Talk:Portrayal of James Bond in film/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contested deletion II

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... there is plenty of scope for developing an article about the James Bond film character; there are plenty of other articles in existence relating to film characters (see Indiana Jones and Darth Vader). In addition, an analogous article exists about the literary version character, which has obtained GA status: James Bond (literary character). The film and literary characters both have very different lineages, so an article about the film equivalent could be just as comprehensive as the literary version. If the nominator still feels the article is a delection candidate then they should nominate it via AfD, where the author's ambitions for the article can be more rigorously examined. --Betty Logan (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• (ec) SchroCat is right. This page is an appropriate spin-out. The study of the James Bond 007 character is definitely split between the books and the films. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion I

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... it doesn't duplicate an existing page and there is no page which looks at the character of Bond. There is an article James Bond (literary character), which deals with the literary character, but nothing that deals with the film counterpart. -- SchroCat (^ • @) 13:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

As per SchroCat. I think this article is vital for explaining the film character and is devoid of any distracting information which one may read on an article where this subject is simply mentioned. The film character is very different to the literary version and certainly warrants an article of it's own. --Cassianto^Talk 19:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Support SchroCat per above. Fanthrillers (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yet another deletion process

Many thanks to those who commented on the speedy deletion. As can be seen from the front page, the process has moved onto another questionable attempt at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Bond (film character). All comments are welcome. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Well that finished quickly... -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• SchroCat boldly redirected James Bond (film character) to James Bond (literary character). That seemed to defeat the enitre point of the support move James Bond (character) to James Bond (literary character). The obvious redirect target is James Bond in film. The article James Bond in film is currently missing a treatment on the film character in general as distinct from the literary character, beyond an appropriate initial mention in the lede. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• There's nothing "obvious" about it, SJ—and that was what was so ridiculous about the whole idiotic AfD process. At the risk of repeating what was said several times during the AfD: the James Bond in film article IS NOT ABOUT THE CHARACTER. It isn't about, isn't meant to be about, shouldn't be about and never will be about the character. I'm not sure how I can say this differently, so I'll point out what it should be about: the history of development of the Eon series (with two others), with a focus on the background production history. It should not be about the Bond character. That deserves to be in a separate article.
• The redirect to James Bond in film makes absolutely no sense because the character is not examined in the article—just as it shouldn't be! Have a look at Batman in film: you'll note the characterisation isn't discussed, that's left to the Batman article. Same thing with Superman in film and Superman. What was rejected here was the opportunity to do the same for Bond - to provide a platform to examine the characterisation. There is now no place where that can be done adequately.
• One of the main problems here is the James Bond in film article (which is fairly awful as it stands), as it contains three or four passing references to how the character was played. They can easily be ripped out once the main work on James Bond (film character) provides a place for it to stand. A large amount of superfluous info has been steadily removed from the over-bloated article it once was to create two stand-alone articles, the FL-rated List of James Bond films and the GA-rated Motifs in the James Bond film series. We've managed to do it before and we'll do it again to re-create the James Bond (film character). Without James Bond (film character) there is no appropriate place that to examine the Bond character, or how it has developed through seven film and one television depiction. If people are hell-bent on denying that James Bond (film character) shouldn't exist, can you suggest where the Bond character can be examined, given that it shouldn't be in James Bond in film? - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"given that it shouldn't be in James Bond in film" - that is not a "given". While it is your opinion that that article is not about the character, that view, for all your robust empahsis, does not have consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There is consensus to have the split, but it's on a wider scale, rather than this one narrow page, thus the Batman in film / Batman split, and the same with Superman. Your opinion on the matter doesn't really stack up against the wider one held regarding the structure of those articles in general. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Just as a brief aside, there is consensus for having James Bond in film as the article for production history - it's at Talk:James Bond in film/Archive 1#Outline of new pages and Talk:James Bond in film/Archive 1#Renaming - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

