Talk:List of James Bond films/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Edit Warring

Not sure why I am the one who has to take this here simply because of the immaturity of @SchroCat:. You cannot just revert (violating the W:3RR rule in the process) something that you don't like. Multiple editors have come to the agreement (through the edit history and collaboration over the last month or so) that this new page is the best way forward. You appear to be the only one who doesn't like this, so it should be you who puts your case forward for the completely backwards edits of this page. Hopefully @Elijahandskip:, @Lobo151: and others can back me up here for how ridiculous this is. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

TheMysteriousEditor, This is not the first time I've told you not to be insulting to other editors - just stop. I have put the article back to the long-standing STATUS QUO. There is an active consensus AGAINST what you are claiming, so if you want to change, then you have to DISCUSS. Just because your attitude is abrasive, insulting and disruptive,it doesn't mean you get to revert to your preferred version, reintroducing errors while you do it. You want to overturn the consensus, stop edit warring and bloody well DISCUSS the matter. (BTW, I've not violated 3RR: you need to read up and understand what the guidelines actiually are before you throw around the accusations). - SchroCat (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

You cannot accuse me of insulting you after the rude message you left on my talk page. You have not been an active editor on this page since January so you cannot just come back and disrupt everything like this. The status quo has changed. An outdated page that's not changed for literally a decade is wrong. I guess I'll open up a new consensus here then - we HAVE had multiple discussions which you can read throughout the edit history of the page. Various editors collaborated and calmly discussed changes which have been altered and implemented. The evidence is all there. It's only since you came back that things seem to have turned sour. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Go back through this page and the archives and you will see a huge number of references you have made about other editors (I think one of your first comments here was calling people "dictators" when you tried to edit war a sub-standard table onto the page). Yes, you'll find that when you are rude to, and about, people, they will reply in the same vein, so just knock it off. - SchroCat (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Fully agree It doesn't matter how the page was for years. This means for years the page was incomplete. Now @SchroCat: is the one Edit Warring. Lobo151 (talk) 13:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

That's rubbish. It wasn't incomplete at all, it's just that the IDONTLIKEIT faction are trying to force a change against a stated consensus on this page. if you want to overturn it, have a discussion and stop edit warring. - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

What is the problem with this overview? At the moment you can't find a list on Wiki with this basic data. Lobo151 (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The "faction" does not exist. It's the majority. You are LITERALLY the only editor here who now comes under IDONTLIKE IT. Why can't you see this? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

If you think that, then have the discussion to overturn the stated consensus about this table. Until the consensus is overturned, the extant version remains. - SchroCat (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we're having the discussion right now. At the moment it is two against one. Hopefully more editors can come in and pick a viewpoint. This version (which is obviously mine and others preferred version) or this version (which is the preference of SchroCat). TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

No, that is NOT the choice. There are several different factors in several places to be discussed, not a one-or-the-other choice. I'll also say "two against one" is possibly the most crass way you can look at this: we don't vote on which way things should be, we discuss and come to a consensus. For example, I've already pointed out that you reintroduced grammatical and formatting errors: are you asking for people to choose those too? I'll list my concerns about the various changes below, and these can help you and others understand my opinion on the changes. Anything else that anyone else can see of think of can also be thrown in the mix. - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not asking for grammatical and formatting errors. Those errors could have been fixed had you simply changed them then and there rather than reverting mass sections of the page. The two versions I've given are just highlighting the overview table and the entire reception section. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Excellent: I'm glad you now agree that it's not a choice between one version and another. I'll draw up the list shortly of the various problems I see. While I do so, you can acknowledge that, despite your claims, I have not reverted the page back entirely to how it was pre-October: there are a number of changes I left in place (just to save you the time and effort, they are here). - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Problems with recent changes and suggestions for compromise solution

• "Overview" table.

This seems like an "overkill table", rather than overview, with some odd choices all round, and a WP:ACCESS-breaching problem with the formatting.

• Why does the actor name come first?
• Why are producers listed?
• Why Screenwriters and story writers?
• Why the UK release date?

The key information is the name of the film and the year (which is actually a repetition of the Table of contents just above it).

IF there is a table (and I've not seen a good idea why one is needed), the contents have to be considered. On the Production of the James Bond films page we already have a table with directors, writers and producers, so why are we replicating most of it here?

IF there is a table is cannot have the woeful row and column spans. WP:ACCESS is a policy.

• "Box office" table :I'm not sure why the actor and director were removed from this (apart from the desire to have the overkill table at the top). Having them here allows people to compare and contrast the figures for the various actors/directors against box office takings. In fact, one of the ways round this situation would be to move a hybrid of this table to the top in place of the flawed overview one. I would suggest the headings:

Title – Year – Bond actor – Director – Box office (millions) – Budget (millions) – refs

I don't mind the removal of the Bond salary. It makes sense to have it there alongside all the other financials, but it's available on the Portrayals page, so won't be missed here. I also like the Box office (Actual $ – Adjusted 2005 $) and Budget (Actual $ – Adjusted 2005 $) pairings – that works better than the old version.

• "Reception" table

Not needed. Given the poor manner in which these stats are gathered and the historical v modern difference in the way these are dealt with, this raises more questions than it answers

Most of this can be overcome with moving a hybrid version of what is called the "Box office" table to replace the "overview" table, which doesn't seem to know what it is supposed to be. As I said above, this isn't a "one version v another version": there is a bit more to consider in several areas of the changes. – SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Actors' names are first to act as convenient groupings as almost sub-series, not unlike in other charts such as at Star Wars or on sports league articles (personally I'm not wedded to keeping it first). Producers and writers are listed as major production staff; this is standard on film series articles. The writers should definitely stay. The UK release dates are there as the domestic release dates; the Bond series is a British film series. The table of contents is never te be relied on instead of article content. It does not appear on the mobile site and can be hidden in regular view. The box office chart should be separate and focused on being the box office chart. Reception charts are standard on film series articles.

