements right away. And I'm going to a place without a connection soon, so I'm going to be out of touch for a while. Anthonydraco (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

New images

I added a couple of images to the article yesterday (Hashima Island on the left and Varda Viaduct on the right). Both of these are unusual and striking locations which is why I chose them. I ensured that on two monitors (a small laptop and a widescreen) the images sat next to the intended text with little effect on text above and below. Since then two more images have been added—(File:Orientbank istanbul.jpg and File:Eminonu crowd2.jpg)

These new additions now push other images down the page, resulting in Hashima Island and Varda Viaduct being alongside the music and Thomas Newman hanging way below. On some monitors we also now have a huge white gap after music. I'm not sure that either of the new additions add much to the article and it now looks very Turkish-heavy with the images (no images of London in there, for example – and that's where most of the film is based, or of the equally-striking Scottish locations!) I've also tagged text on File:Orientbank istanbul.jpg as it's unsupported anywhere in the article.

I suggest getting rid of at least two of the four images, or at least shuffling them round, although I'm not sure where else they would go. Any thoughts from anyone? - SchroCat (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

In reality I think just one image is probably sufficient for the section, since they don't add much to the article beyond illustation. The one that has a 'citation needed' tag needs to go, and my personal preference would be for retaining the viaduct, since it's the best photo out of the remaining three. Betty Logan (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

No-one else joined in and said not to, so I've followed your advice Betty and reduced to one. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Home Release

There has been some addition/ reverting today regarding the Blu-ray release. Could someone clarify who are distributing it? According to the source it seems to by MGM, but different editors have been changing it to Sony Pictures (highly possible), and it currently seems to list Fox. I don't think it's ever going to be Fox, but I don't want to war this, so could someone clarify? Thanks. drewmunn (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

My mistake on the distributor - I was reverting the unneccessary addition of Ireland, However, in doing so I reverted to an original error in distributor details (although Fox is also equally wrong). It's Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer according to the source, and it's also shown as such on Amazon too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it is Fox. A search on their UK website shows they distributed QoS on home media. I think the MGM in the Amazon link is referring to the theatrical release (without getting into that discussion again). TheClown90 (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I've done a few quick searches and I've seen MGM, Sony, Fox and even Eon listed as distributors on a range of sites. I suggest removing the current name and dropping in a hidden comment asking people not to add something until there is something a little more official that we can use. Any other thoughts? - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No-one objected to the suggestion, so I've taken out the distributor until there is something more official we can rely on. If anyone does object, could they also post here to ensure everyone knows which company will be handling this? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

http://www.007.com/ explicitly states Fox (MGM's main home video distributor) is the "Home Entertainment distributor of SKYFALL". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.30.240 (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you point out which page please? I've had a quick look and can't see any information about the release of Skyfall on home media. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hover over the links at the bottom of every page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.30.240 (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I did as the anonymous editor suggested and this came up:

(20th Century Fox logo)

Home Entertainment distributor of SKYFALL (look out for the Home Video release in 2013) and all the other 22 movies in the James Bond series.

© 2012 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved. Distributed by Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment LLC.

TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX, FOX and associated logos are trademarks of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and its related entities.

-Fanthrillers (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems we have a source! Now that's something I didn't learn in Media Studies... drewmunn (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a new one on me too: no wonder it didn't come up on text searches! thanks very much 98.26.30.240 and FT: I'll add the correct info back in there now. - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Awards/Accolades Table

I'm thinking that given the large amount of nominations (and, in the future, possible awards) from outlets such as the Critics Societies and Associations (LA, DC, Phoenix, etc.), we should consider making table to replace the prose that is already there. Thoughts? I would have made one already but I wanted to see what people said first. Thanks! A wild Rattata (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The first thing to mention is that per WP:INDISCRIMINATE we don't list every minor regional critic's-group or film-group award. The critics groups of Phoenix, Arizona; Mid-Ohio; St. Louis, Milwaukee; Houston; Seattle; etc. etc. etc. are non-notable are simply clutter up and detract from significant awards. The consensus has been, certainly, to include those of such major film/cultural centers as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston and Toronto, but precious few beyond those. Oklahoma City, anyone? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Amen to both of those! The Outer Mongolian University Students Union may well be a fine institution, but their thoughts on the best films of the year really can be confined to their own website, rather than shared with the Wiki-reading world... - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I note thatthe new table has already got Phoenix and St. Louis, which can certainly go. Are the Washington awards considered notable? - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we can limit the awards to what has been reported by other sources? For example, a newspaper mentioning the Washington awards might mean it warrants inclusion. (For what it's worth, it may be useful to have a "Ref." column so every item is verifiable.) Erik (talk | contribs) 14:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree on having sourcing, whether in a Ref column (as I've seen in some articles) or otherwise. I'm not sure about a newspaper mention warranting inclusion; a small-town Virginia paper whose local critic might be a member of the Washington DC critics group may mention the award, but Im not sure how meaningful that makes them. I do think Phoenix and St. Louis can go, and these two cities (along with San Diego, Denver and the venerable Mid-Ohio, which seems to have a million awards) have been removed from many other articles. I'm going to go ahead and do that now, judging from the tenor of this discussion. As for Washington, DC — there's the Post, the conservative house organ the Washington Times and small-town papers of Virginia and Maryland suburbs. The likes of, say, a Silver Spring, Maryland, film critic really doesn't seem notable or important to my mind, but if someone can make an argument to justify inclusion (which is the criterion for any Wikipedia edit)? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Necessity of Spoiler

