![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
While, of course, Wikipedia policy is to provide a thorough outline of any given topic, I am concerned that the second paragraph of this page gives too much of the film's ending away. To quote;
The film centres on Bond investigating an attack on MI6; the attack is part of a plot by former MI6 operative Raoul Silva to humiliate, discredit and kill M as revenge against her for betraying him. The film sees the return of two recurring characters to the series after an absence of two films: Q, played by Ben Whishaw, and Eve Moneypenny, played by Naomie Harris. Skyfall is the last film of the series for Judi Dench, who played M, a role that she had played in the previous six films. The position is subsequently filled by Ralph Fiennes' character, Gareth Mallory.
From this paragraph, the reader discovers: the villain's identity and intentions, although the film maintains a sense of mystery about these elements until past the halfway mark; that Eve's real identity is Miss Moneypenny - granted, a fairly trivial point, but one the film still does not reveal until the closing scene; that the film is the last in the series for Judi Dench, and that she is replaced by Ralph Fiennes' character, Gareth Mallory - which collectively implies the entirety of the film's biggest plot twist, its climax, and its conclusion.
I'm sure this has probably been discussed before, but I'd like to raise several points concerning the matter: the film is very recent, having only been released on DVD within the past two months, and there are probably many people unfamiliar with the plot details mentioned; it is only the second paragraph of the entire page, and said details are repeated towards the end of the section headed 'Plot'; finally, not every casual reader of Wikipedia would be familiar with the policy mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph (to present a theoretical situation, someone might be looking up the main details of the film on Wikipedia to decide whether they would like to watch it, and would subsequently resent being told so much of the ending).
Naturally, a willingness to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines are important. I would, however, urge that on some occasions, we balance this with a sensitivity towards all the possible readers of any given page. The current implication is that information about Skyfall is inaccessible to anyone who has not seen the film, and would not like to be told its ending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.72.87 ( talk) 16:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I did look over the archives. More people were of my opinion, it seems, and your minor edit - removing the explicit statement that M dies - hardly accounts for what we are trying to get through. Also, many of the points I raised above had not yet been addressed by you or anyone, especially the final paragraph.
Rules are often flawed. Not revealing a film's spoilers anywhere on its Wikipedia page would of course be nonsensical, whilst at the same time, not revealing the vast majority of its spoilers in the second paragraph seems to be a given. If there's nothing I or anyone can do about it then, well, I'll give in, but it's something of a sorry business.
Here, by the way, are some websites that have drawn attention to the aforementioned paragraph.
"Skyfall" Spoiled on Wikipedia - Business Insider http://www.businessinsider.com/skyfall-spoiled-on-wikipedia-2012-10
James Bond Fans Beware: Wikipedia Reveals Major 'Skyfall' Spoiler - Yahoo! Movies http://movies.yahoo.com/news/james-bond-fans-beware-wikipedia-reveals-major-skyfall-202824704.html
Wikipedia Reveals Vital 'Skyfall' Spoiler, Leaving the Makers Shocked - Movie Zadda (Look this one up, Wikipedia won't allow the link)
If it's just me, then that's fair enough, and I offer my genuine apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.72.87 ( talk) 20:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
There must be a paragraph about blatant anti Turkish propaganda in the opening scenes. Our country is depicted as a desert(!!) poor third world country with dust all over. Overall, 'Istanbul' in the movie is unrecognizable in the movie to any person who anyone who actually lives there; the place in the movie looks like Saudi Arabia or some middle east country.The makers of this film deliberately did it by overexposed lighting and by sprinkling sand on the roads for the chase scenes. Ironic that China was depicted so well with shiny skyscrapers when Turkey is more developed than China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derstolin ( talk • contribs) 07:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Your reasoning would carry weight if there was not such a long and established history of similar rabidly anti Turkish propaganda in Hollywood and American/Western TV. The false orientalist depiction of our nation as a 'third world, poor middle east country with sands and camels' resembling Irak or some arab country is not something new. The notorious Midnight Express, West Wing - where a woman is supposedly beheaded (!!!), and recently Taken 2 - where all women wear black tents, police use cars from the 1960s complete with garbage strewn alleys, crumbling buildings and dirt and filth everywhere. I could go on and on.
