Talk:No Time to Die/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about No Time to Die. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Title footnote

The article should have some explanation of the title being shared with another film. Key people involved in the production of the 1958 film are closely associated with the Bond franchise, and while the film is relatively obscure, page analytics show that the 1958 had a spike in page views when the 2020 film title was revealed. Reducing this to a footnote understates this significance. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Unless there's a source that says the title of this title was influence by that film, that's original research and can't be included. --Masem (t) 21:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The article is not claiming that the title of the 1958 film influenced the title of the 2020 film. It is simply pointing out that there are two films called No Time to Die. One is a James Bond film and the other was made by people who played a pivotal role in establishing the James Bond franchise. All of this is supported by reliable and verifiable sources. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot of original research and inaccessible citations. Your job as an editor is not to bump page views for other articles. A coincidence in titling doesn't make it important. --MustTryHarder (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot of original research

It's not original research. Everything the article states is fact and supported by sources.

and inaccessible citations

Then you should read WP:SOURCEACCESS, which clearly states that we should not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access.

A coincidence in titling doesn't make it important.

A coincidence does not automatically make it unimportant, either. It is notable given the number or correlations. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

It is your original research that a non-Bond film that happens to share the same name as this one and has a few common crew members is relevant to this film. That's trivia, per WP:TRIVIA and needs reliable sourcing to include. Sometimes such sourcing is possible, but you have to find it to include. Just sourcing the credits on the older films is not sufficient. --Masem (t) 22:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Editors constantly have to decide what is relevant to an article and what is not. Take, for example, a Formula 1 championship article. Teams have three names: the "constructor name", to which all results are credited (which is also the common name); the "official name", which is the name that the team uses to refer to itself and usually includes sponsors; and the "trading name", which is the name the team uses when it is being run as a business. The entry list published at the start of the year contains all three names for each team, but editors of these articles only use the constructor name and the official name because the trading name is not relevant. I don't see this situation as being any different, and I don't think the decision of what is and what is not relevant should be solely in the hands of someone with a history of cutting content indiscriminately. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Some sources such as this BBC article make the connection between the films, but I think the footnote location is adequate for capturing this coincidental information. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree, a footnote will be enough. El Millo (talk) 22:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

This is basically a matter of, I think this is article section material or I think this is footnote material. Since we all say what we think, I happen to agree with User:Mclarenfan17, that this is clearly more than footnote material. Why? That is a matter of experience and common sense. I would not hide this information in a footnote. Debresser (talk) 23:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Why? It's barely relevant. El Millo (talk) 23:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, that is your opinion, which you have stated before. I, however, feel otherwise. It is my opinion, that anything that avoids reader's confusion between two different things, is essential and should be in the article itself. Debresser (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

To avoid readers' confusion, we could add the 1958 film to the Other uses template at the top of the article. El Millo (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It already points to a general disambiguation page and the film's listed there. It is not well-known enough to be listed separately here. --Masem (t) 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Except that this article madd it better-known. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

If for "better known" you mean that it received more views, that is probably because they clicked on that one by mistake instead of this one. That's not being better-known. El Millo (talk) 03:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Even if it was by mistake, people became aware of its existence. That's becoming better-known. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Roundabout fallacy. It's still original research to make the connection you want to make and argue the end result as a means to keep it. Let sources come to say that.

Which, by the way, took all of 5 seconds to find [1] which you can use to source. --Masem (t) 04:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Added. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

This is questionable, so I'll leave this here --MustTryHarder (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I think having it as a footnote is a good way to include the information but not give it excessive prominence. - SchroCat (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

False titles and definite artices

But you keep making grammatical changes throughout the article. Case in point, this like from the premise:

He is approached by Felix Leiter, his friend and a CIA officer, who enlists his help in the search for Valdo Obruchev, a missing scientist.

The problem here is that it is written in passive voice. There are also problems with verb-subject disagreement since "he" (which is to say Bond) is the subject and "enlists" is the verb. The problem here is the passive voice turns Obruchev into a subject where "missing" becomes the verb. The sentence should read like this instead:

He is approached by Felix Leiter, his friend and a CIA officer, who enlists his help in the search for missing scientist Valdo Obruchev.

I have no idea what you meant by "false titles" and "avoiding WP:SEASON" when you reverted it the first time. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

This isn't to do with the commas, but never mind. For the false title, see False title. It's prevalent in journalism and common in US English, but should not be used in the good, formal English that an encyclopaedia should aim for. It's not in a passive voice, and the use of the false title isn't great, grammatically speaking.

