Wikipedia talk:WikiProject James Bond/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject James Bond. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
"The Shameful Dream"
I was just re-reading the Thunderball (novel) article and an editor has added a reference to an unpublished Fleming short story called "The Shameful Dream" which satirized Lord Beaverbrook for cancelling the TB comic strip. The source given is the James Bond His Man and His World book of a year or so ago. Since we know of only a few non-Bond fiction writings by Fleming, the question needs to be asked: was this a James Bond short story? If it was, it might be worth mentioning in or even creating an article about, if that hasn't already been done. 23skidoo (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- No Google shows up nothing. Vikrant 15:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- It might not, but I'm curious if anyone out there who has read Man and His World might be able to say. If the book indicates that it is a Bond story, then that's sufficient sourcing to add it to James Bond uncollected short stories which already includes Benson's unpublished "Heart of Erzulie". 23skidoo (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Quantum of Solace
Referencing a comment made by an IP on the For Your Eyes Only page, I don't think there should be any confusion regarding links to the newly named movie and the original short story. There was at one point a redirect pointing to the short story, but now the film article has a dab statement. It might be worthwhile doing a quick check to make sure all Quantum of Solace links are properly directed to either the film or short story page, but I really don't expect there to be many story-related wikilinks out there. Given the general "where did this title come from?" reaction, I think it's safe to categorize the short story as "obscure". ;-) 23skidoo (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, we finally got a title. El Greco(talk) 16:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
B-Class article ratings
Seem as if many of these have been done arbitrarily. They are mostly start class. Vikrant 12:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The talk page says its within WP:007. How? Just because it was Ian Fleming's book? Vikrant 14:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Read the article until you get to the section about "007 in New York". 23skidoo (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Henchmen AfD
List of James Bond henchmen in The Living Daylights has been listed for deletion here. (Special Windler, these are your very own words - two names cant form a list) Vikrant 16:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, true. But would you prefer that we suddenly have a break in our template? Would you prefer that suddenly there is no Living Daylights page or information on Necros. It was discussed before, that all the "henchmen" and "allies" pages would be merged per their film appearence. Because some wern't notable. The "Girls By Film" lists had many of the 21 articles with one or two girls, occasionally 3. The "henchman" mostly have 4, 5, 6. Just because ONE List of, dosen't have as many henchmen, THEN LETS JUST DELETE SHALL WE. SpecialWindler talk 20:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Vikrant ... You're stuffing up this project and James Bond articles on Wikipedia and it's not good. SpecialWindler talk 20:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am the #1 contributor to this project! What stuffing are you talking about? Vikrant 14:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- You do do good for articles within this project, but you often decide to mke changes to please yourself. I would have no objections if you raised the issue here first, then a decision was made to take it to AFD ... This project is OURS project not YOURS. You may brag that your #1, but it doesn't give you the right to just say .. well lets delete "List of James Bond henchmen in The Living Daylights".
- Any other opinions? SpecialWindler talk 10:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that you are attacking, forcing bragging (I have removed one attack). Had I been taking permission here, everyone would have said "it just needs expansion not deletion." This has happened before. And I am not doing anything to please myself. I am simply ignoring all rules. Vikrant 13:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- True, but then you've said it yourself: the projects members would have agreed 'that it does need expansion.' Just because it takes two years or longer dosen't mean it isn't notable and you ruin the line of "List of James Bond henchmen in ...". Also, please don't write in the middle of peoples messages, write after the last signature. SpecialWindler talk 20:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Im also sorry if you took offence to that attack, but it seems to me that it's true. SpecialWindler talk 20:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- True, but then you've said it yourself: the projects members would have agreed 'that it does need expansion.' Just because it takes two years or longer dosen't mean it isn't notable and you ruin the line of "List of James Bond henchmen in ...". Also, please don't write in the middle of peoples messages, write after the last signature. SpecialWindler talk 20:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that you are attacking, forcing bragging (I have removed one attack). Had I been taking permission here, everyone would have said "it just needs expansion not deletion." This has happened before. And I am not doing anything to please myself. I am simply ignoring all rules. Vikrant 13:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am the #1 contributor to this project! What stuffing are you talking about? Vikrant 14:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Character PROD
It's at least somewhat satasfying that Vikrant, now 'Ultraviolet scissor flame', has at least proposed deletion of List of James Bond characters in Agent Under Fire. Somewaht better than an AFD, thanks. You should alert here before you do it or at least just after you've done it.
On the article: Vikrant has given the following concern for the article: This site is not a game guide. However I see no part of the article which is a guide at all. It is all character biographies not guides (which are on the 'Wikipedia is not', so unless Vikrant has a better explanation, or anyone opposes here, I may remove the prod from the page.
