![]() | 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 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Creating this since there is going to be big changes to bonds gross and it's locked atm for edits here we go
please sign which you shoukd do anyways to get the date of the gross from box office mojo who i believe the wiki uses for film grosses.
$708,370,000 -- 86.137.14.0 ( talk) 01:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)-- 86.137.14.0 ( talk) 01:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the "Critical reception" sub-section of this article is far too long. I understand that the film has been met with overwhelmingly-positive reviews, but right now we have five paragraphs of positive buzz and two short paragraphs of criticisms (one of which is directed at a very specific scene). I feel that this has the potential to violate WP:NPOV, and it's also redundant. I lost interest reading it halfway through because the section was just repeating itself. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 21:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand the value of having the section reflect the reviews. But as it stands, it looks like there is more content in the reception section than in any other part of the page. Some of the postiive reviews - particularly from lesser publications - could easily be remvoed without affecting the content of the section. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 03:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
One bit that I'd trim straight away if the page wasn't protected is this bit about Roger Ebert's opinion: "adding that he did not know what what to expect from the film, but was pleasantly suprised that it was "invigorating"". Either trim it down to something like, "he described watching the film as an 'invigorating' experience", or remove it entirely as IMO the first Ebert quote is sufficient.
The section is currently structured as a simple list of "Reviewer A said... reviewer B said... reviewer C said...". I always find these Reception sections more interesting to read if there's some connection between consecutive comments so that they flow together a little bit. At the moment, there's a bit of that (e.g. a couple I added: "cinematographer Roger Deakins... delivers the most impressive visuals this series has had since the 1960s". Henry K. Miller of Sight & Sound also singled out Deakins' work..."), but not much: the comments are mostly pretty isolated from each other, and jump all over the place in terms of the subjects they cover. So would it be better if more of the comments were instead grouped together thematically? i.e. group together all the quotes about performances (Henry K. Miller on Javier Bardem; Kim Newman on Albert Finney; Philip French, Ryan Gilbey, Daniel Krupa etc on Daniel Craig) into their own paragraph, and so on.
Restructuring it like that would require a lot of editing work, but would that sort of structure be an improvement? -- Nick R Talk 19:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I was advised to come here on the issue and come here i have come. Anyways the terms generally positive reviews is currently " generally positive reviews" I think this is rather inappropriate due to the films status of having 92% and when me and my friend read it, we just thought generally positive reviews indicates minimum 60 to maximum 80% of reviews being positive, rather than indicating the real value of 90%+. here is a few definitions from the oxford dictionary of generally
in most cases; usually in general terms; without regard to particulars or exceptions: by or to most people; widely:
generally seems to be tab short of what skyfall was really rated, on the looper it mentions this "On Metacritic, the film holds an 84/100 average rating based on 44 critics, indicating "universal acclaim"" skyfall got 81/10 while looper got 84/10 and a similar small diffrence can be seen int he rotten tomatoes score of 92% vs 95% and generally was used in the avengers that got 69/10 "generally favorable reviews" which is off skyfalls 8.2/10 as mentioned. So I think taking a lesson out of meta critics book would not be a bad idea, a well Established critic site, that knows what it's talking about and thus for regards to films in future when metacritic and rotten tomatoes are not too different in reception we can use the metacritic description to describe how well it was recieved. In this situation I would like to put farward we change skyfalls wording from "generally positive" to universal acclaim as both critic sites have rated the film at sucha level under the metacritic description of hwo well it was rated there. Food for thought skyfall was also 8.2/10 on rotten tomatoes so out of /* both are extremely close. Typhlosion-fan ( talk) 22:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
generally implies that it got a lot more than 8% negative more like 20%, 30% reviews would be negative if using the term "generally". 86.137.14.0 ( talk) 12:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
"Torch" means something completely different in U.S. English and could reasonably lead people to think that old country gamekeeper Kincade is carrying a flaming torch like an old villager. Does British English really not contain the word "flashlight"? This isn't like "lorry" where there's no homonym in U.S. English. It would be clearer overall to use a different word than "torch".
I'd like to ask the opinions of editors who contribute to this article about the plot section.
First point, In the first paragraph:
Eve accidentally shoots Bond, allowing Patrice to escape. Bond goes missing, presumed dead.
A logical connection is missing. In normal circumstance, when someone is shot, he doesn't go automatically missing. If someone is shot and go missing, it means he must be alive to escape from the spot. But in that very same sentence, it says he was presumed dead. But Bond had no reason to run. And if the wound is fatal, he shouldn't be able to go that far and shouldn't go missing, and it would be clear to determine if he is dead or not. It doesn't make much sense without a little more logical connection, and can create a "Huh!?" moment. I would like to edit it to "Bond falls into a river and goes missing, presumed dead." instead. Current word count is 655, but only 4 words will be added here.
Second point,
Pursued by Bond, he uses the tunnel network under London—including part of the London Underground—as part of his plan to kill M.
I have a feeling that something is missing here. Even though it is mentioned 'as part of a plan', it doesn't tell us how. I have altered it to 'as a means to access and kill M,' Schrodinger cat is alive disagrees, saying that "he doesn't use the tunnels to access M - he walks through the door of a building at street level." I disagees with him again. If someone goes somewhere using a route, you use that route as a means of an access. I would like to ask your opinions if I want to change the paragraph into:
"Back at MI6's underground headquarters, Q attempts to decrypt Silva's laptop, but inadvertently enables it to access the MI6 systems, allowing Silva to escape via the tunnel system under London. Pursued by Bond, Silva uses part of the London Underground as the means to access and kill M."
This version will also avoid over-complicated/over-long sentence as well.
Third point,
Bond drives M to the safest place he can think of: his childhood home in Scotland. He instructs Q to leave an electronic trail for Silva to follow, a decision Mallory supports.
