![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
After reading the AfD, I have to say that I disagree with the course of action that was taken. The article was well sourced, it had pertinent information to the development, regardless of accuracy. The only problem was the OR title, which couldn't really be avoided. It doesn't really matter how the article for Skyfall came to be. What matters is the article for Bond 24 was well sourced and, IMO, met both WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. Therefore, I'd like to propose the restoration of the separate article as it was before the merge, granted maybe with more information as a year has passed and more information may be known now. I'd also like to propose it being under the title " Development of Bond 24", per the precedent provided by " Development of Star Wars Episode VII". Thoughts? CRRays Head90 | #RaysUp 10:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
This is no place to fight out personal feuds |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This editor is hijacking this article, reverting any edit that does not come under his/her personal view. Even when the edits are within Wikipedian standards, he will revert to what he/she sees as correct, even if incorrect - I see this as unjust and against what this website is about 78.146.44.151 ( talk) 01:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Looking at your talk page, you seem to have been involved in several edit wars:-
78.146.44.151 ( talk) 02:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
|
Should the 2013 legal settlement over the SPECTRE copyrights be mentioned in this article? - Areaseven ( talk) 14:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The character of Oberhauser played by Christoph Waltz is related to the character of Austrian Hannes Oberhauser the childhood father figure and ski instructor of James Bond in Octopussy who was killed by Major Dexter Smith. 174.62.77.5 ( talk) 00:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
It's looks like it's written by a kid trying to pad-out the size of his homework! And what does "As per MoS. (TW)" mean? One-eyed Jim ( talk) 23:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello Prisonermonkeys, thanks for replying. The sections I'm specifically referring to are pretty much all the sections in the "Spectre (2015 film)" article. They are mostly way too short to be sections. The modification I propose is to merge all the sections into one. If there isn't enough available information to justify whole sections (as you suggest), then don't have all those sections! It isn't rocket science.
Thanks for the link for MoS too. In there I couldn't see anything insisting on one sentence per section either, in fact all I found was advice that very short (or very long) sections make an article look cluttered, so a good reason actually supporting my attempt to merge them. And what is TW"? One-eyed Jim ( talk) 10:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks all for the enlightenment. I can't help thinking it would be better to start with one section, covering the meagre information currently available, then as more info becomes available and the section expands, split out more sections as the content allows. That way it would look better now and be more readable. One-eyed Jim ( talk) 16:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll bow to your experience. ;-) One-eyed Jim ( talk) 16:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
In the current article, the line asserting that Neal Purvis and Robert Wade are returning for their fifth Bond film has the attached footnote: "Purvis and Wade were credited for the screenplay of Quantum of Solace as they wrote the original draft of the film. However, the final script was written entirely by Paul Haggis." This assertion seems questionable for a couple or reasons. 1) Though their are certainly cases of writers receiving credit when very little of their work made it into the final film, and director Marc Forster asserted that he and Haggis redeveloped the script "pretty much ... from scratch," it does seem unlikely that the producers and the WGA would have opted to credit Purvis and Wade if *none* of their contributions were evident in the final project. 2) More importantly, Forster and others have acknowledged that the final contributions prior to filming were made by Joshua Zetumer (who later wrote the Robocop remake), though he remained uncredited: http://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=6080. SquidPebblePoliceman ( talk) 03:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
While the desire to have an article lead that is consistent with the leads of other, similar articles, please bear in mind the needs of this article first and foremost. Consistency with other articles is nice, and is what the article will ultimately look like; however, recent edits to the lead do little more than list things that appear elsewhere in the article. The lead is intended as a summary of the article's key points, not as the body of the article itself. Giving the appearance of consistency is not worth it if it violates this idea, as this idea is more important than consistency for now. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 01:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I see there wassome back and forth over this last night. WP:LEADLENGTH gives indications of size, and less than 15,000 characters is one or two paras. As this is around 4,000 characters, I'd suggest one for now. It's a stub of an article at the moment and a one-para lead reflects that. As filming progresses and changes tings, the article will grow and it will become more obvious what is more or less important: it is at that point that the lead should change. Please remember that the lead reflects the article: it does not just repeat it. - SchroCat ( talk) 10:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
