Talk:Spectre (2015 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Restoration of article

After reading the AfD, I have to say that I disagree with the course of action that was taken. The article was well sourced, it had pertinent information to the development, regardless of accuracy. The only problem was the OR title, which couldn't really be avoided. It doesn't really matter how the article for Skyfall came to be. What matters is the article for Bond 24 was well sourced and, IMO, met both WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. Therefore, I'd like to propose the restoration of the separate article as it was before the merge, granted maybe with more information as a year has passed and more information may be known now. I'd also like to propose it being under the title "Development of Bond 24", per the precedent provided by "Development of Star Wars Episode VII". Thoughts? CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 10:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Alarm bells always ring when I read that people want to include something "regardless of accuracy": we are an encyclopaedia, not a fan site. We don't try and predict the future, and we try and rely on reliable sources, not the fluff and trivia that is often pedalled out before the official sources can confirm anything. Much of the initial draft of the article was crammed with such trivia from unofficial sources. What was left after culling out the dross was a replication of that information in the James Bond in film#Future article to which the page currently re-directs.

A "Bond 24" page fails WP:NFF since filming has not begun; there are a small number of announcements by Eon Productions. Point #5 of WP:CRYSTAL states "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors ... short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic". CRRaysHead90, I am sorry that you didn't like the course of action, but that was the consensus that was settled on after a discussion based on policies and guidelines: nothing substantive has changed since that point to warrant re-opening the article prior to the start of production. – SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with SchroCat. At the moment what exactly would go in the article? We literally have three lines worth of facts at Bond_24#Future and we don't need to set up an article for three lines. NFF is occasionally waived if the pre-production is notable and there is enough information to construct an article around, which was the case for Star Wars Episode VII. If we had enough information about Bond 24 I might be persuaded to waive NFF, but that doesn't seem to be the case for Bond_24#Future i.e. at this point there is actually no need for a separate article even though there almost certainly will be one down the road. Betty Logan (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

When filming begins, the the article can begin. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Prisonermonkeys

This is no place to fight out personal feuds
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This editor is hijacking this article, reverting any edit that does not come under his/her personal view. Even when the edits are within Wikipedian standards, he will revert to what he/she sees as correct, even if incorrect - I see this as unjust and against what this website is about 78.146.44.151 (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Before you rush to judgement, read the above section where I outline the issue I am trying to address and my reasons for it. And rather than launch an attack like the one you just have, make your argument based on policy and the demands of the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Reply to above added 78.146.44.151 (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "Even when the edits are within Wikipedian standards, he will revert to what he/she sees as correct, even if incorrect"'' Isn't it funny how this can apply to you? You clearly will not settle for anything other than your preferred edits, pushing them through and directing people here, where you proceed to abuse them for not agreeing with you. You have already done it twice. And then you go about quoting Wikipedia policy with no clear understanding of it, and seem to think that you are entitled to edit-war and break 3RR because you think you are right. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Looking at your talk page, you seem to have been involved in several edit wars:- Edit warring at 2013 Formula One season and 2013 Monaco Grand Prix Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion 2 Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion 2 Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion Edit War Warning January 2014 Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion Edit warring october 2014 November 2014 : You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at 2014 Russian Grand Prix Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion 14 November 2014 : You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for first violating 3RR at Assassin's Creed Rogue and then ignoring my warning at WP:AN3. Edit Warring 78.146.44.151 (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Play the ball, not the man. What happened elsewhere has no bearing on the decisions that will be taken here. You haven't made a single argument based on policy or procedure, and this entire subsection is little more than an attack page to try and force your edits through. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC) No"u haven't made a single argument based on policy or procedure, and this entire subsection is little more than an attack page to try and force your edits through. " no, you have just ignored any arguments myself, Betty Logan and others have made 78.146.44.151 (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Legal settlement over the SPECTRE copyrights

Should the 2013 legal settlement over the SPECTRE copyrights be mentioned in this article? - Areaseven (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Most definitely, as the settlement cleared the way for the movie. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• When reliable sources start making the connection, not when we make the OR connection. - SchroCat (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done. I admit to having had pinched a lot of it from the SPECTRE article, so it might need some reworking. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Tweaked. The SPECTRE article took some of it from the current Thunderball article, which I know is excellent (it should be!) It's a boiled down, simple version, which is all that's needed here, and the main link to the full background on the novel is there should people want to know more. - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Links to story of Octupussy Novel

The character of Oberhauser played by Christoph Waltz is related to the character of Austrian Hannes Oberhauser the childhood father figure and ski instructor of James Bond in Octopussy who was killed by Major Dexter Smith. 174.62.77.5 (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you can cite a reliable source that mentions that. DonQuixote (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly—Octopussy and The Living Daylights only ever references Hannes Oberhauser. Despite sharing the sane surname, there is no mention of a Franz Oberhauser anywhere in the Bond canon. Without a reliable source, we cannot make the claim that Franz Oberhauser is related in any way to Hannes Oberhauser. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the way Eln have picked up names, places and titles and used them with no connection to the Fleming source means we can't just assume the connection until it is apparent in the film (or cast/crew statements make it more clear. - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

How can just one or two sentences in a section be acceptable?

It's looks like it's written by a kid trying to pad-out the size of his homework! And what does "As per MoS. (TW)" mean? One-eyed Jim (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Which section(s) are you specifically referring to? And how would propose modifying it given that the article contains all of the available information that we currently have? And how would you do so in a way that keeps it consistent with other related articles?

Also, "MoS" refers to the Manual of Style, a set of guidelines that aid editors as to how an article shiuld be built. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Prisonermonkeys, thanks for replying. The sections I'm specifically referring to are pretty much all the sections in the "Spectre (2015 film)" article. They are mostly way too short to be sections. The modification I propose is to merge all the sections into one. If there isn't enough available information to justify whole sections (as you suggest), then don't have all those sections! It isn't rocket science.

Thanks for the link for MoS too. In there I couldn't see anything insisting on one sentence per section either, in fact all I found was advice that very short (or very long) sections make an article look cluttered, so a good reason actually supporting my attempt to merge them. And what is TW"? One-eyed Jim (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@One-eyed Jim: we can reasonably expect that the sections will be expanded upon as more information becomes available. Look at the way the article has developed in the past two days—this trend will only continue. While it may seem short-sighted now, the best way to edit any article is with one eye on what that article will look like when it is finished; in this case, Skyfall is what we will be aiming for. Merging the paragraphs may make sense in the short term, but this article is going to be thoroughly expanded upon over the next eighteen months.