Bond and M are met by Kincade, the gamekeeper to Skyfall, Bond's family estate.
In the bold part, we're introducing and describing Skyfall twice. I feel that there is no need. Plus, this section could be worded more clearly, as it is unclear whether Skyfall, Bond's family estate, is the mentioned Bond's childhood home. At least, it is not as clear or as tight as it could be, considering that we write for people who are new to James Bond too. Plus, the sentence as it is now contains a modifier within a modifier clause. We tried to describe Kincade and ended up having to describe Skyfall too. So I wish to relocate the mention of the name Skyfall and change the paragraph into:
Bond drives M to the safest place he can think of: Skyfall, Bond's family estate and his childhood home in Scotland. He instructs Q to leave an electronic trail for Silva to follow, a decision Mallory supports.
Bond and M are met by Kincade, the gamekeeper to Skyfall.
Your opinions are appreciated. Anthonydraco ( talk) 17:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad that you finally came to the talk page at the fourth time of asking, rather than reverting something that was agreed upon only a couple of days ago after the article was locked for just such a dispute. As to your proposed alterations:
I've been asked to share my thoughts on this, so I thought I might.
Point 1 - "Bond goes missing, presumed dead" I see the logic of the argument in favour of changing this. However, I currently see no viable alternative to the current wording. In order to explain the circumstances surrounding Bond's disappearance, we may have to go into detail on how everyone got into a position whereby Eve can shoot Bond, Bond goes missing, and Patrice escapes. In doing so, we run the risk of concentrating on superfluous details and the plot subsection ballooning out beyond 700 words. I have no objections to the plot section going a little over 700, but that tolerance only goes so far.
Point 2 - the Underground tunnels Once again, I see the logic of the argument presented. This, I think, is easily fixed. Here is the current wording of the section in question:
And here is what I think a viable alternative might be:
Yes, it's longer than the existing version, but I quite like the semi-formal system we've been using for the past few days, where half of us are adding detail, and the other half are trimming it down, playing to our editing strengths. So I figure others who are better at trimming the word count down might be able to streamline the above a bit.
Point 3 - the first mention of Skyfall
I was the one who originally moved the first mention of Skyfall back one paragraph. The reason why I did this was because the term "Skyfall" existed in isolation; there wasn't really any explanation of what it was. I felt that the best explanation came with the first mention of Kincade and his role, so I moved the term "Skyfall" there instead. This wasn't my first solution; I had originally tried to work the mention of Skyfall into the line about Bond's childhood home, but it just slowed down the flow of the paragraph. I found that mentioning Skyfall alongside Kincade made for smoother reading. It's probably not a perfect solution, but as was the case with the first point being discussed here, I have no alternative to offer up for the time being. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 05:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I've given you my counter-proposal:
Alternatively:
I think it's important to mention that Silva's capture is a part of his plan as it is what allows him to get close to M. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 09:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Just because we have the words, doesn't mean we need to use them. As long as we have the key plot points then it shouldn't matter. MisterShiney ✉ 09:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't really have any issues with point 1 or point 3. I feel that the content of the article reflects the events of the film, and now it's a question of the precise wording. There are others with better judgement than I when it comes to wording, so I don't oppose any of the proposals; I'll support any alterations that are put forward.
But point 2 is a question of content, and that is where I'm weighing in. I do feel that it is very important to mention that Silva's plan involves getting captured so that he can get close to M, and that Bond realises it too late to prevent Silva from escaping. If not, the paragraph in question lacks cohesion and may leave the reader questioning the sequence because the wording is not clear enough. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 05:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I've made the alterations to one and three, with only point two still under some discussion. - SchroCat ( talk) 08:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I felt that we had enough of a consensus going to edit the revised version of the paragraph in.
I also took the liberty of explaining why Bond went to Skyfall in the first place. There was a line about how it was the safest place he could think of, but that got cut. I felt it was necessary to explain why Bond went there, because otherwise it just looked like he went there for no reason at all. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 02:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Why is MGM credited here as one of those that distributed the film? The website Box Office Mojo credits Sony and Columbia as the distributors. 120.29.80.220 ( talk) 17:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Sony/Columbia are the same company. Sony owns Columbia, and many Columbia films are simply refered to as being distributed by Sony. I would imagine there would be some concern if the Columbia brand with all its history was dropped in favour of a Sony one.
The main production company (who actually physically make the films) is Eon, and it has been since 1962. MGM came on board when they bought United Artists in the early 1980s (UA distributed the early films), and thus gained the distributor/financier role. Sony became involved in 2006 - since then they partly finance and distribute the films in exchange for about 25% of the profits, but aren't involved in production. The other 75% is split between Eon and MGM (as the main distributor). In the films we see the MGM logo before the Columbia one. TheClown90 ( talk) 13:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Hey,
Just wondering what happened to the Ascot Racecourse reference about it being used as a backdrop for the airport in Shanghai? MisterShiney ✉ 08:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I have been involved on other film talk pages on which should be used on a film that receives very high reviews, such as 'positive reviews' or 'critical acclaim'. Most people agreed that it would be bias if we used 'critical acclaim', and that the reviews will speak for themselves if a film does have more acclaim than a nother, which is true. For example a reader could look at the score on Rotten Tomatoes and see it is 95% and then the reader will be able to tell how 'acclaimed' it is, we don't need to tell them. And all we need to say is whether the film received positive or negative reviews. If a film does receive high or low reviews though, we can add in 'very' so it will say 'very positive reviews' or 'very negative reviews', respectively.
