Jump to content

Talk:Skyfall/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Plot copy edit

Hello! Yesterday I copy-edited the first part of the plot summary. I think it has a lot of redundancy and clumsy wording. A few examples:

"Computer hard drive" - all hard drives are for some sort of computer. You don't need to say "computer".

Like what? Cameras, phones, game consoles, yes - but these are all essentially computers. The hard drive might have been stolen from a PS3 for all it matters to the summary (and it's not like we specify it was taken from a laptop instead). Do you really think it is necessary for plot comprehension that we specify it is a computer hard drive?
A camera isn't a computer, neither is a phone, a Sky satellite box, a satnav system, or an external hard drive storage. We're just clarifying slightly for readers, and I don't see the problem in having it here. - SchroCat (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"Presumed to be dead" can simply become "presumed dead".

"Presumed dead" is the standard term; a Google search produces about 148k results for "presumed to be dead" and about 601k for "presumed dead". Moreover, there is nothing bad about that English. For example, look at the uses of the construction "presumed dead" on the Guardian website; they read perfectly well. Popcornduff (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
A Google search? Why are we basing good English on the results of the semi-illiterate? Ditto on the use of journalistic English of the Grauniad? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and it needs to use good, formal, encyclopaedic English, such as "Presumed to be dead". - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"distant shot with a rifle" - is it necessary for plot comprehension to specify that the shot is taken with a rifle?

"Eve" - we refer to Bond as Bond in the plot summary (not James), but Moneypenny is "Eve". Why? Besides, the character is widely known as Moneypenny, not Eve.

  • There is a long history in the talk parchives as to why this was the format taken - you can go thrugh the rather long threads to read it for youself if you want, but it is there. - SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"containing details of undercover agents placed in terrorist organisations by NATO states" - we don't mention the thing about "placed in terrorist organisations by NATO states" again in the plot summary. Just stating "containing details of undercover agents" is sufficient here to convey that the information is sensitive and M wants it back. The rest is superfluous.

