Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of James Bond films/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:18, 4 December 2011 [1].

List of James Bond films

edit

List of James Bond films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): SchroCat (^ • @) 08:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC), igordebraga ≠ 17:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets the FL criteria; it acts not just as a stand alone source of information in its own right, but also as the 'header article' for the canon of James Bond films. SchroCat (^ • @) 08:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Albacore (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
;Oppose from Albacore (talk)
Minor issues
  • Unbold James Bond in the lead.
  • Maintenance tag on File:James Bond 007, Gun Symbol logo.svg, fix or replace.
  • In the Non-Eon versions table "Director" should be "Director(s)".
  • When I click on the "Chapman 2009" ref it doesn't go to the book like Balio 1987 does.
  • James Bond is a fictional character created by novelist Ian Fleming in 1953. He is a British secret agent... Reword here, unclear if Fleming is the secret agent or Bond is.
Oppose reasons
  • I dislike the use of rowspans in the table (see also this on the matter. No real benefit is gained by using the spans as opposed to using one entire cell for the same information. Currently fails WP:ACCESS.
  • Almost no lists become featured that can't be sorted. Please allow sortability in the first four columns.
  • IMO no need for the Rotten Tomatoes column. If someone wants to see the rating they should be able to find it in the relevant article.
Can review closer when these are addressed. Albacore (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all (though the actual/adjusted columns is unsortable because the sorting is kinda broken... and I could've kept the rowspan in the actors and it would still be sortable, but decided not to), even if I somehow object on the RT removal - in film series articles the rating for all installments is always there on a reception section. igordebraga ≠ 02:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sorting was not working correctly so I fixed it. Jimknut (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess the downside of having to have sortable columns is that we have to over-wikilink everything? SchroCat (^ • @) 21:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • Really don't like the non-free logo image at the start. It doesn't even have a fair-use rationale, and I doubt an acceptable one could be created. Surely we have a free image of one of the actors who played Bond that could go there instead.
  • Forgetting whether a photo of an actor should be there, a non-free photo shouldn't be used in an article without a valid non-free use rationale (not just a template saying it's fair-use). Nothing of the sort is on the photo's page. It would be better with no photo at all than with this one. I'll stronger consider opposing over this if something isn't done, whether it be removing the photo or adding a good rationale on the photo's page. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because something passes through FLC in one list doesn't mean it's automatically acceptable or best practice. One of FLC's great weaknesses is that image reviewing is infrequent; FAC does a much better job in this aspect. If attention isn't paid to the photos, it's easy for a photo that doesn't meet the non-free criteria, or that has shaky free licensing, to sneak through. If you want the photo back in, I'd suggest asking an image expert what needs to be done. From my FAC experience, I remember User:Jappalang doing a solid job of image reviewing, but I'm sure there are others who can also help (best to look for them at FAC). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 11:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He has been portrayed on film by actors...". Not an expert on movie phrasing, but should "on" be "in"?
  • No need to link Eon Productions twice in the lead.
  • The 1964 in film and 1965 in film links don't add that much. More relevant links would be to the articles on the Oscars in each of those years.
  • Table, in entry 5 (For Your Eyes Only), the hyphen in the middle of the note should instead be an unspaced em dash (big one) or spaced en dash (little one) per the MoS.
  • In ref 3, the pp. should be changed to p. because it's citing a single page, not a range.
  • Just because something is listed on a WikiProject's resources page doesn't necessarily make it reliable. The projects are usually more inclined to declare a shaky source reliable than the other way around. Are there any stories in the media that declare this source reliable? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've run a news search through LexisNexis and, since 1 Jan 2000, there have been 960 references to the-numbers.com from local, national and international newspapers. From what I can see as a general skim, these papers appear to be using the statistics put out by the-numbers.com. These sources also include newswires and trade press references. In addition, from a brief look at online sources shows Nash Information Services, which publishes "The Numbers", has been referenced by some high profile publishers: Variety, Wall Street Journal, New York Times etc. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comment
  • I don't agree with the removal of the Rotten Tomato scores. The reason that "readers can look them up on the individual articles" doesn't wash with me; on that basis we could scrap the box office figures too and then what's the point of having a list? You may as well just have a navbox. I certainly don't accept that the Rotten Tomato ratings are an obstacle to FL status, which is basically what this review is supposed to be assessing, and I think financial and critical comparative analysis are kind of mandatory. Being able to see how the films compare to each other improves the article IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • No lead image? I would be tempted by a Daniel Craig one or a Connery one (latest/first Bond...?)
  • The image is a sore point at the moment with a reviewer (above) not wanting the 007 logo which was previously there. We could have a picture of an actor, but there are two issues with that: 1) There are no images of the actors as Bond, which would be the ideal picture to have and if we do put up a pic of them as Bond, then we may as well retain the 007 logo, which has only just been removed; 2) A picture of any one actor raises that actor above the other six and gives them undue emphasis, which is a long way from ideal. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and featured Sean Connery as Bond" don't need Sean as you've mentioned that already.
  • twenty two -> twenty-two.
  • "a combined gross of over $5 billion" table says 4.91 billion.
  • "case would ensure that" -> "case ensured that".
  • "All sums in millions of US dollars." apart from when they're in billions presumably...!
  • Make sure table is accessible by using row and col scopes. Also not sure about the 97% font size, if necessary just make the synopsis column narrower.
  • A great shame the table cannot be sorted by budget or box office.
  • Consider linking years to "... in film" articles.
  • Sortable table so items that are linked should be linked every time. (e.g. SPECTRE).
  • cat and mouse -> cat-and-mouse.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't agree that using the 007 logo is inconsistent with Wikipedia's policy on Non-free content. The rules quite clearly state it is: WP:NFCI #1 permits Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item. On many articles about a commercial product such as a film, a non free image of the poster/cover/advert is often included under this rationale. Wikipedia's policy explicitly caters for it, so a FUR rationale would only have to indicate that the image serves to visually identify the subject on an article about the subject. Betty Logan (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