I will refer the articles talk page to here. SpecialWindler talk 20:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is very much a game guide. It gives all the in-universe information of characters. Vikrant 13:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Recently, List of James Bond video game locations was deleted. Now anyone can go about saying that it's a list of places and not a game guide, can't they? Vikrant 13:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- You know what's ironic, is that a while back one of the members posted that there would be a flood of PROD on JB related characters/articles. Most of us thought from the outside, but alas the PROD/AFD have come from the inside. El Greco(talk) 20:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- I feel you are saying is ironic. Windler takes offence that an article (No, plot summaries + game guide) that he made is listed for deletion. Is this called a flood? Vikrant 13:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- And see the irony in what I read above "It's at least somewhat satasfying" and "Somewaht better than an AFD, thanks"! So now what's left to be ironic? Vikrant 13:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hey all, I'm a Proposed Deletion Patroller who was investigating the prod to the List of James Bond characters in Agent Under Fire article. The talk page led me here, where I can see some people aren't 100% satisfied with the proposed deletion. Per WP:PROD, if there is any controversy about the proposed deletion of an article then it cannot be deleted through prod, so I've removed the tag. If anyone still wishes the page to be deleted it must be brought to AfD. Thanks! -- Atamachat 17:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to add, too, that this kind of discussion you're having here is exactly what the AfD process is for, so I'd encourage you to go through with it. -- Atamachat 17:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- And see the irony in what I read above "It's at least somewhat satasfying" and "Somewaht better than an AFD, thanks"! So now what's left to be ironic? Vikrant 13:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- I feel you are saying is ironic. Windler takes offence that an article (No, plot summaries + game guide) that he made is listed for deletion. Is this called a flood? Vikrant 13:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
All films semi-locked
Something's going seriously wrong. Anyone has any idea why? Vikrant 15:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Try it now. I semi-protected the Bond films template because some clueless anon IP kept changing Quantum of Solace to a redirect. Although I didn't click anything that would have made linked pages also protected, it's possible this happened anyway. The padlock icon, though, is still on these articles. However I just tried a film article at random and it seemed to work OK. 23skidoo (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Page move proposal
I have placed a proposal at Talk:List of James Bond characters in Casino Royale suggesting the article be renamed List of characters in Casino Royale (1967). The use of "James Bond" in the title is redundant and misleading (as not every character listed is one of the film's James Bonds), plus I feel the title should be disambiguated as there are similar articles relating to the 2006 film. I'd rather seek consensus before going the WP:BOLD route, so comments are welcome. 23skidoo (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Really no need of consensus for this. Vikrant 17:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good. El Greco(talk) 18:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Cool. It's only because a number of editors have worked on this that I didn't want to unilaterally make the move. I'll give my proposal a full 24 hours and then make the change if no one objects. (If someone wants to jump ahead and make the move themselves, though, I won't cry). 23skidoo (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
diamonds are forever ga
Diamonds Are Forever (film) has been put on hold for GA nomination. Could anyone please help ith the reviewers requests, as made on the talk page. SpecialWindler talk 20:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Bias
I think that we are showing too much bias to the films. For example, character lists are listed in the film order, not the novel order. We have to remember that the novels came first. Also, in some of the character biographies, the novel bio is beneath the film one. I am on a personal campaign to put the novel one first. Also, the films seam to catch more attention than the novels. Emperor001 (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- This discusson has happened before, and it is true. The only reason this happens, in my belief, that the films are far more popular than the novels. But you're right, the novels should be first. The Windler talk 04:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Portal nominated for FP
Welcome here. Ultra! 17:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice table in Bond girl
Are all the names above actually Bond girls? Ultra! 17:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Paula Caplan blown away
Shocking! Ultra! 16:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- WTF? The Windler talk 10:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- You merged it. Till now you have favoured separate articles for them all. Ultra! 15:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- [1] Ultra! 11:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- And? That was nearly 18 months ago. The Windler talk 12:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- So any special reason for keeping Molly Warmflash for 18 months? Ultra! 17:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good point! The two characters are pretty equal. They are both allies more than women. The Windler talk 21:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- We gonna start making a list of two people again? El Greco(talk) 21:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, we should move Warmflash to the List of Allies page, because she is more of an ally than an woman The Windler talk 22:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- We gonna start making a list of two people again? El Greco(talk) 21:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good point! The two characters are pretty equal. They are both allies more than women. The Windler talk 21:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- So any special reason for keeping Molly Warmflash for 18 months? Ultra! 17:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- And? That was nearly 18 months ago. The Windler talk 12:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- [1] Ultra! 11:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- You merged it. Till now you have favoured separate articles for them all. Ultra! 15:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
