Talk:Skyfall

Tweaks

I've done some formatting tweaks to this article to make it look better. Hope nobody minds :). Any problems, please leave a message in my talk page. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I added the right honorifics for Dame Judi Dench. She is a Knight of the British Empire, she should be accorded the proper title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nstokes (talk • contribs) 03:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason why only the London premiere/UK release date is posted? I assumed it would have been updated by now... Vancealmighty (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because it's a British film, so the British release is listed. No others are important for that field. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ola Rapace is an antagonist

Ola Rapaces character is a baddie he said so himself so leave it on their! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkshake6789 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

On their what? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

PMSL! DWB is right: what is known from reliable sources is reflected in the existing text. There is no need to change the entry until a reliable secondary source gives more information. It's not that long until the film is released and it can even wait until after it comes out before it gets changed - there really is no rush over this. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

He said so in an interview... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkshake6789 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC) And another thing Darkwarriorblake, what did you think I meant when I said leave it on their??????? I meant leave it ON THE PAGE SHERLOCK!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkshake6789 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL, it's even funnier now. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User now blocked indefinately after Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Libellous vandalism - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ending of principal photography

Hi, I´m working for the German article of Skyfall and I need to know, when principal photography ended. Does someone know it and/or can give me a link to find it out? --M(e)ister Eiskalt (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/23997/-skyfall-wraps-new-blu-ray-details Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much ;~) --M(e)ister Eiskalt (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Adele to sing the song?

Really? Let's make things straight - it's probably true Adele will sing a song for "Skyfall" but NOTHING'S BEEN CONFIRMED OFFICIALLY. Only some guy on the internet said so. Yet - the article says it's definite. Let's be serious, people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Mitch Brenner (talk • contribs) 20:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

A), Who the Hell are you? You can sign your posts by putting in four tildes.

B), Yes it has been rumoured, but there haven't been any huge amount of articles on it. I haven't even heard any rumours on the radio or news about who could possibly sing the song. But if this article says its definite, copy and paste it here. I would go and find it but I don't know what specific article you are on about.

C), Like I said, there haven't been a huge amount of articles on the subject. So, and this isn't just for Wikipedia, this is for everywhere, no site can just make up stuff about a singer singing the new theme. Not even BBC News.

D), Lets be serious, that until the day when something new is released on the Skyfall theme song, then THATS when we will insert something about the theme song, just like every other website will be. But until then, we can't just assume, and that isn't just Wikipedia, thats all sites. All big news sites can't just assume who will sing the song. Charlr6 (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It's in the online version of the New York Daily News Entertainment section. Google it. You have Google, don't you? 108.45.122.74 (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I used Google to find the New York Daily News Entertainment section and I followed the source of that story, which lead to the Total Film website. I followed the source stated in that and it lead to a site called Worst Previews, their source led to a blog that starts its story with "'I think I can confirm" and fails to list any reason for the claim, apart from validating its speculation story from May 2012. Not really a valid source. - X201 (talk) 10:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I have Google, but it was never stated where it was. So how would I know which of the few websites would have been referred to. But I still don't believe, just because of very few articles that Adele is singing the song. I'm not doubting she is, I just mean as in there are only a few articles. Nothing huge yet. I'm happy to just wait.Charlr6 (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The main thing to remember is that Wikipedia is not a news outlet and having up to the second news details is not a priority, being accurate and encyclopedic is. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Previous edit deleted parts of the discussion - now replaced and the text moved to below: (changes undertaken by SchroCat (^ • @) 07:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC))
Both the New York Daily News article and the EW article use sources which ultimately source a Showbiz411 article. The articles "confirmation" is very poor and has lines like "I think I can confirm for you what I said some months ago–Adele is performing the theme song for “Skyfall,” the 23rd James Bond movie. As far as I know the song is called “Skyfall.”". Please do not use the Entertainment Weekly article or the NY Daily News article as a source until the singer is confirmed by EON or MGM or Sony or the artist or their representative - anything else is NOT OFFICIAL 2.103.22.145 (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Confirmation? FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  17:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed 2.120.245.211 (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Should we mention early reviews from the 30-90 second preview/leaked clip? Such as a few people mentioning it sounds closer to the classic Bond theme songs than newer ones? Charlr6 (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be too much recentism, akin to providing reviews for film trailers (with some noteworthy exceptions like Cloverfield). We'll obviously get reviews of the music when the film comes out, so we can reference these for the entire theme song and not just a sample. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Released on Friday, three days time, so there will be multiple reviews over the weekend anyway. Charlr6 (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Crew