  • Can you explain why it isn't superfluous? I've searched the archives for the word "NATO" and found no discussion about whether that information should be included. It looks as if it has been unchallenged. Am I missing something? Popcornduff (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Again, gently clarifying for readers to understand. It adds to the material about political pressure: releasing the details of ones own agents is bad enough, but the agents of your NATO allies as well...? - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"M comes under political pressure to retire from Gareth Mallory, the Intelligence and Security Committee Chairman" why specify that the pressure is political? we specify the job titles of Mallory and M so we know this is political, why is that important anyway? Popcornduff (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, it's gently clarifying things in the mind of the reader. It shows that Mallory is acting in a political manner, and isn't personally motivated into trying to steal M's job. By using the phrase "political pressure" we manage to suggest all that, but without having to spell it out in 20 or 30 words for readers. - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, these changes (and more) have been reverted twice by SchroCat. Can SchroCat explain why? Popcornduff (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I shouldn't have had to revert: see WP:BRD, and realise that if you've been reverted, it's for a reason, and the talk page is the place to go, not just re-revert. There were some other bits that were reverted as well, simply because they were, as the edit summary said, not improvements: rogue commas, a mistake and a couple of other issues led to the rv. - SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
This is a fair cop; I was going by the three-revert rule, and didn't realise you should talk before re-reverting. Sorry about that. Popcornduff (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
OK. In pretty much every case here, you feel that the elements I contest are necessary clarifications. Is that correct? Rather than argue each one individually again, I'll try one last appeal.
Imagine you're a reader reading my version of the plot summary for the first time. Pretend you don't know what I've deleted. You read that Patrice has stolen "a hard drive". Would this information mislead you? Would it confuse you? Would you want to know what kind of hard drive it was? Is there anything later in the plot that having this information would be necessary to understand? Would you, basically, be any worse off for not knowing this? At all?
This applies to the rest of my edits. I am following the logic explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Style_guidelines/Copy-editing_essentials#Don.27t_lose_the_plot. We must "craft a concise plot section that nevertheless leaves out nothing necessary for a full understanding of the article".
If you still think these are necessary clarifications, I'd like to know what other editors think. Popcornduff (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I've already stated my position: these are gentle clarifications. Don't forget that numerous editors have added and reduced this summary since the film came out, and in many cases they may have added bits that you are trying to remove: they felt the need to clarify, or to add a shade of detail here and there, and IMO, it's about right now. Maybe not perfect, but about right: your edits, I feel, were not an improvement, expecially where there was the introduction of two grammatical errors and a typo. - SchroCat (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
So you're basically saying "this has already been worked on a lot and therefore it can't be improved." I hope I don't need to explain why I don't find this convincing.
"Pierce" was an obvious stupid typo (Bond on the brain!) that could have been fixed individually. If the "two grammatical errors" you refer to are the two additional commas, well, uh, they're perfectly grammatical, and though the sentences are grammatical without them, the commas help readability. I'm surprised you argue for the "gentle clarification" of a tautology like "computer hard drive", but find the mentions of "Istanbul MI6" (where is this?) and "Shanghai Bond" (who's that?) grammatically necessary ambiguities. Popcornduff (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
No, that is not what I am saying, so please do not be so rude as to deliberately misrepresent my words. As I have very clearly said this is "not perfect, but about right".
The commas are not grammatical in BrEng. Maybe in AmEng, or in lazy writing, but not BrEng. Just to repeat for the hard of understanding, "computer hard drive" is not a tautology, and a number of examples are above which prove the point. The comma use was only one of the errors you introduced: you altered the grammatically correct "Presumed to be dead" to the incorrect "Presumed dead", as I've already taken the trouble to explain. I'm sorry you don't like the fact that you were reverted, but when you do something that worsens an article, it's what happens - especially over such minor points that don't need working on. - SchroCat (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Cameras, phones, Sky satellite boxes and satnavs all contain computer microchips and use hard drives for computing purposes. An external hard drive is not a computer, but neither is a "computer hard drive". This is needless pedantry and can be omitted. Popcornduff (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The thought had occurred to me and I don't mean Schro. You're coming across as pompous Popcornm give it a rest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Fair enough - I'm driving this too hard. 16:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm so glad you agree that hard drives do not necessarily need to be in computers. It's not "needless pedantry", but a note of clarity. Yes, it can be omitted, but why bother, especially if you raise the question in people's minds as to if it is, for example, an external storage drive, such as a USB stick or similar? - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you have some reliable sources for those commas being ungrammatical in British English? "Presumed dead" is not grammatically incorrect; for example, "Bond is presumed dead" is grammatically identical, using the passive voice, to "The pancake is made delicious (by someone)" or "The house is painted green (by someone)". Do you think the Guardian is getting it wrong every time they use "presumed dead"? Or the Encyclopedia Britannica?Popcornduff (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Try reading one of the style guides (Fowler's Guide to Modern English or similar will educate you on good punctuation). As before, what journalists etc write is neither here nor there: presumed to be dead is perfectly correct, and the grammar doesn't need to be weakened. (As to "The pancake is made delicious (by someone)"… if that's your standard, then I'm more worried than I was before). - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify, "the pancake is made delicious" was not an example of a good sentence - it's a hideous use of the passive voice - but it is nonetheless grammatical, which you are contesting. 16:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In future, don't break paragraphs to answer a point: answer after a paragraph, or between bullet points only. There is little point in continuing this between ourselves: it is not going to lead to any constructive change of mind, so I suggest we leave it to others to comment on. - SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi I saw this on WP:3O. First, understand I have not seen this movie and know nothing about it. I reviewed Popcornduff edits and have mixed feelings about them, which unfortunately is not too helpful. Some of his edits were an improvement, some of them for the worse, and some seemed neutral and just not really necessary. I won't give a line by line critique, but will give one example of each. The change of "the latter" to "Pierce" is very confusing. Who is "Pierce"? The word Pierce is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. On the other hand, the earlier edit that clarified the train they were fighting atop was moving, was a helpful addition. And furthermore, breaking that long sentence up into smaller ones is also a slight improvement IMO. Since you both seem adamant about your positions, I think the solution is for you two to craft an article that includes some of the edits but not all of them. Popcornduff, perhaps you should take into consideration the feedback you received from SchroCat and acknowledge they have made good points, and try submitting something in the middle. For example, you now understand why "Eve" is used over "Moneypeney". Byates5637 (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. For the record, "Pierce" was a simple, idiotic typo on my behalf. It should have been "Patrice". Popcornduff (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment It's fair to say that hard drives are commonly associated with computers, but it doesn't hurt to clarify it for people who are unfamiliar with IT parlance. I personally would have gone for "presumed dead" if I had written the summary myself, but if it is incorrect in British English I am happy to defer to SchroCat on that one rather than The Guardian which is infamous among British media for its poor grasp of English. I am largely indifferent to things like "rifle" and "political pressure" i.e. the summary would get by without those terms, but we are not really gaining much in the way of brevity at the expense of losing some context. In truth it's a well-written plot summary, and while there are many alterations that could be made to it, very few of them would offer a qualitative improvement on what we've already got. In truth, the time of both parties would be better spent improving plot summaries that actually need improving. Betty Logan (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
@SchroCat: "laptop computer hard drive" or "laptop hard drive"? User:Betty Logan Azx2 08:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Raoul Silva

