Talk:Skyfall/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Running Time

According to the BBFC 'Skyfall is 142 minutes and 58 sec's long and Rated as a '12A'

                         Reference: http://www.bbfc.org.uk/BFF289704/

Hetty2012 (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"Contains moderate action violence and one use of strong language".

Thats a first for a James Bond film. "one use of strong language" implies we will hear a clear F-word. It was implied and very very quietly heard in Live and Let Die, but quiet enough to pass through the censors and stay a PG. I'm surprised if there won't be any articles about this because the James Bond films have barely had any swearing in them. If there are articles it might be good to mention. If there was an F-word in each Bond film then it wouldn't really matter. It's not hugely important though Charlr6 (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I did hear one use of fuck - by M. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't notice it the first time but did the second time I saw it. It is after they have boarded up Skyfall and Bond is standing by the window, M is sat on a chair and I believe she actually said "I've fucked up haven't I?". Isn't exactly 100% clear as I thought she said "screwed up" the first time I saw it, so was surprised when it wasn't 'screwed up' but a F-bomb. Charlr6 (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I heard "fucked" too. On a different note, you Americans and your "F Bomb" make me giggle. lol. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 19:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm from the UK. I presume I've picked it up from Wiki forums and IMDB and American movies. Whoops. Charlr6 (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Reception

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/james-bond-soars-early-skyfall-reviews-002659751--finance.html

Critics have gone as far as calling it the Greatest Bond Film of All-Time (SuperCell3000 (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC))

They say that about pretty much every Bond film when it gets released. Right now, there are only a handful of reviews online, and with the staggered release dates, it will be a while before a truly representative picture of the film's critical reaction emerges. Until then, we shouldn't over-react to individual reviews, mostly because doing so could be interpreted as advertising. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember them saying that for Quantum of Solace or Die Another Die, because since the 70s, there have been more mixed to negative reviews on Bond films then there have been positive.

I don't think putting up reviews that are already out, especially ones that are from big reliable sources would class as advertising, because even when there might be a good handful of reviews, it could still be classed as advertising that the film is good so people would want to see it more. Charlr6 (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

But the problem is that theonly reviews are coming from the UK, because that is the only place that has had a press screening. If we include too many reviews too soon, it leaves the section unbalanced. I think having the source that calls it "the best Bond ever" is taking things too far, because that seems to be a reviewer's favourite go-to line for a new film. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with PM here, unless each reviewer states that they have sat through each and every Bond film and then compared the latest film, its a fairly lax statement to make. If it was a consistent theme across multiple reviews it could be a point to be made in that section but trying to open the section with it is an attempt to puff up the film, when it apparently doesn't need it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I can sort of see what you mean. But I'm sure there would have been American journalists for example who were sent there to review the film and have a review up online somewhere. But I think that "the best Bond ever" can be taken out, but the article should still mention the early reviews it had. Even if its just a couple of lines for reliable and often used sources. Charlr6 (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against removing the entire reception section. Just the "best Bond film ever" line. It's definately something that would need a consensus among critics before we could even think of including it in the article. Even then, it's questionable, as the best Bond film is purely subjective; for example, a lot of people think OHMSS is the best film, but I cannot personally stand it. Similarly, I really like TWINE (mostly for sentimental reasons; it was my first Bond film), but it usually gets mauled by the fandom. So including that line about SF being the "best Bond ever" now - particularly to open the reception section - comes across, as DWB points out, as an attempt to hype up the film, and so the article loses its neutrality. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure they should even be classed as early reviews, when the film is that close to release they just seem like normal critic reviews that decent films get when the studio isn't afraid of them being negative about it and diminishing box office business. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant "early" in the sense that they are the first ones to be posted. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

We'll be able to tell if the critics think it is one of the best Bond films by Rotten Tomatoes or Meta Critic and how high up it is. But even if it does get very good reviews, maybe better than Casino Roylae we shouldn't put 'critical acclaim', just refer to if it got positive or negative reviews (and put 'very' if we have to if the film was closer to universal acclaim or universally panned, so it would be 'very positive' or 'very negative'). What if they were called pre-release reviews? As it would be referring to before its actual wide public theatrical release. Not that it matters but I am the opposite with what you feel for OHMSS and TWINE. I love the first, but dislike the latter. Haha. Do like the villains though, think they were good. Charlr6 (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Going by consensus established at The Dark Knight Rises, I think that waiting for a minimum number of reviews on RT or Metacritic before mentioning the rating from each website is the best way forward. I believe TDRK required 30 reviews on RT and 40 on Metacritic, and the condition that both sites had to reach that number before either could be added in. I don't think that's unreasonable. RT currently has 17 reviews; Metacritic has 4. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind what we do. Possible just mention a couple of big reviews for the film, for example IGN posted a review. Could mention that now. Charlr6 (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• As long as there is a balanced selection of reviews I don't see any problem with covering advanced opinion. Obviously not every reviewer is going to think it's a masterpiece so it shouldn't be represented as such. There is a reasonable review here, which basically calls it a solid film, but nothing special. Betty Logan (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the only reason that they say that about every Bond film that is released is because supposedly they get better each time. If its a general consensus among the critics then it should be included. As for the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic that shouldn't be the case, reviews might not even get up that high and it (to my knowledge) isn't Wiki policy. That is like saying don't include the current turnover until it has been removed from the cinema. Its only one named precedent. Almost all other films have just included the general consensus and updated it as when it has changed. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 15:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The films "get better each time"? I think Quantum of Solace disproves that one fairly easily (not to mention Die Another Day!) I agree that the general consensus amongst critics should be included, but it's a question of at what point a true consensus actually develops. Only a handful of reviews doesn't make a consensus and the more there are, the more stable it will be. I'm in agreement with PM to keep the numbers off for a little while, and instead try and use the words of the critics to point out the strengths and weaknesses of the film, rather than just a rather undescriptive and not altogether helpful number. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I also support the removal of the numbers for a while and try to use words provided by film critics to point out the positives and the negatives of the film. Only a handful of reviews do not make a consensus and if there are more reviews, the more stable the consensus will be. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The Reception area appears to have just a single American newspaper, the Chicago Sun-Times. I think for an accurate view of its reception in America, we need to go beyond film trade magazines (Variety, Hollywood Reporter) and fim buff sites/magazines (Total Film, Sight & Sound, Empire) and include The New York Times, USA Today and a couple of regional papers from (for example), Houston, Texas; Cleveland, Ohio; Denver, Colorado, and Seattle, Washington, to name a few. I also don't think we need both Sight & Sound AND Total Film, and I'm not sure we need SIX reviews from UK and Irish papers. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why having six UK reviews is excessive? It also sounds like you're suggesting a similar number from the US? - SchroCat (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I was suggesting Chicago Sun-Times, NY Times, USA and "a couple" of others, which would be 5, not 6, and for a much more populous country with enormous regional differences (as you may have heard!). In comparison, given the relatively small population of the UK and Ireland, I do think having 6 newspapers for a relatively small region is overkill. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Having six for the home production country doesn't seem excessive to me. (MOS:FILM notes that "Reviews from the film's country of origin are recommended") I'm also really not sure that the size makes that much difference: the UK consists of four countries, so there are some fairly fundamenal differences here too! - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, far be it from me to offend Brit pride!   :- )   In an event we do need more reviews from US newspapers, particularly since this is the country containing the single largest audience for the movie and will be the single largest source of the film's box office. That makes US critical consensus important by any objective standard. (Yes, I know China and India may be more populous, but only a constrained percentage can afford to attend a first-run foreign movie.) --Tenebrae (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely about the US reviews - there is definately a need for more of them in there for a bit of balance. There will be some other good ones to go in too by the end of the run. - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Cool, Cat! --Tenebrae (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

New set of US reviews now added, one blog review removed. - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Silva page

A while ago, I created a page for Raoul Silva, shortly before the entire Bond project underwent a substantial clean-up, and the only villains that kept dedicated pages were the most-notable in the franchise's history. The Silva article has since been redirected back to the Skyfall page.

