Jump to content

Talk:Daniel Craig

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ZanetaStepanova (talk | contribs) at 19:19, 18 November 2018 (→Addition To The Mother: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleDaniel Craig has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 4, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Birthplace

Can people stop changing Daniels birthplace to Hoylake, he may have grown up there but he was born in Chester!

Yep @ 41 Liverpool Rd, Chester, United Kingdom to be precise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.126.36 (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Craig's Birth year is 1968 but the hospital he was born in opened in 1984? this looks out of place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.91.134.8 (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's because it's a load of twaddle. Firstly the West Cheshire Hospital - opened 1968 - did not have a maternity unit before 1971 (likewise all out-patient emergencies went to the Chester Royal Infirmary). If he had been born in any hospital, his mother would have been taken to the maternity unit at the City Hospital in Hoole. Secondly the Countess of Chester Hospital article was so confusing and badly written it gave the impression it only opened in 1984 when in fact it was officially renamed as such in 1984; a year after the completion of a large modern general wing on the former West Cheshire Hospital site. Craig was brought into this world at 41 Liverpool Road in a home birth. I know this due to a Sixties familial connection. However due to Wikipedia's rules that state published lies always trump WP:OR (ie common sense or real knowledge) as the lies are apparently "verifiable". Work that one out!? 86.160.108.5 (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheshire

The Wirral is not part of Cheshire; it is part of Merseyside. The statements regarding Craig's early life in 'Cheshire' are therefore not correct. Can somebody make the relevant corrections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.220.86.40 (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merseyside did not come into effect until 1974, until then the Wirral was in Cheshire, therefore Daniel did grow up in Cheshire.

Hardly, he was born in 1968, Merseyside came into effect in 1974. Therefore he technically had six years of Cheshire and 10 years (if he went to acting school at 16) 10 years in Merseyside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.210.84 (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Craig's Birth year is 1968 but the hospital he was born in opened in 1984? this looks out of place.

Semi-lock please

GA on hold

A lot of work is required, please leave any comments if you are confused, cross of things as you go, i have the page watchlisted so will watch progress being made. M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak pass, you need to go into a lot more detail if you want to take this further. Other than that good job. M3tal H3ad (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please semi lock

I think this article should be semi locked before the movie comes out in america because they will really vandalize it - 04/11/08 Jev2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jev2008 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC) actually, Daniel Craig is the seventh Bond...Sean Connery, Roger Moore, George Lazensby, Peter Sellers (in the original Casino Royale), Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan were all his predecessors.68.41.167.8 (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sellers never played Bond. You are thinking of David Niven. In any event, that version of "Casino Royale" was a parody and not necessarily a "canonical" Eon Productions film. --Pergish1 (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing more Craig

I wanted to be able to look down that table and easily see which ones were the James Bond ones. I added the EON reference just for clarity. I liked how the Notes section said TV and thought EON would add to the list by making it more film-like. Maybe there needs to be another phrase more general.
I added the link on the end since it has lots of data in the referenced article. If people go there they will see pics of Daniel Craig, casually, shots from the movie, pic of him with current fiance, and read quotes by himself from the interview. I do appreciate hearing from the subject of an article because it's his life after all. Kristinwt (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London

On the bottom page London, is misspelled as "laudon" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.245.163.1 (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then correct please - you don't need to ask/notify about grammatical errors. Armuk (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casino Royale

Why does the article say that Casino Royale was #5 best selling Bond film? It made more in theaters that nay other Bond film. Is this counting DVD sales or something? Emperor001 (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gay?

Why does it say on the second pararaph that Daniel Craig is gay and he has been married twice and has now a girlfriend? I would like to know how he would be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.235.208.37 (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Must have been a semi-literate's attempt at humor. It's gone now.

