Wikipedia talk:WikiProject James Bond/Archive 2

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

message: *Due to the fact there are only 22 Bond films (+ unofficials), they all should follow the same pattern (eg. all have a vechiles and gadgets section, all have productions sections.  Due to Casino Royale (2006 film) being a current feature article candidate and Thunderball used to be a featured article i think we should base them off these.  No trivia SpecialWindler 11:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wow, pretty strong words from a non-member.  Word to the wise, joke or no joke, Blofeld and his cat have been helping the James Bond articles on Wikipedia more than any other user (as if his Username didn't prove it), and you, Sir, are on the losing side of that fight.  True, the format shouldn't hurt the articles and all the articles do not have to fit perfectly into the exact same format...however, they should be pretty close.  Frankly, I like the idea.  I don't think it should be hurting articles, but I do think all the films should follow the same format.  In fact, I'd consider adding more parts to that format.  Sbharris, you need to take a chill pill and a long deep breath, and not be ripping on one of the projects best members just because you disagree with making all the films in a  film series look like they are indeed a series.  Ganfon 02:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *LOL, as you see, you make my own point there at the end, only half in jest. And why can't I have strong opinions if I haven't joined Der Projekt? Is there a decoder ring that goes with it? This is just one more example of needless uniformitarianism. What does anything about me as editor matter, except that I've seen all the films and read all the books many times (plus some criticism), and know and care about the material? Perhaps I haven't joined, because I don't agree with all the project's goals. For example, NO TRIVIA. If you read WP:TRIV the point is to avoid random collections of unrelated facts. This does not mean that related tidbits cannot be collected in their own sections, and specifically mentioned as kosher are "creating a more targeted list of closely-related items, such as Cameos or Continuity errors" for films. These are not simply trivia by another name. A lot of such info has been removed from Goldfinger, I think to the article's detriment. If the Wikiproject Bond aims to have different and more stringent standards than Wikipedia for these films, there's another problem. And so on. SBHarris 00:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes sense to make all of the articles similar, at least by section titles and/or basic layout for example. Besides, the guidelines for WP:FILMS also apply to each article we're talking about, and all film articles should be somewhat alike (in a similar manner as to how they should be alike under this wikiproject).Cliff smith 01:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *All finished for official films. ColdFusion650 17:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film Suggestions 

message: it seems that after the original hype of this project it has died down, i spose that happens with other projects ?? keep contributing 007 fans. SpecialWindler 09:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider: the only tasks listed are either routine tasks (reviewing articles, checking recent changes) or are obsolete (citing sources on James Bond). Until the next film comes out, what can we honestly do? Editus Reloaded 14:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is some work to be done. If we were done, all the articles would be FA. The only thing is, most of it is copy editing and stylistic things, way above my writing abilities. ColdFusion650 15:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't noticed any copyediting issues in any WP:007 articles that I've seen, perhaps make a list of them and people can pick ones out to fix. Editus Reloaded 18:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ?? 

message: 
Is up for deletion because it is orphaned.  
I have added the image to James Bond (films) so it isn't deleted.
Why is this image not on James Bond.  It is too importance image for it to be deleted.
SpecialWindler 06:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The code for the image is actually still in the James Bond article (edit the Ian Fleming's creation and inspiration section to see it). Can't remember who commented it out but their rationale was that the image was just there as decoration and not to explain a point in the article and hence had no fair use rationale. - X201 10:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:007.svg 