However, given that almost every review to date - even the ones that give the films lower scores - has praised Bardem's performance, the sheer volume of content under Bardem's entry in the cast subsection, and the way that Skyfall is the fiftieth anniversay, I think he is certainly notable enough to have his own dedicated page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It'd be a dangerous day that an actor being mentioned in reviews meant their character needed its own page. And there really is not that much info under his character, have you seen The Avengers (2012 film)? He is not notable at all yet, especially if the reviews are referencing the actor and not the character. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should be done straight away - just that we should keep an eye on things. If critical consensus acknowledges Silva as one of the best villains in the franchise's history, then that should be the tipping point where we should seriously consider a page for him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I really hate these character pages. As I've said before they belong on fan sites, not wikipedia. Were it up to me I'd delete the bulk of them. Anything that needs to be said about Silva will probably fit in the main Skyfall article. - Fanthrillers (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thankfully, it's not up to you - under your logic, James Bond would not actually have a page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please don't misquote me. Notice that I said "bulk of them", not "all of them". As you should know, many of these character pages have major notability issues. They often consist of plot synopsis and opinions. Bond deserves a page because he has iconic importance. Silva - so far as any of us knows - doesn't. - Fanthrillers (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

We should wait I think before doing anything. Maybe IGN might revisit their Best Bond villains and put him near the top, if they did then there would be a source there that proves he is more worthy. And also the film is released next week, we should wait I think until mid-November, after the US release until discussing more. I don't mean we should stop discussing more, I just meant that by then there will be enough stuff probably we could use on a page for him. Charlr6 (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

There are two scenarios where you might want to have a separate article for a character: the character appears in more than one film, making it a natural decision to have a separate article, or the coverage of the character starts to unbalance the film article, necessitating a split. The first case doesn't apply here, and the second may apply in time, but not as yet, so I agree with Charl6 on the "wait and see" approach. Betty Logan (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw the film yesterday. Are we sure about Silva's firts name as Raoul ? It seems that "Silva" is beeing called with this single word as a code name. Besides, in section Cast of this page, Silva's real name is refered to be 'Tiago Gonzalez'. Are we sure about it ? During the film I remembered to hear M saying 'Tiago Rodriguez' as Silva's real identity. Rodriguez instead of Gonzalez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.238.42 (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The new James Bond films are remakes aren't they. They re introduce characters but are in a different timeline and style to past bonds. So how has no one picked up how Silvas charecter is a re imaganing of an iconic Bond villain. They thankfully didn't name him but the one scene where he removes his prosthesis and you hear the back story on his disfigurement and you see the messed up blackened teeth you realise he is actually JAWS???

So yes, his charecter deserves his own page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.229.143 (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge the only "remake" was Casio Royale, and that was a reimagining. I would hardly say that Solva was Bond and I don't recall him having a disability..... But if you can find a reliable source for it then by all means mention it. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 10:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Even if Silva was verifiably based on Jaws I would suggest that merge to the Jaws article would make the most sense. Also just because both characters have fake teeth does not mean that Silva was based on Jaws since the context was different for the characters (Silva lost his teeth in a failed suicide attempt, and Jaws used metal teeth to crush things) and second, Skyfall was not in any way based on the films that Jaws appeared in making the case for Silva being based on Jaws weaker.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 October 2012

Filming was at Ascot Racecourse not Royal Ascot which is an event staged at the racecourse once a year. Ash101215 (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. No source, formatted incorrectly for an edit request. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be a picture and a reference to the new moneypenny, portrayed by Naomi Harris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometheusfactor (talk • contribs) 08:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

North American Release Date

The release dates subcategory should be edited to convey the November 9th, 2012 North American release date. See here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.114.100 (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If you are talking about the infobox, then no, it shouldn't. It's a British film, so there is no need for the release dates for any other territory to be listed. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:FILMRELEASE

We should only have the date where the premiere is, and the date that the film originated from. Charlr6 (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah. I mistakenly thought that MGM, Sony Pictures Entertainment, and Columbia Pictures were involved in the production, and not simply the distribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.114.100 (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The production is by Eon Productions, a UK company. The other companies all play different roles, including financing etc, but they are not the producers, which is what is important. A little request for the future, could you please sign your posts using the four tildes (~~~~) so we can keep a tack of the conversation? - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Columbia Pictures only distribute it. Columbia Pictures became involved for Casino Royale I think because they had the rights for the book, and the 1967 spoof Casino Royale was made under Columbia. Funny thing is I remember reading that Columbia wouldn't distribute it for Bond 23 and Quantum was their last film. Charlr6 (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the information does not belong in the information box given current formatting standards. However, given the likely size of the market for the film in North America and the number of individuals that likely come to this Wiki page specifically for that particular piece of information, it might be prudent to make it more readily available in the main body of the article (as in the example provided in WP:FILMRELEASE) along with release dates for other key markets for this film. While this information is present (for NA, that is), I didn't actually find it until after having searched for it elsewhere. 128.2.114.100 (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The UK is often one of the larger markets (while not anywhere comparable to the US) but its release date doesn't get added to American film articles, neither do Russian or Chinese dates. Don't see why America should be special. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Release date is a key piece of data usually sought when looking up information on as yet unreleased movies. Having this information buried in the main body of the text causes the article to fail in a key purpose of any encyclopedic article: to clearly convey information in a way that makes the information easy to find.