Perhaps I should have been more specific in directing you to the MoS; there are many Manuals of Style for a variety of subjects. The Manual of Style for film might be a better place to look. But it is worth bearing in mind that these are guidelines, not biblical commandments. Wikipedia allows editors the freedom to act in the interests of the article. I regularly edit Formula 1 articles, and some of our practices there openly clash with the Manual of Style for using national flags.

As for "TW", I think it's for Twinkle, one of the apps in the editor's toolkit. But I don't use it myself, so I'm not sure. SchroCat might be a better person to ask. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's Twinkle. One-eyed Jim, you can click on the link in the edit summary to take you to the page which explains the tool. - SchroCat (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

If the article were to remain in this state then I'd agree that the sections should be merged. Obviously it doesn't make sense to have one and two sentence sections. However, the article is a work in progress and will be greatly expanded between now and the release of the film. All of these sections will be substantial going by the articles for the other Bond films. Betty Logan (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all for the enlightenment. I can't help thinking it would be better to start with one section, covering the meagre information currently available, then as more info becomes available and the section expands, split out more sections as the content allows. That way it would look better now and be more readable. One-eyed Jim (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Now the film is in production things will fill out fairly quickly as local press sources start describing locations, filming etc. Having it split from the start will make it much more easy to keep in a logical breakdown. One section will become bloated very quickly, material is often put in twice because of the lack of structure, and the whole mess is much more difficult to re-work into quality content. A few of the editors of this page have done this before in this manner, and know what works best for article development. - SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll bow to your experience. ;-) One-eyed Jim (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Writer Credits on Recent Entries

In the current article, the line asserting that Neal Purvis and Robert Wade are returning for their fifth Bond film has the attached footnote: "Purvis and Wade were credited for the screenplay of Quantum of Solace as they wrote the original draft of the film. However, the final script was written entirely by Paul Haggis." This assertion seems questionable for a couple or reasons. 1) Though their are certainly cases of writers receiving credit when very little of their work made it into the final film, and director Marc Forster asserted that he and Haggis redeveloped the script "pretty much ... from scratch," it does seem unlikely that the producers and the WGA would have opted to credit Purvis and Wade if *none* of their contributions were evident in the final project. 2) More importantly, Forster and others have acknowledged that the final contributions prior to filming were made by Joshua Zetumer (who later wrote the Robocop remake), though he remained uncredited: http://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=6080.SquidPebblePoliceman (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Good point.

One question, though—why didn't you just make the necessary edits in the article? It took me all of two minutes to find the relevant reference in the QOS article.

To address your first point, the WGA rules on who can be credited for what and when and why are as convoluted as they are esoteric. Graham Yost is formally credited as having written Speed, but in his words, Joss Whedon wrote 98% of the film. Purvis and Wade were credited because of the extent of their work early on. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The article lead

While the desire to have an article lead that is consistent with the leads of other, similar articles, please bear in mind the needs of this article first and foremost. Consistency with other articles is nice, and is what the article will ultimately look like; however, recent edits to the lead do little more than list things that appear elsewhere in the article. The lead is intended as a summary of the article's key points, not as the body of the article itself. Giving the appearance of consistency is not worth it if it violates this idea, as this idea is more important than consistency for now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The introduction to the article now fits in with previous James Bond films and is a better representation of the Spectre film as is. It is clearer than what was before and removes the contention. You actively state that it is "what the article will ultimately look like", then why change it? The intro, as is, does summarise the key points - as it should - and works as an intro 78.146.44.151 (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It does not summarise the key points. It lists things. And while the article will eventually have a full summary, that doesn't mean that you sacrifice the current demands of the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The article as it is now reads more coherently and informative. It's less misleading and involves facts that are known. The current demands of the article are met and the article is better off for it. No sacrifices have been made 78.146.44.151 (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a list. It's two lists - one of crew members and one of shooting locations. An article lead should not be a list, much less two. And you continue to assert that the previous version is misleading, even though you haven't demonstrated it. In short, it's a bad edit - low-quality work driven by your need to be proven right. You do not own the article, no natter how much you might like to. After all, you have spent the past two days sitting on the article and reverting edits you dislike, then coming in here and attacking experienced editors for disagreeing with you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I see there wassome back and forth over this last night. WP:LEADLENGTH gives indications of size, and less than 15,000 characters is one or two paras. As this is around 4,000 characters, I'd suggest one for now. It's a stub of an article at the moment and a one-para lead reflects that. As filming progresses and changes tings, the article will grow and it will become more obvious what is more or less important: it is at that point that the lead should change. Please remember that the lead reflects the article: it does not just repeat it. - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The current lead does not actually reflect the article though, it adds content that isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article. Oberhauser isn't described as a "villain" elsewhere in the article, but this term is applied in the lead. And we cannot correct that discrepancy now because the article has been locked, following Prisonermonkeys's request to have it locked and in which he wholly misrepresented the situation in my opinion. One-eyed Jim (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

There's a lot of focus on Oberhauser that is a massive and unwelcome distraction at this stage. I suggest you stop focussing on this minor detail for the moment and be constructive on other things (if O isn't the villain then feel free to jump for joy and shove it in Prisonermonkey's face; if not, be prepared to eat humble pie – either way most of the other editors don't give enough of a toss over what is a minor detail in the grand scheme of things). Either way, the length of the lead is fine for the the length of the article, despite the tediousOberhauser/villain silliness. – SchroCat (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Changes are possible, even if the article is protected—we just have to put a request in to the admins and demonstrate a consensus. It's not an ideal situation, but it's better than leaving the article subject to a disruptive editor trying to force bad edits through—his changes to the lead were little more than a list—and going on the offensive at anyone who opposed him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

If you have consensus, I am on standby to make the changes. Heck, I'll even unprotect it. Thanks for working together, all. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

"if O isn't the villain then feel free to jump for joy and shove it in Prisonermonkey's face"

Well, you can do that, but I won't care. This isn't about my ego. It never was. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