The SEASONS part wasn't to do with this, but was for the other part of that edit, where I changed "the spring of 2016". - SchroCat (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It's prevalent in journalism and common in US English, but should not be used in the good, formal English that an encyclopaedia should aim for.

I think that in trying to solve one comparatively minor problem, you've gone and created a bigger problem in the verb-subject disagreement

The SEASONS part wasn't to do with this, but was for the other part

Then can you please make that clear in your edit summaries? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

There isn't a verb-subject disagreement

I numbered the changes, and it should have been self-evident from the context. Short of doing two smaller edits (which is pointless), or writing an essay as a summary, this should be clear enough. - SchroCat (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

This is the phrase that forms the sentence:

He is approached by Felix Leiter, who enlists his help in the search for Valdo Obruchev.

"He" (which is to say Bond) is the subject of the sentence. "Enlists" is the verb; Bond is enlisted to help.

This is the clause that is inserted into the sentence:

his friend and a CIA officer

"His" still refers to Bond, but the clause is used to show who does the enlisting. Together thet form this:

He is approached by Felix Leiter, his friend and a CIA officer, who enlists his help in the search for Valdo Obruchev.

Grammatically this sentence is fine.

However, you then add another clause onto the end of the phrase:

Valdo Obruchev, a missing scientist.

Because "missing" is used as a verb and refers to Obruchev, Obruchev becomes the subject. However, the subject of the sentence is Bond. You cannot have a sentence with two subjects. In your haste to overcome the use of a false title—which, as the article you linked to makes clear, is not universally unacceptable and which I doubt anyone would have picked up on if you had not raised it—you have introduced a significantly bigger problem to the article. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

"However, you then add another clause onto the end of the phrase": I didn't add the phrase: I moved a pre-existing one to avoid the bloody awful false title. And yes, people would have picked up on it, but they wouldn't have been Americans, who are happy to use the term, as are journalists. As this is an encyclopaedic article, however, avoiding the otiose use of the title is the only way to go. I do not think the sentence needs redrafting from its current form, but I will look at it again to avoid the perceived problem. - SchroCat (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not think the sentence needs redrafting from its current form, but I will look at it again to avoid the perceived problem.

I want to believe that you're willing to work on it, but then you go and post this in your edit summary:

more dross up to where the rest of the nonsense is

It doesn't inspire confidence. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Meh. It was dross and it was moved into the section where there was nonsense. I have separated this thread into a new section as it's not about the nonsense about commas. - SchroCat (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

United Kingdom and United States Vs UK and US

Is there any reason we have United Kingdom and United States written in full throughout the article, rather than UK and US? Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Exceptions the full version is not needed a time all, and having the full terms written out makes for clunky reading in places. - SchroCat (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

If you're referring to the paragraph in the lead about the delay until November—it's the one you keep reverting—that's the first time "United Kingdom" and "United States" appear in the prose, so they should be spelt out in full. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't 'keep reverting'; I've done it a couple of times and then left it alone and opened this thread. Secondly, you need to actually read what I've written: "Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Exceptions the full version is not needed at all" (emphasis added). Thirdly, United States is written in full in the second para, even though it doesn't need to be. This all goes doubly for the IB. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Grammar/commas

There appears to be a disagreement between SchroCat and me about 4 commas in the lead. SchroCat recently removed a few serial commas, but per MOS:OXFORD, these should remain, because the rest of the article uses the serial comma (or at least it did until recently). SchroCat also removed a necessary comma in the second paragraph. The sentence that begins "Both left due to creative differences..." should have a comma to separate parts of a compound sentence. Can other editors please weigh in on this? If everyone disagrees with me, I'll go with consensus. Thanks! GrammarDamner (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

How tedious. I'll point out that the rest of the Bond films don't use them, and neither do most of the articles written in British English (they're fine in US English and if you're using Oxford English, but not so much in normal English). If you really want to keep forcing it in as your personal preference, then it speaks volumes. - SchroCat (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'll point out that at least some of the Bond films (Skyfall and Spectre, for example) do use them. GrammarDamner (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

"With all due respect"? If they have, it's because US editors have seen fit to add them at some point, regardless of the lack of need. I see you do little else but add the otiose nonsense to BrEng articles, regardless of the fact that British and American usage differs considerably. - SchroCat (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat, I assure you that I was not using some sort of WikiSpeak euphemism. I often start by saying "With all due respect" in an effort to keep things civil. GrammarDamner (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no need, and please stop pinging me: I have this page watchlisted. - SchroCat (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat, I do much more than add the otiose nonsense to BrEng articles, thanks, please AGF. GrammarDamner (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

No. - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat, I'm not trying to start something, just trying to clarify (I'm still fairly new at all this). Per your comment below, we should AGF for you, but per your comment above, nobody should AGF for me. Is this correct? GrammarDamner (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I have not said that anywhere, obviously. - SchroCat (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat, then when I said "please AGF", and you said "no", what did that mean? GrammarDamner (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

GrammarDamner, WP:DROPTHESTICK and step away. This is nothing to do with the improvement of the article (which is the reason for this page), so it's time to move on. I'll leave you with the parting advice that next time you are editing an article in British Eglish, don't carpet bomb the bloody thing with commas, particulary those favoured in US circles: US and UK usage differs, and if you can't work out the dfference, then leave them alone. - SchroCat (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat, drop the stick? Is that what you say when you don't feel like taking responsibility for your actions? You asked Debresser to AGF for you, but you refused to do the same for me. But sure, I'll let it go now. As for "the good, normal English", as you put it, I'll do my best not to introduce other versions of English in BrEng articles, and I'll try to only add Oxford commas to BrEng articles when necessary (clarification of ambiguity, internal consistency, etc.). My parting advice for you: work on your civility. GrammarDamner (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Take it elsewhere: not interested. - SchroCat (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:SchroCat that the Oxford comma should not be used, in general, but at the same time I would remind him that according to the essay at Wikipedia:Guidance_on_applying_the_Manual_of_Style#Oxford_comma: "Official style is: Do not change the form of standard English adopted by an article without good reason.", and I subscribe to that wholeheartedly. In simple words, he should stop actively removing the Oxford comma, from this and any article on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not go round actively removing them, thanks (and please AGF; given our last interaction you should be sure of what you are talking about). If someone keeps idiotically adding them where they are not needed, I will remove them, however. - SchroCat (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't remember our last interaction. I do however notice that for reasons unclear to me you interpreted my comment as a lack of good faith. Which in itself is a lack of good faith, IMHO. See WP:AOBF. Debresser (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

You get blocked so often that you don't remember getting blocked during our last interaction, even though that was only last week? My good faith only stretches so far - but further than your memory, it seems. - SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Not really. :) I just don't hold a grudge. I reverted your edits because of what you did, not who did it. Debresser (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Debresser thanks. Do you have any thoughts on the comma in the compound sentence? GrammarDamner (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Should have one, of course. Debresser (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The compound sentence should have a comma since it is joining two independent clauses, and it is easier to read with the comma. I also support the use of the serial comma if it had already been in the article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

You need to read what this is about: the commas were changed in the lead. The serial comma is not used in the article. What I did was to put the lazy change in the lead back to being consistent throughout the article. - SchroCat (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

You apparently need to read what this is about, since the OP opened this discussion about both the use of serial commas as well as the use of commas for compound sentences. Also, when you say that "the serial comma is not used in the article", that seems to only be because you had already removed them [2], contrary to the guidance cited above. Not sure why you removed them, or why you are attempting to claim that they were not part of the article. That seems disingenuous. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I know what it's about. Early version: no serial commas. It's disingenuous of you to try and attack me for returning the comma use back to the original version used. They're not needed and weren't used in the original version. You want t get antsy with someone, get antsy with the people who revert it to the lazy-arse version for nothing more than their personal preference. We're done here. - SchroCat (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I can only see one person who is being hostile. You need to lose the attitude of "I know better than everyone else" and stop being so dismissive. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Nope. if people keep introducing AmEng into the article I'll keep the attitude up. I'm not being dismissive: I just do happen to know better. - SchroCat (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Your attitude is rude and unnecessary, and it would be nice if you spoke more civilly with other editors. Where do MOS guidelines say that the serial comma should not be used on articles that use British English? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh ffs... read the above about the changing from one version to another and work it out yourself. - SchroCat (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

if people keep introducing AmEng into the article I'll keep the attitude up. I'm not being dismissive: I just do happen to know better

... Do you want to end up at ANI for uncivil behaviour? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the threat, but if you think that's worthy of ANI, you'll find out it's a long way off that. Now, if you can look at the top of the page it says "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the No Time to Die article". If you have anything to say that will improve the article, feel free to raise it, but there is little of benefit to man to beast in this thread. - SchroCat (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

If you have anything to say that will improve the article, feel free to raise it

Okay: you and the way you are acting like a condescending pain in the backside towards anybody who disagrees with you even slightly. You've already been asked by two editors to change your tone. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

So nothing to improve the article? Good. We're done here, and you can stop the baiting, unless you really, really want to have The Last Word. - SchroCat (talk) 06:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not baiting you. I'm simply giving you the opportunity to act like a decent human being, but you instead opt for hostility and come across as an arrogant, entitled know-it-all.