We've just had an AFD, which, though prematurely closed, demonstrated no such consensus. I've already pointed out to you on my talk page, that your Batman example is a non sequitur. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There was no consensus either way on the AfD, so that's a bit of a non sequitur. And you pointed out nothing of sense on your talk page. I'm not entirely sure why this is so difficult for you to try and see objectively. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not a non sequitur, and your statement is proof of what I said: no such consensus was demonstrated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not sure where you're going with, or what you're trying to prove - it's certainly not trying to help this situation as SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) is trying to do. Perhaps you should try to be slightly more constructive, rather than dismissive? It's just a suggestion, made in good faith. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not "trying to prove" anything; but I disproved your assertion that "There is consensus to have the split". It seems to me to be constructive to do so, and unconstructive of you to have made that false assertion in the first place. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice of you to misrepresent the situation: there is a consensus to have a split, it's on a wider stage than this one page, so it's a little disingenuous (and unconstructive) of you to ignore it. It's also being uncivil and seriously lacking in good faith to suggest I have made a false assumption. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

At the moment there is no consensus where film depiction should go, simply because it has never existed before. The logical place would have been James Bond (character), but there was a consensus to make that article just focus on the literary character (which was subsequently renamed as such), since that was what it was mostly about. By contrast James Bond in film has never included coverage of the character per se, it just has some background casting information. Betty Logan (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I closed the afd because Schrodinger's cat agreed to redirect the page and draft out the article in his userspace, so effectively there wasn't an article to discuss any more. I don't think I'm misinterpreting your position in saying you are not against coverage of the character, just where it resides. The location of the coverage pretty much comes down to how much of it there is: if there is not much then James Bond in film is the logical place for it, but if there is a lot of it then the case for creating a separate article increases. I don't see much point in debating a redirected stub, we may as well wait until an article exists. Betty Logan (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

At least one section in James Bond in film should be about the character. The first section after the lede, I would think. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, no, it shouldn't. Two reasons: one, to try and look at eight interpretations in one section is ludicrous: it's too much in an already bloated and overfull article, Secondly, and again at the risk of having to repeat the obvious, the Bond in film article is (or should be) about the history of development of the Bond series and the background of the production history, not the character. Have a look at Batman in film and Superman in film (both GA rated). I'm trying to see information about the character. There isn't any. Why not? Because it's in a separate article, Batman. Same goes for Superman in film and Superman. Why is this so difficult to achieve with Bond? - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It would just duplicate content. Either the James Bond film character warrants a separate article or it does not. If it doesn't then it should be covered at James Bond in film, but if it does then a separate article should be created for it, and duplicate content at James Bond in film should be removed. Having an overlap in content is a bad idea and has led to this situation somewhat: editors have looked at the in film article and seen coverage of the film character so they believe a separate article is redundant; they simply haven't appreciated there is much more to cover. Betty Logan (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly - there is perhaps 3% or 4% of the required information in the JB in film article. I would expect James Bond (film character) to be around a 70-90k article, with perhaps 10k of that information coming out of the existing stuff people have erroneously put into James Bond in film. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The entire substantive content before bold redirection was:

In 1954 the Bond character appeared in a television adaptation, with the part played by American actor [[Barry Nelson]]; in 1962 he appeared in the [[Eon Productions]] film [[Dr. No (film)|''Dr. No'']], played by [[Sean Connery]]. He has subsequently been portrayed on film by actors [[David Niven]], [[George Lazenby]], [[Roger Moore]], [[Timothy Dalton]], [[Pierce Brosnan]] and [[Daniel Craig]], in twenty-four productions, with a twenty-fifth in production. Only two films were not made by company [[Eon Productions]]. With a combined gross of nearly $5 billion to date, the Eon produced films create the [[List of highest-grossing film series|second-highest-grossing film series]], behind the [[Harry Potter (film series)|''Harry Potter'' films]];<ref name="Guard: HP gross" /> however, accounting for the effects of [[inflation]] the Bond films have amassed over $12 billion as of May 2011 prices.<ref name="economist" />

plus a promising bibliography of eleven entries.

This is more or less suitable to lead into the current treatment of the portrayals by actor and movie, which to criticise, assumes familiarity with the character (in film, not the literary character). James Bond in film currently needs more introduction to the character, referencing James Bond (literary character), and contrasting that with what follows.