"if O isn't the villain then feel free to jump for joy and shove it in Prisonermonkey's face; if not, be prepared to eat humble pie – either way most of the other editors don't give enough of a toss over what is a minor detail in the grand scheme of things - It was never about what he ultimately turns out to be, and it was never about whether Prisonermonkeys was correct or not in his belief that Waltz is or isn't a villain - what the problem was, ultimately, was confirmation and the article being misleading - the sources he provided weren't secure enough and that was the problem. The article is now locked, and that is unfortunate, but I hope that it will end up being a well written and correct article. And on the "humble pie" note - I actually think that it is highly possible that he'll be a villain, but as of now, there is no confirmation 78.146.44.151 (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

_*Possibly/probably/no big deal/ all come out in the wash/ storm in a tea cup. Delete as appropriate, but the lock isn't unfortunate, but a positive thing: it takes the heat out of a non-issue and allows perspective to develop. - SchroCat (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Then make an argument based on policy. So far, you have had two main arguments:

1) That Waltz "did not say" that he was playing the villain. But had the same time, he did not say that he was not playing the villain. All he really said was that he could not discuss anything. Therefore, his comments are not proof either way.

2) That the media piled on the speculation about Naomie Harris during production of Skyfall, but her character was never confirmed until the final scene—but you're assuming that because it happened then, it's happening now, even though it involves different people in a different production four years later.

Neither of those arguments works, since both are based on logical fallacies. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The point is, noone has come out and specifically said he is playing the villain - you have no quotes from anyone at the press junket stating that he is playing a villain - my quote adds enough doubt to leave the villain part out of the article 78.146.44.151 (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

But the quote doesn't rule out his playing the villain, either. What you're doing is synthesis—taking evidence from multiple sources and combining them to form something new. It's original research. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

SchroCat, were you addressing your "if O isn't the villain then feel free to jump for joy and shove it in Prisonermonkey's face; if not, be prepared to eat humble pie" remarks to me? If you were, you need to re-read and try to comprehend what I wrote. I was NOT offering an opinion on whether O was to be the villain, or not, I was pointing out that the lead was actually adding content to the article, rather that simply summarising it. This is because the O character is not currently described as a villain elasewhere in the main body of the article. As I see it there are two possible solutions to this. We could either add the villain discussion to the body (thus validating the summary in the lead) or we could remove the currently false summary from the lead. Which is it to be? Either way, what I wrote holds true whether O turns out to be a villain, or not. One-eyed Jim (talk) 10:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Validation

Before I registered to edit here, I read a fair number of the Wikipedia help pages, and one thing that came across strong and clear was the necessity for every asserted fact written to be verifiable from outside sources. Now I might be being too pedantic, naive or lacking comprehension skills over this too, but I cannot easily see anywhere in the given "in-line reference(s)" support for the following assertions:

• "... will take over from Roger Deakins, who elected not to return following the release of Skyfall."
• "Cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema is shooting the film on Kodak 35mm film stock."

One-eyed Jim (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Both of those have citations - that's what the numbers in parentheses are. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I realised the bracketed numbers represented the links to the "in-line references", which is how I open them. But I could not find any mention of "Roger Deakins" in the one or a link between van Hoytema and Kodak film in the others. That's why I raised the above as a concern. One-eyed Jim (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

That's why we use multiple sources. The HitFix one makes it clear that van Hoytema replaced Deakins. The Kodak one hasn't been updated to reflect the title, but still lists van Hoytema as cinematographer/DP on Bond 24. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Last time I came on I was in too much of a hurry to reply here, but I found the explanation lacking. You cannot expect readers to have read the whole article, and be able to make assumptions or jump to the necessary conclusions required to adequately verify facts. Each fact needs qualifying with the appropriate reference. I fixed one of those I mentioned above by re-applying the appropriate reference. We need also to make clear to the readers that interpretation of the Kodak reference requires the knowledge that Kodak refer to the film as Bond 24. One-eyed Jim (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

We've already told readers that the working title was Bond 24, so we don't need to repeat it again later. Standard practice is to say things only once and not keep repeating facts throughout. - SchroCat (talk) 07:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news source. Which there are no doubt some people who check the article for updates, you cannot write the article exclusively for them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

What harm does adding a clarification note to the reference do? Especially as it could save someone a lot of time verifying a fact. I couldn't find Spectre in the reference, but if the note was present when I was checking, I would have trie Bond 24 and been quickly satisfied. Our goal should be the dissemination of information, not inflexibly insisting that readers read, and digest, the whole article before trying to validate any of it. Let's be reasonable here, eh? One-eyed Jim (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

We are being reasonable, and we are ensurung that ever minor, tiny factoid isn't repeated throughout the artice "just because". The article opens with the words "twenty-fourth" and we refer to "Bond 24" earlier on. We do not treat readers like morons who can't hold basic information within a short read, or that they will have to have every minor detail explained to them, but instead work on the basis of common sense. It's fairly self-explanatory what the term means in the source (and 99.9% of our readers will not be ploughing through the source anyway), so the additional note isn't needed. - SchroCat (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you, SchroCat, have evidence to support those assertions about the readers? If you don't, then I dispute them. I was interested to see how, before a second has yet been filmed, how the film type was known, so I opened the souce and searched for "spectre". It wasn't there, so I gave up. If the note was there, then all would have immediately been hunky-dory. Lead the reader directly to the right place - just like providing page numbers or specific urls actually. Make it easy, not unnecessarily difficult to find. One-eyed Jim (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Dispute away, but I'm trying to help you understand how things work here. If a fact is mentioned once, it does not need to be repeated: that is how articles work, and how they don't develop into a morass of repeated minor nothings. I am not sure which assertions (plural) you refer to: I only made one, which is that the majority won't read the sources, which I stand by. - SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not an issue about repeating facts, it's an issue about more accurately pin-pointing information in the citation of the source; to make the discerning reader's quest for verification easier. You (presumably) add page numbers or chapter numbers to book references, even though a reader could read through the whole book looking for clues; why not add the keyword (especially if it isn't immediately obvious as in this case) for a search in a web list? And you didn't say the majority (I would agree with that) you said 99.9%; virtually all (and I disagree with that). You also appeared to imply that readers who wanted better pointers must be morons. One-eyed Jim (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That is not what we do on Wiki, and you need to take on board just how it works. Sorry, but there it is. I certainly never said that we treat readers as morons: I said the exact opposite, if you read it properly, and "You also appeared to imply that readers who wanted better pointers must be morons" is just to completely misread and misunderstand what I have said. - SchroCat (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