I tried to edit the article earlier to remove the spoiler in the opening section, only to have it reverted because of WP:SPOILER. Okay, I understand the policy. However, another major film this year, The Dark Knight Rises features similar character reveals over the course of the film while the Wikipedia article for it does not say; "This was Christian Bale's last film as Batman, as well as the introduction of Talia al Ghul, played by Marion Cotillard and Robin, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt". I understand that the article is of course not modeled on the Batman article but I would like it explained as to why it would be deemed necessary in that article while it is not necessary here (or do you think the editors of that article should have had the spoiler in the opening as well?) It seems to me that the spoiler in the case of Skyfall is a stubborn and blind demonstration of policy rather than a useful or necessary addition that fulfills the goals of Wikipedia. Aloofless (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Different editors write articles in different ways, which is one of the strengths of Wikipedia. Both the approach taken on the Batman article and on this page are entirely valid and neither are "stubborn" or "blind". - SchroCat (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Alongside the differing editing styles, TDKR is an odd article due to the large amount of information in its lead. It has an ensemble cast, pushing more minor characters out into the later sections, and Talia is lost because of this; proportionately, she is the villain for far less time than Bane. The discussion of John Blake is one that has caused much grief over it's inclusion or removal from the plot section, and he's no more a supporting character than Gordon or Fox. Also, we have no citation that points to him being Robin. His name is Robin, yes, but whether or not he is the Robin is a different matter. It's all a bit strange... drewmunn (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where else to post this. I came here to further discuss an issue that once existed on this particular talk page that I had participated in, but it has been removed or archived. A Yahoo news article talked about the movie's Wikipedia page spoiling the plot, before the film had opened here in the states. I'll basically say the same thing I said before in regards to any new film's Wikipedia page and refer to another example. I have yet to see the Hobbit film, and although I could look at the film's Wiki page to see what the plot is, I choose not to so that it does not get spoiled. Simply put, if you don't want a movie plot to be spoiled, don't look up that movie on Wikipedia. "Don't read too much into the future. You may not like what you see."

Wikipedia is a widely used outlet & perhaps difficult to control because of so many users. In regards to the use of Spoilers, I suggest two options. One - perhaps all users, whether they're simply readers or they're also editors, should use this site with a general rule when they visit it. If they do not want to run the risk of having the plot spoiled of a movie they want to see, then they should stay away from that film's Wikipedia page entirely. Two - The other option would be directed to those that actually run the formats for all Wikipedia pages, who run the domain. Create a default for all film articles to have the film's plot to be hidden. A section that is hidden when the article is opened and any user can view by clicking some sort of "show" link. Call or word the link what you want, its just an example. Because I will agree with user Aloofless reasoning for needing a spoiler, or something to protect a user from having a plot spoiled. Because not every person goes to a film's article to view what it is about. They want to see casting or production notes. Those that come to look for that information & that haven't seen the film yet, may not want the plot to be spoiled for them. It would be easier to view other sections if the plot section is "hidden" from view when the article is first opened. "I am Aidensdaddy2k9 and I approve this message." Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

This probably isn't the right place to have the discussion, so I would suggest posting your suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler where it will recieve a more appropriate response than on this page. Before posting I would suggest running a text search on the 17 pages of archives: a lot of suggestions and questions have been raised and answered previously and yours may already have been suggested before. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, if you dont want the spoilers, dont read the wiki pages! Its not that hard a rule to follow. People know by now what Wikipedia is, generally when they start to read something, it should be obvious to them that they are reading the plot and they should take the needed steps that they feel they should take. MisterShiney ✉ 09:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Box office earnings macro or template?

Is there a shorthand way of changing how much the film has earned in one go so that we don't have to keep changing three fields in the article? The infobox, the lede and "box office" all say how much the film has earned, albeit the final two entries round it up or down to the nearest million. Seems a waste to have to manually change each entry. I notice many editors who change the infobox miss out on either or both of the other "earnings" fields. - Fanthrillers (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there's no way other than manually changing it. It may be somewhat useful to have a macro, but that would need to be fairly smart to fit into the wording around what is said in the article. For now, it's best to stick in a hidden comment near the infobox reminding people to change it everywhere. In fact, I'll do that now. drewmunn (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Q in the cast list

To 82.36.215.16, I have asked you on a number of ocassions in the edit summaries and on your talk page to discuss your additions here rather than continually edit warring. Your addition goes too far into original research to be comfortably acceptable. To say that there is "gradual respect" between Bond and Q is to put your own interpretation on events without having a reliable source to back this up. Furthermore, your additions are also partly a repeat of what we have already outlined in the Plot section. Please discuss this here before reverting again. - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Concur with SchroCat. That is the accepted form of collaborative editing on Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed the edit and also concur. I agree that there is too much interpretation in the statement of "gradual respect", and we tend to keep character descriptions to a minimum. What about the uncited passage that still remains, though? "Q is presented as articulate and educated, but openly shows disdain for field agents, believing their particular skill sets are supplementary to his own"? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There's quite a lot of fluff like that throughout the cast section and it needs a bit of a revamp, either to a) the format of "Daniel Craig as James Bond", with a casting section below discussing the background of casting and character development; or b) a brief discription of the background - along the lines of what is written in the Craig entry already. Anyone got any preferences? - SchroCat (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I think any comment on the characters interaction with other characters should be scrapped unless officially cited with reliable sources. That section should really be including information about the actors and their relationship with the character, i.e. how and why they accepted the role. We need more of that if we are going to get it to Good article status. MisterShiney ✉ 20:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

As a temporary measure I've trimmed out the unsupported interactions. I'll draw up some further improvements in my userspace shortly and see if we can improve it further. - SchroCat (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Concur with SchroCat. Will defer to SchroCat about revamping cast section. - Fanthrillers (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Categories

I've noticed the ongoing addition and removal of one of the categories on the article over the last few weeks and I've posted on the talk pages of the two editors involved to come and discuss here before they undertake any further changes relating to that disputed category. If either of them would like to discuss the reasons for inclusion or exclusion, perhaps they could do so here? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The disputed category is "American action thriller films". I oppose the inclusion, though I'll defer to SchroCat on this issue in the event there's a compelling reason for including it or wikipedia policy exists on the matter. Although the infobox identifies this as an Anglo-American co-production it's hardly an American film. There are no American settings. - Fanthrillers (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Poster wording

Rather than the rather pointless edit warring over the poster which went on last night, could the parties involved please discuss the matter here first before reverting again? I would also suggest that they read the guidelines first. - SchroCat (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Raúl Silva

There's a recurrent mistake in Javier Bardem's character's name. Though the character is Portuguese, anglo-saxon media insists to write the name with spanish orthography. The correct portuguese spelling is "Raúl Silva".