The previous chart was the bloated mess that tried to do too many things at once. Recombining them is a bad idea. This is a marked improvement that brings this article more in line with every other film series article. Reverting just because the old version is the old version when there's clear consensus for implementing the improvements is an ad look. oknazevad (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Clear consensus? That's odd, because the discussion at the top of the page says the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

The overkill chart at the top is currently a bloated mess that breaches our ACCESS requirements. As this is a list about the films, the film name should come first. We have another article on the production staff, and listing have the production staff but not others is bizarre. It would be a vast improvement to have a chart that listed Title – Year – Bond actor – Director – Box office (millions) – Budget (millions) – refs at the top of the page, rather than the unwieldy more recent addition. The reception chart is about as moronic as it can get, if you consider that the reviews were written on an entirely different basis in the early films compared to the more modern ones. When you also take into account that Rancid Tomatoes take balanced prose and dumb it down into a percentage figure, you may start to graps why they are misleading at best and damaging at worst. - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

But there again I see you're open minded enough to reintroduce errors into the article, despite the consensus on this page and WP:STATUS QUO. - SchroCat (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, putting the overview table aside completely for a moment, I'm just gonna focus on the box office table. Myself and Betty Logan had some discussions about it and made the below table:

Bond films produced by Eon Productions

Title	Year	Bond actor	Director	Box office (millions)		Budget (millions)		Ref(s)
				Actual $	Adjusted 2005 $	Actual $	Adjusted 2005 $
Dr. No	1962	Sean Connery	Terence Young	59.5	448.8	1.1	7.0
From Russia with Love	1963	Sean Connery	Terence Young	78.9	543.8	2.0	12.6
Goldfinger	1964	Sean Connery	Guy Hamilton	124.9	820.4	3.0	18.6
Thunderball	1965	Sean Connery	Terence Young	141.2	848.1	6.8	41.9
You Only Live Twice	1967	Sean Connery	Lewis Gilbert	111.6	514.2	10.3	59.9
On Her Majesty's Secret Service	1969	George Lazenby	Peter R. Hunt	64.6	291.5	7.0	37.3
Diamonds Are Forever	1971	Sean Connery	Guy Hamilton	116.0	442.5	7.2	34.7
Live and Let Die	1973	Roger Moore	Guy Hamilton	126.4	460.3	7.0	30.8
The Man with the Golden Gun	1974	Roger Moore	Guy Hamilton	97.6	334.0	7.0	27.7
The Spy Who Loved Me	1977	Roger Moore	Lewis Gilbert	185.4	533.0	14.0	45.1
Moonraker	1979	Roger Moore	Lewis Gilbert	210.3	535.0	34.0	91.5
For Your Eyes Only	1981	Roger Moore	John Glen	194.9	449.4	28.0	60.2
Octopussy	1983	Roger Moore	John Glen	183.7	373.8	27.5	53.9
A View to a Kill	1985	Roger Moore	John Glen	152.4	275.2	30.0	54.5
The Living Daylights	1987	Timothy Dalton	John Glen	191.2	313.5	40.0	68.8
Licence to Kill	1989	Timothy Dalton	John Glen	156.2	250.9	36.0	56.7
GoldenEye	1995	Pierce Brosnan	Martin Campbell	352.0	518.5	60.0	76.9
Tomorrow Never Dies	1997	Pierce Brosnan	Roger Spottiswoode	333.0	463.2	110.0	133.9
The World Is Not Enough	1999	Pierce Brosnan	Michael Apted	361.8	439.5	135.0	158.3
Die Another Day	2002	Pierce Brosnan	Lee Tamahori	432.0	465.4	142.0	154.2
Casino Royale	2006	Daniel Craig	Martin Campbell	594.2	581.5	150.0	145.3
Quantum of Solace	2008	Daniel Craig	Marc Forster	586.1	514.2	200.0	181.4
Skyfall	2012	Daniel Craig	Sam Mendes	1108.6	943.5	150.0–200.0	127.7–170.2
Spectre	2015	Daniel Craig	Sam Mendes	880.7	725.5	245.0–250.0	201.8–205.9
No Time to Die	2020	Daniel Craig	Cary Joji Fukunaga	TBA	TBA	250.0	212.8
Total of Eon-produced films				6,829.1	12,085.6	1,452.9–1,507.9	1,880.7–1,927.3

Bond films produced by third parties

Title	Year	Bond actor	Director(s)	Box office (millions)		Budget (millions)		Ref(s)
				Actual $	Adjusted 2005 $	Actual $	Adjusted 2005 $
Casino Royale	1967	David Niven	Ken Hughes John Huston Joseph McGrath Robert Parrish Val Guest Richard Talmadge	44.4	260.0	12.0	70.0
Never Say Never Again	1983	Sean Connery	Irvin Kershner	160.0	314.0	36.0	71.0
Total of non-Eon films				204.4	574.0	48.0	141.0

Sources

• The references are neatly organised in a separate refs column.
• Nobody knows what "excluding profit participation" means. Having the Bond actor salary at all is pointless in a box office table. The salaries can be found here at Portrayal of James Bond in film for people who care and just want to look at a box office table for box office figures.
• The director does not need to be in the table at all. Again, it's inconsistent with Wikipedia as a whole and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. I guess the actors could remain but the salary should not.
• Having a clearer split between the Eon films and non-Eon films should go without saying. Having the blocky notes again overcomplicates things.

Ok I also seemed to somehow miss a lot of the above discussion so sorry about things being repeated. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, the refs in a separate colum are good (but they should not be sortable)

As I said above, the salary, profit participation etc are fine being left out

"inconsistent with Wikipedia as a whole and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film": neither WP not the film project have set guidance for this; it is decided on an article-by-article basis, and many film series articles follow differeing formats and layouts. As I suggested above, if you add actor and director to this list, it could replace the mess of the "overkill list" that was at the top. There is no need to keep repeating the same list of 27 films in four tables and also shown in the table of contents, particularly when the selection of fields in that table is as arbitrary as this one appears to be.