"That is not what we do on Wiki,"? We don't add page numbers to help readers track down references in books? One-eyed Jim (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

And if this was a book, you might have a point. The content of this article relates to Spectre. It is not about sources on Spectre. We do not need to acknowledge that an external source refers to the working title rather than the actual title. We can reasonably assume that the reader is aware that Spectre and Bond 24 are one and the same. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

If it really is that big of a deal (and I dispute the idea that it is), then I suppose you could use the quote parameter in the citation template. But the article should not be eexplaining the sources. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@One-eyed Jim: I have added the quote parameter to the reference template for the reference in question. Hopefully that resolves the issue to your satisfaction. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

That at least makes it easier for all readers to find now, thanks. One-eyed Jim (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

AfD on related article

A discussion over the related article of Aston Martin DB10—mosty from information in this article—is up for deletion here. All comments are welcome on that page. - SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 December 2014

Typo in the premise section: "organisation" should be "organization". JMcDon15 (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It's spelled correctly. See WP:ENGVAR. DonQuixote (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. This article is about a British production, and so it uses British English (and the British date format). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 December 2014

Have the United states release of November 6, 2015 Matt 20123 (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The US release date is listed in the "Release" section. As the film is primarily a British production, we list the British release date in the infobox and the lead. It's also the reason why the US release date is given as "6 November 2015" instead of "November 6, 2015". As it's a British production, we use British English and the British way of expressing dates—DD/MM/YYYY instead of the American MM/DD/YYYY.

And a "please" when making requests does not go astray. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

SPECTRE or Spectre

There has been a certain amount of tooing and froing over the name this morning (to be expected on such scant information. Can we either leave as it is until more information is released, or come to a consensus based on the little info we have as to what it should be until more details appear? – SchroCat (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

→http://www.007.com/bond24-announcement/ "James Bond returns next year in SPECTRE. Announced today at Pinewood Studios by Director Sam Mendes, returning cast members Daniel Craig, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris and Rory Kinnear will be joined by Christoph Waltz, Léa Seydoux, Monica Bellucci, David Bautista and Andrew Scott. Locations for SPECTRE will include Pinewood London, Mexico City, Rome, Tangier and Erfoud, Morocco. Bond is also back in the snow, this time in Sölden, Austria as well as other locations Obertilliach and Lake Altausee. The 24th Bond outing will also see a brand new Aston Martin designed specially for this film, called the DB10. SPECTRE is out on 6th November 2015." Is the official website enough to show that the title is an abbreviation and written in capitals? JCRendle (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Where do they say it's an abbreviation, as I can't see that anywhere? Skyfall was released in the same way, with a capitalised title (see the poster on the Skyfall page. - SchroCat (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

look at the highlighted parts of the Press release, they spell it using Capitals JCRendle (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

They did the same thing for Skyfall's Press Release. Sam Walton (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Point taken, thank you Sam Walton JCRendle (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Granted, it is actually an acronym (SPECTRE), but I don't know if the film title is an acronym. Best to go with what the reliable sources are putting it as. Sam Walton (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment' Even if it refers to the SPECTRE of the books (which is an acronym) we go with how it is commonly presented in secondary sources per WP:COMMONNAME. My intuition tells me that SPECTRE will win out but let's just sit on it for a couple of weeks and see which version prevails. Betty Logan (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If we're going to go by secondary sources for now, then have a look at all the news articles collated at IMDB. They nearly all use "Spectre". --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Spectre is more pleasant to read in the context of the movie title, where it's naturally repeated often in the article. I'd be inclined to reserve SPECTRE for referring to the organisation, where it's an acronym, or at least was in previous Bond timelines. 82.69.216.220 (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Be careful which sources are used, however. For example, the Daily Mail's style is to never use acronyms, apparently, which results in Nasa being used instead of NASA. So any media that uses Spectre that normally doesn't use acronyms is suspect. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Where, in the official sources, does it say that Spectre is an acronym? The film's of the Craig Bond have constantly re-written and tweaked the established history, and there is nothing to say this will be any different. Oberhauser, for example, seems to be a villain, despite being Bond's friend in the book series (and in the Young Bond series too. - SchroCat (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I think Spectre certainly makes more sense in describing a particular narrative, which is ultimately what the film is. It obviously draws on SPECTRE and that organization will almost certainly appear given the title, but there are endless metaphorical interpretations too: the spectre of death/a threat/Bond's past which to me make more sense from a story point of view. Seems much more in keeping with Fleming's preference for using idioms in his titles. Betty Logan (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The Fleming point is a good one (although just OR at the moment, until the writers spill the beans!) Fleming introduced the organisation "spectre" in Thunderball, but had used itpreviously: in the fourth novel, Diamonds Are Forever, for a town near Las Vegas called "Spectreville", and for "spektor", the cryptograph decoder in From Russia, with Love. Once the writers say what it's all about, and their true rationale for using it, then we can include the info, and settle on the title. - SchroCat (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

SPECTRE is the acronym of Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion since ever.. I don't know what's the doubt here on the meaning of the movie title. SPECTRE, not Spectre .. MachoCarioca (talk) 07:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Where does it say that it will be an acronym in the film? - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Where does it say it isn't? Everyone who is a regular to Bond world knows it' s an acronym, more realistic to use SPECTRE than Spectre, isnt it? MachoCarioca (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that SPECTRE appears in this film? None of the characters associated with it appear in the film (that we know of). And how do you know that the title is referring to the organisation, and not the definition of the word? You don't, and we can't make the assumption that it does. We need a source for that. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