Lapilluminati, Please read WP:BRD and don't edit war, especially on the basis of an unreliable site, and especially to leave a question for other editors (which will invite further revwersiuons and an escalation of edit warring, helping no-one). The film gives the name Raoul Silva, as do a number of reliable sources, including the BFI (twice) which is why we use it. I'll let you do the honourable thing and self-revert. - SchroCat (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I think when you say Judi Dench's M calls him by his full name you mean when she says his name is Tiago Rodriguez. --Lapilluminati (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
No I don't mean that at all, so please don't try to double guess me. Either way, the (very) reliable sources I have provided show Raoul Silva, which is sufficent, so you can do the honourable thing and self-revert before I or someone else does it. - SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
But unless the credits, which I forgot about, mention his name as being Raoul, the name "Raoul" is not used in the movie. Therefore, it's not his name. At least not as far as this article is concerned. --Lapilluminati (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes it is. Your refusal to accept what reliable sources are being shown to you does not do you any justice. I'm shutting down now and I expect the full name will be back in there by the next time I log on, largely because its in the reliable sources. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Those sources don't put the name "Raoul" in the movie. Unless you're saying that because someone who is not the movie says his name is Raoul the article should say the same thing, I will not revert the edit. --Lapilluminati (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Nope. The credits just refer to him as Silva. --Lapilluminati (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

As you've got a case of WP:ICAN'THEARYOU, I've reverted to the stable version that is supported by the reliable sources. See the official Eon website (that's the people who wrote the film and created the character), particularly click on the photo of Raoul. What name is at the bottom? - SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

So you *are* saying that because someone who is not the movie says his name is Raoul the article should say the same thing. --Lapilluminati (talk) 02:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm just gonna leave this here. --Lapilluminati (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This fails WP:FRINGE, which is why I've removed it. - SchroCat (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