Upcoming films

Memoirs of Hadrian is one of them. Any reason why not included? Armuk (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encounter At the End

Where's the proof this is the title for Bond 23? 69.141.212.84 (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be any. IMDb doesn't have anything, neither does a Google News search turn up anything. I'll remove it. Yworo (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casino Royale

Casino Royale was Craig's first film as bond not Quantum of Solace as stated in the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.107.130.12 (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond (2005–present)

The fourth paragraph:

After the film was released, Craig's performance was highly acclaimed. Critic Paul Arendt of BBC Films, Producer Barbara Broccoli also denied other rumours in an interview with Variety.

There's no connection between the first and second sentence. What "other rumors"? And what do they have to do with Crag's performance? And BTW, I think it's necessary to cite some reviews to support the claim that "Craig's performance was highly acclaimed". --Artoasis (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip from The National Enquirer

I have removed this gossip, it's second-hand poorly sourced reporting from an anonymous witness. There seems little to confirm that this was not some gay guy lucky enough to look a bit like Daniel Craig. Included below for those who would like to check the sources:

removed gossip

In May 2010 The National Enquirer is reporting that Daniel Craig was caught kissing a man in a bar in Venice, California. "It was definitely Daniel Craig, and he was most certainly making out with a guy," one witness told the National Enquirer. -- ChicagoPride (May 2010). "Is Daniel Craig gay?". ChicagoPride.Com. Retrieved May 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Fæ (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcised Brit?

I just watched "Love is the Devil," the 1999 film Craig did about the artist Francis Bacon, and in the nude scene where he's laying in a bath tub, it seems quite plain that he's circumcised. I logged on here, fully expecting the article to say that he was Jewish, but that's apparently not the case. Anyone have any idea why he'd be circumcised? I thought all Brits were uncut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.226.142 (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is sometimes done for reasons other than religion. Jim Michael (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not all Brits are uncut. About 15% are circumcised, mostly for religious reasons but some for medical requirements. I do not believe Craig has ever declared his religion, so he may be Jewish. --TBM10 (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with TBM10. People get their kids circumcised for many reasons other than religion. There are some health benefits to it, and I'm pretty sure that it also makes sexual experiences more pleasurable. Funny fact though, the Hebrew term for a circumcision is a "Brit Milah", or a "Brit" for short, so you could've titled this "Brit Brit".... lol :)--Coin945 (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although there may be some health benefits to it, none of the major health organizations recommend circumcision routinely. Also, the sexual benefits are disputed and some studies have even shown that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure for both the man and his partner. Jus' sayin'! --TBM10 (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, because the partner can tell whether the penis in them is circumcised or not.40.142.186.223 (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenEye007: Reloaded

Why isn't the new ps3 and x360 game GoldenEye007: Reloaded mentioned under video games? It says on this website Goldeneye 007: Reloaded Website (the official game one) that daniel craig is featured as james bond. Could someone please put that in?

Cheers, 124.171.0.201 (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Primary School

According to the page, he "attended a primary school in Frodsham and Hoylake called Holy Trinity Primary School".
Frodsham and Hoylake are over 30 km (20 miles) apart, at the extreme opposite ends of the Wirral Peninsula, so that's startlingly impractical! There's a primary school of that name in Hoylake, so should the statement be that he "attended a primary school in Frodsham (name unknown) and another in Hoylake called Holy Trinity Primary School"? If so, anyone know which school he attended in Frodsham, and which was first? Ministry (talk) 10:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Craig premiere new york.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Craig premiere new york.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Craig premiere new york.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knighthood?

Seems the Queen may have bestowed the sword upon him. Does anyone want to add info and verification?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was Roger Moore knighted? The article I read said Craig was the first Bond actor to get it? Hard to trust information from most of the net. I am glad WP is 100% factual.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Get what? Span (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-identification

The body of the article makes it clear that Daniel Craig is half Welsh by ancestry. Since Celts tend to self-identify by ancestry and affinity rather than place of origin, which derives from their old customary systems which are different in this (jus sanguinis) from those customarily applying in England and much of continental Europe (jus soli, though modern practice often no longer reflects this), it is not safe to describe someone who is half Welsh as English without further evidence (e.g., consider Lloyd George, an acknowledged Welshman born in a suburb of Manchester) - it may even be offensive. Accordingly, I changed the reference to "British", as this is both generic and neutral, correct whichever way whether Daniel Craig regards himself as Welsh or as English or as something in between.