If there is to be a spinout, a summary of the spinout remains, pointing to {{mainarticle}}. So no, Betty, a separate article does not involve complete removal of the content.

The problem today with having the separate article is its minimal content. The above material less than a suitable summary of a spinout. To demonstrate the need for a spinout, you should first creaton a section of size and quality.

The difference between James Bond (literary character) and Batman or Superman is that Bond is a literary character of some substance. The others are, well, comic book characters. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right about the difference between literary and comic book characters: it's why we went with the James Bond (literary character) article, seprate from a James Bond (film character) article, separate from an article which looks at the production history. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

SchroCat wrote: "the James Bond in film article (which is fairly awful as it stands), as it contains three or four passing references to how the character was played. They can easily be ripped out once the main work on James Bond (film character) provides a place for it to stand."

If the James Bond in film article is fairly awful (I agree it is unbalanced), then why don't you improve it? You'd rather start a new article? OK, but you ruined that opportunity for yourself by boldly redirecting to end an AfD discussion. If you now want to make a decent James Bond (film character), I think you'll need to do it in userspace or in the article incubator. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Given subsequent comments, that redirect increasingly looks like an attempt to circumvent the AfD process. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

SJ, I'll point out that what you quote above was correct at the time of the initial speedy deletion (quickly laughed out of court). Unfortunately the knee-jerk reaction was against seven minutes of editing and I was reading one of the relevant works prior to including further information when it was proposed. Unfortunately the premature speedy deletion meant that we can't discuss the article in its entirity, only the promise of what will be. You can see the approach I take to developing an article by looking at the GA-rated James Bond (literary character): it's concise, well-referenced, free of fancruft, in-universe language or other such nonsense and is entirely encyclopaedic. It's a shame that the article was not given the chance to develop fully. I will work on it further in my userspace and return it when it is ready - which will also include a removal of the over-lapping information from James Bond in film. Like the sister article James Bond (literary character), this will be a full review of all the available materials and again free of the usual fancruft nonsense. As to the JB in film article, yes it needs a re-write, and that is on a rather long to-do list. It's also a place with various entrenched interests meaning wholescale article revision can be a lengthy and tiring process. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a good opportunity here to have James Bond (film character) and James Bond in film as separate topics. In general, the goal of "<fictional character> in film" articles (like Superman in film and Batman in film) is to trace the production history that involves the character. I think with James Bond, this does not appear as clear because he is in popular culture more of a film character than the aforementioned examples. Would it be possible to have James Bond in film as a high-level topic, and James Bond (film character) as a sub-article (with a summary section under "James Bond in film")? Coverage of the character makes sense as part of this umbrella topic, and readers can read in depth about the character at the "film character" article. And the "in film" article can keep the main focus of going from one film to another in the series and aggregating similar information. I think SchroCat has the motivation to research these topics and do a good job of it, so I recommend letting potential develop especially in regard to the "film character" article. It may help to define exactly what both articles will cover. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

IMDb character link

Did you notice the link to the Bond character?: http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0000007/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pista235 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

David Niven

Smartie2thaMaxXx, Firstly, Can I suggest that you read WP:BRD, which suggests that when someone reverts your bold edit you start a discussion on the talk page, rather than edit warring to try and press your point of view over others. Secondly, the article is about the actors who have played Bond on film. Not those who have played Bond in the Eon Productions series, but those who have played Bond on film. This includes David Niven, which is why there is a piece included in the article about him (see "2.2 David Niven: 1967"). - SchroCat (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:James Bond filmography/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, I'll go through and make straightforward copyedits (please revert if I inadvertently guff the meaning) and jot queries below.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

link Bentley.

Now linked - SchroCat (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

In para 2 of Fleming's literary characterisation it'd be good to streamline mention of smoking and drinking habits into one mention each rather than repeat them in consecutive sentences.