This is not simply my opinion . You can find a lot of outrage about the fake depictions of Turkey in skyfall everywhere. See for youself https://www.google.com.tr/search?client=opera&q=skyfall+ortadogu+OR+tozlu+OR+arap+OR+arabistan+OR+kara+carsaf&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest
This needs to be included — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derstolin ( talk • contribs) 09:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
PS. You are talking about 'Artistry'. Is there reason they didnt get 'artistic' with flying dust, overexposure and exotic music (which wasnt even remotely Turkish btw) in Britain or China? Everything points to the filmmakers indulging in the typical orientalist anti Turkish image and propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derstolin ( talk • contribs)
Stereotypes usually have an element to truth to it, but when it comes to Turkey and Turks, what they do is take Arabian stereotypes (totally different) and apply them to us with the silly reasoning that Turks -> Muslim -> Arabs. Nevermind that our religion traditions is light years apart from the fanatical, fundamentalist beliefs of Arabs. There is no desert in Turkey - it is actually one of the most fertile countries in the world, yet Hollywood seems to always show deserts and dust. And women here dont wear Arabian clothes like black burkas for women. Its not like they are showing Turks wearing Kalpak which was an authentic part of Turkish culture. No, they depict Arabs and Arabia. Thats why people here are so angry about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korlandestek ( talk • contribs) 11:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Turks are upset in the same way a Dutch would be upset if they were shown as Arabs and Netherlands as Arabia or any other different culture. Showing a Dutch wearing wooden shoes is similar to a Turk wearing a Kalpak. It is outdated and happens only in cultural events nowadays, but at least relevant. Thats is the point — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korlandestek ( talk • contribs) 11:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I just bought the DVD. When putting the DVD in to the player "20th Century Fox" -logotype is the first that comes on the screen. But after the choice of audio and subtitles, and the real start of the film, "Columbia pictures" appears insted. This also applies to the end of the casting credits. "A Columbia Picture release". (No more MGM/United Artists) Boeing720 ( talk) 09:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Link. I don't think these changes improve the article at all but would rather wait until others have a chance to comment. I also do not believe that the cast descriptions were in any way redundant. - Fantr ( talk) 17:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
All hail SchroCat.
On a serious note. I agree. He is currently known within the James Bond Wiki Community as the foremost expert. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Myself and an IP user are being reverted. I think the IP's word usage is better. And the fact that the two users are becoming abusive over the issue is out of line. Could more people respond? Basically, SchroCat's refusal to allow another word usage besides his desired word usage in the article is nothing more than article ownership. AmericanDad86 ( talk) 07:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC) The edit in question is this here [2]. I like it better the way the IP had it. I disfavor the way SchroCat has put it. It flowed better to me the other way. Thank you. AmericanDad86 ( talk) 07:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Questioning some of the sources used in this article. For example, there's a section that reads: Principal photography was scheduled to take up 133 days This [3] is the source that's used to support that but where does it say anything about 133 days in this source. AmericanDad86 ( talk) 08:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I am currently in an edit war with SchroCat. I am new here and so it is understandable that I am not too experienced when it comes to making Wikipedia edits, but I think that some of my content should be included. For instance, under the Cast section, I put M's real name in brackets because I thought that it was important. Yet it was removed. I know it sounds trivial, but if Silva's real name has been inserted under the Cast section, then why can't M's real name be there too? Furthermore, I understand that it may seem like a minor gripe (for which I apologise), but I mentioned that the casino in Macau was a 'floating casino', yet 'floating' was edited out. If it was a floating casino (which it is), then why edit 'floating' out? Also, I mentioned that Bond took his Aston Martin DB5 out of storage, which I think is a pretty significant plot point, considering that it's the only way they can get to Scotland. And it is used in the final battle itself, so at the very least, the Aston Martin can be regarded as a plot device. And lastly (this just came to mind), shouldn't we mention Hong Kong? After all, it is one of the most important of the key plot points of Skyfall - and one could argue that this is the entire reason for the events of this film. Let me know what you guys think - again, I'm new here so please go easy.