The reason I brought this up in the first place is that Wikipedia's article on Skyfall failed to quickly and conveniently provide me with the information I wanted, making me go elsewhere for it. The question then becomes: is release date a significant enough piece of information that it should be a standard part of the main body of any article for any major film release?128.2.114.100 (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

An American James Bond who wants to find out when Skyfall is released should know by now. And it would only take less than 30 seconds to do another search through Google or scroll down the page or something for them to find the release date in the US. Charlr6 (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not release dates warrant being more prominently displayed in the article. Your argument is basically: 'The information can be easily obtained elsewhere, so why offer it here?' Hopefully you can understand why such an argument is ridiculous.128.2.114.100 (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes is does have something to do with the article as you said "... given the likely size of the market for the film in North America and the number of individuals that likely come to this Wiki page specifically for that particular piece of information...". If they can't find the information they want in the info box, they will be able to scroll down and find it. Its still on the page, just not the info box. Charlr6 (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTADVERTISING. That means we include encylopedic information, not consumer information. A year from now it will not matter a jot if the film came out in the US a week or two after its European release. Betty Logan (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC

You might take that line of argument up with the example listed in WP:FILMRELEASE. Why should the release dates in various markets of Water be significant enough to warrant inclusion in the body of the article, where they are not significant enough to warrant inclusion in the article for Skyfall?128.2.114.100 (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not at all ridiculous. This is an encyclopedia, not a listings service or Google. If you want a news feed or listings, go to the services that offer it, not Wiki. SchroCat (^ • @) 14:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The release date on any film in any market can be obtained in a similar fashion. Why offer any amount of that information in any location in the article if, as you say, 'this is an encyclopedia, not a listings service or Google?' Just asnwer the question: is the release date a significant piece of information for people coming to this article ?128.2.114.100 (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The question has already been answered by a number of editors, so I don't think we need to go over the same material ad nauseam. Please see WP:! for a summary of what Wikipedia is not, which covers most of the things already covered above. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the deletion of the US dates: because it now transpires that as this is classed as a Anglo-American production, the US release date should be in there alongside the UK one. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say that it is a Joint Anglo-American production? MisterShiney (Come say hi) 10:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

A few places, not least the BFI website. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

What about the points you already made? And RELEASE DATES does say the place where it premiered and main country of origin, which is the UK, but you will already know that. And it already says on the article anyway the it is from the "United Kingdom" and "United States". But the main place is the UK. And it should be the place where it premiered, and the main country of origin or first proper release date. And as James Bond is a British film series. Even though the past couple of films have been co-produced by Columbia Pictures, its still mostly British made. Such as Harry Potter. And it is also supposed to have the main two release dates. But what about the points you already made, which also still apply and I agree with.

This isn't related to the article but why call it "Anglo-American"? It isn't something you'd see on the article. I'm just interested because wouldn't it be British-American? Not like its Anglo-Yank. HahaCharlr6 (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Currency conversion

In regards to adding a sterling conversion to the infobox as per [1], I think this would be unwise. While sometimes currency conversions are legitimate in analysis (such as comparing GDP), I think it is wholly unnecessary here, especially in the infobox which is primarily concerned with presenting factual information. What could be 93 million today could have been 90 million last week, or 95 million tomorrow, so you risk factual inaccuracy creeping into the article based on the arbitrary selection of an exchange rate.

I don't think telling a reader the film cost 93 million quid is all that informative really, because there is no contextual reference point for such a figure. Even if you go through all the Bond articles adding conversions (which would become very messy to read), it would offer a reader no greater insight into the film's financial aspects beyond what the sourced dollar figures already do. Basically you only need one set of figures—either pounds or dollars—to convey the financial background of the films, and since we can source all the figures in dollars that seems to be the natural choice to me. Betty Logan (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. - Fanthrillers (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. It is a British film and I have no idea why it has $$ under the budget. Especially if it was produced by British companies (and the finances provided by I assume mostly British backers also). It seems that the only reason for the $ is because wikipedia is predominantly American. There should be some mention of the £ budget especially seeing as the film was filmed in the UK except for the Turkey scene. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 22:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, if you look at the top of this talk page, it says that the article is written "This article is written in British English, and some terms used in it are different or absent from American English and other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus." which to me suggests that it should also have British currency conversions. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 23:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That's only applicable if they released the figures in terms of pounds, but the public figures are in dollars. Extrapolating pounds based on the current exchange rate is factually incorrect, not to mention original research. DonQuixote (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. You learn something new everyday. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 01:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Plot section

I appreciate that a large number of people have not seen the film and do not want to know what the plot is, and we also have WP:SPOILER which points towards not pulling any info, but are people happy if I draft up a more complete plot summary to use? - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing the film soon, when I get back home and if there isn't a draft on here then I'll write one up.

Want it around the 700 word mark again? Even though from experience when I've written around that tons of smaller editors write loads more. Charlr6 (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. If neither of you do it someone else will have one up by tomorrow, and it's best if it's done by someone familiar with the guidelines. Betty Logan (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

OK - I'll have something up within the hour. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well done, SchroCat! If people do not want to know what the plot is they should not read several lengthy paragraphs marked "plot". - Fanthrillers (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

LOL - it is a bit of a giveaway, really! 700 words on the nail too: not too shabby!- SchroCat (^ • @) 20:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Beat me to it Schro. Haha. Finally a first review that actually hits the guidelines. Gonna read it to see if there is anything wrong, but I doubt there is. Is there anyway we can break the rules on here and all discuss Skyfall and what we thought of it? I'd love to know what you guys thought. Haha. I thought it was brilliant. As soon as it was over I updated my Twitter and Facebook via text saying "Why write a review when the word 'perfect' still wouldn't come close to how great it was?", which in my opinion is true.

We should keep an eye on the plot though in the next couple of weeks, because there will most likely be some mild occasional editors who don't know the rules and might write it over 1000 words. That happened with Paranormal Activity 4. I wrote the plot, more than there should at first but later had to shorter it to 800 words (I know, 100 over but was the best I could do without getting rid of important detail) but milder editors (mostly IP addresses) came and added tons of words, mentioned things that weren't necessary.

Anyway, I'm lingering on. Charlr6 (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Read the plot. It's good. One thing I'm not that keen on is how it mentions Moneypenny straight away. I would prefer we don't mention her name until the end, just like what happens in the movie. But as we can't just write 'woman', I feel that we should just mention her being called 'Eve', then in the last sentence mention that Bond and her introduce officially and that reveal in the plot she is Moneypenny. What do you guys think? I would prefer it because it is how it is revealed in the film even though we don't know her first name Eve until the end as well, we should mention that so like said, it isn't just going to be 'woman'.

And also, I don't mind if we do or not, but should we mention, and please don't tell me we need a source as its in the film, but should we mention how the new offices at the end have a striking resemblance to Connery's Bond MI6? And that isn't going to be OR I hope because it is in the film and I highly doubt it was by accident with how similar Moneypenny and M's offices and how they connect, even the door are similar to Connery's Bond. I don't know how we could mention it though, but like I said I don't mind, but I think it would be worthy to mention. Charlr6 (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that would come under a section by itself if we could provide some sort of section for homages to the "Old films" would be more appropriate I think. If it can be worded right then Eve's true identity should be revealed at the end. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 23:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, a new section on the homages would be good. Also on the Aston Martin did anyone else also notice the 'spikes' on the wheels? The ones that destroyed the wheels on the girls car from Goldfinger. That could be mentioned.