James Bond title sequence
Is there an article on the dancer enhanced music-video like title sequences that open the films? 70.51.8.110 (talk) 07:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
no, James Bond gun barrel sequence, James Bond (films) Ultra! 07:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair use, unfair overuse
List of James Bond henchmen in Casino Royale has twelve screenshots. Somebody please suggest an alternative to this. Ultra! 17:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- It seems Ok, the text needs citations and expanding though, The Windler talk 10:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly not Ok per {{non-free}}. Ultra! 15:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- And most of them are cropped. Ultra! 15:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- However, my understanding is that were these characters notable enough to warrant separate articles, then using a single screenshot (properly cited, etc) would be allowed. So what's the rule then? How is having screenshots used for different characters in what is technically an omnibus article any different than the multiple images used at Ernst Stavro Blofeld? 23skidoo (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Really, the Ernst Stavro Blofeld articles is an example of {{non-free}}. Differing fair-use images are acceptable if there is no alternative. In the case of List of James Bond henchmen in Casino Royale, there isn't any alternative I can think of unless someone was able to capture an image of them filming and it being released freely. The Blofeld article however makes unnessasary of many images - some of cats which are pointless, merly to show th actor playing the character. The Windler talk 12:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Except that it serves to illustrate the different approaches to depicting the character, from the scarred Pleasance version - which should be illustrated as proof that it inspired the look of Dr. Evil in the Austin Powers film - to the burly look of Savalas and the effeminiate Charles Gray version. Plus the two occasions where only a part of Blofeld was seen (it isn't just pointless illustrations of cats as you put it). 23skidoo (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Really, the Ernst Stavro Blofeld articles is an example of {{non-free}}. Differing fair-use images are acceptable if there is no alternative. In the case of List of James Bond henchmen in Casino Royale, there isn't any alternative I can think of unless someone was able to capture an image of them filming and it being released freely. The Blofeld article however makes unnessasary of many images - some of cats which are pointless, merly to show th actor playing the character. The Windler talk 12:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- However, my understanding is that were these characters notable enough to warrant separate articles, then using a single screenshot (properly cited, etc) would be allowed. So what's the rule then? How is having screenshots used for different characters in what is technically an omnibus article any different than the multiple images used at Ernst Stavro Blofeld? 23skidoo (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- And most of them are cropped. Ultra! 15:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly not Ok per {{non-free}}. Ultra! 15:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Aston
Most articles say this is the same car from Goldfinger but the image page doesnt. What is true? Ultra! 15:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's the same type and make of the car in Goldfinger. It wouldn't be the exact car, used in the film (which would be numerous cars, anyway). The Windler talk 21:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am more serious about this than you think. An FPOC opens with this image and it will be shameful if only the name of the car is relevant to the portal. Ultra! 14:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Die Another Day allies
[3] Ultra! 19:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if Ultra accidentally cut off additional comment, but I think what was being pointed out was the fact the List of James Bond allies in Die Another Day article is now up for AFD. 23skidoo (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- My keyboard had problems and somebody jinxed Jinx (after a prod) to the allies list. Ultra! 15:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Heads up about a possible merger movement
There is a move afoot to merge some WikiProjects with some umbrella projects. Wikipedia:WikiProject Sherlock Holmes is currently subject to not one but two merger proposals, one to see it merged with Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels and the other with Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises. Similar WikiProjects around the Shannara books and Lemony Snicket are also under the same proposal. I don't know about them, but certainly Holmes is on par with Bond as worthy of a separate WikiProject. The concern here is whether someone might want to do the same proposal for this project. Aside from recommending everyone oppose the mergers currently on the table, we should keep an eye out for any merge attempt with Bond. (PS. I'm aware that, at least in the case of the Snicket WP, the idea was sparked by inactivity of the project, but I still think Sherlock Holmes should be kept separate. 23skidoo (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- It should also be noted that the guy who basically created the Sherlock Holmes project, me, was the one who proposed it be merged, given the minimal activity it has had. I should also note that I was the person who first tagged all three projects for merger, given that they were all marked as inactive at the time. the other two have had more recent activity, and the inactive tags have since been removed. Also, it should be noted that the Sherlock Holmes project is only now being capable of tagging and assessing articles, having not earlier had a banner, and that such is in fact being done. That project has been created, deleted, and recreated more than once. Also, now that the merger is completed, please note that the only aspect of "merger" involved is the project talk page template. It is also the only one which is being merged into the media franchises project that I know of. It is hoped that the creation of the new project might help start both projects, and potentially make it easier for dedicated groups like for Edgar Rice Burroughs/Tarzan and other similar groups to be created in the future. However, the only potential mergers will be with existing projects which have already been tagged as inactive, and the only really "merging" expected to be involved, at least with Media franchises, is in terms of the banner. John Carter (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone has a shot of Moneypenny in Never Say Never Again?