But, for this page I'm happy to discuss it and come up with a consensus for this page. As I have already said, if we have in 'critical acclaim' it is bias, and we can just let the reviews speak for themselves on how greatly acclaimed a movie is. Adding 'critically panned/acclaimed', even if it was panned or acclaimed is bias because it is like we are ourselves trying to convince the reader with words how good a film is, when like said, the reviews can speak for themselves on how acclaimed or panned a movie is. Neutral language is representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Charlr6 ( talk) 21:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Universal acclaim is not true, almost, but not quite. Revert.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I love some of the stuff IP users come out with sometimes. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 23:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I think it should say "highly positive reviews" instead of "generally positive reviews". The film has mostly received critical praise, and I don't think "generally positive reviews" reflects that fact very well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.139.144 ( talk) 23:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
"Generally positive" implies there are more positive reviews than negative ones. I'm happy to be contradicted on this but I must say I haven't actually seen a negative review yet. I think "critical acclaim" isn't actually biased - just a reflection of the how the film has been received. Am I wrong? 81.96.134.214 ( talk) 19:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I have read it fully - thanks for the advice though. My point is that although criticisms have been mentioned, the reviews are overwhelmingly positive, so to describe it as "generally positive" seems inaccurate. If you look at The Dark Knight page, the film is described as having received "highly positive" reviews and it also mentions the criticisms that were made in those reviews. Same thing with The Godfather and Apocalypse Now. I'd be prepared to put down money that no film in history was reviewed without criticism somewhere - the point here is that there do not seem to be any reviews out there of a negative tenor. Although in fairness it isn't out in the US yet. Nsign ( talk) 15:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Just looked on Rotten Tomatoes - 93% based on 86 reviews. "Generally positive"? Nsign ( talk) 15:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I've changed it to "positively received by film critics" which seems fair to me. Nsign ( talk) 13:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what "peacockery" is.
It's based on the fact that reviews are overwhelmingly positive. This is not opinion, or whim - its fact. Consequently, as per precedents set on other articles (The Dark Knight, for example), to describe it a "positively received" film is correct. I would ask this - when can a film ever be regarded as more than "generally positive" in terms of critical reception, when there will always be critical elements within reviews? The Godfather and Apocalypse Now are both described as critically acclaimed masterpieces and yet they also have critical elements to their reviews which are mentioned in their articles. So why are they not described as "generally positive"? We are trying to reflect the wider critical perception of the film as a consensus view. Going by, for example, Rotten Tomatoes, the film is "positively received". "Generally positive" is, I would suggest, a term suited to a film that was more tepidly received. Amazing Spider Man, maybe. Nsign ( talk) 15:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with calling it "generally positive" but I agree to waiting to change it until all reviews are in. However I ask again - how can any film be described as anything other than "generally positive" according to your standards, when some reviews will always contain some elements of criticism, as per the examples of Godfather, TDK etc I've already given? You're setting the bar impossibly high - must a film be reviewed across the board without any criticism at all to be described as "positively received"? And if so, what are they? 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 09:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, having read the definition of "peacockery" you are wrong to assert that describing the film as "positively received" meets that definition. Its a factual description of the aggregated critical consensus, not an opinion. Had it read "Skyfall is a brilliant film" you would have a point. 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 09:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
It is not bias or opinion to state that a film has received critical acclaim if that is what it has had. It is a statement of fact. 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 12:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
It is not a POV. It is, as I have already stated, a factual description of the aggregated critical consensus. No one is "fluffing", "telling others what to think" or "peacocking" and to suggest that describing the film as "positively received" is doing any of those things is incorrect. However as the review situation is fluid at present I'm happy to wait until they're all out of the stalls. 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 15:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I think we need to establish a conciseness on how we word how well a film was reviewed and keep it constant for all films. We also need to note a huge flaw in rotten tomatoes scoring, films like jaws and the god father are at 100%, but is this accurate? The only have about 60 votes while most blockbuster films these days get at least 200+. Toy story 3 is a prime example of what happens if the votes are very high and very positive, both toy story 1/2 got 100% but at the very least it's widely accepted that toy story 3 is better than 2 and i am not sure about 1 and if 2 was to get the same votes as 3 it's as a safe assumption that it won't be at 100% score and this gose for jaws and the godfather, there will be one critic that doesn't like the film. So to say for example, jaws is critically acclaimed compared to say the deathly hallows part 2 is very positive would be a very poor comparison as jaws has only a sample of 60 is critically claimed and potter is not. I believe we need to set a definition on wikipedia what defines how well is received and I think the simplest way is set in 10% intervals eg. 60% is postive to mixed reviews, 70% is posstive reviews, 80% is very positive reviews and 90% or greater is critical acclaim, because it looks a bit messed up when two films of similar scores get two different reactions. For skyfall atm callign it mainly positive reviews is undermining it as it sounds like it's good a reasonable chunk of negative reviews like 20%, when infact there is very little negativity against the film 7% of over a bulky 218 votes. 86.138.82.224 ( talk) 19:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
As you wish I'll use rotten tomatoes as my source, although it's irrelevant to skyfall, toy story 2 has a score of 8.6/10 with 161 votes while toy story 3 has 8.8/10 with 255 votes, so despite getting 3 negative votes 3 is higher /10 than 2 by .2%, also the score of rotten tomatoes audiance is 91% 3 and 2 72 %, despite them not being critics due to how close the two are and how huge of gap the audience opinions, it's no unreasonable to use the 890,000 audience votes as a decider of which is the preferred film critically. 86.138.82.224 ( talk) 21:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Charlr6, like you said older films get lower numbers of reviews and 1% and 0.2 difference are too close to call in saying which is received better critically as the gap in reviews is over 100 which could make a big difference in the score. So it's not a valid to say 2 is received better than 3 on the basis of such a small difference in % and with a huge difference in reviews and like i said before 3 is higher /10 than 2 by .2 despite having 3 negative reviews, which indicates those who gave it positive reviews rated it higher 2. However the audience give us a solid comparison in which is better and as i said over 890,000 voted for 2 and it was 20% lower, it's madness to claim 3 was revived lower critically than 2 as a valid comparison due to a very bulky difference in reviews, this is the same with any film, they need to have similar numbers or something as close as 1% says very little, so we look at the next best thing which is top critics which is 100% and then we go to the lowest order of priority the audience which demonstrates the biggest difference. 86.138.82.224 ( talk) 12:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I find this very interesting. We are effectively saying that unless a film receives blanket reviews containing no critical elements at all, calling its reception "generally positive" is as far as we can go, and mentioning "critical acclaim" is peacockery? Hmm, I can't say I agree, especially considering precedents already set here on Wikipedia (Dark Knight, Star Trek 2009). However if that is policy I won't argue about it. Just seems to set the bar unrealistically high. Is it right that The Godfather is apparently the only movie worthy of being described as "critically acclaimed"...? Nsign ( talk) 12:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Such as who? There are God knows how many glowing reviews out there now. Its one of the most critically successful Bond films ever and yet Wikipedia is apparently the only place where it can't be described as such? Nsign ( talk) 13:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Well a quick google search of "skyfall critically acclaimed" gives you recent several newspaper and web articles using that phrase. What reliable third party sources do we need? 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 13:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
The term acclaim is not "inherently advertising hype" if that is what a film has received. It is a factual representation of a critical consensus. If it said, "Skyfall got great reviews because its the best Bond film" - that would be hype.