_*Possibly/probably/no big deal/ all come out in the wash/ storm in a tea cup. Delete as appropriate, but the lock isn't unfortunate, but a positive thing: it takes the heat out of a non-issue and allows perspective to develop. - SchroCat ( talk) 23:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Then make an argument based on policy. So far, you have had two main arguments:
Neither of those arguments works, since both are based on logical fallacies. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 23:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
SchroCat, were you addressing your "if O isn't the villain then feel free to jump for joy and shove it in Prisonermonkey's face; if not, be prepared to eat humble pie" remarks to me? If you were, you need to re-read and try to comprehend what I wrote. I was NOT offering an opinion on whether O was to be the villain, or not, I was pointing out that the lead was actually adding content to the article, rather that simply summarising it. This is because the O character is not currently described as a villain elasewhere in the main body of the article. As I see it there are two possible solutions to this. We could either add the villain discussion to the body (thus validating the summary in the lead) or we could remove the currently false summary from the lead. Which is it to be? Either way, what I wrote holds true whether O turns out to be a villain, or not. One-eyed Jim ( talk) 10:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Before I registered to edit here, I read a fair number of the Wikipedia help pages, and one thing that came across strong and clear was the necessity for every asserted fact written to be verifiable from outside sources. Now I might be being too pedantic, naive or lacking comprehension skills over this too, but I cannot easily see anywhere in the given "in-line reference(s)" support for the following assertions:
One-eyed Jim ( talk) 17:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I realised the bracketed numbers represented the links to the "in-line references", which is how I open them. But I could not find any mention of "Roger Deakins" in the one or a link between van Hoytema and Kodak film in the others. That's why I raised the above as a concern. One-eyed Jim ( talk) 23:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Last time I came on I was in too much of a hurry to reply here, but I found the explanation lacking. You cannot expect readers to have read the whole article, and be able to make assumptions or jump to the necessary conclusions required to adequately verify facts. Each fact needs qualifying with the appropriate reference. I fixed one of those I mentioned above by re-applying the appropriate reference. We need also to make clear to the readers that interpretation of the Kodak reference requires the knowledge that Kodak refer to the film as Bond 24. One-eyed Jim ( talk) 07:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
What harm does adding a clarification note to the reference do? Especially as it could save someone a lot of time verifying a fact. I couldn't find Spectre in the reference, but if the note was present when I was checking, I would have trie Bond 24 and been quickly satisfied. Our goal should be the dissemination of information, not inflexibly insisting that readers read, and digest, the whole article before trying to validate any of it. Let's be reasonable here, eh? One-eyed Jim ( talk) 18:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you, SchroCat, have evidence to support those assertions about the readers? If you don't, then I dispute them. I was interested to see how, before a second has yet been filmed, how the film type was known, so I opened the souce and searched for "spectre". It wasn't there, so I gave up. If the note was there, then all would have immediately been hunky-dory. Lead the reader directly to the right place - just like providing page numbers or specific urls actually. Make it easy, not unnecessarily difficult to find. One-eyed Jim ( talk) 19:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not an issue about repeating facts, it's an issue about more accurately pin-pointing information in the citation of the source; to make the discerning reader's quest for verification easier. You (presumably) add page numbers or chapter numbers to book references, even though a reader could read through the whole book looking for clues; why not add the keyword (especially if it isn't immediately obvious as in this case) for a search in a web list? And you didn't say the majority (I would agree with that) you said 99.9%; virtually all (and I disagree with that). You also appeared to imply that readers who wanted better pointers must be morons. One-eyed Jim ( talk) 19:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
"That is not what we do on Wiki,"? We don't add page numbers to help readers track down references in books? One-eyed Jim ( talk) 19:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
A discussion over the related article of Aston Martin DB10—mosty from information in this article—is up for deletion here. All comments are welcome on that page. - SchroCat ( talk) 22:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spectre (2015 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Typo in the premise section: "organisation" should be "organization". JMcDon15 ( talk) 23:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spectre (2015 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Have the United states release of November 6, 2015 Matt 20123 ( talk) 14:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
There has been a certain amount of tooing and froing over the name this morning (to be expected on such scant information. Can we either leave as it is until more information is released, or come to a consensus based on the little info we have as to what it should be until more details appear? – SchroCat ( talk) 13:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