This website; http://www.tomfennell.com/Tom_Fennell/cv.html Is the website of someone who is involved in the production of Skyfall. It seems that this website, along with two other ones were 'unreliable'. The other two I can see why they might be considered that, but this one I cannot because like said, it is someone who is involved n the production and it seems like the edit was removed and called 'unreliable', simply because the websites wasn't liked by the persons themselves then used WP:RELIABLE as a reason. I couldn't find anything that would make the website unreliable. Like I said, the other two I can see reasons, but I found them as sort of a 'back-up'. You can see on his CV films he has worked on and I then managed to find him in the credits of one of them movies as coincidentally I had just finished watching that movie and also found him related to those movies through Google as well. People need to remember they don't OWN any article, just because they may be one of the editors most involved in the page doesn't make them own it any more than someone who edits occasionally. I found the website to be reliable, and it seems that the other editor, if he even sees this message simply reverted as he himself didn't find the websites reliable. I did, so therefore I could simply add any websites I find reliable and revert any edits with sources for websites I find unreliable and then use WP:RELIABLE almost like a shield to back up my claim. If you do read this, did you even look at the websites properly? And I mean mainly Tom Fennell and then look him up more? Charlr6 (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

An online resume doesn't suffice. The other two websites are blatantly "unreliable". Further, Stuart Wilson is not the "Production Mixer" whatever that is. He's the "sound mixer", which does not warrant mention. We mention only key production staff. I find SchroCat's actions appropriate and not at all indicative of someone who thinks he OWNs the article. - Fanthrillers (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I looked 'resume' up on RELIABLE SOURCES, can't find anything. Or anything about a CV. So if its not mentioned then what does that mean? Is it relaible or not? The page doesn't reference if resumes would be reliable, so then its down to whoever thinks its unreliable to make that claim. Which would then cause the OWN, just because they don't like it and think its unreliable they delete it, even though RELIABLE SOURCES doesn't mention resumes or CVs as being reliable or not. And actually SchroCat seems to edit on this page a lot, and reverts little edits, even things that don't really matter and didn't need to be deleted. Even sometimes someone would change a sentence slightly and then it gets changed back to how it was before. That is him thinking that its better as it was before, even though another editor wanted to change it slightly. If his actions aren't at all indicative of someone who thinks he OWNs an article, then he wouldn't change the tinest of things such as a mild change in a sentence. It wasn't necessary to change it, and it wasn't necessary to revert it. Charlr6 (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think depending on the information, if its first hand then they like a second source for verification. Otherwise I could create a CV saying I'm Samuel L. Jackson, and who can question my sleek coolness? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes but that is the mans website. For example lets say we were going to quote something from an actor who said it on his Twitter. Everyone may know it is his official Twitter, but where would be the second source of vertificaition saying "yes, this is 100% this mans twitter", not just someone on an article saying "yeah its him", because they themselves might not even know, just think it is. And as this man isn't someone as big as Samuel L Jackson, the question is why would some one pretend to be someone part of the crew of a movie, whose name they saw in end credits then randomly think they should make a website pretending they are this person, if though this person is no one big. Yes it has been established that their role wasn't needed on the page anyway, but I'm talking about his website with his CV. No one would randomly create a website for someone no one knows nothing about except when looking them up in an instant like this, I never heard of him before, and its not like I went and created the website just to pretend its actually a source we can use.