A user reverted this, under the misapprehension that I was imposing a POV and biassed description. Since I was actually removing just such a POV description (English) rather than instating an unjustifiable one (Welsh, in this case), I shall revert to my earlier generic and non-POV term "British" in its place - just as I did before. The term "English" only appears to be unprejudiced to those who take the location principle of identity as the norm, which is the very point at issue and so makes that an unwitting POV. In the event that further evidence shows that Daniel Craig regards himself as specifically English or specifically Welsh, then it would be proper to edit the article accordingly - but unless and until that happens, it is actually the non-POV thing to have the version I put, which is just precisely why I put it. PMLawrence (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a Welshman (Parentage and born in Cardiff) I endorse all PMLawrence has written here. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 12:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Craig" is a guid auld Scotch name, nae Welsh. "Against the backdrop of a push for independence in Scotland, the half-Scottish Bond — his mother apparently was Swiss" is given in as good a source as that in footnote # 11. http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/161707-shaken-stirred-and-confused — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobburnsob (talk • contribs) 17:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He self-identifies as English, apparently. His citizenship is British, but legal citizenship is ignored in favour of personal nationalistic feelings... And that source isn't even about Daniel Craig, but about the character James Bond lol. Welcome to Scotland anybody? (it's a line in the film...my favourite XD) --85.210.97.62 (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A general reply to PMLawrence's comments above: it is not biased nor "POV" to describe a man born, raised and resident in England as English. It is most certainly not offensive (the only type of person who would take offence at such - and sadly a few people of this type do exist - is the type that has been indoctrinated by an anglophobic parent or parents).

The notion that there is a distinctive "Celtic" attitude to national identity and that this differs profoundly from the "English" attitude is faulty. The attitude is basically the same. A person born and raised in England is generally regarded as English by himself, other English people and other non-English British people, and this is reciprocated - a person born and raised in Scotland is generally regarded as Scottish by himself, other Scottish people and other non-Scottish British people; and so on and so forth. There are always exceptions - some English people jealously claim to be Irish, Welsh or Scottish on the basis of (often quite remote) ancestry from those countries, and others have such claims advanced on their behalf by chauvinists in those countries - but on the whole the attitude to identity is a pragmatic and realistic one: if you have grown up in e.g. England, become acculturated to it and speak as if you come from it, that is your basic national identity. Same is true of Wales, Ireland and Scotland. An Englishman called Kelly, a Welshhman called Campbell, a Scotsman called Evans or an Irishman called Featherstone are unremarkable these days, and in truth have been for centuries. Mixed ancestry is so widespread throughout the British isles that fully unpicking any individual's ancestry is almost impossible. English people as a group are not Anglo-Saxons/Germans, and Welsh, Scottish and Irish people are not Celts. It is not even accurate to call this distinction a simplification, because to do so implies that it is fundamentally accurate.

The current captain of the Welsh rugby team is an instructive case - of fully English ancestry, and with an unmistakably English surname, yet regarded as nothing but Welsh by anyone in England or Wales. He was born there, grew up there, lives there and speaks with a Welsh accent (accent is very important - if your accent is identifiably from one of the four/five home nations, you will have a hard time convincing anyone that you are not from and of that country) - hence Welsh. It's fashionable among some people in Scotland, Wales, Ireland and elsewhere to regard England as being not a proper country and not possessing a real identity, hence aggressive claims, in real life and to an amazing extent on Wikipedia, that this or that English person isn't really English because he had a Scottish grandmother or an Irish surname or whatnot. Irish people with English grandmothers or Scottish people with English surnames almost literally never face these kinds of claims.