As i said above, I agree with splitting the Eon/non-Eon films and 'blocky notes'. - SchroCat (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok I have tweaked the above table to make the refs column unsortable and the actors have been added. However I still cannot get behind having the directors in a box office table. If this is adequate, should I implement it? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

No, I think you should leave this article alone. Cassianto^Talk 17:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

If you add actors and directors to the table it won't be a box office table: it will be an overview table. And then it can go at the top of the article. - SchroCat (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

So do you or do you not want actors and directors in the box office table? I'm very confused. The table already has actors and directors. I was originally proposing to remove them. Now you're saying it's not a box office table? That's all I'm focusing on at the moment. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, have a table with the following columns:

Title – Year – Bond actor – Director – Box office (millions) – Budget (millions) – refs

Have it at the top of the article as the "overview", then get rid of the box office section. - SchroCat (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

BTW, having the table split in this manner (with the blue bars) doesn't work. As soon as any column is rearranged, the blue bars go off to different places and Eon and non-Eon are mixed up. - SchroCat (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok I have edited it and would go to add it now. But the page has been locked. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I have edited this to show just the release year. Although it's mainly a British series, the more recent films have been heavily funded by the Americans and many of the first release dates have been outside the UK). I've coded 1967 and 1983 to ensure that they sort into the correct order.

I see you've added the Non-Eon films back in to this. I think this is the only way to have them in a sortable chat (we can code the blue dividers not to sort, but all the other films will ignore them and sort above and below). To have them separate from the Eon films, I think I'm right in saying that a separate chart is needed. Having two charts is certainly the way we did it to begin with - from memory someone merged them together about three years ago to give what is one the page now.

Ok I've separated them back into the sections and added the blue bars back for now. I was unaware that there was a code you can use, and I think it looks a lot better like this. As of right now I think the table is adequate enough to be added in, but like you said, it's best to hold off until other editors chip in - no rush. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Can I suggest you undo the ‘split and sections’ (you need to check the impact of changes you make to tables). When any column is re-sorted, it all goes horribly wrong again. When I said two tables, this page used to have two SEPARATE tables (as it was here - the next edit is the one that merged the two together), not one table trying to do two separate things. - SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually yeah that makes sense. There's already the article split between Eon and non-Eon films, so the Eon table can go in the Eon section and the non-Eon table can go in the non-Eon section. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The way it was previously had the mixed table and the mixed plots - all the films running chronologically regardless of producers, which is one possible logical way. As these were all changed in October to split them out into two separate groups (back to it's pre-2016 order), then it makes sense to replicate the 2016 situation in having two tables. Both are entirely valid viewpoints, and I've never made up my own mind as to which I prefer or which is the superior way of doing it.

As you will have seen, I've made a couple of very minor tweaks to the tables - let me know if you want me to explain the rationale or if there is something you don't like. - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of the .0's. In a chart like this all figures should be to the same decimal place. At least that's what maths in school always told me. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

And did you mean to re-add "$21.5 million was spent on television advertisements and a further $100 million was spent on promotion and advertising", despite the fact it contradicts the previous sentence and is nothing to do with the figures in the table? - SchroCat (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Nope my bad. There was an edit conflict when I was editing it. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I've also split the actors and directors into separate rows. There are two reasons for this. Firstly it's 100% WP:ACCESS compliant, so it fits the policies we need to stick to; secondly (and I know people complain about the aesthetics of it), but if it is in the rowspan version, as soon as the table is resorted, all the formatting goes out of the window anyway: rowspans disappear, and even when you re-sort back to the original order, it still sticks into the single entry version. This way, there is less of a surprise for people when they sort the various filed out.

The only final tweak I would make is to now have "125.0", but "125" (of course any actual ".5"s should be retained, just the ".0"

I would advise holding off adding it now: Betty Logan has said below that she will add some thoughts, and others may still want to chip in with comments, suggestions or criticism. We're all OK to mull over this for a day or two to get it right. - SchroCat (talk) 12:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment TheMysteriousEditor and I had reached an understanding on the box-office table but if the table above represents a "new" consensus I can live with that. As an alternative I would also consider folding the non-Eon films back into the main table but making those rows non-sortable so they don't get mixed in with the Eon films. I have never been in favour of adding the Overview table to the article. Aside from the huge redundancy (most of this information is already present at Production_of_the_James_Bond_films#Core_crew) the rowspans slap bang in the middle of the table will play havoc with screen readers. Betty Logan (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

"I would also consider folding the non-Eon films back into the main table but making those rows non-sortable so they don't get mixed in with the Eon films" any chance of you editing the above tables to do that please? Not sure of exactly what you'd prefer. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The only problem with making them non-sortable is that they will not sort between themselves or with the Eon films. It's not a problem if they don't sort with the Eon films (although there will be some who want to see how they compare with the Eon films), but if they don't sort between themselves, that would be problematic. - SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that is technically possible. I know you can exclude rows from sorting. I will play around with it and see what I can come up with. Betty Logan (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Any news? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at this: User:Betty Logan/Sandbox/draft2. The Eon and non-Eon films are in the same table but the sorting only work on the Eon films. You can't mix up the Eon and non-Eon films but you can't do this anyway if you have them in separate tables. Betty Logan (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

That looks significantly better. As an overview it's still quite odd but I guess that's the compromise we've had to come to. Hopefully that new table you've made is good enough to replace the one that is currently there. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Except that the non-Eon films don't sort. We should return to the old version of two sortable tables in two sections. - SchroCat (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

There's TWO Non-Eon films. Do they really need to be sortable? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

They don't need to be, but there is no good reason why not. Either way they should not be unsortable elements in a sortable table. - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

There are benefits and drawbacks to both approaches. Obviously you can't sort the non-Eon films without them getting jumbled up with the Eon films. That's a limitation of the software. On the other hand by having both the Eon and non-Eon films in the same table you do also get an overall total which is lost when you split the content into two separate tables. Neither solution is perfect but in one we lose functionality and in the other we lose information. Betty Logan (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

