Talk:James Bond

Bond's Full Name

Bond's full name has been put in the first section as Commander Sir James Bond, KCMG, RNVR. This is wrong - Bond was awarded with the CMG, which is not a knighthood. His full name should therefore read Commander James Bond, CMG, RNVR. Will someone be able to change this?--Jpkilleen (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done - X201 (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done (again!) - Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverted it back to the original. Bond is given KCMG at the end of The Man with the Golden Gun and considers turning it down, but the story ends before his final decision is made.--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Its wrong on the other WP articles then. Those are what I based this change on. - X201 (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Bond is offered the KCMG but turns it down as he does not wish to become a public figure. Therefore, he has the CMG but not the KCMG.--Jpkilleen (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, Bond: considers turning it down, but the story ends before his final decision is made.--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Well then how do we know that he does accept it? The only we know for sure that he has is the CMG, if we are not told whether he accepts the KCMG, then an informative article like this one cannot simply assume that Bond accepts it.--Jpkilleen (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Now I've finished with Dr. No I've finally managed to get round to reading the closing chapter of MWTGG properly and, although the ending is ambiguous, I'm now not convinced that the KCMG should stand - although I'm not convinced the CMG is correct either! As the other articles have him as CMG we may as well stick with that for consistency, although I'll get round to updating the article at some point to show the hanging conferment of the higher award.--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

James Bond and gambling

Please give your advice inside http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Poker#Poker_in_fiction 82.224.88.52 (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Revamp & re-write

I'm giving this article a bit of a going over as it's a little bit of a mess at the moment (too heavy in some places, lacking cites in others etc.) As part of the process I'm going to tweak the layout a bit too, bringing it in line with a couple of other similar and highly rated articles, Batman and Spider-Man. The new, suggested layout is as follows.

Lead
1 Publication history

1.1 Creation and inspiration

1.2 Novels and related works

1.2.1 Ian Fleming novels

1.2.2 Post-Fleming novels

1.2.3 Young Bond

1.2.4 The Moneypenny Diaries

2 Adaptations

2.1 Television

2.2 Radio

2.3 Comics medium

2.4 Film

2.4.1 Eon Productions films

2.4.2 Non-Eon films

2.4.3 Music

2.5 Video games

3 Supporting characters
4 Guns, vehicles and gadgets
5 Cultural impact
6 References
7 Bibliography
8 External links
9 See also

Are people broadly happy with this? - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer review

I think the article is well written, and it's neutral with broad coverage. A few things I noticed though:

1. Given the article at List of James Bond films, it seems a bit redundant having the tables in this chart too. If they are retained here I don't really see much point in having a separate list article.
2. There is a claim that Eon owns all the adaptation rights; I was under the impression that they only owned the right to the title of The Spy Who Loved Me since Fleming refused to sell the story; is this still the case?
3. The film section makes several references to the numerical unit of a 'billion'. I appreciate that a billion is becoming increasingly to denote 1000 million, but in British English—which this article is written in—it still often denotes a million million; in fact, the OED gives the "million million" definition as the primary defintion, and the 1000 million as teh secondary definition. To British readers, and readers familiar with British English this terminology might be misleading. I suggest sticking to a thousand million, or a numeric representation of the number i.e. $5,000,000,000
4. In the cultural impact section, there is no mention of the Harry Palmer series, which is probably the highest profile example of the resulting spy genre; I think this particular franchise is noteworthy because it was produced by Harry Saltzman who specifically positioned it as the antithesis of the Bond style spy film.

None of these are major issues though, and probably won't stand in the way of a GA application. I haven't checked verifiability yet, so I'll get onto this tomorrow. Betty Logan (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Yes - very true! Would the new version on there now pass muster though? A simplified table (film name, year, actor, director)? I've put one in there by way of example, but can remove if you think it would be a better move?
2. Fleming did (and banned any further publication, including a paperback version), but once he died the publishers issued a paperback straight away and the rights are all now with Eon. I think at least one of the references refers to it, if not both of them.
3. Very good point - I'm too tired to go over and change them now as my eyes are closing while I'm typing! I'll do that tomorrow morning, however Now done!
4. True - and embarrassing! He's now in there, along with the Saltzman reference (and the others who worked on both series)

Once again, thank you so much for going over this - you are a true star! - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• There are some minor sourcing issues that need to be addressed, these are all tagged so are easy to find. The unofficial links may run foul of WP:FANSITE, but I'm not overly familiar with EL guidelines; it may be worth leaving it to the discretion of the GA reviewer. With regards to the tables, personally I would have removed all the tables (films and books) since there are dedicated list articles that cover these. However, that isn't a GA criteria—you are perfectly entitled to include the tables here—that's entirely to do with how the James Bond Wikiproject wishes to structure and organize their articles, so I'm basically making an observation rather than a suggestion. It's a comprehensive article and once the sourcing issues are addressed I don't imagine any major concerns will arise in the GA review. Betty Logan (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again so much for this. I'm away until Monday and can't do too much on my phone, but I'll sort in a couple of days. Thanks again! - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:James Bond/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 22:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: two found, one fixed, one tagged.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up the review on this one. I've replaced the dead link and taken out the tag on that one. (Citation 142) Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is reasonably well written, article complies with key MoS elements.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Article is adequately referenced, sources are RS, spotchecks show statements supported by cites, no OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article provides a good overview of the subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   article is stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images have suitable licenses or non-free fair use rationales and captions

