Talk:James Bond

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)

Walther

The Walther pistol shown in the aticle is not a "PPK". It is a PPKS. which is a bit longer than the PPK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.234.112 (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

No: it's a PPK, but thanks for reading. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Article subject

There's a note on this article saying that it is about the series in general, not the fictional character. However, it opens saying it is about a fictional character. Any help?

--74.67.169.206 (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Read more carefully. The intro says that James Bond is a fictional character featured in...and then lists the publications and works. DonQuixote (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

CMG

Despite the fact that the novel From Russia With Love is a primary source, it is acceptable to be used as a source for Bond having a CMG. Primary sources are perfectly fine as sources as long as they are being taken straight without interpretation. See WP:PRIMARY for more details. Not all sources have to be reliable secondary sources. For instance all the details of the character taken from the movies as mentioned there are primary sources, and are quite acceptable as any editor can look at the primary source and get the same information. The passage in question in From Russia With Love is quite clear "The fact that this spy was decorated with the C.M.G. in 1953, an award usually given only on retirement from the Secret Service, is a measure of his worth." Quite an acceptable source and reference as it's Fleming's own words, heavily published and available for anyone to verify. Canterbury Tail talk 17:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it needs a reliable secondary source, as with everything else in this article. If you want the information in there so much, then find a good, reliable secondary source and include it. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 June 2012

Under "Guns, Vehicles & Gadgets" you state that Bond used "a Winchester .308 target rifle in "The Living Daylights"". Please change it to "a Walther WA2000 sniper rifle in "The Living Daylights"", it came in 3 calibers, .300 Winchester Magnum, 7.62 X 51mm NATO (aka .308), & 7.5 X 55mm Swiss. Thank you!!

Kekoa1969 (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No. The rifle described in the novel is a Winchester .308 target rifle. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

James Bond lists were just all/most tagged for deletion by someone

I thought you should be informed. --Niemti (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The lists aside, most of standalone character articles have serious Wikipedia:notability problems, in addition to the general lack of sources. These that are relatively good, like Aki (James Bond)‎ are few and in between. --Niemti (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

SchroCat, Betty Logan and myself discussed these "list" pages here. Betty Logan prodded three pages last month. No one responded, so administrator Explicit deleted them. The three pages are:

• List of James Bond henchmen in A View to a Kill
• List of James Bond allies in A View to a Kill
• List of James Bond allies in Dr. No

Fanthrillers (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I meant the currently tagged. --Niemti (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I prodded the remaining articles in the same fashion because those three other pages got deleted. I again refer you to the discussion here. Fanthrillers (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

But why won't you simply redirect these articles to the film articles? --Niemti (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean turn the "list" pages into an actual "redirect" page? I'm fairly certain we can't do that. That'd be a sneaky way to delete content without going through proper procedures. Further, these "unsuitable" articles do NOT have a title that may make a useful redirect. (Wikipedia deletion and redirection policy). - Fanthrillers (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes we can. I did this many times. And that's not deleting anything. --Niemti (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

And done. --Niemti (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

And I also moved the similarily unreferenced lists of video game characters to the game articles. --Niemti (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I also redirected the Bong girl articles with no references at all. (Many of the others have notability problems, but at least they have any references.) --Niemti (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

And the same with villains. --Niemti (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

In this way, all of the articles can be also easily restored for a rewrite, as I just did with Wai Lin. --Niemti (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Also just restored Jaws (James Bond). --Niemti (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Also Oddjob. --Niemti (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think redirecting is a perfectly acceptable solution in this case. The reason I PROD'd the A View to a Kill article was basically to test the notability and INUNIVERSE arguments through an official channel. It's a much more visible way of doing it than redirecting. However, given that there was no objection I think redirecting is fine for the other articles; it does save us the hassle of a big clean-up job. Betty Logan (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Referenced (more or less) but with the most burning notability problems

• General Grubozaboyschikov
• Le Chiffre
• Hugo Drax
• Charles Robinson (James Bond)
• Vesper Lynd
• Tiffany Case
• Tatiana Romanova
• Tracy Bond
• Agent Strawberry Fields
• Camille Montes
• Plenty O'Toole

Add notability if you can (and care).

