Wikipedia talk:WikiProject James Bond

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HI there. Its now time to take over the world!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 11:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] A page on a source

James Bond: The True Story is the latest Bond article and no sources to show notability! Ultra! 11:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, Somewhat like List of James Bond films cast members.  The Windler talk  11:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
like James Bond films cast members??? see List of Harry Potter films cast members. Ultra! 14:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but we already have Bond girl, List of James Bond villains etc. all lists which show the cast members.
Just because they have one for Harry Potter dosen't mean we need to have one.
It's just repeating all the information from those articles into one big one. Completly pointless.  The Windler talk  21:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Then we'd get it all in one. Eight films make up an FL. 22 must atleast start one. Ultra! 13:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tomorrow Never Dies move

Emperor001 moved Tomorrow Never Dies to Tomorrow Never Dies (film) "Making this article consistent with all of the other Bond films"! Ultra! 19:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Emperor001 moved The World Is Not Enough too Ultra! 19:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see the point, the films are clearly more popular than the other things there. There not Ian Fleming novels which ae the main novels, and songs, soundtrack, novelisations and video games all stream from the film. I propose we revert.  The Windler talk  21:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The nothing in Naming conventions that says we should rename titles for consistency within series. Do you propose we move Quantum of Solace too? No. Alientraveller would revert immediately. But what it does on that article is good. In the video games section it has a main article thingo, when the music comes along, it will also do the same. I see no point in making these dis-ambiguious for the sake of making it consistent.  The Windler talk  21:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, how to revert a move? Ultra! 13:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Also the Talk:Tomorrow Never Dies hasn't been moved yet. Note this if reverting involves any kind of speedy deletions. Ultra! 13:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed requested moves. I requested both. Ultra! 17:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks  The Windler talk  21:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I appologize for any trouble I caused, but I still stick to my beliefs. All films should be at Name of film (film) and then name of film should be the disambiguation. For one thing, this will make a person more aware of other things of the same name. For example, I had a friend who didn't know that there were James Bond novels until I told him. Emperor001 (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not how consensus for disambiguations and primary topics works. If something is the primary topic of a title, such as the film for Tomorrow Never Dies, then that something gets the article at the base name. Awareness of other, non-primary topics is then handled by hatnotes such as {{otheruses}}. See WP:D#Primary topic. By consensus, all films should not be at Name of film (film); only those films that need to be disambiguated from something else and that are not the primary topic of their title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Then why did the Ian Fleming novels start as base names but then get changed to Name of Novel (novel). Under this policy, the Fleming novels should be at base name, but gradually, they were moved and I confess, after half of them were moved, I finished the job. Emperor001 (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Examples of some do is not proof that all should. Guessing, I'd say that community consensus determined that the Fleming novels were more "primary" that the novelizations of the later movies. Consensus can even be different for different Fleming novels. There is no policy that dictates which of several competing articles goes to the base name except "primary topic". It might be a film in one case, a novel in another, an album, song, person, or even a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Those who haven't worked on the portal

Please give an opinion here. It's taking a lot of time. Ultra! 15:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cover images of novels

Dr. No, From Russia, Goldfinger and OHMSS all use multiple novel covers which seem to be nothing more than decorations. I removed them but the uploader reverted. Any opinions whether we need these? Ultra! 14:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • As the uploader of many of the images, I should make a clarification here and state that someone else reverted, not me (with the exception of Octopussy and the Living Daylights for which I explained my rationale). As to the images themselves, hey some folks are quite happy to have no images at all, so I guess my query is what harm are these images doing to the articles or Wikipedia by their existence? If you really want to delete images, lose the 2002 Penguin covers and keep the first eds and vintage paperback images. 23skidoo (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Attempt"?

An "attempt" to improve content, etc.? It should read that the goal of the project is such and such. "Attempt"? "There is no 'try'. Do, or do not." -- Yoda Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In Wikipedi, no-one is forced to do anything. We colloborate in the hope of improving content, but no one is obliged to do anything.  The Windler talk  12:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
True, but a project has a goal. "Attempt" sounds lame. James Bond doesn't "attempt". He "accomplishes". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Quantum of Solace story collection - separate article justified?

I just discovered that in August 2008, Penguin will publish "Quantum of Solace: The Complete James Bond Short Stories" (link). Since this collection presumably will consist of the contents of the FYEO and OATLD books (since Fleming is credited as author I assume the Benson stories won't be included), is it justified to create a separate article for this collection, or would it suffice to simply create subsections of the two book articles? 23skidoo (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Time will tell. If the book gets source coverage then it can get its article, or else it stays in the film and FYEO novel articles. Ultra! 13:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)