Misplaced Pages

Archives

April 2011—December 11 December 2011—May 12 May 2012—August 12 August 2012—October 12 October 2012—

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Good Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Dr. No (film) a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell

Happy Holidays!

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and prosperity. Keep up the good work on the James Bond articles! Best wishes, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hope you're having a great Christmas Schrod. I'm ploughing through OHMSS novel. Loved the description of Draco's face when Bond mentions Blofeld, like Blofeld is the epitome of all evil who robbed The Union of its henchmen!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld

Amazing lazenby was only 28 when they shot the film. Looks more like 38!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realise he was that youg - her looks a lot older! It's a great book and comes over to the screen very well without a huge amount of changes needed. I always thought that they should have kept closer to the plots for a number of the books, and I hope (probably vainly) that they re-visit one or two of the books in the re-booted series: Moonraker could be done fairly well, for example. - SchroCat (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Harry Potter

Thanks again for reviewing Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2. Could you review Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 for me too? Thanks. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit tied up with a few things here and in RL at the moment, but I'll keep an eye on it and if no-one picks it up by the time I'm clear, then I'll do it for you. I'll do a bit of housekeeping on it shortly to get rid of a few obvious issues. I should flag up a couple of obvious points for you to look over before the review starts: there are four dead links that have been tagged that you'll need to sort out, as well as few questionable sources (Mugglenet makes an appearance, and it shouldn't) so it may be as well to have a skim over the reference section to replace the fansite refs with something more reliable. There's also a citation needed tag in the awards table which you'll need to address (and there are a number of awards which are not supported by citations either). As with Part 2, the box office section leads with the US and is a shade US-centric, which feels wrong for what is primarily a UK film. I'll see what else I can do when I have some free time. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

OHMSS gross

Hi. The figure used is incorrect. I did tons of research for writing a book on Bond, and I listed the correct gross. Now, there are hundreds of websites listing both grosses, the one that is wrong and the one that is right. I think there should be a discussion, and not just a universal approach of simply accepting a wrong figure because it is on some sites. That is all. I am just trying to put the correct gross there. I have done so before, and it almost immediately gets reverted. If you list a source, it gets reverted. Always the current source is touted as being the only reliable one. So there is really no point in bothering with that. There should be a discussion. I am not sure where we should have it though, because the talk page of that article isn't visited by many. Suggestions?173.216.233.111 (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The article talk page is the best place to discuss it - I've replied to you there and given a couple of different sources. I've also tweaked the figure in the infobox to bring it in line with the initial worldwide gross, rather than also including re-releases, which could be misleading. Which book did you write, byt the way? - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks for your help. We will discuss it there. Unfortunately, I never completed the book. I started it about 14 years ago and never got it finished. But recently, I want to finish it. So maybe it will get done eventually.173.216.233.111 (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Skyfall

Hey, seeing as the IP user re added the content again after being asked not too and deciding not to come to the talk page to discuss the content further, I added a 3RR notice on his talk page. He was sufficiently warned by yourself unofficially and I for one feel that he will be continuing with editing in this manner. So I leave it up to the great and wonderful oz who monitors such notices to deal with it. Sound ok? MisterShiney ✉ 21:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me - and at least he can't complain that he wasn't warned! - SchroCat (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. MisterShiney ✉ 21:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Which Bond film...

Question for you, if you don't mind: Which Bond film involves a contest between Bond and the antagonist and takes the form of a video game where they battle for (initially) control of the USA, and later the world? They have cruise missiles they can launch, and the controls incrementally shock the players as well. Naturally, Bond wins, but I can't remember which film it is and can find no mention of it in any of the plot sections. ISTR it's a Roger Moore film. Searching for "James bond video game plot" or similar on Google is worse than useless. Cheers. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It's the Sean Connery Bond film Never Say Never Again. - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That'll be why I couldn't locate it. Many thanks - that's my NetFlix sorted out for the night then... Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Glad I could help.... ;) SchroCat (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Le M