How do you know it won't? We know(I think you too), so we must be realistic and correct about it, that SPECTRE is a classic acronym of Bond movies; if we know nothing about it we must mantain what we know about it, that SPECTRE is the acronym to Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion. For me this discussion is nonsense. There are sources to name Spectre and SPECTRE, if we know what it means why mantain "Spectre"?? MachoCarioca (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Even though the film undeniably draws its title from the organization that doesn't necessarily imply that the film is named explicitly after it. It's not as if the title was unveiled as S.P.E.C.T.R.E., which would make it indisputably an acronym. Ultimately, WP:COMMONNAME is the applicable policy and reliable sources are split on this issue thus far. Hopefully it will be cleared up nearer the release date but I don't see the point in renaming the article unless we know for sure what the correct title is. Betty Logan (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but it makes no sense to me. In fact, I dont see the point in naming it Spectre. MachoCarioca (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Read through the thread: there are several good arguments why, for the present at least, we have gone with with the current title. The consensus is there, largely made up from people to whom it does make sense, and who do see the point. - SchroCat (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@MachoCarioca - I, and any well-educated person, will be with you on this. One only needs a little knowledge of the Bond canon to have no doubt about the significance of SPECTRE. However, Wikipedia is a strange land, they do things differently there. It is a land where poorly educated boys and girls (mostly boys, it seems) jump in with obscure, Wikipedia-invented 'rules' and 'policies' which their credo leads them to believe to be a satisfactory alternative to real knowledge and sound research. The consequence is arguments involving meaningless three-letter acronyms about whose quoting of a rule trumps who-else's, with sound information being the victim. Watching Wikipedia editors at work is often like watching young children playing video games in a made up world that is entirely disconnected from the real one. Some people from the UK might be familiar with a radio quiz game called Mornington Crescent. Its rules are very similar to the rules which control the Wikipedia game. So, baby-editors, who can quote rules whilst understanding little of the topic being discussed, parade their ignorance as they 'revert' and 'protect' their way through publicly displayed ignorance. SPECTRE becomes 'Spectre', in their minds, because they've heard of the word that means ghost but are in ignorance of the James Bond books or the films based upon them. You could be almost certain that the editors have never read a Bond book, let alone the whole set of them, and yet they become the self-appointed cognoscenti of all things Bond in their little Wikipedia parallel universe where any resemblance to the real world is accidental and unimportant. Viva ignorance! Viva Wikipedia!

Protected edit request on 11 December 2014

Details of the film have been leaked following a breach of Sony's servers. Although the details of the film are unusable here—it appears to be a draft of the script, as several characters appear under different names—the leak itself was genuine, and so it probably rates a mention in this article. As such, I propose a new subsection under the production heading entitled "December 2014 leak" (or some such) with the text as follows:

In December 2014 Sony Pictures International was targeted by hackers who released details of confidential e-mails between Sony executives regarding several high-profile film projects. Included within these were several memos relating to the production of Spectre claiming that the film was over budget and detailing early drafts of the script written by John Logan.

This section may also need some future expansion, particularly if there is a reaction from Eon or Sony and/or a connection between this and the previous security breaches related to North Korea and The Interview. SchroCat, Betty Logan and One-eyed Jim, do you know of any other sources that can go here? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The same story is covered in the UK's Daily Telegraph newspaper.[1] One-eyed Jim (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I've got about 10 or 11 good sources to use on this - I'll try and add something to the above, but I'm hectic in RL at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

SchroCat list your sources too please. One-eyed Jim (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I've said I will add to the above when I have time. There is little point in me adding details of sources which you cannot access. - SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

If you have got ten or eleven sources, hopefully we can flesh out the paragraph above. I think we really need to verify how old the e-mails are—no dates are given, but character names have changed, and they directly reference Chewitel Ejiofor, who as I understand it, stopped being considered weeks (if not months) ago.

Without dates, it's going to be difficult to verify, especially if they are referring to characters and scenes that are no longer included. After all, Eon has a policy of completely destroying drafts.

Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is one source [2]. Here is another [3]. Read at your own risk. These articles contains major spoilers. They do, however, shed some light on some of the characters. There are also some characters who have yet to be cast. It is also notable that the leaked script indicates that they are bringing back the character of Irma Bunt, who was the villainness in the film On Her Majesty's Secret Service. It seems she has been re-imagined as a lesbian (possibly a nod to Rosa Klebb from From Russia with Love). TheLastAmigo (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Except that character names have been changed, so these clearly refer to older drafts. We can't use any of the details because we cannot verify them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the draft paragraph into a temporary positon. I'll try and make time to add to it with the other sources I have. - SchroCat (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Release date

Wasn't the movie gonna be released in the U.K. in October? --Alien Putsch resistant (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Eon have moved the film's release globally back to 6 November. There are not any specific country release dates at the moment, but I guess that'll come out soon... - SchroCat (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. (My god. You replied in one minute.) --Alien Putsch resistant (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Pure luck on when I refreshed my watchlist! (and I realise I'm about to repeat the speed trick again!) - SchroCat (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Bond girls in lead section

My edit to the lead to include the Bond girls was changed, is there a problem with this? I apologise for using the & symbol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.23.102 (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent disruptive editing

The article has now been vandalised several times by Matt 20123 on the basis that he is "just trying to tell the truth". Unfortunately the changes he has tried to force on the article introduce a series of factual errors and problems relating to MoS standards. If you wish to justify your edits on the basis of any "truth" you are trying to claim, this is the place for it, not just constant edit warring. - SchroCat (talk) 12:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

He seems to be restoring an older version of the article (which is where all the MOS errors are springing from). I think the "truth" he is referring to is the old October release date, which has been cancelled right? Betty Logan (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It has - the sources are in there confirming the new date. Unfortunately a number of other errors were also re-introduced at the same time. I guess this is the reason for his reverts, but if he doesn't explain in his edit summaries or on this page, then we're just guessing what he rationale may or may not be... - SchroCat (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Franz Oberhauser (aka Ernst Stavro Blofeld)

Benedict Cumberbatch played both John Harrison and Khan Noonien Singh in the 2013 film Star Trek Into Darkness. Christoph Waltz might play both Franz Oberhauser AND Ernst Stavro Blofeld in this upcoming James Bond film. AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As per my edit summary, "could" "might" isn't sufficient at the moment. The only source which has made a positive connection is an unreliable one, and the point is, as yet, unproven. There is time enough to add Blofeld's name, but I suspect it'll be after the film is released (as happened with Moneypenny in Skyfall. - SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Waltz as Villain

12:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC) There has been no confirmation that he is playing Blofeld or that his character is a villain. All we have is a name - can we not list him as a villain on the main page, until we receive more information from SONY, EoN or the producers? 78.146.44.151 (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Except that there has been confirmation, and the article reflects that. I have been trying to add those sources to the article for the past ten minutes, but you haven't been giving the article a chance to breathe. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The link you gave uses hearsay and rumour - it can not be counted as reliable as they haven't got confirmation from producers or seen the script!78.146.44.151 (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

If you watch the actual Press Announcement - which I have in detail - Mendes DOES NOT say that Waltz character was the villain - the article is wrong 78.146.44.151 (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You're right—he didn't say it at the press conference. But the press conference was immediately followed by a press junket, and that's where the details were revealed. It was all part of the one event. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you show something with specific quotes from the press junket that confirms that Waltz is the villain? 78.146.44.151 (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Again - The links you provided in the article provide no quotes - It was not confirmed - the press are doing what press do, speculating on the available information. They were very coy about the characters other than the names, they did not confirm any of that information - the villain part should be left out of the article until confirmed by producers - as I have said! 78.146.44.151 (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You do know that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, right?

And I would also suggest that you stop edit-warring. You have already broken 3RR. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? Edit warring? I haven't changed back your edit for a while - I opened this section on the Talk page to avoid an edit war and referred as such in the edit! - and you went ahead and carried on changing back, even though the issue is not resolved - The fact that I tried to work this out with you, puts you in the wrong. I edited with good faith and you're using articles that don't provide sources other that assumption - It has not been confirmed that his character is the villain - the very fact that they are using the surname of one of James Bond's allies from the books shows that they are being coy over the state of his character - I believe that it is incorrect to list him as a villain and I have given constructive and appropriate reasons for this - Is there any reason that he has to be listed as a villain this early on, when it isn't definite? I have tried to be civil here, but you are making me quite angry over this 78.146.44.151 (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

3RR "When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should cease warring and discuss the issue on the talk page" I did this. 78.146.44.151 (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, that was your first mistake. Leave emotion behind when you edit. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You're not reading anything I'm saying, are you? I stated that I took the argument to the Talk Page, you started making me angry when you carried on editing regardless - so I did leave emotion behind before editing, thank you very much. If you would address the points, and not just attack on a personal level, it would be helpful to the situation. 78.146.44.151 (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not attacking you. I'm just pointing out that you're edit-warring, and you have just admitted that you're making decisions because you're angry, not because they're in the interests of the article. 09:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no winning with you, you won't accept that you could be in the wrong. I'm sorry that I even started this, there was no point in a talk section where the other ignores points put to them. Thank you for your time - I hope that someone else will be able to show you that the article as is doesn't require the villain note and its incorrect at this time - for now, I'm stepping away from this article. 78.146.44.151 (talk) 10:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment It is not unusual for the media to treat speculation like facts. They were long reporting that Naomie Harris would play Moneypenny which turned out to be correct, but it was never actually confirmed nor denied in advance of the film's release. If it was actually confirmed then it would be interesting to know some of the details. The only details I can find is that he will play a character called "Oberhauser"; the press seem to be split on whether he is a villain or not. The Hollywood Reporter state "Mendes and the film's producers haven't revealed much about the plot of the new film, so it is unclear if Waltz will play a baddie or a hero in the new 007 film. In the Ian Flemming novels, there is a character named Hans Oberhauser who is described as Bond's skiing instructor and surrogate father. Waltz' character, whose is rumored to be Hans' son, a figure not mentioned in the books, may be an ally to Daniel Craig's Bond in the new film." Given that the media are reporting different things it would help to know what was actually said. Betty Logan (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly - and I remember at the time of the Skyfall production that Harris' character was kept as Eve in the article - because, even though there were a lot of press articles speculating and even stated as fact that she was Moneypenny - it was not confirmed until the film's release.

This is exactly the same situation. They producers and actors were very coy over what type of character Waltz would be playing, the same with Andrew Scott's character (who the press are also calling a villain) though all that was announced was that he works for Whitehall. For now, cab we remove the Villain parts. Thank you 78.146.44.151 (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Correlation does not imply causation. Just because there are similarities between the two situations, that does not mean that they are the same. Arguing that the edits regarding Waltz are invalid because they were in the case of Harris is a classic straw-man argument. You haven't demonstrated that the edits about Waltz are invalid at all. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

BBC to Waltz: And what kind of baddie is he going to be? - Waltz to BBC: Who says it's a baddie? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-30335539 78.146.44.151 (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

BBC to Waltz: what can you tell us about the film? Waltz: almost nothing.

Waltz's refusal to comment neither proves nor disproves that he is the villain. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This is getting silly. If it had been announced at the press junket that he is the villain then he wouldn't have been so coy about it. Likewise, when he asked the reporter "Who says it's a baddie?" the journalist could have simply said "your bosses" or something to similar effect. The media is doing what it always does: speculating. He might well be a baddie (he probably will be going by his previous roles) but as yet it is not a confirmed fact. This isn't about winning the argument or who turns out to be right, it's simply about what we know has been confirmed so far. Betty Logan (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Waltz was the first interview after the announcement. How do you know that his playing coy wasn't his being conservative? Like I said, his comments don't prove it one way or the other. They only prove that he chose not to say anything. Trying the guess why he said something or not is speculation and original research. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