This is true, but as we have a split in the article for Eon v non-Eon plots, we may as well continue the split here. If not, I would personally prefer the current version of having all the films in the mix together, sorted chronologically. Having some sortable and some not seems neither fish nor fowl. I'll stop here, my huge paragraphs are exhausting, apparently. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

There may be another way to do this: get rid of the separation but maybe tag or notify the two non-Eon films. It will make the table less complicated and more functional and without losing any information. Betty Logan (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is what I have in mind: User:Betty_Logan/Sandbox/draft2#Table_2. Of course, it doesn't have to be exactly like that, we can play around with the formatting but that is the generally gist. Betty Logan (talk)

That would work for me too. - SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok so since there's not gonna be a reception table, having the box office table by itself doesn't seem right. How about we do what we agreed earlier and have them split up as the overviews? We all seemed to agree to that compromise. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Reception table

• TheMysteriousEditor, No, it wasn't "lost in the mix": it's a poor addition that was removed for good reason, as I wrote above. Are we now going to just edit war piecemeal about crap stuff, rather than in one big chunk? Please actually read what I've written in this section before you start re-adding things. - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh apologies, I missed this. I simply don't understand how you can be *for* the salary of the Bond actors in a messy overkill box office table, but *against* a fully sourced reception table. A reception table is a staple of every single movie franchise on wikipedia and allows the user to see how each movie was received and compare them against each other. The table is also sortable which allows proper rankings to be played with. I cannot fathom how someone could be against this. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you actually need to read what I wrote above. 1. I've agreed above that removing the Bond salary is an acceptable step; 2. As I've already said twice, older reviews don't translate well to Rancid Tomatoes - anything rating from before 2000 (when the site started picking up momentum) is flawed. Actually their whole ethos is flawed, but that's a different point. Comparing the 1962 reviews with the 2019 reviews doesn't work - it's like comparing apples and goldfish. - SchroCat (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I think the debate as to whether we should include Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic is a different one to how the data should be integrated into the article. I am more than happy to have that discussion but as of now it has always been a long-standing feature so I would rather it were not conflated with the structural issues of the tables. Personally I think separating the aggregator data from the awards is a positive step because they are different concepts. If the data is to be retained then I think separate tables are a better format going forward; if we decide to scrap the aggregator data then it is just a case of deleting the table without having to rebuild the awards table. Betty Logan (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely believe the below table should be added back to the article. It allows comparisons to be made and even though it's obviously not 100% perfect it's still as good as you can get. Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic scores are standard across Wikipedia. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Film	Critical		Public
	Rotten Tomatoes	Metacritic	CinemaScore
Eon films
Dr. No	95% (56 reviews)	78 (8 reviews)
From Russia with Love	95% (57 reviews)	85 (13 reviews)
Goldfinger	97% (61 reviews)	87 (12 reviews)
Thunderball	87% (46 reviews)	64 (9 reviews)
You Only Live Twice	72% (47 reviews)	61 (14 reviews)
On Her Majesty's Secret Service	81% (48 reviews)	61 (12 reviews)
Diamonds Are Forever	64% (45 reviews)	59 (11 reviews)
Live and Let Die	67% (45 reviews)	55 (9 reviews)
The Man with the Golden Gun	44% (45 reviews)	43 (11 reviews)
The Spy Who Loved Me	80% (50 reviews)	55 (12 reviews)
Moonraker	63% (48 reviews)	66 (13 reviews)
For Your Eyes Only	73% (48 reviews)	54 (12 reviews)
Octopussy	42% (45 reviews)	63 (14 reviews)
A View to a Kill	37% (57 reviews)	40 (20 reviews)
The Living Daylights	71% (52 reviews)	60 (17 reviews)	A
Licence to Kill	77% (53 reviews)	58 (25 reviews)	B+
GoldenEye	78% (73 reviews)	65 (18 reviews)	A−
Tomorrow Never Dies	58% (85 reviews)	52 (38 reviews)	A−
The World Is Not Enough	52% (139 reviews)	57 (38 reviews)	B+
Die Another Day	57% (216 reviews)	56 (43 reviews)	A−
Casino Royale	94% (254 reviews)	80 (46 reviews)	A−
Quantum of Solace	65% (288 reviews)	58 (48 reviews)	B−
Skyfall	92% (368 reviews)	81 (49 reviews)	A
Spectre	63% (347 reviews)	60 (48 reviews)	A−
Non-Eon films
Casino Royale	26% (38 reviews)	48 (11 reviews)
Never Say Never Again	66% (47 reviews)	68 (15 reviews)

Sources

• No. Just because a couple of other pages use this does not mean it has to appear here. Anything pre-2000 on RT is complete bollocks. Applying some moronic percentage “score” to well-thought and balanced prose is a woeful way to do things at the best of times, but for an American employee in RT in c.2005, with all their cultural and linguistic biases, to try and “translate” the prose of a British reviewer from the early 1960s into that percentage is so knuckle-draggingly, mind-numbingly stupid and crass that is beggars belief that we should think of it as encyclopaedic in any way, shape or form. - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

That's...not how Rotten Tomatoes works. The percentage figure is the percentage of reviewers who gave a film a positive review. A score of 75% for a film means 75% of reviewers were positive and 25% were negative. It does not equate to a "score" from individual reviews. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

So you honestly think that an American employee in RT in c.2005, with all their cultural and linguistic biases, can “translate” the prose of a British reviewer from the early 1960s into a black and white positive or negative? Reviewers discuss pluses and minuses from the film and provide a balanced piece of writing. It should not be for a third party from a different cultural background in a completely different time to try and decide whether it is positive or negative. We already have two metrics on the page: box office takings, to show how popular it was, and an awards section, to show what the industry and professional critics thought of it. RT is dumbed down nonsense for those too stupid or lazy to bother reading a couple of reviews. If people really want to know what the critical view of the films were, we have the articles where excerpts of the reviews and an overview of the reception can be appreciated, not a percentage number for the brain dead to look at. - SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Erm, ok...TIL Wikipedia viewers are all brain dead. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