While he may acknowledge the (partial) Welshness of some of his ancestors, it is exceptionally unlikely that Craig regards himself as "Welsh". In this context it is worth pointing out that if, for argument's sake, his most recent "Welsh" ancestor had been born in Wales but was of wholly English ancestry, this fact would be ignored by the same Wikipedia editors who would use the birthplace of that ancestor as solid proof of Craig's Welsh ancestry. A huge double standard to this effect is in place across Wikipedia. Shiresman (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Ontario General Election candidacy

Someone has made the claim that Craig "allowed himself to be named a candidate in a provincial election in Ontario, Canada, for the riding of Don Valley East under the name 'Dan Craig'". The supporting reference is to a list of election results showing that, sure enough, someone named Dan Craig ran for the Green Party in that election. (http://results.elections.on.ca/results/2003_results/valid_votes.jsp?e_code=38&rec=52&district=&district_code=0&rec-page=10&flag=E&layout=G)

Not a single shred of evidence is presented by this reference (nor can be found anywhere else on the internet by this editor) to show that Daniel Craig is the same person as Dan Craig, much less that Craig "indicated he would be unwilling to participate in a similar stunt in the future".

Please, let's either find legitimate reference to support this claim, or remove it as the hoax it most likely is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.162.136 (talk) 09:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Total hoax, and a totally weird one a that. --85.210.97.62 (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newer and clearer photo.

I'd like to change his photo to this one

Anyone else agree? I think its nicer since he is shaven. MyNikon (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"to date" in the lead

The third paragraph of the lead says Casino Royale was the highest grossing Bond film "to date". But now we know Skyfall is the highest grossing to date. Can someone fix this possible ambiguity? Thanks! --108.45.72.196 (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, Fanthrillers. Thank you. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Your second edit was even better!) --108.45.72.196 (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His selection

Can we change it to: Though his selection was initially greeted with scepticism, his debut . . . ? --108.45.72.196 (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree with you here. The current phrasing ("Though initially greeted with scepticism, his debut in Casino Royale was highly acclaimed") is terse and therefore preferable. - Fanthrillers (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it wasn't his debut that was greeted with scepticism, it was his selection as Bond in the first place. As we have it now, the initial phrase refers to his debut, no? --108.45.72.196 (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I see. You're right. I'll change it. - Fanthrillers (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about: "Some greeted his selection with scepticism, but his debut . . ."? "Some" is detailed in the text below and supported by three footnotes. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or, "Scepticism greeted his selection, but his debut . . . "? --108.45.72.196 (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add "Bond" before "series" later in the same sentence. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography

As listed in IMDB, his first film was The Power of One (1992) in which he played the adult part of Jaapie Botha, a Nazi sympathiser and personal opponent of PK, the film's chief protagonist. That film should be listed. 71.162.81.97 (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kids

I think he only has one daughter and the wiki says 2. Rachel has one kid but it's not with him... at least not yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxxyFuyumi (talk • contribs) 16:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy and Glorious

Shouldn't that come under Television work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.77.147 (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent question. I'm leaning to "tv" though it wasn't expressly shot for tv. As we all know it is a short film shown at a live event. I'm stumped. I've asked senior Bond editor SchroCat to chime in. - Fantr (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go for short film. It's kind of unique and doesn't cleanly fit anywhere, really. We list it in the James Bond in film article under the non-Eon films on that basis. Hope that helps! - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Betty Logan's reasons on SchroCat's talk page make sense so I'm changing my vote to "film". - Fantr (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments

Non-Admin Closure: Consensus is for the more recent 2012 photo as it is more accurate to how Daniel Craig currently looks. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

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.