But like I said about Eve Moneypenny. We should call her Eve to start off with, because we don't just want 'woman', haha. But then leave it until the end that it is revealed fully in the plot she is Moneypenny. Charlr6 (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I took out "which has moved into its original headquarters (first seen in Dr. No" as I don't think it can be said it has returned as the new location just bears similarities and pays homage to the older films. But lets discuss. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 01:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the location of the pre-1995 digs of the MI6 HQ (now the SIS Building), but I'm also under the impression that the scene in question is still set in the current building with a new (or "vintage") office that's an homage to the 1960s office. A wild Rattata (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I've moved Moneypenny's identity back to the front, which is where it should be: we identify the characters properly in the plot section, not leave them hiding. As to the comments above concerning the office space and homages to previous films, this all falls under WP:OR and we'll have to wait for the secondary sources to provide us with sufficient back-up before they can be used. - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who put in "which has moved into its original headquarters (first seen in Dr. No)", but even I wouldn't put that even though I thought it should be mentioned.

But, and its not and is at the same time, original research, but I have (and I presume some of you) seen all of the Bond movies a good amount of time, and know that the final office in MI6 at the end is an obvious homage to the original one from the early Connery films. I know we are supposed to have secondary sources, but even we can't deny its an accident. Hopefully there will be some article in a couple of weeks, or some new making-of video released that says it.

Did any of you notice the wine/champagne bottle (whatever it was) on the island that Silva had and it was from 1962. Another obvious homage. It has been 50 years, and I doubt that was an accident as well. Not saying we should mention that though, we could on the possible homage section MisterShiney suggested.

And with the Moneypenny thing, I don't know who changed her identity as I've been away from Wiki in the last 14 hours until now. But I think we should mention her as being 'Eve' to start off with, and then reveal in the last sentence her full name and Bond and Eve formally introduce each other. Discuss.

Oh and did it say how Bonds parents died in the movie? I can't remember. I know originally it was a skiing accident or something, but was that what it was in the film? Charlr6 (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No details were given, just that Bond was an orphan. I seem to remember from the Fleming novels that it was a skiing or climbing accident. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, it was me who put Moneypenny's name back at the front. When her character first appears I have linked the name: there is no good reason not to do it. It was dropped to the bottom by someone who said that "Eve's reveal is a major plot point". Utter ridiculous nonsense: it has absolutely nothing to do with the plot at all. Plot summaries do not have to chronologically follow a film and if it makes more sense to tweak them round then that is the way we are supposed to do it. Apart from the minor fact that some people may consider that a spoiler, what other purpose is there in keeping the character's full details until the end? - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant I don't know who changed it originally to just Eve, as I just suggested it but haven't changed anything in the plot yet except adding a comma. Haha. I don't feel her reveal is a major plot point, just a sort of mild twist that the film makers nicely managed to hide. And I know plot summaries don't have to keep in chronological order. Although when a film itself is shown in chronological order, and doesn't jump back and forth between a timeline I feel we should reflect what happens there. And like I previously said I think we should just mention Eve to begin with and throughout, then her full name in the end. And should we mention she becomes a secretary? Because she will be because Moneypenny was always M's secretary. And wouldn't make any sense that she went to sit by a desk outside M (Mallory's) office if she wasn't a secretary. But I don't see a purpose why it should be mentioned fully in the beginning. Thats the only thing I would prefer and according to that "Eve's reveal is a major plot point" guy as well. I don't see any problem it moving around.

And also changing her name to Eve through-out until the last sentence will also result in less letters, less characters, which would be a good thing as Eve is seven letters shorter than Moneypenny. Even though it won't take a huge chunk of characters away, it would still be good. Charlr6 (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah OK - no probs. The number of characters doesn't matter - it's the word count that does. And we don't use anyone else's first name, so the surname is fine throughout. She's mentioned at the beginning as her character first appears at the beginning - and in rather an important way too! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with revealing Moneypenny's name at the start of the article - the summary should follow the film's sequence of events to give a sense of the story AS TOLD on screen, rather than giving away plot details out of sequence. For example, the summary for The Sixth Sense does not begin by saying Bruce Willis is a ghost, and the Fight Club summary does not tell you that Brad Pitt is a facet of Ed Norton's mind as soon as he is mentioned. OK, this is not such a big spoiler, but the principle is exactly the same. Nsign (talk) 09:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Spoiler. Plot summaries are exactly that, and will, therefore, include spoilers. There is also no need to slavishly follow the chronology of a film. Please note that this point is being discussed here and it is preferred on Wiki to discuss matters fully and gain a consensus. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes and the consensus seems to be that it is preferable to refer to her as Eve until the end of the summary to better reflect the narrative arc of the plot. There may be no need to "slavishly" follow the chronology of a film, but why wouldn't you? The purpose of a plot summary is to summarise the plot accurately. A plot isn't just a plot - its a narrative. Why would you give an incorrect account of the narrative? Moneypenny is not revealed to be Moneypenny until the closing moments of the film - it is therefore not logical to use this name as though it were part of the narrative before it has been revealed. I find it odd that anyone would want to. Nsign (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not the consensus at the moment and it's still a point under discussion. The character appears in the opening scenes of the fil and her name is linked to her character right there and then: to do so elsewhere is just not logical. The plot summary here summarises the plot accurately. Eve's surname is nothing to do with the plot, in other words it makes no difference if she's Eve Monneypenny or Eve Smmith, the storyline does not change because of it. I suggest you read WP:FILMPLOT fully: "events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen". - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"The character appears in the opening scenes...and her name is linked to her character right there and then: to do so elsewhere is just not logical". You're just wrong - the film reveals her full name at the end of the narrative. It is therefore entirely logical to do the same thing in the summary. You're also wrong that its "nothing to do" with the plot. It is, by definition, part of the plot and the narrative, albeit a minor part - the reintroduction of a recognizable character from the Bond franchise, one that is fully revealed at the end. I fail to see what purpose is served in not having the summary following the actual narrative, other than to be obtuse. Why not start Star Wars by saying, "Darth Vader, who is Luke Skywalker's father, enters..." 194.73.118.78 (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not wrong: this is a difference of opinion and a judgment call and not about right and wrong. The character appears at the start of the film and it is linked there: that is a logical place.I think you may be confusing plot with detail here: her identity is not part of the plot. If it was, then it would change something within the narrative dialogue of the film. It doesn't. It's certainly not "by definition, part of the plot": it's a minor tweak at the end of the film as the series still goes through some of the re-boot process. It's also not about being obtuse. Wiki has spoilers in the film (and novel) pages: you should respect that stance and accept that they happen, just as it is happening here. By the way, just a minor point, but Bond isn't a franchise: it's a series. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry and all that, but you are wrong and its not opinion. Here's why: it is NOT logical to name the character as Moneypenny at the start of the summary. Why? Because the film doesn't. If a summary is intended to be an accurate reflection of a narrative then it should logically follow that narrative. To do otherwise may be within whatever wikipedia policy is but there's no reason to make that change other than to be awkward. Also, it very much is, by definition, part of the plot. It is in the script, and forms part of the story. To say otherwise is not opinion - its wrong. You may as well say black is white. How does one go about getting consensus on this? I've argued this using facts and demonstrable logic, your stance is illogical and simply seems to be, "it doesn't have to be at the end of the article, even though its at the end of the film". Why not just be consistent with the film? 194.73.118.78 (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure you understand what the situation is here, and you're calling me wrong is proof of that: this is a situation without right or wrong, is an opinion and a judgement and repeating "you're wrong" will not change the situation except to weaken your own argument. Your argument seems to be based on nothing more than "it should be at the end because I want it to be there", which doesn't seem to be terribly logical really. My stance is not illogical, it is based on logic and Wiki policies and guidelines. I also think your stance may be based on a fallacy, however. The character's name (and identity) is not part of the plot. If it was, then it would have ramifications within the storyline: it doesn't. Nothing in the story changes because of her identity. There is absolutely no reason not to link her name at the start—on the appearance of the character—except some vague nation of it being a spoiler, a topic covered in WP:SPOILER. Again, I urge you to please read WP:FILMPLOT, paying particular attention to the phrase "events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen". - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong again, and I'm staring to think you're doing it deliberately - wilfilly ignoring or deliberately misinterpreting what I have actually said and failing to provide any logical rebuttal. I'll therefore set them out very clearly:

- You say, 'your argument seems to be based on nothing more than 'it should be at the end because I want it to be there'. Wrong, and that is very clearly not what I said - the argument is it should be at the end of the summary because it is at the end of the film. Logically a summary should be an accurate summation of a narrative. You do not start a summary by giving away a piece of information that is only revealed at the end of a narrative. And I ask again, why would you want to?

- You say, "the character's name (and identity) is not part of the plot". Your understanding of the definition of the term "plot" is flawed. Anything within the script involving characters must, by definition, be part of the plot. It is not arguable to say it isn't - this is a simple fact and your denial of this is simply not a matter of opinion. Your definition of "plot" ("if it was, it would have some ramifications within the storyline") is entirely subjective and seems to be something that you have come up with on your own. Whether something is a major plot detail or a minor plot detail is more arguable, but nonetheless, going by your shonky definition of "plot", your statement that "nothing in the story changes" is still demonstrably false, because by the end of the film the audience is introduced to a recognizable character from "Bond mythology", if you like. This is, by any definition, a plot point - part of the storyline and part of the narrative.

- "Events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen". I can't say I understand this particular rule, but what exactly is the point of changing the flow of events in the summary? Anyone who hadn't seen the film would, going by your version, assume that from the start of the film the audience and the main character were aware that this character is Miss Moneypenny. But this is not the case, and your summary is therefore, if not inaccurate, then certainly misleading. So I ask again - why? Why would you not simply follow the narrative structure of the story that has been told? What purpose is served by giving a misleading account of a narrative? Because that's what it is.

- I do not know how consensus is reached on Wikipedia or how these things are resolved. Therefore could I ask others for their assistance, opinion and expertise on resolving this issue. Having set out several clear explanations now for why I believe this summary could be better, and received no reply that actually rebuts them, I'd like some assistance. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know how to reply to this mess of a flawed argument, except to try and point you, once again, in the direction of WP:FILMPLOT and WP:SPOILER and ask you to read them fully and properly. You have not raised a single solid line of argument that somehow shows how or why we should ignore these. You are basing your arguments on flawed and incomplete logic and your own personal desires to have a link somewhere other than where it is. Again you keep repeating the mindless mantra of "you're wrong", but without actually seeing what I am trying to explain to you. What I have explained is not "demonstrably false", but actually rather simple and straightforward and I'm surprised you can't grasp it. To call the information "misleading" simply because we identify someone's surname at the beginning of the summary is twisting the truth back on itself as it's the very opposite of misleading to explain something up front. How is that misleading? As to your points about what constitutes the plot, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree as I cannot accept such a woolly and vague notion of a plot such as you foster. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"I really don't know how to reply to this mess of a flawed argument.." No, you don't know how to reply to clearly explained points, using facts and logic, which is what I have laid out. You have failed to respond to any of them because you know you're wrong, and so are resorting to the classic 'rubbish the whole context of an argument without addressing the fine detail' defence. My definition of plot was also quite plain and clear. Again, I ask for how consensus is reached on this issue as you are incapable of addressing facts and logic. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

No: you are not clearly explaining anything. Your arguments are not logical or factual, but are flawed and based on erroneous assumptions and false presuppositions. Please do not misrepresent what I have written or try and rubbish it without actually reading it properly: I read your definition of a plot, I disagree with it, because I think you are wrong and are defining it incorrectly, which is why I have said we will have to agree to disagree. It's not your explanation that I find woolly and unclear, it's your how you interpret the term "plot summary" which I find to be deeply flawed. Your arguments are not addressing the main problems here at all, which is why we should re-write the guidelines of WP:FILMPLOT and WP:SPOILER simply to satisfy your whim. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't agree. M's death would be perfectly appropriate in the production section or in the plot. As pretty much spelled out the beginning of the article, it's a major spoiler and completely unlike the majority of Wikipedia articles on films. (I have no problems with spoilers in the plot section, where they're unavoidable.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.124.237 (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I have rarely come across such a blatant, head-in-the-sand, black-is-white obfuscator such as yourself. You're fond of telling me my arguments are flawed but not once have you actually addressed any of the points I've clearly raised above, preferring instead to say, "I disagree". You say my definition of "plot summary" is "flawed" without explaining why, when you have previously provided a spurious and subjective "definition" of plot that could have been scribbled on a fag packet. You say I make "false assumptions" and "presuppositions" without explaining what they are. You say my arguments don't address the "real problems", without providing any rebuttal at all to those arguments. I fail to see why your version of this should take precedence over mine given that you cannot respond to facts and logic. If anyone is acting on "whim" here it is you. Your only response to logical, factual argument is to say its not logical or factual without saying WHY it isn't, other than you disagree with it. To quote Mark Kermode, "other opinions are available, but they're wrong". 194.73.118.78 (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the Ad hominem attacks, although I'm not entirely sure they are either appropriate or necessary. Thanks also for you repetition of your "you are wrong and I am right" mantra, although I'm not sure it takes us any further forward. I have addressed your points where I feel that is applicable, although I note that you have not gone as far as to address mine: why should we re-write the guidelines of WP:FILMPLOT and WP:SPOILER simply to satisfy your whim. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I know its a different page, (not sure if any of the editors on here edit on it much, presume so as its Bond), but on Quantum of Soalce Camille Montes, is referred to as Camille through-out, and in Casino Royale Vesper Lynd is just called Vesper. Same goes for mostly the other Bond films. So it seems that the Bond girls are all called by their first name.

Should we possibly reflect that do you think? Charlr6 (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Which version we use is a minor point really, but I think that we should try and keep some consistency where we can. We refer to Bond as Bond, not as James and the same for the other characters, so it doesn't seem suitable to use the first name for one character against the surname for the others, I think. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to wade in at this point for what its worth, I totally disagree with the first name usage of any of the characters. Consistancy should be an integral part of every article. -- Cassianto^Talk 14:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Then how can you explain on all of the other Bond pages that all of the Bond girls are called by their first names? Why should Skyfall have the Bond girls referred to by their last name, when the other pages its all by their first name.