→ http://www.007.com/bond24-announcement/ "James Bond returns next year in SPECTRE. Announced today at Pinewood Studios by Director Sam Mendes, returning cast members Daniel Craig, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris and Rory Kinnear will be joined by Christoph Waltz, Léa Seydoux, Monica Bellucci, David Bautista and Andrew Scott. Locations for SPECTRE will include Pinewood London, Mexico City, Rome, Tangier and Erfoud, Morocco. Bond is also back in the snow, this time in Sölden, Austria as well as other locations Obertilliach and Lake Altausee. The 24th Bond outing will also see a brand new Aston Martin designed specially for this film, called the DB10. SPECTRE is out on 6th November 2015." Is the official website enough to show that the title is an abbreviation and written in capitals? JCRendle ( talk) 13:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Spectre is more pleasant to read in the context of the movie title, where it's naturally repeated often in the article. I'd be inclined to reserve SPECTRE for referring to the organisation, where it's an acronym, or at least was in previous Bond timelines. 82.69.216.220 ( talk) 13:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
SPECTRE is the acronym of Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion since ever.. I don't know what's the doubt here on the meaning of the movie title. SPECTRE, not Spectre .. MachoCarioca ( talk) 07:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
How do you know it won't? We know(I think you too), so we must be realistic and correct about it, that SPECTRE is a classic acronym of Bond movies; if we know nothing about it we must mantain what we know about it, that SPECTRE is the acronym to Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion. For me this discussion is nonsense. There are sources to name Spectre and SPECTRE, if we know what it means why mantain "Spectre"?? MachoCarioca ( talk) 03:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spectre (2015 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Details of the film have been leaked following a breach of Sony's servers. Although the details of the film are unusable here—it appears to be a draft of the script, as several characters appear under different names—the leak itself was genuine, and so it probably rates a mention in this article. As such, I propose a new subsection under the production heading entitled "December 2014 leak" (or some such) with the text as follows:
This section may also need some future expansion, particularly if there is a reaction from Eon or Sony and/or a connection between this and the previous security breaches related to North Korea and The Interview. SchroCat, Betty Logan and One-eyed Jim, do you know of any other sources that can go here? Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 05:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
If you have got ten or eleven sources, hopefully we can flesh out the paragraph above. I think we really need to verify how old the e-mails are—no dates are given, but character names have changed, and they directly reference Chewitel Ejiofor, who as I understand it, stopped being considered weeks (if not months) ago.
Without dates, it's going to be difficult to verify, especially if they are referring to characters and scenes that are no longer included. After all, Eon has a policy of completely destroying drafts.
Prisonermonkeys (
talk)
20:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Here is one source [2]. Here is another [3]. Read at your own risk. These articles contains major spoilers. They do, however, shed some light on some of the characters. There are also some characters who have yet to be cast. It is also notable that the leaked script indicates that they are bringing back the character of Irma Bunt, who was the villainness in the film On Her Majesty's Secret Service. It seems she has been re-imagined as a lesbian (possibly a nod to Rosa Klebb from From Russia with Love). TheLastAmigo ( talk) 18:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I've moved the draft paragraph into a temporary positon. I'll try and make time to add to it with the other sources I have. - SchroCat ( talk) 11:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't the movie gonna be released in the U.K. in October? -- Alien Putsch resistant ( talk) 13:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
My edit to the lead to include the Bond girls was changed, is there a problem with this? I apologise for using the & symbol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.23.102 ( talk) 22:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The article has now been vandalised several times by Matt 20123 on the basis that he is "just trying to tell the truth". Unfortunately the changes he has tried to force on the article introduce a series of factual errors and problems relating to MoS standards. If you wish to justify your edits on the basis of any "truth" you are trying to claim, this is the place for it, not just constant edit warring. - SchroCat ( talk) 12:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Benedict Cumberbatch played both John Harrison and Khan Noonien Singh in the 2013 film Star Trek Into Darkness. Christoph Waltz might play both Franz Oberhauser AND Ernst Stavro Blofeld in this upcoming James Bond film. AdamDeanHall ( talk) 15:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
12:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC) There has been no confirmation that he is playing Blofeld or that his character is a villain. All we have is a name - can we not list him as a villain on the main page, until we receive more information from SONY, EoN or the producers? 78.146.44.151 ( talk) 23:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
You do know that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, right?
