Talk:Quantum of Solace

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Quantum of Solace article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Quantum of Solace has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 28, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Film: British / German / Italian / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the German cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Italian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Why was this page moved?

May I ask why this page was moved from Quantum of Solace to Quantum of Solace (film)?

I was going to ask yesterday, but I thought someone would have reverted it by now.

MJisnotmylover gave the reason "over redirect". What sort of reason is that.

The obvious use of this title is the film. Yes it was a short story, but it dosen't have a article on itself.

And the top of this article adequately links to the disambiguation page.

So I request an administrator re-move back to Quantum of Solace, or I will requested it on Requested Moves in a day, if no response.

The Windler talk 07:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't it just follow the same standards as the other films? Which is I believe as you're describing it, page is Quantum of Solace and there is a link to the disambiguation page. It's worked for those films, it will work for this film, and will continue to work in the future. Peppage (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, why would we follow standard naming conventions? Some guy (talk) 08:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand, may I suggest you give better descriptions in the edit summary, when moving pages. Thanks. The Windler talk 10:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope your ok means that you still want it moved back, to the way it should be and was. Peppage (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored it back to the main name. SilkTork *^YES! 02:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

I have started a review of this article to see if it fits the criteria for a WP:Good article. The criteria and my comments can be found here. SilkTork *^YES! 23:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has passed. Quantum of Solace is now a Good Article. SilkTork *^YES! 12:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most commercially successful?

When I encountered it, the last sentence of lead read:

It was, however, the most commercially successful Bond film, earning £50 million in product placement, and grossing $515,503,919 at the box office as of 14 December 2008.

I'm pretty sure this should be flatly deleted, but as the film is still technically in release I'll leave it up and ask for a citation. Neither in terms of adjusted or unadjusted gross does Quantum top the list of Bond films, as of 14 December. If it does by now, fine—but let's get that fact cited, please. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 17:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable to have a section on technical impossibilities

Folks:

Is it at all possible to have a section talking about technical impossibilities in this film?

I want to ask the question here before I go ahead and make changes in the article itself. I don't have confidence in whether or not the stuff I want to put there is encyclopedic.

Here are my qestions:

1. What are the possibilities of someone building dams to dam up a river without anyone else knowing it? I am refering to the damming up of Bolivia's water supply. Even if the rivers were underground, someone must have noticed the equipment and personnel and people talk.

2. James and the woman parachuting together and surviving. What are the odds with two people grabbing each other and being supported by one parachute, especially when their descent is slowed just before contact?

3. Why does a cement and steel building burn as if it's made out of untreated wood. The futuristic hotel burining near the end blew my mind. Sure, I understand whay the fuel cells would go, but what was there to burn. The picture showed steel staircases going up as if they were untreated plywood.

Thank you for your help.

Mark Allyn

Allyn (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not possible to have a section about the film's technical impossibilities without reliable sources. If we make observations on our own, it would be considered original research. Many films have technical impossibilities, but not all of them are thoroughly examined for them. Maybe there are some out there for this James Bond film, but I would think that there is suspension of disbelief for how all James Bond films unfold. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

at a local...

STRIP CLUB? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.208.230 (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DVD review

DVD review from dvdtimes.co.uk. Cliff smith ^talk 00:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best Bond film ever?.

This Bond film is known as one of the best Bond films ever made.

Sounds a bit dubious to me, no source, seems to be like someone's personal opinion. Delete it? Chriszwolle (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]