I don't get that "Tiago Rodriguez" story, as the indicated source doesn't mention it at all, but, again, the correct spelling is "Tiago Rodrigues". 2.80.110.41 (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source which we can use that hives his nationality? Or one that provides the spelling of his name? You'll note that the current version is sourced, but do you have something else we can replace it with? - SchroCat (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe you will find the name is actually intended to be spelt "Raoul Silva" - it's an anagram for "a rival soul", and the name "Tiago" is the Spanish form of "James". Given the parallels between Silva and Bond, particularly in their relationship to M, I hardly think this is coincidence. Of course, I don't have a source to support this; if I did, I'd include it in the article.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that Silva/Rodriguez is a Portuguese villain. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

How do you know it was *intended* to be an anagram of "a rival soul"? cmɢʟee୯ ͡° ̮د ͡° ੭ 17:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You think it's coincidence that a character named James in his native language, who is presented as a darker parallel of Bond, with a backstory that shows similar behaviour to Bond in ignoring orders, just so happens to have a name that is an anagram of "a rival soul".

Like I said, I don't have a reference for it, so that just makes it original research. And I have no intention of adding it into the article until such time as I do have a reference. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

italics and James Bond

The name was italicized several times in the lead when it should not be, so I undid them. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Painting

Is it worth mentioning that the painting shown to the assassinated prospective buyer represents Amedeo Modigliani's Woman with a Fan stolen from the Museum of Modern Art in Paris on May 19, 2010? cmɢʟee୯ ͡° ̮د ͡° ੭ 17:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice touch - and probably another hark back to the previous films: Dr. No contained Goya's Portrait of the Duke of Wellington, stolen from the Natiopnal Gallery in London. - SchroCat (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Nominee?

This article has been noninated by a drive-by editor who has made no edits to this article whatsoever. The article is some way off GA status at the moment and I'd advise them to withdraw the nomination and do some work tidying it up before any nomination takes place. I will also draw their attention to the WP:GAN page: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination", something that they have failed to do at this stage. - SchroCat (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can nominate, and anyone can withdraw the nomination. You just have to remove the {{GA nominee}} template at the top f you feel that the article is not going to pass. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I would not feel comfortable making a unilateral decision to pull this: does anyone else feel that the article is not yet ready to go forward to GA yet? - SchroCat (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think someone needs to politely tell the nominator to cancel the nomination out of the respect of many of you who have put in hours of research to get Skyfall up to this kind of standard. I think its a bloody cheek if I'm honest! -- Cassianto^Talk 15:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it depends on how people will take it if fails. If it is reviewed and fails it's not like its a major bad thing is it? If anything I think it would be a good way to get some feedback on how we can get it up to GA. MisterShiney ✉ 15:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Is that not the whole point of a peer review? I'm worried someone could earn a credit for something they have had no input in whatsoever. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I did a procedural withdraw of the nomination. If anyone has issues with this action, feel free to re-add back the template. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Rapturous applause indeed to Hahc21! -- Cassianto^Talk 17:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As usual I'm late to the discussion. It's too soon for a GA nomination. All GA nominees need some degree of stability. This article has too many daily edits. The subject is still in theatres and apparently has yet to be released in some major markets. - Fanthrillers (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• In case anyone wants my opinion, which should have been requested *first*, it wasn't a simple drive-by nomination. I looked right over the article, checked absolutely everything, all the sourcing, the article against the GA criteria, formatting, spelling, everything, and I couldn't actually find a single thing to edit. If there had been, I would have made a contribution. Plus, even if a review does take place, suggested improvements can be made and it brought to standard anyway. Indeed, you should be rather happy that I saw fit to nominate it, take it as a compliment. Anyhow, if you think it isn't then that's fine and a peer review might be a good idea. Rcsprinter (articulate) @ 22:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you should have let the GA Nom go ahead personally, you'd either get a pass or a lot of feedback about what it needs towards a GA move, which not actually be that much. Add in how long it generally takes for Films to receive a GA review, I think you'd have been safe. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree with my good and knowledgable colleague Darkwarriorblake, who has helped to shepherd comics-book movies to GA along with other members of WikiProject Comics. He knows whereof he speaks. Given the edits I've made today, I have a feeling there's still going to be some instability and back-and-forth for a little while yet, and that it might not be imprudent to wait till the film is out of theaters. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I left a message on the nom's talk page. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

@Tenebrae, yeah forgot to mention the instability. It depends on the reviewer obviously, but there is a lot of warring going on over some things that could cause it to auto-fail anyway. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

DVD/Blu-ray

Blue-ray.com is a commercial site that sells DVDs/Blue-ray and is no more allowable as a reference source that an Amazon.com page that sells a book. WP:ELNO, WP:NOTADVERTISING. To my disappoint 007bond.weebly.com/ and the mii6 site both announce the home media on pages for pre-ordering the film. Wikipedia is not in the business of steering business toward companies' sales pages. Until we find a reputable JOURNALISTIC source, we don't add DVD/Blue-ray information. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and there's no WP:DEADLINE for getting home-media release dates in. We could very well wait until after the home media is released, because this is an encyclopedia and not a James Bond fan page or an upcoming-releases buyers' guide. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ten, I've added in a supporting citation from the official 007.com site. Feel free to remove it along with the rest of the information if you think it appropriate. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah! I think we were adding the same thing at the same time! Great minds think alike! --Tenebrae (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Bond box office record

I've just posted this on the Thunderball talk page: Using the US Inflation Calculator, I calculate the adjusted box office earnings for Thunderball (unadjusted $141.2m) to be $1,031,974,768.25. This uses the latest available CPI data from the US government. Therefore, Skyfall will have to break the $1.032 barrier to successfully overtake Thunderball as the highest grossing Bond film (adjusted for inflation). Until such a time, please don't update the claim. Thanks. drewmunn (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That's great: when it happens (which it surely will), I'm pretty sure Eon/MGM/Sony are bound to make a splash about it, which will lead to publication in a reliable source which we'll be able to use. - SchroCat (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Awards

It's been announced that the Bond films "will receive a full tribute" at the Academy Awards this year. Has anyone got any thoughts as to where this should go? In the Accolades section, even though it isn't an award (but could sort of be construed as an accolade)?

