Talk:Quantum of Solace/Archive 1

message: Does anyone have information on whether or not book titles and plotlines by James Bond authors other than Ian Fleming, (i.e. John Gardner) have been considered for future bond films? Flibirigit 07:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: EON/Danjaq only has the rights to the Ian Fleming books. To adapt a Gardner or Benson book, they would have obtain it from Ian Fleming Publications. I doubt this will ever happen, honestly. It would take a pretty successful book from a continuation author to get them to pick it up (at least now - you could argue Colonel Sun, but then there's the whole Per Fine Ounce / Harry Saltzman tangle). According to Cubby Broccoli they'd never do it because it's cheaper to just write their own. K1Bond007 22:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of titles, although it's good to be thorough, there is no way that "007 in New York" will ever be considered as a title for this film, so I removed it from the list of possibilities. Personally I doubt we'll ever see "Quantum of Solace" used either because Joe Moviegoer would have no idea what it meant. 23skidoo 14:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said in the edit summary, it may be unconventional and while the likelihood of "007 in New York" ever being used is very small, it is still a possibility and to remove it would clearly be POV. I disagree with your statement about "Quantum of Solace", although your explanation for it is perhaps apt. If I was a betting man I'd say Bond 22 will be "Risico" (titles only, although I can see variations of the source material being used kind of akin to Licence to Kill and Live and Let Die) followed by Bond 23 being "The Property of a Lady" perhaps followed by Quantum. I have a feeling they're going to use up the remaining 'good' Fleming titles with Craig and the fate of Quantum will, just a guess, share the same fate as Craig (i.e., if he does 4, then we'll see it, but if only 3 thar be then probably not for a long while). K1Bond007 05:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "The Property of a Lady" is the more likely title IMO because it's the easiest one for them to write a theme song for, which is another reason why I don't think Quantum of Solace, Risco, Hildebrand Rarity or 007 in New York stand much of a chance. The producers want to maximize marketing potential. Granted Casino Royale isn't particularly good for this, and whoever does the theme will have the spectre (pun intended) of Herb Alpert over them, but unless there's been an announcement to the contrary my money is on CR using the James Bond Theme, period. And CR has other marketing hooks such as being the first book, and MGM/Sony will probably rake in extra dough from sales of the 1967 film on DVD (I expect there to be a special edition reissue but don't quote me on that). 23skidoo 15:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe EON/Danjaq have got the right to adapt any Bond book, because the literary rights for all the books belong to Ian Fleming Publications and I remember reading an interview with Wilson where he said they had all the books, including the continuation novels, in the EON offices "in case we run out of ideas". 86.138.125.156 16:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want to compare it to Casino Royale, it was released November 06, and the title announced May 05, Bond 22 will be released Nov. 08, and its past May 07, so I suppose it overdue the title, but the script is written so you'd think they'd be a title. SpecialWindler  talk 01:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Titles

message: Herein lies the danger of believing rumor. I can't find anything to suggest Uwe Boll is even up for consideration as director of Bond 22, so have removed all referernces to this. I've also blocked the anon who was adding this material on the grounds that there is evidence these were bad faith and possibly vandalistic (real word?) edits. Similarly, I can find no indication that Judi Dench will return as M or that John Cleese will return as Q -- I don't think it's even been announced that Q will even be in Bond 22. I imagine more details will emerge as the year goes on, but I personally don't expect any real confirmations until CR is out. If anyone can prove that Boll is going to be the director of the next Bond, then I will revert my edits with apologies... 23skidoo 15:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, vandalism. There's no way they'd hire Uwe Boll. Even if he wasn't one of the worse directors  his schedule is lined up through pretty much this decade. K1Bond007 03:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uwe Boll?

message: I had difficulty finding any confirmation regarding this putative title (Risico).  None of the links provided had any mention of the new title.  Can anyone confirm this information?   Em-jay-es 22:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Risico? 