I've merged into one simply by swapping the full stop for a colon: does this read OK? I played around with dropping the second sentence into the first in various places, but it messed up with the citations too much. - SchroCat (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The "penchant" edit looks good. - SchroCat (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Despite the negative press prior to the release of Casino Royale, upon its release Craig was widely praised by critics and former Bonds - try to remove one "release"....

Re-worked the sentence—only one "release" in there now. - SchroCat (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The prose is pretty good and engaging to read..and I can see it is well referenced. I can see this at FAC before too long. I'm musing on the overall structure in that it is somewhat listy - you have the lead and then the segments on each actor. Is there any material on overall viewpoints on overall best-rated actor to play bond, other popular discussions on actors most proposed by fans to play bond. The material on bond and smoking is interesting...so some discussion of evolution of his attributes - problem is this might be problematic cutting across the segments as laid out currently. I am throwing up some ideas here and am not familiar with the scholarly study of bond in film...so you might have some other ideas....Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

There was some discussion on that when we put the article together (but I'm struggling to find ther thread at the moment). Initially I had wanted to mirror the structure of James Bond (literary character), so this article was initially called James Bond (film character) and it started out going that way. However, it soon became apparent that there just wasn't suffcient material around to cover that angle, so it had to be broken down chronologically instead. In terms of the "best" Bond etc, there are probably more forum threads discussing people's personal choices for theatr mantle than there are articles on Wiki! They are all from the fan sites, so we've avoided them like the plague and kept only to the reliable sources, all of which keep the subjective part out of the equation, except to note that Connery is still considered to be the genesis of the character by which all others are measured. - SchroCat (talk) 04:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, if there is nothing else that is missing from reliable sources then so be it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking on the task of reviewing this: it's a long article and I hope it's not been too onerous! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is an enjoyable read! nice work. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: (deft work with images)

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - great, nice read. I spot-checked a couple sources - looked ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

That's fantastic news: thanks very much indeed for this—it is very much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Categories for fictional characters

Not really sure what the problem is here. A filmography is not a fictional character of any stripe and clearly should not be categorized as such. Real things like films (and lists of films) are not correctly categorized as fictional things because they are real and exist. James Bond (literary character) is appropriately categorized as a fictional character. A list of James Bond films is not. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• A day and a half later and no response other than an accusation of edit warring in an edit summary, a lie told in bad faith. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• There is no lie and no bad faith, so drop the uncivil comments straight away - and stop edit warring at the same time. I have been extremely busy in RL, and this minor point slipped my mind when I did get a chance to get on Wiki. I will respond shortly to the substantive points, but in the meantime you can cut the snarkiness here and on my talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• I will call a lie a lie and I will call bad faith bad faith. I allowed a day and a half for a response and got none but as soon as I re-implemented the edit (again, a day and a half later) you accused me of edit warring. That is not edit warring by any possible definition of the word. And I find it amazing that your hectic IRL schedule kept you from commenting here yet didn't prevent you from being actively part of good article and featured article activities not to mention making myriad other edits across the project. So again, stop lying and stop acting in bad faith. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

What a charmless little editor you are. I have asked you to be civil and it seems you are unable even to take that tiny step, but even compound that by repeating the offence. Thanks very much for turning this into a toxic fubar. - SchroCat (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I didn't learn from your own charm offensive. Out of curiosity, just how long are you to be allowed to hold up this edit under the rubric of "take it to the talk page" and edit warring accusations and then not addressing the issue? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for yet another pointy little dig. It's unnecessary and does nothing to help bring this to a conclusion. If you had read what I said above, this minor situation had slipped my mind while I dealt with a few more pressing matters. There was no need for you to have edited it further, you could have dropped a line on the talk page asking if I was going to respond: there was no need for you to just revert again - and certainly no need to continue with yet more pointy comments. In terms of the substantive matter in hand. This is not a "list of films", as you inaccurately described it: it is a page about a fictional character and the portrayal of that character on film. As such, it's pretty accurate to categorise the page as such. – SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed yours. And no, that's how James Bond (literary character) should be categorized because that's an actual article about an actual fictional character. "Portrayal of a fictional character on film" is not a fictional assassin or fictional secret agent or fictional anything else. This article, about the real-world portrayal of a character, is non-fiction. There are non-fiction categories in which it fits. Categorizing non-fiction as fiction is factually wrong and dilutes the efficacy of the category system. I get this is your pet article but that doesn't change the facts that its subject is not a fictional anything. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Stop with the pathetic insults: I do not claim ownership to this or any article. I have asked you on each and every edit to stop being so uncivil. Stop. Now. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant info in article?