I've copyedited a couple of sections, also trimmed down a bit on what reads as unnecessary detail. I have a problem in the 1946–59 section in which we read: "The same year, Tony Hancock joined Le Mesurier's wife, Hattie Jacques in the series Educating Archie...". In the previous section Le M was married to June Melville; what happened to her, and when did Le M & Jacques marry? While I'm at it, can you give the year that the fmily moved to Bury St Edmunds, and also where and when Gielgud's production of Ham;et was staged? (Please ping my talk when you've picked these up) Brianboulton (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I did raise some concerns about the cutting to Brian. Anyway, have a great 2013. here's Bigglesworth doing his best Burt Kwouk SPECTRE volcano agent impression.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Oscar for Skyfall?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd certainly think Deakins should have his name in there - there's not too many other films that come close this year (Life of Pi or The Master, possibly) and Dench too. After those two who should be dead cert nominations, it gets too political - I'd love to see it nominated for Best film and maybe a few others (original screenplay? stunts? Bardem?) Fingers crossed for next week! - SchroCat (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

James Bond filmography

I think User:Red White Blue and Yellow hit upon a great title for James Bond (film character) in his page moves earlier today. It wasn't the correct title for James Bond in film as he quickly realized, because a filmography is basically a film 'cv' for a particular person. That is a essentially what we have at James Bond (film character), the article comprises a filmography for the actors in the role. What do you think? Betty Logan (talk) 08:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! I've requested the move already (can't do it myself as the page is in the way, so it's a technical one). Cheers - and a happy new year! - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

• From the editor: Misplaced Pages, our Colosseum

• In the media: Is the Wikimedia movement too 'cash rich'?

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser a success; Czech parliament releases photographs to chapter

• Technology report: Looking back on a year of incremental changes

• Discussion report: Image policy and guidelines; resysopping policy

• Interview: Interview with Brion Vibber, the WMF's first employee

• Featured content: Whoa Nelly! Featured content in review

• WikiProject report: New Year, New York

• Recent research: Misplaced Pages and Sandy Hook; SOPA blackout reexamined

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

spoilers in cast lists

Hi, it doesn't make sense to have spoilers in the cast lists, if you hadn't noticed[REDACTED] articles have a contents page which allows users to skip directly to the cast list without reading the plot synopsis. It is entirely conceivable that someone who hadn't seen a movie would like to know briefly about the actors and characters in a work without wanting to have twists or the film's ending spoiled. If someone does want this information it is as you say readily available in the plot synopsis. In fact it is probably more likely that someone who hadn't seen the film would be interested in the cast list than someone who had, as they would already be familiar with the characters in the film. Again, It really adds nothing to have spoilers in the cast list as it is, as you say, merely repeating information present in the plot synopsis. So it adds nothing and will achieve nothing but spoiling those who haven't seen this film. Despite this for some reason[REDACTED] editors seem to insist on it and it probably won't change because many[REDACTED] editors are rather stubborn as you are no doubt aware of. That will be all, have a nice day! 122.57.205.144 (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As I've already indicated to you, please see WP:SPOILERS for the Misplaced Pages stance on spoilers and the background to that stance. It's not stubbornness, it's they way things happen around here. If you'd like it to change, please go to the appropriate forum to discuss changing the approach so that we do not have spoilers. - SchroCat (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

What the IP said makes total sense, and I have posted the same on other pages. WP:SPOILERS does not encourage you or give license to put spoilers where one would not expect to see them. Readers should be able to look at a cast list without having the plot given away. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If you only want a cast list go to imdb. According to[REDACTED] policy, "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality (for example, the lead section). When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." Including relevant spoilers in the cast list serves an "encyclopedic purpose". - Fanthrillers (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Odds and ends

I don't think I've read these Bond novels link. IFP has never struck me as having much of a sense of humour, though these titles aren't much worse than some of the Gardner and Benson Bond titles.

Boyd's Bond novel now has a publication date (3 October 2013) and page count (432) but still no title. I believe the page count is correct since I'd heard from someone in a position to know that this would be the longest Bond novel yet.