For what it's worth, a change in your attitude would improve the article because it would make the consensus-building process collaborative rather than confrontational. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

So true. Debresser (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Distribution

FFS, are we going to have to have a talk page thread over every time change? Referring to the companies involved in distribution should not be using imprecise terms such as "international". Such terms are idiotic when dealing with a global audience ("Domestic", to me, is the UK and "international" comprises everywhere else, INCLUDING the US). Articles MUST be written from an international point of view, not just to cosset American readers, so flagging up such language in the IB does no-one any good what so ever - it completely ignores the international readership. - SchroCat (talk) 10:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This is what the article has to say about the distribution rights:

The Sony Pictures contract to co-produce the James Bond films with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer(MGM) and Eon Productions expired with the release of Spectre. In April 2017, Sony Pictures, Warner Bros., 20th Century Fox, Universal Pictures and Annapurna Picturesentered a bidding competition to win the distribution rights. MGM secured the domestic, digital and worldwide television rights to the film through its distribution arm United Artists Releasing, while Universal became the international distributor and holder of the rights for physical home entertainment worldwide.

The changes to the infobox contradicted that. The paragraph refers to domestic and international rights, but the infobox was changed to refer to "North America" and "Non-US/Canada". Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

So, rather than reverting to "US" and "Non-US", you decided to put it to the US-centric "United States" and "International", which goes against both the international nature of the encyclopaedia and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Exceptions? Can you explain why you think that is a better couse of action than putting both IB and the article body to "US" and "Non-US"? - SchroCat (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't have much knowledge of distribution rights, so changing the body of the text seemed unwise. The wiser course of action was to revert the article, pointing out the problem in the knowledge that someone would spot it and realise that the body of the article had to be changed here.

If I had simply changed the body of the article, I probably would have made a mistake. And then we'd be in here because you came looking for a fight. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I have not come "looking for a fight" at all: I have corrected the rather crass wording that you seem to think is worth edit warring over. I note you still haven't gone back to the UK and US thread, despite having the MoS pointed out to you. I'm out of this: you're trying to OWN the article, despite the MoS being pointed out to you in a few threads, and you think your own personal preference trumps it all. Carry on. In yet another thread, I'll leave you to have The Last Word. I'm out of this - the enjoyment is being sucked out of article editing with the constant stonewalling and ownership. - SchroCat (talk) 11:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Here’s a solution to the US vs International debate. International distribution excluding North America is how this deal was made. So the article should reflect that by changing the distribution references from US to North American, also referring to the domestic market as “North American domestic”. If we’re agreed that regional distribution will be referred to as North American and International then I’m happy to make the changes in the infobox and main article.

I’m also content to contract all references with United Kingdom and United States to UK and US after the second para of the main article (not infobox) if that helps. --MustTryHarder (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that, if one distributor has (United States) beside it, then it's quite obvious that the (International) refers to everywhere but America. El Millo (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand and agree with your logic. However, the distribution territory, and the rights for that territory, is named "North America". This includes US and Canada. The Universal Pictures distribution rights would be "worldwide" if it included ALL territories. Since "North America" is excluded from these rights it becomes "International" or, as you say, everywhere but America. --MustTryHarder (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

If one puts "(North America)" for one distributor and "(International)" for the other, then the international rights are, to a reasonable person regardless where they are reading this article from, going to exclude Canada and Mexico. While "domestic" generally means within the bounds of one country, this is a case of just let the obvious state itself. --Masem (t) 17:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. So a distinction must be made when referring to "domestic". It becomes clear to the reader that "North American domestic rights" refers to that specific region. --MustTryHarder (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

If we were to put just (Domestic) in the infobox, then it would be "US-centric". But it's okay as it is. El Millo (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not talking about infobox. I think we have agreed this will be "(North America)" for one distributor and "(International)" for the other. I'm talking about the main body of the article. It says "domestic" and should be "North American domestic etc" to avoid "US-centric".--MustTryHarder (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Not even "North American domestic", just "North American" will be fine. El Millo (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

That's cool. I will make these changes. In the meantime, you also need to consider if you are ok to shorten United Kingdom and United States to UK and US after the first mention in the main body of the article (not the infobox) in accordance with WP:MOS. --MustTryHarder (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

"The official reason"

@Lobo151: please read your sources carefully. This is the MGM/Eon statement:

"after careful consideration and thorough evaluation of the global theatrical marketplace"

This is not, as you insist, "the official reason they provide". COVID-19 is the reason for the postponement. What you are quoting amounts to the following:

"we carefully thought about the situation and the state of film in the world at the moment"

It is describing the process they went through, not the reason for the cancellation. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, if this is describing the process, then it doesn't really add anything. The source says they came to the decision "thorough evaluation of the global theatrical marketplace", but what does thst even mean? What factors did they consider? What alternatives did they explore? How did they come to the conclusion that this was the best decision? The source does not say. All it really says is "we put some thought into it". Please don't make the mistake of thinking that because something is "official", it absolutely needs to go into an article. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand your point. But what I wanted to added is: What is the reason that the COVID-19 causes the delay? That is the risk at the global theatrical marketplace. That is what was missing. Lobo151 (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

They don't have to say anything else. There is lots of speculation, with the biggest being that because most of China's theaters are closed, that releasing now would lose money, that they are waiting, but that's speculation because MGM/EON hasn't said. We have to leave it to their reason, which that short quote properly captures (implicitly gives the reader a sign they are keeping it vague). --Masem (t) 14:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: it's still very vague, and by your own admission it's speculative. Like I said, if you read the quote, it doesn't actually reveal much of anything. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

By adding the quoted reason which is intentionally vague, we are 1) being explicit that that is the reason that the distributors give, and not leaving open that they may not have been a reason given in the first place and 2) a more savvy reader aware of how this industry works will realize it is purposely vague and could cover a range of cases that they are not going to come out and say that. Not including it would leave question to the reader of why it was moved. --Masem (t) 01:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: but they're not describing the reason at all. The COVID-19 outbreak is the reason. The quote describes the process they went through. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

You need to read between the lines, to speak: they say " evaluation of the global theatrical marketplace", meaning there is something affecting the economies of global theater systems, so they're no releasing it now. --Masem (t) 02:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: I'm well aware of what it means. It's still describing the process, though. The COVID-19 outbreak is what prompted them to evaluate the marketplace. The quote still amounts to "we thought about it and looked at the market". Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Lobo151: The Atlantic has published an article (which I have added to the page) detailing what was behind the decision to delay the film. It is significantly more detailed than the vague quote from MGM (and better yet, is not a self-published source). In light of this, the quote is not needed. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Please read that Atlantic article carefully. The sentence near the top that reads "With the epidemic also making its way across Europe and the United States, it’s clear MGM and Universal, which are handling distribution of No Time to Die, feared that an April debut would be disastrous for viewership." tells me that article is 100% speculation based on the writer's analysis of the situation, and NOT a factual station from MGM or EON. MGM would never admit this type of position. --Masem (t) 05:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: I have addressed that accordingly in the body of the article. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: also, can you please be careful in what you revert? You also undid several significant rewrites in that section. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

If you looked at that Atlantic article, its source was Deadline Hollywood [3] which is what we should be basing it on, and we don't need to go into great detail on its inside word, but we can go from that (with the attribution I added) that it was purely an economic issue that they didn't want to open with tons of theaters closed. Yes, there is the fact that MGM is on hard times, they can't lose Bond, but its more that just a poor performance for Bond will make them lose that license, and at which point that would possibly lead to their bankrupcy, but that's a point beyond this article; its keeping the franchise that's the most important factor. --Masem (t) 05:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

And keep in mind, this is not an official reason, so we need to keep the quoted press release statement in there. --Masem (t) 05:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@MustTryHarder: It is completely acceptable to use "unnamed sources" that are reported through a reliable source like Deadline Hollywood as long as it is fully attributed (both the reliable source, and how they got that information). --Masem (t) 06:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

This debate was already clarified by this editor here --MustTryHarder (talk) 06:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@MustTryHarder: I have since come to reappraise my position after working on the Trump–Ukraine scandal article. Both myself and Masem are in agreement about the content here, and judging by his actions in the article, I'd say RustedAutoParts is, too. A clear consensus is forming. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Oops, that should have been Rusted AutoParts. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17 I don't disagree with the content either. Unfortunately, it is unverified. You can't have it both ways. You're showing too much OWNership here. You also have a history of intimidating other editors with your compulsive behaviour. Just look at this talk page and sections above. No doubt you will reappraise your views AGAIN just to get your own way (with the usual obfuscation) in your edits. The reappraisal of your views can't change WP:VER so we need to stick with this precedent. P.S. I don't need you to deconstruct this comment. --MustTryHarder (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

As Masem said:

It is completely acceptable to use "unnamed sources" that are reported through a reliable source like Deadline Hollywood as long as it is fully attributed (both the reliable source, and how they got that information).