Which image should be added in the infobox? The present image which was captured in 2009 or This image taken in 2012 at Skyfall premier ? - Rahat | Message 09:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Inbox photo again

Trisha, you were asked to take your concerns to this talk page instead of edit warring with various editors. The above discussion about the inbox photos was had and closed. We do not use blurred, out of date images in the inbox. Anna (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page illustrates it hasn't been the first time this image has caused controversy and ongoing disputes among the editors of the Daniel Craig article. That is to be expected of an image which violates Wiki policies, specifically WP:MUG and WP:OI. This can and will generate edit conflicts and disputes continuously. An attempt has been made to settle these disputes through consensus, but WP:CONLIMITED states that a local consensus can not override broader policy. This is therefore not a viable long-term solution for the issue.
In summary, it would be preferable to change the main image on the Daniel Craig article to an alternate image which will not give rise to these continued controversies or disputes. Otherwise, this issue is likely to keep resurfacing from time to time, as it indeed already has. Trisha Borsagi (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here I will go into more detail on my position: The issue with the disputed image is not that it isn't a posed shot, as some have suggested. Rather, the moment at which this particular picture was taken results in an unflattering contortion of the mouth and a facial expression which is comparable to a shot of Craig "picking his nose", as it were. In both these cases, one ends up with an image that can be used to disparage the subject, which is explicitly forbidden by WP:MUG as well as WP:OI. The fact that this image has been the cause of numerous disputes over time among several different editors besides Anna and myself illustrates that there is a genuine issue here, which goes beyond subjective interpretation. It's evident that this picture in the past has led to disputes and controversy, is presently doing so again, and that it has a high degree of probability to do so again in the future. This is not conducive of a constructive editing environment, so the rational conclusion is to opt to use an alternate image from the available imagery. I am still puzzled as to why such a simple and rational proposition provokes such a militant response among some individuals here. This to me suggests an emotional investment of some sort, and this is why I recalled how Daniel Craig's casting provoked a strong negative response among some groups. I think it's a bit dramatic to compare this to "seeing conspiracies". Trisha Borsagi (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
propose an alternative image then - there's a selection at c:Category:Daniel Craig. Nthep (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overly detailed Bond and Personal Life sections

My two cents on these sections:

  • The whole Bond section reads more like "Show-Business News" than an encyclopedia.
  • It seems that a lot of the Bond info would be better off in the pages for respective films.
  • Details about accidents on the set or what other actors think of Craig (as Bond) seems un-encyclopedic.
  • Discussion of his suitability to play Bond goes on longer than it should.
  • Even if worthy of inclusion, the line "The 19 April 2010-release of Craig's expected third Bond film..." was probably meant to be "The expected 19 April 2010-release of Craig's third Bond film..."
  • The line "Craig had signed on to make four more Bond films, through to Bond 25" ought to either not mention how many more or the film numbers need to make more sense. As the next line mentions #23 what does "four more" amount to (Bond 26 or 27)?
  • The second half of the Personal Life section is more trivia than encyclopedic.

Arbalest Mike (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Along these lines I have eliminated the section On-set Accident While Filming Quantum of Solace. What happened to him on this particular day in his life is not encyclopedic information about him. I would argue that the details of what he paid for his house should also go. Arbalest Mike (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was a sensible edit — the first sentence had the only pertinent information about Craig himself, and it more properly belongs in the Quantum of Solace article.
I think the cost of the house is pertinent, though — it helps puts the scale of his career success in hard-number, nuts-and-bolts context. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

page protection - content dispute

Per request at WP:RFPP, the page has been temporarily fully protected to force discussion. That discussion should take place here, not in edit summaries. If consensus is reached before protection expires, feel free to request unprotection, but if this continues the page may be locked longer or blocks may be distributed. KrakatoaKatie 04:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 25 May 2015

50.141.73.138 (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC) I am watching a James Bond marathon. In the 1987 film Daniel Craig plays an uncredited role. Oddly enough is a villain. About an hour into the movie Bond meets another agent in a cafe. Daniel Craig sets off a bomb in an attempt to kill Bond. He is obviously unsuccessful, Daniel Craig is clearly visible no fewer than 3 times in the scene.[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. see also WP:NOR. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox birthplace

His birthplace in the infobox should be listed as 'Chester, England, U.K.'. If people wish to find which 'county' he was born in, which I dare say will only be a desired fact for a select few people, most of whom will be British as English counties I suspect are immaterial to most international readers, they can simply click on the city link.