When you have time, can you please look at this edit here? I hadn't known that by adding a space it puts the page top of the category list, so clearly that edit is correct, but I thought we observed d-m-y even for access dates. - Fanthrillers (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

See WP:MOSDATE - "Access and archive dates in references should all have the same format – either the format used for publication dates, or YYYY-MM-DD." What gave you the impression that you should change an article using yyyy-mm-dd for access dates to some other format? Gimmetoo (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Fanthrillers was editing consistently with WP:STRONGNAT. Due to James Bond being a British literary creation, all the articles (at least the peer reviewed ones) are written in British English and use the British (day-month-year) date format. As you point out, the "null pipe" in the category serves to make the article appear first in Category:Bond girls, and it does seem reasonable to position the main Bond girl article before the others in the category. Betty Logan (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Betty! The article has {{Use dmy dates|date=March 2012}} at the top. Therefore dmy it is. I'll wait for SchroCat to chime in before reverting. - Fanthrillers (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite right on the dates and I've reverted as such. Not only is there the consistent ties point, but there is also the consistency within the Bond articles. MOSDATE allows either format so I don't know why there is the insistence to have the US format in place. Do we have something reliable that we can use for the Boyd date? It would be nice to drop something in if possible, but I guess that we may have to wait for an official announcement before we get anything concrete in place. At least we know they won't be going for the punningly painful ones from IFP! - SchroCat (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite wrong on your understanding of strongnat. If there were any doubt, WP:STRONGNAT explicitly says "YYYY-MM-DD format may be used in references or in tables, even in articles with national ties, if otherwise acceptable." Furthermore, your blanket undo removed other fixes. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It removed one full stop. The long format is entirely acceptable in references, so I am not sure what your problem is here. I have started a thread on the article talk page, which is a now more appropriate venue to continue this discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The yyyy-mm-dd format was the format in the article, it was consistent, and you have no guideline-based reason to change it. Again, per strongnat, "YYYY-MM-DD format may be used in references or in tables, even in articles with national ties, if otherwise acceptable." The "use amy" template does not autthize you to remove yyyy-mm-dd formats from articles. You have edit-warred contrary to the guideline. Your editing behaviour contrary to the guidelines will be address here. This edit is inherently disruptive as a blanket undo not only in violation of guideline, but also removing other fixes. You will answer for it here. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As I've already said: go to the article talk page to discuss, not here. Please also try and keep a WP:CIVIL tongue in your head and stop throwing round ridiculous accusations of edit warring. - SchroCat (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This is an issue of your behavior. You edited in violation of the guideline after being informed. This is serious and a behavioral issue that should be addressed here. I would strongly encourage you to revert your edit that changed date formats in violation of guideline. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Not here: on the article talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As an issue of inappropriate editing behavior after a warning, it will be addressed here. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you ever listen to other people? I'll stop addressing you if you don't play nicely. Can I suggest you make your further comments on this matter on the talk page, where a wider group of editors are able to read and comment appropriately, rather than in the backwater of my talkpage where the discussion is not going to be seen by people who may wish to comment further on the substantive points at hand? - SchroCat (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, this is an issue of your editing bahviour, and if you don't address it, I may have to start acting like an admin. I would really prefer not to have to, so please don't take that as a threat. But you do need to address your bahvaiour here and now. I have dealt with date format issues before and I do know what I'm talking about. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"I may have to start acting like an admin" ROFLMFAO!!! Thanks for brightening my day with humour, but—for the fifth time—can you please confine your comments on this matter to the relevant talk page? - SchroCat (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, let me make this clear. I have dealt with date format issues before. I am familiar with them. I know what I'm talking about. And yes, I am an admin here, which I bring up not as a threat, but to convey that yes, I do know what I'm talking about. I even wrote parts of the MOSDATE guideline. Now for the last time, can you explain why you did not heed a warning and explanation about date formats, but within minutes of my explanation, reverted yet again in volation of the MOSDATE guideline? This is a behavioral issue. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I quake with fear. Please go to the article talk page to discuss (six) - SchroCat (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Very well. You have been warned. If you make any further edits to date formats in violation of the guideline, you may be blocked without further warning. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)