File:James Bond 007, Gun Symbol logo.png is completely different in that it's a fair use logo. It doesn't meet WP:NFCC#1 because it can be replaced by something that is free: the numbers "007" without the stylised gun. The file is 400px on its largest side, which is generally considered too large for non-free content (WP:NFCC#3b). Finally, how would the file's omission would be detrimental to a reader's understanding of the topic (WP:NFCC#8)? It has to "significantly increse [their] understanding" to be allowed. Will a reader understand the topic (a list of Bond films) without the logo? Yes. Will a reader have a hard time getting the gist of the article if it were excluded? No.
  • What is the source for the Adjusted 2011 dollars?
  • Why are the budgets and grosses in dollar amounts (also which dollars?) when it is a British film series? Why isn't it using GBP?

Matthewedwards :  Chat  14:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference number 43 (it's a note under the "Non-Eon versions" section)... also, the producers are Brits but the films are co-productions with US studios (UA, MGM, Columbia) that provide the financing, so there's no reason not to use dollars. igordebraga ≠ 14:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I'll come back to you on the image as I'm a little pressed now, but as we've had comments from Quadell who does huge anmounts of good work at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions saying that a valid non-free use rationale could be easily provided, then I'm happy to have the image on the page on that basis.
  2. I've added cites for the adjusted figures in the column headings.
  3. The full figures for global budgets & box office returns are only available in $, rather than anything else, so those are the figures used. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced the logo with a collection of Bond DVDs - as I said above, it's more than enough to illustrate. igordebraga ≠ 15:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same issue, unfortunately: a repetition of the logos is actually worse than a single one. Either way, the stylised 007 that was there before is a perfectly acceptable image to use on this page and it should be returned. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, showing the movies themselves certainly fits the criteria 8 (although showing all the films could help understanding better than 20 of them being reduced to box sets, but that's a detail). In any case, I asked some help on the matter. igordebraga ≠ 23:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does it meet criterion 8? The boxsets don't show what movies there are. You need the article to see what the movies are, which means it doesn't "significantly increse the readers' understanding of the topic". Showing all the dvd cases also doesn't significantly increase the readers' understanding, because by reading the list, the reader gets to see what all the movies are. Criterion 8 is very hard to meet for a reason. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Split the sentence (I didn't want to have "the next one is in production" twice, but here we go). igordebraga ≠ 04:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It seems the editors just don't get it. Now there are two different photos of DVDs. IMO the photo of the boxsets requires seven Fair Use Rationales because each DVD case is an individual work of art. It doesn't matter that they're in the same photo (others may disagree and say that one very strong FUR would suffice, but the one here isn't strong). The new photo uploaded by Dr. Blofeld, for the first 19 DVD spines, individually they aren't copyrightable because they're made up of typeface and geometric shapes. However, put together, and they form the 007 Gun logo, which is. The three spines to the far right have their own copyrights attatched because they display copyrighted images of Craig and Connery, and the Gun logo is visible on Casino Royale. At worst it needs deleting from Commons, uploading locally and tagging non-free with a FUR, at best it needs deleting altogether. There simply is no non-free image that could convey easier than the list already does, that there are 24 movies or what they are called. Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two abominations of photographs removed. They add nothing to the article, are legally dubious and look hideously unprofessional. I've replaced it with the 007 logo, which covers all aspects of the Bond films and as we've had comments from Quadell who is something of an expert on these things (see their work at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions) that says a valid non-free use rationale could be easily provided, then I'm happy to have the image on the page on that basis. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've stricken my comments because the pictures were removed, but my oppose still stands for now. Note that Quadell said a valid FUR could easily be provided.. I take that to mean that the FUR right now is not valid. Perhaps he could write a good FUR for it? Also, I'd also like to hear from him why he thinks it could be used in the article without violating any of the NFCC, because I still don't believe it meets #1 or #8. Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image replaced with public domain screencap. Betty Logan (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The image is clearly related to one James Bond film, and it's cultural iconography to the James Bond films can't be denied; however, this is one still from one movie, and presumably each movie or at least each new Bond actor, has their own barrel sequence (I always assumed it was s gun sight -- who looks down the inside of a barrel? But I digress). So it's not really relevant to the other 23 movies, and therefore has little relevance when used to illustrate an overall List of Bond films, so it's still not a perfect choice. Some articles just don't lend themselves to any media and I think this is one. Still, it's free -- apparently (although it seems a bit iffy to me) -- and the criteria for FLs (and FAs) have no stipulation for relevant, on-target, meaningful media, so I can only support. Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All the actors did indeed shoot their own gun barrel sequences, but this particular image is actually the "silhouetted man" version, used for the very first gun barrel sequence. Sean Connery had already finished filming, so they filmed a stuntman in silhouette form. Since this is the only barrel sequence in which the actor isn't identifiable I think it works quite well. Betty Logan (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The table looks horrible with the two headers above the rest, you can implement them into table look at List of Liverpool F.C. managers to see what I mean.
  • The table fails WP:ACCESS at the moment you need to add row and col scopes, see MOS:DTT for more info.
  • The refs with pdfs need format=PDF added to them.
  • I think the table should be full size as well I don't see any benefit to having it under 100% and remove the background stuff as well.