If there should be any consistency then it should be the consistency between the pages on how all of the Bond girls are referred to by their first name. Which if you check, they are. Charlr6 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is a number of the articles are inconsistent on this point, but that's something of a side issue; a page should carry internal consistency wherever possible, which is more important than consistency across a range of inconsistent articles. I should point out that about half the Bond articles use the surname (or title), rather than the first name of all their characters. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel that the conventions are anything like so set in stone that it is violating the rules of Wikipedia to have no spoilers at the start of the article. Having mention of Moneypenny and M at the very start of the article is cruel and not needed. It does not make the article any better to have them there than in a discussion section after the plot summary. If you look at articles for Bond films with similar plot twists (FYEO, DAD), none of them lead with details of plot twists as clear as those you have insisted upon beginning the article with. (Unsigned)

Not entirely sure where you're coming from with this. I don't remember a long-running character from the series returning after a hiatus in either FYEO or DAD, or the replacement of a high-profile actor in major long-running role with another high-profile actor, or even something of equal significance to the series as a whole. That's they the information is in the lead and not buried elsewhere, and having it there is fully in line with WP:LEAD. Just to save you having to read it (although I suggest you do), the important part reads:

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."

Cruel? Hardly. "not needed"? Quite the opposite. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I maintain that these facts don't belong at the start of the article, they belong in the trivia section. Moonraker doesn't mention that this is a comparable actor's last appearance until the cast list. TWINE doesn't mention that this film is the one in which a comparable character retires. OHMSS's article doesn't mention the death of _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ or that this is _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _'s only appearance in a pretty significant role for Bond's character arc (fairly obvious though that is). DAD doesn't reveal the name of either a mole in MI6 or the true identity of a character in the start of the article-indeed, neither character is even mentioned. FYEO and TWINE's articles don't say who the ultimate villain is at the start of the article. (Unsigned) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.124.237 (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You can carry on mantaining that as much as you want, it does not alter the fact the the lead reflects important points in the article, which includes changes in the cast, even if these are spoilers. Please see the consensus-led Wiki policy on spoilers at WP:SPOILER for further clarification on the fact that Wiki includes spoilers. Please also note that, according to the discussions on this page, the majority of those who raised the point were in favour of having the information in the lead. As to the "Trivia section" suggestion, I think this is slightly more important than trivia, don't you? (and anyway, trivia sections are discouraged).- SchroCat (^ • @) 17:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Spoilers

The revelation of Naomie Harris's role as Moneypenny is not revealed until the final moments of the film, and is thus a spoiler and should be treated as such (it shouldn't be revealed in the first sentence of the synopsis). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.136.215 (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Spoiler. Plot summaries are exactly that, and will, therefore, include spoilers. Putting her identity at the front is a standard way of linking the names of individuals and there is no reason not to do so when the character is first introduced. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

On "The Sixth Sense"s page the twist in the end it is revealed at the end. I know that movies page is a different movie to Skyfall and probably the same editors here aren't involved, maybe there are, I haven't checked. But if Wiki plots can have spoilers, I could just mention in the plot there that he died at the beginning, and explain he thinks he is alive throughout the movie.

But like I've said before, all of the Bond girls names are referred to on the other Bond pages by their first names, not their last names.

There is no harm her just being referred to as Eve until the end when her full name is revealed in the plot. It would make the editors complaining about it happy, and any editors who want to keep it in at the beginning are just being, no offence, but awkward. Charlr6 (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before: "all of the Bond girls names are referred to on the other Bond pages by their first names" is just not true and I think you need to look over the articles again. Secondly, If you want to edit the Sixth sense, carry on: that's not this article, it's a different one and different editors took a different route. Thirdly, yes, I do take offence at you calling me awkward. I am following an entirely logical path that sits well with the current Wiki guidelines and I do not have any issue with that. I do have an issue with you starting to throw names around at people. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

But there wouldn't be any harm to just simply name her Eve, then reveal her full name in the end. And I was referring the 'awkward' to being as changing a possible edit back, if an editor was to take any mention of Moneypenny out until the name, even though it has been explained by a couple of people now, why it should be mentioned last. Lets say I went and just now got rid of Moneypenny's name until the final sentence and then you undid my edit. You know why I did it, as I have mentioned several times why the edit should be made, and as editors can't have control of certain things on Wikipedia, such as a plot summary, then you wouldn't be letting me add my edit in. It isn't as if I would be completely re-writing the entire plot and deleting your one to make room for a newly written one by me. Imagine it from my and other editors perspective and that an editor keeps deleting and ignoring edits you made. That would insult you wouldn't it? This editor not letting you change or add a single edit in. Do you understand that? Charlr6 (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I resent and reject the implication that I am not allowing others to edit: a number or people have done so and, where the article has been improved, they still stand. Any editor can edit any part of the article you would like, but I'd suggest that the Moneypenny references are left alone until the discussion is concluded, which is only right and proper. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The article would be improved and reflect and be closer to the film more, if Moneypenny's name was mentioned last. It would be improved because that is how it is revealed in the film. And as her name was revealed as Eve officially before the film was released, then she would be called that in the plot until the end instead of just 'woman'.

But it would be improving the article because it would be reflecting the movie more. Charlr6 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Charlr6 and support the statement that you are not allowing others to edit. You reverted edits I made not only with regards to the pointless naming of Moneypenny in the first paragraph but other small details with no explanation.

I would also point out that a number of people including myself have now objected to this awkward and obtuse piece of reasoning. At what point does this become consensus? How many are needed to point this out? 5? 10? I don't know the rules on this and would like some clarification so that we can end up with a summary that people aren't objecting to. Which this isn't. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous: of course others are able to edit the article, as many have done. However, as there is an RfC over one small point, it is preferred to retain that point until a consensus is formed, which may take a week or so, maybe more, probably less. I should add that summaries will always be objected to on some ground or other and will have ongoing tweaks from a number of editors going on over the course of years, so the aim of "a summary that people aren't objecting to" may be something of a pipe dream. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that the inclusion of the following statement within the opening paragraph does not add any value to the article but would spoil the enjoyment of the film for many. The statement reads... "Following the death in the film of Judi Dench's M, the post of head of MI6 is taken up by Gareth Mallory, played by Ralph Fiennes." I believe that it would be more reasonable to keep details such as this in the Plot section and to change the wording in the opening passage as follows. "The film sees the return of Judi Dench's M and two recurring characters after an absence of two films: Q, played by Ben Whishaw, and Miss Moneypenny, played by Naomie Harris. Skyfall also introduces the original character of Gareth Mallory, played by Ralph Fiennes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markc113 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above contributor; the lead as it currently stands does give away plot elements which are fine to discuss in the main plot section, but unneccessary in the lead (one cannot skip over that as easily as the plot summary). I must admit, knowing it would be spoilt, I stayed well away from this page before seeing the film, and I have to say I'm glad I did. I'm not sure other less experienced readers may know that we give away the plot in the first few sentences, and may have just come here for some of the reviews/production information. Bob talk 17:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bob, The lead has already been tweaked to reflect Markc113's comments. As the lead reflects the rest of the article—and the returning characters and the replacement of Dench as M are covered in both the Plot and Cast sections—it's natural to reflect these important points in the article's lead. Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw that someone tried to get rid of the 'Skyfall is Dench's seventh and final appearance in the role.' line next to M and Judi Dench on the cast section. I don't think there is a problem with that, because it doesn't spoil actually anything on how it is her last film. Some people I know thought she would hook up with the old caretaker Albert Finney. But I just thought I'd say I'm happy with the "Skyfall is Dench's seventh and final appearance in the role." line. Charlr6 (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I support getting rid of such speculation. I've tried to find an interview where Judi Dench says "In the next Bond film someone else will replace me as M" but I can't find one. It does not seem at all unreasonable that Bond 24 goes back to a different point in the chronology that once again has Dench playing M. Connor Behan (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As discussed below (#Judi Dench) there is a source for this. - SchroCat (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Ahem..