Edit: another minor gripe came to mind. With regards to Silva's execution of Severine, I mentioned that he killed her in a scene reminiscent of William Tell. While this might be construed as interpretation of the plot and not summary, it is pretty obvious that this is what the scriptwriter (John Logan, if I remember correctly) was intending. So (and correct me if I'm wrong, by all means), isn't this considered as part of the primary source? I look forward to your responses. SlayerDarth ( talk) 17:45, 6 June 2013 (GMT)
" Even without a source": No, no, no, no, no! And again, just to make it clear: NO! Nothing without a source, ever, or we just turn into fan-based wikia, rather than an attempt to be an encyclopaedia. - SchroCat ( talk) 21:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Guys, stop removing the citation tags. Right now, there's far too much on this article that isn't sourced. Nothing in the opening is sourced. And nothing in the plotline is sourced. This is all worthy of having citation tags. This article is a mess of unsourced material and needs rework. I'm assuming it got it's A-class a long time ago and needs to be effectively reviewed again. AmericanDad86 ( talk) 07:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Plot section has no sources whatsoever. It's a mess and needs a citation tag. Technically, according to wiki policy I can remove the whole section if I wish as it's all unsourced. It's either the tag or the source. How do you explain the plot section? Also, please stop with the caps. It's akin to yelling. AmericanDad86 ( talk) 07:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
And where exactly within that policy does it say verifiable sources are not necessary. Rather conversely, this citation section here Plot summary/citations on how to write a plot summary seems to suggest that citations are in fact needed. AmericanDad86 ( talk) 08:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:Lead here Lead reads the following:
The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation.
I have just challenged it. AmericanDad86 ( talk)
Stop adding to the rule. WP:Lead doesn't say anything about grounds. And don't tell me what I don't have grounds on. I believe that with the amount of material in this article, that needs appropriate sources in the lead. Bottomline. AmericanDad86 ( talk) 08:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
And how am I supposed to know that all this is sourced just based on it being in the lead. I don't know whether or not it's sourced elsewhere. That's my grounds. AmericanDad86 ( talk) 08:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Regardless, I've challenged it and just because you feel as though it doesn't mean it doesn't get sourced. AmericanDad86 ( talk) 08:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Hate to break it to you, but you two editors who have likely had a history of editing together as proven by the editing history of this article do not represent a consensus. AmericanDad86 ( talk) 08:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Could one of you direct me where all this information is sourced within the article. You're claiming all of it is sourced so:
Skyfall premiered in London at the Royal Albert Hall on 23 October 2012 and was released in the United Kingdom on 26 October 2012 and the United States on 9 November 2012. It was the first James Bond film to be screened in IMAX venues, although it was not filmed with IMAX cameras. The film's release coincided with the 50th anniversary of the Bond series, which began with Dr. No in 1962. Skyfall was positively received by critics and at the box office, becoming the 14th film, as well as the first Bond film, to cross the $1 billion mark worldwide. As of March 2013, it is the seventh-highest-grossing film of all time, the highest-grossing film in the UK, the highest-grossing film in the Bond series, the highest-grossing film worldwide for both Sony Pictures and MGM, and the second-highest-grossing film of 2012. The film won several accolades, including the BAFTA Awards for Outstanding British Film and Best Film Music; the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Motion Picture; and was nominated for five Academy Awards, of which it won two: Per Hallberg and Karen Baker Landers won the award for Best Sound Editing, and Adele's theme song won Best Original Song. AmericanDad86 ( talk) 09:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
That's very general. I'll need specifics. AmericanDad86 ( talk) 09:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
An IP has recently added additional detail to the Plot section that relates, amongst other things, to the types of cars used in the film etc. Their last edit summary encapsulated their thinking: "The DB5 is illustrative of Skyfall's central theme - Bond's obsolescence - as well as serving as a link to previous films in the franchise, on its 50th anniversary". While this may be true, the plot section is hardly the location for it and it is in breach of WP:FILMPLOT ("Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source"). There may be a place for it in a Themes section, but only where backed up by reliable sources. I have invited the IP here to share his views, rather than have his fifth attempt at forcing the information into the article. - SchroCat ( talk) 06:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
A long discussion was held here some months ago regarding identifying Eve as Moneypenny in the first line of the plot section, with the outcome that consensus was reached that this identification would not be made until describing the ending, thus reflecting the narrative as told on screen. These discussions can be seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Skyfall&oldid=520770777
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Skyfall&oldid=524010846
A wikipedia moderator, or administrator or whatever, also intervened and made the decision that to identify Eve as Moneypenny in the opening paragraph when the film had not was not an accurate reflection of the narrative (although I am mysteriously unable to locate the ruling now).