There are a few nominations and ceremonies coming up and I've highlighted the dates of important ones below (although there will be others that are also missing).

Award	Year	Due
Academy Awards	2012	Nominations: 10 January 2012 Ceremony: 24 February 2013
British Academy Film Awards	2012	Nominations: 9 January 2013 Ceremony: 10 February 2013
Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards	2012	Ceremony: 10 January 2013
Golden Globe Awards	2012	Ceremony: 13 January 2013
London Film Critics Circle Awards	2012	Ceremony: 20 January 2013
Producers Guild of America Awards	2012	Ceremony: 26 January 2013
Screen Actors Guild Awards	2012	Ceremony: 27 January 2013

Could I also please remind people that if they are going to update the result, please remember to update the references to show the results: the references for the current nominations cover the pending nomination only. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding a sentence or possibly two at the beginning of this section saying a) that it occurred on this date / event / location, and b) a brief specific of what it entails. For example, "At the 99th Academy Awards, held March 10, 2020, at the Toshiba Theater in New Los Angeles, Calif., the Academy commemorated the 50th anniversary of the first James Bond movie with a highlight reel and honorary Oscars given to surviving cast and crew members Sean Connery, Roger Moore, So-and-So, Him-Too, and Her. Barbara Broccoli and Michel Gordon accepted on behalf of Albert Broccoli, and Al Saltzman, Jr. on behalf of Albert Saltzman." --Tenebrae (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good - I'll drop the announcement in there for the moment and we can fill in the rest of the details after 24 Feb. - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

GAN

I've kicked off the GAN as we'll lose the Featured Topic rating if this article isn't up to scratch by the end of Feb. It should be largely OK—certainly nothing too obvious in there that can't be sorted out. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead Introduction

The third paragraph of the four-paragraph lead introduction section is trivial and unnecessary. SchroCat asserts that "the repetition of some of the key information is expected, warranted and needed." But I submit that information regarding the pre-production and delays, the timing of when the director and writers became involved, and the filming locations, is not "key information [that] is expected, warranted and needed." The paragraph in question is reproduced below:

Mendes was approached to direct the film after the release of Quantum of Solace in 2008. Development was suspended when MGM encountered financial troubles and did not resume until December 2010; during this time, Mendes remained attached to the project as a consultant. The original screenwriter, Peter Morgan, left the project during the suspension. When production resumed, Logan, Purvis, and Wade continued writing what became the final version of the script. Filming began in November 2011 and primarily took place in the United Kingdom, China and Turkey.

This is trivial background information that should not be part of the lead introduction section. A delay in production, or a change in writers, is not a controversy. The WP:LEAD does not support its inclusion.

Moreover, this is a roughly 30,000 character article, and WP:LEAD suggests that the lead should only be two or three paragraphs for such articles. If the article is over 30,000 characters, then three or four paragraphs may be appropriate. In view of these guidelines, three paragraphs seems appropriate, which is another (albeit minor) reason to delete this paragraph.

Also the second paragraph essentially is another (more thumbnail) summary of the plot, which seems contrary to the approach taken in similar articles; but I can see how such a thumbnail plot summary would be useful for a film with as much history as this one.

The fourth paragraph is a bit of a peacock in listing the film's accolades, but I can see why it might be appropriate in this instance.

In summary, trimming the third paragraph from the Lead section will eliminate trivial background from the Lead section, and reduce Lead bloat by bringing the total number of paragraphs to three. Any thoughts? Jjuo (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Stuff and nonsense.

1. The article is over 30,000 characters, so four paragraphs is suggested and is appropriate here.
2. The lead, in its entirety, summarises the key points of the article and, as so, is appropriate. There may be some minor points to re-jig, but that's down to individual opinion, rather than anything more substantial or substantive. It certainly does not warrant the deletion of an entire paragraph without replacing it with something similar that deals with the production section of the film.
3. There is absolutely nothing peacock-ish in the fourth paragraph: it is a plain summary of the key awards the film has won. It doesn't use any peacock terminology or go overboard with any of the description.

If you think the Production paragraph in the lead is wrongly focussed, then feel free to re-draft it, but straight-forward deletion is a big no-no. - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with SchroCat on this one, I think the lede is suitable for the article. Removing any of the paragraphs would leave it lacking, and possibly fail the GAN on an insufficient lede. A bit of editing and housekeeping may not go amiss, but removal of too much information would be unwise. As mentioned, this article is nice and long, so the lede is not proportionally large. The 'trivia' is an important part of the production of the movie, and it would be a glaring omission if removed. The awards listed in the lede are currently notable in my opinion; as the film ages, they may lose some notability, but for now their very important. Other than some minor housekeeping, I can't see any way in which the lede could be improved, and I don't think removing a paragraph would do anything other than lower the quality overall. drewmunn (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Also agree with SchroCat for reasons drewmunn states. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's unpack the "stuff and nonsense" in Schrödinger's box. The "production" of the film is already covered in the first paragraph which identifies Sam Mendes as the director, as well as Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and John Logan as the writers. Adding that Mendes was approached to direct the film in 2008, and worked as a consultant before production began is not substantial or substantive. Furthermore, the reference to Peter Morgan as the original screenwriter (who apparently received no screen credit for the final script) is either trivia or an improper "tease" since it appears to be primarily of interest because of Morgan's disputed claim that the final script was based on his original idea including the film's "big hook," as discussed later in the article. Furthermore, when the filming began and where it took place also appear to be less substantive and more like trivia (although it does occasionally appear in other Leads about movies).

About the only noteworthy thing in the "production" paragraph is the reference to the MGM bankruptcy which for a time threatened the franchise. Several sources, which I believe includes Daniel Craig as well as some critics, have commented that the hiatus forced by the bankruptcy turned out to be a blessing in disguise because it allowed more time to work on the script which resulted in a better movie in their opinion. But none of that is in there (and I suspect some would say it would be improper opinion to include in a Lead). Instead, the current paragraph does little more than describe some shuffling of chairs which adds little that is substantial or substantive. These are not merely "minor points to re-jig."