This page also needs same edits like Blofeld. Ultra! 14:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Sucession boxes
Some characters like Dr. No and Goldfinger have succession boxes, but others don't. Should we have them or not? Emperor001 (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Blank them. You have a nav template of characters. Ultra! 15:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- The nav template lists the villains in film order. Shouldn't the characters have 2 boxes? One for their place in the novels (ie Le Chiffre, then Mr. Big, then Hugo Drax, etc.) and a box for the films (ie Dr. No, then Rosa Kleb/Ernst Stavro Blofeld, then Goldfinger, etc.) Emperor001 (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- But its pointless to have any box if you are wikilinking to an article twice. Ultra! 20:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm also trying to get rid of film bias. The novels came first, therefore, should have a higher priority. The Nav box should list the characters in novel order. Emperor001 (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- But its pointless to have any box if you are wikilinking to an article twice. Ultra! 20:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- The nav template lists the villains in film order. Shouldn't the characters have 2 boxes? One for their place in the novels (ie Le Chiffre, then Mr. Big, then Hugo Drax, etc.) and a box for the films (ie Dr. No, then Rosa Kleb/Ernst Stavro Blofeld, then Goldfinger, etc.) Emperor001 (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Amy Winehouse's rehabilitation done?
Amy will write and record Quantum[4] If Amy has success in becoming free from illegal drugs.[5] Is the rehab done? Ultra! 20:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Does it matter, it's only a rumour. The Windler talk 22:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I checked those links and, with no disrespect to anyone intended, I'll take it as a bit more authoritative when we start seeing sources like Reuters and AP or the Times reporting this. Until they do, this falls under the same rumor as Kylie Minogue, Britney Spears, Nelly Furtado, Lily Allen and all the others who have been rumored to be in line to do the Quantum theme. That said, given how big she is, having Winehouse do it might well be a possibility, but they could also decide to go with a male performer like they did with Cornell. 23skidoo (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- The Sun has stated it.[6] Ultra! 14:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I checked those links and, with no disrespect to anyone intended, I'll take it as a bit more authoritative when we start seeing sources like Reuters and AP or the Times reporting this. Until they do, this falls under the same rumor as Kylie Minogue, Britney Spears, Nelly Furtado, Lily Allen and all the others who have been rumored to be in line to do the Quantum theme. That said, given how big she is, having Winehouse do it might well be a possibility, but they could also decide to go with a male performer like they did with Cornell. 23skidoo (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- The Sun is a tabloid just as those other ones. El Greco(talk) 14:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- So whose report is reliable? Ultra! 15:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Only official reports from MGM/EON/Sony etc. The Casino Royale article didn't put Chris Cornell down until it was officially announced. Before that, like this film, there will always be speculation about who will do it. There is speculation on every aspect of the film, but until it's confirmed, then it's just a rumour. The Windler talk 21:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Michael G. Wilson said it.[7] Ultra! 14:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Can someone fix this template, It looks ugly.
The Windler talk 06:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you initiated this novel and film segregation. Either take it back to it's pre split version or leave it as is. I merely added the subgroups because your edits didn't help the template at all by splitting film and novel characters by inserting the "by film" in the text. El Greco(talk) 19:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- We don't really need to segregate the two. Since all films not based on novels and short stories had novelisations, we don't need to have a separate section for novel and film characters. Just list them in novel order. Emperor001 (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, No, you have me completly mistaken, it quite fine the way it is, the format (how it looks) is ugly. The other charcters and officials part needs to be even, it looks ugly with the other charcters sticking out and the officials sticking in. I don't want the text changed, I want it to look neat. The Windler talk 22:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- We don't really need to segregate the two. Since all films not based on novels and short stories had novelisations, we don't need to have a separate section for novel and film characters. Just list them in novel order. Emperor001 (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- How's that look now? El Greco(talk) 00:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Novels over Films
As part of my opinion (and others) that the novels should be given AT LEAST equal status against the film, if not more status.
I have re-ordered the character template {{James Bond characters}} to be in the order of novels then films.
This orderisation should be continued in any lists/articles/templates that show extreme bias towards the films.
There is alot of work to do, to get this standard up, but the novels were first and even though the films are more popular, the would be no films without the novels.
Thanks. The Windler talk 22:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Finally! Glad to see I'm not the only one. Emperor001 (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Fine, but why are Spy who loved me and Moonraker in novels section when not even one character was in the novels? Ultra! 13:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- As long as there is a standard established and it is clear which has been followed. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Drax was in both the novel and film Moonraker. Emperor001 (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- His gangs were different. Ultra! 15:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Drax was in both the novel and film Moonraker. Emperor001 (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The characters template is back to original
That's due to overlap of novel-film and some characters being in films who have only title in common with novels. Ultra! 10:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- What a pussy reason. Reverted. The Windler talk 11:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
A page on a source
James Bond: The True Story is the latest Bond article and no sources to show notability! Ultra! 11:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, Somewhat like List of James Bond films cast members. The Windler talk 11:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- like James Bond films cast members??? see List of Harry Potter films cast members. Ultra! 14:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, but we already have Bond girl, List of James Bond villains etc. all lists which show the cast members.
- like James Bond films cast members??? see List of Harry Potter films cast members. Ultra! 14:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just because they have one for Harry Potter dosen't mean we need to have one.