And yet "someone" has seen fit to change it back. So I'll change it back so that its correct, as previously decided, and would direct anyone who disagrees to read the previous discussions and, if possible, find the ruling, which I'm unable to do. Nsign ( talk) 11:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I've now found the final decision, located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Skyfall/Archive_3. Without any further consensus to overturn this decision, the removal of "Miss Moneypenny" in the first line of the plot section stands:
"When weighing consensus on a closely divided issue like this one a critical factor is which poisition has the support of Wikipedia policies or common practices. Policy says Wikipedia contains spoilers so any comments that it was a spoiler are given less weight. Policy also says that generally an item should be linked the first time it is mentioned. However, there is a valid point made that common practice is that plot summaries relate the narrative faithfully, which would generally mean in the order and manner it is presented in the film. The rest of the article is of course explicitly exempt from this. So, as amatter of policy we could use the characters full name and link it the first time the character is mentioned in the plot, but there is nothing saying we have to. It seems alterations were made to the article during the course of this discussion to try and reconcile the two options and that there are not any serious objections. It seems prudent to simply leave it at that and consider the current arrangement the "consensus version" of those aspects of the plot summary. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)"
Nsign ( talk) 11:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Also - do not engage in an edit war with me again unless you now have consensus to overturn this. Nsign ( talk) 11:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to leave you to keep repeating your thoughts, rather than coming up with anything new: the DRN is running and I am happy to leave it there, rather than going round in pointless circles. - SchroCat ( talk) 14:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Nsign, it is the current consensus, it isn't just Schrod's viewpoint.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
We're done here: you're being so utterly childish it's ridiculous. The only thing I will point out to you is that the wording is "in most cases" (my emphasis). Most. Not all: its not compulsory, and I suggest that if you wish to whine about it further, take it up with the IP editor. And please grow up. I suggest we leave it to an admin to decide, because if this goes any further I suspect you'll regress even further into petty and childish insults. - SchroCat ( talk) 19:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
DonQuixote, according to your last edit summary, Eve's first name isn't mentioned until the final scene either? Thanks for pointing that bit out: according to the logic offered by some, then the lead should probably now read "In Istanbul, MI6 agents James Bond and an unnamed female operative who we find out later is called Eve (and we find out her surname later, but we'll pop that bit in at the end because it's somehow a "plot point", despite not affecting the plot at all) chase a mercenary..." I'm not sure I prefer this version, but it is in line with some overly-narrow interpretations of the rules! - SchroCat ( talk) 14:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The objection and RFC decision are based on the fact the use of the character's full name in the opening sentence of the plot section gives a misleading impression of the narrative, and we should aim to reflect the narrative as told. To quote from the decision: '"...there is a valid point made that common practice is that plot summaries relate the narrative faithfully, which would generally mean in the order and manner it is presented in the film".'
Now - if, as suggested, the character is referred to as, say, "an unnamed female agent", that would be acceptable as it does reflect the actual narrative.