FFS - that's bollocks and a complete misrepresentation of what I have written, as I am sure you know. Readers of Rancid Tomatoes can do what they want. This is an encyclopaedia that should have standards far above the dross that RT churns out. There is no reason or need to lower the standards of a WP article to pander to the lowest common denominator of the RT reader. If you want RT scores, add this link to an External Links section, but don't highlight it in a chart that is misleading, pointless and deeply, deeply flawed. - SchroCat (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

At the end of your angry rant you literally said that Rotten Tomatoes scores are something that brain dead people look at lol. All these unnecessary adjectives you've used have been very colourful. We get it, you passionately hate Rotten Tomatoes - could anybody else offer their thoughts on this? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

FFS... don't try and patronise me; it should be clear that the brain dead go to RT, so please don't try to misrepresrent what I am saying - and it wasn't "an angry rant" either. At least I have managed to give you a reason why it shouldn't be included. All I've seen from you is that you think it should be there, but no justification, so try not to pick holes in other people's comments like some second-rate politician, but actually try and explain why you think this article should include this second rate dross - oh, and please try something different from 'well, other articles have it, so this should too'. - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

You're really not a nice person are you. Please just calm down. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I take it from that, with yet more passive-aggressive poking, that you do not have any arguments as to why we should include this table in this article? As I have had to say to you countless times before, comment on the content, not other contributors. I am entirely calm, I have been calm throughout this discussion, with just a touch of exasperation at the continued pushing on this page over several years. Now, as you want this table to be on this page, do you actually have any solid arguments as to why it should be included? (and, as I've already said, 'other articles have it, so this should too' is neither sufficient or true, so try and come up with something positve). - SchroCat (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I just don't get how someone can be so deluded. Looking back on all of these discussions, it has always been you who starts the sourness and passive aggressiveness. I'm just exhausted at your huge paragraphs. You could cut so much out of them and just get to the point rather than unnecessarily berating things you don't like instead of providing calm, rational criticism.

"RT is dumbed down nonsense for those too stupid or lazy to bother reading a couple of reviews" - how do you expect me to counteract this brutal subjective statement? "There is no reason or need to lower the standards of a WP article to pander to the lowest common denominator of the RT reader" - another one. "....not a percentage number for the brain dead to look at". Seriously? And then you accuse me of being patronising? Mental - your God complex needs tuning down.

It's therefore very difficult for me to condense your messages down into meaningful arguments so it's rather exasperating. Your entire position seems to just be bullying people into agreeing with you and then patronising them when they pick up on your questionable debating methods. You got me to calm down and come to this talk page and be rational, and it seemed to be going well. But now as soon as I am back beneath you again, you've reverted back to your ways of just putting me down rather than having a sensible conversation. It wasn't "passive aggressive poking" - it was an honest, open and obvious request for you to please calm down. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

And thank you for that foray into incivility once again (please comment on the content, not other contributors - and I've lost count of the number of times I have asked you to do that).

Again, for the third time, do you actually have any solid arguments as to why it should be included?" - SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry are you joking? How are you in any position to talk about incivility? I'm providing you with constructive criticism - please dont play the victim here. I'm not insulting you. You are the only one here making "incivil" comments. And no, I don't anymore. I just wish for somebody else to come in and add their viewpoint. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The following comment was conflicted in response to this edit: SC: "do you actually have any solid arguments as to why it should be included?"; TME: "No".

If you do not have any arguments to include this table, then I think we can bring this section to a close. Just for the record, you are not giving "constructive criticism": you are being rude, and yes, you are insulting me. According to you, I am "deluded", I have a "God complex", I am "not a nice person" and I am "playing the victim". These are all uncivil, whether you like it or not. Thankfully, as you do not have any arguments as to why this table should be included, we can leave it out and all move on. - SchroCat (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I really cannot believe you. I hope one day you can look back on yourself through a fresh set of eyes. YOU are being rude too! And if you deny this, then you know how I feel. I might be being rude without realising it, but you are doing exactly the same. But yes, let's move on from this for now (I still want someone to add their viewpoint to this - mine and your viewpoints are incredibly stale). TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• FFS, are you just going to carry on edit warring, despite not bothering to give ONE good reason for inclusion despite being asked multiple times. This is getting ridiculously disruptive now. - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The public CinemaScore is a very good and reliable comparison to have for the films of the last 20 years. I find them very interesting too. Rotten Tomatoes and MetaCritic scores are a reliable metric post-2000, though I understand the concerns with the scores pre-2000. However, it's the best we're gonna get and a reception table is a staple of film franchises on Wikipedia (to the point where people come to a franchise page expecting to see one). If there isn't one, people cannot gage the reception without deciphering box office numbers (which aren't a good indicator of critical/public reception). TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

So your basis is that some other film series also have them? Great, and because you are prepared to edit war to secure your preferred version, we have a misleading piece of dross in the article. 👏 - SchroCat (talk) 11:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

How mature. It's not a "piece of dross". The CinemaScore and post-2000 RT/MC points still stand. Everything is reliably sourced here. I'm sure an understanding or compromise could be reached rather than shutting it down and removing the table entirely. Again, I get the issues regarding the pre-2000 Rotten Tomatoes but where else can you get it? If it was just Rotten Tomatoes, then yeah. But MetaCritic is there alongside it for cross-comparisons and the ratings give a good comparison among themselves. It's obviously not far off what it should be. There might be a few issues, but it's the most reliable thing we're gonna get here. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

You and I endlessly arguing isn't gonna get us anywhere - so I'm waiting on other editors to chip in with their thoughts here. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Please don’t keep insulting others, as you have continued to do. If information on an encyclopaedia misleads, then its dross. If you want second rate on what is supposed to be a quality article, then come up with a better rationale for it than it being included in the modern series of superhero films. - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, you really love pretending to be insulted when there's nothing that's insulting you. It is not misleading. It's no more misleading than the box office table which uses multiple sources for figures rather than one single reliable source. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I’m not saying I’m insulted: I am telling you to stop commenting on other people. You are continuing to make inappropriate comments, and you need to stop. The box office figures is a completely different topic in a different thread, so please don’t conflate the two topics. - SchroCat (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit Warring 30 November 2019