And I would also suggest that you stop edit-warring. You have already broken 3RR. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 00:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
There's no winning with you, you won't accept that you could be in the wrong. I'm sorry that I even started this, there was no point in a talk section where the other ignores points put to them. Thank you for your time - I hope that someone else will be able to show you that the article as is doesn't require the villain note and its incorrect at this time - for now, I'm stepping away from this article. 78.146.44.151 ( talk) 10:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Can we come to a rough consensus on the names (or number of names) we display in the IB until the official posters are released? So far there has been some additions and deletions which seem to centre on Naomie Harris, Rory Kinnear and Ben Whishaw. My personal opinion is to have a slightly shorter list, but I don't know if there is a section of the MoS that deals with the IB cast list prior to poster release or not. I suspect there isn't something prescriptive, so we'll have to decide by discussion... - SchroCat ( talk) 14:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
It is not for us to declare who is a star in the film, and by implication who is not. We should add each and every actor for whom we can supply a reliable reference referring to them as starring or co-starring in this film. That way we avoid indulging in "original research", and readers will be able to validate our assertions. One-eyed Jim ( talk) 07:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film". - SchroCat ( talk) 12:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
If a Wikipedia accredited source credits Random Background Guy #28 as starring in the film, then why not add him to the list? To reflect credible sources in listing those starring in the film is not the same as adding an indiscriminate collection of information. If the sources describe someone as starring, then add them; if none do, then don't add them. That sounds like a reasonable stance to me. One-eyed Jim ( talk) 18:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Except it's no my personal preference. It's how it was presented at the press conference officially announcing the cast. The fact the list got disputed is beyond me, but we cannot simply pick and choose out of those names who gets onto the infobox list. I feel it should reflect the announcement, with it appearing in this format:
This reflects the cast returning from Skyfall at the top of the list, followed by the newest additions. If Kinnear, Harris or Whishaw dont appear on the billing block, we can easily just delete them from the infobox. But omitting them on the basis of "well gee, there's no block yet", it's nonsensical. Rusted AutoParts 01:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
New dates are coming through. Spectre will be released in France on 11 November. "Léa Seydoux @Seydoux_Lea #Info #Spectre sortira dans les salles françaises le 11 novembre 2015" [1] 2.101.167.133 ( talk) 10:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
References
Can I see the guideline to not call Monica Bellucci an "actress"? If it exists, we must rename Category:Italian actresses and all of its subcategories too. '''tAD''' ( talk) 08:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Are either of these reliable sources that Spectre is to be released on October 23rd? One is a newspaper and the other is a well respected Movie magazine that has a good working relationship with EON and had several James Bond exclusives including images, interviews and even front covers before any other magazine.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/showbiz/556512/Daniel-Craig-knee-on-set-James-Bond-movie-Spectre (2 days ago) http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=43265 (27th January) "Spectre, which launches here on October 23 before heading Stateside on November 6" 80.44.205.48 ( talk) 09:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
New source : The BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-31301128 80.44.205.48 ( talk) 00:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Why did User:Callanecc add Pending Changes Setting to the main article? I didn't see any major rise in vandalism? 2.101.167.133 ( talk) 12:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Anyone know why Galaglobe [4] is hell bent on deleting major portions of the article? Anyone know an Admin online at the moment? -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
After reading the AfD, I have to say that I disagree with the course of action that was taken. The article was well sourced, it had pertinent information to the development, regardless of accuracy. The only problem was the OR title, which couldn't really be avoided. It doesn't really matter how the article for Skyfall came to be. What matters is the article for Bond 24 was well sourced and, IMO, met both WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. Therefore, I'd like to propose the restoration of the separate article as it was before the merge, granted maybe with more information as a year has passed and more information may be known now. I'd also like to propose it being under the title " Development of Bond 24", per the precedent provided by " Development of Star Wars Episode VII". Thoughts? CRRays Head90 | #RaysUp 10:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