Why on earth have you just revealed EVERY single spoiler in the entire film at the start of the page now? Luckily i've seen the film by now, but there are others who haven't, so may i suggest removing those revelations, and save them for later perhaps? 80.167.205.66 (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Spoiler. Wiki articles will contain spoilers, I'm afraid. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant. That topic still suggests that spoilers be in clearly denoted sections with titles like 'Plot' and 'Ending'. Starting the article with references to Moneypenny, M and Mallory are adding pub trivia (What was Judi Dench's last film as M?) at the expense of overall quality of experience for users. You're in a small minority on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.124.237 (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant at all. the topic does not limit spoilers to any section at all. And no, according to the discussion on this page, the majority of those who have commented on the lead think it is appropriate to mention the various characters there, so I'm really not sure how to get to the "small majority" conclusion? - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 October 2012

The name of Bond's home in Scotland i called Skyfall Lodge, not Skyfall. Please change it. 94.14.201.75 (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have something you could point to which backs up the name? If so, then we would be happy to change it. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It is actually Skyfall Lodge. It is on the sign at the entrance to the grounds with the model dear above it. As it is in the film, written on a sign that anyone who understand English can read, there shouldn't be any secondary source because we don't need any for a film plot as its the film itself. Charlr6 (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Honestly do people not even bother to look for sources for an encyclopaedia these days.[2][3]Blethering Scot 17:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Erm excuse me, a couple of months ago before Skyfall was released, I've seen articles as well mentioning this, and they have called it "Skyfall Ranch" as well. And I have actually looked up references for other people before, even though I wasn't supposed to. Now has been the first time in ages I haven't. And as it says Skyfall Lodge in the actual film, then that is the source. You don't need a source for a movies plot because its the film itself. So there shouldn't be one, because it IS the movie itself. Charlr6 (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, do people still believe what they read in the Daily Mail these days? I seem to remember the RfC where it was decided that it was decided that it fails WP:RELIABLE too often for comfort. Considering they have based the first "report" on a blog site and the second "report" on the first, this does make it highly questionable in this instance too. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No your not excused because you failed to look for a valid source or actually acknowledge when provided with the evidence you asked the ip for..You didn't look for sources and you never looked at the fact its called Skyfall Lodge clearly in the movie. The Daily Mail is a reliable source for something like this. Sometimes just sometimes its helpful to actually look for sources, this is an encyclopaedia we write what sources tell us not what as a fan you want it to say.Blethering Scot 18:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see the name in the film, but I'll take on good faith the fact that others did. I also do not have time to chase after every request from an IP, so I asked them if they could help out with a reference and I don't see that there is any problem with that. As I've explained above, the Mail is a hideous rag that fails to be consistently reliable, and as they have based their info on an amateur blog I don't see any reason why I should start thinking they are a credit-worthy news organisation in this instance. I reject your insinuation that I write what I want as a fan: try considering good faith once in a while when dealing with a polite request for a little further information or clarity. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

How could you not see the name in the film? It is shown clearly. And its funny that you don't have time to look it up but you seem to respond quickly back to anything on the talk page. 31.109.10.127 (talk) 12:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see it, simple as that. I saw Skyfall, not Skyfall Lodge. All I did was to politely ask for you to point to something that could justify it. As it was someone else did see the word Lodge and added it in. As I was trying to help you I'm not entirely sure what your beef is here? - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That you aren't very observant. The camera very clearly shows the sign of Skyfall Lodge in the film. 31.109.10.127 (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not make ridiculous statements such as that. I missed one detail, so what? Did you see what was on the pictures in Mallory / M's office? Or the one behind Q and Bond in the National Gallery? - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Did I see what wasn't lingered upon? And what obviously isn't worth mentioning? The pictures in M's office are in the background, they aren't lingered upon. But the Skyfall Lodge sign is covering half of the screen. And lingers on it at least 3 times, and long enough to read the sign. 31.109.10.127 (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Then you aren't very observant. The National Gallery pics were behind them for the whole scene - much longer than the word lodge. As I said before, I didn't see the word Lodge and I really don't know why you are making such a big issue over the fact I tried to help you because I missed one word. In future I'll ignore all requests for help from IPs, that seems to be the only way to avoid getting pointless grief and insults going forward. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, notice something that is hardly related to the actual plot of the movie. A picture in the background. You seem to be making a big fuss over the Moneypenny thing, which more people are agaisnt it being mentioned at the beginning of the plot. You don't really want anyone to change that part. And if you actually don't mind, thne you would have let them.

And I'm not the IP who requested an edit, that isn't me. 31.109.10.127 (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, I wonder why I am faced with your opprobrium for trying to help someone? As I've already indicated, in future I will not bother even reading edit requests for any Wiki article - well done for achieving that at least. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Good. Less grief you cause for people. Glad I've saved a few people from that. 31.109.10.127 (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you please try and be less abusive to editors? As I've mentioned before, I was trying to help the person who put in the original request: I am not entirely sure sure why I am now subject to your ongoing abuse because of it, but I will ask you to please read through WP:CIVIL and try to bear it in mind when dealing with others. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually Schro is right. It only says "Skyfall" on the sign by the deer. And not that it matters. But I remembered that the paintings at the art gallery behind Bond and Q was one which I have seen many times before, and is people in a dark room surrounding something. Don't know what its called, but I could point it out straight away. The one next to that was of a duke and duchess, well 16th, 17th century. And the painting in M's office at the end was of MI6. Charlr6 (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, ‎Charlr6, I thought I'd remembered that correctly—and so much for being labelled by some as not being "observant". By the way, the "dark room" picture in the NG was An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump, by Joseph Wright of Derby. The pictures in M's office were of naval scenes—part of the homage references to the original office M occupied in Dr. No. The M paintings are not hugely important, but given the references back to previous Bond films, they are of interest and worth mentioning, once there is a source to back it up. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes. I forgot about the naval scene pictures. I was on about the one behind M's desk though of MI6. And that is the painting. An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump. I wonder if they actually filmed in the museum or built up a set. Forgot to check the end credits as that could be something mentioned in 'Production' if they did film there. Charlr6 (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't hear any abuse - he/she simply disagrees with you and has explained why. I have noticed your tactic when dealing with this entirely reasonable approach is to claim that people are engaging in ad-hominem attacks or are being abusive. No, they're not - they, like I, seem to be encountering someone who wants it his way and his way only and who will not respond to logical argument. It is not "abuse" and to call it so reeks of pettiness. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Coming from someone who is prepared to thow racist insults around (see this [4]) and throw insults at people (also at the Hüseyin Göçek article) then I'm afraid your standards of civility don't really mean much to me. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, that wasn't me, it was someone using this IP address. I've only just noticed that I haven't been signed as me using the tildes thing. Secondly, not that it matters since it wasn't me, I don't actually see any racist insults on the links you provided. Nsign (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