- It's just repeating all the information from those articles into one big one. Completly pointless. The Windler talk 21:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Then we'd get it all in one. Eight films make up an FL. 22 must atleast start one. Ultra! 13:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's just repeating all the information from those articles into one big one. Completly pointless. The Windler talk 21:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Tomorrow Never Dies move
Emperor001 moved Tomorrow Never Dies to Tomorrow Never Dies (film) "Making this article consistent with all of the other Bond films"! Ultra! 19:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Emperor001 moved The World Is Not Enough too Ultra! 19:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't really see the point, the films are clearly more popular than the other things there. There not Ian Fleming novels which ae the main novels, and songs, soundtrack, novelisations and video games all stream from the film. I propose we revert. The Windler talk 21:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- The nothing in Naming conventions that says we should rename titles for consistency within series. Do you propose we move Quantum of Solace too? No. Alientraveller would revert immediately. But what it does on that article is good. In the video games section it has a main article thingo, when the music comes along, it will also do the same. I see no point in making these dis-ambiguious for the sake of making it consistent. The Windler talk 21:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, how to revert a move? Ultra! 13:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Also the Talk:Tomorrow Never Dies hasn't been moved yet. Note this if reverting involves any kind of speedy deletions. Ultra! 13:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, how to revert a move? Ultra! 13:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- The nothing in Naming conventions that says we should rename titles for consistency within series. Do you propose we move Quantum of Solace too? No. Alientraveller would revert immediately. But what it does on that article is good. In the video games section it has a main article thingo, when the music comes along, it will also do the same. I see no point in making these dis-ambiguious for the sake of making it consistent. The Windler talk 21:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed requested moves. I requested both. Ultra! 17:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I appologize for any trouble I caused, but I still stick to my beliefs. All films should be at Name of film (film) and then name of film should be the disambiguation. For one thing, this will make a person more aware of other things of the same name. For example, I had a friend who didn't know that there were James Bond novels until I told him. Emperor001 (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- That is not how consensus for disambiguations and primary topics works. If something is the primary topic of a title, such as the film for Tomorrow Never Dies, then that something gets the article at the base name. Awareness of other, non-primary topics is then handled by hatnotes such as {{otheruses}}. See WP:D#Primary topic. By consensus, all films should not be at Name of film (film); only those films that need to be disambiguated from something else and that are not the primary topic of their title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Then why did the Ian Fleming novels start as base names but then get changed to Name of Novel (novel). Under this policy, the Fleming novels should be at base name, but gradually, they were moved and I confess, after half of them were moved, I finished the job. Emperor001 (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Examples of some do is not proof that all should. Guessing, I'd say that community consensus determined that the Fleming novels were more "primary" that the novelizations of the later movies. Consensus can even be different for different Fleming novels. There is no policy that dictates which of several competing articles goes to the base name except "primary topic". It might be a film in one case, a novel in another, an album, song, person, or even a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Then why did the Ian Fleming novels start as base names but then get changed to Name of Novel (novel). Under this policy, the Fleming novels should be at base name, but gradually, they were moved and I confess, after half of them were moved, I finished the job. Emperor001 (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Those who haven't worked on the portal
Please give an opinion here. It's taking a lot of time. Ultra! 15:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Cover images of novels
Dr. No, From Russia, Goldfinger and OHMSS all use multiple novel covers which seem to be nothing more than decorations. I removed them but the uploader reverted. Any opinions whether we need these? Ultra! 14:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- As the uploader of many of the images, I should make a clarification here and state that someone else reverted, not me (with the exception of Octopussy and the Living Daylights for which I explained my rationale). As to the images themselves, hey some folks are quite happy to have no images at all, so I guess my query is what harm are these images doing to the articles or Wikipedia by their existence? If you really want to delete images, lose the 2002 Penguin covers and keep the first eds and vintage paperback images. 23skidoo (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
"Attempt"?
An "attempt" to improve content, etc.? It should read that the goal of the project is such and such. "Attempt"? "There is no 'try'. Do, or do not." -- Yoda Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- In Wikipedi, no-one is forced to do anything. We colloborate in the hope of improving content, but no one is obliged to do anything. The Windler talk 12:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- True, but a project has a goal. "Attempt" sounds lame. James Bond doesn't "attempt". He "accomplishes". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
New Quantum of Solace story collection - separate article justified?
I just discovered that in August 2008, Penguin will publish "Quantum of Solace: The Complete James Bond Short Stories" (link). Since this collection presumably will consist of the contents of the FYEO and OATLD books (since Fleming is credited as author I assume the Benson stories won't be included), is it justified to create a separate article for this collection, or would it suffice to simply create subsections of the two book articles? 23skidoo (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Time will tell. If the book gets source coverage then it can get its article, or else it stays in the film and FYEO novel articles. Ultra! 13:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Should the 007 Logo be Public domain?
Beacuse some like Star Wars are, due to simple geometry. Ultra! 20:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- No. While the "0" "0" "7" are ineligible for copyright, the James Bond official site (http://www.007.com/) clearly has down the bottom:
- "... 007 Gun Logo and related James Bond trademarks (c) Danjac, ..."