His comments call into question your assertion that it has been announced he is playing a villain. Your sources do not impart any details so it is impossible to ascertain if they are speculating or reporting factual information. Subsequent articles contradict reports he is playing a villain, so we should keep an open mind about all possibilities here. If we are going to mention reports that he is playing a villain then we should also include reports that question that notion to remain neutral. Betty Logan (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment We could contrast the sources here. Say xxx speculates that your man is to play a villain, on the other hand yyyy (or even your man) deny that or refuse to confirm it. Whilst it is not clear-cut black and white, then do not mislead readers. When (if) the company confirms the precise nature of the role, then the article can be suitably adjusted. One-eyed Jim (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It violates WP:CRYSTAL, and it's against WP:WEASEL. Although the article does say "it was confirmed" there is no evidence in the article of the confirmation, indeed - interviews exist that have the cast explicitly denying - whether being coy or misdirection - that Waltz is playing a villain, it is essentially the same as saying "he may be a villain, but he might not be". It might be a fact that the rumour exists, but the existence of that rumour does not make it notable enough to be included in the article. And even if we look at all those articles from other publications claiming that Waltz is a villain, they still have no substantiating evidence - like a quote from Waltz herself or someone involved in production (who is named - it's too easy to claim something that is not true by referencing an anonymous person 78.146.44.151 (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment If have understood this unnecessary controversy correctly, the question is whether or not it should be mentioned that Christoph Walz's character is the villain? Well, I agree with the other users here that the evidence regarding him playing the villain is quite thin. There is enough reasonable doubt to leave this claim out for the moment. Contrary to what is being claimed it is not necessary to prove undisputedly that he is not playing the villain to leave out the assertion entirely. This would have to be proven if we wanted to claim in the article that he is not playing the villain, which nobody has to be requested. So unless it is undisputedly proven that he plays or/ doesn't play the villain at all, we should err on the side of caution and write nothing whatsoever as to the nature of his role. To conclude, it would like to emphasize that consensus is not unanimity and thus Prisonermonkeys cannot block such a consensus by personally disagreeing eternally. Tvx1 (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Now say that without having a motive attached. You wouldn't be here were it not for the format dispute on 2015 Formula One season. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

How I became aware of this discussion is irrelevant. The fact is that I became aware of it and wrote my humble, unbiased opinion going by Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Tvx1 (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You have never been humble. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. If there's nothing but speculation, I'd suggest that we just skip it. The IMDB will pick up the slack and report every tidbit of speculation. I don't see why it's even necessary to report on trivia like this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Agreed - until something more official from the production comes to like, it's still speculation of the News Outlet's part - I think the Villain angle should be removed for now JCRendle (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox names

Can we come to a rough consensus on the names (or number of names) we display in the IB until the official posters are released? So far there has been some additions and deletions which seem to centre on Naomie Harris, Rory Kinnear and Ben Whishaw. My personal opinion is to have a slightly shorter list, but I don't know if there is a section of the MoS that deals with the IB cast list prior to poster release or not. I suspect there isn't something prescriptive, so we'll have to decide by discussion... - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. If we just add every actor who is announced, the list will expand exponentially with names that are unimportant in the grand scheme of things. When Skyfall was filming, the actor who played the police officer that stopped M on the bridge announced that he had a role, which ultimately proved to be so insignificant that he isn't listed in the cast section of the Skyfall article, much less the infobox—which should be reserved for the most important actors.

Until such time as a theatrical poster with billing is released, I think the general rule (for this article at least) should be Craig and Fiennes, as they play Bond and M, and any new actors to the franchise—Waltz, Bellucci, Seydoux, Bautista and Scott. In the case of Harris, Whishaw and Kinnear, we know their roles are secondary support roles. While it is entirely plausible that one of them will shoot to prominence in this film, that needs confirmation, and will most likely be only for the one film.

To draw a parallel, I am a regular editor of Formula 1 articles. Formula 1 drivers have racing numbers that they carry for their careers. If they happen to win the championship, then they may change to #1 if they wish. Lewis Hamilton is the current champion, but it has not been confirmed if he will use #1 in 2015. As such, the 2015 season article lists him as #44 as it is his regular number and it is the number we know he would otherwise use. In the same way, we know Moneypenny, Q and Tanner are secondary roles. If they become prominent, then they can be moved up the order. But given what we know of the characters, we can reasonably say that they are not prominent enough to justify inclusion in the infobox. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not for us to declare who is a star in the film, and by implication who is not. We should add each and every actor for whom we can supply a reliable reference referring to them as starring or co-starring in this film. That way we avoid indulging in "original research", and readers will be able to validate our assertions. One-eyed Jim (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Surely you agree that recognising Random Background Guy #28 as being on the same level as Bond is a bad idea ... Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

See WP:CASTLIST: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film". - SchroCat (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

If a Wikipedia accredited source credits Random Background Guy #28 as starring in the film, then why not add him to the list? To reflect credible sources in listing those starring in the film is not the same as adding an indiscriminate collection of information. If the sources describe someone as starring, then add them; if none do, then don't add them. That sounds like a reasonable stance to me. One-eyed Jim (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I would just go with Daniel Craig in the infobox for now. He's the star of the film, but beyond that we don't really know how the big the roles of the other cast members are. Everyone else can be listed in the cast list; once posters are released and billing blocks become available the infobox can be refined then. Puts an end to endless debate about something we don't really know. Betty Logan (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd say Craig, Fiennes (M is an important character in the Bond mythos), Seydoux and Bellucci as confirmed Bond girls - Q and Moneypenny, whilst standards aren't always bigger characters - we don't know how big Waltz's character will be (Do not say he's the villain - IT HAS NOT BEEN CONFIRMED!) though he probably is quite a big character, it would count as Original Research to say he is 78.146.44.151 (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'd be happy to settle on just Craig for now. Not all the MI6 people end up on the poster (depends on their size of role in the film, contracts etc), but there is no doubt Craig will be. Others may or may not be, but anything outside Craig is OR. - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• No-one has argued the point over this, so I'm going to boldly go with Craig and nowt else in the IB, with a hidden note suggesting people see here before changing. Although I expect drive-bys to start filling up the gap shortly...) - SchroCat (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I object to that. I'm gonna add them back. To me, there is no reason why they cant be listed. They were presented at the press conference, and if a poster says otherwise, we just remove the ones not listed. Simple as. Rusted AutoParts 01:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Removed again. Just because it's your personal preference it doesn't overrule the consensus here. If you want to discuss further, that's fine, but respect the consensus and leave them out while we do. - SchroCat (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page, where it shouldn't have been - SchroCat (talk)

I had seen the discussion. It's why I restored them. There's simply no reason for keeping them off. All (including Harris, Whishaw and Kinnear) were presented at a press conference. It's clear they're the core cast and so the infobox should reflect that. You boldly removed as no one contested the deletion. I contest it. Rusted AutoParts 01:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a very good reason: their names do not yet appear on any poster. When they do, they can be added. Funnily enough, the MoS does not say "include names that were mentioned at the press conference", of "include core cast". - SchroCat (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Funnily enough it doesn't say we can't add them either. Rusted AutoParts 01:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does. - SchroCat (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Except it's no my personal preference. It's how it was presented at the press conference officially announcing the cast. The fact the list got disputed is beyond me, but we cannot simply pick and choose out of those names who gets onto the infobox list. I feel it should reflect the announcement, with it appearing in this format:

• Daniel Craig
• Ralph Fiennes
• Ben Whishaw
• Naomie Harris
• Rory Kinnear
• Lea Seydoux
• Dave Bautista
• Monica Bellucci
• Andrew Scott
• Christoph Waltz

This reflects the cast returning from Skyfall at the top of the list, followed by the newest additions. If Kinnear, Harris or Whishaw dont appear on the billing block, we can easily just delete them from the infobox. But omitting them on the basis of "well gee, there's no block yet", it's nonsensical. Rusted AutoParts 01:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's your personal preference. You are deciding which names to choose and you are deciding which order to put them in. I done see any special allowances in the MoS for you doing it your way and ignoring the opinions or consensus of others. And "nonsensical"? Don't just dismiss the opinions of others so uncivilly: it will only backfire on you when yours are dismissed. - SchroCat (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

See, you're assuming it's my personal preference to include the main cast in the fucking main cast infobox section. It's not. I'm going by what I see from the press releases. It's obvious that Christoph Waltz is in the main cast as he's the main villain. I just noticed you were the person who took issue with the cast in the first place. Why? The announcement of these actors, from the director and producer themselves is the only proof i need that these guys are the main cast. I can put the press conference in as a source if you want, if it helps at all. Rusted AutoParts 01:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Please get your facts straight. I did not 'take issue with the cast in the fist place': I took issue with the slow burn edit warring around adding and deleting names (in other words, the situation you're trying to go back to). There is no rush on adding the names: when the poster is released they can be added. There is no major reason to pop a vessel over adding them now and trying to go back to that edit war again. The consensus exists, and you're not coming up with any convincing reasons to overturn it. I'm happy to let others have their say here on the subject, which is the best course. (And there is no,official word that says Waltz is the main villain: that's just media speculation at the moment). - SchroCat (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not doing this to encourage IP's to be stubborn and quietly edit war to annoy editors. You said this yourself: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film". So to me the list as the way we had it was correct. It addressed Bond, the main villain(s), the Bond Girl(s) and M, who perfectly fit the description of "relevant actor/role". But I agree, we can wait another month for editors to reenter this particular discussion thread. (And this isn't me using this as proof for Waltz playing the villain, but it's Christoph Waltz. Who could he possibly be playing?) Rusted AutoParts 01:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"but it's Christoph Waltz. Who could he possibly be playing?" This would come under WP:NOR. JCRendle (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

And this isn't me using this as proof for Waltz playing the villain being the key line in that sentence. Rusted AutoParts 16:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I know, just putting in my two cents. I'm with SchroCat on this one, only Craig for now JCRendle (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

International Release Dates

New dates are coming through. Spectre will be released in France on 11 November. "Léa Seydoux @Seydoux_Lea #Info #Spectre sortira dans les salles françaises le 11 novembre 2015" 2.101.167.133 (talk) 10:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Twitter probably isn't the best source for this. See WP:TWITTER.

Also, it's not our job to list every release date. We're not advertising the film. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Actors/Actresses

Can I see the guideline to not call Monica Bellucci an "actress"? If it exists, we must rename Category:Italian actresses and all of its subcategories too. '''tAD''' (talk) 08:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It was probably just a typo. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I've had actress struck out at FAC to be replaced by actor, so that's the standard I'm working to. - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Release date?

Are either of these reliable sources that Spectre is to be released on October 23rd? One is a newspaper and the other is a well respected Movie magazine that has a good working relationship with EON and had several James Bond exclusives including images, interviews and even front covers before any other magazine.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/showbiz/556512/Daniel-Craig-knee-on-set-James-Bond-movie-Spectre (2 days ago) http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=43265 (27th January) "Spectre, which launches here on October 23 before heading Stateside on November 6" 80.44.205.48 (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Also in the Guardian - http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/feb/03/rome-james-bond-shoot-cleanup-spectre-007 (3 February) 80.44.205.48 (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

That was the initial release date which was subsequently changed by Eon to a global release of 6 November. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

These are all recent articles from reliable sources, is there a source that says the date was changed? 80.44.205.48 (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The one in the article with Eon as the source. If they've changed it again (always possible) there will be an announcement on their website. - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

http://www.odeon.co.uk/film/2015/#anchor_15224 - Odeon Cinemas, UK largest Cinema chain (October 23) http://www.cineworld.co.uk/whatson/spectre?cinema=all - CineWorld, another major chain (October 23), recent press all state October 23rd 80.44.205.48 (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Neither of those are dated, so they were probably published before Eon moved the date (and you can't really claim they were "recent" if they don't have a date!) - see this for details ofthe changed date. If Eon or MGM issue a statement moving the date yet again, then we can update, but not based solely on undated third party sources. - SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

All the articles I've linked to are dated. Express article was 3 days ago now, the Empire article was 27th January, the Guardian article was Feb 3rd 80.44.205.48 (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Odeon and CineWorld are not dated: that is what I was referring to. The other refs mean nothing other than the presence of lazy journalism: only an updated statement from Eon or MGM is enough to make the change of date. – SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

New source : The BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-31301128 80.44.205.48 (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

is it from Eon or MGM? - SchroCat (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Eon/MGM aren't the be all and end all of sources for James Bond. The BBFC don't use release dates on outdated rumours - If it lists 23rd October as the release date, then that is the current UK release date. http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/spectre-filmtrailer 2.101.167.133 (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually when it comes to when they want to release their film, yes, they are the be all and end all. When they make an announcement, the dates can change - there is nothing wrong with holding an official date in place until the producer and studio release changed dates. - SchroCat (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Pending Changes Setting

Why did User:Callanecc add Pending Changes Setting to the main article? I didn't see any major rise in vandalism? 2.101.167.133 (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the article has been subject to long term vandalism for some time, and that's the sort of thing which pending changes is used to deal with to ensure that IPs and new users are still able to edit, but that the vandalism can't be seen by the public straight away (or that good edits can still be made). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Callanec's assessment as I have observed this article's appearance on the Special:PendingChanges list and I monitor it daily. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Section blanking

Anyone know why Galaglobe[4] is hell bent on deleting major portions of the article? Anyone know an Admin online at the moment? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, C.Fred took care of this. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)