message: Seeing this WikiProject is dying down, it may soon become defunct (which is not what we want). Now in a active talk above, some say that there is nothing to do, until Bond 22 comes out but 262 starts or stubs that should get up to B class at the minumum, plus 68 unassessed articles. More shockingly is that there are no Feature Articles (FA) and only 8 Good articles or A-Class. For a topic which is so popular it should be better.
I propose a Collaboration of the fortnight, which every fortnight will nominate an article in the whelm of WP:James Bond, and improve it to get to Good Article status. Note good, not featured. I feel it will take too long to get any certain article to featured status, which will not help the development of other articles. Meaning if we strive to get Dr. No to FA, it may take a long time for From Russia with Love to get to any better. Also we shouldn't pick James Bond or major pages as one as it may take a while to clean up etc.
Articles that should be nominated, should primarly be the 21 films and all the novels (especially Fleming's) and main characters that become FA's eg Le Chiffre but not Mr. White.
I will start this collaboration if there is no conseus or majority support by June 25 2007. I would also like to promote the collaboration to get more interest by alerting all the members on their talk pages. Any comments SpecialWindler 06:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Second. I think that Dr No would be a good start; it's the first canonical film and it should be at least A-class I reckon. Editus Reloaded 11:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's a fortnight? ColdFusion650 11:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortnight: Anglicised term for two weeks. Cos "mission of the week" SO didn't work. Editus Reloaded 14:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, wait. The mission of the week lasted for more than 2 weeks. It was over a month. Maybe it should be mission of the month. ColdFusion650 16:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but MOTW was to get a massive article up to Featured status; here we are aiming to get a single film or character article to Good Article status, a much easier proposition. Editus Reloaded 17:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be some support, so I may start in a couple of hours. I agree that Dr. No should be our first start, but from then it'll work on a nomination basis. SpecialWindler 21:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Good work with the pics of the DVD's and videos.
If this collaboration is a success and there is good participation, then in may be proposed to move it forward to Collaboration of the week, to get more articles up to GA status. The nominations should be random (meaning, lets not go Dr. No - FRWL - GF so on, one fortnight it may be a film, then a novel, then character or whatever.) 
Please feel free to add a nomination on the collaboration page and promote it, I have already put one there for the next fortnight. Please keep contributing to Dr. No (film) SpecialWindler 11:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal of Collaboration of the Fortnight 

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

text: Well a bot wouldn't ask why. It probably tagged everyone from the IMDB cast lists. Totnesmartin 21:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Anthony Ainley]] 

message: I noticed that many Bond girl articles are short. So, I created List of Bond Girls in Moonraker and List of Bond Girls in The Man with the Golden Gun, as a beginning to merge them. Any Comments?  Vikrant Phadkay 15:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was once done, but reverted. SpecialWindler  talk 21:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But why did this happen previously? The articles are too short, and this is not a movie-specific encyclopedia that we have articles for every character.  Vikrant Phadkay 14:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: What exactly is this article meant for? Is the satellite important enough?  Vikrant Phadkay 16:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably important enough to have it's own article. But seeing nobody works on the article it probably isn't very good. It only has 4 links to it in the mainspace too. SpecialWindler  talk 06:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It contains mainly OR. Should it be deleted?  Vikrant Phadkay 15:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it just needs work. There are far less useful articles on here, and where else would the information go? - • The Giant Puffin • 18:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[GoldenEye (fictional satellite weapon)]] Hahaha! 

message: Though I profess to a large Bondography in my brain, I'm rubbish at using Wikipedia. If someone could do me the eternal favour of sorting about my membership of the project at the bottom of the page I would be very, very grateful. Racooon 12:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is this, I could look at the history, but you should sign your comments, so I won't, please do. And I don't quite understand what you mean? SpecialWindler  talk 23:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry... 

message: I was thinking that we should make the James Bond films a Featured Topic. Gradually over time, all the articles should be GA, with some FA. The collaboration of the fortnight should get all the films up to GA, while GoldenEye, Casino Royale (06) can get up to FA status. Here is it currently
Of course there isn't Casino Royale (54)(67) or NSNA. So the category will have to be changed. SpecialWindler  talk 07:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should probably be one of our main goals - • The Giant Puffin • 10:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Dr. No (film) is a current GA candidate. Hopefully, this is going to pass, gradually we will get all top/high articles up to GA status. Hopefully, as well, others gain FA status, which is required in a Featured topic. Get to work people, thanks. SpecialWindler  talk 11:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Topic 