There is no excuse for edit-warring. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

As Mclarenfan17 said:

There is NO EXCUSE for using articles that rely on unnamed sources because those articles cannot be verified.

This talk page is littered with your compulsive behaviour to get your own way and intimidation of many editors. You've chased away experienced editors and hector administrators --MustTryHarder (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

As Mclarenfan17 said:

So a person can't change their minds about something? How on earth do you expect to get anything done if you cannot be open to new ideas?

You've chased away experienced editors

He did that all on his own. I'm not going to apologise for calling out someone for their WP:UNCIVIL behaviour. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

When you describe people as "an arrogant, entitled know-it-all" and not "a decent human being" not only will you fuck people off, but they will indeed fuck off from a page. You cannot tell someone to be civil and in the same post say they are "an arrogant, entitled know-it-all" and not "a decent human being". - SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Ignoring the issues about civility and editor behavior, I will come back again that it is standard practice that when a top-line RS for the film industry like Deadline, Variety, or THR is reporting with inside information on something happening, it is fully acceptable to include it with full attribution - which RS is reporting it and an indication of their source; that way, we are not saying it as fact in Wikivoice. I don't know what the original case was over, but for this situation related to Deadline's article, it is fine. --Masem (t) 19:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: the "original case" you are referring to was the casting of Christoph Waltz. The Daily Mail had run one of their usual pieces full of unnamed, unquoted sources, and it was obvious that other publications were just re-posting the story. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Assuming that's the case, the Daily Mail is not a reliable source on WP and thus does not met this allowance. --Masem (t) 01:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: oh, I agree entirely. The difficulty was that Variety picked up the story and there wasn't really anything to suggest that they had done their own reporting and so we were being asked to take their reputation in lieu of anything verifiable. I think we have to be especially careful of that here, given how much garbage the tabloids print, like Fukunaga blowing off work to play video games. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19

The article should refer to the virus by its proper name. "Coronavirus" refers to a family of viruses, as noted by the coronavirus article:

Coronaviruses are a group of related virusesthat cause diseases in mammals and birds. In humans, coronaviruses cause respiratory tract infections that can range from mild to lethal. Mild illnesses include some cases of the common cold (which has other possible causes, predominantly rhinoviruses), while more lethal varieties can cause SARS, MERS, and COVID-19.

It's one of those instances where the common name probably isn't the most accurate name. SARS-CoV-2 is the specific virus that is going around, but COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease 2019) is the actual illness the people are suffering. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The pandemic is the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic. There is nothing inaccurate about that, which is why the Wikipedia page is named that. COVID-19 is just the abbreviation for the name of the disease, and there is no reason to use a more technical name rather than just the regular words. We could also say "the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic" because the pandemic is as much about the specific virus as the specific disease, but I'm not seeing any reason to not just use the most commonly used name and avoid an unnecessary piped link. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert:

There is nothing inaccurate about that, which is why the Wikipedia page is named that.

Except that, as the coronavirus article highlights, coronaviruses are a family of viruses. There are no recorded cases of SARS or MERS, which are other types of coronaviruses.

there is no reason to use a more technical name rather than just the regular words

How about clarity and accuracy? The Spanish flu pandemic is not referree to as the influenza pandemic because there are many types of influenza. To call it the "coronavirus pandemic" implies that many coronaviruses were contagious, which is not the case.

I'm not seeing any reason to not just use the most commonly used name and avoid an unnecessary piped link

A lot more reporting is referring to COVID-19 now. Journalists started referring to it as "coronavirus", but this is likely what brought about the initial assumption that it was like seasonal flu.

Again, it comes down to clarity and accuracy. "COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 might be accurate, but they are too technical, so we should use an incorrect name instead because it's more convenient" is not an argument. It defeats the purpose of an encyclopaedia. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how abbreviating something makes it more accurate, but it seems you should bring your argument to Talk:2019-20 coronavirus pandemic if you think the name is not accurate. Your argument seems to be about the general name rather than why this particular article should have a unique style for referring to the pandemic. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert:

Not sure how abbreviating something makes it more accurate

Really?

In this case, COVID-19 the name given to it by the World Health Organisation. They do this all the time—SARS is "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome" and MERS is "Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome". COVID-19 is the disease caused by this specific coronavirus. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I side with all those editors who agree that the name used in this article should be the common name, which is Coronavirus. As indicated by our 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic article, this is the common name. If this article were a medical article, perhaps it would be justified to use the precise term, but that is not the case. Debresser (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser:

If this article were a medical article, perhaps it would be justified to use the precise term, but that is not the case.