But still - this is all a rehash of old arguments that were resolved by RFC decision and now rest with a dispute resolution. Nsign ( talk) 18:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
− There is no new consensus. The RFC decision was violated without discussion or advancement of any new evidence or arguments, and nothing new or credible has been presented in this section that invalidates the logic of that decision. So, yes, admin will decide. Nsign ( talk) 21:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree, its ridiculous. Enough Nsign, please nip this in the bud.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
"it constitutes a notable plot point": as has been discussed numerous times by numerous people, it's got nothing to do with theplot of the film, but it notable in terms of the series, which is why it's in the lead. - SchroCat ( talk) 20:11, 29 July 2013 (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
While, of course, Wikipedia policy is to provide a thorough outline of any given topic, I am concerned that the second paragraph of this page gives too much of the film's ending away. To quote;
The film centres on Bond investigating an attack on MI6; the attack is part of a plot by former MI6 operative Raoul Silva to humiliate, discredit and kill M as revenge against her for betraying him. The film sees the return of two recurring characters to the series after an absence of two films: Q, played by Ben Whishaw, and Eve Moneypenny, played by Naomie Harris. Skyfall is the last film of the series for Judi Dench, who played M, a role that she had played in the previous six films. The position is subsequently filled by Ralph Fiennes' character, Gareth Mallory.
From this paragraph, the reader discovers: the villain's identity and intentions, although the film maintains a sense of mystery about these elements until past the halfway mark; that Eve's real identity is Miss Moneypenny - granted, a fairly trivial point, but one the film still does not reveal until the closing scene; that the film is the last in the series for Judi Dench, and that she is replaced by Ralph Fiennes' character, Gareth Mallory - which collectively implies the entirety of the film's biggest plot twist, its climax, and its conclusion.
I'm sure this has probably been discussed before, but I'd like to raise several points concerning the matter: the film is very recent, having only been released on DVD within the past two months, and there are probably many people unfamiliar with the plot details mentioned; it is only the second paragraph of the entire page, and said details are repeated towards the end of the section headed 'Plot'; finally, not every casual reader of Wikipedia would be familiar with the policy mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph (to present a theoretical situation, someone might be looking up the main details of the film on Wikipedia to decide whether they would like to watch it, and would subsequently resent being told so much of the ending).
Naturally, a willingness to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines are important. I would, however, urge that on some occasions, we balance this with a sensitivity towards all the possible readers of any given page. The current implication is that information about Skyfall is inaccessible to anyone who has not seen the film, and would not like to be told its ending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.72.87 ( talk) 16:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I did look over the archives. More people were of my opinion, it seems, and your minor edit - removing the explicit statement that M dies - hardly accounts for what we are trying to get through. Also, many of the points I raised above had not yet been addressed by you or anyone, especially the final paragraph.
Rules are often flawed. Not revealing a film's spoilers anywhere on its Wikipedia page would of course be nonsensical, whilst at the same time, not revealing the vast majority of its spoilers in the second paragraph seems to be a given. If there's nothing I or anyone can do about it then, well, I'll give in, but it's something of a sorry business.
Here, by the way, are some websites that have drawn attention to the aforementioned paragraph.
"Skyfall" Spoiled on Wikipedia - Business Insider http://www.businessinsider.com/skyfall-spoiled-on-wikipedia-2012-10
James Bond Fans Beware: Wikipedia Reveals Major 'Skyfall' Spoiler - Yahoo! Movies http://movies.yahoo.com/news/james-bond-fans-beware-wikipedia-reveals-major-skyfall-202824704.html
Wikipedia Reveals Vital 'Skyfall' Spoiler, Leaving the Makers Shocked - Movie Zadda (Look this one up, Wikipedia won't allow the link)
If it's just me, then that's fair enough, and I offer my genuine apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.72.87 ( talk) 20:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
There must be a paragraph about blatant anti Turkish propaganda in the opening scenes. Our country is depicted as a desert(!!) poor third world country with dust all over. Overall, 'Istanbul' in the movie is unrecognizable in the movie to any person who anyone who actually lives there; the place in the movie looks like Saudi Arabia or some middle east country.The makers of this film deliberately did it by overexposed lighting and by sprinkling sand on the roads for the chase scenes. Ironic that China was depicted so well with shiny skyscrapers when Turkey is more developed than China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derstolin ( talk • contribs) 07:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Your reasoning would carry weight if there was not such a long and established history of similar rabidly anti Turkish propaganda in Hollywood and American/Western TV. The false orientalist depiction of our nation as a 'third world, poor middle east country with sands and camels' resembling Irak or some arab country is not something new. The notorious Midnight Express, West Wing - where a woman is supposedly beheaded (!!!), and recently Taken 2 - where all women wear black tents, police use cars from the 1960s complete with garbage strewn alleys, crumbling buildings and dirt and filth everywhere. I could go on and on.