Lastly, I find that the article was only about 28,000 characters (excluding spaces—if spaces are to be included in the character count, please edify me). The article slightly exceeds 30,000 characters (excluding spaces) only after adding in the Lead. But it seems inappropriate to include the Lead in the character count when determining the proper length of the Lead. For an article less than 30,000 the guidelines suggest no more than three paragraphs (although such guidelines need not be strictly adhered to). Jjuo (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the name is SchroCat, not Schrödinger. Next, if you take out the lead, there are 29,604 characters without spaces and 34,949 with spaces. If you're going to arugue the toss over a couple of hundred words, then you're clutching at straws - life really is too short, especially as we're talking around vague guidelines and not hard-and-fast policies. I'll also point out that once the Academy Awards ceremony takes place, there will be more info to be added because of the Bond tribute that will take place at the ceremony: that'll certainly push it over into the 30k mark (even though I can't believe we're discussing something so minor and pointless as this)

As I've said above, and two other editors agree, this article seems to warrant four paragraphs. The one you deleted may not be perfect, but there is not much more than a re-writing of it needed (perhaps replacing some of the information with something different, or simply a re-wording: again a matter of opinion) but removing it altogether will ensure that the lead does not adequately cover the article, it will leave the article unbalanced and will certainly ensure a massive fail at GAN. - SchroCat (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed the relevant passage and the discussion, and I have to say that the passage is suitable. I'm fine with re-wording it a little differently, but I think it conveys the proper background to reflect events that created a larger gap between Quantum of Solace and Skyfall versus Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, which is relevant for this long-running franchise. Compiling highlights of production involves editorial discretion, and I think the right highlights are established here. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The second paragraph normally wouldn't be there, would it? However, in the case of this film two culturally significant characters were reintroduced, and another part recast, and I suspect ten years from now that is what what Skyfall will be most notable for once all the hoopla has died down, so I don't find the extra paragraph indulgent. As for the third paragraph, there probably is a slight leaning towards pre-production, but again the bankruptcy problems meant that this film had a more noteworthy pre-production phase than Bond films normally have. Everyone would write a lede differently, but if you've got one that touches all bases I don't really see much point in tinkering with it. Betty Logan (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not suggest dropping the second paragraph, and I did agree that the MGM bankruptcy in the third paragraph was significant. It is the remainder of the third paragraph that I found trivial and unnecessary. Anyhow, I have suggested folding the MGM bankruptcy discussion into the first paragraph. Let's see how that plays out. Jjuo (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The reference to "Schrödinger's box" was an attempt at cute wordplay (instead of "Schrocat's box"). Sorry if you took offense. As for the issue about the 30,000 character count, it is a relatively minor point, but it is not "pointless." You made it the lead point in both of your postings, elevating its importance, so it was reasonable to explore your apparent straw man argument. If you believe these are merely "vague guidelines," then why did you repeatedly make it your opening argument? At this point, I am just curious if the character count for this guideline is supposed to includes spaces or not.

Instead of clinging to a separate paragraph, I suggest that the following sentence be added to the end of the first paragraph, "Development of Skyfall was suspended in April 2010 due to MGM's financial troubles, and pre-production did not resume until December 2010 when MGM exited bankruptcy." This is similar to how the James Bond in film article described the situation. Jjuo (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

How about you try and take on board what five other editors (and, by implication, a GA review) have now said: there may be a case for tinkering, but that it does not require the removal of a paragraph or the removal of the majority of the information you have suggested. As to the rest of your points, there is no "straw man" argument here (an overused and mis-used term on Wiki, and especially in this context) and my points were not raised in any particular order except to knock out the obvious and easy ones first. The article is of the right length and complexity for a four paragraph lead. Try not to focus solely on the number of characters used, but the amount and complexity of content; which ever way you look at it, it's a four paragraph lead. As to the rest, the lead should summarise the article: this one does, more or less, which suggests that—at the risk of repeating myself once again—it's a case of minor cosmetic surgery needed here, rather than butchery. - SchroCat (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Betty Logan and Erik, and will defer to SchroCat. - Fantr (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat, "[h]ow about you try and take on board" the last comment I made? Namely, adding the following sentence be added to the end of the first paragraph, "Development of Skyfall was suspended in April 2010 due to MGM's financial troubles, and pre-production did not resume until December 2010 when MGM exited bankruptcy." Jjuo (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, arguing that I should "[t]ry not to focus solely on the number of characters used" when I expressly stated that this was a "relatively minor point" is a classic straw man argument ("misrepresentation of the opponent's position"). Jjuo (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Jjuo, I've just taken a quick look through your edit history on Wikipedia, and I think this is the only James Bond article you've contributed to. There is quite a rich and detailed history to the franchise, and as such, the information in the lede is of great importance to some people who want to know how Skyfall fits into the wider Bond universe. The production details are interesting and unique, and their inclusion in the lede allows readers familiar with the franchise to get an idea of how Skyfall is different and new. For those not so interested in the backstory of Skyfall, or how it fits into the wider universe, the paragraph is short and easy to gloss over. Picking it apart and spreading the information among other information would be counter-intuitive and make it less readable; in essence, you'd be causing more of an issue than you'd be fixing. As the results of the GA have concluded, and in line with the other editors who have taken part in this discussion, we are happy with the lede, and feel that the extra information is not extraneous, but is integral to the understanding of Skyfall's place in Bond history. drewmunn (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not disagree that the MGM bankruptcy is significant, but I think it was not well-presented in the third paragraph which seems focused on the fact that Sam Mendes did not jump ship as the director and the original writer was replaced which seemed a bit on the trivial side. That is why I suggested adding the sentence, "Development of Skyfall was suspended in April 2010 due to MGM's financial troubles, and pre-production did not resume until December 2010 when MGM exited bankruptcy." to the first paragraph in lieu of a separate paragraph. By the way, the James Bond articles are, on the whole, very thorough and well-written (and I have little to add to them). It is just the third paragraph here that struck me as unfocused and giving the impression of bloat (and the tone of Schrocat's comments may have caused me to be overly aggressive and argumentative in my responses). Jjuo (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am going to agree with the majority of editors here so far and say that the lead doesn't need to be changed. As per WP:LEAD "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview" and I beleive that should information be left out, it wouldn't have the strength to stand on it's own and would quite frankly wouldn't be fulfilling the role of a Lead. For future Reference Schrocat is an established editor with a positive reputation for elevating Bond related articles to GA status, you would do well to take his lead and draw on his experience. MisterShiney ✉ 20:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been in discussions with Jjuo on another page or two, and find him a thoughtful editor with well-reasoned ideas. I honestly find the third paragraph succinct, and the lead a pretty straightforward and encyclopedic encapsulation of the article, so in this instance I'd have to lean with the majority. I do hope Jjuo sticks around and continues to contribute since, even if I may not agree with his particular view on this occasion, it's clear to me he's an intelligent and reasonable person and we need people like that. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Skyfall/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sjones23 (talk · contribs) 16:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I will review in a few seconds so bear with me. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Overall, it's well-written with good sourcing and suitable enough to pass for a GA. Very well done. I think it is nearly close to becoming a Featured Article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Links