And additionally I note that once again you avoid the point that was made - no one has "abused" you. Unless you consider "disagreement" to be abuse, which you clearly do. Nsign (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Funny how it looked as if you changed Honey's name in the Dr. No plot to Ryder, the day after I said a couple of times on here that on the other Bond pages they mostly use the first name. Kind of like creating something to back yourself up. Kind of cheating. And I doubt it was an accident and a big coincidence. Charlr6 (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Jeez, what complete nonsense this thread has degenerated into. From an outsider looking in like me, this appears to be one of the most unwarranted and thoroughly bullish attacks at a main editor, I have ever seen. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Then there's alot of thin skin around here. The editor in question has been quite happy to accuse others of "abuse" when they've simply disagreed with him. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh bore off IP. I would request that you spend your efforts in trying to improve the article rather than trolling the talk page. But if your edits are anything like your uncivil nonsense here then I would rather you didn't. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I cannot believe such a blatantly hypocritical statement was posted with a straight face. At no point did I abuse or insult. And yet you begin your post where you accuse others of "bullish attacks" by telling them to "bore off"? Rather puts a hole in your credibility, to say the least. 194.73.118.78 (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

And by the way, trying to improve the article was exactly what I tried to do, only to have edits promptly reverted, which is what led to the disagreement. Consensus has now been reached and the article has been changed, in my view for the better. Just a shame I had to go through all this nonsense. Nsign (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Having seen the film twice, the only word on the sign is "Skyfall" no sign of lodge, ranch/whatever. It may seem an odd name for a home. But anyway, that is no excuse for the bad vibes that have been created on this thread. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 19:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It does just say Skyfall. I think it is also in the logo for the movie as well. Charlr6 (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

In the news

Editors working on this article might be interested in reading: James Bond fans beware: Wikipedia reveals major 'Skyfall' spoiler (Chicago Tribune, 29 October 2012). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the editor's working on this article give two hoots about spoiler's, as they revealed the plot and other details to U.S. readers before the official release date (November 9) here in the states. Wow, what a shame.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPOILER, which explains Wiki's stance on this point. The film has been released in a significant series of markets (including its domestic one) and this is what tends to happen, I'm afraid. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Cool, added a tag to the top of this page. Regards, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  20:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this is just an example of how too many movie plots are spoiled on Wikipedia because the fact that its such a free site, so many users are able to add any content they want, including detailed descriptions of many films. Not that I am complaining, because I often use the site to look up any films. But it is my own choice, meaning I can look only if I choose to. But its a matter that probably should be taken into consideration in general. Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The point is, what exactly do people expect to see in the Plot section? Stuff that isn't the plot? If you're looking in that section, then you should be expecting to see spoilers. Silverseren^C 04:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the point is that for readers who are not familiar with the policies of WP, like WP:SPOILER, common courtesy and common sense would seem to indicate that you pre-warn those readers about spoilers (spoiler alert).-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like to raise the issue in the appropriate forum to try and gain a consensus to change WP:SPOILER, then I am sure you will recieve a lot of support. However, the current consensus (at least last time it was tested) was to include spoilers, but not to include the warnings. Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Spoken like a true blue WP editor. I am aware of what the current consensus says about spoilers, but like I stated above, the people who read the article probably are not as versed in WP policies and guidelines like you and I are. Sometimes it's OK to step outside the box and think about who these articles are actually created for. Just sayin'.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Silver, I think the bone of contention here is having the ending revealed in the second paragraph of the lead section, and not anything to do with the Plot section. --Dorsal Axe 21:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I can agree on that point, I'm not sure that such a piece of information is notable enough to be in hte lede, it comes across as trivia and in the grand scheme is only 2 minutes of the entire film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you there. There shouldn't be any spoilers outside of the Plot section. That should be self-evident. Silverseren^C 05:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with that at all, and it's certainly not the general view of those who commented on the lead in the RfC above (which was on a separate point). Although one person thought the Eve character shouldn't be identified as Moneypenny, others who commented on it disagreed and said that the return of the character was notable enough for inclusion in the lead. If you ignore the whole spoiler issue and think about whether the return of two major characters from the previous films and the death and replacement of a third will be in the lead in a year's time because they are notewothy, then the answer is that they probably will be. Given wiki's stance on spoiler's in general (which isn't just confined to the polt section) then there is no reason not to have the info in the lead. - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm talking about the line about M. Telling people in the opening paragraph who takes over the role in the last 3 minutes of the film isn't notable information. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I think all it will take is a little creative editing. Why not just have "Skyfall marks the introduction of Ralph Fiennes' character Gareth Mallory, who is tasked with overseeing MI6." or something like that. --Dorsal Axe 12:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can entirely agree with you on that one: the replacement of a long-running cast member—and a high-profile actress in her own right—with a high-profile actor is notable (if it wasn't then there would not be quite so much of a kerfuffle about it being there). Is it likely that the info will comfortably and uncontroversially sit in the lead in a year's time? I think it probably is, in which case the only reason for not including it is because it's a spoiler, which is no good reason to keep it out. As the lead reflects the article and we refer to this replacement in both plot and cast sections (and possibly other sections in future), then I think the inclusion is entirely justified. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I've read WP: SPOILER. And it doesn't ever say 'reveal what is revealed in the end of the movie, at the beginning of the Wikipedia plot'. I can't see anything on there that can actually back-up what you did, except it says Wikipedia can use spoilers. But as a lot of people have complained, and even an article has been written about the spoilers, I think it would be best to just move some of the main spoilers. Most people reading Wikipedia will read the plot, cast and reception probably. And I don't think in the cast section we should mention what happens to Judi Dench's M. It doesn't need to be mentioned there, isn't any need to. Could mention 'last role after seven movies', still a sort of spoiler, but people may think the character just retires. But as with Moneypenny, because of the complaints, and like said, now an article written about the spoilers, that should be moved. It doesn't add anything to the article it revealing Eve is Moneypenny at the beginning, as it would mis-lead readers into thinking maybe possibly its announced at the beginning of the movie, and also the wikilink is obvious and quite hard not to see. Would be better to have maybe one wikilink to Moneypenny's name and that could be the cast section, but not at the beginning of the plot where readers will accidentally see straight away. We should respect the readers.

I would go and change it on the article on how it could be shown, but would probably be reverted back. If you any of you are interested, I could move it onto my sandbox and edit it on there so you could see what it might look like? Charlr6 (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, doesn't matter. It's been changed. Apparently it changed yesterday sometime. Strange as wikipedia only just updated it for me. Charlr6 (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)