Hi! I was scanning this article and I noticed some info that doesn't seem to belong here. The second paragraph of the lead section, along with the section titled, "Fleming's literary characterization", seem to deal exclusively with Bond as portrayed in the novels by Fleming. Since this article is about the film portrayals of Bond, this seems to put too much emphasis on the James Bond literary character, which already has it's own article. So I was wondering, is the second paragraph of the lead section, along with the "Fleming's literary characterization" section, really needed at all? Both seem to drift away from the subject of the article in my opinion. But if they absolutely should remain, is there any way we could make them more balanced with the rest of the article? Thanks for your time! Survivorfan1995 (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It provides information regarding the source of the character, which was then further developed by the various actors in different ways. It's entirely appropriate that it should remain, and it's a balanced section as it stands. - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The reason it is there is to inform readers of various aspects of the character, which is somewhat complicated by the fact that Bond is often played in different ways. However, maybe we should focus on the portrayal rather than Fleming, to keep it distinct from the literary character. I will have a fiddle with it — feel free to revert/anything you're not happy with. Betty Logan (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The first James Bond

I don't know how to edit the filmography but I want to let you know that Sean Connery was not the first actor to play James Bond. He is the one that made the character famous but the first James Bond was Barry Nelson in a made for TV movie, Casino Royal (1954). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1403:8080:8D51:D88:245:29F (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You didn't actually read this, did you? We mention Nelson in the lead. He doesn't get more than that because it wasn't a film, it was an episode of a television series, which is outside the scope of this page. See James Bond for further details. BTW there's a thread two above this that asks the same question, and gets the same answer on this. – SchroCat (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Postnominals

The article started "Commander James Bond, CMG, RNR"... until I just changed it to "Commander James Bond RN". Fleming's novels establish that Bond is a Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George, and served as a Commander in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve during the Second World War—but this article is about the films, not the novels. In the films Bond is often referred to by his Commander rank, but as far as I'm aware when he appears in uniform (in You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me and Tomorrow Never Dies) this is Royal Navy uniform, not Royal Naval Reserve uniform. With regard to the CMG: Bond wears this ribbon in YOLT but not the other films. Based on the uniforms he wears, Bond is "Commander James Bond CMG DSO RN" in YOLT, "Commander James Bond RN" in TSWLM and "Commander James Bond C[or O, or M]BE DSC" in TND (and he is "Sir James Bond VC DCM" on an envelope in the 1967 Casino Royale). Given that the only consistency in the films is that he is a Commander in the Royal Navy, I think this is all that should be reflected in the lead section of the article. Opera hat (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

This is incorrect - there are 8 James Bonds: While Sean Connery may have been the first actor to play Bond in an Eon Production, Barry Nelson was the first ever actor to really portray James Bond on live action cinema. His film was the 1954 version of Casino Royale, and he was also deemed the worst Bond as well. While they weren’t aware that James Bond would then become a movie icon, his version of Casino Royale wasn’t quite up to par with the others.

Basically his Bond made who would seem to have the worst Bond in the movies look miles better. The production value was so-so, and it was strange having to see Bond sport an American accent while adopting the name of Jimmy instead of James. That aside, Barry seemed to lack the charisma that his successors would soon embody in the role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.147.157.164 (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Title - 'filmography'