I am perfectly happy to wait until the film is out in all markets before the final wording is agreed. I just find it very peculiar that everywhere you turn (RT, Metacritic, google searches) Skyfall is described a "critically acclaimed" or something along those lines, yet to reflect that on Wikipedia is to "hype" it (as if it needs it) or indulge in "peacockery"? Curious. 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 15:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Well thanks for the direction at least - sorry to bore you with arguments "everyone has heard" but I'm not that familiar with how the site works. But who said something had to be Citizen Kane for it to receive "critical acclaim"? And who said Skyfall wasn't a popcorn film? Not me. The Evil Dead is critically acclaimed. So was Toy Story. Are they "works of art"? 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 16:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Also - I actually don't say that we should call it "critically acclaimed". I only say that "mostly positive" or "positively received" is a more accurate reflection of the critical consensus than "generally positive". 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 16:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Editors,
First concern,
I'm sure you are well aware of the longevity of the first-party source. But please allow me to remind you again that even though the first-party, official sources about the film are very reliable when they talk about the film, those sources are prone to link rot and will more than likely disappear in a few years from now, even in months. A table such as http://www.skyfall-movie.com/releasedates/ will more than likely be gone shortly after the movie is out of the theatre, as it no longer serve the distributors a purpose, same goes for other similar sources from the official websites, like the announcement of the film premiere. They will be there for only as long as it suits the distributors' sales or publicity. It maybe 5 years from now. But by that time, people will stop caring, and no one will (care to) find those sources again. These sites also go down without notice. So better now while editors are still active on the topic, and while the materials are accessible, than when the article and the sources are dead. We're facing the same problem at The Matrix (film) article, because WB has decided not to host the websites about The Matrix anymore, and now we (two editors -_-' ) are busy finding replacements for those pieces of info, like The Animatrix's DVD release date or 3 million sales press release.
So... please consider archiving those pages or similar sources through permalink providers, like http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php and place in the info in its proper format like
"Skyfall premiere announced".
Danjaq. 7 September 2012. Archived from
the original on 30 November 2012. Retrieved 9 September 2012. {{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
(If you use Provelt, it doesn't provide boxes for your archive URL and archive date, so see this ^ in editor window for the template and format.)
I've gone ahead an archived the premiere announcement and the release schedule already. But webcitation.org keeps rejecting me at the moment. And this articles has 100+ citations, so it will definitely require your help too.
Notable news report channel sources, like Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times), BBC, The Hollywood Reporters, Gamespot, IGN and such, tend to keep their news in their archives, so those are probably safe. But ITV news on their website are known to disappear. (One did in The Matrix article.) First-party sources that have something to do with its sales or publicity won't last very long. And I am not sure how long Tweets from the official channel will be there. (It's so easy to click delete.) If you're editting a section and is near one such in vincinity, please do the article a favour and archive it.
Second concern,
This article uses a lot of Twitter and Tumblr/Flickr photos as references, but after doing some homework, I find that, according to WP:SELFSOURCE, these self-published or questionable sources may only be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Which means that only Tweets from James Bond official channels (verified account) can be used in James Bond article, and actor/singer's Tweets work only when they say the persons do something in/for the film.
I've found some unreliable Tweets by some random guys (or even famous guys) about its filming locations in the filming section. I'm sure those photos were real, and I don't want to remove the info in the article yet, as I find it interesting. But the Tweets and pics were not about the person who Tweeted/upload them. I'm trying to find a replacement source at the moment, and you can help too, but in case that we can't, these must go. Anthonydraco ( talk) 06:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
A side note: Since the current web citation templates do not even suggest that we archive the links, I'm thinking we can do something about including archive date and archive URL into the template. I've started a discussion at [1]. If you think my concern is legitimate, your support and opinions are appreciated there. Anthonydraco ( talk) 10:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Which particular locations are you tring to find? - SchroCat ( talk) 16:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm done adding replacement references for tonight. I've also added info on filming and locations in the Filming section. All info was sourced. Some part might overlap with Location section and might require some organizing. Feel free to organize them if you see fit.
There are still some refs that rely on MI6-HQ.com. I've replaced about a half of them, but I have no more time tonight. To be honest, I don't want to do the reference for a while. Thank you for giving me time to do it. Anthonydraco ( talk) 17:38, 5 December 2012 (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 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Creating this since there is going to be big changes to bonds gross and it's locked atm for edits here we go
please sign which you shoukd do anyways to get the date of the gross from box office mojo who i believe the wiki uses for film grosses.