Which coronavirus is currently circling the globe and causing a pandemic? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Debresser and others. "COVID-19" is unnecessary to use here on this film's article. "Coronavirus" is the acceptable common name to use in this article's body. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

On the Regal closures

I agree that we need to voice caution in stating that only the Bond film's delay to April was the reason for Regal to issue an extended closure, but I will state that both Variety and THR are very clearly putting the fact that the closure was announced the day after the Bond rescheduling that these events are related, and we can state this outside of wikivoice. EG "As reported by Variety and THR, Cineworld/Regal announced the day after the rescheduling that they would be closing all their theaters in the US and UK for an extended period as a result of several high profile tentpole movies being shifted due to COVID." or somethng like this. Doesn't blame Bond, but its clearly tied to the announcements. --Masem (t) 15:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I think it would be better to report RSs that directly connect the cancellation to the closure. [This https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/oct/06/from-james-bond-to-marvel-can-hollywood-survive-a-year-without-blockbusters] might be a good start. Popcornfud (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I know it would be better, and further, I don't know if there is an article already on WP that is tracking this mess COVID is doing to the theater industry, but there's definitely a lot of people writing how this's film's latest change caused a whole bunch of changes from the Regal closures to other tentpoles (Dune, etc, ) being pushed back while other minor films being pulled up, and otherwise a general shakeup all within four days of this. There may not be a direct connection - no one involved in the rescheduling is saying they are doing it because of this, which would have made it prime, but we can certain call to the industry analysis and point to the separate article with a brief sentence or two about the chain of dominos that results after the rescheduling. --Masem (t) 14:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I've added something to the article. Popcornfud (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

That's sufficient I believe. --Masem (t) 04:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Possible digital release

Per Variety. Also see how this can be used. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Now that Variety is reporting it, which is considered a reliable source, we should mention it.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Spoilers?

How is "Nomi is the new 007" a spoiler? It is being extensively discussed in the media, and confirmed by the actor herself. If "Formerly known as agent 007, (Bond) been retired for five years at the start of the film" is not a spoiler, and "(Nomi is a) "00" agent who entered active service some time after Bond's retirement" is not a spoiler, than "The new 007, who entered active service some time after Bond's retirement" can not be a spoiler. SixFourThree (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)SixFourThree

Moreover, per WP:SPOILERS we don't refrain from including spoilers when writing a better article. Debresser (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

It's definitely gotten sufficient RS coverage from a quick check right now (searching "Lashana Lynch" and "007" so yes, this fails to be something to hide as a spoiler. If it was something that was like a paywall bit of info (like an insider podcast) and did not have mass reporting, that might be a reason to hide it, but we're talking all major entertainment RSes and several mainstream news RSes. No reason to hide it, and if readers don't like that, that's too bad.

SPOILER would be appropriate if the film had a very limited screening before COVID hit, and someone there used that to write the plot summary. We would not accept that because of the lack of public means to confirm. --Masem (t) 00:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020 release

User:Zack41Attack, can you please explain why this edit is necessary? Yes, it is reliably sourced, but that does not make it relevant to the article. The decision to delay the release to November 2020 because of the pandemic is relevant. The decision to further delay to April 2021 is also relevant. But why is the decision to change the US release by five days in November so important, especially since that decision decision was rendered moot by the move to a worldwide release in April? 1.129.106.236 (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

First of all, it was mentioned back in June and ALL movies with release date changes mentioned them, no matter how long it is. Zack41Attack (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Zack41Attack, that doesn't answer my question. Yes, it was first mentioned in June, but it's no longer relevant. Secondly, release dates can and do change frequently, but that's not a reason to include them unless it's for a particularly notable reason. Right now, your argument amounts to "it happened, so it should be included". 1.129.106.236 (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, your point was considered good faith (which is something this wiki has) and pertinent. It's staying there. Zack41Attack (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I would agree that this doesn't seem like critical information to include. For the sake of perspective, this is probably not information anyone would fight to include, or would benefit anyone, if it were about a Bond film that came out 50 years ago. It is WP:RECENTISM that makes this feel more relevant than it really is. Popcornfud (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the wording is that it says the release date was changed by five days and nothing else. That's why I removed it in the first place - there was nothing to demonstrate why the change was made at all. If it could be substantiated, then it might be worth including, but right now there's none of that. If you want to claim that it'a pertinent to the article, as User:Dmartin969 did in their edit summary, then you have to show why. "It happened" is not good enough. 2001:8003:2312:E301:D1D3:D94C:AF1C:E76E (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

"Final outing"

There's a hidden comment on this text: "Craig himself has said it's his final film; to qualify this as "reportedly final" undermines his comments."

