Misplaced Pages

Archives

April 2011—December 2011 December 2011—May 2012 May 2012—August 2012 August 2012—

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Good Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Dr. No (film) a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell

Bond, film character

On a slightly separate point, can I ask both our advice on the Connery section of the film analysis? There are a couple of questions:

1. Will this be sufficient to get pass the rather thin arguments put forward at the previous AfD?
2. Do you think this is complete as it stands, and if not, what else would you hope to see in there/
3. Is there anything superfluous there that we could / should take out?
4. Any other comments?

The Literary section is pretty much done too, but I need to read through again and see what else it misses out, so any comments you have there would also be appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)#

I think the Connery section is bang on. I have reservations about the need for the literary characterisation section though, which doesn't seem to gel with the article. I appreciate why you have included it, so that the actor sections are anchored to something, but maybe it would be better to combine this with the lede and make that a bit more substantial: briefly summarise the essence of Fleming's character and then briefly describe the actors' takes on that, all in the lede. It's hard to get across what I mean, but if you would like I can draft out an example: you may like it, or you may not but be able to find some inspiration from it. Also, if this is an article about the character on film are you scrubbing Barry Nelson? I guess there are two approaches: James Bond (film character) which would just include the depiction of the character on film, or an Intepretations of James Bond which would include Nelson and also the radio plays. I guess most of the sources probably cover the Eon series, and I don't mind either way, but I'd like to be clear about the scope of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I've knocked out a draft at User:Betty Logan/Sandbox/draft2, where I have combined the literary character section with the lede. Anyway, it's your call, you can use as much as you want or stick with what you've got, but at least you can see what I'm getting at. Betty Logan (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That looks pretty good, although I think it could also stand alongside a separate literary section too. Let's sleep on it while the article develops further and see what it looks like when the screen Bonds are all covered. The only change I would make is to take out the homophobic comment, largely on grounds of WP:WEIGHT: Fleming only touched upon his views once (Goldfinger, from memory) and said that Bond felt "sorry for them" or something along those lines. Although not very sympathetic or supportive, it's not too negative and there are more fundamental traits about Bond which should probably go in (misogyny, racism etc being two of his more charming characteristics!)

I'm in two minds about the literary character, but it is largely in there as the origin of all the film Bonds—the source on which they are all based. It's also a response to Smokey Joe's reasonable response: "The two articles should have many points of similarity, and each should contain brief summaries and cross references to the other". I may leave it in there for a while and see what it looks like when the other Bonds are sorted and then think about whether to move the substantive aspects into the lead or not. As to Barry Nelson, again I'm in two minds. I probably won't cover him (unless I open the title to James Bond (screen character). The "Interpretations" title would have a problem with the radio adaptations: I've not seen anything about the portrayal in the modern BBC productions, and some of the earlier ones (Bob Holness on SA radio) were live broadcasts which no-one has heard for over 60 years. Either way, the section would only be fairly short—probably in line with the Felix Leiter equivalent. Again, I think I'll leave it to the end and see what the article looks like with the film Bond's covered properly and then make a decision. Thanks for your thoughts: I think I'll also ask Smokey Joe about his thoughts on the overall feeling he has about Connery, as I think he takes a fair and balanced view and if I can persuade him towards the right pathway, then I suyspect others will follow. We'll see! - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Cheers! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

lol - Cheers! I always need one of those at this time of the week! - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I bought a copy of Roger's new book today - it's good and there's a few nice lines about the actors that I'll drop in there. I've added the one about Connery already as it's a good one. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks a good book! I'm creating a Bibliography of encyclopedias at the moment, created film and TV earlier. It occurred to me that we should have a Bibliography of James Bond, all reference books and materials associated with?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

If you can think of any more books or find any more books, simply paste the url into the google ref maker, I think I showed you that previously.