- It's a similar policy for the Olympic Rings. Technically they're just 5 interlocked circles, but the IOC owns the trademark on this arrangement of the geometry. In the case of the 007 logo, it's a very definite logo - the 7 is redesigned to look like a gun - so it is definitely a copyrightable/trademarkable logo. 23skidoo (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
- The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
- The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
- A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 554 articles are assigned to this project, of which 218, or 39.4%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.
If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Q article title
Your comments at Talk:Q ("James Bond" character)#Title of article would be welcome. Opera hat (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
List of villains articles
There are an absolute heap of articles in Category:Lists of James Bond henchmen. What concerns me is that these articles really should be in one article. Much information is duplicated from other articles also, for example List of James Bond henchmen in Moonraker contains information from List of James Bond henchmen in The Spy Who Loved Me#Jaws. This makes article maintenance difficult and it makes no logical sense to have different articles about essentially the same topic.
I'm proposing that these articles be merged into one article. What do people think? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- I support your proposal. Spy007au (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Does anybody else have an opinion? If nobody is unhappy with this in a few days I'll start the merge. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- I totally disagree. You should look at previous page at List of James Bond henchman here. Thats why we split it.
- While its not perfect as it is, Jaws, I believe is the only example that carries over more than one film. So its bad to point out that that is the case for the entire articles.
- So I don't agree with merging into one article, though I would like less than one per film, but I have no solution to split them otherwise. So please don't.
- And it has also been discussed before, see the archives of this talk page. The Windler talk 04:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I'm glad I waited for someone else to respond (I asked on the 8th!). I was not aware of the discussions in the archives, and as looking through archives is often tedius, daunting and difficult I didn't realise the objections. Perhaps however, if Jaws is a significant Bond villain that we could create his own article and use summary style in List of James Bond henchmen in Moonraker and List of James Bond henchmen in The Spy Who Loved Me? Would this be a reasonable way forward? My main concern is significant levels of unnecessary duplication in the list of articles. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't mind if you do that, as long as you do it well, not just copy and paste the content over. Sorry, the James Bond world is currently asleep, so I don't really read comments on this page, too much. That'll change come November. Thanks for your patience and I'm sorry for not relplying. The Windler talk 09:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- That's OK, not that concerned about the delay just a little surprised. :-) What is your concern if I copy the material into the Jaws article and then make the other article have a summary of Jaws? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think that giving Jaws his own article is the only perfect solution, theres too many for 1 article Highfields (talk) (contribs) 12:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Cool. Well, I'll leave it for a bit and think of the best way of doing this. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Media franchises
Dear WikiProject James Bond participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises' scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on multimedia franchises. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help the project get back on solid footing. Also, if you know of similar projects which have not received this, let Lady Aleena (talk · contribs) know. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. You can sign up here if you wish. Thank you. LA @ 21:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I was patrolling recent changes when I found an editor had marked Goldeneye (estate) as not notable. I was surprised to find that the article in question was still a one-paragraph unreferenced stub! I spent a bit of time expanding it, adding references, and wikifying it but from all the source I've found online and know of in various reference books I'd bet this could be brought up to B class in no time and Good status with a bit of work. I know this wikiproject has done some amazingly good work so I thought I should bring this particular article to your attention. - Dravecky (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Good question - I'm a bit surprised as well! I have asked Undead warrior to comment. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Franchise naming convention discussion at WikiProject Media franchises
Dear WikiProject James Bond participants...WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA (T) @ 22:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
dletion
Jus thought I'd let you know List of James Bond allies in Die Another Day has been nominated again for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of James Bond allies in Die Another Day (2nd nomination) here so... The Windler talk 21:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Here's another one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of James Bond henchmen in Die Another Day and someone has suggested ALL the lists be nominated. Here we go again. 23skidoo (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for James Bond
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Restart of colloboration
I was thinking, with the release of Quantum of Solace, that we restart the colloboration of the fortnight, while there is interest in the James Bond topic.
I would be please to again co-ordinate the collaboration and help it. It would only run for 20 weeks (10 articles) like last years, and I will be pesty on peoples takl pages to encourage their involvement.
For 6 of the 10, I would like to do the 6 James Bond flms (bar Quantum of Solace) that are not yet Good articles, this would push for my goal (which I haven't been helping with) for a featured topic of all James Bond films.
Any support or opposition. I would like to begin this weekend. Thanks The Windler talk 00:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Novels
Ok, I know that I was at first all for having all of the novels at Name of novel (novel), but when I tried to do the same with the films (Name of Film (film) )not based on Fleming novels, I was told that since the film was the primary topic, they should stay at Name of Film. Does that mean that the novels should be moved to simply Name of Novel? Every novel on Wikipedia that has become a movie is just at Name of Novel (like Frankenstein). Emperor001 (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, The Property of a Lady (film) has been created which is a look at the 17th James Bond film staring Dalton, that never was made. It seems to me, just to rehash the section from Mi6.co.uk as in the external links.