This is utterly ridiculous. I'm opening this new thread to separate the warring from the actual discussion about the table. A reception table has existed on this article for many many years. One editor suddenly decides to delete it completely, so I add it back. Then they continue deleting and suddenly I'm the one who's edit warring and being threatened with being reported? What on earth is going on here? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Stop edit warring with others and discuss. STATUSQUO isn’t an excuse to keep a sub-standard version in place. Please use the above thread to discuss exactly WHY we should have this table? - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Box office numbers adjusted

Hi I was looking to update the adjusted box office and budget figures either to present day or 2015 (most recent Bond movie) to make the figures a bit more up to date. They are adjusted to 2005 at the moment so it hasn't been re-adjusted for 15 years now. Where were the adjusted figures from on the page at the moment? I used a few online adjustment calculators to bring Dr. No's $59.5 to 2005 prices for inflation and I couldn't get it to match the figures currently on Wikipedia. I also couldn't see a source for the adjusted for inflation box office figures? If an accurate source is available from those figures it shouldn't take long to update it to a more recent date.

I do think they need updating from 2005, that was a long time ago and it means you need to back-adjust all of Craig's movies. Normally adjusted gross is to best used to reflect what the movie would have made if it had been released today. Adjusting the box office for inflation to show what Skyfall 2012 would have made if it was released in 2005 (the data on the page at the moment) isn't particularly useful information IMO. However if we updated it all to see what Skyfall would have made in 2015 or 2019. That would be more interesting and useful data. A Bond movie wasn't even released in 2005 it seems an odd year to compare to.

Do you think it should be adjusted to 2015 (SPECTRE) so it is easier to compare the previous movies to the latest, Or 2019? And who came up with the current adjusted figures.

First post, hi :) Saintjimmy456 (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Saintjimmy456, and welcome. It's a rather complex point, and not as straightforward as running figures directly through an piece of inflation software. There is a more complete outline of the situation in this discussion, whichnshould explain things. - SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Using the 2005 index minimizes the amount of original research in the article. While inflation adjustment is permitted per WP:CALC, adjustment to 2015 levels would take the figures away from their sourced equivalents (unnecessarily IMO). The source used here is the Block & Wilson book listed in the bibliography, and they used 2005 as the base year for the whole book, not just the Bond entries. All the Bond films up to For Your Eyes Only had re-releases too, which complicates the adjustment. Inflation adjustment just provides a basis for comparison so it doesn't really matter which year we use as the base index. Skyfall wasn't released in 2015, so we don't really care about a hypothetical scenario in which it was. What we care about is leveling the playing field a bit so financial success can be compared. Betty Logan (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I've read through the other discussion and can see somebody raised pretty much the same point 2 years ago. I understand a 2005 book was used to show adjusted box office for the Bond movies released up until that point, my main point is that was 15 years ago. There have been 4 (soon to be 5) Bond movies released since then and I think the adjusted figures could do with updating to take these into account. I understand you can deflate rather than inflate Bond movies from 2006 onwards I have just never seen that done before when adjusting movie grosses, all the data I've ever seen adjusts to the present year, so you can see what X movie released in X year would have made had it been released today. Surely it must need updating one day? Will it quote 2005 figures forever? I also appreciate using established and published data for the figures - I would not want to calculate adjustments for inflations myself. Is any more recent data available? I also understand re-releases affecting the figures. Are those taken into account for the 2005 figures? Saintjimmy456 (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The source accounts for all releases up to Quantum of Solace, including reissues. Hopefully a new source will come along eventually that will update the figures. The source deflates both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, and this article just replicated that for the next two films. Betty Logan (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Include Original Casino Royale?

Include Original Casino Royale w Barry Nelson? Trpcham123 (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Was it a film or a television episode? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

It was an episode of Climax!. Betty Logan (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Why synopsize two films?

Why were synopses of Casino Royale and Never Say Never Again arbitrarily inserted, with links to their pages so close at hand? I haven't presumed to remove them—but as a "list" of the Bond films, isn't this page's function to organize the titles and provide easy access to their complete details? Also, isn't it fun to italicize stuff? Okay, it's a slow day here. – AndyFielding (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The synopses for all the films are included on this page, not just CR and NSNA. These used to be included in the tables but it bloated them so much that it made it difficult to compare the data in the tables on narrow screens. You can see how it looked originally: [1]. I would say it is more redundant than arbitrary. Some readers might welcome a summary of the plots for the James Bond films on a page about the James Bond films, but they are not necessary for comparative analysis. Betty Logan (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Production

Would anyone like to help with Draft:Filming of James Bond in the 2010s and Draft:Filming of James Bond in the 2020s 92.236.253.249 (talk) 11:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Timothy Dalton, 1987 filming of The Living Daylights.webp

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Box office adjusted numbers

The box office numbers are currently adjusted to 2005. While this was useful for the bulk of the series that predates that point by over 40 years, that parameter is now adjusting backwards for almost 17 years, including the entire five-film Craig series.