The political recognisezd entity is the United Kingdom, not England on its own.

We tend to use the country, in this case England, without UK in articles as it is unnecessary. Keith D (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response Keith D (talk). Unnecessary maybe but it has been listed beforehand and is listed in the infobox on the pages of many British actors and actresses. It doesn't hurt to add it so can we just have it in there, at least for the sake of uniformity? David King 947 (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because other places have it does not make it right. It probable should be removed from the others as well, especially as it is mainly added by an IP. Keith D (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since it should only 'probably' be removed from other pages, can I please just add it? One's geo-politcal nation of birth is fairly important even if it is obvious. No harm is induced as a result of its inclusion. David King 947 (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:UKNATIONALS for why this is a bad idea. --John (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars rumor

In light of the edit warring going on here can some WP policy heavy-weight provide some guidance here?

Craig has denied the role and it is not credited. If there is no external attribution and if his face is not seen but a storm trooper sounds-like or acts-like Craig enough (I have not seen the movie), is that enough for inclusion in the filmography section of this article?

I don't see a problem of addressing the rumor in the article or even adding "rumored" as a note in the filmography. If/when it is revealed to be true role then the article can be updated. Arbalest Mike (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doing that would not have been allowed, because if it's a rumour, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, even in filmographies (I don't know why you be suggesting that). But the source that was added all but confirms his appearance in the film as far as I know (I didn't want to see the spoilers), so for now, we can just leave it at that. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 03:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty weak source. Not much more than a gossip piece that says "According to multiple sources close to The Force Awakens who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to speak publicly, that [the cameo appearance]is precisely what happened." Meters (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a weak source and there is a dark force (pun intended) that wants to make this all part of their own little joke - especially with the link to its own page which I just reverted out of the filmography table entry. Rather than have the debate move from whether or not to include the role in the filmography to the name of the character (then what next -- whether or not to include a photo of the stormtrooper?) It is probably better to have a zero tolerance approach until such time as say, Craig himself, confirms the rumor. Arbalest Mike (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that it is inappropriate to include the Star wars rumor in the article, and to especially add it to the filmography unless it is confirmed either by Disney or Craig. WP:RUMOUR states "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Betty Logan (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2016

Merseyside repeatedly misspelt as 'Mersyside', in particular in the section regarding childhood. Suggested changes: change all instances of 'Mersyside' to 'Merseyside'.

Geogug94 (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done and thanks for pointing that out Cannolis (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Daniel Craig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Daniel Craig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


longest running bond

Sean Connery was in seven bond films. Daniel Craig has only been in four bond films, while the 5th hasn't released until 2019.

Majinsnake (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Craig has played Bond since 2005. By the time of his next film he will have played Bond for 14 years. (2A00:23C4:6384:600:50D:A4B6:BF0E:A6F8 (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Portraying a character in a film is based on how many times you have done it, not how long it has been in real-time. Majinsnake (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


The longest-serving Bond

Now that it has been confirmed Craig will play Bond again he is the longest-serving Bond. (2A00:23C4:6384:600:5D33:DD53:5859:531C (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Daniel Craig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel Craig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slash his wrists

At some time before 2018 and before he agreed to act in the 25th Bond movie, he was quoted as saying he'd rather slash his wrists than do another bond film. Seems to me that this is relevant, either as a negotiation ploy, or as an expression of his real feelings.40.142.186.223 (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addition To The Mother

An addition added to The Mother

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Craig&oldid=869459501"