I've gone through and either added archive links or newly archived links, in order to prevent link rot. It's a big job, so I'm hoping other editors can help. Good thing, too — a Hollywood Reporter link is dead but fortunately had been archived.

Also, there's a footnote-9 link to a French site, PurePeople, that's being cited for various things. But there are no timestamps for claims attributed to the press conference (and we d have a citation for that, "cite video," with the field "event =   ") and it seems to be the same press conference video as at footnote 15 / Digital Spy. (Note Sam Mendes' weird pink buttonaire.) First, we ought to have timestamps, and second do we need both videos. I don't mind having both — it's always good to have backup — but shouldn't they be in the same footnote, rather than in two footnotes? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

In fact, the PurePeople video is the same as the Digital Spy video — hit play, and after a few seconds the Digital Spy logo comes on. However — and this a big however — the Digital Spy video on YouTube doesn't seem to be archivable, where the PurePeople version is. (See: http://web.archive.org/web/20120105020657/http://www.purepeople.com/article/james-bond-premieres-informations-officielles-sur-skyfall_a90482/1 ). I'm wondering if we should't merge the PurePeople link with the three press conference links at footnote 15, and add this archive link. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've never done archiving, although I've recently come to appreciate that it is certainly very good practice to do so. Is there a "cheat sheet" of how to do it, so the less able of us can join in? I've have a spin over the footnotes you've mentioned above and let you know my thoughts too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool! And it's a handy Wiki-skill to have.

There are two main nonprofit archiving organizations: Archive.org and Webcitation.org. The former trolls the web and archives automatically, but you can go there, enter a URL, and sometimes within days, sometimes within months, it'll create a permanent archival link. I always check there first with older links to see if it's been archived already.

For new and recent links, the best bet is http://www.webcitation.org/archive . Once you're there, just copy-paste into the top field the URL you want archived. Add a valid e-mail address in the field just below. The rest of the fields are optional, though I try to fill the title, author, date and source. Then click submit. In a few seconds (usually), it'll take you to a page like this one for a link I've just done this second:

WebCite® archiving request processed

Thank you for your submission. Your request to archive the content of

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/jamesbond/8866666/James-Bond-23-to-be-called-Skyfall.html

has been entered into the archival queue. An archive of this page should shortly be available at

http://www.webcitation.org/6E13sSxHg

Copy-paste that last line into a template field called "archiveurl = ". Note that it has to be accompanied by the template field "archivedate = ". You'll also want to add a third field, "deadurl = no" — otherwise, the archived link will come first in the footnote, rather than the original.

Go to footnote 17, The Daily Telegraph, in about a minute, and you'll see how it all looks. And thanks for pitching in!! --Tenebrae (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the easy lesson: I'll make a start tomorrow on these. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry - I've not forgotten: work has suddenly taken over most things for a (hopefully) short period and this is very much at the top of my to-do list. - SchroCat (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Abandoned trilogy?

I left a note on Quantum of Solace's talk page regarding this as well. When QoS was released, there was media coverage that indicated it was planned as part 2 of a trilogy. Indeed, the non-resolution of the whole Quantum business suggests the story was going to continue. Skyfall clearly breaks away from that storyline suggesting the trilogy was abandoned. Can anyone locate any interview or media coverage that suggests this to be the case? 70.72.211.35 (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Skyfall's critical acclaim

Skyfall has, according to Metacritic, garnered "universal acclaim" as opposed to "generally positive reviews", which is what the current Skyfall article states. Changing the reception section of Skyfall's article to say that the film has garnered critical acclaim would be a fact, given its support from an aggregate website.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BMKastah (talk • contribs) Revision as of 00:25, 14 February 2013

It's only a fact that it's Metacritic's opinion, and 81 out of 100 by definition isn't universal. In any event, two editors have now reverted this edit. Please do not continued reverting, since that is considering edit-warring and you risk running afoul of WP:3RR. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

When you scroll through a vast majority of the reviews, many of them are perfect or near-perfect scores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BKMastah (talk • contribs) 00:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Metacritic is trypical of the sub-normal and over simplified approach taken by a lot of sites. The "near perfect scores" you refer to are an attempt by a website to turn the finely balanced prose of a critic, which describes a number of things about a film, into a raw number. It's a pointless and misleading practice only good enough for those people who are too stupid or lazy to read through a few reviews themselves. We've taken a selection of the reviews—expressing the range of reviews—and given selected and balanced highedlights here, which should be more than enough for people to understand how critics feel about the film. - SchroCat (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Concur with SchroCat and Tenebrae per above. - Fantr (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Influences

I have inserted a brief paragraph suggesting that the name "Skyfall" may be derived from "Sea Fell" in "The Island of Sheep." Can anyone find a common to this effect by the Purvis, Wade, or Logan? That would strengthen the association. Mrdavenport (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph has been deleted by a vandal, so here it is: Many reviewers have noted how the Skyfall name and setting may have been influenced by John Buchan's novel Island of Sheep (1936). In Island of Sheep former secret-agent Richard Hannay (like Bond, a senior military officer with Scottish roots and sophisticated tastes) has the task of protecting "Haraldsen" who, like M, is being pursued with deadly intent by a ruthless villain because of a perceived injustice in the deep past. Hannay takes Haraldsen to a secluded mansion named Sea Fell in the Faroe Islands, with a treeless landscape very similar to Scotland. In the final battle, the villain approaches the mansion across open downs, and Hannay sends Haraldsen down an escape tunnel to safety. Mrdavenport (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

References

This is all interesting, and I think there's probably something there, but these aren't professional reviewers — the first two are just non-notable WP:SPS bloggers, and the third cite, Deviant Art, isn't even a blog but a social-media site where anyone can post (and I also don't see where the name Chris Gilman shows up anywhere there — it doesn't seem to be on the linked page). In addition, none of these bloggers / social-media posters go into the Sea Fell plot detail given here, so that interpretation of the book's plot is still this editor's original research.