$708,370,000 -- 86.137.14.0 ( talk) 01:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)-- 86.137.14.0 ( talk) 01:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the "Critical reception" sub-section of this article is far too long. I understand that the film has been met with overwhelmingly-positive reviews, but right now we have five paragraphs of positive buzz and two short paragraphs of criticisms (one of which is directed at a very specific scene). I feel that this has the potential to violate WP:NPOV, and it's also redundant. I lost interest reading it halfway through because the section was just repeating itself. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 21:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand the value of having the section reflect the reviews. But as it stands, it looks like there is more content in the reception section than in any other part of the page. Some of the postiive reviews - particularly from lesser publications - could easily be remvoed without affecting the content of the section. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 03:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
One bit that I'd trim straight away if the page wasn't protected is this bit about Roger Ebert's opinion: "adding that he did not know what what to expect from the film, but was pleasantly suprised that it was "invigorating"". Either trim it down to something like, "he described watching the film as an 'invigorating' experience", or remove it entirely as IMO the first Ebert quote is sufficient.
The section is currently structured as a simple list of "Reviewer A said... reviewer B said... reviewer C said...". I always find these Reception sections more interesting to read if there's some connection between consecutive comments so that they flow together a little bit. At the moment, there's a bit of that (e.g. a couple I added: "cinematographer Roger Deakins... delivers the most impressive visuals this series has had since the 1960s". Henry K. Miller of Sight & Sound also singled out Deakins' work..."), but not much: the comments are mostly pretty isolated from each other, and jump all over the place in terms of the subjects they cover. So would it be better if more of the comments were instead grouped together thematically? i.e. group together all the quotes about performances (Henry K. Miller on Javier Bardem; Kim Newman on Albert Finney; Philip French, Ryan Gilbey, Daniel Krupa etc on Daniel Craig) into their own paragraph, and so on.
Restructuring it like that would require a lot of editing work, but would that sort of structure be an improvement? -- Nick R Talk 19:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I was advised to come here on the issue and come here i have come. Anyways the terms generally positive reviews is currently " generally positive reviews" I think this is rather inappropriate due to the films status of having 92% and when me and my friend read it, we just thought generally positive reviews indicates minimum 60 to maximum 80% of reviews being positive, rather than indicating the real value of 90%+. here is a few definitions from the oxford dictionary of generally
in most cases; usually in general terms; without regard to particulars or exceptions: by or to most people; widely:
generally seems to be tab short of what skyfall was really rated, on the looper it mentions this "On Metacritic, the film holds an 84/100 average rating based on 44 critics, indicating "universal acclaim"" skyfall got 81/10 while looper got 84/10 and a similar small diffrence can be seen int he rotten tomatoes score of 92% vs 95% and generally was used in the avengers that got 69/10 "generally favorable reviews" which is off skyfalls 8.2/10 as mentioned. So I think taking a lesson out of meta critics book would not be a bad idea, a well Established critic site, that knows what it's talking about and thus for regards to films in future when metacritic and rotten tomatoes are not too different in reception we can use the metacritic description to describe how well it was recieved. In this situation I would like to put farward we change skyfalls wording from "generally positive" to universal acclaim as both critic sites have rated the film at sucha level under the metacritic description of hwo well it was rated there. Food for thought skyfall was also 8.2/10 on rotten tomatoes so out of /* both are extremely close. Typhlosion-fan ( talk) 22:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
generally implies that it got a lot more than 8% negative more like 20%, 30% reviews would be negative if using the term "generally". 86.137.14.0 ( talk) 12:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
"Torch" means something completely different in U.S. English and could reasonably lead people to think that old country gamekeeper Kincade is carrying a flaming torch like an old villager. Does British English really not contain the word "flashlight"? This isn't like "lorry" where there's no homonym in U.S. English. It would be clearer overall to use a different word than "torch".
I'd like to ask the opinions of editors who contribute to this article about the plot section.
First point, In the first paragraph:
Eve accidentally shoots Bond, allowing Patrice to escape. Bond goes missing, presumed dead.
A logical connection is missing. In normal circumstance, when someone is shot, he doesn't go automatically missing. If someone is shot and go missing, it means he must be alive to escape from the spot. But in that very same sentence, it says he was presumed dead. But Bond had no reason to run. And if the wound is fatal, he shouldn't be able to go that far and shouldn't go missing, and it would be clear to determine if he is dead or not. It doesn't make much sense without a little more logical connection, and can create a "Huh!?" moment. I would like to edit it to "Bond falls into a river and goes missing, presumed dead." instead. Current word count is 655, but only 4 words will be added here.
Second point,
Pursued by Bond, he uses the tunnel network under London—including part of the London Underground—as part of his plan to kill M.
I have a feeling that something is missing here. Even though it is mentioned 'as part of a plan', it doesn't tell us how. I have altered it to 'as a means to access and kill M,' Schrodinger cat is alive disagrees, saying that "he doesn't use the tunnels to access M - he walks through the door of a building at street level." I disagees with him again. If someone goes somewhere using a route, you use that route as a means of an access. I would like to ask your opinions if I want to change the paragraph into:
"Back at MI6's underground headquarters, Q attempts to decrypt Silva's laptop, but inadvertently enables it to access the MI6 systems, allowing Silva to escape via the tunnel system under London. Pursued by Bond, Silva uses part of the London Underground as the means to access and kill M."
This version will also avoid over-complicated/over-long sentence as well.
Third point,
Bond drives M to the safest place he can think of: his childhood home in Scotland. He instructs Q to leave an electronic trail for Silva to follow, a decision Mallory supports.