My edit was not making the theory "appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is". It was merely stating it. --Lapilluminati (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Rubbish. Adding it onto the page is giving it way more credence than it deserves - and this dross shouldn't be anywhere near an encyclopaedic article - it just isn't up to the proper standard. - SchroCat (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Adding it onto the page: no. It is simply a mention. I actually thought it would provide some insight on Silva.
I fail to see how saying a character may be another character's son isn't up to the proper standard. Either a character may be another character's son or they may not. --Lapilluminati (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The standard is in terms of the sourcing. It's a blog thread that you're using to back it up (a blog on Bloomberg, but still a blog, which raises a red flag); it's not backed up by any other sources that I've seen (although I have seen something that suggests he has a mother fixation, rather than the fact they are related) and it makes too much of a stretch of logic. if they were at all related the scriptwriters would have laboured the point a little more than a tangential teaser line. And yes, some fringe theories are best not even being added to pages - they fall short of formal encyclopaedic coverage and have too little basis in reality to warrant inclusion: such is the case here. - SchroCat (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
This theory is by this man. (As you can see in the post.) And it's mentioned in quite a few online articles. Should I get the links to those?
I'm not denying it's a stretch. I'm just saying the possibility should be noted. And it's obviously relevant. --Lapilluminati (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
If ir is a theory, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Just facts, not a third party's speculation. SonOfThornhill (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The theory is based on facts. That's why it's a relevant theory. --Lapilluminati (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Calling what he describes as "facts" is, again, too much of a stretch. - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
'Based on facts' is not actual facts. An encyclopedia should be facts only, not a theory 'based on facts' SonOfThornhill (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@SchroCat Fact: one phrase is an anagram for the other. Fact: Silva repeatedly refers to M as "Mother".
I would change my edit — "Silva is speculated to be M's son and repeatedly refers to her as "Mother" — to "Silva is suggested in the film to be M's son" and use as references the article I linked and the note "Silva twice refers to M as "Mother" and once as "Mommy"". (Which can be checked by anyone who Googles a transcript of the movie.)
@SonOfThornhill I disagree. And "based on facts" doesn't have to be actual facts to be factual. Also, if you say ""A" may be true", that's a fact. Unless there is evidence that contradicts it. Which in this case there doesn't seem to be.
@<general> If we need a reference to say Silva refers to M as "Mother", I would think we need a reference for the whole "Plot" section. But I dunno Wikipedia policy. --Lapilluminati (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's obvious you don't know what Wiki policy is, but you're not listening to what others are trying to explain to you, which is unfortunate. You need to start taking on board what others are saying here: this is not worth putting in the article because it is a spurious fringe theory. It's because of an anagram? There are over 60,000 anagrams for the term "THINK ON YOUR SINS". "Honky Intrusions" is one; does that mean that race is one of the primary themes of the film? This is a non-issue over something that really does not need to have time spent on it. As to sourcing the plot, see WP:FILMPLOT which states that a separate source is not needed, as the film acts as a primary source for the plot section. – SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
What is it that you think I'm not listening to?
Spurious fringe theory: No. There are *suggestions* in the film that would lead anyone (not just the professor who wrote the article) to deduce that Silva *may* be M's son.
It's a huge coincidence for the terms "your son" (in a message from Silva to M) and "HK", which on Wikipedia redirects to Hong Kong (which is mentioned in the film as somewhere Silva has been), to be found in a phrase that only has six other letters.
And does the film also act as a primary source for saying Silva refers to M as "Mother"? --Lapilluminati (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Jesus, you're still not listening, or taking any of this on board. The message does not refer to 'your son': it says "Think on your sins" You can picl ay of the other 60,000 anagrams if you want to, the end result is still the same: it means sweet FA apart from "Think on your sins". Time to move on from this to do something constructive elsewhere, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Still not listening: To what? What do you mean? Just because I'm not agreeing with you doesn't mean I'm not listening.
