User talk:SchroCat

Schrodinger's cat is alive I II III Home Talk Contributions Good Article promotion Congratulations! Thanks for all the work you did in making Dr. No (film) a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk) You Only Live Twice Okay, I thought that since I was only talking about how a plot event from the novel also happened in the film I though I was okay to use the primary sources of the novels and films (these are just basic plot points), but if they are not then are either of these secondary sources acceptable? http://badassdigest.com/2012/11/11/how-skyfall-clears-up-bonds-biggest-continuity-question/ or http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/literary_skyfall_and_fleming.php3?id=03385 Emperor001 (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Sorry - I got caught up on a couple of other bits and didn't get back to you. Aspects of the plots of both novels and films are in there own right from primary sources, but joining the two together to say that "this scene is taken from this novel" requires too much of a OR leap to justify it in its own right. Keeping the need for reliable sources also keeps out the worst excesses of fancruft that is always a danger in these articles. About your two sources: MI6 is a fansite a very, very good one, but still a fansite and so can't be used. The other site looks like a blog connected to a bar site, so my gut reaction is probably not. However, I'll start an RfC at the film project for the input of others and we can take the consensus from there are the way forward, if that feels right to you? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Okay, thanks. Sorry it took so long myself. I had finals and traveling to do. I don't edit on wikipedia as much as I did in high school when all these policies weren't enforced much so I'm sorta out of the loop as to what other editors expect. Also, you might be interested to know that I emailed Raymond Benson his opinion on the Robert Brown's M controversy (is he Messervy or Hargreaves) and he agrees with me Brown was playing a continuation of Lee's M, citing how several actors have played Bond, Blofeld, Leiter, etc. but I know his email to me does not qualify as a source and until he says something that gets published I cannot say anything, though can his novelization to TMD be used, at least in the novels section, to state that in the novels universe Messervy was M until Barbara Mawdsley took over? Emperor001 (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC) I think it says that already in the last lines of the section: "Continuation Bond author Raymond Benson's 1998 novel The Facts of Death continued Messervy's retirement, where he still resides in Quarterdeck.[19] The book also introduces a new M, Barbara Mawdsley.[20]" The problem is that with Bond we have two in-universes: the book and the film and even when the two meet (through novelizations) there are significant differences. We've overcome this the best we can in the point where the issues come up (including in the M article), but with no clarity and no definitive answer on some points it starts moving into fancruft territory a little! - SchroCat (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Bond screenwriter speaks out against faulty research, fan sites and wikipedia I came across this and it's too good not to share. - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Hi Ultraviolet -- I'm impressed by your knowledge of Bond, and the thought you've brought to pages concerning 007. However, as the writer of several of these films, there are inaccuracies on the pages that concern me that I would like to see corrected. The problem is that the attribution for these "facts" leads to fan-based websites that are filled with rumors and hearsay; and I've now encountered at least one major publication who repeated the wrong information, attributing it to Wikipedia, without questioning the validity of the underlying source. If possible, I'd like to discuss this with you, off-line, via email. Would it be possible for you to contact me? Editor (at) bruce.feirstein.com. Thanks, Bruce. 75.5.7.196 (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC) lol - that's quite an amusing one - and I hope that if Bruce drops round again he'll see a better reflection of the reality than he did back then! I did have Raymond Benson drop by earlier this yearwith a minor complaint. I emailed him through his website to verify and he got back to me directly - he's a nice guy and very helpful where he can be. If only Connery or Wilson / Broccoli could get in touch and offer some freebies...! - SchroCat (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Chimes at Midnight GA nominee If you or Betty Logan have time can you both please look at the Harry Saltzman-produced, Orson Welles-directed film Chimes at Midnight page? It's currently a good article nominee. Thanks. - Fanthrillers (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC) It's something of a mess and I'm surprised it's not been knocked out straight away - having a big tag sitting in the middle of the article tends to mean an easy decision for reviewers. A very quick and dirty summary for me (on a less-than-5-minute-skim) would highlight: I'm not sure why it needs three release dates in the infobox - there should only be the Spanish and Swiss dates in there (unless there are any festivals too). The plot is bloated and needs a severe trim (it can easily lose such notable inclusions as "The film opens with" and "After a main credit sequence"). The cast list shouldn't have any bold in there. The whole article feels a bit "full" to me, particularly around the Welles and Falstaff section. If I were working on the article, I'd have dropped the first chunk of that higher up the page to discuss the development of the character during pre-production and production, rather than as an afterthought. The second part of that section I would have put into a sub-section of reviews - "Contemporary view of Welles and Falstaff", or something similar. There are a number of gaps on the referencing side - my eye fell on the opening lines of "Critical response" as I flicked across: "Chimes at Midnight premiered to a positive audience reception at the 1966 Cannes Film Festival. However, the film's American distributor Harry Saltzman was unimpressed." Neither line is supported and the second did make me wonder "so what?" as there is nothing about any ramifications Saltzman's feelings led to (reduced his exposure, reduced the number of cinemas, etc?) It's a fair way off a GA, in my opinion, but other reviewers may disagree and be happy with it, as there is a lot of leeway in how the rules are interpreted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC) This and that I guess I was around for the relatively collegial part of building the article; I was unaware of the specifics of afterward, and I'm sorry to see two well-meaning people hit a problematic patch. I can see how some of the actions described could make one lose one's patience. I certainly can't preach about calm: Though I recognize it's the best way, I know firsthand how difficult it is in practice. I hope things work out; I'm sure both of you know that editors like myself, Bugs and Betty can lend a hand and a voice to any discussion if needed. Nobody's alone — we're a community and sometimes some of us can be difficult, no question there. And while I haven't always been able to practice calmly talking things out, I do it more than I don't: Talking out things before making changes isn't a bad first step — I'm doing it now at Talk:Doctor Strange#Recalled cover even when I'm sure I'm correct and I believe the other editor is way off base. I can let it go for a day to give him a chance to find the guideline he claims he saw. It's always possible I missed something. Anyway, this isn't about me. I hope things work out at the article, and your colleagues are always here to help. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks Ten. Your thoughts are always worth listening to!. - SchroCat (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Living Daylights I've restarted Brad Whitaker and Necros (James Bond), thinking that if we could merge full sourced info into something like a List of characters in The Living Daylights we could actually produce something credible. Unfortunately the redirects destroyed a lot of information on the characters which if out of universe info and reliable book sources used are perfectly valid I think. Not sure what you view is, I don't want articles on every minor character of course, but I think most of the main characters in all of the films could have a decent article in their own right or at least sourced coverage in a single list using loads of books and factual information on behind the scenes and reception etc. The way I see it is that coverage of the characters is one of the weakest areas of the Bond project currently, they should all be sourced with out of universe info of course. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Hi Dr. Blofeld. I meant to post a note on your talk page about this before I reverted your reverts. We (myself, SchroCat and Betty Logan) decided last summer to re-direct these useless character page articles. Betty Logan successfully listed one article for AfD. I then prodded other useless character pages. User Niemti disagreed with me and reverted my AfD prods. He agreed to re-direct the articles, creating no shortage of dead links that a bot had to clean up after him, raising (quite rightly) SchroCat's ire. I strongly believe these character pages have no place on Wikipedia and belong on fan sites. - Fanthrillers (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Mmm. Are the main villains and Bond girls in Bond films really not notable subjects?? I'm afraid I disagree on weight of the extent of sources which cover them, certainly in a list format by film. Some of the main Bond villains and girls are pretty well covered and easily meet content guidelines. I'd agree with you if they were unsourceable and only in universe cruft like at the time of redirect, and as this was the case so I'm not surprised you all supported the move. At least a List of characters in The Living Daylights which is fully sourced would be appropriate in my opinion, I'd probably favour that. It would be possible to compile tens of book sources and info useful info on it aside from in universe info, so they wouldn't be anything like the typical fully in universe cruft crap we used to have. And the James Bond films are so huge, I think they'd be useful articles for film studies and not come across as pure cruft like the old lists did. Tomorrow I'll create a full well sourced list and you can decide if you still think its bunk or not. The old lists were pieces of shite, agreed, but it is possible to write something encyclopedic on them I think. If I'm opening an old can of worms here I'll stop, but I believe that it is achievable to write credible content on the characters by film, including characterisation (e.g Robert Davi actually went to Colombia to help him), and critical reception. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Schrod if you want me to delete them I'm happy to do that. It would involve a lot of work to do decent lists for all films and I think the time might be better put into getting some of the films up to FA level. Please be honest with me, I'm not bothered either way, but I think it is possible to write something encyclopedic on the characters.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC) I think that the articles you've done for Necros and Brad Whitaker are entirely passable as they now stand. The previous version of the Whitaker page was a fancruft nightmare without a single source to its name. These two articles now have a number of sources, including from academics. We have articles from other characters, such as Leiter, M, Q and Bond himself and these are also covered in the same way: using secondary sources wherever possible and avoiding the fancruft nonsense wherever possible. As to the FAs, I'm slowly clearing out the backlog of stuff I need to get rid of and I'm hoping to make a start on something in the near(ish) future! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Well, I think a list of characters by film would attract trivia on some of the more minor characters and would probably appear more crufty than separate although I'd probably support it. I think the best way really, so long as the Bond project supports, is to have decent well sourced articles on the main characters. I think the best place to start would probably be to start expanding some of the existing character articles in Category:James Bond characters with out of universe info. Most of them are tagged and in a state so I think I'll begin on that. Vesper Lynd for example... ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC) I've sourced Emilio Largo. I've also added Henchmen parameter to the character box, looks tidier.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC) You might have noticed my additions to Bernard Lee. I was thinking, do you think we should create a category Category:James Bond spoofs for films such as Bons baisers de Hong Kong or aren't they worth it?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks How very thoughtful! Thank you so much. I do hope things work out — and keep up the great work yourself! With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Hand-coding Hey all :). I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :). You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :). If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Warning It seems you're involved in an edit war on From Russia with Love (film); you've already reverted in excess of the maximum of three times. If you revert again, I will block you from editing.