Personally, I would have the film redirected to GoldenEye, and perhaps expand the pre-production section there. Because all this leads into GoldenEye. Any other opinions?? The Windler talk 22:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- I thought this was an interesting article. It contains plenty of information on plot details/characters/etc of the proposed script that would be out of place in the Goldeneye article, so I think it should stay. Opera hat (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- I concur. Wikipedia has articles on novels that were planned and never published in major franchises -- including Per Fine Ounce for Bond -- and I see no reason why films should be any different. As long as the article is sourced, it doesn't matter if it's a rehash (as long as it's not a copyvio). Wikipedia is not MI6.co.uk so if another site covers the same material, who cares as long as what we publish is correct and sourced? The only issue I could see is if the film that follows QoS ends up being called Property of a Lady (it's pretty much the last really commercially viable Bond title from Fleming - neither Risico nor The Hildebrand Rarity really have that "punch" needed to be a good film title; ditto 007 in New York!). If Bond 23 ends up taking the title, we can always merge the articles or something. 23skidoo (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- I redirected it per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and Wikipedia:Notability (films). These novel articles should be merged then. Alientraveller (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Could you detail why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.223.75 (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- I redirected it per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and Wikipedia:Notability (films). These novel articles should be merged then. Alientraveller (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- I concur. Wikipedia has articles on novels that were planned and never published in major franchises -- including Per Fine Ounce for Bond -- and I see no reason why films should be any different. As long as the article is sourced, it doesn't matter if it's a rehash (as long as it's not a copyvio). Wikipedia is not MI6.co.uk so if another site covers the same material, who cares as long as what we publish is correct and sourced? The only issue I could see is if the film that follows QoS ends up being called Property of a Lady (it's pretty much the last really commercially viable Bond title from Fleming - neither Risico nor The Hildebrand Rarity really have that "punch" needed to be a good film title; ditto 007 in New York!). If Bond 23 ends up taking the title, we can always merge the articles or something. 23skidoo (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikiproject userbox
I don't know if anyone's noticed it, but the image that was being used for the James Bond Wikiproject userbox is no longer there, leaving just a black box. Perhaps whoever put the userbox together could find a picture of a gun or a martini glass (something public domain) that can be used? Even a piece of clip art. 23skidoo (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Length of colloboration.
Does anyone have a problem, with extending the colloboration from two weeks to a month. It will mean however, that their will be less colloborations in this "series". Probably cutting three or even four out. Unfortenuly, except for the few dedicated editors, there has been a lack of interest in the colloboration. If there are no responses I'll presume theres no objection?? The Windler talk 10:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- No objection from me. Spy007au (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Is Casino Royale (1954) a film?
I have a question, is the 1954 version of Casino Royale, a film. And should we give such status.
I ask mainly because, I want the "James Bond films" to become a good/featured topic. But I don't think anyone would really want to work on it. But I ask, is it actually a film? Or just a TV show? The Windler talk 11:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Technically TV Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 16:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I concur with Highfields. It was a live television performance as an installment of a dramatic anthology series entitled Climax. Although there have been cases of 1950s TV performances being released as movies such as Audrey Hepburn's Mayerling (1957), this was never the case with Casino Royale. However given that it is a unique case -- there has never been a Bond TV production since -- I'm not sure whether placing it into a category of one is appropriate either. 23skidoo (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that "just" because it is and unique case, means that it means it shouldn't have a category. I have changed the Casino Royale (54) article to be the "first screen adaption", which I think its a better repesentation. And on the James Bond (film series) page it would be better to say it wasn't a film. Theres not much information on it etc. I don't have a solution to what to do with the film, but I don't really want it on the template. The Windler talk 20:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
How the GA topic is going
Just on a side note, here is how the attempts to good articles on Bond films is going: (thanks to all editors assisting in our colloboration.