Bond and M are met by Kincade, the gamekeeper to Skyfall, Bond's family estate.
In the bold part, we're introducing and describing Skyfall twice. I feel that there is no need. Plus, this section could be worded more clearly, as it is unclear whether Skyfall, Bond's family estate, is the mentioned Bond's childhood home. At least, it is not as clear or as tight as it could be, considering that we write for people who are new to James Bond too. Plus, the sentence as it is now contains a modifier within a modifier clause. We tried to describe Kincade and ended up having to describe Skyfall too. So I wish to relocate the mention of the name Skyfall and change the paragraph into:
Bond drives M to the safest place he can think of: Skyfall, Bond's family estate and his childhood home in Scotland. He instructs Q to leave an electronic trail for Silva to follow, a decision Mallory supports.
Bond and M are met by Kincade, the gamekeeper to Skyfall.
Your opinions are appreciated. Anthonydraco ( talk) 17:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad that you finally came to the talk page at the fourth time of asking, rather than reverting something that was agreed upon only a couple of days ago after the article was locked for just such a dispute. As to your proposed alterations:
I've been asked to share my thoughts on this, so I thought I might.
Point 1 - "Bond goes missing, presumed dead" I see the logic of the argument in favour of changing this. However, I currently see no viable alternative to the current wording. In order to explain the circumstances surrounding Bond's disappearance, we may have to go into detail on how everyone got into a position whereby Eve can shoot Bond, Bond goes missing, and Patrice escapes. In doing so, we run the risk of concentrating on superfluous details and the plot subsection ballooning out beyond 700 words. I have no objections to the plot section going a little over 700, but that tolerance only goes so far.
Point 2 - the Underground tunnels Once again, I see the logic of the argument presented. This, I think, is easily fixed. Here is the current wording of the section in question:
And here is what I think a viable alternative might be:
Yes, it's longer than the existing version, but I quite like the semi-formal system we've been using for the past few days, where half of us are adding detail, and the other half are trimming it down, playing to our editing strengths. So I figure others who are better at trimming the word count down might be able to streamline the above a bit.
Point 3 - the first mention of Skyfall
I was the one who originally moved the first mention of Skyfall back one paragraph. The reason why I did this was because the term "Skyfall" existed in isolation; there wasn't really any explanation of what it was. I felt that the best explanation came with the first mention of Kincade and his role, so I moved the term "Skyfall" there instead. This wasn't my first solution; I had originally tried to work the mention of Skyfall into the line about Bond's childhood home, but it just slowed down the flow of the paragraph. I found that mentioning Skyfall alongside Kincade made for smoother reading. It's probably not a perfect solution, but as was the case with the first point being discussed here, I have no alternative to offer up for the time being. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 05:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I've given you my counter-proposal:
Alternatively:
I think it's important to mention that Silva's capture is a part of his plan as it is what allows him to get close to M. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 09:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Just because we have the words, doesn't mean we need to use them. As long as we have the key plot points then it shouldn't matter. MisterShiney ✉ 09:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't really have any issues with point 1 or point 3. I feel that the content of the article reflects the events of the film, and now it's a question of the precise wording. There are others with better judgement than I when it comes to wording, so I don't oppose any of the proposals; I'll support any alterations that are put forward.
But point 2 is a question of content, and that is where I'm weighing in. I do feel that it is very important to mention that Silva's plan involves getting captured so that he can get close to M, and that Bond realises it too late to prevent Silva from escaping. If not, the paragraph in question lacks cohesion and may leave the reader questioning the sequence because the wording is not clear enough. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 05:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I've made the alterations to one and three, with only point two still under some discussion. - SchroCat ( talk) 08:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I felt that we had enough of a consensus going to edit the revised version of the paragraph in.
I also took the liberty of explaining why Bond went to Skyfall in the first place. There was a line about how it was the safest place he could think of, but that got cut. I felt it was necessary to explain why Bond went there, because otherwise it just looked like he went there for no reason at all. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 02:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Why is MGM credited here as one of those that distributed the film? The website Box Office Mojo credits Sony and Columbia as the distributors. 120.29.80.220 ( talk) 17:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Sony/Columbia are the same company. Sony owns Columbia, and many Columbia films are simply refered to as being distributed by Sony. I would imagine there would be some concern if the Columbia brand with all its history was dropped in favour of a Sony one.
The main production company (who actually physically make the films) is Eon, and it has been since 1962. MGM came on board when they bought United Artists in the early 1980s (UA distributed the early films), and thus gained the distributor/financier role. Sony became involved in 2006 - since then they partly finance and distribute the films in exchange for about 25% of the profits, but aren't involved in production. The other 75% is split between Eon and MGM (as the main distributor). In the films we see the MGM logo before the Columbia one. TheClown90 ( talk) 13:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Hey,
Just wondering what happened to the Ascot Racecourse reference about it being used as a backdrop for the airport in Shanghai? MisterShiney ✉ 08:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I have been involved on other film talk pages on which should be used on a film that receives very high reviews, such as 'positive reviews' or 'critical acclaim'. Most people agreed that it would be bias if we used 'critical acclaim', and that the reviews will speak for themselves if a film does have more acclaim than a nother, which is true. For example a reader could look at the score on Rotten Tomatoes and see it is 95% and then the reader will be able to tell how 'acclaimed' it is, we don't need to tell them. And all we need to say is whether the film received positive or negative reviews. If a film does receive high or low reviews though, we can add in 'very' so it will say 'very positive reviews' or 'very negative reviews', respectively.