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good to see this article considerably improved since delisting over two years ago. Happy to list! Jezhotwells (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bond Portrayals

In the info box, the years are incorrect. It states Sean Connery was Bond from 62-71, and again in 83. He was Bond from 62-67 and again in 73. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.192.103.123 (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

See the section James Bond#Films for the dates. DonQuixote (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

He still never played Bond from 67-71 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.192.103.123 (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Connery's first Eon film was 62, his last was 71, with the non-Eon film in 1983: in that respect the infobox is correct. The dates of the other actors, Eon and non-Eon, are also persent there. The main text of the article covers the overlap, as does the separate article. The infobox is not the place to list 1001 different dates and breakdowns - that's for the main body. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Bond book without spying?

Was this a dream I had or what? I heard that Fleming wrote a book about Bond's life OUTSIDE of the spying bizzo, centred on domestic matters, and his early life. And that the book was so boring it never got published, or else he was advised it would work against public interest in his character. Anyone know anything about this? Coz if it is true, there would be a lot of interesting stuff in there on how Fleming saw Bond, even if the book is crap. Myles325a (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No—although I think you've got a couple of crossed wires on a couple of books. Fleming wrote The Spy Who Loved Me from the point of view of a young woman and it contains no spying (although a little violence etc). After the hardback came out in the UK, he requested that there should be no reprints or paperback version of the book, which stood until his death, after which paperback editions were produced. He also wrote a short story, "Quantum of Solace", which contains no spying at all, which was written in the style of, and as an homage to, W. Somerset Maugham. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox order—should non-Eon be listed separately as "Unofficial", as per Q and Moneypenny articles?

In the infobox, the actors who have portrayed James Bond are listed in chronological order, without separating the Eon and non-Eon (unofficial) film portrayals. Should these be separated in the infobox, as per the current infobox state at the Q (James Bond) and Miss Moneypenny articles? I think they should be separated for clarification. Whatever the consensus ends up being here should be applied to all James Bond characters' infoboxes. — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 20:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Poor suggestion. Changing the format of two GA standard articles (James Bond and M) to reflect the format of two 'Start' quality articles seems to be bizarre behaviour to say the least!

1. Firstly, please note that as all the films were produced legally, under the relevant copyright and licensing laws, "Official" and "Unofficial" are misleading terms as ALL the films are "official": Eon and non-Eon films are the more precise and less lazy terms to use.
2. The characters are the same (regardless of who is producing the films) and the list gives readers a sense of the chronology of the actors that is missing in the main article body where the Eon films will run 1962 to 2012, followed by the non-Eon films of 1967 and 1983. James Bond, Felix Leiter, Ernst Stavro Blofeld and M list the actors in the infobox by chronological order of playing the character whilst the article itself makes it clear who is part of the Eon series and who is from the non-Eon series. This is readily understandable to readers of all ages and reading levels.
3. The Content box also mirrors the article, so there is even less confusion there about who is in the Eon and non-Eon films. The infobox does not have to slavishly follow the course of the article.
4. Just by way of background on the Bond articles on Wikipedia: M is one of the articles that has recently been passed as a GA—along with James Bond and a number of others (and the reviewers seemed to feel that the format of those infoboxes was suitable). Bond and M are the first character articles to be fully updated and to pass as GA standard as we have worked hard to get all the films and all the novels now up to GA standard, with the films classed as a Good Topic and the books going through the same process. There are two articles which are works in progress: Felix Leiter and List of James Bond films cast members‎. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Schro. There are four articles which have a good, uncomplicated list in the infobox and two which have bitty and split lists and they look a bit silly! The infobox has the raw data and the article has all the breakdown of the info, works well as far as I'm concerned. The Moneypenny and Q articles would be a big step backwards, IMHO. Aside from that, the same policy doesn't actually have to be spread over all the articles at all. - hydeblake (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Given the above discussion, I am now willing to concede and drop my defense of the fragmented style. The arguments against it here are well-thought and convincing. Unless someone else comes to its defense here (which is unlikely), the Q and Moneypenny infobox style can and should be reformed — FoxCE (talk | contribs) 00:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, 'official' and 'unofficial' are misnomers really. I know they are in general usage, but it can be misconstrued that the non-Eon films were not licensed adaptations if they are referred to as unofficial. It's probably ok for a news article, but an encylopedia should use the correct terminology. It would violate WP:NPOV anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Walther pistol shown in the aticle is not a "PPK". It is a PPKS. which is a bit longer than the PPK.