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

message: User:Vikrant Phadkay has been merging Bond girl pages into the by film. I don't know why he is doing this. If there was a consesus that I haven't seen please tell me, but unless you put the template  on all the pages for at least a week, then you can't just go merging the pages.
This happened once before, but all of the Bond girls by film pages were reverted back to the their original states. Why do it again. SpecialWindler  talk 00:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take Dr. No for example. While Honey Rider has enough to make GA/FA, Miss Taro dosen't. Why should Honey Rider's article suffer because of Miss Taro. Thats an example, Miss Taro is actually a henchwoman, but the principle is there. SpecialWindler  talk 21:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bond girls 

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

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

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

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

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

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject James Bond/Character Article Layout
On the talk page of this one, we can discuss the merger. That's because, individually the articles to be merged are too many.  Vikrant Phadkay 14:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A modest proposal 

message: Just letting people know, that this article has been created and was not deleted despite a deletion tag. SpecialWindler  talk 23:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bond 23]] 

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

message: Failed for good article status. Considering this article was a former featured article, it needs a little help.
I know people tell me that had the article had not been split up between novel and film, it may still be FA. But if the novel section was anything like this when it was all together, then I think this article would have lost its FA pretty quickly.
You can see the reviewers comments on the talk page Talk:Thunderball (novel)
SpecialWindler  talk 21:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Thunderball (novel)]] 

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

message: Just wanted to say it looks great! Cheers, Cliff smith 00:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, did it myself. SpecialWindler  talk 00:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks nice, but do we need 2 Stats boxes (the boxes that split the articles into categories) so close together? El Greco (talk · contribs) 00:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes it looks good, more organised than before. Nice work! - • The Giant Puffin • 21:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear. But I noticed there isn't a section for recent article edits/creations any more - should there be? Opera hat 18:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project page redesign 

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

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

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

message: Just thought I would spread the good news. One of those much sought after little gold stars has appeared at the top of the Casino Royale (2006 film) article today. - X201 18:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hurray!!!!!!! El Greco (talk · contribs) 21:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yippee!! It's my first FA. Thanks to everyone who expanded it before the second FAC.  Vikrant Phadkay 15:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casino Royale FA 

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

message: * 15 September 2007 - expires 20 September
** CommanderBond.net (PROD by User:Alksub; "...the largest James Bond fansite on the Internet….launched the Internet’s first dedicated, James Bond podcast.") --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this? El Greco (talk · contribs) 01:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletions ([[WP:PROD]]) 

message: A View to a Kill and Die Another Day are in the backlog since long. Someone please review them.  Vikrant Phadkay 16:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't, we are all too familuar with the articles, even though you have changed them. Just wait, have patience. They will be reviewed in time. GA candidates can take up to a month. If after a month add it to the top part where it has: Longest GA candidates... SpecialWindler  talk (currently ) 00:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAC Backlog 

message: I normally focus on Warcraft-related articles, where there's a perennial problem with articles that belong on the Warcraft wiki instead. But while browsing the other day, I noticed that literally every Bond girl has its own page and wanted to spare people the trouble of a deletion nomination like this. It's probably because they receive less attention and are part of major film productions, but I'm sure there's a wiki where they can be transwiki'd. Just a thought. Luatha 01:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed before, if you would like a link to numerous discussion about this, then ask.  SpecialWindler  talk (currently )  06:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character pages 

message: Please check this template and see if it is necessary. I think it seems redundant in the fact that we already have one that lists the films, but this one lists the actors and the films.  El Greco(talk) 19:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is redundant, nominate it for deletion.  SpecialWindler  talk (currently )  21:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nominated. El Greco(talk) 00:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bond era Template 