But, for this page I'm happy to discuss it and come up with a consensus for this page. As I have already said, if we have in 'critical acclaim' it is bias, and we can just let the reviews speak for themselves on how greatly acclaimed a movie is. Adding 'critically panned/acclaimed', even if it was panned or acclaimed is bias because it is like we are ourselves trying to convince the reader with words how good a film is, when like said, the reviews can speak for themselves on how acclaimed or panned a movie is. Neutral language is representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Charlr6 ( talk) 21:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Universal acclaim is not true, almost, but not quite. Revert.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I love some of the stuff IP users come out with sometimes. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 23:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I think it should say "highly positive reviews" instead of "generally positive reviews". The film has mostly received critical praise, and I don't think "generally positive reviews" reflects that fact very well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.139.144 ( talk) 23:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
"Generally positive" implies there are more positive reviews than negative ones. I'm happy to be contradicted on this but I must say I haven't actually seen a negative review yet. I think "critical acclaim" isn't actually biased - just a reflection of the how the film has been received. Am I wrong? 81.96.134.214 ( talk) 19:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I have read it fully - thanks for the advice though. My point is that although criticisms have been mentioned, the reviews are overwhelmingly positive, so to describe it as "generally positive" seems inaccurate. If you look at The Dark Knight page, the film is described as having received "highly positive" reviews and it also mentions the criticisms that were made in those reviews. Same thing with The Godfather and Apocalypse Now. I'd be prepared to put down money that no film in history was reviewed without criticism somewhere - the point here is that there do not seem to be any reviews out there of a negative tenor. Although in fairness it isn't out in the US yet. Nsign ( talk) 15:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Just looked on Rotten Tomatoes - 93% based on 86 reviews. "Generally positive"? Nsign ( talk) 15:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I've changed it to "positively received by film critics" which seems fair to me. Nsign ( talk) 13:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what "peacockery" is.
It's based on the fact that reviews are overwhelmingly positive. This is not opinion, or whim - its fact. Consequently, as per precedents set on other articles (The Dark Knight, for example), to describe it a "positively received" film is correct. I would ask this - when can a film ever be regarded as more than "generally positive" in terms of critical reception, when there will always be critical elements within reviews? The Godfather and Apocalypse Now are both described as critically acclaimed masterpieces and yet they also have critical elements to their reviews which are mentioned in their articles. So why are they not described as "generally positive"? We are trying to reflect the wider critical perception of the film as a consensus view. Going by, for example, Rotten Tomatoes, the film is "positively received". "Generally positive" is, I would suggest, a term suited to a film that was more tepidly received. Amazing Spider Man, maybe. Nsign ( talk) 15:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with calling it "generally positive" but I agree to waiting to change it until all reviews are in. However I ask again - how can any film be described as anything other than "generally positive" according to your standards, when some reviews will always contain some elements of criticism, as per the examples of Godfather, TDK etc I've already given? You're setting the bar impossibly high - must a film be reviewed across the board without any criticism at all to be described as "positively received"? And if so, what are they? 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 09:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, having read the definition of "peacockery" you are wrong to assert that describing the film as "positively received" meets that definition. Its a factual description of the aggregated critical consensus, not an opinion. Had it read "Skyfall is a brilliant film" you would have a point. 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 09:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
It is not bias or opinion to state that a film has received critical acclaim if that is what it has had. It is a statement of fact. 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 12:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
It is not a POV. It is, as I have already stated, a factual description of the aggregated critical consensus. No one is "fluffing", "telling others what to think" or "peacocking" and to suggest that describing the film as "positively received" is doing any of those things is incorrect. However as the review situation is fluid at present I'm happy to wait until they're all out of the stalls. 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 15:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I think we need to establish a conciseness on how we word how well a film was reviewed and keep it constant for all films. We also need to note a huge flaw in rotten tomatoes scoring, films like jaws and the god father are at 100%, but is this accurate? The only have about 60 votes while most blockbuster films these days get at least 200+. Toy story 3 is a prime example of what happens if the votes are very high and very positive, both toy story 1/2 got 100% but at the very least it's widely accepted that toy story 3 is better than 2 and i am not sure about 1 and if 2 was to get the same votes as 3 it's as a safe assumption that it won't be at 100% score and this gose for jaws and the godfather, there will be one critic that doesn't like the film. So to say for example, jaws is critically acclaimed compared to say the deathly hallows part 2 is very positive would be a very poor comparison as jaws has only a sample of 60 is critically claimed and potter is not. I believe we need to set a definition on wikipedia what defines how well is received and I think the simplest way is set in 10% intervals eg. 60% is postive to mixed reviews, 70% is posstive reviews, 80% is very positive reviews and 90% or greater is critical acclaim, because it looks a bit messed up when two films of similar scores get two different reactions. For skyfall atm callign it mainly positive reviews is undermining it as it sounds like it's good a reasonable chunk of negative reviews like 20%, when infact there is very little negativity against the film 7% of over a bulky 218 votes. 86.138.82.224 ( talk) 19:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
As you wish I'll use rotten tomatoes as my source, although it's irrelevant to skyfall, toy story 2 has a score of 8.6/10 with 161 votes while toy story 3 has 8.8/10 with 255 votes, so despite getting 3 negative votes 3 is higher /10 than 2 by .2%, also the score of rotten tomatoes audiance is 91% 3 and 2 72 %, despite them not being critics due to how close the two are and how huge of gap the audience opinions, it's no unreasonable to use the 890,000 audience votes as a decider of which is the preferred film critically. 86.138.82.224 ( talk) 21:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Charlr6, like you said older films get lower numbers of reviews and 1% and 0.2 difference are too close to call in saying which is received better critically as the gap in reviews is over 100 which could make a big difference in the score. So it's not a valid to say 2 is received better than 3 on the basis of such a small difference in % and with a huge difference in reviews and like i said before 3 is higher /10 than 2 by .2 despite having 3 negative reviews, which indicates those who gave it positive reviews rated it higher 2. However the audience give us a solid comparison in which is better and as i said over 890,000 voted for 2 and it was 20% lower, it's madness to claim 3 was revived lower critically than 2 as a valid comparison due to a very bulky difference in reviews, this is the same with any film, they need to have similar numbers or something as close as 1% says very little, so we look at the next best thing which is top critics which is 100% and then we go to the lowest order of priority the audience which demonstrates the biggest difference. 86.138.82.224 ( talk) 12:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I find this very interesting. We are effectively saying that unless a film receives blanket reviews containing no critical elements at all, calling its reception "generally positive" is as far as we can go, and mentioning "critical acclaim" is peacockery? Hmm, I can't say I agree, especially considering precedents already set here on Wikipedia (Dark Knight, Star Trek 2009). However if that is policy I won't argue about it. Just seems to set the bar unrealistically high. Is it right that The Godfather is apparently the only movie worthy of being described as "critically acclaimed"...? Nsign ( talk) 12:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Such as who? There are God knows how many glowing reviews out there now. Its one of the most critically successful Bond films ever and yet Wikipedia is apparently the only place where it can't be described as such? Nsign ( talk) 13:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Well a quick google search of "skyfall critically acclaimed" gives you recent several newspaper and web articles using that phrase. What reliable third party sources do we need? 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 13:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
The term acclaim is not "inherently advertising hype" if that is what a film has received. It is a factual representation of a critical consensus. If it said, "Skyfall got great reviews because its the best Bond film" - that would be hype.