This is no place to fight out personal feuds |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This editor is hijacking this article, reverting any edit that does not come under his/her personal view. Even when the edits are within Wikipedian standards, he will revert to what he/she sees as correct, even if incorrect - I see this as unjust and against what this website is about 78.146.44.151 ( talk) 01:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Looking at your talk page, you seem to have been involved in several edit wars:-
78.146.44.151 ( talk) 02:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
|
Should the 2013 legal settlement over the SPECTRE copyrights be mentioned in this article? - Areaseven ( talk) 14:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The character of Oberhauser played by Christoph Waltz is related to the character of Austrian Hannes Oberhauser the childhood father figure and ski instructor of James Bond in Octopussy who was killed by Major Dexter Smith. 174.62.77.5 ( talk) 00:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
It's looks like it's written by a kid trying to pad-out the size of his homework! And what does "As per MoS. (TW)" mean? One-eyed Jim ( talk) 23:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello Prisonermonkeys, thanks for replying. The sections I'm specifically referring to are pretty much all the sections in the "Spectre (2015 film)" article. They are mostly way too short to be sections. The modification I propose is to merge all the sections into one. If there isn't enough available information to justify whole sections (as you suggest), then don't have all those sections! It isn't rocket science.
Thanks for the link for MoS too. In there I couldn't see anything insisting on one sentence per section either, in fact all I found was advice that very short (or very long) sections make an article look cluttered, so a good reason actually supporting my attempt to merge them. And what is TW"? One-eyed Jim ( talk) 10:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks all for the enlightenment. I can't help thinking it would be better to start with one section, covering the meagre information currently available, then as more info becomes available and the section expands, split out more sections as the content allows. That way it would look better now and be more readable. One-eyed Jim ( talk) 16:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll bow to your experience. ;-) One-eyed Jim ( talk) 16:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
In the current article, the line asserting that Neal Purvis and Robert Wade are returning for their fifth Bond film has the attached footnote: "Purvis and Wade were credited for the screenplay of Quantum of Solace as they wrote the original draft of the film. However, the final script was written entirely by Paul Haggis." This assertion seems questionable for a couple or reasons. 1) Though their are certainly cases of writers receiving credit when very little of their work made it into the final film, and director Marc Forster asserted that he and Haggis redeveloped the script "pretty much ... from scratch," it does seem unlikely that the producers and the WGA would have opted to credit Purvis and Wade if *none* of their contributions were evident in the final project. 2) More importantly, Forster and others have acknowledged that the final contributions prior to filming were made by Joshua Zetumer (who later wrote the Robocop remake), though he remained uncredited: http://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=6080. SquidPebblePoliceman ( talk) 03:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
While the desire to have an article lead that is consistent with the leads of other, similar articles, please bear in mind the needs of this article first and foremost. Consistency with other articles is nice, and is what the article will ultimately look like; however, recent edits to the lead do little more than list things that appear elsewhere in the article. The lead is intended as a summary of the article's key points, not as the body of the article itself. Giving the appearance of consistency is not worth it if it violates this idea, as this idea is more important than consistency for now. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 01:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I see there wassome back and forth over this last night. WP:LEADLENGTH gives indications of size, and less than 15,000 characters is one or two paras. As this is around 4,000 characters, I'd suggest one for now. It's a stub of an article at the moment and a one-para lead reflects that. As filming progresses and changes tings, the article will grow and it will become more obvious what is more or less important: it is at that point that the lead should change. Please remember that the lead reflects the article: it does not just repeat it. - SchroCat ( talk) 10:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
_*Possibly/probably/no big deal/ all come out in the wash/ storm in a tea cup. Delete as appropriate, but the lock isn't unfortunate, but a positive thing: it takes the heat out of a non-issue and allows perspective to develop. - SchroCat ( talk) 23:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Then make an argument based on policy. So far, you have had two main arguments:
Neither of those arguments works, since both are based on logical fallacies. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 23:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