Yes. The message says "THINK ON YOUR SINS"; not "YOUR SON ISNT IN HK". I'll say the same thing again. The message is *an anagram* for "YOUR SON ISNT IN HK", which, considering the terms "your son" and "HK", is a huge coincidence. And add to that the fact that Silva *has* left Hong Kong.
No. You can't pick any of the other 60,000 anagrams. Because none of them that anyone has found has as much of a connection to the story as this one.
Means sweet F.A.: That's not for you to decide. At least not without an explanation. You're not the filmmakers. (And neither am I.) And even if you were...after you've released the movie you have no control over what it means. --Lapilluminati (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but ""based on facts" doesn't have to be actual facts to be factual" is a nonsense statement when applied to the standard of an encyclopedia. Unless you can provide real hard facts that support this, such as one of the filmmakers stating that this was their intent; then this theory doesn't rise to the standard of an encyclopedia. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
You're saying that only facts can go on the wiki. Wrong. You can state *possible* facts. Unless Wikipedia is so screwed up that it has a policy saying you can't.
The filmmakers' intent has nothing to do with what the final movie means. And I *have* provided real hard facts that support this.
I still don't see why saying a character *may* be another character's son given certain facts isn't up to the standard of an enyclopedia. If you think it's because of the sourcing, see this and this. --Lapilluminati (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
No: you have provided a spurious WP:FRINGE theory. Ive pointed out that the pathetic anagram theory also provides us with "Honkey Intrusion", which means the whole film is about race in the spy genre in the 21st century. That's about the same level of sense as any other spurious claim. Silva's message isn't meant an anagram by anyone else apart from one disconnected blogger who is seeing shadows where they just don't exist. You are becoming increasingly disruptive by banging this single spurious drum, and it's time to draw this to a close. - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The filmmakers' intent has nothing to do with what the final movie means. That has to be one of the most ridiculous statements that I've have ever heard and copyright laws would dispute you. SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Spurious WP:FRINGE theory: Paragraph 2 of this.
Also provides us with "HONKEY INTRUSION": No. It doesn't. Paragraph 3 of this. (Same link as above.)
Any other spurious claim: You're just not fighting fair. Yes; as any other spurious claim. But this is not a spurious claim. (Do I need a diff here as well?)
Isn't meant an anagram by anyone else: An anagram doesn't need to be acknowledged internally to be an anagram. If the Mona Lisa anagram in The Da Vinci Code wasn't acknowledged in the book/movie and they were directed to the Mona Lisa by something else, should the anagram not be noted in the book/movie's article?
Seeing shadows where they just don't exist: I am not using any of his arguments other than the anagram. His other arguments are irrelevant to this conversation.
Becoming increasingly disruptive; time to draw this to a close: I am not being disruptive by providing my opinion when it's not the same as yours. If you want to leave the discussion, that's fine by me. If you would prefer that I not share my opinion because it doesn't sit well with you, that's not my problem.
Copyright laws would dispute you: See this. --Lapilluminati (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Your supposed links have not refuted anything that stops this from being a spurious WP:FRINGE claim. The information is not encyclopaedic, and is frankly fucking pointless. The message isn't meant as an anagram, or it would have been acknowledged either in the film, or elsewhere by the writers or Eon. I have to agree that statements like The filmmakers' intent has nothing to do with what the final movie means is brain-numbingly crass and wrong. As per our approach to ridiculous FRINGE nonsense, this has no place in this article. We are an encyclopaedia, not a repository of every blindingly stupid, misleading and idiotic piece of crap that emanates from a blog writer who doesn't have anything more useful to say. - SchroCat (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a theory by a single critic fails WP:WEIGHT. There may be something to it, but it is never developed in the film and it could just as easily be a plot strand that was abandoned in an earlier draft of the screenplay or simply a critic reading too much into a coincidence. It is highly speculative and does not have much encyclopedic value IMO. If it were a prominent observation by say two or three high profile critics then it would perhaps have a place in some form of thematic analysis i.e. an exploration of the mother-son theme at the heart of the film, but beyond its thematic context it is basically trivia that cannot be factually established. Betty Logan (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