Why is the article called 'James Bond filmography'? What does that mean? Because to me, that implied James Bond is an actor and that this article is a list of films he is in? Wouldn't 'James Bond (film character)' be better, in contrast with James Bond (literary character)? --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 14:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, the "literary character" article details a homogeneous literary creation. This article is mostly about the different portrayals in various adaptations i.e. the Sean Connery and Roger Moore Bonds are supposedly the same person, but the preoccupation of the article is how the actors approached the role. In a literal sense a filmography is just a list of films according to some criteria and you are confusing the definition with its common application. Betty Logan (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, yeah this is not how 'filmography' works. Filmography is the correct term for a real person and their film appearances. Filmography is a work by a person. This page is about the character within a film series. The title should be changed. Very misleading/strange title.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a very narrow view (and again, why are you commenting on threads from three years ago?) - SchroCat (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This is the definition of "filmography" from the OED: "A list of the films of a particular director, producer, actor, etc., or of those dealing with a particular theme." The "theme" here being James Bond of course. I don't have any great love affair with the title so if a better title was proposed I would be happy to consider it, but let's not operate under the pretense that the current one is semantically incorrect. Betty Logan (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Two films are not listed

Is there a reason why Casino Royale (1967) and Never Say Never Again (1983) are not listed in this article?

ICE77 (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

They are. The last para of Connery and all of Niven. - SchroCat (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

They are not part of the red bar.

ICE77 (talk) 06:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

That is a timeline of the Eon films, not all of them. - SchroCat (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

As Schro says, the timeline just documents the Eon films. That said the timeline is only included on two articles (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:James_Bond_Timeline) so adding the other two films (maybe in a different colour) is certainly something that could be discussed, but the appropriate place for that is Template talk:James Bond Timeline. Betty Logan (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Who cares who makes or distributes the films if the character is James Bond and this entry's title is James Bond filmography?

ICE77 (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

you are entirely right on that point for this article but there is also (from memory of when I tried to add them several years ago) a technical problem of two films coming out the same year. The text overwrote itself and the links didn't work, from what I remember. - SchroCat (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The red bar is given by the tag "<<James Bond Timeline>>" where "<<" is replaced by "{{" and ">>" is replaced by "}}". I see the difficulty in adding Casino Royale (1967) and Never Say Never Again (1983) if the source code is not modified. Do you know how to do that? I have no clue.

ICE77 (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It is easy to add them in using up/down commands but it loses some aesthetic appeal: Bond timeline with non-Eon films. Betty Logan (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Alright, then let's keep an aesthetically pleasing list rather than a complete and correct one.

ICE77 (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 10 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Some questions, but no objections. Consensus favors the proposed title. Good job everyone. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 17:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

---

James Bond filmography → Portrayal of James Bond in film – This article conflates the word filmography with what it is really about, which is a list (give or take) of the actors who have appeared as James Bond. This can be seen by the description given in the hatnote. This article is among those raised as being conflated/confused with the articles also listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#James Bond and the proposed title saw some support there. Izno (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Question – What value does this article provide beyond that which is provided by James Bond in film? IOW, wouldn't "merge" or even "delete" be the better option here? After only a quick glance, I'm not sure I see much difference between the two articles, except that James Bond in film looks to be more detailed... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • They are entirely different subjects. This article is about the history of the James Bond character as portrayed in the film series. "Bond in film" is about the production background. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#James Bond. - SchroCat (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

    Agree with Schro. There is common ground between the two articles but they approach the topic from two completely different perspectives. This article considers the casting and interpretation of the role while the other focuses on the production background. It definitely works better as two separate articles IMO. If it were a single article then under the WP:SIZERULE we'd be considering splitting it. Ultimately though this a rename discussion not a merge discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

    As below, I want this move request on making the title WP:PRECISE. If I were to have a suggestion about organization, I would prefer to do it on a historical basis i.e. one article on 60s-80s Bond films and 90s-2010s Bond films. But I'm not especially interested in hashing that out and if that's something that you think should be done, please consider a separate thread at a central location. --Izno (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support/Comment – I do wonder whether we should take the opportunity of the page move and slightly expand the scope to Portrayal of James Bond. I see no reason why the radio/TV Bonds can't be covered here too and make the topic comprehensive. Betty Logan (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Lack of information on the radio Bonds would be a problem. Portrayal of James Bond on screen is doable, but that only really adds one proper outing to the equation. - SchroCat (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