message: I'm probably asking for trouble by starting a Cast section, but since we do have one confirmed cast member -- Daniel Craig -- I figured we may as well start it. For what good it'll do I have included an embedded message urging people to include citations once the inevitable casting reports and rumors start flowing. That said, I won't be surprised to check my watchlist one day and find someone has tried to claim that Gilbert Gottfried has been cast as M or something... ;) 23skidoo 00:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find anything on movieweb that says that he has been cast in the film. The link you added to the main article didn't work and a search of the site didn't turn anything up so I've removed it from the main article. Supply a verifiable link and it can be added back in. - X201 09:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A source left a letter on your desk? That's the equivalent of "I know a guy." Usually the "I know a guy" routine is used as an excuse for people to make up stuff. The possibility of you actually knowing someone connected to the production that could say things with a measure of accuracy is very small. I laugh in your general direction. ColdFusion650 01:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast section

message: Why is Bond 23 redirected to Bond 22, we know Daniel Craig is James Bond, thats it.  I know there isn't enough info to start this article but why does it redirect to Bond 22. In my opininon it should redirect to James Bond or have no article at all
: Please sign your comments. The redirect was put in place to discourage anyone from creating a Bond 23 article at this stage. I believe there was an attempt to do so, but the fact is aside from the fact Craig may or may not play Bond (there are differing reports as to whether he is in fact signed for a third film), anything else would be simply crystal-balling or speculation. A redirect was also created as a "place holder". If history repeats itself and verifiable information about Bond 23 begins to emerge before Bond 22 even starts filming, then a bonifide article could begin to take shape at that point. Redirects are cheap. 23skidoo 20:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bond 23 redirect 

message: I reverted it because the article used as a source isn't credible. The details are wrong and we shouldn't make entire changes to this page based on a rumor. It said Bond 22 will be based on the short story Risico, but this is already false as Risico's story was used as the main plot for the 81 film For Your Eyes Only. They're not going to reuse it. They could do something similar like LTK reusing LALD's story, but the rumor doesn't say that. It also said the villain was Colombo. This is false. Had they even bothered to read the story or see FYEO they would have seen that Colombo was actually a good guy, not the villain and regardless the character was already used. The title may very well end up being used (I hope so) and Campbell may end up returning, but this is just speculation. Hardly credible at all. K1Bond007 21:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still worth noting as The Sun is a major publication and it's also been reported on sites such as Commander Bond. Just like the rumors surrounding who was going to play Bond, Vesper, etc. I think it's interesting to track some of these rumors -- provided, of course, that they are identified as rumors and come from reputable sources. A major national newspaper -- even a tabloid -- does fit that bill. A news group or blog, however, does not, so we need to be careful on this. Anticipating someone will add it anyway, I went ahead and added this rumor to the For Your Eyes Only book page, before someone else came along and posted that it was official, or something like that. 23skidoo 17:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the Sun is a major tabloid. There's a difference. Just because someone else runs an article based on the Sun's speculation doesn't make the information any more true. The Sun started the crap about The Killers being offered the job for the next theme song and guess what? It was BS. Confirmed by the band itself. The Sun cannot be trusted and should not be used as a "credible source" on Wikipedia especially this far out from the actual production of the film. You would think Wikipedia learned it's lesson last time. K1Bond007 22:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Risico Rumor

message: im confused has this been confrimed yet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.129.223.109 (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  continues where Casino Royale left off?  

message: Daniel Craig did not request a gay scene in Bond 22, this was simply a tabloid rumor that was taken out of context about his new film, "Infamous"' started by the idiots at DCINB.Com. Daniel Craig was simply stating that Bond fans should accept him for no matter which role he takes, which is true.
All rumors should be removed from this article. They're not encyclopedic and therefore should not be included.PureSoldier 23:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bond 22 rumors. 

message: SOURCE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.129.223.109 (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't one, it's entirely unfounded as of this time. 86.137.7.216 17:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Seventh Stranger 

message: The title of bond 22 is.....................ICEBREAKER! http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/9895/icebreaker07teaserquad8yj.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.42.12 (talk • contribs) 
:That's a cheap imitatation of a Bond poster. Also uses old "007" logo, not the current one. Mark83 19:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus music is spelt wrong. Unisouth 17:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, they spelt music wrong! Anyways, that Bond pic a promo pic from Casino Royale. Flamingtorch372 23:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title and cinematic art 

message: I'm sorry, but I can find no information to back up this title for this film. It's not called 'Kill or be Killed', really. I suggest a reversion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkCat (talk • contribs) 
:I've reverted. Mark83 19:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the link at James Bond back to Bond 22. This all seems like another "Beyond the Ice" moment. We should have a policy that the name stays as Bond 22 until only Eon or MGM announce otherwise. - X201 09:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't agree more. Mark83 09:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kill or be Killed?