"Have not refuted anything": Do you mean my diffs? If so, can you explain why they haven't made any refutation that stops this from being a spurious WP:FRINGE claim?

Again, I don't see why saying a character may be another character's son is not encyclopedic. (Which both of you are saying.) Nor do I see why it's pointless, when all it does is inform readers about something they may not know.

"Or it would have been acknowledged": I disagree. It may not be a deliberate anagram, but it also might. (And, as I explained, whether or not it's deliberate doesn't matter. What matters is that the anagram is there and people can draw their own conclusions.) The fact it's not acknowledged doesn't make it not a deliberate anagram. This could've been something that M figured out and for some reason did not want to tell anyone about, therefore not making it evident in the film. As to why the people responsible for the movie haven't (to my knowledge) talked about it, maybe they feel that this does not merit acknowledgement because it was an idea that they ended up not following on. But it is there nonetheless.

"Crass and wrong": Can you explain why?

"Ridiculous fringe nonsense": I understand "fringe" is taken to mean "held by a small group of supporters", so I'm not denying it's fringe. But I don't see why it's ridiculous and why it's nonsense. And, considering the amount of people who think Obama is Kenyan (one of the many conspiracy theories noted on Wikipedia) versus the amount of people who have never thought of it or heard such a rumor and the amount of Bond fans who think Silva is M's son versus the amount of Bond fans who have never thought of it or heard such a rumor, both groups of people who believe the theories are small.

"Not a repository": No. We are not. But this could well have come from a tweet by Daniel Craig (if he was on Twitter) saying "hey... Just noticed "A" is an anagram for "B". Talk about coincidence!". And saying "he may be her son" is not in any way misleading.

I want to use the Bloomberg article as a reference not because of all the writer's claims, but because it says "THINK ON YOUR SINS" is an anagram for "YOUR SON ISNT IN HK". Which, together with the note I mentioned, lays the groundwork for the theory. And the article also happens to seem to be *the first place* to find the anagram.

I understand what notability is, but I don't think that a fact *has* to have reliable sources point it out (even if it's just one) to make it to a Wikipedia article. What I'm proposing to add is like saying "Silva is suggested in the film to be Hispanic". (Which I know sounds silly, since his name is given as Tiago Rodriguez.) Or, referring to Quantum of Solace, "Greene is suggested in the film to be French". Which you can't say I need a source for, because you could describe Greene as a man of seemingly French origin in the "Plot" section and you say you don't need a source for that.

"Highly speculative": Yes. It's speculative. All we are saying is that, because "Silva is suggested in the film to be M's son", viewers can *speculate* that Silva is M's son.

"If it were a prominent observation": I haven't been saying the contrary. What I'm saying is it doesn't have to be a prominent observation.