SchroCat, were you addressing your "if O isn't the villain then feel free to jump for joy and shove it in Prisonermonkey's face; if not, be prepared to eat humble pie" remarks to me? If you were, you need to re-read and try to comprehend what I wrote. I was NOT offering an opinion on whether O was to be the villain, or not, I was pointing out that the lead was actually adding content to the article, rather that simply summarising it. This is because the O character is not currently described as a villain elasewhere in the main body of the article. As I see it there are two possible solutions to this. We could either add the villain discussion to the body (thus validating the summary in the lead) or we could remove the currently false summary from the lead. Which is it to be? Either way, what I wrote holds true whether O turns out to be a villain, or not. One-eyed Jim ( talk) 10:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Before I registered to edit here, I read a fair number of the Wikipedia help pages, and one thing that came across strong and clear was the necessity for every asserted fact written to be verifiable from outside sources. Now I might be being too pedantic, naive or lacking comprehension skills over this too, but I cannot easily see anywhere in the given "in-line reference(s)" support for the following assertions:
One-eyed Jim ( talk) 17:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I realised the bracketed numbers represented the links to the "in-line references", which is how I open them. But I could not find any mention of "Roger Deakins" in the one or a link between van Hoytema and Kodak film in the others. That's why I raised the above as a concern. One-eyed Jim ( talk) 23:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Last time I came on I was in too much of a hurry to reply here, but I found the explanation lacking. You cannot expect readers to have read the whole article, and be able to make assumptions or jump to the necessary conclusions required to adequately verify facts. Each fact needs qualifying with the appropriate reference. I fixed one of those I mentioned above by re-applying the appropriate reference. We need also to make clear to the readers that interpretation of the Kodak reference requires the knowledge that Kodak refer to the film as Bond 24. One-eyed Jim ( talk) 07:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
What harm does adding a clarification note to the reference do? Especially as it could save someone a lot of time verifying a fact. I couldn't find Spectre in the reference, but if the note was present when I was checking, I would have trie Bond 24 and been quickly satisfied. Our goal should be the dissemination of information, not inflexibly insisting that readers read, and digest, the whole article before trying to validate any of it. Let's be reasonable here, eh? One-eyed Jim ( talk) 18:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you, SchroCat, have evidence to support those assertions about the readers? If you don't, then I dispute them. I was interested to see how, before a second has yet been filmed, how the film type was known, so I opened the souce and searched for "spectre". It wasn't there, so I gave up. If the note was there, then all would have immediately been hunky-dory. Lead the reader directly to the right place - just like providing page numbers or specific urls actually. Make it easy, not unnecessarily difficult to find. One-eyed Jim ( talk) 19:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not an issue about repeating facts, it's an issue about more accurately pin-pointing information in the citation of the source; to make the discerning reader's quest for verification easier. You (presumably) add page numbers or chapter numbers to book references, even though a reader could read through the whole book looking for clues; why not add the keyword (especially if it isn't immediately obvious as in this case) for a search in a web list? And you didn't say the majority (I would agree with that) you said 99.9%; virtually all (and I disagree with that). You also appeared to imply that readers who wanted better pointers must be morons. One-eyed Jim ( talk) 19:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
"That is not what we do on Wiki,"? We don't add page numbers to help readers track down references in books? One-eyed Jim ( talk) 19:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
A discussion over the related article of Aston Martin DB10—mosty from information in this article—is up for deletion here. All comments are welcome on that page. - SchroCat ( talk) 22:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spectre (2015 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Typo in the premise section: "organisation" should be "organization". JMcDon15 ( talk) 23:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spectre (2015 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Have the United states release of November 6, 2015 Matt 20123 ( talk) 14:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
There has been a certain amount of tooing and froing over the name this morning (to be expected on such scant information. Can we either leave as it is until more information is released, or come to a consensus based on the little info we have as to what it should be until more details appear? – SchroCat ( talk) 13:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