As I said, this is interesting and a potentially valuable insight into the nature of creativity and/or homage, so if a credible film or literary critic can be found who makes this connection in this kind of detail, I think we should include this. Otherwise, this seems too speculative and weakly sourced. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

These reviews look like WP:SPS reviews to me; I don't recognize any of the names, and in any case the publications are not notable. I am not against including influences, but it should be sourced from notable reviewers and should represent a prominent strand of the critical opinion to observe WP:WEIGHT. In any case, even if these reviewers were notable, the WP:SYNTHESIS is still a problem: you elaborate on 'similarities' that the reviews themselves don't touch upon. Looking at your talk page it seems that adding WP:FRINGE theory is a recurring problem with you since you have been warned about it in the past, so I'm asking you to not restore the section unless you gain support for it here first. Betty Logan (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement with Betty and Ten here: the sources cited here and in the article are all to what look like fan blogs. Mrdavenport, I'd also be very careful about throwing around the vandal name when dealing with someone who is acting in complete good faith. You added something with no sources and it was reverted quite rightly for looking like original research, so there is no need for the name calling. - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Concur with Betty Logan, SchroCat and Tenebrae per above. The passage has no current place in article. "May be derived" speaks volumes. - Fantr (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

First off, Betty Logan is NOT a Vandal. In the time I have been editing I have seen nothing but constructive edits from this user who is a pleasure to work with. Secondly, unless backed by a reliable source that is not a blog, then it has no place on this article. If such a reliable source(s) appear, then they are more than welcome in the article. MisterShiney ✉ 20:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Craig's creative involvement a new precedent?

From influencing the choice of director to - according to this article - possibly influencing the decision to feature the "deserted island city" set piece, I don't recall hearing of any Bond actor being so involved in the pre-production of Bond. In fact I'm surprised they didn't give Craig a producer credit. Is there any source that discusses this? It's an under-reported aspect of the film that I think is notable enough to warrant inclusion; I'm sure some reputable source mentions this. The closest occasion I've seen to this is when Sean Connery and Kevin McClory collaborated on a script for a Bond film that was abandoned before they made Never Say Never Again. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Not that new: Craig was involved in much of the ongoing script writing for QoS because of a writers' strike. SchroCat (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

But that I understand was more out of dissatisfaction regarding the state of the script as filming commenced. In the case of Skyfall we have Craig actively involved in choosing the director and also researching potential filming locations (the abandoned island city). That has no precedent in the series as far as I'm aware. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Marketing

Hello all, I believe it would be useful to include a section addressing the Marketing behind the film's release. Not only there were several special edition products released with the movie, but also criticism concerning the length of the trailers for example. Would anyone like to help me expand this page? Let me know, I will start working on it! Many thanks, Zalunardo8 (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

(Zalunardo8, I know it's not something you have drawn up), but I think the new "‎Promotion" section fails WP:FILMMARKETING (apart from being poorly written and in the wrong place). I'm not convinced that a minor stunt in a minor market is really notable enough to be the sole entry in the field of film that did not do much unusual in the way of advertising for the film. Is there nothing better that can be added, or should this just be removed? - SchroCat (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with SchroCat. The "promotion" section is awful. Remove. I'm inclined to do it myself but will wait for others to comment. - Fantr (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear SchroCat and Fantr, thank you for your response. I agree this new Promotion section is not very good. I don't think it should discuss in specific all the promotional studs done, but how the marketing for the movie was done in a whole. For example, the Marketing section for The Dark Knight Rises seems really complete to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Knight_Rises#Marketing . There is a lot to be discussed, even critiques of the amount of product placement done in the film and the 30 min trailers: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/oct/23/skyfall-marketing-james-bond . The current promotion section talks only about one stud done by Coca-Cola and this is not the central marketing strategy for the film. Thanks, Zalunardo8 (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The difference between TDKR and Skyfall was the marketing styles. Skyfall used a pretty standard saturation marketing scheme, whilst TDKR used a more immersive viral campaign. As such, there is quite a bit more to write about for TDKR that was out of the ordinary, or of extreme interest to just that film. Skyfall wouldn't have much at all, as it would just document the standard trailer releases, sponsors, etc. There is nothing particularly notable about any part of the campaign in particular, nor it overall; it wasn't a bad campaign, nor a overly unique one; it did the job. Criticism over trailer length isn't particularly noteworthy, as it wasn't a major talking point, and at most it deserves one line in maybe the release section. The last element, product placement, was not criticised anywhere near enough for a major mention, so in my opinion, a marketing section would be pointless. drewmunn talk 10:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I've taken out the section as it stands on the basis of the above comments (it seems more like a Coke promotion than a Skyfall one. Overall I think I have to agree with drewmunn on this one: there has been nothing out of the ordinary in terms of the overall campaign (and I wasn't even aware of any criticism over the trailer until this thread). Product placement is a slightly different thing and there could be a para within the main text about it, although the Bond films have used product placement as a way of off-setting costs since Dr. No in '62. - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the product placement could be interesting to cover, albeit not in a checklist manner, but in terms of the commentary: the Heinekin placement was heavily criticised and commented upon so arguably should be covered in that capacity. I seem to recall George Lazenby wading into the debate at one stage, saying Bond wouldn't drink it because it "tastes like p***". Daniel Craig responded that the economics of the film industry didn't give them much choice, so if we could track down some decent sources something covering that aspect might be ok. Betty Logan (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