"Cannot be factually established": Yes. It can't be established. That's why we are saying "he *is suggested* to be" and not "he is". --Lapilluminati (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the article you linked to? I don't think so because the point of the article was defending JK Rowling againt a homophobic fundementalist who refused to accept a comment by Rowling regarding a character she created. And you do need to start listening and stop being disruptive. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for fan theories or speculation. SonOfThornhill (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
"Read the article": No. I didn't. I meant the title and the first three paragraphs in italics.
"Need to start listening and stop being disruptive": No. I don't. Because, as I have said, I *am* listening and I am *not* being disruptive. (Control-"F" "listening" and "disruptive".)
"Not a place for fan theories or speculation": That's never been my claim. Please re-read my posts. (Start with this.) --Lapilluminati (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
You're arguing with too many people who know better here. Time to move on and stop being, yes, disruptive. These articles are encyclopaedic; what you are proposing to add is not. Please take that on board. - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
"Too many people who know better": Then *prove* to me you know better. By showing me my arguments are wrong. The fact that you and others know Wikipedia policy doesn't make you automatically right.
"Time to move on": Then *finish* the discussion.
"Disruptive": I've already responded to your claim that I'm being disruptive. You, on the other hand, haven't responded to my response. You're just repeating your claim without even justifying it. You can't hope to shut people up by repeating yourself until they get tired.
"What you are proposing to add is not": All you do is say the edit is not encyclopedic. I ask why and you say the same thing again. You're still not explaining why it's not encyclopedic. Please do. --Lapilluminati (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
FFS, it has been explained to you - by three people - but you have not taken it on board. Read the explanations above given to you. As to claming that "You can't hope to shut people up by repeating yourself until they get tired": that's exacty what you've been doing for some time - ignoring people giving you advice and explanations. - SchroCat (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
"Has been explained to you": Please link me the explanation.
"What you've been doing": I've been trying to do the opposite of shutting you up. I've been trying to get you to say you agree with me. But I think the sky's gonna fall first. [1]
"Advice and explanations": Whatever explanations you've been trying to give, they haven't explained anything. --Lapilluminati (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
As has been explained to you, citing one source that hasn't been vetted as reliable or notable is fringe. If you wait until it's published in a reliable source, such as a journal, or for a body of scholars to note the same thing, then it'll be acceptable to publish in an encyclopaedia (see WP:TERTIARY). DonQuixote (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
"Fringe": Paragraphs 2 and 3 of this. (The suggestions being these. (Paragraph 1.)) Paragraphs 7 and 8 of this.
"Fringe:" Linking the article is just so we don't have to mention the anagram in the Wikipedia entry, which allows us to simply say "Silva is suggested in the film to be M's son".
"If you wait": Paragraph 8 of this. (Same link as previous talk-page link.)
"If you wait": Are you saying that it's original research to acknowledge (by linking to an article) an undeniable anagram and state what it suggests? Because you don't even have to state it. A reader who has seen the movie (or just knows that Silva repeatedly refers to "M" as "Mother" and was in Hong Kong) and is shown the anagram ("YOUR SON ISNT IN HK") will deduce it. So it's not someone who is unnotable's conclusion (although he does have a Wikipedia article); it's common sense. --Lapilluminati (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  1. Since you and the source you're citing are the only ones saying it explicitly, it's fringe.
  2. And, yes, it's original research. "Silva is suggested in the film to be M's son" is the very definition of original research -- that is, stating things like "There are *suggestions* in the film that would lead anyone (not just the professor who wrote the article) to deduce that Silva *may* be M's son." is original research. And linking to an article that hasn't been vetted as reliable or notable and insisting that we accept it as-is is the very definition of fringe. Also, stating things like "A reader who has seen the movie (or just knows that Silva repeatedly refers to "M" as "Mother" and was in Hong Kong) and is shown the anagram ("YOUR SON ISNT IN HK") will deduce it." is the very definition of original research.
And just because someone has a Wikipedia article, it doesn't mean that what they write is necessarily citable. They have to publish their observations in a reliable source. A blog isn't considered reliable. And most importantly, they have to be acknowledged as an expert in whatever they're writing about--law isn't the same thing as literary analysis, so he fails that automatically unless it's shown that he's acknowledged as an expert in literary analysis.
So, finding a source that's considered reliable by Wikipedia standards and not engaging in any original research is the only way to get any of the above into an encyclopaedia article. Insisting that we ignore all this and accept your, as yet, unreliable source and accept your justifications which involve original research, is fringe behaviour. DonQuixote (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I see.
I leave you with one final "fuck you, Wikipedia". (Paragraph 5.) --Lapilluminati (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
In regard to your paragraph 5, about a hundred years ago the theory of relativity was fringe and wasn't included in encyclopaedias. As more and more experts began writing about it, it became verifiable enough to be published in encyclopaedias. That's how tertiary sources, such as encyclopaedias and textbooks, work. DonQuixote (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
lol.
I understand. --Lapilluminati (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

What is unencyclopedia nonsense?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skyfall&diff=656762352&oldid=656749891