Oh and Quantum (James Bond) and The Union (James Bond) too. --Niemti (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, propose where and how these articles should be merged. --Niemti (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, just tagged them all for merging. --Niemti (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the tag from Robinson and I suggest that it's also removed from Le Chiffre too: the character has appeared in 2 films and the TV prog as well as the book. The others are all fairly pointless. Could you also make sure that when you do the re-directs there are no circular references in the corresponding articles and that all pages that refer into that page have their links suitable altered. - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

And so what "the character has appeared in 2 films and the TV prog as well as the book", if there's no indepedent notability in his article? Also Raoul Silva. --Niemti (talk) 05:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

All the references are from a third party and a number of others are also there. I'm still thinking about increasing the net to ensure that the primary villains retain their own page going forward. On a seprate note, in conversation, could you also please indent your text using the colon: it makes it easier to follow and is good wiki etiquette. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No, all the references are from James Bond: The Official Guide and "a number of others [that] are also there" is zero. And as of Le Chiffre, him being based on Aleister Crowley doesn't make him noatble, it makes Aleister Crowley notable (Ian Fleming worked with Crowley to give fake horoscopes to the Nazis). --Niemti (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Official? Even better then. As to the others: you misunderstand (or I misphrased). There are other sources available about the character, bringing it up to more than zero. Le Chiffre's notability (and the other primary villains) isn't based on single things like the Crowley information, but because they are the primary villains in one of the longest running and most successful film franchises in history. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"The Official Guide" is absolutely not an "independent third party source", and it gived the subject (which is a very minor character) an exactly zero independent notability. But anyway if you think you rewrite the Le Chiffre article, I'm not stopping you at all, the tag was just a proposal. --Niemti (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I've removed two primary villains from the list. There are numerous notable sources about these two. There are also numerous independent third party sources about Vesper Lynd, Tatiana Romanova and Tracy Bond too, if you look for them. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, as I mentioned earlier, could you also make sure that when you do the re-directs there are no circular references in the corresponding articles and that all pages that refer into that page have their links suitable altered? Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