The Windler talk 20:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Quantum of Solace (short story collection)
Why did someone delete this article and redirect it to For Your Eyes Only? This collection is similiar to Octopussy and the Living Daylights, a compilation of already published short stories compiled after Fleming's death. It was mentioned as a tie-in to the film, listed the stories, and provided links to the other collections for plot summaries. Emperor001 (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- No it is not similar - it is a reprint of all of Flemings short stories, just combined For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy and the Living Daylights. You've made it as if its new Ian Fleming work, but its not. I believe it can be mentioned on the QOS (film) page and even the two Fleming short story collections pages. But theres no need for a entire new article. The Windler talk 20:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have to agree. Generally omnibuses and compilations (per the Novels WikiProject, for one) are usually not considered notable enough for their own articles, unless there is some reason it becomes independently notable. In this case, there is not independent notability and, most important from Wikipedia's perspective, no way to ever expand the article beyond it being simply a list of the stories and links back to the original. I don't actually think a redirect is the best way to go, though, as the QoS book contains the contents of TWO separate works; I would be in favor of turning it into a disambiguation page with the appropriate links. 23skidoo (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- But wasn't Octopussy and the Living Daylights a compilation of already published stories? Why does it get its own article? Emperor001 (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- The same goes for For Your Eyes Only. Because the stories were published for the first time in book form in these two publications. Also these two books are universally considered part of the Fleming canon on the same par as, say, Thunderball. The QoS book is simply a mashing together of the two books with no attempt beyond the cover art to do anything different. Hell, it even includes the same intro do 007 in New York that was written for the third edition of O&TLD. There is nothing in the combined edition to set it apart. If we're going to do an article on it, then we are obligated to do articles on, say, the Gilt-Edged Bond compliation of the 1960s, for example. 23skidoo (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- True, but Octopussy and the Living Daylights was the first time those four short stories were published in novel form, rather than seperate stories in magazines. But if you would prefer to seperate those stories into separate artciles, I don't really mind (though it would create four stubs rather than at least a length article). But Quantum of Solace is just a rehash of all of those stories, a differing publication. I can go down to my store and buy "Casino Royale, Live and Let Die and Moonraker" all in one book. I don't really think that deserves its own article though. The Windler talk 20:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- But wasn't Octopussy and the Living Daylights a compilation of already published stories? Why does it get its own article? Emperor001 (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have to agree. Generally omnibuses and compilations (per the Novels WikiProject, for one) are usually not considered notable enough for their own articles, unless there is some reason it becomes independently notable. In this case, there is not independent notability and, most important from Wikipedia's perspective, no way to ever expand the article beyond it being simply a list of the stories and links back to the original. I don't actually think a redirect is the best way to go, though, as the QoS book contains the contents of TWO separate works; I would be in favor of turning it into a disambiguation page with the appropriate links. 23skidoo (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Stupid edit conflicts - my previous edit is on same level as 23skidoo and sorry if I repeated his stuff. The Windler talk 20:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- No worries. I wouldn't be in favor of the short stories being treated as separate articles, though, as it's debatable whether they'd all be considered notable enough to warrant their own (particularly 007 in New York). We do have an article called James Bond uncollected short stories that covers the short stories that haven't been collected into books yet. But I do feel the two collections are simply too longstanding to split up. The Quantum of Solace book was only just released and will probably only be available for a short time since there's no indication that Penguin/IFP are taking the other two books out of print. Far from it - new hardcover editions of both appeared only a few weeks before the QoS collection came out. 23skidoo (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Very well, forget I said anything. Didn't know they combined novels together into a single book. Emperor001 (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- No worries. I wouldn't be in favor of the short stories being treated as separate articles, though, as it's debatable whether they'd all be considered notable enough to warrant their own (particularly 007 in New York). We do have an article called James Bond uncollected short stories that covers the short stories that haven't been collected into books yet. But I do feel the two collections are simply too longstanding to split up. The Quantum of Solace book was only just released and will probably only be available for a short time since there's no indication that Penguin/IFP are taking the other two books out of print. Far from it - new hardcover editions of both appeared only a few weeks before the QoS collection came out. 23skidoo (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Stupid edit conflicts - my previous edit is on same level as 23skidoo and sorry if I repeated his stuff. The Windler talk 20:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Future-Class
Hi there! I'm a developer of {{WPBannerMeta}}, the meta-template that your project banner is based on. Following changes there we're intending to rescind default support for "Future-Class", which your project uses in the form of Category:Future-Class James Bond articles. There is an alternative system in place which makes it easy for the project to continue using this special class if you wish to do so, but I'm curious as to whether you think it is actually helpful to your project to have articles tagged in this way. Should I go ahead and implement the workaround to maintain the "Future-Class" through this transition, or would you prefer it to be removed? Happy‑melon 21:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry mix
I propose Bond character articles, whenever applicable, should clearly differentiate between the books (primary), films (secondary) and other derivatives in respective sections. 222.127.223.75 (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Its already been implemented that the novels are first and foremost priority in terms of characters, and if the character is used in film (or other) then that is an adaption of that character. Feel free to edit any character articles to support such. Previously, the James Bond community which edited the articles, went as if the novels never existed. Undoubtedly, the films are more popular than the novels, but it dosen't mean they are protorised. The Windler talk 04:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Dry run
- Here's a rough rearranging of the James Bond (character) page which aims for the anon's standard above. If one looks at the LOTR character articles, their style (books first), if not format, is what I'm trying to emulate. It could use polishing, since I'm not that familiar with the book version at least. Uthanc (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Put any comments here, please. Uthanc
- Good idea. 222.127.213.99 (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Put any comments here, please. Uthanc
- Here's a rough rearranging of the James Bond (character) page which aims for the anon's standard above. If one looks at the LOTR character articles, their style (books first), if not format, is what I'm trying to emulate. It could use polishing, since I'm not that familiar with the book version at least. Uthanc (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)