I see this was brought up early last year in a now archived discussion, and Betty Logan provided a lucid response, as she usually does, with reasoning that included a key source that was used. But the issue still stands, and as each year goes by, as each film is released, the need is more pressing for an update. So I'm asking now if Betty, or any of the other regular page maintainers and watchers, or just passers-by, know of any effort currently underway to update this parameter of the table? Thank you - wolf 12:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

That discussion probably suggests I care more than I actually do. On one hand I don't really care which year the grosses are adjusted to, because on one level it simply doesn't matter. There are two reasons why I favored the 2005 index, although both reasons are overcomeable: 1) The first is that the index doesn't actually matter. It doesn't matter how much Thunderball earned at 2005 levels or how much Skyfall did, what we want is a level playing field so we can compare their relative success. You could go with 2005 or 2021, or even 1962 and it wouldn't really make any difference. The only reason the 2005 index is used here is that is the index used by the source so it minimizes the amount of work. Basically we only have to change a handful of figures at the moment, whereas if you used a 2021 index then you'd need to adjust every film. If someone is prepared to do that work I won't get in their way. 2) The second reason is that inflation adjustment is complicated for films that had reissues. However, this issue can be navigated by adjusting the 2005 figures rather than the original gross, since 2005 gives us a baseline. This would be a similar approach to the one we take at the List of highest-grossing films where we eventually updated the index there. I wasn't hugely in favor at that article either because it creates more work, but I do understand why editors may want a more up-to-date index as a reference point. Betty Logan (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

CR

Why has Casino Royal (2006) box office has not be updated here the numbers

Original release: $606M

2019 Re-release:$10.4M

2021: re release: $1K

Total unadjusted: $616.5M

adjusted: TBA

Could there be a update 92.236.253.249 (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it is highly likely the Box Office Mojo figure is incorrect per Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Film finance task force#Box Office Mojo. Unfortunately, in some cases, Box Office Mojo double-counts some of its re-releases. For example. The Numbers also reports $594 million. The UK reissue in 2019 added another $10.4 million, which going by the old numbers would take it to $605 million. Now, clearly The Numbers just hasn't updated the gross, but how has the gross added an extra $11 million to go from $605 million to £616 million? I suspect Box Office Mojo has double-counted the reissue gross. Betty Logan (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Inclusion of Lashana Lynch

While Lashana Lynch does not play James Bond she does merit some mention on this page even if as an outlier.

The first paragraph needs amending to read ‘Actors who have played James Bond’ rather than ‘Actors who have played 007’ as the list will be incomplete without Lynch.

This page will become redundant/problematic if it continues as a James Bond page and a second page for the next named 007 - possibly a ‘Nomi films’ page. SK8DB (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Judging by the complete omission of Lynch’s character Nomi from the synopsis, and her replacement with ‘MI6’ one would be forgiven if one drew unfavourable conclusions about the author of the synopsis.

It looks like they are deliberately trying to write out a key character who is a POC. SK8DB (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Due weight in terms of real-world perspective (as opposed to in-universe). Naomie Harris and Moneypenny are more important than Lynch and Nomi. DonQuixote (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@SK8DB: You should exercise caution when making accusations such as above, as you may run afoul of WP:ASPERSION. If you really believe that such deliberate, racist editing is taking place (and don't get me wrong, if it has, it's despicable), you should consider filing a report at WP:ANI, and provide evidence in the form of diffs. If you have any questions, you can contact the Hesk Desk - wolf 02:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. As a new contributor I was unaware of the policy. I should have chosen my words more carefully. My view is that the optics are poor when it comes to editorial choices.

Irrespective of real world vs in-universe perspectives - the authors choose to write that James Bond works with the help of MI6 when for a few characters more they could write Nomi. One of the key characters in the narrative has been ignored. SK8DB (talk) 07:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The article does not state that it is about "actors who have played 007"; it clearly states that it is about James Bond. This is established in the very first sentence. The tables clearly identify the "Bond" actor. If a black actor is cast as James Bond in the next film then their films will be included here along with the others, with the same parity. I don't know why you'd assume that we are white supremacists; it's not as though we have erased black characters from the other various James Bond articles. If this has happened somewhere then it's most likely a rogue editor and like Wolf says you should bring it to the attention of an administrator. If you seek to extend the scope of the article to 007 in general then you will have to establish a consensus for that. Betty Logan (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you should take a look at List of James Bond allies,List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series and 00 Agent This page is about character James Bond. It is WP:CRYSTALBALL to add Nomi with the reason she maybe will return in the future as 007(Maybe she will not appear again) and more important she is not James Bond.Lobo151 (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Spoiler (please see link)

ChefBear01 (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Silly Ordering

The *vast* majority of readers expect a page entitled "List of James Bond films" to be a List of James Bond films - not two separate lists of assorted productions from different companies.

The lists need to be merged so it matches the title and purpose of the page - if anyone really cares who produced them, add it as a footnote or whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8000:1BED:6D00:5E1:E2A4:26E2:30BF (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done, wait for other users opinions before change. I am against it.Lobo151 (talk)•

Comment There's a table of contents. What's so hard to understand? DonQuixote (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP editor has a point but the fact is there is a real-world distinction between the Eon films and the non-Eon films that should be recognised. If there is a technical solution to integrating them more and retaining the distinction I am all ears, but I don't think the solution the IP attempted is the correct approach for this article. Having a sortable list complicates things slightly, but I consider the sorting function a useful feature. Betty Logan (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

List them all in a single, sortable table, then add a color key with legend for the non-Eon films. (Or the Eon films. Or whatever) - wolf 23:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I came here and didn't understand why there were two lists. I had to keep going back and forth to understand what order those outlying two films actually came in the series. - Daveicd (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Adjusted for 2005

Is there a particular reason why the box office and budget numbers on the chart have a column adjusting for 2005? I don't see how that's helpful or useful. Maybe adjusted for 1963 to compare with the budget of the early Bonds, but is that column actually necessary? 23skidoo (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Adjusted figures are provided so that readers are able to compare the relative success and cost of the films. For example, if you sort the column you will see that Thunderball and Goldfinger are in fact the second and third most successful films in the series. Inflation adjustment is a standard tool for comparing monetary values over an extended period of time. Adjusting to 1963 offers no discernible advantage over adjusting to 2005; the "adjusted" order of the film will remain the same regardless of whether they are adjusted to 1963, 1983, 2005 or indeed 2021. The point being that the choice of year is incidental, what really matters is leveling the playing field. The 2005 index is used simply because that is what the primary source uses. If it had used 1963 then that is what we would have used too. Betty Logan (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Serial comma

An IP has inserted a serial comma into the list of Bond actors several times now. This is incorrect grammar in British English, unless there is ambiguity. For example:

• John's favourite foods are quiche, steak, bacon and eggs (this implies he likes bacon and eggs individually)
• John's favourite foods are quiche, steak, and bacon and eggs (this implies he likes bacon and eggs together)

The IP has simply "Americanised" the list of actors. The IP argues that omitting the comma introduces the ambiguity that Brosnan and Craig played Bond in the same films. This is erroneous logic in two senses. Even if they did play Bond in the same films that does not render the list grammatically different to a list where they play Bond in separate films. It is simply irrelevant. To draw another analogy:

• The best presenters on TV are David Attenborough, Brian Cox, Graham Norton and Fiona Bruce (here you are naming four individuals)
• The best presenters on TV are David Attenborough, Brian Cox, and Ant McPartlin and Declan Donelly (here you are naming two individuals and a partnership)

If, you wanted to make it clear that Brosnan and Craig's performances were somehow connected/inter-related then the list would be written "he has been portrayed on film by actors Sean Connery, David Niven, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig". Introducing American punctuation into an article written in British English is against MOS:RETAIN. Betty Logan (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Clearly a disruptive vandal, who needs to stop edit warring and start discussing. And also reading the linked guidelines provided to them. (imho) - wolf 03:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• • As someone who has been a professional copy editor for nearly 30 years, I frequently work with companies that require one or the other. This includes a university what insists on using the "Oxford comma" in some departments, but follow Canadian Press media style of no Oxford comma at others. The question to ask is what form of grammar does Wikipedia, and American-based website, follow? Is there a policy? If they say to use the serial/Oxford comma, then it's not disruptive to add it, even if personal or cultural preference is to not. I say err on side of the Wikipedia rules. 23skidoo (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

    Where the servers are hosted is not relevant. The English-language Wikipedia is precisely that: articles written in American English (generally American subjects) would use the serial comma, and articles written in British English (generally British subjects) do not. If you look at the banners at the top of this page it states the article is written in British English. There are many articles where the variant of English is random (e.g. Tree is written in British English while Color is written in American English), and Wikipedia doesn't really care in these instances, but it does expect internal consistency within an article. Betty Logan (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

RE: Bons baisers de Hong-Kong

@Maestrolive: It's described as a spoof where Bond only makes a cameo. There are loads of other spoofs that aren't listed here (such as O.K. Connery) because this page is for official adaptations with Bond as the main character. DonQuixote (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I’m not fully following. Casino Royale 1967 is a spoof film but still has an adaptation of the character. O.K. Connery doesn’t feature Bond or associated characters in any capacity instead bringing in a whole new character. Bons baisers de Hong-Kong’s entire plot is set forth by Bond and associated characters such as Bernard Lee’s M solidify it as a Bond film, just not an official Eon Productions entry. Could this be reconsidered? Maestrolive (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

What you're looking for is List of James Bond parodies and spin-offs...and this film is already listed there. Look, it's simple: Is James Bond the main character or is it just a cameo? If you want to change the focus of this list to include all appearances including cameos, then you would need to change the current consensus. You can start a WP:RFC or something similar for that. DonQuixote (talk) 08:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

::: More important the reason Casino Royale 1967 is mentioned here is because it is a official made movie. Meaning they had the official rights of the character and book to make the movie. it was only not made by EON.Lobo151 (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with removing the film. This list covers official adaptations and use of the character. While the 1967 Casino Royale is a spoof it is also a legitimate adaptation of a James Bond novel (the producers owned the rights to the book), which is why it is included here. Bons baisers de Hong-Kong is listed List of James Bond parodies and spin-offs which is the natural home for this type of listing. Betty Logan (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

"James Bond films on television" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect James Bond films on television and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 31#James Bond films on television until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Indagate (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Why so redundant?

WHy is this supposed "list" page so redundantly laden with details in WP's Production of the James Bond films article, and in each film's article? IMHO, the best way to serve WP's readers is to provide links to tangential info, rather than including it by default. – AndyFielding (talk) 05:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you be more specific please? What information in this article can be found in Production of the James Bond films? They appear to be distinct articles covering differents aspects of the films. Betty Logan (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

film chronology on each page to aid navigation and put it in perspective easily?

If you take a random Beatles album (for example, Rubber Soul), you will see on the right side there is a chronology section. This is useful for a number of reasons. Why isn't this implemented for the James Bond series? For that matter, I don't see it on other franchises such as Star Wars or Harry Potter, so is there a reason for this? I think it would be really neat to have, but it seems like chronology is only reserved for music (and possibly other media). Thoughts? Electricmaster (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

That's a question for Template talk:infobox film, if was an option in the template then could be implemented here. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what is being suggested. The James Bond franchise and a Beatles album are not analogous. What would such a "chronology" look like on this page? There is a list of films in the first section of the article which doubles up as a chronology. I'm not sure what would gained by adding all the films to the infobox as well. Betty Logan (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, let's say you're watching GoldenEye and you're curious about what movie preceded it or came after it. By having that information handy at a glance, including a link, it would allow a reader to easily find the movies one film adjacent as well as be able to easily navigate between them. Electricmaster (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

See Portrayal of James Bond in film#Films. DonQuixote (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Is this information not already available in the table? Betty Logan (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

"Never say never" missing

Hello,

I noticed that the 1983 007 movie "Never say never" is missing from the list: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_films

With regards,

Bartolo 2A01:E11:5004:C3A0:8180:E719:8601:B65F (talk) 06:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not missing. This movie is mentioned at Non-Eon films.Lobo151 (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, did you know there are 2 other moonraker instalments which include moonraker 1959 by Warwick studios and a radio/ tape version, a live and let die tape version, an unmade Property of a lady that would have been Timothy Daltons 3rd film and finally Casino Royale in 1954 with an American bond called Barry Nelson? I am new to Wiki so I don't know all the rules and regulations! No kidding, their hard to find but do exist! Please edit this addition to comply with Wiki rules! I'm not good with computers! I am unaware of any other bond film, tape or spin off! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew James Gilbert (talk • contribs) 04:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

You need to cite a reliable source that states any of that before we can continue. DonQuixote (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)