Wikipedia talk:WikiProject James Bond/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Photo whoops!

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)

Film Suggestions

• 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).
  • This is done for all of the Brosnan films. I've rearranged the sections and leads to match Casino Royale. There is some stuff on those articles that needs attention, but it's listed in open tasks. ColdFusion650 12:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I have now gone through and done this for almost every film!!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 13:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I've gone through every film and done this. The things that still need to be done are on the open tasks list. ColdFusion650 19:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
        • For Heavensake don't go nuts doing this. These are 22 separate works, and there is no concensus on the nazified idea that every one of them has to be shoehorned into exactly the same template. I, for instance, strongly OPPOSE it. They suffer if you do it (a fair amount of damage to the Goldfinger article was done in trying to get it to fit into the Thunderball model--- hello? Why not do it the other way around, since Goldfinger is artistically and popularly the better movie, and the later Casino Royale has major stylistic differences from the dozen films which came before it, which had become quite cartoonish before Royale#2 began to restore some realism. The Bond films evolved, each building on the precursors, and each of them has quirks. If you look at the Plays of William Shakespeare, you'll find generally the same Wiki article structure, but it's not precisely the same for all of them, nor should it be. It would be a travesty if every series of everything in Wikipedia is forced into the same mold, with the same categories and subheadings. And who gets to pick what these are going be, anyway? Quit it. Just because somebody started this, doesn't mean it's all a good idea. (And you, Blofeld, take your cat and look for some other world to dominate). SBHarris 02:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• All finished for official films. ColdFusion650 17:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a new signed on user and am not sure how to join a project, but I think that every novel or movie page should have a section telling how the book is different from the movie (this would only apply to books by Ian Fleming and their respective movies excluding novelisations). Emperor001 21:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)