I wrote this, and someone called it unencyclopedic nonsense, and told me that I am way short of the required standards here. Can someone tell me exactly what he's talking about? 110.55.0.3 (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:FILMPLOT, how to write a plot summary and copyediting essentials. This, for example, is nonsense: "The story is about workplace violence in retaliation to M's toxic leadership inside MI6, portrayed in the story as a British crime firm, and in the process, consummates the transformation begun by Licence to Kill and GoldenEye, of the franchise from a campy, corny, affectionately self-parodic bedroom farce to a smooth, stylish, muted, bleak, solemn self satire." It is riddled with inaccuracies, is utterly misleading, contains mostly information that is unconnected to the plot, and is more to do with your personal opinion than anything else. You may wish to try your hand editing here instead. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Add WP:EDITORIALIZING to the list too. Betty Logan (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Let me see if I understand what you're saying. According to you, workplace violence with co-conspirators and unlimited resources isn't workplace violence, toxic leadership with unlimited resources isn't toxic leadership, and portraying an organization as at war against a former employee that the boss betrayed isn't portraying it as a crime firm. A brightly colored movie in which a lesbian has sex with a man claiming she'd never met a man before in a franchise in which the protagonist has lots of sex for no reason isn't a bedroom farce. The Bond villain's fake island dragon vehicle and his ill-advised plots for world domination are to be taken seriously. Craig-era Bond is considered the bleakest Bond ever, and Craig's Bond spends all of Quantum of Solace in some personal matter and storms an embassy, and spends all of Skyfall barely passing the entrance exam, M is in danger of losing her job, and Bond is fighting his former coworker the entire time. A condemnation of spy work at M's hearing is a microcosm of the movie, which is itself a condemnation of spy work, but none of that is self-satirical. So yeah, there are so many factual inaccuracies that I'd mistaken Disney's Elsa for Bond. As for being unconnected to the plot, workplace violence and toxic leadership have nothing to do with Skyfall. Something that walks like a duck, looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and flies like a duck isn't a duck when it's a huge duck with unlimited resources, duck minions (which aren't ducks either), and when it's in an A-movie. Does that sum up what you're trying to say, or am I just using a straw-man argument? If I were neither party in this debate, but a spectator instead, I'd say I'd have to look at the debate to see if it's a straw-man argument. People sometimes use straw-man arguments. If I'm using a straw-man argument, then you should probably tell me what, exactly, about my edit that is inaccurate, misleading, irrelevant, or subjective. 110.55.1.247 (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I will point you back to WP:FILMPLOT, how to write a plot summary and copyediting essentials and strongly suggest you read through those guides, which will answer your point. Nothing that you have written is sufficiently encyclopaedic to go into a plot summary of the film. A film plot on Wikipedia is a basic description of the events of a film's plot, not anything like you've written. Our articles aim to be neutrally written, your text is not. They should not contain original research of editorialise, and yours does. - SchroCat (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, I hereby apologize for misspelling "unencyclopedic". Now let's get down to it: WP:FILMPLOT defeats what Jackfork was saying earlier and what you are saying now: that I need a source. "Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source." Original research is prohibited; the quoted sentence permits something. Something that is permitted is not original research. Therefore, the conduct thus permitted is not original research. There is no original research or editorializing in my contribution, and NPOV is a notoriously controversial, all-purpose accusation. You've claimed that nothing that I have written is sufficiently encyclopaedic to go into a plot summary of the film, but nothing you've written nor, contrary to your "pointing", anything in those guides is specific enough to answer my point. Instead, what you write is generic enough to be a reply to just about anything; you seem to be aware that you are debating a contribution to a film plot summary in a Wikipedia article, hence references to WP:FILMPLOT, and since we are debating something on Wikipedia, you reference WP:NPOV and WP:OR. The most attentive thing you've done is refer to WP:EDITORIALISING, but you have not identified even one "notably", "interestingly", "it should be noted", "fundamentally", "essentially", "basically", "actually", "clearly", "obviously", "naturally", "of course", or "fortunate", all of which are evidence of editorializing. You are making many generic, all-purpose, unevidenced criticisms that so not demonstrate comprehension of this debate. On your user page, you write uncivil things about your peers. Unlike you, I have some respect for my fellow Wikipedians, so I would ask if you would like to be called "sir" or "ma'am", but you seem to be a collective group, so would you like to be called "gentlemen", "ladies", or "ladies and gentlemen"? You respond proficiently to an entire group of situations generically without demonstrating alertness to its details; you seem to be a team of multiple people whose communication with each other is inadequate, mass-manufacturing your comments. 110.55.1.247 (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I have not said you need a source for the film plot. What you do need is to write it neutrally, and not put your personal opinions in there, as you have done above. workplace violence? No. toxic leadership? No. British crime firm? No. A connection with Licence to Kill and Goldeneye? Not in this plot. "campy, corny, affectionately self-parodic bedroom farce"? Not even close. Go back to the guidelines that have been pointed out to you and read them, because it's pointless trying to have a discussion unless you do. - SchroCat (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Skyfall/Archive_8&oldid=697970562"