NapHit (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add rowscopes, these should go in the film name cell. NapHit (talk) 10:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - missed that one! Now done: didn't work with the numbers in the first column, so I've removed them (there sort of superfluous anyway) We now have the film names as the first column, which act as the row headers: I hope you approve. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far?
I think we've addressed all the points raised so far: if there are still any outstanding, then they are lost in the type above! Could people please let me know if there is anything from the above section that still needs addressing? Many thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Jafeluv (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • The article looks good, although seeing the title I would have expected more information on each film, such as who played the Bond girl, who the villain was, and at least a link to the book the film was based on. The table format seems to make it impractical to provide detailed information, which is a shame.
  • I appreciate where you are coming from, but this is a list of the James Bond films, not all the people who were in them. Linking them to "source" books is a tricky subject with Bond films, as the films may take elements from three of four books or short stories – or none at all! The page does have links to the films, where all the sources, as well as full cast lists etc, are available.
  • True, issue of which books provided the story to the film might be too complicated to include in a list. The reader can of course find more detailed information by following the link to the film article. Jafeluv (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Twenty fifth", "twenty third" etc. should be written with a hyphen. Or is this a BrEng/AmEng issue?
  • I don't think we hyphenate these in BrEng, although I'm prepared to be over-ruled on that as I’m not 100% sure!
  • The US-dollars-only box office figures were a surprise to me as well, but if that's how they are usually presented in sources I won't object.
  • Yes. It was raised above in one of the hidden sections: see the comments in Giants2008’s section
  • This is a list of the films. James Bond in film is a wider article (currently awaiting a major re-write) about the films, looking more closely at the history of development, with a focus on focus on the background production history, long-term legal battle and it’s effect on the films etc
  • Hmm, while the James Bond in film article certainly has a different focus, it also contains a list of films (although not in table format), and has much of the same information including box office results and Rotten Tomatoes ratings. Much of the prose is also found in that article in a slightly different wording (example below). I'm trying to figure out what additional information this list provides to the reader. Jafeluv (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
  • List of James Bond films: Additionally, several of the songs produced for the films have been nominated for Academy Awards for Original Song, including Paul McCartney's "Live and Let Die", Carly Simon's "Nobody Does It Better" and Sheena Easton's "For Your Eyes Only".
  • James Bond in film: Additionally, several of the songs, including Paul McCartney's "Live and Let Die", Carly Simon's "Nobody Does It Better", and Sheena Easton's "For Your Eyes Only", have been nominated for Academy Awards for Original Song.
  • There is, obviously a small area of overlap - both articles address Bond films, so there will obviously be a minor element of duplication. However, the James Bond in film article needs a complete overhaul and re-write and this is on the cards to come up shortly. Details of the re-write and how the article will be more clearly differentiated from this list etc are all on the talk page. It sounds a rather obvious point, but probably one worth re-iterating, but this is a list of the films, as opposed to an article about Bond in film.
  • As to the similarities in text, yes! There will be some minor similarities there as I think I wrote both sections! Putting the three songs into chronological order seemed the most obvious way to go and it's difficult to write the supporting sentence too many other ways whilst it reads naturally. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jafeluv (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this all helps, but if you’ve got any questions or further points about anything I’ve answered, please let me know - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two tables should probably be merged and use a small legend to show the two non-Eon entires. That way a complete comparison can be done between the movies. 18.111.42.197 (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I had my say at the peer review. Article looks good. Ruby 2010/2013 01:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support very nice --♫GoP♫TCN 11:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_James_Bond_films/archive1&oldid=1197943405"