Talk:List of James Bond films/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

No rowspans?

As per Betty Logan's suggestion, what consensus prohibits the use of rowspans in the table at the top? Couldn't find any in this talk page or its archives. I am also not aware of any wikipedia-wide consensus about, as they are used in so many other articles. So the ones who think that this make sense please elaborate on why. Also, removed the duplicate links as per MOS:REPEATLINK. —Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 00:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial/Internal guidelines#Avoiding rowspan/colspan advises against them, because they can cause issues for accessibility. There is little point in using rowspans in a sortable table anyway because the sorting function causes the rows to split. Also, on smaller displays where the table does not fit fully on the display full rows are easier to read than split rows because readers can just read along the row. It's not so bad if it's the first column or the end column, but if the middle columns are split then this breaks up the row. If rowspans are going to be used in an article they should have row "integrity" and not break up the flow of the row. @SchroCat: you used to be opposed to rowspans, have your views changed? Betty Logan (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it hasn't changed. ACCESSIBILITY is still a 'thing' we need to stick to, regardless of what other articles think appropriate. I've put back the links: Dimsar01, if you actually read MOS:REPEATLINK you will see these are specifically allowed in that guideline as being of use to readers - in this case as when the columns are sorted, the top link changes. - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

ps. Thanks DonQuixote for adding the correct sort format for the names. - SchroCat (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't get it personally. In similar tables in other articles where I've worked on before, if someone added duplicate links they got reverted. Same for rowspans. Is there a double standard? Some pages allow it, and some don't? —Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 20:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes it's just a matter of local concensus. DonQuixote (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Box Office

If you divide box office by budget (number of times return on investment), the success of different films is striking. Perhaps such a column should be added to the table in the article on box office and takings.

54.1 Dr. No Sean Connery
41.6 Goldfinger Sean Connery
39.5 From Russia with Love Sean Connery
20.8 Thunderball Sean Connery
18.1 Live and Let Die Roger Moore
16.1 Diamonds Are Forever Sean Connery
13.9 The Man with the Golden Gun Roger Moore
13.2 The Spy Who Loved Me Roger Moore
10.8 You Only Live Twice Sean Connery
9.2 On Her Majesty's Secret Service George Lazenby
7.0 For Your Eyes Only Roger Moore
6.7 Octopussy Roger Moore
6.3 Skyfall Daniel Craig
6.2 Moonraker Roger Moore
5.9 GoldenEye Pierce Brosnan
5.1 A View to a Kill Roger Moore
4.8 The Living Daylights Timothy Dalton
4.3 Licence to Kill Timothy Dalton
4.0 Casino Royale Daniel Craig
3.6 Spectre Daniel Craig
3.0 Die Another Day Pierce Brosnan
3.0 Tomorrow Never Dies Pierce Brosnan
2.9 Quantum of Solace Daniel Craig
2.8 No Time to Die Daniel Craig
2.7 The World Is Not Enough Pierce Brosnan

Starple (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

You need to cite a reliable source stating that this is an interesting metric, otherwise it's wholly original. DonQuixote (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

And potentially misleading. Since Dr No debuted we have seen the creation of the home video market, pay-per-view, streaming and video gaming. All of these contribute to a film's revenue stream facilitating budget increases over ticket price inflation. On the other hand, Dr No ultimately made more money from re-releases than it did from its original release ($16 million on it first run, just over a 25% of its eventual gross). Even with a contemporary comparison, is Dr No more successful by virtue of having a better ROI, or is Goldfinger more successful by earning twice as much? Betty Logan (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

DonQuixote: financial ratios have been established metrics for decades. They need no justification. Betty Logan: You are therefore saying that the box office figures in the article are potentially misleading. (What does "box office" in the given figures include anyway?) Perhaps you would like to improve the article. The ratios remain suggestive. Starple (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

If they've been used for decades, then it'll be easy to cite a reliable source that does so for this series. DonQuixote (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/cost-revenue-ratio

Box office = revenue, budget = (production) costs.

All ratios are approximate to some degree. They are meant to be useful indicators.

Starple (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. You would need to cite a reliable source stating that this is an interesting metric for this series of films let alone for films in general. I mean, we can easily compare the number of countries each film was filmed in, but unless reliable sources state that this is an interesting metric, it's probably not that interesting enough for an encyclopaedia article. DonQuixote (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The data is presented as it is presented in the source, so is not misleading in representing the underlying source. The box-office figure is a generally accepted metric for measuring the performance of a film during its theatrical run, which I suppose is why the Block book has provided the box-office grosses. What you are essentially requesting is an ROI metric, and I would be happy to provide that if the data were readily available, but profitability should take into account all income and all expenditure, and it can't be calculated fro box-office grosses and production budgets alone. Betty Logan (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for ROI. I was simply saying that revenue (box office) divided by budget is an interesting metric in itself. The fact that other adjustments might be made to produce other figures is not the point. Starple (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

You are drawing equivalence between a box-office/budget ratio and a cost revenue ratio, but they are not the same. A cost revenue ratio is ROI, and includes more than box-office and production budget. If a box-office/budget ratio were an interesting metric in its own right then, as DonQuixote points out above, other sources would do this. Betty Logan (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

There are many ratios. I am saying they are not equivalent. I am saying that simply dividing box office/budget is one interesting one.

Here's a discussion going further into the figures, which tries to do ROI. It makes the point for me that "While the gross box office takings may be one measure of success, they are unlikely to impress anyone in business. The real question is how many dollars you make for each dollar invested." (i.e. a financial ratio)

https://www.thejamesbonddossier.com/films/box-office-figures-for-the-james-bond-series.htm

Starple (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

That site is a fan site and cannot be used as an acceptable reliable source. Again, you would need to cite at least one reputable source stating that it's an interesting one. DonQuixote (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Overlinking and original research by Treybien2

Treybien2 is persisting in overlink terms in the article and adding original research.

• He has wikilinked Felix Leiter several times now ([1], [2], [3]), despite the fact that Leiter is already linked in the Thunderball summary earlier in the same section and mentioned again in the Diamonds Are Forever summary. Linking him again in the Licence to Kill summary is arbitrary and goes against MOS:LINKONCE.
• He has also repeatedly added his own interpretation of how Bond perceives vesper to the the plot summary for Quantum of Solace ([4],[5]). Bond gives no indication that he considers her "redeemed" (although M does suggest he should forgive her), and the events of No Time to Dies (while not particularly relevant here) add weight to the view that he has still not fully forgiven her.

I would suggest that Treybien do not reinstate these edits per WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD until they are resolved here. I also question whether it is really necessary to start adding cast names to very short plot summaries. @SchroCat and Lobo151: Do you have any views on the above edits? Betty Logan (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with what you mentioned. Most of the users edits are the users own interpretation of the story or events and not always what we actually see. I really don't think we should mentioned cast names or to much details in these small plot summaries. Full details can be seen on the main page of those movies. Also I don't understand why the cast names are added for a couple of movies and not all. But I think it shouldn't be mentioned at all.Lobo151 (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

As these are potted summaries of the films (even more so than the summary in a standalone article), they should be as minimal in detail as possible, so no need for explanations of motives or how someone feels. They certainly shouldn’t have extraneous details like cast members. And like all articles, we shouldn’t be OVERLINKING. - SchroCat (talk) 08:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

DB5 in “Casino Royale”

If it wasn’t, someone needs to tell Aston. Unless a better source for “different car” can be found I say it should go back in. https://www.astonmartin.com/en-gb/our-world/no-time-to-die#:~:text=DB5,Casino%20Royale%2C%20Skyfall%20and%20Spectre. Wportre (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)