→ http://www.007.com/bond24-announcement/ "James Bond returns next year in SPECTRE. Announced today at Pinewood Studios by Director Sam Mendes, returning cast members Daniel Craig, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris and Rory Kinnear will be joined by Christoph Waltz, Léa Seydoux, Monica Bellucci, David Bautista and Andrew Scott. Locations for SPECTRE will include Pinewood London, Mexico City, Rome, Tangier and Erfoud, Morocco. Bond is also back in the snow, this time in Sölden, Austria as well as other locations Obertilliach and Lake Altausee. The 24th Bond outing will also see a brand new Aston Martin designed specially for this film, called the DB10. SPECTRE is out on 6th November 2015." Is the official website enough to show that the title is an abbreviation and written in capitals? JCRendle ( talk) 13:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Spectre is more pleasant to read in the context of the movie title, where it's naturally repeated often in the article. I'd be inclined to reserve SPECTRE for referring to the organisation, where it's an acronym, or at least was in previous Bond timelines. 82.69.216.220 ( talk) 13:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
SPECTRE is the acronym of Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion since ever.. I don't know what's the doubt here on the meaning of the movie title. SPECTRE, not Spectre .. MachoCarioca ( talk) 07:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
How do you know it won't? We know(I think you too), so we must be realistic and correct about it, that SPECTRE is a classic acronym of Bond movies; if we know nothing about it we must mantain what we know about it, that SPECTRE is the acronym to Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion. For me this discussion is nonsense. There are sources to name Spectre and SPECTRE, if we know what it means why mantain "Spectre"?? MachoCarioca ( talk) 03:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spectre (2015 film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Details of the film have been leaked following a breach of Sony's servers. Although the details of the film are unusable here—it appears to be a draft of the script, as several characters appear under different names—the leak itself was genuine, and so it probably rates a mention in this article. As such, I propose a new subsection under the production heading entitled "December 2014 leak" (or some such) with the text as follows:
This section may also need some future expansion, particularly if there is a reaction from Eon or Sony and/or a connection between this and the previous security breaches related to North Korea and The Interview. SchroCat, Betty Logan and One-eyed Jim, do you know of any other sources that can go here? Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 05:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
If you have got ten or eleven sources, hopefully we can flesh out the paragraph above. I think we really need to verify how old the e-mails are—no dates are given, but character names have changed, and they directly reference Chewitel Ejiofor, who as I understand it, stopped being considered weeks (if not months) ago.
Without dates, it's going to be difficult to verify, especially if they are referring to characters and scenes that are no longer included. After all, Eon has a policy of completely destroying drafts.
Prisonermonkeys (
talk)
20:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Here is one source [2]. Here is another [3]. Read at your own risk. These articles contains major spoilers. They do, however, shed some light on some of the characters. There are also some characters who have yet to be cast. It is also notable that the leaked script indicates that they are bringing back the character of Irma Bunt, who was the villainness in the film On Her Majesty's Secret Service. It seems she has been re-imagined as a lesbian (possibly a nod to Rosa Klebb from From Russia with Love). TheLastAmigo ( talk) 18:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I've moved the draft paragraph into a temporary positon. I'll try and make time to add to it with the other sources I have. - SchroCat ( talk) 11:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't the movie gonna be released in the U.K. in October? -- Alien Putsch resistant ( talk) 13:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
My edit to the lead to include the Bond girls was changed, is there a problem with this? I apologise for using the & symbol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.23.102 ( talk) 22:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The article has now been vandalised several times by Matt 20123 on the basis that he is "just trying to tell the truth". Unfortunately the changes he has tried to force on the article introduce a series of factual errors and problems relating to MoS standards. If you wish to justify your edits on the basis of any "truth" you are trying to claim, this is the place for it, not just constant edit warring. - SchroCat ( talk) 12:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Benedict Cumberbatch played both John Harrison and Khan Noonien Singh in the 2013 film Star Trek Into Darkness. Christoph Waltz might play both Franz Oberhauser AND Ernst Stavro Blofeld in this upcoming James Bond film. AdamDeanHall ( talk) 15:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
12:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC) There has been no confirmation that he is playing Blofeld or that his character is a villain. All we have is a name - can we not list him as a villain on the main page, until we receive more information from SONY, EoN or the producers? 78.146.44.151 ( talk) 23:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
You do know that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, right?