Sorry - missed this bit until today. I've dropped a number of new ones in, but I'll add a few others as time goes on. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Roald Dahl

I think you should ask for semi-protection again. This is beyond ridiculous. - Fanthrillers (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right: it is. I've requested not just protection, but indefinite semi-protection to ensure that they don't return in a couple of weeks. We'll see, as I don't have much faith in the decision makers of that process as they seem to think that a high level of vandalism is acceptable, even if it means that no editors will want to develop the article further, which I think is the case with Dahl. I've been asked to help develop it before, but I won't because of the vandals (and the requestor of help also didn't develop it for the same reason). - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thankfully it's now been semi-protected indefinitely; I hope this means that it will be a much more stable article from now on. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The Living Daylights plot summary

I don't like this edit. But before I revert it in its entirety I want to know your opinion. The final revised sentence is especially glaring: "Then, seeing an opportunity to help Shah and his men, Bond then re-activates the bomb and drops it out of the plane, blowing it up a bridge and blocking Soviet troops' pursuit." - Fanthrillers (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree—and I've done a partial reversion on it. The whole thing is a little clunky and could do with a re-write, to be honest, but it suits the article, which is a bit poor all round! It's one of those things that's on a long list of things I must get round to sometime! - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Honey Rider image

Hi, I noticed you uploaded File:Ursula Andress in Dr. No.jpg today. No real problem but I don't know if you aware that all pre-1978 theatrical trailers without a copyright notice are in the US public domain; in relation to Bond this applies to the trailers for the first three films (Dr No, Russia, Goldfinger). That means you can can upload anything from these trailers to Commons, similar to what I did with File:Dr No trailer.jpg. The upshot of this is that there are free images of Honey Rider emerging from the ocean in the Dr No trailer. Betty Logan (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I always forget about that! I'll have a look later for something suitable. BTW, do you have any thoughts on whether www.popmatters.com is considered reliable? - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a classic "case by case" source; the site seems to be professionally run and has been sourced in other RS sources (the acid test as far as reliability goes). On the other hand the fact that it solicits user submitted content is a real problem because it suggests a relaxed editorial oversight. In such cases I would say if the author of the piece being sourced is an acknowledged expert in the field then it is borderline acceptable, if the author isn't then it really shouldn't be cited. Either way I would recommend finding a better source. Betty Logan (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: your trailer point, it seems that the "mural" (hideous tho it was) has been deleted because of the Andress image, with the trailer questioned. - See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Dr. No Bikini. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

They have misunderstood the licence; we already went through this with the gun barrel cap. Trailers prior to 1978 require their own copyright notice (because they are published before the film), regardless of whether the film is copyrighted or not. Betty Logan (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the deletor, "US copyright is irrelevant if the stuff is still protected in the country of origin (UK)." I'm not entirely sure about this, as it should be the copyright laws as applied to the Wiki servers (in California), isn't it? (See the talk thread here) - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the law that applies is that of the country of the servers. However, what they are not appreciating is that the trailers are not copyrighted even though the film is. They deleted the images after checking the copyright of Dr No, and determined that the trailers must also be copyrighted. However, prior to 1978 the trailers had to be separately copyrighted. All the Bond trailers from Thunderball onwards are copyrighted so they can't be used, but the trailers for Dr No, From Russia with Love and Goldfinger are public domain; since they are released prior to the film they are legally considered separate pieces of work, since the copyright on the films doesn't come into effect until they are released. Betty Logan (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought so. I've pointed this out to them and I'll keep you posted. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