They might be notable but it's on Wikipedia. And if you want to fix it up do it yourself, now or on any later date, instead of asking me to "look for them" for you. --Niemti (talk) 07:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't asked you to look for them, I'm suggesting you look before you decide if they are noteable or not. As there are a number of sources that cover a number of these characters then I'm withdrawing the notability tags on them. The articles all have a number of issues, but that is nothing that a re-write could not fix. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to "look" into anything. I've looked into these articles and there was no notability, and we are talking about the Wikipedia articles and not anything else. If you want, improve them. Now, or on any later date. Even years from now, you can always de-merge after all. --Niemti (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised and concerned about your approach. If you do not look at what is around then how can you judge the notability of the articles? That really does seem to be horse-before-cart territory. And no, you obviously haven't "looked into these articles", because if you had then you would have seen a large number of third party references to the subjects. I suggest you spend five minutes trying to do some cursory research first before deciding what you think should or should not be there. You may take it from my approach that I have done the research and know what is there: you may also takeit that we are hardly moving towards a consensus on the articles from which I have removed the notability tags. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you're mistaking notability with verifiability / reliable sources. The notable henchmen / girls / villains are these widely discussed in mass media or even being referenced in the non-Bond fiction (as some indeed are), because they're notable. AKA cultural impact. And stating "I have done the research" is not enough, you have to expand the articles using this research. And do not except me or anyone to "look around", because only what is in the articles counts for the articles. You can't say "they're notable, because I say so, and I did my research, and if you don't believe look around". That doesn't work this way, because one could say something like that about any article, this being true or not. Oh, and I'm not even going to merge them, I just tagged them. Someone can else might do it, and you can too (then easily de-merge when you prepare a better article). --Niemti (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you tagged them from a position of ignorance: never a good place to start. Did you look at the Benson, Black, Lindner, Pfeiffer or Comentale's books? Did you look at some of the main academic articles such as "Shaken and Stirred: A Content Analysis of Women's Portrayals in James Bond Films", "Screening Geopolitics: James Bond and the Early Cold War films" or "James Bond's "Pussy" and Anglo-American Cold War Sexuality"? I doubt it, because if you had done so then you would have seen a number of these characters had been discussed by academics, or in academic journals. Yes, there is a lot of chaff around (Strawberry Fields and Plenty O'Toole being obvious examples) but to slap tags on those which are notable seems to be a rather strange approach. And no, I'm not mistaking notability with verifiability or reliable sources: I'm aware of the distinction. They have not been updated recently because there are only so many hours in the day and there are more important articles to polish up first, but their day will come in the near future. Furthermore, notability of an article is not solely based on "what is in the articles counts for the articles": it is based on a much, much wider net than that. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I tagged these articles for no notability and merge from the position of these articles having no proof of independent notability. I didn't tag them from deletion, merely for a simple and possibly temporary merge becuause of their very poor state as for now (July 2012), and I didn't redirect them rightaway only because they had sources (these were the only few such articles that had any sources). And no, neither "Shaken and Stirred: A Content Analysis of Women's Portrayals in James Bond Films", "Screening Geopolitics: James Bond and the Early Cold War films" nor "James Bond's "Pussy" and Anglo-American Cold War Sexuality" were used in any of these articles, I think. They may be merged in near future, and maybe de-merged in ANY future, so what's the problem? None. But don't accuse the other users of "ignorance". --Niemti (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Also my work here is done. --Niemti (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Read again. I didn't say you were ignorant, I said you came from a position of ignorance, because the lack of knowledge you showed in your tagging is a position of ignorance. As I said above. The articles have issues, but notability is not one of those issues. Sources and adequate citations are the issues and the articles have those tags in place already. Rather than throwing round pointless and misleading tags, perhaps some work building the articles to a decent standard would be more constructive? - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I showed no "ignorance" at all, and actually I might know about the series actually more than you do, but that doesn't even matter (I'm not waging my Bond knowledge e-penis in front of you, I don't see the contest). The articles should be judged for what they are right now and these tags are neither "pointless" nor "misleading", they are very useful and clear (as the tag says: Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted, followed by the euqally clear merge tag, and even my own repeated explainations for you only, ensuring you that you can easily fix either or all of these article now or at any later date - and that's to the person who jut wanted to DELETE a whole bunch of articles). --Niemti (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"my work here is done"? No, I think you may have to go round and tidy up the mess you've made with the re-directs first. Have a look at the redirects on The World Is Not Enough and work on from there. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"Bond knowledge e-penis"? That's the funniest and most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time. Don't forget to finish the clear-up job after you've finished with the TWINE mess. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't like your still rude tone and so I won't listen to any impolite requests, regardless of what "TWINE mess" might be. That was all. --Niemti (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a rude tone, and I'm sorry you've taken it that way. There are no impolite requests either: I just pointed out that your redirects have created a number of problems that you may wish to sort out, unless you want them open to reversion in order to get the articles put through the deletion process that would'nt create any such issues. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is, but I think there should be a Wikipedia bot for a job like that. --Niemti (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the film articles link to the associated villains page. By re-directing the page, the link now goes round in a big circle back to its own page, which isn't terribly helpful. And no, there does not appear to be a bot coming round clearing up after you. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

update needed

The "Last appearance" item in the sidebar is three years out of date. It refers to a 2008 film rather than the actual last Bond appearance, the 2011 novel. 66.68.23.185 (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. DonQuixote (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The real agent 007

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: The first agent 007 and the real name was Dr. John Dee. He lived from the 1527th the 1608th year. He was adviser to Queen Elizabeth and the first British secret agent. The brilliant mathematician, philosopher, and magician invented the mark 007th. In the code letters for the Queen "00" meant "for your eyes only", and seven by Dr. Dee was chosen as a powerful Kabbalistic number that is "guaranteed" safety.93.137.48.39 (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see James Bond (character) and Inspirations for James Bond, both of which deal with the use of Dee's glyph. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

James Bond Page

On the James Bond page it says Daniel Craig is the 6th actor to play James Bond in the opening info section. He is indeed the 7th. Since the page is semi-protected and I am new I cant change it. Just thought id point it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efero99 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

He's the seventh to play Bond overall, but the sentence to which you refer does have a caveat: it says he "is the sixth actor to play Bond in the Eon series" (my emphasis added). Cheers (btw, when you leave a post, of you could add your signature (~~~~) then it's helpful in an ongoing conversation. Thanks!) Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I apologize I was counting Sean Connery twice since his part were broken up. Efero99 (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)