message: EA previously had exclusive rights to develop bond games. This is mentioned in the James_Bond_games wiki article. Perhaps a link to the relevant section of that article should be included on this page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.200.201 (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Activision Rights?

message: Based on statistical analysis of the previous 21 titles, there is a 1 in 7 chance that the word "gold" will appear in the title. (Goldfinger, The Man with the Golden Gun, and GoldenEye make 3 out of 21.) This may be original research, but does anyone else think that this should be mentioned in the article? ColdFusion650 19:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not without reliable sourcing to back it up. Otherwise it's just your opinion. It's a "logical deduction" that doens't need sourcing for the data part, but the part that says it has a chance is original research. Obviously you could say "1 in every 7 Bond films has had the word Gold in the title", but that is neither here nor there, because it doesn't pertain to this article.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 20:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: How about 'Die' in the title? Tomorrow Never Dies, Live and Let Die, Die Another Day ?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 20:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello people, this isn't a forum. Alientraveller 20:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold in the Title 

message: I know someone reverted the part about David Tennant being interested in being the villain. Whoever it was, along with their lack of punctuation and need to capitalize every word, left out the reference. I'm not sure if it belongs here, since he's just expressed interest and not actually signed, but the article is here. ColdFusion650 21:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Tennant 

message: *
It confirms they've handed in their draft. Alientraveller 08:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations for use (add here) 

message: I've seen some rumors about the cast from IMDb. Should it be written as a temporary info or not? In my opinion it should be added, but then deleted when the cast is fully confirmed. --T-9000 20:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because there are no sources to those rumors. The only source is IMDB.com and who knows where that information comes from. Now unless some other site can actually back up what IMDB.com is posting as possible casts, then you can post it but otherwise no imdb info. El Greco (talk • contribs) 20:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what "rumours" are being discussed here. Of course it depends on the context, however to add information all one needs is an authoritative source, and imdb.com is. El Greco I really don't understand what authority you have to veto any imdb referenced material. Mark83 21:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDB is user edited, like Wikipedia. But they don't have to provide a source. In short, anything on IMDB could be completely made up. That's why it's not a reliable source. ColdFusion650 21:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had no idea imdb was user edited. Obviously it is unacceptable as a source then. However why do we give imdb such a prominent place in infoboxes then? Sure it's a good resource, but reliable?? Mark83 21:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, IMDb is acceptable for films post-release because they basically have the information from the credits available on the films' webpages.  However, before the release, the information, especially cast, is user-submitted.  There are "gatekeepers" that verify the information, but we have no idea what kind of information they're looking at.  Some films' webpages even go so far to include a rumored actor, like "John Doe (rumored)".  There are far better sources to use.  I would even say that Cast sections should be built from sources other than IMDb until after a film's release -- there's no verification to be found.  Plus, obviously with the end result of solid film articles, only the notable roles are included.  When a film is not out yet, then it can't be determined whether a role listed at IMDb is worthy to include or not.  The link's available, but listing everyone in the film doesn't meet encyclopedic standards. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast rumors from IMDb 

message: Will Bond 22 use the classic version of the gun barrel sequence (at the start of the film with the James Bond theme being heard during the sequence)? David Pro 16:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How should we know? Anybody who gives you a definite answer is lying. And I assure you, someone will use the "I know a guy" bit. ColdFusion650 16:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gun barrel sequence 

message: I feel we should sit on this. By all previous indication all the producers, writers and Marc Forster have indicated a real follow-up to Casino Royale. It sounds like Craig is unsure himself. Alientraveller 16:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thought. Someone should really be reviewing our references and trying to develop stuff on how the filmmakers are approaching the film. Currently the only in-depth thing is Roger Mitchell's departure. Alientraveller 16:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For your second comment, there isn't much information about that. For the first, I suppose it could be in the article, it wouldn't hurt it, though it would probably seem like trivia. You'd have to go "According to Daniel Craig ..." because as you said, Craig may have mis-interpretated whatever the film is about. But you recently reverted someone with that statement, but it some stuff about Octopusy and Pussy Galore. SpecialWindler  talk 23:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humour - New Craig interview 

message: Is this poster official? David Pro 16:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Alientraveller 16:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, although it is pretty cool. Flamingtorch372 23:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's obviously not official, the title of the movie hasn't even been released yet. El Greco (talk · contribs) 01:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, in your poster, Bond's carrying a Walther PPK, a gun he hasn't touched since Tomorrow Never Dies, all posters about new movies show him holding a P99.  Emperor001 (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teaser poster 