And like I said, on RELAIBLE SOURCES there isn't a mention of us not being able to mention a resume or CV, and no one will randomly create a fake website pretending its for a person, because they won't get anything out of that. And saying a website is unreliable and redirect me to RELIABLE SOURCES where it actually doesn't mention that a website like that would be unreliable is kind of stupid. It would be like me saying James Bond actually faked his death in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, not You Only Live Twice and then give a link to You Only Live Twice where it actually says that he faked his death. Charlr6 (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The section that states this man's website may be unreliable is WP:SPS. - X201 (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because a random person created a website for a crew member of the production just to trick people. And it still never says anything about CVs or resumes. I can agree that it isn't relevant to the article, but it never mentions resumes or CVs are unreliable. Charlr6 (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think "self-published media, such as ... personal websites..."' makes it pretty clear. The listed items are examples, not an exhaustive list. - X201 (talk) 07:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Charlr6, I'd also add a request you try and remain civil with dealing with people and you'll have a much easier time of things: accusing people of WP:OWN just because they revert your edit is not conducive to a collegiate editing process. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have been civil. Where have I called people stupid? Where have I insulted someone? And you edit this article a lot and take away little things, that actually didn't need to be changed or reverted. They have been fine either way. Sometimes I've seen wording change in a sentence, wasn't any point on changing it, but also wasn't any point on reverting it. And if you remember, I said that people need to remember they don't own the page, just because you are one of the main editors doesn't grant you anything more than any one else. Charlr6 (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you have not been civil. Baselessly accusing someone of WP:OWNership is uncivil, no matter how you may try and justify it; furthermore, this addition to the discussion is hugely uncivil. As to your continued accusation of my editing: I will edit where I feel that an edit falls foul of being beneficial to the article; this may include, inter alia: poor grammer, incorrect spelling, WP:ENGVAR issues, fancruft, unsourced information (including rumours), in-universe language and information that is just plain wrong. If others feel my edits or reversions have not been for the overall benefit of the article they are free to revert or bring the matter to the talk page. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Whoever that person was, never signed their post. Didn't even know who they are except their name on the edit history page. And there has been barely any information on who is singing the theme song. And what was uncivil there? Only "who the hell are you" I can see. Just the word "hell". And it seems like that person wants to edit in the article the few websites about Adele and the rumours of her singing the theme song. And I will edit, where I feel information should be put. You undid the persons edit and said it was 'unsourced', so I thought I'd be kind and find a reference, which I did. You could have said "unsourced and not needed". And I reverted, and then bought to the talk page. And if you don't like being accused of ownership, then don't act like you do editing and reverting something every single day, and like I said, I've even seen things that didn't need to be changed, or reverted back, they were fine either way. Charlr6 (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

charlr6, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I'm trying to ensure that your time on Wiki is slightly more enjoyable by not being so confrontational, so please try and see it that way. The "Who the Hell are you? You can sign your posts by putting in four tildes" was aimed at a newbie, and just by showing a little bit of WP:GOODFAITH you could have tried to help them understand how things are done by suggesting the tildes, rather than blasting off at them. As they are a newbie they are probably also unaware of WP:SOURCE, WP:RELIABLE and a host of other policies that point the way to the verification of information. Again, please try and remember WP:GOODFAITH. Could you also try and remember GOOD FAITH when you are talking about my edits too. I have never tried to "own" this page, and I have always tried to avoid giving that impression: I have edited where I see fit and where an edit does falls short of beneficial article development: if that means that I revert something every single day, it's only because things are added every single day that fall short of decent standards. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Good faith was telling them how to do it, with the four tildes. If I wasn't trying to help them I wouldn't have told them to put the four tildes. And I could also say that if anyone is a new be to Wikipedia, not everyone is going to know about referencing every single thing, then when their comment gets reverted and BURDEN comes about, they aren't going to know. I've helped people, even though BURDEN itself says its down to the original person. And actually, things I've seen, like I have already said about even a single word change in a sentence, and then gets reverted back, the original change wasn't necessary and also wasn't necessary to revert it. Charlr6 (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem with new and IP editors is that they may never have heard of WP:BURDEN, so they need to be shown it is there, and it needs to be done so in a civil manner, not by saying something rather curt such as "Who the Hell are you?", which comes across as rather impolite, as do ridiculous accusations of WP:OWN where there is no need to do so. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You know, just because someone is new to Wikipedia doesn't mean they don't know how to actually start a proper discussion. They just basically said "its gonna be Adele, lets get serious guys and include it". Charlr6 (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No, they said the reverse—and that was part of the problem. Read it again and you'll see they said "the internet says it is all rumours; Wiki says it is for definate" They were actually calling for the information to either be removed, or to have a solid citation behind it. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