With such tact, Lazenby really did miss out on a career in the diplomatic service, didn't he...! - SchroCat (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone, thanks for contributing with your opinions on this matter! At least here in the UK, the number of ads and product placements in the movie were a big deal so it might be some interesting information to add. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224574/Skyfall-fans-forced-sit-30-minutes-adverts-movie-starts.html Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't take the Mail's view too seriously - the editors are kept in a little box and fed a diet of bile and bollocks which they will happily spew out onto their pages whenever they feel like it: I went to see Song for Marion a couple of weeks ago and also had 30 mins of ads to sit through. This isn't anything to do with Skyfall per se, but more the increasingly common practice of cinema owners to boost revenue. - SchroCat (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to say, I didn't have to sit through any (I'm also UK-ese), but there we go. That article seems to mostly talk about the sponsors anyway, rather than the length of adverts being an issue. Saying that, the cinema I run has a 20 minute ad window before the showing, and a 10 minute sponsor slot before the show begins, and we set that structure up on recommendation. As far as placements go, do you think there would be enough information over the length of the franchise for a separate article? If not, what about a section on the relevant Bond in Film page? It might make it a bit more notable if we covered recurring/new sponsors through the ages, rather than noting a couple on each article. I know there has been more major issues with sponsorship levels in the past, and articles on how that changed later productions. Just a thought, though. drewmunn talk 11:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Depiction of "priest hole"

The movie depicts Skyfall, Bond's family's estate and his childhood home, as having a "priest hole." Does this not imply that the Bond family were recusant Catholics? Has this ever come up before in James Bond literature? Is it mentioned in the Fleming novels? I recall no such reference in any previous Bond film. --User:OblSB

A link, in case anyone (like me) had no idea what a priest hole was. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It's entirely possible. It's been a while since I read the literature, but I can't remember anything about it before. However, the newer timeline would put Bond's parents outside the timeframe that would have needed such a feature. It's possible that it belonged to earlier ancestors, but it's also possible that there were other residents of Skyfall. Priestholes began use in the late 1550s, so that provides a possible age of over 400 years. Another family could have lived in Skyfall back then (especially noting the mixed lineage of Bond, and the lack of clear references in the graveyard to older Bonds), so we can't say just from Skyfall that there is enough evidence of Catholic heritage. Interesting idea, though. I wonder if Fleming was, as that'd give us the closest clue (I know Skyfall wasn't Fleming work, but still, there's hope). drewmunn talk 07:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Fleming wasn't Catholic and the issue of Bond's religion wasn't brought up in the books. To try and assume the religion of the Bond family based on a C16th architectural feature is—if you'll excuse the pun—something of a leap of faith. - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Haha, multi-pun, because now I picture you as Ken Watanabe, sitting in your palace. It's interesting to know about Fleming, it was obviously added by the screenwriters as a plot feature and nothing else. drewmunn talk 09:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you guys!   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Just because Bond's family owned a large estate with a church on it, hence the priest hole, doesn't indicate anything regarding their religion. There's nothing in the film to indicate who owned the land before the Bonds (and the estate was created for the film - there is no reference to such a place in Fleming). 70.72.211.35 (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

No, but in John Pearson's James Bond: The Authorized Biography of 007 (Chapter 2, Boyhood of a Spy), "He [Bond] talked a lot about the early Bonds, tough, warlike people who followed the MacDonalds and had lived in Glencoe for generations. Three Bonds, all brothers, were slaughtered in Glencoe during the massacre of 1692." Opera hat (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Despite being authorised, the contents may not be canonical with the film's reality. drewmunn talk 07:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not even canonical with the Fleming books, let alone anything else! Pearson raises some interesting points, but more for discussion on the forum boards of fansites than here. Either way, he still didn't raise Bond's religion (that I can remember) or mention anything that could possibly relate to their ownership of Skyfall (although a property was mentioned that Bond's uncle had to sell because he drank away the family money, I vaguely seem to remember). - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

...and then there's the issue of whether the identity and associated heritage of the agent known as James Bond is his own, or what John le Carré would call a "legend", or cover. In Casino Royale (1967) the real James Bond is a veteran who won the VC at Mafeking in 1899 and was instrumental in the capture of Mata Hari in 1917. His name is perpetuated in the Secret Service to maintain prestige, and the original Bond describes his successor (Fleming's/Eon's Bond) as "that idiot, to whom you gave my name and number". Later in the film, when Sir James becomes M, he asks after his namesake and is told the pseudo-Bond has abandoned the Service for a career in television. In Pearson's Biography (1973) the agent's name actually is James Bond, but Fleming's novels ("high-flown and romanticized caricatures of episodes in the career of an exemplary civil servant" - You Only Live Twice) are an elaborate hoax to convince the Soviets Bond does not really exist, and once adapted to film, are allowed to continue as PR propaganda for the Service. In The Moneypenny Diaries (2005-08), Fleming's novels are based on the adventures of a real agent of his acquaintance for whom he chose the fictional name "James Bond"; in 2007 the agent was living in retirement in the Outer Hebrides under the name Randall Macallan, though his real name is never confirmed... Opera hat (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, more that is outside the canon in question. All evidence suggests that Bond is Bond's real name; his parents are called Bond, and they'd died by the time he joined the service, and their names wouldn't have been changed posthumously. None of the references you cite are related to the Eon franchise, simply separate derivatives of the same source.

I know - I think canon is a bit of a silly concept and I was just winding you up. Sorry. Opera hat (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe "priest holes" were only a feature of English domestic architecture under Elizabeth I. Scotland was a different country and the Scottish Reformation followed a different course. Opera hat (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The Scottish Reformation took place in a similar time period, so the priest hole would still be a distant feature, rather than a recent addition. drewmunn talk 07:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, speculation as to whether Bond's family might be or might have been Roman Catholic based on an architectural feature that may or may not be original in a house that may or may not have been in his family for generations is never going to make it into the Skyfall article. Opera hat (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

True, 'dat. drewmunn talk 13:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)