message: I know Wikipedia as a whole has decided that spoilers are allowed without warning in most discussions of books and films. However for a film that has yet to be released -- and for which plot details have yet to be confirmed -- the description of the Rene Mathis character I felt was an unacceptable spoiler, and possibly speculation anyway, so I have removed it. If othe editors insist on reinstating the description, that's fine, but I will insist on a spoiler warning tag being added to the article if that's the case. 23skidoo 15:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, I added a spoiler warning to reliable information. Alientraveller 17:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoiler removed

message: According to TV 2 VIP, a gossip section at the Danish television channel TV 2's website, will Jesper Christensen play the role as Mr White again. To translate the article, GramTrans has a Danish to English web page translation bot. kalaha 16:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Alientraveller 19:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr. White 

message: Some websites such as AICN are reporting rumors that Bond 22 will be titled Property of a Lady. Since this is only a rumor, we should guard against posting this information -- or moving this article -- until EON makes an official announcement. 23skidoo 19:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Even then, a working title may not be the finished product. Alientraveller 19:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Concur as well.  Rumors are not verifiable unless they become prominent enough to be mentioned in a mainstream publication and not a movie site. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Working titles which are confirmed by EON/MGM/Sony, should make this page moved, because most working titles turn out to be true. If you think about it, the opening line says the Bond 22 is the working title, Some could argue weather it is.  The Windler  talk  21:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Clutching at straws now. It was a slip of the tongue: they're shooting at the 007 Stage. Alientraveller (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title rumors

message: ...If 'Bond 22' has any chance of being the name of the forthcoming film or not. I cannot distinguish from this article if 'Bond 22' is a name certain to be changed closer to completion, or is a reference name for the title as of this point in time. Racooon 19:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says "working title". And "Bond .." has been used for many films. Alientraveller 19:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It says working title, there is a 0.00000...00001% chance that the name will be "Bond 22". But whether Bond 22 is the actual working title we don't know, for all we know it could be "James Bond 22", but this one will sufice until the name is realeased (which I presume will be by the end of the year).  The Windler  talk  21:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bond 22: Please Make it Clear... 

message: As Ford have now sold Aston Martin, does anyone know whether this impacts on the cars which will be used in the Film? Has the deal been included in part of the sale of Aston or are Ford planning to supply another division's cars for use in the Movie? ChappyTC 18:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ford still has part ownership of Aston Martin. Alientraveller 19:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, 15%. Mark83 20:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: ^^To the comment above, how could it be, when in Die Another Day, the 'villan's' car was a green Jaguar versus Bond's Aston Martin V12 Vanquish? Aston Martin is classic Bond so it should be added to this film, and if possible the same Aston Martin DBS as in Casino Royale (remake), especially if Bond 22 starts at the end of Bond 21 (Casino Royale). It makes sense. - Beautiful so ur (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that doesn't make sense, because if you'll remember, James Bond crashed his Aston Martin dodging Vesper who was tied up in the middle of the road.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingtorch372 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, whatever, the Aston Martin is in the film. Alientraveller (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Aston Martin]] 