Has a consensus been established about this? Couldn't find any discussion in the talk archives. I don't think Wikipedia cares about "undermining" anyone's comments - if we choose to state this, it shouldn't be out of respect to Daniel Craig but because we think it's true and it's supported by reliable sources.

In this case, it's difficult to know if this is true without knowing the future - It's not impossible that Craig will return as Bond, never say never - so this is potentially a WP:CRYSTALBALL situation. I don't feel super strongly but we could keep it safe by just saying something like "Craig said it will be his last performance as Bond."

Interesting to compare this to the article about the album The Endless River, where a consensus is to avoid calling it the final Pink Floyd album despite both members stating as much. (They had been wrong before.) Popcornfud (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Popcornfud:

It's not impossible that Craig will return as Bond, never say never - so this is potentially a WP:CRYSTALBALL situation.

No, it's not impossible, but we have to take what he says at face value. You suggest it is speculative to include Craig's comment, but consider the alternative: that because he might change his mind at some indeterminate point in the future, his current comments - which were made to a reliable and verifiable source - are invalidated. That's even more speculative.

The most sensible thing to do here is to go with the sources. Craig says it is his last film, so the article should reflect that. If and when he changes his mind, we can update this article accordingly. 1.129.105.106 (talk) 11:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

"You suggest it is speculative to include Craig's comment, " - no, I think it would be a very good idea to include Craig's comment - just saying something like "Craig said it will be his last performance as Bond" solves the whole thing. Popcornfud (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. That opens up the possibility that it will not be Craig's final film, even though there is no evidence to the contrary. It's almost the opposite of WP:WEASEL; rather than vaguely attribute a claim, it's undercutting a specific one. 1.129.105.140 (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

If merely reporting that Craig says it will be his final film "opens up the possibility that it will not be Craig's final film" then you've undone your own argument. Craig's statement is the only thing we're basing this "final film" claim on. There is no "undercutting" or "undermining" going on here. Popcornfud (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

As long as it's attributed to Craig, there is no crystal ball issues, in any fashion. He says it's his last film. If he changes his mind later we can report that, but that doesn't change the facts of the present, and to weasel that would be the actual crystal balling. oknazevad (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

It is indeed CRYSTAL to say it is or is not his last film as fact, based on whatever source, as the only time we will know that as fact will be when filming for the next Bond film is complete (and maybe not even then; Sonic this past year was "complete" until it wasn't).

It is certainly reasonable to attribute a comment on the point to the person saying it, however (as I imagine is in the article today): "Craig has said it is his last Bond film", or some such, which can be converted at some later date to "It was Craig's last Bond film" (based on some later RS) or "Craig said it was his last Bond film, but he acted in another after" (based likely on some RS alone, but if necessary his now statement and a later RS would be fine, then). --Izno (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the deep interest that some editors have in declaring things final when there's no incontrovertible proof that they are in fact final. If something is only final until it isn't, why bother to say it at all? Actors are retired until they're not. Rocky X is the last Rocky film until it isn't. This is Daniel Craig's last Bond film until it isn't. I'm fine with noting that he stated it would be his last Bond film, but we should not be making a fact-based argument that it is his last Bond film without proof. Not evidence; proof. DonIago (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the deep interest that some editors have in declaring things final when there's no incontrovertible proof that they are in fact final.

All of the available proof says that it will be. Daniel Craig himself has said that he will not be returning for another film. You would have us disregard something that he definitely said in favour of something that may or may not happen. 1.129.105.133 (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I literally just said, "I'm fine with noting that he stated it would be his last Bond film". DonIago (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Though the IP editor seems to think that to include Craig's statement would be to undermine it... Popcornfud (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

In that event, what the IP thinks would be undermining it I would consider reporting the facts as they exist. We don't know this will be Craig's final film; we know he said it would be. DonIago (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Now you're just trying to find loopholes. The article also says that the film will release in April, and despite proof of a release date, we don't know that it will be released then. In fact, we don't know anything about the film, so by your logic, the article should be blank. 1.144.105.5 (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the article doesn't say it will be released in April. It says it is "scheduled for 2 April 2021" and that the current release date is "2 April 2021", both of which are verifiably true. It's good practice to avoid writing that things "will be released" exactly for WP:CRYSTALBALL reasons. Popcornfud (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)