This is not simply my opinion . You can find a lot of outrage about the fake depictions of Turkey in skyfall everywhere. See for youself https://www.google.com.tr/search?client=opera&q=skyfall+ortadogu+OR+tozlu+OR+arap+OR+arabistan+OR+kara+carsaf&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest
This needs to be included — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derstolin ( talk • contribs) 09:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
PS. You are talking about 'Artistry'. Is there reason they didnt get 'artistic' with flying dust, overexposure and exotic music (which wasnt even remotely Turkish btw) in Britain or China? Everything points to the filmmakers indulging in the typical orientalist anti Turkish image and propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derstolin ( talk • contribs)
Stereotypes usually have an element to truth to it, but when it comes to Turkey and Turks, what they do is take Arabian stereotypes (totally different) and apply them to us with the silly reasoning that Turks -> Muslim -> Arabs. Nevermind that our religion traditions is light years apart from the fanatical, fundamentalist beliefs of Arabs. There is no desert in Turkey - it is actually one of the most fertile countries in the world, yet Hollywood seems to always show deserts and dust. And women here dont wear Arabian clothes like black burkas for women. Its not like they are showing Turks wearing Kalpak which was an authentic part of Turkish culture. No, they depict Arabs and Arabia. Thats why people here are so angry about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korlandestek ( talk • contribs) 11:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Turks are upset in the same way a Dutch would be upset if they were shown as Arabs and Netherlands as Arabia or any other different culture. Showing a Dutch wearing wooden shoes is similar to a Turk wearing a Kalpak. It is outdated and happens only in cultural events nowadays, but at least relevant. Thats is the point — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korlandestek ( talk • contribs) 11:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I just bought the DVD. When putting the DVD in to the player "20th Century Fox" -logotype is the first that comes on the screen. But after the choice of audio and subtitles, and the real start of the film, "Columbia pictures" appears insted. This also applies to the end of the casting credits. "A Columbia Picture release". (No more MGM/United Artists) Boeing720 ( talk) 09:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Link. I don't think these changes improve the article at all but would rather wait until others have a chance to comment. I also do not believe that the cast descriptions were in any way redundant. - Fantr ( talk) 17:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
All hail SchroCat.
On a serious note. I agree. He is currently known within the James Bond Wiki Community as the foremost expert. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Myself and an IP user are being reverted. I think the IP's word usage is better. And the fact that the two users are becoming abusive over the issue is out of line. Could more people respond? Basically, SchroCat's refusal to allow another word usage besides his desired word usage in the article is nothing more than article ownership. AmericanDad86 ( talk) 07:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC) The edit in question is this here [2]. I like it better the way the IP had it. I disfavor the way SchroCat has put it. It flowed better to me the other way. Thank you. AmericanDad86 ( talk) 07:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Questioning some of the sources used in this article. For example, there's a section that reads: Principal photography was scheduled to take up 133 days This [3] is the source that's used to support that but where does it say anything about 133 days in this source. AmericanDad86 ( talk) 08:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I am currently in an edit war with SchroCat. I am new here and so it is understandable that I am not too experienced when it comes to making Wikipedia edits, but I think that some of my content should be included. For instance, under the Cast section, I put M's real name in brackets because I thought that it was important. Yet it was removed. I know it sounds trivial, but if Silva's real name has been inserted under the Cast section, then why can't M's real name be there too? Furthermore, I understand that it may seem like a minor gripe (for which I apologise), but I mentioned that the casino in Macau was a 'floating casino', yet 'floating' was edited out. If it was a floating casino (which it is), then why edit 'floating' out? Also, I mentioned that Bond took his Aston Martin DB5 out of storage, which I think is a pretty significant plot point, considering that it's the only way they can get to Scotland. And it is used in the final battle itself, so at the very least, the Aston Martin can be regarded as a plot device. And lastly (this just came to mind), shouldn't we mention Hong Kong? After all, it is one of the most important of the key plot points of Skyfall - and one could argue that this is the entire reason for the events of this film. Let me know what you guys think - again, I'm new here so please go easy.