message: As far as I'm aware, there is no official confirmation that Vesper's French-Algerian boyfriend mentioned in Casino Royale is the villain for Bond 22.  The only citation for it is an interview with Eva Green who says it, but the interview was made before the script was written and as Green is not expected to be in the movie anyway, I think it should be reworded to say that it is rumoured to be the case, rather than a fact about the film Dvyuk (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The script was written with a story in mind. Now frankly, that's what we know so far. If it changes, we'll document it. Nothing has happened to signify a change, not even Haggis' September rewrite, because we cannot assume. Alientraveller (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know whats in the script, all we know is what Vesper believed in 2006, she may have been mistaken, she may not have had the whole facts. For now it should be said that Eva believes that, because thats all we have. 86.159.121.16 (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the cite: "Barbara Broccoli helped me understand. You would think, wait a minute, she had an Algerian boyfriend, and she's been sent on this mission, and then she begins to feel guilty. She's in love with Bond. It's a deep love. The Algerian boyfriend was something light, an affair. So there's an internal conflict. The plan is, the Algerian boyfriend is going to be the baddie in the second Bond, and we'll understand [better]." The fact is, a backstory for Casino Royale and Bond 22 had been written and it was also used for Green to understand her character. No "ifs", "maybes", that's you speculating. Alientraveller (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think now we've apparently found out the name of the villain in the movie, and there is only one baddie left, the part about the Algerian boyfriend should be removed or at least re-worded to say that it was previously speculated that he would be a villain, when there is no confirmation from anyone directly involved with the film.  There is a chance that he may be in the film but it now looks less likely. Similarly I can't see how the part about Max von Sydow claiming Mathieu Amalric's character will be Blofeld is relavent now we know the character's name.  Not to mention that Max von Sydow has absolutely nothing to do with this film, and if Judi Dench doesn't even know the plot I think it's fair to say he doesn't either.  Dvyuk (talk) 09:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Joaquin Cosio, there are several villains. Taubman might be playing him actually. Alientraveller (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly the point. He might be, we don't know that for sure, so there is no place for that statement in this article.  The statement should be changed to say that the Algerian boyfriend might be an antagonist, or it should be removed.  An interview with Eva Green, an actress not connected to this film, from before the script was even written cannot be considered a decent source.  In addition, the section about Max von Sydow claiming Amalric would be playing Blofeld should be removed entirely as we now know he won't be, and because Max von Sydow could not possibly have known that. Dvyuk (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, I rewrote premise so at to make understandable to the reader things might have changed, but that a plan was laid out and it is more likely than not. In addition, I'm keeping Sydow's quote, in case Maurice Green turns out to be Blofeld (I'm not bothered to type out this potential revelation again). Alientraveller (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Algerian Boyfriend 

message: My source is found here
Can anyone say this is true, as there's been loads of speculation about it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautiful so ur (talk • contribs) 17:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NME's source, The Daily Star, is an unreliable tabloid. Therefore it cannot be included unless they actually express interest in an interview. In any case, a singer is always the last thing decided. Alientraveller (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay thanks anyway I just needed to know :) - Beautiful so ur (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it's not the soundtrack they're talking about, i.e. the entire album of music from the film. Just the title song. I've changed the section header to reflect this. Mark83 (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title song to be written and performed by [[HIM]] frontman, [[Ville Valo]]. 

message: This article has a lot of interesting information that is never included on movie articles, or any articles.  I think for the sake of demonstrating what goes into movie production, this article should be saved for future reference.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.220.2.188 (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite understand what you mean. Alientraveller (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean like when the actual film is released there will be a new page on [Bond 22] so that then if the readers want, can view this original page talking about building up on what we know to that film, and so won't be on the main article itself? - - Beautiful so ur (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page will just be renamed and all the information saved and expanded. El Greco(talk) 18:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happens to this article once the movie comes out? 

message: CommanderBond.net not a reliable source? Since when? It is as reliable as MI6.co.uk and is recognised in The Daily Telegraph, Empire Online, Sky News, etc and has had many Bond exclusives. Anyway, there is a difference between a secondary villain and a second major villain, which is what Foster, the director, described the character as in an interview. 217.42.137.69 (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only MI6.co.uk has proven its reliability thus far. As such, it'd be preferrable to use that site. It'd be welcome to show examples of Commanderbond.net as a similiarly reliable source though. In any case, Taubman as the secondary villain is cited. Alientraveller (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Only MI6.co.uk has proven its reliability thus far." How so? They both haven given exclusives in the past, they both use similar forms of news gathering (news posted in forums, press releases sent directly to them etc.) and they have both been reconised by big news publications. If you look at the bottom of the Bond 22 article both MI6 and CBn are linked. 217.42.137.69 (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, but if you look at MI6's article it lists the likes of Time and EW as those who shows its notability. Therefore, it'd be preferrable to cite MI6 for the same information. One objection Casino Royale had in its first FAC was that CommanderBond.net was questioned as a source. Alientraveller (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you source , which is the source that the comanderbond.net uses. You can cite non English, and it should be reliable.  The Windler  talk  21:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, it is cited. Alientraveller (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commanderbond.net/edit 

message: You may not have known, but you were the subject at WP:WQA#User:Alientraveller. Nothing much as it has been pretty much resolved.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is relevant how? My talk page is avaliable in my signature you know. Alientraveller (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a little snappy. But mind, it's been sorted now considering I reworded "Premise" to be a bit more neutral. I've also contacted the IP regarding WP:SPOILER. Alientraveller (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, this was meant for your talk page, and I typed my response in the wrong space. But at least you were notified of it.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WQA]] Notice