    I wanted this move request to be limited just to making the article title match what's in the article (i.e. that the title is WP:PRECISE). The additional work can be done but should be hashed out separate to this move request. --Izno (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• List of actors who portrayed James Bond? Dekimasuよ! 18:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This is in not a list page. - SchroCat (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit warring

JDDJS, please stop edit warring and use the talk page to discuss. "Last" does not mean final. "Last" is the last one before the next one. - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

How is what I'm doing edit warring but what you're doing not? Also, this has been discussed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_character/Archive_3 JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

An eight-year-old thread that was about whether to remove the field, that doesn't come to a conclusion and that doesn't actually define what constitutes "last"? That's not a great basis for edit warring. - SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

And what's your basis for edit warring? You are just as guilty as me. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you have anything to say on the use of the field? - SchroCat (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The field says last, not latest, and there were the discussions I pointed to. Do you have anything to say on use of the field? Because so far all you've done over here is accuse me of edit warring, an accusation that I don't deny, but you are just as guilty of it as me and find it extremely hypocritical of you to try to call me out for it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I know it says last. Yes, there is ambiguity to the term, and the eight-year-old archived discussions do not clarify the point. As I said in my opening comment: "Last" does not mean final. "Last" can also be the last one before the next one. The status quo has lasted for several years (Since September 2012, when the page was first created) during which time thousands of editors will have visited the page without finding it problematic. So far I do not see anything that is going to change that status quo. - SchroCat (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I would say there is no ambiguity here regarding the nature of the parameter i.e. within the context of Wikipedia policy it can only mean the "most recent" appearance. This is because characters can be brought back from the dead, appear in prequels or simply rebooted or re-adapted down the line. We can never be sure that a character's last appearance is their final appearance, and regarding it as such would violate WP:CRYSTAL. If the parameter is to be interpreted as a "final" appearance then it should be simply removed from the template because that would violate our policies. While it remains we should interpret "last" as "most recent". That said, I saw the edit but didn't revert because I don't consider it especially useful anyway, but that's just my opinion. The article is well maintained so I have no doubt the parameter will be kept up to date. Again, while I personally don't use this parameter other editors are free to do so (subject to consensus) while it remains part of the template and it is applicable to the subject. Betty Logan (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Connery is not 1.BOND actor movies: Bob Simmons Gunbarriel sequence actor James Bond movies before Connery.

1 Barry Nelson Casino Royale James Bond:Barry Nelson Woman:Linda Christian Peter Lorre CBS CLIMAX MYSTERIES THEATER

2 BOB SIMMONS Gunbarriel sequence actor James Bond movies actor IMDB 1962-64 3 Before Sean Connery. 1Gunbarrels sequence actor James Bond movies actor Thunderball 1965. Jaguar E-Type AstonMartin (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Nelson took part in a television programme, it doesn't make it onto this filmography page. Bob Simmons is not an actor but was Sean Connery stunt double. This page is about the actors and not about their stunt doubles. Lobo151 (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Re: Niven and Casino Royale

@35.137.140.129: All legal adpatations of copyrighted works are "official". See Casino Royale (1967 film)#Development. DonQuixote (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The IP's rationale doesn't make sense. The film is an "official" adaptation in the sense that the copyright was purchased and legally adapted. You could perhaps even argue it is more of a James Bond film than say Skyfall, in the sense it is adapted from a Fleming novel. Perhaps what the IP means is that it is not produced by Eon? That may be so, but the article is not about one particular series or production line, it is about James Bond. For that reason it also includes Never Say Never Again. The article is no different in its approach to coverage than say, Batman in film, which covers all different incarnations. I think what the IP truly objects to here is that it is a satire and therefore it is loses some legitimacy in his eyes. But that doesn't change the facts. Casino Royale is a James Bond film, and David Niven is credited as James Bond in the film. The other "James Bonds" that appear in the film are not actually James Bond; they are other agents who have adopted the persona after James Bond retired. Again, not quite the same thing. Playing a James Bond impostor does not amount to a portrayal of the character. Betty Logan (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)