Edit: another minor gripe came to mind. With regards to Silva's execution of Severine, I mentioned that he killed her in a scene reminiscent of William Tell. While this might be construed as interpretation of the plot and not summary, it is pretty obvious that this is what the scriptwriter (John Logan, if I remember correctly) was intending. So (and correct me if I'm wrong, by all means), isn't this considered as part of the primary source? I look forward to your responses. SlayerDarth ( talk) 17:45, 6 June 2013 (GMT)
" Even without a source": No, no, no, no, no! And again, just to make it clear: NO! Nothing without a source, ever, or we just turn into fan-based wikia, rather than an attempt to be an encyclopaedia. - SchroCat ( talk) 21:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Guys, stop removing the citation tags. Right now, there's far too much on this article that isn't sourced. Nothing in the opening is sourced. And nothing in the plotline is sourced. This is all worthy of having citation tags. This article is a mess of unsourced material and needs rework. I'm assuming it got it's A-class a long time ago and needs to be effectively reviewed again. AmericanDad86 ( talk) 07:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Plot section has no sources whatsoever. It's a mess and needs a citation tag. Technically, according to wiki policy I can remove the whole section if I wish as it's all unsourced. It's either the tag or the source. How do you explain the plot section? Also, please stop with the caps. It's akin to yelling. AmericanDad86 ( talk) 07:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
And where exactly within that policy does it say verifiable sources are not necessary. Rather conversely, this citation section here Plot summary/citations on how to write a plot summary seems to suggest that citations are in fact needed. AmericanDad86 ( talk) 08:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:Lead here Lead reads the following:
The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation.
I have just challenged it. AmericanDad86 ( talk)
Stop adding to the rule. WP:Lead doesn't say anything about grounds. And don't tell me what I don't have grounds on. I believe that with the amount of material in this article, that needs appropriate sources in the lead. Bottomline. AmericanDad86 ( talk) 08:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
And how am I supposed to know that all this is sourced just based on it being in the lead. I don't know whether or not it's sourced elsewhere. That's my grounds. AmericanDad86 ( talk) 08:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Regardless, I've challenged it and just because you feel as though it doesn't mean it doesn't get sourced. AmericanDad86 ( talk) 08:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Hate to break it to you, but you two editors who have likely had a history of editing together as proven by the editing history of this article do not represent a consensus. AmericanDad86 ( talk) 08:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Could one of you direct me where all this information is sourced within the article. You're claiming all of it is sourced so:
Skyfall premiered in London at the Royal Albert Hall on 23 October 2012 and was released in the United Kingdom on 26 October 2012 and the United States on 9 November 2012. It was the first James Bond film to be screened in IMAX venues, although it was not filmed with IMAX cameras. The film's release coincided with the 50th anniversary of the Bond series, which began with Dr. No in 1962. Skyfall was positively received by critics and at the box office, becoming the 14th film, as well as the first Bond film, to cross the $1 billion mark worldwide. As of March 2013, it is the seventh-highest-grossing film of all time, the highest-grossing film in the UK, the highest-grossing film in the Bond series, the highest-grossing film worldwide for both Sony Pictures and MGM, and the second-highest-grossing film of 2012. The film won several accolades, including the BAFTA Awards for Outstanding British Film and Best Film Music; the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Motion Picture; and was nominated for five Academy Awards, of which it won two: Per Hallberg and Karen Baker Landers won the award for Best Sound Editing, and Adele's theme song won Best Original Song. AmericanDad86 ( talk) 09:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
That's very general. I'll need specifics. AmericanDad86 ( talk) 09:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
An IP has recently added additional detail to the Plot section that relates, amongst other things, to the types of cars used in the film etc. Their last edit summary encapsulated their thinking: "The DB5 is illustrative of Skyfall's central theme - Bond's obsolescence - as well as serving as a link to previous films in the franchise, on its 50th anniversary". While this may be true, the plot section is hardly the location for it and it is in breach of WP:FILMPLOT ("Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source"). There may be a place for it in a Themes section, but only where backed up by reliable sources. I have invited the IP here to share his views, rather than have his fifth attempt at forcing the information into the article. - SchroCat ( talk) 06:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
A long discussion was held here some months ago regarding identifying Eve as Moneypenny in the first line of the plot section, with the outcome that consensus was reached that this identification would not be made until describing the ending, thus reflecting the narrative as told on screen. These discussions can be seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Skyfall&oldid=520770777
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Skyfall&oldid=524010846
A wikipedia moderator, or administrator or whatever, also intervened and made the decision that to identify Eve as Moneypenny in the opening paragraph when the film had not was not an accurate reflection of the narrative (although I am mysteriously unable to locate the ruling now).