I am perfectly happy to wait until the film is out in all markets before the final wording is agreed. I just find it very peculiar that everywhere you turn (RT, Metacritic, google searches) Skyfall is described a "critically acclaimed" or something along those lines, yet to reflect that on Wikipedia is to "hype" it (as if it needs it) or indulge in "peacockery"? Curious. 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 15:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Well thanks for the direction at least - sorry to bore you with arguments "everyone has heard" but I'm not that familiar with how the site works. But who said something had to be Citizen Kane for it to receive "critical acclaim"? And who said Skyfall wasn't a popcorn film? Not me. The Evil Dead is critically acclaimed. So was Toy Story. Are they "works of art"? 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 16:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Also - I actually don't say that we should call it "critically acclaimed". I only say that "mostly positive" or "positively received" is a more accurate reflection of the critical consensus than "generally positive". 194.73.118.78 ( talk) 16:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Editors,
First concern,
I'm sure you are well aware of the longevity of the first-party source. But please allow me to remind you again that even though the first-party, official sources about the film are very reliable when they talk about the film, those sources are prone to link rot and will more than likely disappear in a few years from now, even in months. A table such as http://www.skyfall-movie.com/releasedates/ will more than likely be gone shortly after the movie is out of the theatre, as it no longer serve the distributors a purpose, same goes for other similar sources from the official websites, like the announcement of the film premiere. They will be there for only as long as it suits the distributors' sales or publicity. It maybe 5 years from now. But by that time, people will stop caring, and no one will (care to) find those sources again. These sites also go down without notice. So better now while editors are still active on the topic, and while the materials are accessible, than when the article and the sources are dead. We're facing the same problem at The Matrix (film) article, because WB has decided not to host the websites about The Matrix anymore, and now we (two editors -_-' ) are busy finding replacements for those pieces of info, like The Animatrix's DVD release date or 3 million sales press release.
So... please consider archiving those pages or similar sources through permalink providers, like http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php and place in the info in its proper format like
"Skyfall premiere announced".
Danjaq. 7 September 2012. Archived from
the original on 30 November 2012. Retrieved 9 September 2012. {{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
(If you use Provelt, it doesn't provide boxes for your archive URL and archive date, so see this ^ in editor window for the template and format.)
I've gone ahead an archived the premiere announcement and the release schedule already. But webcitation.org keeps rejecting me at the moment. And this articles has 100+ citations, so it will definitely require your help too.
Notable news report channel sources, like Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times), BBC, The Hollywood Reporters, Gamespot, IGN and such, tend to keep their news in their archives, so those are probably safe. But ITV news on their website are known to disappear. (One did in The Matrix article.) First-party sources that have something to do with its sales or publicity won't last very long. And I am not sure how long Tweets from the official channel will be there. (It's so easy to click delete.) If you're editting a section and is near one such in vincinity, please do the article a favour and archive it.
Second concern,
This article uses a lot of Twitter and Tumblr/Flickr photos as references, but after doing some homework, I find that, according to WP:SELFSOURCE, these self-published or questionable sources may only be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Which means that only Tweets from James Bond official channels (verified account) can be used in James Bond article, and actor/singer's Tweets work only when they say the persons do something in/for the film.
I've found some unreliable Tweets by some random guys (or even famous guys) about its filming locations in the filming section. I'm sure those photos were real, and I don't want to remove the info in the article yet, as I find it interesting. But the Tweets and pics were not about the person who Tweeted/upload them. I'm trying to find a replacement source at the moment, and you can help too, but in case that we can't, these must go. Anthonydraco ( talk) 06:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
A side note: Since the current web citation templates do not even suggest that we archive the links, I'm thinking we can do something about including archive date and archive URL into the template. I've started a discussion at [1]. If you think my concern is legitimate, your support and opinions are appreciated there. Anthonydraco ( talk) 10:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Which particular locations are you tring to find? - SchroCat ( talk) 16:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm done adding replacement references for tonight. I've also added info on filming and locations in the Filming section. All info was sourced. Some part might overlap with Location section and might require some organizing. Feel free to organize them if you see fit.
There are still some refs that rely on MI6-HQ.com. I've replaced about a half of them, but I have no more time tonight. To be honest, I don't want to do the reference for a while. Thank you for giving me time to do it. Anthonydraco ( talk) 17:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)