"Commons files have to be free in both USA and country of origin - fails #2 and was therefore deleted"... apparently. I'm not sure they are correct on this interpretation, but am not enough of a copyright expert to know why! - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I've asked for a deletion review at , so we'll see how that goes. The deletion admin seems to be having trouble separating the fact that the film and the trailer exist as two separate copyrightable entities; if copyright transferred directly from the film to the trailer then that would be true of US films too, since they usually use the film's footage, and all trailers would be automatically copyrighted regradless of the country of origin. If they uphold the decision then we simply keep the one you uploaded with the FUR. It doesn't really affect us either way, but I'd like it cleared up one way or the other. Betty Logan (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It would be nice to be able to use a firm decision as a precedent for anything else that comes up in the future. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Having just had my watchlist fill up with his mis-spelled idiocy, it seems as if Denniss is being a petty little pain in the backside over this, doesn't it! - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just dropped the Danjaq ownership into your little discussion. I'm hoping it may help things to a speedy recovery...! - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The whole thing seems to be very bizarre: all the admins over there seem to be German! It's more hassle than it's worth really. It's pretty obvious they aren't going to go against their man, so I've just wasted the day following it up. Hardly anything gets deleted over here if it has a reasonable FUR and usage isn't indulgent, so that's clearly the way to go now. Although that said, in theory there is nothing to stop us uploading them to here with the appropriate PD licences. Betty Logan (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Popmatters.com

I've read your & Betty Logan's above comments about this website. May as well start a new discussion. Neptune's Trident keeps adding popmatters.com citations to Bond-related articles. The Battle for Bond, Richard Maibaum and Kevin McClory. I'd like to revert him, but want to sound you out first. I note that the user keeps blanking his own talk page which makes assessing his own credibility needlessly difficult. He's gotten many warnings, deletion notices, etc in the year-and-a-half that he's been here. - Fanthrillers (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I reverted a stack yesterday, saying "questionable reliability" - it should cover the point! - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I may begin reverting the user? If so, thanks. - Fanthrillers (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're not sure or happy with a source then it's always worth a quick revert - if it's a valid source then it can always be decided on the talk page afterwards. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

novelisation/novelization - which is U.K. spelling?

I shouldn't have to ask, but I must. This edit is the culprit. In the U.K., an author novelises a script, and issues a novelization, correct? I've gotten a headache trying to find an authority to support this. Please help. :) - Fanthrillers (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The OED has novelize/novelization as the primary form and novelise/novelisation as variant form. Betty Logan (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The ~ize suffix is entirely proper when used with words that have come down from Greek: the dominant use of ~ise in BrEng is a modern practice. I should also add that the primary form in the OED tends to be the UK form, and as the word originated in the US, with their practice of turning a noun into a verb, then ~ize is the first and correct varient. I suspect that the secondary ~ise form has come about because of the knee-jerk use of "~ise over ~ize in all circumstances, regardless". - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Bond kills

Is this article any use? Betty Logan (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It certainly is - I'll drop bits of that one into the JB (screen character) article shortly. Thanks for the ref! - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

BRD enforcer

I've drafted out the proposal at User:Betty Logan/BRD enforcer#"Request for stable state" project proposal. Hopefully I've addressed any concerns people had, and this is the version that will go before the Wikiproject proposal committee. It's been streamlined a bit to focus on operation and the name has been changed, but other than that it's doing the same job. Anyway, this is a message I'm dropping on everyone's page so they can check it out and make sure they are ok with it. Betty Logan (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Dr. No images on Commons

I've temporarily undeleted the four Dr. No trailer images so that you can move them over to Misplaced Pages, at least while the discussion continues over at Commons. Since you're not active on that project, and temporary deletion only lasts 48 hours, I figured I'd let you know here.

On a related note, please be civil. Even if the people you're dealing with are being less than cooperative or less than civil, name calling isn't an acceptable method of conducting an undeletion discussion. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sven, it's much appreciated. I acknowledge your point about being civil, but should point out that I am not guilty of name calling. The closest I have come is to point out that the admin who deleted the images incorrectly because they were ill-informed was "ill-informed and incorrect". That's not name calling: that's pointing out his actions were, well, incorrect and ill-informed. As a further point, I and others have had to spend considerable time and effort trying to sort out a problem because he acted without establishing the correct facts behind the images, working from poor advice and an ignorance of the situation. He could have checked with others to see what the situation actually was before he acted, but he didn't: he rashly deleted. I think it is entirely appropriate to point this out to someone with power so that they can act differently next time they wield that power without thinking of the ramifications. Thanks again for the heads up and for your always-welcome help. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For incredible patience in dealing with a stream of unsolicited edits to release dates on the Skyfall page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)