And yet "someone" has seen fit to change it back. So I'll change it back so that its correct, as previously decided, and would direct anyone who disagrees to read the previous discussions and, if possible, find the ruling, which I'm unable to do. Nsign ( talk) 11:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I've now found the final decision, located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Skyfall/Archive_3. Without any further consensus to overturn this decision, the removal of "Miss Moneypenny" in the first line of the plot section stands:
"When weighing consensus on a closely divided issue like this one a critical factor is which poisition has the support of Wikipedia policies or common practices. Policy says Wikipedia contains spoilers so any comments that it was a spoiler are given less weight. Policy also says that generally an item should be linked the first time it is mentioned. However, there is a valid point made that common practice is that plot summaries relate the narrative faithfully, which would generally mean in the order and manner it is presented in the film. The rest of the article is of course explicitly exempt from this. So, as amatter of policy we could use the characters full name and link it the first time the character is mentioned in the plot, but there is nothing saying we have to. It seems alterations were made to the article during the course of this discussion to try and reconcile the two options and that there are not any serious objections. It seems prudent to simply leave it at that and consider the current arrangement the "consensus version" of those aspects of the plot summary. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)"
Nsign ( talk) 11:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Also - do not engage in an edit war with me again unless you now have consensus to overturn this. Nsign ( talk) 11:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to leave you to keep repeating your thoughts, rather than coming up with anything new: the DRN is running and I am happy to leave it there, rather than going round in pointless circles. - SchroCat ( talk) 14:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Nsign, it is the current consensus, it isn't just Schrod's viewpoint.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
We're done here: you're being so utterly childish it's ridiculous. The only thing I will point out to you is that the wording is "in most cases" (my emphasis). Most. Not all: its not compulsory, and I suggest that if you wish to whine about it further, take it up with the IP editor. And please grow up. I suggest we leave it to an admin to decide, because if this goes any further I suspect you'll regress even further into petty and childish insults. - SchroCat ( talk) 19:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
DonQuixote, according to your last edit summary, Eve's first name isn't mentioned until the final scene either? Thanks for pointing that bit out: according to the logic offered by some, then the lead should probably now read "In Istanbul, MI6 agents James Bond and an unnamed female operative who we find out later is called Eve (and we find out her surname later, but we'll pop that bit in at the end because it's somehow a "plot point", despite not affecting the plot at all) chase a mercenary..." I'm not sure I prefer this version, but it is in line with some overly-narrow interpretations of the rules! - SchroCat ( talk) 14:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The objection and RFC decision are based on the fact the use of the character's full name in the opening sentence of the plot section gives a misleading impression of the narrative, and we should aim to reflect the narrative as told. To quote from the decision: '"...there is a valid point made that common practice is that plot summaries relate the narrative faithfully, which would generally mean in the order and manner it is presented in the film".'
Now - if, as suggested, the character is referred to as, say, "an unnamed female agent", that would be acceptable as it does reflect the actual narrative.
But still - this is all a rehash of old arguments that were resolved by RFC decision and now rest with a dispute resolution. Nsign ( talk) 18:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
− There is no new consensus. The RFC decision was violated without discussion or advancement of any new evidence or arguments, and nothing new or credible has been presented in this section that invalidates the logic of that decision. So, yes, admin will decide. Nsign ( talk) 21:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree, its ridiculous. Enough Nsign, please nip this in the bud.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
"it constitutes a notable plot point": as has been discussed numerous times by numerous people, it's got nothing to do with theplot of the film, but it notable in terms of the series, which is why it's in the lead. - SchroCat ( talk) 20:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)