He said its probably true Adele will sing the song but that only "Only some guy on the internet said so. Yet - the article says it's definite. Let's be serious, people." He never said the word rumour or Wiki. And I haven't seen Adele mentioned on Wikipedia at all. And even though I am kind and do find sources for other people, why should we then go and find a confirmation about Adele when he could easily do it? Charlr6 (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Good grief, have you never seen someone paraphrase something for the sake of clarity? The point is you chewed the guy up, despite arguing the same point as him! On top of that you did it in far too brusque a way to be considered "civil". - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Whats the point of paraphrasing when he didn't say much any way and you could have simply copy and pasted it over. And you paraphrasing was just trying to show your argument more. And actually, before I've seen you and DarkWarriorBlake be 'brusque' to other people. Charlr6 (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I give up: I am trying to help you see that your approach to dealing with people is not always helpful, especially when it falls outside the umbrella of "civil". As I said above: you chewed a guy up while you aagreed with his argument—it's resulted in other people hjaving to waste time and effort dealing with it, rather than getting on developing articles. I paraphrased because you obviously misunderstood what he was saying—and I'm still not 100% sure you've got it now. It's a friendly piece of advice and well-meant: use "Show preview", take a deep breath, count to ten and then read through your responses before posting - you may be able to avoid so much of the grief you seem to attract. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Back on subject: Tom Deakin's website would be ok for information relating to himself but not for someone else (as per WP:SPS which states Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people). That means you can't use someone's personal website to assign credits to another living person. You will be able to source the sound mixer next month once it comes out via the film credits, but you really have to question if the sound mixer is notable. There are plenty of other notable people who work on films before you get to the sound guy: the set designer, the production design, the second unit director etc; the sound mixer is pretty low down the pecking order. Unless he get nominated for a major award I don't think he's that relevant. Betty Logan (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Betty. I again note that Charlr6 (talk) kept erroneously identifying Wilson as the "Production Mixer", whatever that is. - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Look at Production sound mixer. And I never said 'production mixer', I just found a source for the guy. And don't say 'kept' like I did tons of times. Charlr6 (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Charlr6, but yes you did... - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think what's happened there he has reverted and just added the refs; this is why you have to be careful when reverting, but we've probably all inadvertently restored errors by reverting at some point. The important thing here is that he understands how the policy applies to personal websites. Betty Logan (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes Scho, because me putting the edit back in means I actually automatically re-wrote all of it and wrote 'production mixer' myself. Oh wait no, I didn't, I reverted it, which you knew I did. But thank you Betty, you are correct. Charlr6 (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

As per the above: use "Show preview", take a deep breath, count to ten and then read through your responses before posting - you may be able to avoid so much of the grief you seem to attract - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, really? I've already explained that I just found the sources for them, you know that. As you like paraphrasing then you practically said "Hey, Rowan, here is a link to prove you are wrong for an edit you actually did". Charlr6 (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Good grief... if you can't see when someone is trying to help you, then I don't think there is anything more that can be said. - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

So how exactly was sending me a link trying to prove what I was saying wrong helping me? I said that I didn't add in 'production mixer', which I didn't, I just found sources, and you already knew that, you then send m a link and imply I put 'production mixer' in, even though we all know by now that I reverted the edit back in, and found sources for it. I found the sources, I didn't re-write all of it and write 'production mixer'. Don't know how trying to prove what I said was wrong was helping me, or just sending me the edit comparison was helping me at all. Love to see how you think that was helping me.

Really don't get how saying "Sorry Charlr6, but yes you did..." along with a link to the edit comparison, AFTER I said I didn't put production mixer in was helping me, or anybody. Closest thing would be trying to help me see my mistake, even though I clearly said I just found the sources and put them in. Good grief. Charlr6 (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Marketing Section

I think a marketing section is required for this page. Loads of other upcoming films and films that are out at the moment have marketing sections, so why does this film not have one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.141.228 (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FILMMOS#Marketing is why it doesn't have one, the sections are for describing unique or notable marketing efforts, releasing trailers and posters by itself is not a unique piece of information. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Then why do other film pages have them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.141.228 (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Please don't keep adding the information without gaining a consensus. If you do so one more time without agreement on this page then I will tag you for vandalism and take it from there. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

For the same reason that other articles do not have them: different editors work different articles, and as such some apply the guidelines more rigidly than others. Betty Logan (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

They are stupid. I object