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

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

message: :: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion: List of James Bond henchmen 

message: Should the Status field be kept in the ? It can easily be made to conform to both the novels and the films. El Greco(talk) 17:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see it return but it creates problems, like the following needed bits.
**Ian Fleming Novels
**Films
**Continuation Novels
**Films - Reboot
For someone like Felix Leiter, has many variations among those.  SpecialWindler  talk (currently )  20:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean. Any idea how to fix it? Should the template just be for movie characters, that way it will be easily decernable between the two films (old and reboot)? Another possibility is to equip the template with the four fields from above. I would like to see it come back, otherwise the within the articles themselves we would have to make it known if it's not already known. El Greco(talk) 16:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status 

message: I'd like to give congrats to Vikrant Phadkay for getting the second FA for this project. Well Done.  SpecialWindler  talk (currently )  20:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  Vikrant Phadkay (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second FA 

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

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

message: No. 8 is now into No. 3. Fine?  Vikrant Phadkay 19:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe retitle cast and crew?-66.109.248.114 20:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Is the crew template necessary? Besides Barbara, Michael, Saltzman, Broccoli who produce it (an maybe a few of the unofficial ones), are the directors (both Eon and non Eon), and production needed? El Greco(talk) 01:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ulitmately, I would agree w/ El Greco.  As I stated before, I feel that the crew template is too focused of an aspected to be accessible. However, in the effort of community, if it were to be decided to merge vs. deletion overall, rename it to cast and crew. -66.109.248.114 23:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One more template merged 