And I would also suggest that you stop edit-warring. You have already broken 3RR. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 00:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
There's no winning with you, you won't accept that you could be in the wrong. I'm sorry that I even started this, there was no point in a talk section where the other ignores points put to them. Thank you for your time - I hope that someone else will be able to show you that the article as is doesn't require the villain note and its incorrect at this time - for now, I'm stepping away from this article. 78.146.44.151 ( talk) 10:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Can we come to a rough consensus on the names (or number of names) we display in the IB until the official posters are released? So far there has been some additions and deletions which seem to centre on Naomie Harris, Rory Kinnear and Ben Whishaw. My personal opinion is to have a slightly shorter list, but I don't know if there is a section of the MoS that deals with the IB cast list prior to poster release or not. I suspect there isn't something prescriptive, so we'll have to decide by discussion... - SchroCat ( talk) 14:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
It is not for us to declare who is a star in the film, and by implication who is not. We should add each and every actor for whom we can supply a reliable reference referring to them as starring or co-starring in this film. That way we avoid indulging in "original research", and readers will be able to validate our assertions. One-eyed Jim ( talk) 07:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film". - SchroCat ( talk) 12:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
If a Wikipedia accredited source credits Random Background Guy #28 as starring in the film, then why not add him to the list? To reflect credible sources in listing those starring in the film is not the same as adding an indiscriminate collection of information. If the sources describe someone as starring, then add them; if none do, then don't add them. That sounds like a reasonable stance to me. One-eyed Jim ( talk) 18:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Except it's no my personal preference. It's how it was presented at the press conference officially announcing the cast. The fact the list got disputed is beyond me, but we cannot simply pick and choose out of those names who gets onto the infobox list. I feel it should reflect the announcement, with it appearing in this format:
This reflects the cast returning from Skyfall at the top of the list, followed by the newest additions. If Kinnear, Harris or Whishaw dont appear on the billing block, we can easily just delete them from the infobox. But omitting them on the basis of "well gee, there's no block yet", it's nonsensical. Rusted AutoParts 01:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
New dates are coming through. Spectre will be released in France on 11 November. "Léa Seydoux @Seydoux_Lea #Info #Spectre sortira dans les salles françaises le 11 novembre 2015" [1] 2.101.167.133 ( talk) 10:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
References
Can I see the guideline to not call Monica Bellucci an "actress"? If it exists, we must rename Category:Italian actresses and all of its subcategories too. '''tAD''' ( talk) 08:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Are either of these reliable sources that Spectre is to be released on October 23rd? One is a newspaper and the other is a well respected Movie magazine that has a good working relationship with EON and had several James Bond exclusives including images, interviews and even front covers before any other magazine.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/showbiz/556512/Daniel-Craig-knee-on-set-James-Bond-movie-Spectre (2 days ago) http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=43265 (27th January) "Spectre, which launches here on October 23 before heading Stateside on November 6" 80.44.205.48 ( talk) 09:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
New source : The BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-31301128 80.44.205.48 ( talk) 00:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Why did User:Callanecc add Pending Changes Setting to the main article? I didn't see any major rise in vandalism? 2.101.167.133 ( talk) 12:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Anyone know why Galaglobe [4] is hell bent on deleting major portions of the article? Anyone know an Admin online at the moment? -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)