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

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

message: A small group of editors has taken it upon themselves to purge Wikipedia of what they deem to be unnecessary pop culture-related articles. Hiding behind the often-misused Wikipedia guideline (which is not the same as policy) on articles related to topcis in fiction, they are currently going after many articles related to Star Trek, and I expect it's only a matter of time before other franchises are similarly attacked. (And I'm using that word because the articles being nominated are not of the trivial variety) Their claim is that the subject or topic of the article must have multiple (not just single) sources asserting real-world notability beyond the fictional universe. Under that criteria, if there aren't sources indicating how M cured cancer or inspired someone to go into politics, or what have you, virtually any article related to James Bond characters, organizations, or items could well be targeted, save for the main Bond article itself. Just fair warning. It's nonsense like this that led me to stop contributing to Wikipedia for nearly a year and I think I'm due to step away once again. 23skidoo (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are all welcome as they are partly true.  Vikrant Phadkay 15:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Please don't leave Wikipedia, but I completely agree with you. There is a lot of nonsense in Wikipedia. But it seems to me that articles like James Bond gunbarrel sequence (which has absolutely no sources at all) will be up for deletion. And there will be alot of JB articles (such as Universal Exports, Vesper (cocktail), Shaken, not stirred, and more) will be up for deletion. If any user finds an article up for deletion, please note it here, though the nominator should anyway. But these people obviously want the articles deleted so probably won't. Because ALOT of JB articles don't have sources.  SpecialWindler  talk (currently )  20:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has User:TTN written all over it. El Greco(talk) 23:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That will never happen.  Vikrant Phadkay 17:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 3 more on PROD: Christmas Jones, Pam Bouvier and Lupe Lamora. They are only appearing in 1 film. Articles would never be more than plot summaries.  Vikrant Phadkay 18:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is Vesper (cocktail) up for PROD, it's actually sourced? El Greco(talk) 20:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That source is just a copy of the novel and can't sustain an article.  Vikrant Phadkay 15:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Why is Vikrant Phadkay putting these articles up for PROD. I thought it was this "group of editors" that were targeting. Now we have a member of our own project going around putting PROD on articles.  SpecialWindler  talk (currently )  21:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply imagine yourself as someone outside the project.  Vikrant Phadkay 15:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The characters listed above are not Flemiing's creations but are film-only + perfectly resembling novelisations and cameos in some unheard of games.  Vikrant Phadkay 15:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I don't get that either. Is Phadkay trying to get those weak articles out of the way before the storm comes, so the James Bond articles aren't hit as hard, or is their some other meaning behind his actions? El Greco(talk) 00:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you both saying? My reasons about the PRODS listed above are valid. They are not weak articles. They are unencyclopedic. Sources don't even exist!  Vikrant Phadkay 15:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: For the same reason Stacey Sutton and Pola Ivanova are on PROD. Film only characters and pages are just plot summaries.  Vikrant 14:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm split over the issue. You can't tell me that Christmas Jones is not notable, but the article's condition is disgraceful. I still don't understand why Vikrant Phadkay is putting these on PROD. Where is the proof that these articles are unencyclopedic. It would be the same as the page for James Bond (character), its still a character but it's encyclopedic. Anyway, this will raise the old question of James Bond girls by film thingo. There is no way that characters can't have a info on it on Wikipedia. Damm you Vikrant Phadkay. (Sorry, but you've gone over the top by putting these articles on PROD, but you are doing some great work with other James Bond articles.  SpecialWindler  talk (currently )  20:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then show me the article better. James Bond (character) is obviously notable. You think i will ever question that?  Vikrant 14:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Just as a heads up, an anonymous IP tried to split the Bond Film template into "original series" and "reboot series" sections, obviously being unaware that Living Daylights and GoldenEye were both reboot Bond films as well. There should be consensus before making such a judgement call on the template. I have reverted it back to status quo, but am noting it here in case the anon user takes umbrage. 23skidoo (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if The Living Daylights or GoldenEye were reboots. They were different in a way, but mainly because of actor. Anyway, your right,  while it is a reboot, its not a different "series" of movies. They are all Bond movies, and none are chronologically ordered. Some are implied to be in order, and the obvious advancement in technology implies that it is set in the year it is made. So to say that the first 20 films are a series is not correct.  SpecialWindler  talk  00:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: They were reboots in the sense that neither Dalton nor Brosnan could have possibly experienced the events of, say, From Russia with Love in the year of original production, unlike Moore who was actually older than Connery. So they were reboots in the sense that the events of previous films would, by necessity, have to be "retconned" into having taken place in later years. 23skidoo (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: User Notscott went ahead and included a list of the JB actors. The user has just included on the official actors though. Should we keep it like that or revert back to the old one? Should we just make the template include both the films and the JB actors to combine the two templates into one like this: User:El Greco/JamesBond El Greco(talk) 23:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a big fan of the change as it makes the non-EON section look awkward. What do others think? 23skidoo (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well now it looks like User:Dell9300 has gone on and replaced all the templates with that purple color and made them all have groups on the left side. El Greco(talk) 14:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be fair, it works well with the Books template, so I have no objections with that one. 23skidoo (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not touching that one, just changing the color to be with the other bond templates. El Greco(talk) 16:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I'm not a big fan of the color either but I wasn't sure if there wasn't some style standard related to it so I left it be, myself. 23skidoo (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: who confirms it's property of a lady?  Vikrant 09:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has. That's the point. The anon is taking rumor as fact. We won't know till EON or some major media like CNN announces it. 23skidoo (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: My point is to return it to this version, the oiginal and the best.  SpecialWindler  talk  10:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I joined them because the  is somewhat useless, and was better joining it with . El Greco(talk) 16:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But really, it would be better to remove the template in the first place.  I at least pose this question: If the template is on films, why are their radio and stage actors on Bond?  SpecialWindler  talk  20:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, maybe a bad choice to keep the name the same and integrate one into another. Would you rather the template be called ? El Greco(talk) 20:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then that would totally outlaw the non-eon productions. Or include Everything ever made, novels. They are part of the franchise.  SpecialWindler  talk  01:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I can't come up with a different name. Any suggestions? El Greco(talk) 01:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To revert it back to this version.  SpecialWindler  talk  02:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You want to have two templates when a combines one can just name the films (EON & NonEon) and the actors? It could be limited to just the film actors with the removal of all the voice/radio etc. This template joining was discussed in both the JBThemes and JBSoundtracks TFD pages as well as on this talk page. So I think joining it, changing it to conform to its new needs would suffice more than having two seperate templates. Obviously it would be renamed like for example  or something along those lines. I think one template would be much more beneficial instead of two. It's not like there is so much information it would be squished together and unmanagable. El Greco(talk) 17:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Retitled it.  Vikrant 10:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bond film template